DEVs on what you are currently working on? Redux update?

General Discussion
146

It’s not only about the simple start/stop commands, but also about synchronizing loops and changes in the playback position and tempo.

I acknowledge the hurdle, but for example energyXT has two modes that are available for syncing, in the sequncer options menu [Internal / External]. When you set it to External it works as a slave to the renoise timeline, looping seems to works fine too. Maybe there are other ideas to get around further limitations of when renoise is in focus (rns_virtual_MID / MIDI Mapping a controller…)***(more brainstorming at end of post)

But even if this would work, I don’t really see why this would be easier than ReWire. ReWire takes care about exactly this + audio + MIDI routing between multiple apps.

—The points where VST beats Rewire: Generally being able to load multiple instances + File management

-Multiple Xrns loadable into host, bring your disparate xrns ideas together easily!

-Track freeze; Split different parts of your xrns to different tracks and freeze as required (only useful if you have multiple renoises to use so when one is frozen you work on the others)

-Easy long sweeping automations over Rns_VST(chords), or chopping glitchy automation over Rns_VST(beats) (multiple instances again, maybe rewire channels help here though)

-Use the output of Rns_VST as a sidechain source or destination (not strictly limited to but becomes more useful with more renoise instances)

-Save all as one song-file, in host

  • The other main point of my original post in this thread was about improving MIDI and audio D+D. This on its own would improve renoises ability to share its content with other apps. Im sure it could benefit rewire users aswell (and ofc, hypothetical Rns_VST). I`d say this is the other half of the coin and pretty important.

-Access to Piano Roll/ notation etc with fast D+D to and from Rns_VST (benefits to: standalone/ rewire/ Rns_VST)

-Use hosts pitch shift; render down sections, drag back into Rns_VST for instant tracker treatment (benefits to: standalone/ rewire/ Rns_VST)

Speculative about MIDI Mirroring , but could be a big bonus: Maybe this could even be achieved with a host like reaper already which has scripting??

-Lua scripting included in Rns_VST so that current tools work and new host specific helpers can be coded in the future (maybe two way MIDI mirroring could be achieved here)

***More brainstorming: I know there are VSTs that can share audio/ info between instances loaded on separate tracks. Maybe you could have a situation where you have 10 renoises loaded into your host all on diferent tracks all communicating with each other. Transport in one causes all other renoises to play/ stop/ loop at the same time. You use your host mainly as a platform for multiple renoise`s if you wished.

add in other features like rns_virtual_MID or even : rns_VST_virtual_rewire – Here only one copy of the renoise VST has to communicate with the host (like bidule does?). This copy can then sync all other renoises transports at the same time with the above data sharing…

call it re-borg!

all savable as a single host file.

147

No, it’s unfortunately not.

Maybe I’ve misunderstood something here what you guys are talking about, but at least in Logic as host you can control its transport (like PLAY/STOP) regardless if any other AU plug-in window is focused or not.

Redux behaves like this too but only while the editor is collapsed (not when it’s uncollapsed). So, I guess this is rather an intentional design decision rather than “technical reasons”. I suppose for some users this is exactly like they want it to work though, but it’s a workflow-obstacle to others if they’re used to plug-ins to not override the host-transport (which more often than not is the case).

This is my main-issue with Redux. I’d be happy if it was possible to at least optionally make Redux “bypass” the space key in future updates, so new modifications in the phrase editor efficiently and quickly could be tried out out along with the Logic arrangement (meaning without having to un-focus the Redux-window each time for PLAY/STOP). If needed, the SOLO-button in a DAW is there for a reason too.

This was also what we were discussing inthis topic, but you didn’t follow up when I mentioned that’s not a normal behavior of a plug-in.

148

“I would like”

renoise is fantastic stop crying like a baby - renoise is a solid DAW making it vapourware would kill it renoise 2.8 is still a great tool the current renoise is also fantastic and there’s no rush to update it all these whinners demanding piano rolls and the such can go away and use other DAW’s

If you think Renoise is perfect already and you don’t wish for any more features, then that’s fine and I respect that. But clockwise, you have to also respect other opinions and ideas. What you have to do, instead of being insular, is to further explain why additional features would jeopardize your user-experience with Renoise. Moreover, develop your reply so people understand how already implemented features makes no need for other popular suggestions like audio-tracks etc.

149

VSTis/AUs can not control the host’s playback, so you’d need to switch back from such a Renoise plugin to the host every-time you want to start playback in the host. ReWire was invented to solve exactly this an other related problems (running two fully fledged DAWs with their own time line side by side).

ReWire indeed can be a pain to setup. But once it’s running, it’s running. That you constantly need to switch between applications still isn’t ideal.

That you can’tcontrol the host’s playback in a plugin really is a deal-breaker. Try the FruityLoops VSTi for example to see how that “feels”.

Redux actually is the result of the idea of “a Renoise VSTi”: it is a compromise between the “limitations” of how plugins work and Renoise for the above mentioned reasons.

So wait, you actually consider a tracker within a VST shouldn’t send MIDI ?

Redux couldn’t do that from phrases last time i tried it (Maybe it has been updated to send MIDI now ? )

Spoiling the party, as usual:

No, it’s unfortunately not.

It’s not only about the simple start/stop commands, but also about synchronizing loops and changes in the playback position and tempo.

But even if this would work, I don’t really see why this would be easier than ReWire. ReWire takes care about exactly this + audio + MIDI routing between multiple apps.

Sorry to spoil your party, VST has had many 3rd party add ons to the standard, and as suggested (Some, not all, in fact hardly any) hosts allow plugins to control the transport, however, there are not enough of these to even consider calling this an option for development, it would be such an esoteric feature that only worked in one or two hosts, and no developer is going to add features to their host for a tracker plugin.

Personally i have no idea why anybody would want a full blown Renoise VST anyway, sounds like complete silliness to me, the only gain vs rewire would be project recall, and to be honest you don’t need a full Renoise VST for that, just build a VST that you load in to your DAW, give it the correct string and have it trigger the correct project and open Renoise whenever you load the project (Yes it is doable, i built it in synthmaker years ago) if the project is set up for Rewire, done and done.

150

Just one little thing I want to say. I’ve been using a few pianoroll softwares along with Renoise and the “difference” only really manifests when it comes to commands, typical (but in theory unneccessary) limitations, some complexity. But it’s not the way (vertical, note names, etc) how trackers work that makes the real difference for me, and that is why I I’m not so happy to hear “niche product”. I for my part have learned in the forum that there is no way to combine tracker view and piano roll view, when Raul tried it with best efforts. But I think some people overestimate the importance of putting in notes. It’s not that important. I think, it doesn’t really make it niche or not niche, nor does it define the category of the software.

151

Just one little thing I want to say. I’ve been using a few pianoroll softwares along with Renoise and the “difference” only really manifests when it comes to commands, typical (but in theory unneccessary) limitations, some complexity. But it’s not the way (vertical, note names, etc) how trackers work that makes the real difference for me, and that is why I I’m not so happy to hear “niche product”. I for my part have learned in the forum that there is no way to combine tracker view and piano roll view, when Raul tried it with best efforts. But I think some people overestimate the importance of putting in notes. It’s not that important. I think, it doesn’t really make it niche or not niche, nor does it define the category of the software.

I supose that you talk about this:https://forum.renoise.com/t/piano-roll-integrated-in-pattern-editor-a-advanced-pattern-editor/46102(comment #36)

I have been following this topic and this otherabout Recommend a new DAW.These two topics have been burning lately.However, I’ve avoided participating, and I’ve preferred to waste my time learning something else from LUA and the API available to create tools (I’m building my own tool to my taste, slowly (GT16-Colors)).What I am going to comment is based on my opinion, about what I have seen and experienced in recent months and it is very possible that my opinion does not like many people (sorry for the length of the message. Do not read if you prefer.)…

…

Renoise is powerful software with a bestial tour (slow) and with an incredible future potential.However, the small company in charge of building and maintaining it is not powerful, is small with few members and does not have a seriously focused machinery for sale (marketing).Although Renoise takes 15 years. There are many people in many countries who make music through a DAW, who does not even know its existence.I live in Spain, and I have asked in some music software sales stores about Renoise, and they ignore their existence (they know more famous DAWs, they have real marketing).This is just an example.

Therefore, Renoise is a niche product because its creator so prefers.Why?He will know.The image of Renoise’s official website that it offers to the public is poor.The public watches everything before buying, including all other DAWs on the market. Even blogs of responsible people have been published that are empty. That’s a bestial marketing mistake for a product.Maybe its creator has never intended to sell licenses massively.Because he is not able to do it, his motives will have. It is possible that the error of the Renoise occurs with the rest of DAWs, and because of this fact, Renoise does not evolve.Maybe he wants to dedicate little time of his life invested in this software, must be fed up already.The fact is that there are some things so reasonable that have not yet been built, which generates frustration under your niche (people who have purchased a license).

Renoise has fallen behind, outdated.And I’m afraid it’s a sales and attitude problem.In other words, it is not in Taktik’s plans to powerfully develop Renoise.Maybe your way to sellis not sufficient to raise money and hire another programmer to work full time all year round under his orders and supervision for what, to enhance Renoise and thus satisfy your niche, and not with the idea of attracting more customers.It’s a matter of making a better product, and people will buy it, without forgetting the marketing management.

Some small things that fail, actually:

  • Too long to cover bugs.A user reports a bug. And maybe you’ll have to wait a year or more for it to be resolved.An user?How?Are they not able to control bugs?Do not have a team of beta testers that tune the software and check it seriously?Therefore, the user who finds the bug is frustrated without being aware of it.
  • Screen resolution.A bestial problem that will ruin this software in a short time.In some months, it will be a habitual change of monitor to larger resolutions. If Renoise does not sprint, she will lose her small niche.And its creator knows.
  • Some areas of work are very poor.The most serious example is the Automation Editor. Andrey Marchenko, has strongly protested on this issue. I also. We do not lack reason.
  • Disapproval of the talent of some collaborators.I’m talking about Danoise and its tools.When I did not know him in the forums, I thought that Danoise was part of the team of programmers working under the hood of Renoise.But it’s not like that.I wonder if he charges for his work keeping the forums.Should I do it.He does an excellent job here.He is part of the team of Renoise, but not of its direct development.If Taktik wants to engage in something else, hire one or two full-time programmers under your orders.If the problem is that you do not sell enough licenses to hire at least one programmer, Renoise will end up dying.And that does not depend on the development of other DAWs, but on the development of the hardware itself.
  • Clean or let some issues run in the forums. In Ideas & Suggestions are pinned two topics: “Auido Tracks” (Apr 2009) and “Piano Roll” (Dec 2002).This is a joke?If the Taktik Roadmap is never going to develop these issues, you should let them run.This can only point to two things.These two topics are pinned to accumulate comments, and enliven the forums, or as an advert, an demostracion that never they wiill exist Audio Tracks and Piano Roll.Is advising: “You are stupid if you think these things are going to be added. Watch the dates!!!”
  • Sure, marketing.Where are the sales campaigns?Half-price license sales on the Christmas campaign, for example. And announcing massively in the media related all the news?It is enough to have contacts with all the important means, at least in Europe (web pages on audio, blogs, influential artists to comment the message.
  • Advertising banners.What?No, that costs money too.Enable a section of banners and link in www.renoise.com.Advertise on the forums possible collaboration selflessly.Place an advertising banner in your medium if you wish, to support the project.
  • Taking advantage of forums.Renoise has some notable forums, better than other more famous DAWs.There are many interesting ideas, many related to workflow, which are small additions that do not change anything.
  • Taktik carelessness.He is the main driverand can not allow a feeling of abandonment in the forums.Renoise can be a niche product.Take care of your niche.
  • Lack of tact!In this of sales, the customer is always right, unfortunately.If a client or forum member is angry, or disappointed, it is not very reasonable to send you a video of Shia LaBeouf with “Just Do It” as a message.
  • Lack of focus on improving Renoise, instead of exploring other things.I have seen many proposals in the forums. The last one, turning Renoise into a VST.I would say. Stop stupidities, and improve Renoise!
  • Attitude of some members of the forums.Support the development of Renoise, of Renoise, and stop acting like a handbrake!

Of course, these are only minor comments.And I do not like to comment on the work of others. They will know what they are doing.But I do care Renoise, I like, and I do not want it to end up muddled by stupidities and negative attitudes.This comment #107 of Taktik so defeatist has let me down. Cheer up! You have a good niche.I liked reading the news and the current state. But Airmannwas right in which the product needs an official roadmap published, and not precisely hidden in the forums.You are going to be a year without publishing anything. People are not always entering these forums. Only the most assiduous.Do not make people guess.

I just hope people get encouraged.Renoise is great!

Mark2, just to clarify. A vertical pianorollor at least a visual aid for the composition is perfectly feasible. It can work, as long as the creator wants it to work.If it does not exist or it will exist, it is because Taktik does not want it for its product, not because it is not possible or it does not help.Many things are not added because he does not want, for whatever reason. There’s no more.Focus on improving Renoise.Make support so that Renoise supports higher resolutions (as Bitwig or FL Studio), and improve workflow in all areas of Renoise (not because other DAWS do, but because the current hardware requires it).Do not add anything new until this is well covered.This is what I would do, as well as fixing bugs.Fortunately, Taktik continues, and is fixing errors.

What happens to the crowdfunding?Enable a paypal account.Would anyone be interested in paying for a full-time programmer under Renoise’s bonnet?How much does a programmer earn per year in Germany?A year, a single full-time programmer would do wonders.I would be willing to pay €100 (Not much, but could be € 5).Would this be a shame for the Renoise Team or an honor?

One last thought. “Harmony: users to continue composing music and creating tools (those who can), Taktik and his little team, continues to improve Renoise”. There’s no more.

…These are my thoughts.

152

There have been too many different proposals for a piano roll sharing large parts of its GUI with the tracker. It’s kind of not possible to decide what’s right, for me the opposite of your proposal is right, a simple black box that converts (constantly) from tracker to piano roll back and forth, and the piano roll sharing no GUI with the tracker and vice versa. That means, you’re doing a hybrid, just like a hybrid car, which agains means you can actually simply create the other product type and forget about the second part. In my eyes there’s a 90% chance taktik creates a piano roll software just like Bitwig, and I seeked some confirmation of that and failed in my “A new software?” thread.

So, it’s his (taktik) life, and for a happy life you need 2000 EUR a month and that’s it. When you’re not keen on creating a 5-man-company being in your 30s or 40s then this is just the way it is, I respect his ideas and kind of doing things too much to join supposing the company and funding ideas.

I have these ideas for myself, one being an open source tracker, GPL, but then again, there is either too many different ideas. When you ask two guys what they like about Renoise, you get different set of preferred features. There’s no way of creating anything that would suffice at least 50% of the Renoise user base, and being in the Renoise forum there is no good feeling to talk about creating an alternative software/project/anything (due to respect). You can’t change taktik, and one can’t just steal ideas of Renoise for another project.

My best approach to everything is chit chat and maybe one time in my life create a product myself. Or working with others on a GPL project.

153

Let this thread die already, all you entrepreneurs. :wink:

154

Let this thread die already, all you entrepreneurs. :wink:

Has it become that bad? :blush:

155

Years ago i requested microwaves for making very small sound and a freezer to freeze my tracks to make them sound more solid, still nothing, Renoise development must be dead.

156

A short message from the renoise community to to taktik (damn you c++!!!):

157

edit: just for clarity I was saying damn you to the c++ programming language there and not calling taktik a… :blink:

158

Happy new year to everybody and the devteam ! :drummer:

In 2002 I saw Renoise as an great effort to improve the “tracker concept”. Everybody knew that it had to be improved even if it was a tool that would be used by a niche market. It’s a niche market because the tracker concept is a very specific way of making music, vertically, using a computer keyboard, and shortcuts… Nobody at school learns music like that and kids are discovering scores, instead of patterns and hexadecimal values. Tracking, is using samples, and micro-editing them in a pattern. A tracker is “Pattern-centric”. Everything is in the pattern. And we can all say that with renoise 3.x this concept has been really, really improved, with time, in such a way that today, we don’t really know at first how it could add anything to it, without compromising the “soul” of a tracker.

Renoise removed not only the limits of a usual tracker in terms of track organisation and pattern editing features, but also, vastly improved the concept of instrument. Renoise also really improved the final quality of tracked productions with great efforts brought to the rendering engine, digital signal processings, chainings, routings, automations, and “DSP logic” with meta-devices. You should just listen to the last MBC 9 songs, and… compare it to some FT2 productions from the past, to instantly get the difference in overall sound quality.

Piano roll ? I remember I’ve participated to the main suggestion thread about it, and, I’ve even drawn a few mockups, trying to imagine what it could be, to add a “vertical midi pianoroll” in renoise… But in the end, I realised that i do not really need a more “visual” or “graphical” interface. I need efficiency. I don’t care if it looks complex, or conceptual. I don’t care if i have to copypaste some hexadecimal values in a grid instead of drawing lines with the mouse. The only thing that is important is : " what can I do and how long it takes ?". If the “'rendered result” is in the end exactely the same with a pianoroll ( vertical or not ), coding it in renoise is a waiste of time and energy. Because nothing surpasses the efficiency of a tracker interface. The same comments can be done for the pretty vertical audio tracks. You can add more eye candy visuals to the way samples are displayed in the pattern editor : if in the end, it sounds the same, with or without displaying soundwaves instead of cells, and if it’s not more efficient with the pattern editor as it is, you can forget audiotracks.

It does not mean that the pattern editor is perfect. And there are some situations where it does not bring the workflow I would expect from it.

One first thing that could be abit improved are " timestretching"/“pitch sifting” techniques that have to be used within the pattern editor. Okay I know I can beatslice in a granular way my samples if I create interpolated values for the Sxx command, but it has never been really intuitive, precise, and you can hear the limits of the technique when you try to slowdown samples (you can hear some stuttering microdelays). I know I can use LUA tools to timestretch / pitch shift a sample, but if the result is better, it’s not a realtime signal processing, and syncing it to the pattern/beat/tracks workflow has never been as intuitive as expected. Since renoise has become a fantastic sampler, I think that its workflow would be improved by adding some “true realtime” timestretching / pitch shifting possibilities, in it. Or, if it’s too cpu consuming, the pattern editor should have a " special warp mode", that allows you to (1) create slices in the sample perfectly aligned with pattern lines/beats, and (2) moving these special pattern based slices would timestretch correctly the sample without loosing the focus on the pattern editor. I know that it would be hard to make it, because, it deals with the sampler engine itself and the pattern editor, a PITA to modify, (the better example is the last 3.x release that took a huge amount of time).

There are core modifications of the engine okay. But if it’s too long or hard to make them, adding some DSPs and/or meta devices would not imply a modification of everything.

By the way, the list of DSPs/meta devices is not complete.

A proper multiband compressor/limiter should be created. And, let’s say that if most of the usefull DSPs allready exist, some very interesting and unique ones could be developped without breaking the tracker paradygm. I do not only speak about very complex DSPs such as Binaural / HTRF 3D sounds. We have for example the “signal follower”, for now. More interesting effects could be produced with a " spectral follower", reacting to the incoming signal from a defined band of the spectrum. And why not finally adding a " multiband spectral follower" ? Adding some realtime spectral analysis to the behaviour of some equalizers would create interesting results. There is also something that could be natively done : a " meta recorder". I mean : we can allready record sliders values in automation curves/pattern commands. Only by clicking on the right button when changing the values. But honnestly we should allow any device to record its values in automation curves too when indirectly modified by a previous device (example, a meta device), and not only when you right click on a slider.

:badteethslayer: :walkman: :badteethslayer:

159

Renoise is retarded when it comes to the very basics. That’s the problem. And I am not the only one who thinks so. In fact a bunch of people left renoise, because of this. Maybe they don’t say this loud. It’s not about tracker or not, or very special feature addons. It’s about recording and being able to quickly and precisely finetune. The basic editing.

It won’t help anybody if you guys continuously white washing this limitations and the devs put their heads into the sand. Just fix the basics.

And of course e.g. an automation next to the notes is a great workflow speedup for ANYBODY, even for you people who obviously cannot imagine such difference.

Fine, stay with your silly midi pattern commands, oh sorry you just mangling samples and never used it, because u like the static sound :stuck_out_tongue:

160

Piano roll ? I remember I’ve participated to the main suggestion thread about it, and, I’ve even drawn a few mockups, trying to imagine what it could be, to add a “vertical midi pianoroll” in renoise… But in the end, I realised that i do not really need a more “visual” or “graphical” interface. I need efficiency. I don’t care if it looks complex, or conceptual. I don’t care if i have to copypaste some hexadecimal values in a grid instead of drawing lines with the mouse. The only thing that is important is : " what can I do and how long it takes ?". If the “'rendered result” is in the end exactely the same with a pianoroll ( vertical or not ), coding it in renoise is a waiste of time and energy. Because nothing surpasses the efficiency of a tracker interface. The same comments can be done for the pretty vertical audio tracks. You can add more eye candy visuals to the way samples are displayed in the pattern editor : if in the end, it sounds the same, with or without displaying soundwaves instead of cells, and if it’s not more efficient with the pattern editor as it is, you can forget audiotracks.

You write “what can I do and how long it takes ?” and “nothing surpasses the efficiency of a tracker interface”.

I have a different opinion/perspective:

For example in a piano roll editor it’s totally quick and easy to adjust note starts and note lengths. In a tracker it’s totally cumbersome because you have to enter delay values for startpositions and OFF-position. Every note which is not a one shot trigger always needs two values: note start and note end (OFF). I agree: if you don’t leave the straight grid, just use one shot triggers all the time then the tracker approach is easy. But if you leave that path and try to use non-grid start/length variations (which makes the music much more organic and human) the tracker approach is a big disadvantage. E.g. if I want to add some groove feeling to a hihat shuffle etc. - it’s so easy to give the beat a human feeling with a piano roll editor. Think e.g. about the groove patterns/flavors in Ableton Live. Also I think that chord editing in a tracker is not as good as in a piano roll editor. Moving, transposing many note events at once is much more easier in a piano roll editor. And you can do that for note events on multiple tracks at once. In Renoise each track has to be handled seperatly, no overlays etc…

So: especially for the speed a piano roll editor would be a great addition. It has nothing to do with eye candy. It’s pure function and workflow.

161

And of course e.g. an automation next to the notes is a great workflow speedup for ANYBODY, even for you people who obviously cannot imagine such difference.

Inb4 the real piano roll?

Click to view contents

EDIT: The color theme, as requested: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/6812754/joule_best.xrnc

162

o.O Joule for president! This is a nice color scheme, can I have?

163

I understand Airmann your point of view. I’ll never say than a piano roll has not its workflow for editing recorded music. It’s “visually closer” to a “traditionnal way” of entering notes and then editing them.

I’ve got a master midi keyboard, so I understand remarks of anyone that would like to see the verticality of the pattern editor, and the midi virtual keyboard melted in a pianoroll vertical interface that makes more sense to them. Some musicians develop music with a physical interaction with an instrument (a piano is a frequent example), and even if it’s a virtual instrument that they cannot really touch like a piano, they need to keep this interaction, to compose, to imagine and finally build parts of their music.

But there are other musicians that work in a different way, they do not have a physical need with an instrument, to imagine the music in their heads. Composers sometimes, just need a score, they write their music and while they write the score, they “hear” the music in their heads. Well they need to hear it really at some point of the process. And in this particular situation, Renoise, as it is, is a kind of “interactive score” that lets you hear quickly the result. You enter notes faster and you produce fast results. Is it human or not ? Both methods are human methods ! Some are more rationnal and intellectual than others. But both are human methods.

Considering “Humanization” it has never been the main strength of a tracker, but Renoise - on this point - is one of the best to bring some pretty good workarounds. When I speak about humanization of music, I’ve got 2 things in mind (1), the humanized music input that finally creates a robotic / mechanical output - quantization of keyboard inputs is the main example of it, and (2) the humanized output of copypasted boring robotic & repetitive music.

If renoise only was able to record quantized keyboard strokes, it would NOT be my favourite tracker. But since it’s able to record notes, chords, and most of all, with “subtle delays” (remember the precision of the delay command) : honnestly I cannot complain on this point, because in the end renoise successfully grabs my litttle mistakes. And if I’m have no real humanity with the way I express my ideas with my keyboard, the groove settings, can help, also, rnd buttons, random lfos, advanced editing options, plus some tools, also, the maYbe command, all this adds a slight touch of humanity in the end.

For humanizing the music from the start, a QWERTY keyboard and a mouse, (pianoroll or not) it isn’t really my best option, anyway it’ll never be spontaneous enough. There are better instruments than a qwerty keyboard and a mouse any musician will agree ! The only way I’ve been able to add a true authentic human feeling to my tracked music FROM THE START, has been with the help of my MIDI master keyboard. Once the result is produced, I’ve got bunch of tracks with lots of delays and notes-off. Saying that a piano roll and a mouse would be better then to move notes to transpose them, than the pattern editor as it is… could be true if renoise wasn’t the beast it is in terms of editing, copypasting, moving transposing notes, instruments and parameters. Both approaches are producing the same results in the end.

What method is more efficient ? I dunno. The more I’m using a method, the more I’m efficient with it. I spent countless hours and days on renoise interface, and on cubase, and on FL, and so on… The more I use a DAW, the more I become efficient with it. It’s not sometimes a question of interface, it’s just : me. My ability to learn, to optimize the way I use things. It’s often a question or psychic reactions, habituations, motricity, memory, learning, reactivity : all human factors that taktik and the devteam won’t code.

Maybe the efficiency of a pattern edition is an illusion that comes from the fact that I have just more hours spent on a pattern editor than on a pianoroll. Finally there is no rationnal reason to use one method instead of another. Maybe a good experienced pianoroll user could go as fast as an experienced tracker boy with the pattern editing features. I’m not sure but let’s assume that it’s possible. Even if it’s possible, all that matters is music : what are the benefits for music itself ? Being able to hear faster the results I imagine and reduce the time between what I imagine and what I’ve reall got to hear in the end.

If you focus on the resulting music only, instead of focusing on production time, you can instantly see that a pianoroll has its own workflow limits too, and that it will NOT really resolve the pattern editor weaknesses, but will tend to “replace” it, with its own weaknesses … and not because it produces new musical and interesting results, but just because it’s the result of habituation of the market.

“Replacing” is not “improving”.

Improving the tracker paradygm is what renoise has tried to do from the start, for more than a decade. Adding a pianoroll on the top of it, would only resolve the question of a “niche market” but would not resolve exactly some weaknesses in its interface and workflow.

164

There are two ways, at least, to compose music, regardless of the DAW used:

  • You can start to put notes like crazy, listen to the results and based on these change it. Or…
  • You can imagine a melody without composing anything, it’s all mental. Subsequently, translate your mental idea to reality through the DAW.

In either case, any help that gets you to compose faster is welcome, of the two cases, the most effective is the second case, using your mental capacity.So this is an ongoing process, which happens throughout the entire composition. You can imagine a melody instantly, without composing it, and you need at any time that your tool (your DAW) will not stop you at all, do not brake.That is why you lose your effectiveness, your productivity.This is why some people complain about the slow workflow in some details.

Basically it does not depend on the learning ability of each person in learning and using a DAW. It is taken for granted that most of us here dominate Renoise.What is desirable is a DAW with easy learning, even for the dumbest.A DAW that does not brake at any time during the entire process of the composition.Then any visual aid or any tool that helps to speed up the process is essential. Otherwise, you find yourself losing mental melodies, because you are wasting time configuring or using a slow tool. Your head goes faster than your own tool, and that can not be.This situation occurs with any DAW. With Renoise, it happens that there are many small details that can be arranged to improve the workflow.

A striking example is the automation editor, which, combined with a visual aid that resembles the look of a pianoroll that is able to help understand automation along with the placement of notes, would greatly speed up the composing process.You do not even need a pianoroll to enter notes. A visual aid, allows you to be thinking of something else, while the view is doing its job, resulting in greater efficiency, faster, less distractions.That is why this whole thing is so important.

A composer does not want distractions, he wants work fluency. I do not want to be translating things, you want to have the free mind to be creative. The DAW should allow all this, but, it is not a good DAW.

Examples of distractions:

  • Automation editor little worked, is cumbersome.The composer becomes distracted by the editor, rather than using his mind for something else.
  • Pattern editor, with unordered notes.The composer becomes distracted by translating the notes while listening to them, when he needs to modify them. It’s another distraction. Instead of using your mind on something else.
  • Correspondence between instruments and tracks.Renoise underestimates the colors.There is no efficient and quick visual way to relate instruments to tracks. It’s another distraction.
  • Fluency in essential things.An example is the jump between patterns.Mentally, you should always analyze each pattern separately, as a portion, not as a set, because you only have control of a single pattern. The Pattern Matrix helps improve the workflow here, but still costs.
  • And back to the automation editor with the previous point. It is very cumbersome to edit pattern by pattern, knowing that you have all the parameters of the entire chain of effects at your fingertips.
  • Editing or correcting notes after using a midi keyboard.It’s all related. You can not waste time using your brain to translate things that should visually show the program itself.In the end, they are small distractions that go against your productivity.

Obviously, the more you know about your DAW, you can be more productive. But this is not the issue. If your DAW allows less distractions, you will be even less distracted. This is the subject to be discussed. In short, get to compose the same fluidly, with less time, because if you take more, you end up losing your mind, losing the melody.If you just try to try things, without a previous melody in your head, in the background you are not composing, you are trying results.In the end, you can have a composite song, but the process will be very different, and in the background you will enjoy less.

165

o.O Joule for president! This is a nice color scheme, can I have?

Oh no, a Swedish president? We can’t have that. :lol: