It has revolutionised using Renoise for me, as somebody who has really wanted parallel processing natively inside Renoise for as long as I’ve been using it really. In terms of electronic music production (which is my focus) it has made sound design so much fun and really helps get creative. It’s effectively a six slot FX processor, with heavy modulation possibilities. In terms of parallel processing, you can tie slots together and make them process in parallel rather than serial - if you leave one slot free (i.e. uneffected) and then put FX in the other slot set to fully wet, you can then blend them back together with the built in per-slot volumes.
Another benefit is the free “snaps” can be used as VST3 FX and because they’re all relatively simple, they look very much like Native FX in the track FX slots. I can’t recommend it enough, I will probably go on to buy some of the paid Snap-ins but haven’t done so yet. It’s very, very good (and no, I’m not sponsored lol).
Just wanted to share, I know a lot of people want this and until we get it natively, it’s an inexpensive way to plug one of Renoise’s (IMO) major gaps.
Damn, I didn’t realize snap head was so cheap! With the sorely lacking native parallel container (aside from instrument fx routing, which can be a little cumbersome to set up), this might be a good solution. Kilohearts products are well designed, too… Might have to give it a go
Honestly I had a good sit down with it last night, I didn’t even go into the modulators above - of which there are many - mate, I was grinning ear to ear. Frequency shifting, haas effect, rhythmically pumping to a side chain and through a trance gate turned a relatively simple pad sound I created into this atonal, almost percussive element to a techno track I’m working on. It feels like it’s unlocked new levels for me personally.
I’ve been using the Khs free plugin suite to replace the default Renoise devices since they came out.
It’s definitely worth it! The effects are great, and you get everything you’ll need for a professional mix. CPU usage is also pretty low, so it works nice with Sampler FX chains for sound design.
If you can’t afford SnapHeap, it’s still worth using the Essentials bundle, which is free. Just pretend the Sampler FX chains is like SnapHeap
PS: There’s also a subscription format, which is absurdly cheap, since it includes everything Khs. It’s only $9 per month, and you get a $100 coupon to spend on licenses every 12 months.
Looks good. I just wonder what you can do with it that Renoise can’t do already. It’s probably more handy in some cases, but what else? I’ve seen this years ago and I asked myself why should someone wants to buy this?
So far, the main thing im excited about is easy parellel processing which is not available for VST instruments inside Renoise otherwise. It can of course be done inside the sampler FX chains, but not for VST instruments. The level of built in cross modulation is also a step above native DSP. Its a very good tool box for processing sound.
Im weighing up whether or not to subscribe, generally speaking it goes against my principles - but - the coupon to use on full licences every 12 months kinda makes it a deferred payment scheme in a way, with the “20% interest” being offset by having access to all of their plugins. Not sure what i think to be honest lol.
It’s not? What about using sends and FX tracks? You can have as many FX tracks as you want with as many track devices as you want (which is pretty much the same than FX chains within the sampler), and you can send the signal to any track you want. These tracks are working in parallel of course, which means you can do parallel processing within Renoise as desired. At least that’s what I always do, and I’m using VST instruments only. But maybe my stuff is too basic or I’m doing it all wrong, who knows?
For me, parallel processing means forking the signal chain, effecting one chain and keeping the other essentially dry, then recombining the audio to process together. I regularly use FX sends, but its not possible to group the return track with the original and then recombine into one (non-master) track. It can be done in the sampler but not on a VST. Happy to be proven wrong BTW, would save me the search for alternatives, well, it would have before Snap Heap.
Put 2 send devices on the instrument track (original signal).
The first one keeps the source and sends the signal to FX track A (dry), the second one mutes the source and sends the signal to FX track B (wet).
Put a send device on FX track A (dry) that mutes the source and sends the signal to FX track C (recombination).
Put a send device on FX track B (wet) that mutes the source and sends the signal to FX track C (recombination).
Adjust the balance of the dry/wet signal as desired by using the “Amount” sliders of the send devices in track A (dry) and track B (wet).
This way you’ve got the original dry signal and the wet processed signal recombined in the desired balance on a non-master track, just as you wish. Aaaaand you could also keep the signal of track A and/or B if you wish to gain more loudness in the end or if you would like also to keep the original unprocessed signal.
Btw, I agree with you in terms of the meaning of parallel processing. But for me it also means regardless of the amount of tracks (wet) that process the signal differently as desired. And personally I want the recombined signal to be on the master track.
Yes, but that’s only one option, and of course there is more. Nobody needs to tell you, because of course you already know. But honestly I’m really surprised that there’s someone thinking you can’t do parallel processing in a modern DAW like Renoise if you’re using VSTs (or anything else that’s not a sample). That needs to be corrected, because you can do everything if you know how to use it.
The method above is best if you’re using “FX track A” as an instrument bus (or if you need the wet signal to be stronger than the dry signal for some reason). But if there’s only a single instrument that you would like to process in parallel that way, you wouldn’t even need FX track A. Then you could send the dry signal from the instrument track to FX track B (wet) and C (recombination). On FX track B of course there’s also a send device that mutes the source and sends the signal to FX track C, so that in the end you’re recombining the dry and the wet signal again on a non-master track. If you would like to have the recombined signal on the master track, just like me, you wouldn’t even need FX track C (recombination). In this case just keep the source of the instrument track and send the signal to FX track B (wet), the only thing you need to do is to adjust the amoint of the signal that you’re sending to FX track B (wet). Depending on what you want to achieve you can always chose to keep or to mute the source of any send device. In any case it’s not necessary to buy a VST for processing stuff, but of course you can if you like for whatever reason.
You’re correct of course, however, the amount of Send Tracks I would accumulate to get done with what could be done with one effect (or manual parallel tracks in the mixer - @taktik plz) would be more difficult for me to parse. When I’ve mentioned neurodiverse issues in the past, I wasn’t being hyperbolic, My need for order and legibility is quite powerful. I always meant to look into VST aliasing to see if I could stick an alias onto a track and do it that way - but even RTFM-ing left me a little confused and by the time I get to sit down and make music, I’m too frazzled already to be trying something totally new that might need trouble shooting. Alas, the solution I offered and recommendation for Snap Heap was it’s simplicity and clearly legible way of working. Mercifully, there are no wrong ways to use Renoise - except maybe if you’re using it to make Country and Western music, because the world does not need any more of that. Lol.
…Until you need to use 3rd party VSTs, or until the project starts getting bigger, because you’ll most likely have CPU issues… I have a Ryzen 5 3600 (6 cores/12 threads) +16gb RAM and can barely use sends/returns normally, and let alone use them to mimick parallel processing. Groups and returns are big CPU killers in Renoise, unfortunately, and specially when using VSTs. This is where Snap Heap wins: it uses far less CPU to reach the same result, since most of the processing occurs inside the plugin, leaving less workload for Renoise itself.
Now, there’s another detail, which I cannot discuss (and take this more as a question): what about latency and phasing? Is there any? Is it noticeable?
Exactly. I like how Snap Heap concentrates your mental efforts into a single screen. Modulation is also very clever and accessible. There are no LFOs all around the screen, different devices, track routing, etc, and you can simply minimize the plugin window for better screen readability when dealing with big projects. It’s very succint, and I like this. On a side note, most Khs plugins follow this design - which I absolutely love.
I’ve got an Intel i5-9600K (6 cores) and 24 GB RAM and I’ve never ever had any issues. And I’m using a lot of 3rd party VSTs all the time, especially VST instruments, mostly around 20 per song, and this also includes CPU heavy ones like Omnisphere. But in contrary to you I don’t use groups in general, I don’t like groups. That’s why I’m using sends and FX tracks primarily. I assume that you’ve got issues because you’re using groups and primarily samples, and therefore I don’t think 16 GB is enough. But I’m the opposite of what you most likely would call a “techie”, so everything I say about specific technical issues is not guaranteed.
Personally I’ve never ever noticed any latency or phasing issues in general.
Kilohearts Phase Distortion required, but I will have a look. What’s that for?
Yes, that’s absolutely understandable (even though I don’t think using sends leads to chaos, just like you I also “need” order in any case). As I said, Snap Heap might be more convenient in some cases. But you claimed that it’s not possible to do parallel processing in Renoise if you’re using VSTs, and in fact that’s simply wrong, so I “had to” correct your incorrect statement. Luckily everyone can work in one’s preferred workflow, so no worries. It’s not wrong to use VSTs that simplify the possibilities. Everyone works differently.
Nothing against the great Ennio Morricone or Johnny Cash, my friend.
I know a lot worse styles than that. Do you know “Schlager”?
I had never heard of Schlager music before, i worry ive contaminated my YouTube algorithm overlords now and im going to have it recommended constantly. My knowledge of German is below rudimentary, although i chose to study it at school and did well, the playlist I found all sounds like Eurovision music - are the lyrics as cheesy as the music?
This would be an understatement. It’s even worse. And there’s no development in its style. No matter which decade, Schlager always sounds the same. It’s simply bad in every aspect and it’s also strongly connected to alcohol abuse.