Basically I’d like to be able to set a BPM of 112.37.
OK, one decimal precision would probably be enough. But more doesn’t hurt, right? Hell, we already have three digits for volume…
It’s not really important if you’re composing from scratch, but if you’re using some other samples(doing a remix) it might just happen that those samples use a BPM which is 112.5 or something. (Mostly it stays at .5 precision.)
I know it’s an old suggestion, but now it’s more relevant because with the definable LPB (sub-tick timing) we will actually start to use real BPM values.
good idea (i also thought about that myself).
additionally there could be an automation in the master track that allows to control the bpm… this would be very neat to do things like allentandos or accelerandos.
NO! It only encourages people to intentionally use those stupid timings and making their remixes harder. Well if it is going to be made then atleast make it hidden feature. So whenever someone comes to the forums complaining “I can’t remix this song because it’s 120.01 but renoise goes only 120!!!”, I can say: “Ha, in your face, click there, and there and you can specify the decimal value for the BPM”. But if it’s in clear plain site people start intentionally making tracks in 120.2 for example and then I wonder at the DJ desk: “I tapped 120, why the hell does it drift out of sync!!”
Sub-bpm timing sucks big time.
It usually exists because some equipment is not capable of being as precise as they should be. In the later time, these type of options got implemented to synchronize better to other hosts or devices. I would only support this suggestion in this specific situation. And i would also only allow sub-bpm timing to be applied when adjustment is required thus not at user’s will.
I really don’t understand this? There have been plenty of times I’ve wanted to use 118.5 bpm or whatever for lots of different reasons. Maybe the track feels better at that speed, or some rhythmic melodic samples need to be at that speed to stay in tune, or whatever. Limiting people to integer-only BPMs is a nonsense if you ask me.
If i have to use sequenced samples that are out of sync, i process them to get them in sync but usually i’ld rather produce my own sequenced samples which is just a personal choice.
“118.5 BPM Feels better” is for me no valid reason to have an option to add decimals to the BPM box.
Timing issues with other plugins or devices is, but not the complete solution if one plugin in a song would be playing at 118.2BPM and another in the same song at 118.7bpm.
I really don’t see a problem, and I don’t understand why people actually need a reason for something like this to be implemented, obviously most people will make music with regular values 140, 170 etc, but why not allow people who need to use more precise setting to do so ? You can set bpm in this way in cubase, logic, reason etc…
I don’t think it would be any trouble doing so in renoise, and questioning people’s motives for doing it is lame, it’s like asking, why making a song on 87bpm and not 90 …
of course I assume that people would use such precise setting mostly for technical problems i doubt any aesthetic difference between 89.9 and 90 bpm
i have experienced some situations were decimal-bpm were necessary,
and would like to have this feature. actually when i think of it, this would solve the issue I have with a bunch of ol’ FtII tracks, which of many uses one-bar drumloops; opening these tracks in renoise now makes it neccessary to adjust the tuning for each of these loops to make it “fit” in renoise time. I know this is because the timing in Ft2 were not “globally correct”, so that’s why it don’t get right in Renoise now.
With decimals i could VERY easily fix all those tracks
however, i guess nobody would need the DECIMALS to be controlled by pattern commands, so that would save taktik some work.
Can you post some of your reasons?
Because I can not see any sense in having this kind of detailed bpm. If there is a loop of 118.5 out of sync, and you have 118 bpm, just pitch the loop and fit it to 118. This is really no problem and the pitching is very very hardly to hear in this 0.xx bpm level… an other method would be to split the loop with 9xx.
Other reasons except adjusting loops I just could not figure out.
I don’t question all reasons for decimal positions.
If this is because some rythmic elements sound out of sync, the reason for me sounds valid enough, if it is just because “it feels better” than that is an idea i personally call nonsense.
Folks want to explore areas between the known figures as with multi-scale tones that fit in between the usual 12 tones in one octave, i give credits for that idea.
Tempo is just tempo in a pace. Arpeggiating between 87 and 90 bpm would cause a more interesting results than having a fixed 88.3 bpm rate.
Pitching VST/AU plugins is very hard (read:impossible) to perform using the ordinary Renoise commands. In these cases, decimals in the bpm field would be the only solution if the plugin does not support this on its own.
though if you have other plugins with different and multiple arbitrary bpm-rates you would probably need a pitchshifter or timestretcher anyway.
Well I made a few tracks in Cubase at fractional BPMs, it seemed like a good idea at the time I suppose. I guess there isn’t really a very noticable aesthetic difference between 120 and 119.5.
But suppose you had to make a track that was exactly 47 seconds long for a video project… or you wanted to make some rhythmical music that could be synced with some video and each beat always fell exactly on a frame, with a video framerate of 23.98 fps.
when you want to improvise a live sync with the previous artist on stage before doing your own set and when you want to do a manual sync with an old non-midi instrument which has a weird bpm (first version of the tb 303… old yamaha synths etc)
and mainly when you have to make music on an funk acapella from 1974
what about having a little “BPM Finetuning” thingie under Song Settings, instead of having them visible the traditional way?
I think it easliy could belong here, as it kind of hit the same detailed level as the TPL box.
I pretty much hate coming across fractional BPM. I’m not one of those freaks that think “Ok look, this is D&B so it needs to be 175bpm”, and i pretty much completely disagree with Suva’s argument that we need to reject the idea of decimal points because it makes DJing harder (come the hell on dude, i mean what the fuck).
But the actual difference in tempo when you go into decimals is extremely subtle, to the point where i’m not convinced they have real utility. As for making music fit exactly to a certain length; there are killer timestretching algorithms out there for this kind of minute adjustment. I hate involuntary artifacts of timestretching as much as anyone, but if you’re adjusting within a second or so, you’re not in as much trouble as some would have you think. Live is a good package for this kind of adjustment.
My workflow when i’ve been given acoustic tracks for a remix have been to try and set up a perfect loop in Live, and then round off the BPM and let Live stretch it to fit before rendering out the results.
There are tools for getting around this.
I guess my point is that for my .2$, i haven’t heard enough arguments for spending the effort on it. Yeah.
i use bpm shuffles on every other 2 notes and would like to set finer bpm times than merely intergers… we would need both : 1. bpm able to be set to a 1 or 2 decimal point range and… 2. an extended fine tuning to bpm codes ( f0xx ) so the decimal can be set in a seperate code ( ffxx ) or whatever…
Even if (if!) we agree that timestretching or pitchshifting are not noticeable it’s still sucks having to use other programs/workarounds for something as basic as syncing the tempo.
I mean… using Live (or whatever) for timestretching just because Renoise can’t do decimal precision BPM?!
I’m not saying it’s urgent, I won’t be mad if this doesn’t make it into 2.0. But it would be pretty nuts IMO, if this feature was not on a to-do list for Renoise.