My Renoise Song Template

Here’s a stripped down version of my song template.
Download XRNS: shockbroker template.xrns (6.5 KB)


3rd party plugins has been stripped out such as EQs on most tracks and SEND TRACKS are filled with reverb and delays.
… Check out my music while you’re at it :wink:


Cool man :slight_smile:
here’s my template:
126 template.xrns (556.6 KB)
check out my music too :upside_down_face:


Amazing use of native effects… did you strip any 3rd party effect plugins?

What do you use the TUNING track for?

Your music sounds great, all mixed very well.

1 Like


Mixing is a never-ending struggle for improvement, imo, so, really glad to hear if you think it sounds decent!

I don’t use any non-native fx in mixdown or mastering, usually… Although they do sometimes work their way into sound design/instrument building.

The TUNING track is just to offer a reference frequency if I need it. Sometimes I will work around a specific frequency for neural oscillation (aka “brainwave”) entrainment effects, i.e. 40Hz gamma-wave, especially with healing music, and sometimes in harmonic psytrance as well. I use a lot of native synthesis, and often my starting waveforms are inharmonic/noise-based or vary in fundamental tuning, so it can be useful to have a reference against which to tune by ear, especially when the music is harmonically oriented. A lot of what I do is pretty atonal/timbre-driven, so I don’t always end up using the tuning track, but it’s definitely handy to have a dedicated track for it when I need it!


I just have changed my template and implemented mid/side processing. I’m sure it’s still not perfect yet, but it’s getting there from time to time. At the moment it includes New York compression, rear bus technique and mid/side processing. Here it is: TNT template.xrns (13.3 KB)
There are a few non native devices in the master track (GMonoBass, GClip, Weiss MM1 and SPAN) and a non native VU meter in the kick track. Merry xmas! :wink:


cool, thanks for sharing :slight_smile: What is the rear bus technique and how do you use it?

Shouldn’t you move the Weiss limiter last in the master chain just to be sure?

I like the narrow compact look, I tried go for that too but always ended up expanding pretty much all the FX columns anyway.

It’s a technique originally by Andrew Scheps. There are plenty of videos about it on Youtube. The goal is to get a better balanced mix. You send everything except the drums to a bus track (in my template I call it IB which stands for instrument bus). From there you keep the signal and send it to another track which is compressed in dual mono mode. Dual mono mode means the left and right side of the signal is getting monoized and compressed separately. This way softer parts of the sound appear more in front if dominating or louder parts of the sound are getting more soft or disappear. Unfortunately there is no compressor which features dual mono mode in Renoise, so I had to simulate dual mono mode. I did it this way:

  1. Create two more FX tracks (RL and RR, which stands for rear left and rear right)
  2. Put a Stereo Expander in mono in RL and select Mono Mix L
  3. Put a Stereo Expander in mono in RR and select Mono Mix R
  4. Put compressors with the exact same settings both in RL and RR (slow attack)
  5. Put two send devices (S1 and S2) in IB, S1 is panned hard left and S2 hard right
  6. S1 sends the signal to RL and S2 sends the signal to RR

So if I’m right this way works as described and expected, but if I’m wrong please tell me.

The Weiss Maximizer is the end of the chain. :slightly_smiling_face:
As you can see the Stereo Expander in mono and SPAN are deactivated. I just need them to check while mixing. Stereo Expander for mono mixing, SPAN for a more detailed curve than the spectrum can deliver. But when the song is finished I always kick them out.

I just have noticed one little issue with mid/side processing. If you’re mid/side processing, panning instruments hard left or right kinda sucks. There’s always the mid track (monoized signal) audible, too. And that’s because of the Stereo Expander in the signal splitting chain, which is needed for the split:

So if you want an instrument to be 100% panned hard left or right, you should process it separately without mid/side processing. At least I don’t know any other solution. Let me know if you know more than me. Thanks.

Edit 2:
There’s still no solution for the panning problem, so I changed my template again. I now splitted the IB in IB (instrument bus) and MS (Mid/Side). Instead of 100% Mid/SIde processing I’ll blend it in and keep the original signal. This way panning is clearer, but it’s still not possible to pan hard left or right and get 100% panning. Besides of that I changed the settings of the stereo expanders processing the side signals L, M and H.
TNT template.xrns (13.4 KB)

The question is:
Is there a solution for the panning issue? Is it technically possible to have Mid/Side processing AND being able to pan instruments hard left and right? What do you think, @Jek ? You’ve got the same problem for sure, I checked your xrns again. :wink:


I’m going to check into this as well. I don’t have M/S set up in the mixer rn, but I noticed your side isolation method differs somewhat from mine. Will check the panning issue and get back :metal:

1 Like

Yep you’re right @TNT, for stereo LCR panning it is best to add a track outside the group sending to m/s.

1 Like

Thanks, that’s what I thought. Therefore I’ll keep my current template for now, which means I keep the original signal and I’ll blend the mid/side processed signal in. In the end there’s both of both worlds. But in my opinion panning stuff is more important than mid/side processing, so the original signal is preferred. I’m thinking about using mid/side processing only for specific instruments like snare, percussions or some pads/strings, as long as these instruments are not significantly panned. I assume this is the best way for mid/side processing by this method.

Thanks! Let me know if contrary to expectations you can enlighten this case. :+1:


Yeah, I’m not having any issues with hard L/R pans using my mid/side setup… but I just checked in instrument fx. Don’t see why it wouldn’t be different in track sends, tho.
try using this doofer for your side extraction and see if it makes a difference for you
UTIL - SIDE isolation.xrdp (3.6 KB)

yes, this is how I use it, but in individual instrument fx chains. If you’re ok w rendering to samples, this might be the ticket. Although I could imagine wanting to M/S process the whole mix, too… I’ve just never done that yet :upside_down_face: I really wish we had multiple fx chain available in doofers, would make it super simple to drop M/S processing into any track, regardless of sample vs vst sound source

@taktik is there any chance of this functionality (and ideally, modulation input/output as well) being added to doofers in a future release? Would be a HUGE power-up for renoise, and would rival Ableton’s fx racks, and to some extent bitwig’s grid. Just my unasked-for entitled opinion, lol

here’s a link to the whole M/S instrument fx chain setup: Native Mid / Side Processing - #32 by slujr


I don’t know how to use this doofer. I don’t even know how to create a doofer.
So where to put this doofer and how to use it? Is there a manual for doofers? :wink:

No way! That’s the opposite of what I want to do. I will never use samples again. :slightly_smiling_face:

this doofer isolates the side signal from any stereo audio stream. put it in your signal flow where you want that to happen. Looks to me like you’re using a gainer with both L and R channels phase inverted to do this job, so, perhaps replace those with this doofer.

there’s a section on doofers in the manual :upside_down_face:

sounds like a needless self-imposed limitation to me, but I understand all about that. That’s my bread and butter, lol :upside_down_face:

here’s a simple version in track sends. hard pans seem to be no problem…
M:S simple.xrns (3.9 KB)

the disadvantage to doing it in track sends is that every instrument you send to M/S processing will be processed in the same way, so doing it in instrument fx chains seems a lot more flexible, imo

Oops, I see that the send device after the MID device on the MID track is unnecessary and can be deleted, since it’s a send track already and will sum to the master channel

1 Like

Thanks for your effort, but it seems I can’t handle it.

I did, but nothing happened. And the signal is getting nowhere. I would like to send the side signal from “MS” to the side track, which splits the signal again into lows, mids and highs. In your example you’re sending the signal both from the track called “split” to “mid” and “side”, but without splitting it before in a chain. When I use a sample in track 1 there’s something happening in the mid track, but the side track keeps silent without getting any signal. It doesn’t seem to work or I’m kinda stupid.

Thanks, I didn’t know that the manual contains doofers.

Haha, not really. :grin:
I know that you know that I still use samples, but only drums. And I used all kinds of instruments in the form of samples for not less than 20 years. But I really appreciate the possibilities and the sound of using synths aka VSTs. In my opinion there is no disadvantage, but a lot of advantages.

1 Like

Here, try this :slight_smile:
TNT template.xrns (13.5 KB)

It’s your template, but swapped out with the side isolation utility

let me know if it works as intended, or also, if it doesn’t!

I see that the side isolation method that you (and @Jek, presumably, too) were using uses a stereo send summed with a dual phase inverted send, which works, but apparently causes issues when there isn’t information on both channels. I dunno, I haven’t fully wrapped my brain around it.

Hopefully this solves the hard panning problem, though, and lets us all get back to working on MBC 14 :smiley_cat:

1 Like

Actually my contribution for MBC is finished, I’m already mixing. :wink:
I just think that maybe I could add some more background stuff. Let’s see…

Thanks for the modification of my template, it’s much appreciated! It looks clean and the split works great. Panning is still an issue. In the end it’s quite the same result as before, only the sound while panning differs a little bit. I think I’ll use mid/side processing only for specific instruments. So I have one last modification to do…

Yes, and I have to think about the method gainer inverse R, mono, gainer inverse R and why this works, too. :slightly_smiling_face:

1 Like

here’s my current template :slight_smile:
updated with rear bus, and mid/side, and a number of other changes :upside_down_face:
zen template 1.23.xrns (103.6 KB)


Glad my template has inspired you to create a new template. Now it’s proven that a person who wants everything to be as simple as possible can inspire someone who’s working as a sound scientist and who’s researching in his laboratory all day long. :wink:

At first sight your template is a mess with all those groups, but it’s very logical and actually well built. You did some preparatory work so you don’t need to add that much tracks and effects while composing, and seemingly you want to maximize everything to the max (there’s a maximizer in every track). And it’s “live act ready”. Do you always use what you’re calling “chain verb”? That’s a reverb with a “sidechain effect”, right? What does the convolver do? I’ve never used a convolver, but as far as I know it’s another kind of reverb and/or delay, right? I’ve also noticed that you’re using the “bus compressor” only, just like I use the “compressor” only. So I’m curious. Why do you prefer the “bus compressor”? The bus compressor cannot be used as a limiter if necessary. Have you checked the waves after compression? Is the bus compressor “better” than the “compressor”? Or is there no specific reason? And why do you have 4 bass tracks? Is “Bass 1” the main bass and Bass 2, 3 and 4 are for layering?

I just did some small adjustments on my template: TNT template.xrns (13.2 KB)
I will temporarily go with this template for now until I find a better solution for the mid/side processing stuff. I don’t mid/side process the whole drum bus and instrument bus anymore, instead I send the signal only from specific instruments (the most important basic stuff) to the mid and the side. And I used your doofer instead of the chain I used before. Even though I still don’t understand why Gainer inverse R-Stereo Expander mono-Gainer inverse R can do the split, too… What about the left channel? Anyway, I prefer to put one device (doofer) into the chain instead of five just like I did before, because it’s cleaner and less work. Speaking of doofers, I now know more about it. I don’t think I’ll need them quite often, but it’s good to know how this works and maybe one day I have to create my own doofer stuff. I would like to have a device which detects volume and limits the volume if it’s too loud, similar like an auto EQ.


haha, yeah, although I’m rarely using it to boost, just to limit/tame peaks

I usually use the chain verb (reverb with the wet signal ducked by the dry - so that transients and body are dry and tails are wet) for cohesion in the percussion section (not kick and bass, however), sending my snares, claps, hihats, cymbals, and sometimes auxiliary percs to it to create a sense of space. usually fairly subtle, except maybe on the snare/clap. Convolvers are awesome, magical creatures that multiply audio signals - usually people use them for reverbs and delays, but there are all kinds of interesting, exotic effects that you can use them for, depending on the impulse loaded. It can be really fun to make your own impulses using unusual material to create dramatic ambiences and transformations of the original material.

I have a “compressor” on every instrument track, and mostly just use the bus compressor on groups. It’s nice to have the ability to soften the knee for more transparent compression on busses, and I don’t rely on the bus compressor to tame peaks… maximizers for me, lol

because basses are awesome :slight_smile: I definitely don’t always use all four, in fact most tracks have just one or two, but I generally like to keep each instrument on a separate track and dial in individual eq and compression, etc. since bass is such an important part of most of the music I make, I like to have as much control here as i can, hence, lots of bass tracks

the left channel info is in the difference between the two channels, along with the right. think “mono” or “mid” is what’s identical between the two channels, while “sides” is what’s different. subtract the identical (by inverting one of the channels) and you’re left with the difference

check this out, it kind of does that: Dynamic Eq as a replace for Multiband Compressor - #3 by slujr

1 Like