Instrument modulation concept

somehow it’s the same as it has been with the effects, a channel strip, kinda
i always like it because i didn’t have to think about it much. then, when in need for free routing, the send devices / any “side” concepts failed to serve my needs, mainly because i just didn’t get it, not that it wouldn’t work somewhen.
both ways have their advantages
i don’t think r3 went the wrong way, but i agree that when someone takes time to do things, the free routing concent wins by far, since, in the end it allows everything

maybe (if it’s just this and not other problems) let everything be the “channel strip-way”, and later, r4 could offer a complete different view that allows free-routing and has cables initially plugged for the default routing, like reason: front = for dummies, back = for pros?..

i’m oversimplifying, sorry

but there are already many overlapping features: e.g. you can ramp in something destructivly in the sample editor, you can use adsr, envelope, fx commands. if you’re serious about the modular system, it cannot become modular, because actually renoise would have to remove features, in order to make it maintainable and keep documentation and user experience clear?.. lately i was using zebra often and urs heckmann simply started a new product that was more modular (ace and diva, dunno). that’s another possible way for the renoise team too, i guess.

i have my velocity -> cutoff now for slightly changing big acoustic multisamples, i guess it wasn’t possible in r2 and is now in r3. r3 has improved :)

beer/chips …get the moody right …

…yes .

byte …you know what bit arts point is .
You know he has the skills to make some seriously crazy device chains …he is just pointing out that it could be better implemented in R 3.0 as it is now .

Yeah, great idea guys, let’s piss off the few people who actually know what they are talking about so that they leave the community…

We should actually rather focus on getting Renoise good on the rails here, R3 is just on Beta 2 and perhaps there may be several versions more. If bitching on each other in the wide open is a way of sorting out things for some people:now is not the right moment, please wait until R3 is final.

Btw… refering to this and the inefficient sample routing I mentioned here, this is what’s currently used in the background, when faking a single unison oscillator with just 8 notes:

  • 512 envelopes, 1024 assigned parameters, 128 envelope modulators.

when a proper concept would only need

  • 8 envelopes, 32 assigned parameters and 16 envelope modulators.

If I was going to fake a common 4 oscillator unison setup, it would be Renoise using for 8 voices

  • 2048 envelopes, 4096 assigned parameters, 512 envelope modulators

And there are still no parameters like keytracking, velocity, LFOs and so on counted in yet. So it’s quite well possible, the whole Renoise usage becomes even a multiple of the above mentionend in the end. Using a filter, there would be running 64 Filters in Renoise, on a faked Sylenth1 setup it would be 128. When actually 8 / 16 would do the same in a properly designed concept.

What a tour de force. Happy renoising! You could also use your processor from 10 years ago with some other DAW of today. The result would most probably be the same or better. Just making way more sense for editing sounds. “Some redundancy”… what a bad joke.

If I understood Bit_Arts correctly, then his main point is the exact opposite, namely that now IS the moment, because otherwise when R3 goes final, the concept will certainly not be changed again. Or did I misunderstand this?

So how does this vast amount of envelopes, parameters and modulators actually affect the CPU usage, compared to other synths then? Since Taktik seemed to mention that it should not affect CPU usage that much.

I was only speaking of the bitching part.
There is a difference between debating and ranting.

There is a lot of tears and pulled hair floating around this thread, sensation of forthcoming doom and that Renoise is being derailed by the developers.

Here, maybe it will not be that difficult to blend it into the current GUI (excuse my usage of fonts):

4433 Clipboard Image.png

He does have a point but I’m not so sure that the solution would have to break the current setup. If some sort of master modulators were added, couldn’t you just have corresponding receiver devices listed with all the others in each current modulation type? Perhaps they would be only small blank boxes when added to the target chain or maybe with only an ‘amount’ slider, or some such, and you did all other adjustment to them on their own master mod section.

In this way you could still use only the master modulations if you wanted to by selecting only ‘receiver’ devices in each target type. But you could also mix and match them with each target type’s own modulators and place them wherever in that chain as desired for different scaling and variations and such stuff.

And it wouldn’t have to break anything that currently exists.

Or, perhaps you could have some macro-like mod matrix and still have receiver devices to accept input from the mod matrix outputs instead. This wouldn’t have to be implemented in a way that would break instruments built with the current system, either.

Point is, some kind of receiver devices working with the present dedicated modulators, not instead of or against them.

That’s an interesting solution, also.

since the problem outlined by Bit_Arts, which definitely has a point if the aim is to create synths in Renoise, is that the modulation assignment works the opposite as it should be in order to be flexible, then the solution could be reversing the assignment matrix:

the current one allows to assign one modulation to any sample in the modulation tab; couldn’t we allow to assign one sample to any modulation in the sample tab? of course it may not be as easy as it seems in words, but I think it is more or less what he is asking about?

I’d keep the assignment of a modulation set to one and more samples. That’s actually something I liked in this concept. Imo “just” the relation between modulators/modulation sources and their targets needs a rework. Modulators and modulations sources would need to be available in an open pool, with a (multiple) assignment GUI for modulators, operands, value ranges and the actual sources added to the pool. That pool in the end would be the modulation set.

If there’s really will and interest to fix this NOW, and I can help somehow, let me know.

Even if i agree with bit_arts but because i make complex soundesign in vsti and then render it i dont need a renoise become a better synth so much. I take these instrument posibilities as a hocus pocus and I agree with Acidfire here also.Both ways are interesting for something else. One is more mature the second one more accessible and less predictable.
But! if Renoise wont be a synth but more inspirational sampler, make automatization of vsti more polished. There is a lot of great (and even free) software synths that have great sound and posibilities.


fully agree. unfortunately implementing more and more such sound design things makes the sequenceing interface more and more uncomfortable :(

Would you please be so kind to post a single example of this? I’d really like to see, where a single part related to sound design affects the sequencing interface. Thank you!

i have it done countless times the last days in different threads, because i’m really angry about the actual workflow in version3. i’m to lazy to search it for you, but basically its all about the new instrument/sample window, handling, position and track overlapping screen of instrument/sample window and plugin browser position.
i have detailed described the mouseclick counts and mousekilometers between 2.8 and 3 for most things i usually do in a track. pls search forum for “mousekilometers” if you care in my opinion. i leaved that complete discussion because all answeres i got sounded like from 12 years old like “fuck off” , “newer is always better” and “learn it to use”, which is simply totally bald faced.

as far as i can see as musician, soundeditor and tracker designer and programmer, the dev team have spend all afford to create those extreme expanded sample sound design interface and not spend time in composing. now the focus seems more and more in that sounddesign feature than in a track editor usability. for pple who are into instrument design its surely great, but for composers like me, its simply usuless and more uncomfortable handling.
there are also actual totally unneeded changes for example converting volume / panning sliders in number/textfields: for me a absolute no go.

to make my position more clear: i use renoise for profession, not for timewasting frickling on sounds for fun. i just spend livetime in making music to pay bills, and every step in the interface which makes that uncomfortable is a step in the wrong direction (in my eyes, you may see it different, but you may have a different usage of renoise).

I share your thoughts about mousekilometers and found the new layout still uncomfortable after dealing with it for a few days. But the truth is, that’s in no way related to the sound design features. In fact you can load your instruments and or samples without being forced into the instrument editor or any of its components at any point. Also there is nowhere anything overlapping from the instrument editor with the sequencer / pattern editor, when you don’t detach it yourself. Fact.

Ok some people here assume that renoise is not a synth, but a sampler .
A sampler is bassically a subtractive synthesizer with the exact same modulation sources and desitinations ( except pulse width, but this can be mimicked .) as in a regular subtractive synth , subtractive filtering , layering etc.
The ony diffrerence is that a sampler uses a sample as a sound source , so why not give renoise all the modulation advantages a sampler has …instead of an arcane modulation scheme .

if i detach it, the overlay window overlays the trackeditor and steel keyfocus. no fact on your side of discussion. in 2.8 the sample instrument settings are in the lower panel, and worked perfect for quickacces volume, panning, tuning. this is now totally uncomfortable, pls stop telling me that this is now same comfortable, its the total opposite, even if you say “fact” two or three times, it doesnt help.
again a thread where i forced to explain detailed the bad workflow, thats why i have written pls search byself for my threads, damn ;)/>/>
i’m out of this discussion, sorry, its a waste of time to explain that again and again and (now ) again.

btw, your signature shows that you possible dont accept different opinions ^^ thats not a good entry point for a discussion with me XD

First of all, I haven’t told a single word about “this is comfortable”. I told the exact opposite. So why are you refering to something none said? Are we reading the same things?

Then you’re telling, you detach the instrument editor, to afterwards complain about it being detached and overlayering things. Seriously, WTF? Just don’t detach it!

Your problem is a problem with a new layout and has absolutely nothing to do with any sound design features. If this layout wouldn’t contain any new features, this also wouldn’t help you a single bit. Yes, the quick access has been (re-)moved. But not because of any sound design features. So please, don’t blame totally unrelated things for your discomfort.

To me it rather seems you’re reading a lot of things none wrote.