Buzz Sequence Editor Vs Renoise

[XG2003]

Ah, I thought so. That was another major problem for me with the pattern matrix.

From this thread:

Brainstorming: Arranger

Here are some of my ideas. Terminology in bold. Basics First of all, the main parts of the arranger will be a time ruler and multiple trackstrips. It’s enough to describe what a trackstrip should contain. A trackstrip will have two parts, the trackheader and the trackcontents. This is much like in the patterneditor, and as in other sequencers with similar arrangers. The trackheader will show trackname and other relevant information. Trackcontents will show clips with trackdata. Up to thi…

post #524,

joule said:

1. A conventional arranger would only need to be a visual representation of the song.
2. The only xrns update needed are two line commands defining the start and the end of a clip, i e renoise.song().track.clips. → .start_pattern, .end_pattern, .start_line, .end_line, .name, .color. No pattern data here. Data is only being copied in the normal pattern structure, depending on what is happening thru the GUI.

It’s just GUI and data array handling (moving patterndata, copying patterndata, defining/updating clip-pointers et c).

This is the sort of thing I was talking about in that thread - a Buzz Sequence Editor would just be an alternative front end (and nobody would have to use it, you could leave it turned off and never even know it existed, if you prefer the pattern matrix), and would pull pattern data out of the patterns, and play whatever tracks and patterns you had put into the Buzz Sequence Editor. I’m going to try to create some simple graphics to explain what I mean, as I’m not a programmer I’m afraid I can’t help in that regard.