IMHO, this looks great, and if the price is reasonable, I’ll definitely buy it!
i’ve just occassionally peeked into this post, just want to say, i can’t follow this thought about piano roll and tracker
why can’t it have a piano roll? is it bad to create a piano-roll-tracker? what exactly makes the piano roll not fit into a tracker?
my idea about the tracks was once, not to display a lot of octaves, just a “window” of keys and you edit in one or two octaves and then a piano roll is about the same size as the tracker-track. and of course
one of these two views has to be rotated by 90 degrees.
and technically i don’t get what fundamental difference in controlling the sound should divide piano-roll-tracks and tracker-tracks…it’s some scrolling pixels that i can change and they finally control the sound
i’ve so often wondered what “identification” really drives the developers and users of renoise, and i can only say that staying with a design should just be reasoned with logic technical explanations, not with an image or an identity, which is really vague
when i tried dreamstation.com (tracker+pianoroll+zoom), i thought version 2 had lost the nice colors of version 1, which is a vague feeling, but the piano-roll existed just alongside the tracker and you can choose between the two. this is a nice fact. and ds2 might have failed for whatever reason, may it be colors or marketing, but it didn’t fail for adding another user interface control named “piano roll” - at least this is my opinion after beta testing it back then
i don’t want to persuade the devs to something that may take too long and make not a great difference, i don’t think renoise needs a piano roll atm, but having seen ds2 and from a technical view i can’t follow a reasoning that combines a piano roll and an (social?) image, and in this case names (‘renoise’, ‘fl studio’ etc) mean really nothing for me, all i care about is the way a daw is used and the logic behind
i’ve never in my life bought my copy of a software because of an image. i usually just try to find out how it works. am i too different from the average customer?
and i fully understand that licensing the stretch algos would be a bad idea atm, and i don’t need them anyway
please don’t get me wrong, let renoise be that way it is, it’s damn cool … but… i can’t follow this tracker-image thought, for me this is a way not to look at possible design changes that could be great… as long as there’s a proof on paper with some numbers, showing that there’s exactly this this this and this to change in the user interface design
user interface design
ps: if you could please explain which part you find oppositional when tracking, compared to sequencing in fl studio
maybe i’m wrong and piano-roll and tracker-view cannot be combined for a good reason
To me the tracker interface has the major advantage to see the notes of many tracks at once. This helps a lot with timing melodies, drums and fx/automation. Copying notes and other things to other tracks comes by naturally. The single view, which is macroscopic and microscopic at once is the main advantage of a tracker to me. All this is not that easily possible in a piano-roll alone, you would need to layer in notes from other tracks to do the same, to see all the notes you would even have to add some kind of octave-offset, and soon your roll will be cluttered. The main advantage of a piano-roll (to me) is the visible keyboard, which helps me a bit with composing chords and melodies. On the other hand, the same could be achieved using my MIDI-Keyboard, but I currently have simply no physical room to actually use it
This is the case for me too. I love this. But most often my tracks were in the range of one or two octaves, which enables to align a few tracks (docked windows) in energy xt e.g.
The offset could be auto-updated to the minimum key for each track. Coloring the black (C#5 etc) key backgrounds different (afaik cubase does this) enables you to see what key a inside an octave a note has.
Then all there is left is an octave setting per track, that you should also see… well, “C-5” can be drawn into the notes (like in cubase again afaik).
Imho a few piano roll views in daws out there bring as many tracks onto the screen at once as renoise does.
A layering would be not good, i think. I’ve once seen a layering in Aodix, which was not very easy.
Hmm…the advantages of a piano roll are important too, but I was thinking of a piano roll that should just no differ too much from the tracker view. When writing my earlier post, I just tried to find out if there’s really no way to get many piano roll tracks (aligned, docked and fixed) onto the screen. My key to this is actually some “compression method”, as i said, I don’t usually have a wide range of octaves I use, and I’m now finally using a 1980x1200 screen too. I kinda believe that what I’ve now written about the piano rolls out there is not only reality in daws already, it’s probably included in the piano roll design thread aswell.
Well… thanks for your reply… When someone here considers different gui thoughts, this makes me feel that renoise has actually a community that’s open to fundamental additions… and to changes in the image and marketing.
Well… I’m a bad sample for “the community”. I didn’t grew up with trackers, or grew into trackers. For me it’s “just” another approach (got into Renoise because the demo hit a sweet spot in me and proved to be very inspiring and fun). What speaks for trackers is, that it survived the test of time quite well, at least with Renoise.
I’ve moved this into piano roll topic:
Incredibly useful for constant key changes IMO.
Bitwig Studio is currently in beta-testing right now - at least that’s what we’re being told. It seems that a lot of fog is surrounding this software, and it remains to be seen if Bitwig studio really is what it claims to be. But I’m not here to speculate about that matter.
However, when I look on the screen shots over at www.bitwig.com I can’t help but thinking that it’s GUI looks very close to Renoise. Don’t you agree? Could it be that the Bitwigs are inspired by Renoise?
Since Renoise devs are in Berlin and Bitwig devs are also in Berlin (on Schwedterstr. 13), I just hope that these two softwares - that look like cousins to me - could find some common ground in business… Which leads me to think about the world of DAWs and music production tools in general:
Will Renoise mostly remain a standalone type of software in the future? Or could it become a VST plugin at some point, being marketed as an advanced sampler? Will ReWire continue to be the only way to hook it up with other DAWs?
Of course, only the Renoise developers themselves really know the answers to these questions. But with technologies like ARA (= Audio Random Access, see for example Carsten Gehle talking about it), DAWs such as Studio One has successfully integrated Melodyne, and Propellerhead software (also beta testing Reason 6.5 right now) has opened up the Reason rack for 3rd party developers. I’d expect that other heavy players on the market will soon respond with their own competitive solutions and features.
It looks like a combination of Ableton and Renoise to me…I just hope they don’t completely screw up automation delay compensation on plugins like Ableton did, or it will be useless for sound design.
Three pages of “merge me”?
PS: Vapourware, so far…
Ah, sorry. Completely missed that thread… go ahead and merge them if you like…
But I also raise some other questions in my first post… anyone care to comment on those?
ever seen energy xt 2? or a dark skin on ableton live? imo, looks even more close.
i dont think so. [like: NI and ableton - no real coop]
by the look of it, i would guess its a complete studio suite. hence the price will be higher, i guess.
and i bet, renoise will never be a plugin in full. more like the fl studio vsti. an interface- plugin.
otherwise… check revisit. its a tracker vst. http://www.nashnet.co.uk/english/revisit/
In the process of waiting for a couple of months, since I first saw the link here, on Renoise forums, I deleted my Linux installation. So I won’t have the joy of using a new cool DAW coming to Linux world.
Sad thing. I am now in the 90% Windows world. I can’t whine now that Ableton is not on my platform . But somehow I feel comfortable about it. I guess if it takes them for so long to open the beta, the Linux platform is not of a priority.
But I would like to hear, if the beta starts, how does the Bitwig behave on Linux with JACK, since there are Linux people in here.
I think it sounds exciting. Too echo earlier sentiments if it’s good it’s good software and it’s affordable, this could really draw in an audience for Linux. And if that happens it lead to some much needed hardware support. The only reason I don’t go full blown onto Linux is that my interface isn’t supported and so I cant really produce audio. Also I’d miss my NI plugins, although I could probably live without them.
Video of Bitwig beta in action (serious link):
Really looks like a crossing of Renoise and Live to my eyes.
While it is always nice to have some choice of music production software and this piece does look nice, I really don’t see anything ground breaking in it, all that they are showing there is pretty much standard stuff that is everywhere these days. Am I missing something?
Thanks for posting the new video… It really does look like Live with a few workflow enhancements.
If they get away with ripping it off so heavily then I imagine the folks at Ableton will be pretty quick to respond and steal a few ideas the other way, especially if they start to lose market share to Bitwig…
Interesting to see how this develops, its nice to see a bit of competition aimed at Live
It is a better approach than Apple versus Samsung regarding the Ipad and Galaxy tab.
Sharing ideas always leads to more innovation, however I suspect its probably bad news for IP lawyers!