Since it was the most voted feature, what can we expect?
one thing is true, i would really like the same atomatition on the slider movement as there is on all the rest of things for this.
mixer: this would really be a great thing!
Hmm… Just workin’ with Renoise and understood one thing:
The mixer is pretty useless when you using many different samples and instruments in one channel. So you can adjust channel vol. with mixer, but to change any of used sample volume - you still need to go to this exact sample vol. adjust box…
i used to track with different samples in the same tracks too.
But i read up up music theory, when i was about 14 years old i stopped, and placed different sounds into different tracks… the big boy way.
but i use different sounds in one channel sometimes… like fx, thats gonna sound the same, or wierd textures thats gonna have the same depth…
think about this: if u use 3 samples (or more) i each track…
and you have 8 tracks… where did i place that sound…
there are no laws when it comes to music, but theres technique…
and everybody has theyr own way of doing it.
I think it’s useful to have All VSTi’s and samples volume table as 2-nd mixer alternative in spite of channel mixer win.
the big boy way.
no need to be condescending just because other people don’t use the method of production that you read in a book.
as for the mixer, i probably wouldn’t use a track mixer but i would use a sample and vsti mixer. it should be really easy to do both. actually more of a gui issue than anything.
Big boy way
I’m guessing you didnt mean to sound as condescending as you did, but just for the record i’ve been doing music since i was 12, that’s a good 11 years of music theory, several bands, several released projects and a crapload of live performances, both classical and experimental, and how orderly you do your sound has f all to do with your craftsmanship.
If you choose to be anal about where you stick your sounds, fine, but if you haven’t experienced just how gorgeous a sound you can make by blending differing samples together, or if you havent doubled a kick with a snare under the same compressor and felt that punch, i feel bad for you mate
Some of us like molding that sound like it’s clay, rather than stacking it like bricks.
whats this Dizz… i did not mean to step on anyones toes… stop analyze my text girls
i agree on putting different samples in the same channel…
quote: but i use different sounds in one channel sometimes… like fx, thats gonna sound the same, or wierd textures thats gonna have the same depth…
sunjammer: Read before writing…
btw: 13 years of music prod here… i’ve just about done it all…
gotta stop writing here now, destructive soul food.
Zen b with me.
yup annide did basiacally say he layered samples in his 2nd post. an it isnt edited.
i also beleive as a rule of thumb to use separate tracks for different samples,sounds & vsti, then when you want to combine them, thats what you use sends for…
if the 09xx command could be used on more than one sample at the same time i would probably change things around, but as for now every sample i use has its own track, and the only exception to this rule is when i layer, which is hardly ever. there’s too much you can do with vsti’s, that theres no sense using synth samples anymore. its not the 80’s anymore.
even with layered drums i keep them on seperate tracks. it makes for good work ethic.
so i guess its back to the topic of the thread.
i think a mixer view is a great idea, and as long as its up to par with the majority of renoise then i will certainly use it.
most mixers have eq’s embedded in them, but thinking about that storms up a wonder of possibilities.
the tracks dsp chains, should be there or at least some type of way of controlling them from that view. i guess it could work like when you switch tracks it would show the tracks dsp chains at the bottom?
so thinking further into this i could see the mixer view only taking over the pattern editor area, when you switch between the tabs.
I’ve been thinking about this, and got to this “problem”:
Don’t we all use volume to fade in and fade out tracks? That means the channel loudness slider in the mixer view shouldn’t control the volume, since you want to control the mixing volume, not the fade in/out. Also, the volume is in percentages, not dB which is a lot handier for mixing. Does anyone actually see what I mean?
you have a good point there.
but ya know if you just used the sends for mixing then it would be all good.
Not if the send tracks’ Master Panel Settings are controlled by automation or track commands as well.
As I see it, there are basically two ways for implementing a mixer:
The mixer view could show all the current track settings (Panning - Volume etc.) plus some other things (as eq). Changing a value in mixer view = changing the value in the individual track. This would make renoise a mess. It just dosen’t go with automation and track commands. At least there a serious issues here.
The mixer view could consist of some kind of “sends tracks” for each individual track. This way the mixer settings should be a separate step in the audio routing rutine… So that the sound is processed this way: Audio from track -> Master Panel Settings -> Track DSPs -> Mixer Track Settings -> Master Track Settings -> Loudspeakers.
The mixer’s settings should be stable, “non-automationable” and shouldn’t be affected by ANY track commands. This would indeed be nice.
I think a mixer view would be much more useful if the Track Groups Idea were implemented. In addition to mixing tracks individually I would like to be able to mix bigger portions of a song (like drums - fx - strings etc.) as one track. Now one can only do this by assigning send tracks to each and every track. So with Track Groups we have both detailed and “rough” mixing options.
Track Groups - especially holding hands with a mixer view - would just make renoise more intuitive and well-arranged. As renoise grows bigger we need something to structure and simplify the beast.
I would rather call a combination of tracks a “stem” than “track group”.
But Taktik decided to call them “send-tracks”
Every active functionality you described in there can be found in the send tracks.
They aren’t really colorised yet so there can be done something about the visual aspects of the pattern editor (if possible, i don’t think this is very easy, but probably not impossible.) And “hiding” or “showing” tracks would also have my favor, so one can hide tracks one is not working on.
I would not know how a track-group would make it easier to combine tracks as you need tools and triggers to tell the program that tracks are being combined in some way.
For as far as i can follow you, you don’t like the idea of using a meta device for combining tracks.
The overview to see which track is assigned to which sendtrack, can be seen in the scopes: 01<0 wich means track 00 attached to sendtrack 0.
And by soloing the sendtrack, it should cause Renoise to mute all tracks except the sendtrack and the tracks attached to it. (Unlike the animated example below does)
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, vvoois!
When it comes to DSP you’re absolutely right that send tracks provide the same functionality as track groups.
So apart from the visual aspects I think the merits of Track Groups lies in ease of use, general overview and that they are more intuitive.
I think Track Groups should be one of renoise’s building blocks (like tracks and columns are now)
First of all: Rule 1 for Track Groups is that tracks belonging to the same Track Group are “physically” situated next to one another.
Now, as I imagine it, renoise’s default 8 tracks is placed inside “Track Group00”.
Adding/deleting tracks the usual way will expand/shrink Track Group00. Then we need a button for adding a new track group (“Track Group01”).
Adding/deleting tracks when the cursor is inside Track Group01 will expand/shrink Track Group01. And so on.
Then there’s a button for deleting track groups as well.
The last thing we need is a function for moving a track from one Track Group to another. This can be implemented in many different ways. In normal tracking one wouldn’t use this function very much.
In this kind of setup I believe the tools for “combining tracks” are more simple and easier to use than the current send track system.
I think that renoise needs a new level for working on a song that lies between individual tracks and the master track.
This way renoise would work a lot like X instances of renoise running simultaneously sending their output to one Grand Master Track.
Btw Your idea of muting all tracks except a send track and it’s attached tracks is good. For lack of Track Groups the hide/show feature should work the same way.
I’m not sure what to expect of a mixer view. The track DSPs work pretty ok for mixing IMO.
People seem to have such different needs, so I hope it will be pretty customizable.
When playing around a bit with my new setup, with MIDI-keyboard and all, I’m thinking it would be really nice to have all the MIDI-mapped sliders on one screen… so maybe this could be one of the uses for a mixer view?