Here we go again. Why does it have to be so complicated? And whats this obsession about making everything vertical. Have you opened the Sampler/Waveform view? It’s horizontal. How on earth do you contemplate that? It must be so confusing to you, not having the option to edit waveforms vertically. Also, the automation section is horizontal. Does this work for you?
How would you implement Piano Roll then wise guy? I say vertically because that’s how it currently works!? A horizontally scrolling piano roll with vertical tracker lanes? Horizontal tracking lanes (like on the Polyend, which are awful)?
Secondly, being condescending makes you look petulant? Show me some examples of a tracker with a piano roll please so I can see what I’m missing.
Wow. That is a very busy display. Not my cup of tea at all, vertical tracking, horizontal sequencing and piano roll below it and then a jumble of boxes.
I’d rather use almost anything else. Proof, if needed, that it isn’t a great approach
I think for inclusing a piano roll into a tracker, this should have to be a bit like in Ableton Live (“Arrangement view” and “Session view”). That mean two differents ways to visualize the music. That can be switched in one click, but never merged into the same screen. That would be the classic “tracker editor view” or switching on “piano roll view” in place of the columns view.
But no doubt this would be a huge work for the dev. And certainly would need a lot of more computer power to run the DAW.
Precisely, nobody can say how they would want it to work, or be organised? Click onto the track and you can either track or select a piano roll option in a tab next to the Automation tab? Piano roll is less powerful and less flexible than tracking. To match Renoise as it stands you would need a variable height piano roll window, then an automation lane for velocity, then pan, then delay (redundant if you just draw notes off the grid, but still) then a selection of FX automation lanes. So a full screen for what Renoise currently does in one vertical column with 5 lines. And this would be the most elegant (ha!) solution.
Madness. If people want piano roll so much, use another DAW with Redux? I really don’t understand.
Except one thing. The pattern editor will potentionally consist of multiple tracks. How pianoroll works in any other daw, is editing one section of a track, that consists of midi note and parameter settings. Just like the notes in a track in the pattern editor.
If you open the midi editor in eg. Logic Pro. You see the notes in the section of the track you opened it from. You don’t see the full song as MIDI notes.
It is also an editing issue. You can more easily select multiple notes from different chords in a pianoroll and move them to eg. change said chords from major/to minor. In a Renoise track, that task is much more cumbersome.
Exactly. I’m a Renoise user since 2003. And before that Fasttracker II and Protracker since the 90’s. The last couple of years, I’ve been using Logic Pro for creating chords, melodies and basslines. Just becuase it’s much more efficient in Logic’s pianoroll. I get the idea down, and can edit it much quicker in the pianoroll. Have I had that pianoroll in Renoise, I would not consider using another daw.
So. A native pianoroll would not only welcome new users in to Renoise. It would also cater to somes user who might be prone to a transition out of Renoise.
I’ve been diving more and more into the other DAWs, and becoming more and more aware of Renoise shortcomings as a music production tool. With the total lack of development, it will sooner or later become a distant memory. Just like it’s predecessors. Just a “tracker” from the past, that I will use for that retro/nostalgia feeling.
Highlight selection and Alt-F2 to transpose up for example. Advanced pattern editor also has options for larger single jumps. Highlighting and dragging in piano roll is cumbersome - “did I highlight all the notes”, “oh my god the noise of all the notes sounding while I drag them”, “did I line the notes back up correctly”? I must admit, I would like to select a region and adjust it’s duration with the contents being compressed or elongated as needed but it isn’t a hardship. What Renoise might lack in one area, it can do other things that another DAW can only dream of. I’m sure you already know this as a long term user.
If the only thing stopping you from only using Renoise is piano roll, but you also say Renoise has so many shortcomings you fear it will become a relic - how do you reconcile these statements? If it had piano roll you would ignore all the other problems that make it a relic? Please. Drop the hyperbole.
I never heard about Mixbus, but it’s 94 € and not 79 €, which means it’s cheap but still more than 50% more expensive than Renoise. But yes, ok, Reaper is next to Renoise also a cheap one. But to be honest, compared to the common DAWs like Cubase, Logic, Pro Tools etc. Reaper looks like a cheap copy of it. Renoise is not only good in its functions, it’s also well designed.
Of course, there’s always something to improve, nothing is absolutely perfect. But it’s as perfect as it could be if you ask me. There’s no way that you can get everything into Renoise without destroying the concept and its functions.
Look what I wrote. I wrote that a midi keyboard is the best way for playing live, no more and no less. There’s no connection to a piano roll. But I still don’t get what you want to say. Do you want to say that a piano roll has the same functions than a midi keyboard? That’s not the case. So if you wouldn’t own a midi keyboard and you’re using a piano roll in your DAW, how do you edit or play your notes? You would do this with a PC keyboard (or maybe with your mouse, too), right? That’s exactly what I’m talking about. It makes sense how you would like to use a piano roll while live playing (correcting the positions of the live recorded notes afterwards), but where’s the connection to a midi keyboard?
Look, there are a few concepts of music making. There are common classic DAWs like Cubase, there are trackers like Renoise and there is hardware. Everything has its pros and cons, so which one is the one for you depends on what you would like to do. Mostly the classic DAWs are “second nature” to the musicians, trackers are the minority. That’s the reason why we discuss here, because some people would like to see something from the “second nature” of most musicians to be part of a tracker, even though it doesn’t fit to the concept. So it’s not the “defensive mode” in a way like for example “You’re against trackers because you’re calling for a piano roll”, it’s more like it wouldn’t work out.
Yes, it is. But I don’t think a piano roll is an easy solution compared to the notes in a pattern matrix of a tracker. In a tracker you can see everything on first sight, it’s short, nice and clean.
Radium is a mess in every aspect.
I don’t think so. Compared to the trackers of the past like SoundTracker, NoiseTracker, ProTracker, FastTracker and so on, Renoise is able to implement external software, which increases the possibilities a lot. And for what it is, it already is nearly perfect. There’s not much you can improve, neither now nor in future.
you can customize skin to look like pro tools… then you have pro tools for 60$ :D:D:D
Ignore Mixbus, consider Ardour which is practically the same… (and free)
i won’t create whole another debate here which you implied - to compare DAWs… you cannot just claim that X is better than Y… because someone who utilize features in Y more than in X, might find Y DAW way better… we are shooting blanks at this point… Mostly naming the functions/workflows we never use…
I have nothing against someone who uses X or Y tool… the problem is made when someone claims that X DAW is better ‘globally’… because it does THIS… Who tf are you to know how i make music? maybe the best DAW for me is a tape recorder!? Maybe i do not use that function at all (the one that makes a DAW the best for you, or anyone…) do not get me wrong, i’m not trying to insult or provoke here, just expressing myself
do not exclude context when quoting… I pointed Radium because the following:
namely - because Radium has piano roll built-in no one says that Radium is perfect and/or better, but the ability to zoom into lines without editing LPB is my personal favorite feature…
to everyone asking for piano roll: why don’t you guys simply register on cubase/ableton/logic/FL/ etc. forums and drop a feature request for adding a tracker interface? i know why, but i don’t know why you think it would make sense the other way around.
there are certainly hundreds of different ways renoise could be improved as a tracker, but i fail to understand why time and energy of a one-man-dev-team should be focused on the implementation of a piano roll when you already have a tracker interface in a tracker software.
besides that:
this, a 100%
you won’t improve a tracker by programming a substitute for the tracker interface. it should be common sense.
Not much to improve? How about adding a piano roll?
Let me give you an example: I just want my Tesla to have a physical button, to turn my seat heater on/off. Just like in that BMW I see over there. What is more feasable? Tesla adding the button, or BMW building the Tesla I want, around their seat heater button?
Again. I’m not looking for a substitue. I’m looking for addons.
You drag the beginning and end of the line, just like in any other DAW. After turning snap to grid off
Just the way you do it today? You select the instrument, and enter the note.
** Can you be more specific? What pattern commands?
That’s a mess in Renoise today. Because midi is not very well implemented. But as an idea. The lowest note in the furthest left lane.
** I’m not sure I follow. Like left right volume?
** Not sure what you’re aiming at here either
** The piano roll is for editing the notes of a track, not effect commands. Thats why we have a tracker interface
It’s very sad, that so many close minded people bring here no neutral notions and statements.Some ony want to promoted her own projects, some construction problems where no real problems exist. Under the line stay’s
That people are afrait. They are afrait thats in a possible future the things not working in the same way like they are familiar with. THAT TRUE IS THE REASON! Dont speak about all the shit with the Tracker concepts go lost and so on… Thats bulshit! The True is, that these people dont want go a single step out of comfort zone of their bubble! Its an ideology for their. This is the worsest form of innovation hostility and technology hostility that i know.
@Developer
When not implementing native Pianoroll because of this limiting and braking community, then at least give us some Api Extensions for apropriate window management (inklusiv tab windowing and docking/undocking), extended mousesupport (sizegrip on undocked windows) and a visual canvascontrol with mousesupport and hardware accelerated drawing abilitys (for smooth zooming and scrolling)
unfortunately, you’re not asking for the addition of a phyiscal button but the implementation of a combustion engine as an “addition” to the already existent electric engine, ignoring the fact, that tesla’s philosphy is exactly that: building vehicles solely powered by electricity - just as the philosophy of a tracker is to solely have a tracker interface.
and now don’t get me wrong, i don’t really care if there would be a piano roll in renoise and am not against it per se. i just would ignore and not use it, but i am pretty sure that it would be a very time consuming task to implement it and that time could be used in much more reasonable way, to implement features that renoise would actually make a more feature rich and versatile piece of software, without focusing on interface redundancy.
Of course you wouldn’t actually put anything about bytes in the documentation, you would just say “The maximum value is 255” and leave it at that.
But I think this is digressing from the point: the point is that we can have technical improvements and quality-of-life improvements without fundamentally changing the type of software that Renoise is.
I think for inclusing a piano roll into a tracker, this should have to be a bit like in Ableton Live (“Arrangement view” and “Session view”). That mean two differents ways to visualize the music. That can be switched in one click, but never merged into the same screen. That would be the classic “tracker editor view” or switching on “piano roll view” in place of the columns view.
