hm, keywords for this post: envelope device and device chain in instrument view. also i’m not sure of what i’m just repeating in this post, so nvm if i’m repeating many (or all? :x) things ._."
as the current instrument view consists ONLY of envelope editors (i’m not talking about the keyboard for splitzones and multilayering and stuff in this post, so just nvm about that), why not make a generic envelope device, which could be routed to ANY parameter of the instruments device chain, which then would be placed in the current instrument view?
an envelope device could make renoise instruments so very powerful. and naturally it doesn’t make sense to route it to the midi of a track, so why not route it to one instrument? my ideas for an envelope device would be as follows:
routable to ANY parameter in the instruments device chain and to several parameters at once, perhaps with a little “amount” slider at each destination box, which could be negative as well
perhaps two modes: adsr and freehand, whereas freehand would be what we see now in the instrument view
it should NOT move the sliders of the parameters that it’s modulating. example: i wanna make a 303 bass, so i put an envelope on the cutoff, but then i still wanna be able to open up and close the corresponding filter that is being modulated. if the cutoff slider would move with every keystroke, this would be a rather impossible task.
several trigger modes, just like the NNAs
those are pretty much the basics about an envelope device that i had in mind. here some thoughts on the device chain in the instrument view:
each device in the instrument view should be able to send it’s audio output to any other device in the chain and to recieve it from any other device in the chain
there should be one special (and virtual, ie: not visible in the device chain) device, the “master” device which, if chosen as destination for output would just send the audio “out of” the internal instrument’s device chain in the “real world” :0
the lfo device in the instrument’s device chain also shouldn’t move the modulating sliders for the same reason the envelope device shouldn’t; hence the modulation should be “internal” (if you catch my drift :0)
the instrument’s device chain should have it’s very own automation track (this may seem obvious, but i wanted to mention it anyway) where all the parameters could be automated
sooo, that was what was floating around in my head the other night. tell me what you think of it.
(ps: this idea would of cource be fully backwards compatible to today’s renoise instruments. (i think this needs no further explanation))
EDIT: to make it more realistic: the “freehand” envelope points shouldn’t be automatable, that would just be too much. but their respective “amount” sliders could still be, as well as adsr envelopes, as they consist of a constant number of 4 parameters. (>_>)
Hey, no stress please. The more you know, the more you expect and hope, the more we are stressed to do the things you expected/we promised. Relax, explore the tools you have now and look forward to use new tools.
We wont tell at any point what exactly we are working on when. Because our plans constantly change/evolve and because releases should be like Christmas, using this ideas and suggestions as the base for Renoises future.
I really like the modular approach in your clips thread at the designers forum. I have some criticism though regarding the graphical mock-up representation of your ideas:
Maybe it is just me and I have to get accustomed to the idea, but there is to much going on in screen imo. Although it follows the current Renoise gui logic, it feels crammed and busy. Lots of tree structures and text, a Renoise n00b could probably get lost in.
Maybe the ‘instrument flowchart’ could also have a dedicated larger screen version next to your current ideas. Since these flowcharts can get intricately big quite easy, you’ll need more space for better overview.
I like the way the instrument editor works at the moment, but showing envelopes even though they are disabled is very useless. Creating a new instrument from scratch you could start with just a regular Volume envelope. Then you could add more envelopes as you go and have each one control a certain parameter. It could be anything from cutoff to pitch to lofimat parameters in the effect chain.
Maybe it could be possible to have all devices as Modules that you add when needed rather than just pack the screen with many new stuff that you dont even use. Like adding DSP’s from the DSP list you could add Envelopes, Effects, LFO’s and whatever you needed to create your own custom device.
Grouping samples in layers and assigning an LFO controlling parameters in samples in that layer/group. Or creating Envelopes controlling global parameters, would be really neat. Much like the NN-XT in Reason but you add the modules you need yourself.
Why not add a “portamento device”, or an “arpreggio” device, or an Envelope controlling EQ parameters. So in order to get the best out of this you would need to update the routing capabilites.
This is just a quick scetch of how you could route things working with a “workbench” or a advanced device chaining system to create your own miracles from scratch. Maybe even some simple oscillators could be added and you would have a simple softsynth as well. I really hope someone understands the wierd layout of this map. But it’s just and idea of how things could be routed. And possibilities are endless.
To put things simpler. I would like to add Multiple inputs per DSP/Device-slider or sample rather than create multiple outputs and assign them to different DSP’s.
Let’s say you want to control cutoff with both an LFO and an Envelope. What would be simpler than for example Rightclick(Hold) the slider and select a device to control that slider. It could be anything from Velocity Devices, Lfo’s, Envelopes, etc.
This way you can reuse Envelopes, Lfo’s and other devices for other instruments sliders etc, instead of creating more and more, making things messyer than they have to be.
Or when working with DSP’s in the chain afterwards.
Filter 2 - Slider 1 -------- Select input -----> Automation & Envelope
Filter 2 - Slider 2 ------- Select input -----> Lfo & Velocity 2
mpReverb (1)-Room Size — Select input -----> Automation & Lfo 2
midi CC device - Slider 22 ------ Select input ------ Lfo 3
I’ll try to make a photoshop mockup of how this new rni functionality could work. This way you can be certain that Automation for instance only will be used for the parameter you selected. With this system you would be better off loading the Meta devices in your instrument/sample browser instead of adding them to the chain since they could possibly be used for multiple devices and parameters.
The interesting thing about the current system is that if you ignore most of the instrument features and build your own out of filter plugins, lfos, velocity devices etc. you can make a much more flexible instrument. Maybe we could add an envelope modulator alongside the lfo modulator? At least for monophonic stuff that would be adequate.
Yes, the idea is that you can add devices to build your instruments as well.
You can already do the monophonic stuff right now using the custom waveform in the LFO device together with the Velocity Device. Check it out!
I’ve seen so many involved ideas for the future of RNI that my head is spinning!
To me it’s more important to fix what’s fundamentally wrong with the format before going hog-wild.
Here are a couple things that will make the format a lot more useful to people without a lot of programming:
We need to have a Filter Envelope Amount parameter (rather than having to change the height of each stage of the filter).
We need to have at least two or three sample layers possible.
We need higher resolution for envelopes.
In the wild ideas category I only have one: unison mode for layers: Specify how many “voices” and the “detune” amount. Wouldn’t take up much screen real estate, and if you only did this one thing you’d allow for some serious phatness.
There. Done. It won’t solve everyone’s problems, but it’s a great start.
If we strip all existing envelopes and allow DSP effects to be jacked into instruments and connect them to the automation, this already allows one to make the instrument editor a bit more tidy. Plus then we can focus on raising the resolution of the automation editor and fix one and the same problem on multiple areas.
Multilayers is definately no 1 change for the XRNI 2 layout.