I’m still learning the short cut keys… 
There’s 10.5 million LOL! but I just, “didn’t want to leave you hanging there, waiting for me to respond.”
I use the mouse a lot, and I use short cut keys, when I think of them, or when I remember… But I can’t figure out, “any system,” I have for using the keys in any specific way…
Cheers
Oh well, I’m sure I will be very happy with whatever does come in the forthcoming Beta, whether there are any improvements to the Matrix/Arranger or any other areas of Renoise 
To the devs: when the pattern matrix was introduced, were users able to vote for it, like they can vote for other new features? Were users given other sorts of arrangers to vote for, or was it just the pattern matrix or nothing?
it was the pattern matrix or nothing. renoise is not developed according to a committee and votes from end-users.
i cannot even IMAGINE how slow Renoise development would be, if they had to come up with 4-5-9-100 different arrangers, create designs + user workflow for them, shortcuts, interfaces for users to test, so that users can basically not be able to make any decision, thus making sure that Renoise does not progress anywhere at all.
are you really imagining a situation where we get shown 3-10 different graphical mockups of a possible arranger design, and people vote on them?
i really wish some heavy-weight Renoise developer would step into this conversation and just kill it with kindness. “given other sorts of arrangers to vote for” … … i cannot believe what i’m reading here.
d’you really think that an arranger is some individual, independent layer which can just be dumped on top of Renoise, without any need to bolt it in and make it work with every other part of Renoise?
Yes, of course - there were plenty of very good suggestions, with mockups, in the pattern arranger thread on here.
Yes I do, haven’t you seen Grid Pie? Of course it’s just an independent layer which is “dumped on top” of Renoise, using Lua scripting. Anyway - the point is, I thought users were able to vote on options - the arranger is the most vital part of a tracker, and if they were given only one option - the pattern matrix, or no change, how do we know the pattern matrix was the most popular option?
You are welcome to not read this thread since it bothers you so much.
Just because someone got out their photoshop or any other tool for making graphical mockups with, does not automatically mean that Renoise should halt all development and start programming a voting system to get some random answers from random people who have not developed Renoise from the beginning and who have no idea about the programming challenges faced everytime one dives in to develop new features or tweak current features.
Grid Pie was coded by a 3rd party guy who took the time to learn LUA and make his dream come true. there are others, such as Rableton Dive, and whatever tools MXB is working on nowadays. this does not mean that they should be implemented into Renoise to replace the Pattern Matrix, as they are 3rd party tools. I would not be surprised to see that the Renoise devteam might take some INSPIRATION from 3rd party tools, but for them to be implemented so that they fit completely into the way Renoise is thought about by the devteam, is not something we can force, and they will continue developing Renoise in the way they want to do it. not halting all development to get some votes in based on mockups.
You thought wrong. User-voting has not happened for ages. Look at this thread . the last time there was voting was for features for version 1.8. Renoise has done splendidly without backstage-voting from users, and is doing better than ever. Almost everything from the 1.8 version votes has been created, improved upon, and then some.
Here’s the image for you so you don’t have to click.
Notice that the users who voted for THESE features before v1.8. also notice that it says specifically: “An Arranger View (visually arrange PatternSequences and Blocks)” which is exactly what the PatternMatrix is.
Also, there are far more people who want “A Piano Roll View” than people who want “Buzz Sequence View”. LUA Scripting has allowed people to create any kind ofsequencer they want, for any kind of midi-controller they want, or for any kind of LUA Gui they want, or any kind of keyboard shortcuts that they want. All of them are experimental, some of them are amazing, some of them are good, some of them are poor. They augment and improve upon the Pattern Editor, Order-List and Pattern Matrix. None of them can replace the Pattern Matrix, not even by a long shot!
So the devs had to “halt all development and start programming a voting system” before? Doesn’t the forum already have a voting system? Why are you making up rubbish like this? “Random people”? No, I was talking about REGISTERED owners. You sure are terrified of losing the pattern matrix, aren’t you.
That doesn’t follow at all. “this does not mean that they should be implemented into Renoise, as they are 3rd party tools”. So no improvements to Renoise that have already been implemented as tools, should finally be implemented by the devs? Why? You’re not talking sense.
LOL - yet again you claim that they would “halt all development” to find out what their paying customers actually want… how ridiculous.
So you’re claiming that the LACK of user voting is why Renoise is doing “better than ever”? Please explain. Again, how ridiculous. It’s quite obvious that if you are making a piece of software for people, you should ASK them what they want it to do. I realise you’re afraid of that, of course…
And it’s also ‘exactly’ what the Buzz Sequence Editor is, isn’t it. In fact, it sounds a LOT more like the Buzz Sequence Editor than the pattern matrix, doesn’t it - “visually arrange PatternSequences and Blocks”. Because you really can arrange blocks in Buzz, but NOT in the pattern matrix, not in the way that any normal person would expect to do so.
It isn’t ‘exactly’ either of them really, because it isn’t a very precise definition, is it. LOL.
How do you know that? I thought we weren’t able to vote on what we wanted any more? LOL again.
Really? Of course the Buzz Sequence Editor could replace the pattern matrix, who claimed that any of the CURRENT tools could replace it? None of them are designed to, but Grid Pie proves that a BSE could be made.
Care to show us a VIDEO of how you use the Pattern Matrix, and how it is better than the Buzz Sequence Editor? Oh, wait…
That’s what I asked at the beginning of this entire thread, and still nobody can do it. This is beyond a joke - a handful of people defending the pattern matrix like it’s their religious text, yet unable to explain why it’s so good. I still can’t use Renoise to write songs with, I tried and tried, but the pattern matrix just sucks so bad compared to the BSE that I always end up using Buzz, in spite of the fact that Renoise has about ten times as much power as Buzz.
What exactly is so good about the pattern matrix? Can’t you even explain this? I’ve SHOWN you what’s so good about the Buzz Sequence Editor, and explained it, why have the pattern matrix ‘cult’ been unable to defend their ‘religion’?
esaruoho: Do not feed the trolls
LOL - any questioning = ‘trolling’.
Nothing constructive to add? Like maybe a video of you using the pattern matrix to write a song? Or is that confidential information? How truly bizarre. This is like walking into some religious cult and questioning their religion- no factual debate, no discussion allowed, ‘heretics’ to be shunned and hissed at. May I suggest you stay away from this thread if you have such a problem with me discussing the merits of the Buzz Sequence Editor? The clue is in the title of the thread.
Or in other words, I’ve owned Esaruoho and rebutted his ludicrous comments, and you have nothing to add. Obviously some people who use Renoise are paranoid about the pattern matrix, can’t explain or show why it’s so good, yet are desperate to KEEP it, even though a much better solution has always existed.
Still waiting for ONE video of somebody using it, and showing why it’s so good, shouldn’t be difficult, mine only took three minutes to make.
Perhaps you should tune it down from a 11 to a 3 or so (your attitude that is)… just saying.
ps, I still would LOVE to see the reasoning behind the pattern matrix, who invented it, what their thought processes were, if they considered other possibilities, how on Earth they came up with it as a good way of sequencing, etc.
No doubt asking such questions is also a capital crime, according to esaruoho…
What ‘attitude’ would that be? Asking ‘awkward’ questions about the cult that is the pattern matrix? I have a program that I paid for, which I can’t use, because the most vital part of the user interface stops me from using it, because it’s unnecessarily difficult to use. I’m entitled to talk about it - why don’t YOU show us a video of why the pattern matrix is actually usable, and how you use it?
Isn’t it funny how you didn’t ask esaruoho to ‘tune it down’ when he started shoving his nose in my thread, yet again… LOL.
you sir, are an idiot, of that i’m certain.
Keep it civil, guys. There are some interesting ideas being discussed in this thread, but don’t make us lock it because you’re acting like children towards each other. Either discuss your thoughts maturely and in a constructive manner, or don’t bother.
(I’m writing a quick post now to address a few issues that have been brought up)
Why don’t you simply watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbQlsV0sB5Y from 37:50 on.
Working with the Pattern Matrix. It’s exactly what you ask for all the time.
That video is a very good introduction to some of the powerful features of the Pattern Matrix. I’m not sure, though, that it’s “exactly” what he’s asking for.
At least as far as I understand it, the key issue is that the Pattern Matrix cannot provide different length patterns for different tracks/groups within the song. I’m sure there’s more nuance that I’m missing, but I personally would love (as I mentioned before) if there were at least one alternate/sub Pattern Matrix so that I could lay down certain tracks with different pattern lengths than, say, the drums.
If I’ve got it wrong, and someone can explain the issue more clearly, that would be most welcome.
No it isn’t.
We are speaking of arbitrary track sizes, not simply shifting track contents from one track/pattern to another.
It is an intermediate solution to clip arranging but the PM lacks the resizing of tracks.
Listen… We understand that you don’t like the Pattern Matrix, and that it’s not (currently) totally suitable for your personal workflow. You’ve made your point. Believe me, we get it. Ok?
You keep asking for video ‘proof’ of someone using the Pattern Matrix to write a song, but what good will come from that anyway? It will only show someone else using a workflow that is not your own workflow. You’ll see someone creating some patterns, and then manipulating blocks in the Pattern Matrix, cloning stuff, aliasing stuff, etc. But what will that actually prove to you? It seems quite clear to me from your posts, that you do not actually want to adapt your workflow to fit the Renoise Pattern Matrix, so how will such a video change anything for you?
There’s really no secret trick to it. There’s no magic thing that we are doing, that you are somehow missing. Based on what you’ve already said in this thread, it seems to me that you do already understand the main features of the Pattern Matrix: being able to easily clone track data from pattern to pattern, being able to alias and re-use track data in other patterns, etc. One of the primary things you seem to be upset about, is the fact that you can’t perform all of the desired actions (and other related sequence editing) with some super convenient keyboard shortcuts like you could in Buzz, or that the Pattern Matrix is inherently slow somehow because you mainly use the mouse to interact with it. Would you say that’s a fair assumption?
You can’t do exactly the same things in the Renoise Pattern Matrix that you can with the Buzz Sequence Editor, simply because Renoise isn’t Buzz. Nor are we trying to be Buzz. This is a simple thing that you must understand and accept before you can move forward. The sooner you accept the fact that Renoise has its own workflow, and that you’ll need to make some small adjustments to your own personal workflow, the happier you’ll be. We all come from different backgrounds here, we all had our favourite trackers or sequencers in the past, and we all had to make some adjustments when we switched to Renoise. You will never be able to replicate your old experiences 100% in Renoise, but in the end hopefully it’s worth it anyway.
Renoise does not currently support all the same things that Buzz does, like easily combining patterns of different lengths in the sequence editor. We cannot easily support such a feature without heavily rewriting huge portions of Renoise’s audio engine. On the surface it may not seem like a big deal to you - and you already admitted that you weren’t a programmer, so I’ll assume that you don’t really understand the amount of effort that goes into this stuff - but the structure of Renoise is built upon a 10-year legacy, so this is not something that we can simply snap our fingers and do overnight. It’s a serious conceptual difference that requires a lot of work to implement under the hood. We are obviously improving and changing things all the time, but we are still a very small development team with limited resources, so this is one particular restriction that you’ll simply have to live with for now.
With that in mind, the Pattern Matrix was designed as an alternate method of sequencing blocks of pattern data within Renoise, and to provide a method of arranging/organising pattern data in a more intuitive manner - more intuitive than a shitload of manual copy/paste operations within the Pattern Editor spanning multiple patterns. In this respect it’s actually very powerful, and many of our users now rely on it as part of their workflow. Especially with the recent introduction of alias blocks, which make it very easy to re-use phrases and rhythms throughout your song, while also being able to quickly edit something and have it reflected in the rest of your entire song. This is essentially the same as “clip”-based concepts that you might find in other DAWs, and when you compare this to Buzz it’s basically the same as repeating blocks in the BSE. We don’t let you simply type “0” or “1” into the Pattern Matrix to quickly alias a particular block, but there is a shortcut (CTRL + P by default) that allows you to type in a pattern number and alias a block to that pattern. You can easily re-map this shortcut to a key that you feel more comfortable with.
For a (hopefully) good example of alias usage, you can check out my own demo song included in Renoise 2.8 - “dblue - Syntechtic Sugar”. While the overall musical style may or may not be to your personal tastes, hopefully you can at least appreciate how the song is constructed, and the fact that it relies heavily on aliasing to achieve the end result. In fact, the entire ~6:00 minute song is made up from only a small handful of unique pattern blocks which are aliased/repeated everywhere, and it also takes advantage of the fact that track muting and automations are still unique to each Pattern Matrix block, in order to create builds and sweeps as the song progresses. I cannot provide you with a video of the song creation process, but I can say that I was able to put it together way more quickly than anything I’ve done in the past, simply thanks to the aliases in 2.8. Actually, this was quite a refreshing joy for me to work with, because in the past I always get stuck creating 1 or 2 patterns and then struggle with the overall arrangement, because it has always been quite a pain in the ass to copy/paste everything manually when I want to make some changes to a basic rhythm.
Anyway…
Our Lua scripting API can address some of these issues. In fact, earlier in this thread when you expressed some of your thoughts about your BSE workflow, like being able to select a few pattern matrix blocks and then quickly insert them into a new pattern above/below the current sequence position with a single key-stroke, I actually started working on a Lua tool that provided some additional keyboard shortcuts to perform these actions: copy selected blocks above/below, move selected blocks above/below, insert selected blocks above/below, etc. I will try to finish up the tool soon and post it on the forum, and then maybe this can at least give you a little bit of relief in your workflow.
Overall, we do listen to our community for ideas and feature suggestions, to see what people generally seem to want most, but we’re not just going to rip or emulate entire chunks of functionality from other software - that simply isn’t our style. We also don’t have the ability to implement every damn thing that anyone ever said on the forum - we have to prioritise the stuff that appears to be more important or urgent. We’re not miracle workers here, we’re just a few dudes working on some code and trying to do the best we can.
As always, we will try to keep some of your (and others’) suggestions in mind for the future. At the very least, we can always try to implement new native key bindings that perform common actions, to make your workflow more fluid and natural within the Pattern Matrix. Some of this stuff can be done with tools, but other stuff has to be done natively and requires extra work.
In conclusion, we do understand that you are a bit frustrated, but when you repeatedly post things like “What exactly is so good about the pattern matrix?” and “how on Earth they came up with it as a good way of sequencing”, etc., please understand that it sounds quite aggressive and confrontational. It’s really not constructive and it undermines all the damn hard work we’ve put into Renoise over the years. Yes, you are a registered user, and we sincerely thank you for your support in that respect, but you also had the perfect opportunity to test the Renoise demo and all of its features before you spent any money. You knew exactly what you were buying. And if you bought Renoise before the Pattern Matrix even existed, then you obviously saw something you liked in the program that made you buy it anyway. So to say “I have a program that I paid for, which I can’t use” is simply unfair.
Edit: I see dblue writes books in the same time I write a few sentences. I wish his post were the last one. Edited mine.
From the following thread:
vV said:
LOL.
awesome! i can’t wait to see these ones