The main point is:
this is exactly what I’m trying to understand since the first time I’ve seen a pianoroll
keyboard-based pianoroll, like the one Martinal is developing, would surely be better than the mouse-based ones, but I still can’t imagine any use for it with MY style of music composition.
who knows, maybe I’ll be going to change my mind about it, but this would mean that I should change my way of composing again, after having done it to take advantage of VST world.
maybe I’m getting too old to change again… we will see anyhow
but but but… i don’t wish renoise to become bloatware ya… not too many options - just the most highly requested for ones are enough. 3rd generation and stuff is good… but we don’t want to bog the software down. and don’t want AOL or whatnot to come in as well…
I don’t really need a pianoroll right now because I want to do other kinds of music then only piano music…
As already said many times, 1.5 will not have a pianoroll.
wow… 1.3 is not even out yet and you already know that 1.5 won’t have it… maybe we should continue this discussion in two years
As also said many times 1.3 was renamed to 1.5 because there were so many updates…
ah, i missed that, sorry then.
that leads to the question: is there a special defined correlation between updates and version number incrementing, or is it more made after feeling?
Yes. But if you take a look at the time between earlier releases, you see that 1.5 is natural from that point of view as well.
ah ok, just been curious., really didn’t want to accuse you of too fast number incrementing
i don’t see the connection between aol and innovative modern features in a tracker, sorry.
no NO…Renoise is already as modular as for example Buzz. The only difference is that you don’t have a graphic view, but tracks and sendchannels…But the function is exactly the same…
You can send one generator(track) to any amount of sendtracks, which can recive left,rigt or booth channels. They can in turn send the sound to any amout of other sendtracks…
You can also automate, put lfo’s and draw envelopes on how much that should be sent!
well yes… you are right of course…
still i think you are more limited in renoise than for example buzz simply because dealing with all those send channels can get very messy at a certain point. it’s getting a jungle, hard to keep overview, and therefor is timeconsuming and unintuitive at a certain level of complexity.
…Ehm… errrr, yes I can, but I stilll have some problems with rewire. Let me fix them and then I’ll open a thread to explain how it works step by step…
look at icq. destroyed by unnecessary features and ads. someone took a decent IM and turned it into something… terrible. look at winamp3… (that’s my opinion anyway)
more innovative and modern features are good… too many will fatten the program and slow it down. i don’t want to track on a million-dollar THz machine.
aol was just a negative example (can’t be that far off, can i?).
I don’t agree.
Can you make such a thing in Renoise:
Take a stereo signal and
put a flanger on the left channel, phaser on the right
compress the phaser, EQ the flanger, combine them both in a distortion, but also send the unprocessed signla to a chorus effect, which left channel will be EQed again and the right - distorted, then ,take it all into master finally.
In Renoise the only thing you can do is to deivide the signal from a channel into a few and then they all combine in the master. Nothing more. In Buzz you can divide any signal, from any source into as many as you want, combine any of them in any place… It’s incredible. That’s why I still run this program from time to time. It would be great to
I guess it could be done, but it would be a mess. For each split you send 1 track to 2 send tracks. For each merge you send 2 tracks to 1 send track. Apply the effects and pannings before the send track devices or on the send tracks.
Modular routing would of course be much better, but your example is not impossible to do in Renoise.
but it would have been alot easier with a modular editing frontend. at the same time i think that the mindset that you have to operate on when you’re figuring out stuff like this in a tracker is a more global perspective on the relationships between the different components.
the main thing that makes it difficult is having to improvise the panning controls (a pan device would be useful and a send terminator (i had to use gainers @ 0%). i also had to use a low delay flanger for the chorus. but if you incorporated some devices that allow you more routing options in the fx/send stacks, i might actually like it better than one of those damn line drawing thingies. and i definitely don’t think you should throw away UI resources on a stupid phony patch jack UI with “realistic looking” cords.
Than do it. I am sure you won’t be able to do most of the things that can be done in Buzz. Playing with sends is one of my favourite plays when I’m on Renoise and I am sure my example is impossible to do.
Infact it would be possible if the sends could be sent to other sends…