hence every second post is offtopic, let me drop the info, that Digital Performer 8 is coming to Windows.
“everything is stored inside xrns” made me switch from fl studio to renoise again and buy a new license
though you can set fl to store samples inside projects imho, but i missed it one time, which is enaugh, and the project won’t load
if renoise ever should get an option not to save SampleData inside xrns files, be sure to warn users that song files with dependencies (that you can lose) are so bad
This is not a clone,.
every daw is unique, if u say clone u will find the first software seq that has pianoroll,tracks etc. and all of the coming is CLONE?%!
no.
undoubtedly it’s very handy for smaller/medium sample data, but the disadvantages:
- not good for large WAV data / recorded WAV data, especially if you don’t use FLAC/OGG
- saving / loading is slow
- wav-data can not easily be streamed out of XRNS
- wav-data is usually loaded completely into RAM
Reaper e.g. can create a subdirectoy for every project and copy/move all needed media automatically there. That would be IMO a good alternative for Renoise, too.
When you’ve finished a project a “consolidating” function could create an archive, so that nothing is lost. Alternatively simple create a Zip/Rar file whatever.
A very cool solution would IMO be a versioning file system, where you can rollback to any version number of your project
would be great indeed
i wouldn’t mind if renoise creates a new song xml each change, diff file or whatever
how would the versioning file system actually work?
btw, renoise could have a resource pool, like a desktop search, everything indexed, you type “trumpet” and get a trumpet xrni, type “bright” and get the bright one,
type “version:yesterday” and get yesterdays version of your current song, i’d like it so googlish…
sadly, waiting for some indexing to finish sucks
and i’m daydreaming anyway
Hey that are really good ideas, maybe you should post them in the ideas forum ?
The most simple fs versioning can currently be used for the Renoise Linux version already. Just use a LVM file system and create snapshots on a regular base (every hour or so).
Otherwise there exists some vesioning fs for Linux and Mac: Versioning file system - Wikipedia
For XML versioning I already thought about writing a Renoise subversion or git/mercurial client on LUA base. This tool could save all Renoise XML/DOM changes in the background into a versioning repository. Also interesting would be merging support for different versions from different users etc… For example Person A could create part A of a song and person B part B. Then they commit their changes into their lokal repository and push/pull stuff to/from the common repository. Should work for cooperations / distributed production etc… It’s actually a similar idea to the Bitwig approach.
Wow, I want to try Bitwig!
I have early Live ver 1 to current Suite 8 but I hate Live for some reason.
p.s.
Kraftwerk (Kling Klang) - Germany
Alva Noto (Raster Noton) - Germany
Einsturzende Neubauten (Mute) - Germany
Pyrolator (Ata Tak) - Germany
It’s my roots.
I wish I was born as a German…
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
names
image
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? 
Merged.
Indeed. 
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/