How to attract more people into tracking?

General Discussion
21

There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding of the situation here

Renoise is a Tracker, it is just a Tracker, nothing else

Trackers are popular with people on or from Amigas and Atari (Yes there are lots of other variants, but heavily Amiga and a fair bit Atari too)

Now if we consider this, Renoise has a very small audience it can reach out to, lets look…

Hardcore Amiga heads - They will use an Amiga to do their tracking even if it costs them $3000 to buy some garbage out of date computer being sold as hi tech.

Hardcore Atari heads - Actually there seems to be very few people left tracking on Atari nowadays, but there are still a ton using Cubase (Ewwww Piano roll, shoot him)

Hardcore Tracker heads - A lot of these guys are using Renoise now, some updated to 3/3.1, some are just too ‘l33t’ for that and they continue to ‘pwn’ 2.8 everyday, what is even funnier still, if the developers did “sell out” and actually dare to make money off their hard work by adding in a linear arranger and piano roll (Shoot him in the face, he said it twice) they would just stop buying in to Renoise, because it would no longer be a “real” tracker.

Hardcore Music Heads - This is the money pit right here, right now Renoise is not very attractive at all to these guys, when a wheel is a wheel it is a wheel, Piano Roll is a wheel (Shoot his face, then feed it to me, he said it three times) linear arranger is a wheel, when something is right it is right, some come on board and have a little flirt “Hmmm, this thing never ever crashes, The sampler and effects are OK for the money (Yes OK, not great, not special, we live in the age of some very special VST plugins that cost very very little) and this tracker stuff is quite interesting” this is boredom, nothing more, and after a few weeks maybe a couple of months they go back to their wheels, the piano roll and linear arranger (OK that is four times, I want him dead, I want his family dead, I want everybody he ever met, dead !!!) the amount of times i hear on every other forum “Yeah i have a licence for that, used it a bit, but after a while, you know”

Now, while you may convinced yourself that Tracking is uber powerful and micro editing heaven, reality is that the world has moved on some what, pretty much every daw on the planet can now micro edit at the sample level (Yep the most accurate you can be) and do everything that a tracker can do, there is nothing a tracker can do that a linear or even pattern based DAW can not do, but a hell of a lot more that they can do, that a tracker can’t (OK some Trackers added audio tracks, but still, even they had limited linear editing capability)

So in reality, Renoise has very little future in terms of huge userbase or big influx of capitol, and while that may annoy you, it is actually non of your damn business, the developers make their choice and they run with it, they released Redux, personally i would/have suggested that the next thing they do is spin off all the effects in a single package for say $20-30, this would sell like hotcakes, and lets be clear here, once you have Renoise effects and Redux in a Linear host, well Renoise begins to look like a very very poor second choice to work in, take this one step further and spin Renoise sequencer off as a step sequencer that when you load Redux in to it works like Renoise itself, and have the Renoise effects too, all in a Linear DAW, that is one serious serious toolkit, but doubtful that will happen.

This thread is actually a perfect example of everything i am saying, look how busy the forum is, it is near enough dead around here, but start a thread and suggest tracking is not the be all and end all, or that piano roll (OK this fker is taking the ps, blow up the entire planet, aaaah aaaah aaaah aaaah) or linear arranger are the only things that would make Renoise interesting to most people, bam, you have a busy thread hahaha.

22

misunderstood, nevermind…

23

Market appeal is a matter of two things. Interface and technical capabilities. I think Renoise is absolutely great for being a tracker but these are some issues that I can think of, where it’s lacking in comparison to a standard DAW. Whether Renoise should try to compete with these is another question. These are some points that I’ve noted, and I’m sure there are others:

Interface issues:

1A) Lack of negative delays makes visual representation suboptimal in some cases.

1B) An alternative to tracker view would sometimes be more suitable, especially on live recording. A tracker view is visually “quantized” all the time, with a very strange “rounding” principle.

1C) The interface is different to the traditional, which in itself is a factor creating a threshold.

  1. Lack of waveform visualization and control in the master timeline (audiotracks).

  2. Hex numbers (?)

Technical issues:

  1. Lack of sidechaining (an instant dealbreaker for many producers).

  2. Lack of properly implemented support for midi generators (multiple channels. minor detail but not something that “should” be lacking).

Conclusion: Yes. Aside from some “minor details”, it pretty much comes down to the Renoise timeline having a limited and sometimes suboptimal interface. It’s a great one to have, but quite difficult to rely solely on. Being used to trackers, that’s not how I feel, but still that’s what my analysis is saying.

24

Market appeal is a matter of two things. Interface and technical capabilities. I think Renoise is absolutely great for being a tracker but these are some issues that I can think of, where it’s lacking in comparison to a standard DAW. Whether Renoise should try to compete with these is another question. These are some points that I’ve noted, and I’m sure there are others:

Interface issues:

1A) Lack of negative delays makes visual representation suboptimal in some cases.

1B) An alternative to tracker view would sometimes be more suitable, especially on live recording. A tracker view is visually “quantized” all the time, with a very strange “rounding” principle.

1C) The interface is different to the traditional, which in itself is a factor creating a threshold.

  1. Lack of waveform visualization and control in the master timeline (audiotracks).

  2. Hex numbers (?)

Technical issues:

  1. Lack of sidechaining (an instant dealbreaker for many producers).

  2. Lack of properly implemented support for midi generators (multiple channels. minor detail but not something that “should” be lacking).

Conclusion: Yes. Aside from some “minor details”, it pretty much comes down to the Renoise timeline having a limited and sometimes suboptimal interface. It’s a great one to have, but quite difficult to rely solely on. Being used to trackers, that’s not how I feel, but still that’s what my analysis is saying.

Just because of curiosity…

What kind of delay do you mean @ 1A)? Negative delay per note? per pattern?

@ 1B) It’s kinda ok that it records the corresponding delay effects, down to row/256 or so. But this is too hard to edit. It’s cool to quantize by deleting a selection in an effects column. But the workflow is not at the point of “genericity” like some DAWs offer, with position rounding, groove temples or so. Btw. stretching a selection of notes (FL Studio Warp) with arbitrary factors is cool, simply because one might have recorded in the wrong tempo.

25

Just because of curiosity…

What kind of delay do you mean @ 1A)? Negative delay per note? per pattern?

@ 1B) It’s kinda ok that it records the corresponding delay effects, down to row/256 or so. But this is too hard to edit. It’s cool to quantize by deleting a selection in an effects column. But the workflow is not at the point of “genericity” like some DAWs offer, with position rounding, groove temples or so. Btw. stretching a selection of notes (FL Studio Warp) with arbitrary factors is cool, simply because one might have recorded in the wrong tempo.

I was referring to negative note delays. This would be a quick fix for the lack of connection between meaning and visual input. An obvious example of this flaud is seen when humanizing a track, or when recording midi live.

And yes, the traditional clip structure allows for some nifty editing, especially compared to the limitations implied by the pattern boundaries in a tracker.

26

Was browsing youtube and wonder what the **** iz that --> ??? roll ?

troll.jpg

27

It’s a tool the you can find in recent posts in the tools section.

28

Pianotrolling B)

29

Hex numbers are nerd’s world. It needs to be replaced with graphics, bars or whatever.

What they always fear is the excel table. That looks to nerdish and is nerdish.

So, all those folks who composed music in the past on trackers were nerds? :wink:

Bungle was right. Renoise is a tracker and it’s managed to stay pretty faithful to it’s tracker roots while adding some “21st century” capabilities. It’s not Reaper. It’s not FL Studio, it’s not < insert modern DAW here>. Nor should it be. Renoise is unique and it attracts people who compose music uniquely. If that means mastering the “excel table”, oh well. Not everyone wants to click n drag in a piano roll.

BTW, I’m one of those geeks (Not a nerd, there’s a difference. Nerds wear pocket protectors. ) who built complex computational systems using text scripts, hex and the command line BEFORE there was a graphical UI. Yeah, I’m THAT old. :slight_smile:

Cheers.

30

I just don’t get some answers in here. How exactly would the addition of a piano roll affect those who are not going to use it?

That’s like complaining about the inclusion (not as default!) of a colour theme you don’t like.

31

I just don’t get some answers in here. How exactly would the addition of a piano roll affect those who are not going to use it?

I don’t think it’s about the piano roll per se. It seems to be a convenient focal point, an “example” of a feature that Renoise “needs” to entice more people to try it. To make it “friendlier” as it were to folks to whom the hex oriented interface is too daunting. Or inconvenient. Or unfamiliar. Or, well, something … :unsure:

Cheers.

32

There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding of the situation here
Renoise is a Tracker, it is just a Tracker, nothing else

Bungle was right. Renoise is a tracker and it’s managed to stay pretty faithful to it’s tracker roots while adding some “21st century” capabilities. It’s not Reaper. It’s not FL Studio, it’s not < insert modern DAW here>. Nor should it be. Renoise is unique and it attracts people who compose music uniquely.

What makes the two of you Renoise-gods?

From the Renoise Website:

_Renoise is a Digital Audio Workstation (DAW) with a refreshing twist. It lets you record, compose, edit, process and render production-quality audio using a tracker-based approach.

In a tracker, the music runs from top to bottom in an easily understood grid known as a pattern. Several patterns arranged in a certain order make up a song. Step-editing in a pattern grid lends itself well to a fast and immediate workflow. On top of this, Renoise features a wide range of modern features: dozens of built-in audio processors, alongside support for all commonly used virtual instrument and effect plug-in formats. And the software can be extended too: with scripting, you can use all of your MIDI or OSC controller to control it in exactly the way you want.

Whether you’re an audio veteran or just starting out, Renoise is a fantastic addition to any bedroom or professional studio._

Renoise is not “just a tracker” .
nuff said.

33

I just don’t get some answers in here. How exactly would the addition of a piano roll affect those who are not going to use it?

That’s like complaining about the inclusion (not as default!) of a colour theme you don’t like.

Except that time spent adding and maintaining code for [feature I have no use for] detracts from time spent adding and maintaining code for [feature I really want]. As well as detracting from time spent maintaining/improving existing features.

Something I’ve come to believe from my time spent doing software development: Every feature means a bug report.

It’s not an argument for or against a piano roll, but whatever code has to be written to add whatever new feature will carry heavier dev costs than a new color scheme.

The more features added, the longer the release cycle.

34

Dear Renoise Devs, you guys rock. Keep up the great work. <3

1 Like
35

Picture this: in the year 2020, someone posts a thread stating: “if only Renoise would add a piano roll and horizontal arranger, more people would use it.” Dozens of people reply back and forth, arguing for and against these features. Renoise still does not have them.

If only there were a way to disable “loop mode” on forum conversations…

36

Picture this: in the year 2020, someone posts a thread stating: “if only Renoise would add a piano roll and horizontal arranger, more people would use it.” Dozens of people reply back and forth, arguing for and against these features. Renoise still does not have them.

If only there were a way to disable “loop mode” on forum conversations…

OP has a good point. I think Fsus4 is thinking in the same way as I do:
I love this product and I love making music with it. But I am afraid as hell this “project” will be dead within a few years because the “expose” /“status” of this software is too little. I’ve seen it happening with “Sony Acid”.
I love that sofware too.

Read here;
It’s been nearly 6 years since Sony has released any updates for this product

Please don’t let this happen to Renoise :frowning:

37

What makes the two of you Renoise-gods?

Please, no deity worship …

Renoise is not “just a tracker” . nuff said.

In a tracker, the music runs from top to bottom in an easily understood grid known as a pattern. Several patterns arranged in a certain order make up a song. Step-editing in a pattern grid lends itself well to a fast and immediate workflow.

If It walks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck … it’s a duck.

Look, I’m not here to argue semantics. I think Renoise is a first rate piece of software and I enjoy using it. However, it’s still a quacker, er, tracker. I’m content to leave it at that.

Cheers.

38

What makes the two of you Renoise-gods?

Stuff and stuff

Renoise is not “just a tracker” .
nuff said.

So what else is it ?

A car ?

A swimming pool ?

Maybe a holographic projection of superman with a kipper jammed up his arse ?

Are you for real ?

First you ask who made who gods, what the hell (See what i did there) has to do with anything in a Renoise forum i will never know, take you religious pandering and shove it right where the sun don’t shine, I am nothing god like, don’t even want to be compared to a god pfft

Then you state something so stupid it really doesn’t need answering, but hey, I am not a god, I have my faults, and one of them is putting plums in their correct order, so…

Renoise is not just a tracker, it is a linear arranger, it is a pattern based clip performance tool, it is…actually wait, no its a damn tracker, and while it is the best tracker ever developed in my ungodlike opinion, it is a guess what, go on, i know you know the answer, yes you got it, it’s a damn tracker, just a damn tracker.

Oh and your lack of knowledge of anything surrounding Sony/Sonic Foundry is staggering, you actually believe there is any comparison in this situation and that, OK lets take a wee look…

Sonic Foundry, some great software, some terrible management, and bam they are screwed

Sony steps in and saves the day, Musicians rejoice but wait, Sony where quite open about the fact that they wanted Vegas technologies, they had no interest in Acid at all.

Sony then uses the next bunch of releases to gauge interest and sales, turns out, people wanted Vegas, People wanted Sound forge, and at a consumer level people wanted a cutdown Acid, very few people wanted the updates that came with Acid, they complained and moaned, every time an update more moans even less updaters, and Sony unofficially pulled the plug on Acid development (By the way i was working with a few folk at Sony at the time, this is exactly how it went down)

Compared to

A couple of part time developers who actually release rarely, but release a product that is actually pretty damn stable, and does what it says on the tin, there is no financial issues as far as we are aware well other than the imaginary ones the forum keeps inventing, there has been zero mention of any other company stepping in to buy them out, and we are all pretty certain that although development is very very slow, the developers actually do still have interest in the product.

Yeah you have seen it all before, definitely the same type of situation.

39

Guys, easy. You can’t put everything into something just to please everybody. Not gonna happen.

Also at some point this scenario is the most likely:

That voyage will end up like a huge bloated thing a.k.a. Cubase which people are happily jumping ship for lean and clean stuff

which even eventually spawns other companies rapid sucess (a.k.a. Studio One)

Second: You will loose part of your core user base. Especailly which is that hardcore like the Renoise Core-User Base is.

That’s just more than likely when you put in more and more stuff that the core user base is not interested in. You’ll never want to loose your core user base unless you give less than a sh** about them.

What I dont think is gonna happen.

Third: Most of the “Newbies” and amateurs theese days want everything as simple as possible, with as less effort as needed and are completely drag’n’drop orientated.

And they loooove colorful stuff with biiiiiig buttons. (a.k.a. Bitwig and other new DAWS on the block.)

And whats up lately with all the graphical plugin pickers that have all the nice little pictures coming up “cloned” from FL Studio lately.

And look what Apple has done to Logic. The “new” (<–LOL) compressor fills now nearly half of my screen man, thats f****n’ stupid!)

Best for them would be something like an electronic music auto-pilot so they need to do as less as possible. And everything so big, that a three year old can hit that button.

For Renoise that would mean to get rid of the whole tracker interface alltogether, because you’ll never get theese guys to remember even 10 keycommands

or god-forbid typing something in instead of draggin stuff around.

Just look at that joke here, new DAW that was presented on NAMM this year:

https://lumit-audio.com/

Thing looks as its coming out straight of a chewing-gum-machine… But multi-touch and stuff, and, you know…biiiig buttons…

You see, you don’t want to be Renoise a Jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none kind of thing. You also don’t want Renoise being dumbed-down to draw in theese

“I-mix-loops-I-bought-in-Ableton, so I must be a producer” kinda guys or just to appeal to the “mass”, cause the “mass” wants their stuff as dumbed down as possible.

Especially not Renoise. If that ever would happen you’ll end up very very disappointed.

(BTW: In my book most DAW Software is developed at such a high quality at this point that it simply doesnt matter if its gonna be further developed or not.

You have everything you need and more. More than enough thats needed to make a high quality record. Even if the software was stopped being developed years ago…)

40

I’d reconsider taking in pattern zoom.

Delay column = cool, happy with it

Renoise LPB = ok

“BPL” (Buzz) = freaky

Zoom = totally superior to LPB/BPL global settings. I don’t want to shrink/stretch the whole song at some point, though, maybe this would work, but … what’s wrong about being dumb and lazy?..I’m the user, considered to buy something… :wink:

http://www.audio-simulation.com/downloads/DS2DemoInstall_R002.exe <- Pattern Zoom

And Revisit has it apparently, too, but I’ve never used it.

F1xx <- no… please. Brainoverfow.