I’ll lay out a whole series of notes and chords on a track, let’s call it the rhythm track. Then I’ll use the same VST instrument on several other tracks.
Some point later I want to change the VST instrument on my rhythm track. If I go to my instrument bank and pick a new instrument it affects all the tracks I used that VST on. How can I change the instrument on just the one track I wish to play with?
also, the advanced pattern editor.
Some more tips:
If you use a vst on multiple tracks/groups each containing different fx, double the instrument instance first as new instrument slot and use the new one on the new track
Save your time by not using midi program changes, instead another instance. You can set the instrument to “auto-off on silence” in the vsti instrument settings
Do not use device fx inside a renoise instrument. It will lead into multiple problems. Instead, always do all fx, routing etc on global/outer level. Just trust me.
Do not use device fx inside a renoise instrument if it’s a drum set or any kind of more complex sound structure…Instead, always do all fx, routing etc on global/outer level.
- Do not use device fx inside a renoise instrument. It will lead into multiple problems. Instead, always do all fx, routing etc on global/outer level. Just trust me.
The only “problem” I’ve encountered is that adding effects gives a renoise instrument the same limitation as plugin instruments - they can only be played on one track at a time.
What are the other “problems”?
Hi,
I would say you’ll loose :
multi pattern commands for all samples, since limited to one track.
individual offset delays
send routings to outside the structure
direct access to all automatable parameters, only 8 slots
a overview what’s happening in your whole fx chain
For single multilayer instruments like a pad, or a collection of hihats only, the current structure is maybe ok. But I personally now decided to pass inside fx up and only use the modulation stuff. Had a lot of anoying situations with it. Don’t want to loose time with it anymore,
^overview what’s happening in your whole fx chain
can be directly translated to: no show parameter in mixer, and then of course no simple way to automate that as well.
Hi,
I would say you’ll loose :
multi pattern commands for all samples, since limited to one track.
individual offset delays
send routings to outside the structure
direct access to all automatable parameters, only 8 slots
a overview what’s happening in your whole fx chain
For single multilayer instruments like a pad, or a collection of hihats only, the current structure is maybe ok. But I personally now decided to pass inside fx up and only use the modulation stuff. Had a lot of anoying situations with it. Don’t want to loose time with it anymore,
You can route within the instrument itself and there are lots of other uses that you overlook and it’s not good advice in my opinion as i’ve found a ton of uses with the fx inside an instrument.
A very good reason for using FX inside an instrument is that once you have set it up and it sounds perfect, it’s ready to go anytime, you don’t need to waste time on the fx in the track the next times you want to use it.
You can also make some serious complex systems that would clutter up the tracks, but when inside the instrument you don’t have to see it.
Macros makes multitimodulation much easier, i guess you can do a lot of it with hydras or doofers, but with doofers you loose the send features and the hydra can take a lot of time to set up and you would need to use macros anyway to use it for the basic modulation.
I agree that using fx within an instrument is sometimes not optimal, but saying "- Do not use device fx inside a renoise instrument. It will lead into multiple problems. Instead, always do all fx, routing etc on global/outer level. Just trust me. " is just not right. Maybe it won’t work for you, but don’t let the noobs get the impression it’s a useless feature because it’s definately not. 
Going off-topic? Ok, then 
You can also make some serious complex systems that would clutter up the tracks, but when inside the instrument you don’t have to see it.
Well, it doesn’t necessarily have to be complex - it can also just be a simple case of parallel (NY-style)compression.
Sometimes, it’s just great to have that ability inside the instrument itself, instead of somewhere else.
PS: here, I’m demonstrating a possible way to bypass the 8 macro limitation and control any parameter in glorious 7 bit.
It’s not actually meant as a workaround, but rather a alternative, creative approach to controlling FX using a keyboard.
The only “problem” I’ve encountered is that adding effects gives a renoise instrument the same limitation as plugin instruments - they can only be played on one track at a time.
But, track routing was pretty much agreed on as a logical follow-up feature. Hopefully we’ll see that happen soon enough.
I agree that using fx within an instrument is sometimes not optimal, but saying "- Do not use device fx inside a renoise instrument. It will lead into multiple problems. Instead, always do all fx, routing etc on global/outer level. Just trust me. " is just not right. Maybe it won’t work for you, but don’t let the noobs get the impression it’s a useless feature because it’s definately not.
Ok, this was too less differentiated. I also like the encapsulated instrument concept in general.only it seems half baked to me. I now updated my post above.
The problem is, if you trust in a solution with instr fx in your project, you maybe will later get angry because of those limitations, if you later see that you need those.
track routing was pretty much agreed on as a logical follow-up feature. Hopefully we’ll see that happen soon enough.
Hope this, too.
Ok, this was too less differentiated. I also like the encapsulated instrument concept in general.only it seems half baked to me. I now updated my post above.
The problem is, if you trust in a solution with instr fx in your project, you maybe will later get angry because of those limitations, if you later see that you need those.
It’s like building a VSTi, you end up with a product with a certain behaviour that you can’t change. An XRNI on the other hand is much easier to change than a VSTi, so if it’s not exactly what you need for a project you can easily tweak it, or use track fx to shape it further.
Let’s hope the track limitation disappears one day.
- Do not use device fx inside a renoise instrument if it’s a drum set or any kind of more complex sound structure…Instead, always do all fx, routing etc on global/outer level.
If you’re making a phrase system with breaks for instance, i think it works quite good to use instrument fx. You loose the ability to sidechain the kick, but you can make some quite nice sounding breaks this way i think. You can sidechain within the instrument and make interactions between the different drum samples, while in the track you can’t make it, let’s say in the keytracker, only trigger on a kick sample from the instrument.
Let’s say you hook up a custom envelope to a reverb to get a gated reverb effect, but you only want it on your snares, then that is easily done within in the instrument by making the keytrackers only trigger on the snares. (We should definately have some way of grouping these samples so we wouldn’t have to add a keytracker for each sample)
Once you set up a system like this it’s extremely effective compared to doing it manually every time and if you set up the macros in a clever way you can get some nice variations, glitch stuff and great sounding breaks by the touch of a key.
In this track i use such a system:
It’s not perfect and i’ll probably tweak the instrument every time i use it anyway, but i kind of like the concept of doing it this way. 
If (when?) xrni get multi-out, that will make at least one of the limitations go away…
For example, you could set up an internal send to sidechain the kick to hats inside of a drum instrument. But with another send, going to another output, you can route that to an external track… and use that signal to sidechain something outside of the instrument.
The only real limitation that I run into with xrni w/ effects chains right now is that they only work on one track at a time. But I love how everything is routed inside the instrument and doesn’t clutter up the mixer.
The other small limitation is no external send… but I would expect that to change once the redux improvements make it into renoise. Hopefully, anyway.
Hi Pat
I found a major bug that is directly related to what you just said.I guess you regarding the same…
I’m using (testing) oneinstrument “X” (XRNI,consisting of multiple samples)of considerable size (>300MB). Namely a piano that sounds very real.If I use the same piano on two separate tracks, Track 01 and Track 02,the result sounds bad, with cuts.It is like a note from aTrack 02 cut another note in Track 01that sounds immediately before. (I do not speak of VST!)
It follows that a XRNI instrument can not be used intwoor more separate Tracks.I’ve tried several instruments without effects, and the sound is cut, it terrible!!! 
I guess it’s the same thing you mention.What I wish is to use a large instrument on multiple tracks without having to duplicate it many times,since devour much RAM.It is a serious issue of resource optimization. Why this happens?
Do you know if there is a solution?So far it is the most serious problem I’ve had with Renoise,and I have no idea if RenoiseTeam plans to fix it… 
I’ve searched the forum but nothing…
^only instruments with effects chains can not be used on more than one track at the same time, as for the ram issue, renoise does not stream anything from the disk, so everything is in the ram.
And the instruments XRNI without efects chains neither can use in 2 tracks both.This I believe is not dependent on whether the instrument is activated or no the effect (in Sampler/Effects or Effects in Track even). Example:
Instrument 1 without sample FX effects use in Track 01 without effects
&
Instrument 1 without sample FX effects use also in Track 02 without effects
This is not possible about Renoise 3.0.1!!!There are problems from cutting soundbetween in two tracks!
Ideally Renoise be able to use an alone instrument XRNI on multiple tracks , to avoid having to load it into memory several times. Only then will full sense creating instruments.Such as It works now, this consumes a lot of computer resources.It is not optimized, it is a very serious constraint.
Also prevents creativity. For example, create a complex drum kit in a single instrument, and use it in multiple tracks, without problems in sound.This is essential to be considered an excellent tracker.
For example, a heavy instrument XRNI (300MB, a complex piano or complex battery), it is not logical into RAM several times doubled several times the same instrument for use multiple tracks. Is not it can be loaded once an instrument in RAM for use on multiple tracks changing anything in the code of Renoise?
Something as simple as using the same instrument (without effects) on multiple tracks is not possible!!!
Something as simple as using the same instrument (without effects) on multiple tracks is not possible!!!
That’s simply not true.
I’ve attached an xrns file that demonstrates it. Download it, and check it out:
5978 multiple_tracks.xrns
If you still think that it’s not possible, then go ahead and upload your xrns (without the 300 megs of samples…) and we’ll take a look at it.
You can use a single xrni on multiple tracks if you don’t use effects chains.
I’m not sure what’s going on in your case, but I suggest you relax a bit, and we’ll get to the bottom of your problem eventually
Hi pat
Thanks for answering!Thanks to you I have found my problem directly.If the instrument XRNI is actived FX chain and send to FX in “None” position,there are sound problems also. It must be so?
My problem: FX Chain in “None” ^^ ^^
So it is not possible to save a XRNI with FX Chains even when are in “None” (in “Send to FX”),to use more than one track.
5980 
In this case, you can save the Instrument XRNI with FX Chains, andto use in more than one track, remove before the FX Chain.
I thoughtthat"None" disablesthe FX Chain &so I can usein multiple tracks without problems of sound.Then I need it is possible, using only the effects of each track.Already it seemed strange to me!
So I have solved! Thanks!
Yep so in your example, the instrument does have an fx chain (01: FX Chain…). You just haven’t routed a sample to it. But that doesn’t change that the instrument has an fx chain, which prevents it from being used on multiple tracks.
If you have an instrument with no fx chains, you’ll see this on the effects section (note where it says Instruments with DSP chains can, like plugins, only be played back in one track at any given time ):
5982 
This clear. Yes, I am well aware that screen and notice. But activating “None” in FX Chain,not supposed to override all the effect chain?even the chain itself?I understand that. If None is used to deactivate FX Chain,that does not hamper the use of multiple tracks,because no effect in instrument, or what is the same, any sample plays any effect. So I have come to be confused with this.What I see as well:“None” should amount to not create aFXchain.
This problems about FX chains and multiple tracks has been discussed several times in the forum. In 01: “FX Chain” in “Ouput” (right)It would be great to route to each track (track 01, track 02…). So, youcan use effect chains own instrument in certain tracks, and the rest to use multiple sound tracks without problems (with efects in track).
If so for something will be,this may improve in the future,but I have little idea what is polishing Renoise Team for Renoise 3.1,and readingother things inthe forumthinkthis will continue as it is. Who knows!The more Renoise use, learn more tricks, but also limitations.
I recently reread this:https://forum.renoise.com/t/done-3-1-instruments-with-fx-are-tied-to-one-track/40268
Instead of “Track” as shown above, it will then read “Track1”, “Track2”. Seems most intuitive to me and is probably what anyone looking at the routing matrix would expect.
and taktic remark:https://forum.renoise.com/t/done-3-1-instruments-with-fx-are-tied-to-one-track/40268
Butmust be some way different route or even avoid redundant or repetitive effects not swallow many computer resources.I guess who seek a better solution.We’ll see,because this issue has a long history,and it is more complex and deep than it seems…