as I said, I never said multilayer instruments are bad as an idea, I said it’s execution is not that great.
If I could see those manufacturers create Renoise instruments I would be filled with joy and happiness … but renoise being a small player I don’t see that coming any time soon. (unfortunately)
which means it will be up to community in the end, and that is why I put rhetorical question - who will really create proper multi instruments for renoise ?
about the slicing - as it is now, i don’t find it that usefull - the problem is, that you generate kind of “meta slices” they are not actual cut audio that you can process further,
and often i really need to, at least changing the decay of the individual hits of samples, if I could slice the break with renoise and then “render it as instrument” or something,
where it would actually create mapped and cut instrument based on the previous meta samples then it would be a great tool for me… however slow it may be, I still prefer to cut breaks
manually until this change will happen.
and still - the problem I mentioned and others confirmed is the problematic layout of instruments now
Yep, I fully agree on that the slicer as it is, is unusable. I haven’t used it once after I tested it. The time saving that it can do auto-slicing isn’t a big enough of an advantage on the things you can’t do anymore.
Other than that, I believe the instrument editor is going the right way. The moment we have assignable lfo/envelope for each individual slot (and for “grouped” slots) it will be quite awesome. I’m pretty confident.
Workflow is mostly about getting used to the tool.
For each goal you want to reach, you need a defined worktime. I’m going to tell you what happens when coders try to code “too fast” and provide too early releases : their code has more bugs than expected ; and then the beta-phase is also longer than expected, and in the end, the “early release” was just an illusion, you’ve got to wait and wait, each bug has to be fixed one after the other, before the “final stable release”. The renoise instruments system needs improvements for sure, but concerning all this, I know that it requires a defined time, so it’s done “when it’s done”.
i hate it when people are ‘politically correct’, which just translates to ‘dishonest’. so i’m glad you’re not being that. i understand your frustration to a certain extent, but i am not signed to any record label of any kind, and 2.7 did not break my workflow (hey, makes me think of those Reefer Madness vids, ‘Renoise 2.7 broke my workflow!’, ‘Renoise 2.7 seduced my wife!’, ‘Renoise 2.7 perverted the minds of our children!’
you are indeed making lots of valid points. in fact, i don’t think i saw a single point made there that hasn’t been suggested before already, which goes to show that you are not alone in this. personally i don’t really understand some of these design decisions either, but in the end In Taktik We Trust
2.7 got me excited with quite tiny features, like the batch sample properties i mentioned before, or the new drumkit options mentioned by vV. been following all discussion around the forums enough to see each change to instruments as a precursor to the mythical ‘xrni overhaul’.
It has nothing to do with labels or anything connected with that, renoise is definitely not the only tool to make music with and I am fully aware of it, the fact that I had some music released didn’t change my view on
tracking or renoise, what I wrote I wrote genuinly as just a renoise user that is on the board for more than 6 years…
True words, it pretty much sums up this discussion for me. Everything needs to be reconsidered each time something new is introduced, but at the same time, existing usage patterns should be protected and/or improved.
Now, 2.7 also happened to be the result of a team of developers that went from 1 or 2 to 3-4 people in the same period, so personally I think you can attribute the less-than-elegant instrument panel to “growing pains”. Not that it shouldn’t be taken seriously, but one has to acknowledge the fact that there is a problem before one can do something about it.
Well, it does a pretty good job on full vocal recordings. It gives me the opportunity to set entry points without having to destroy the sample and in case i made a mistake i can adjust markers easily.
This is why i sometimes wish renoise would move on to another more popular sample format (sfz?). There would already be established libraries and more value for renoise users in creating new ones.
I do realize that any format that is well used now of days is so feature laden that it seems a bit unfair to expect a good player and editor for it at the meager price of renoise. Especially when any other daw would break it apart from the software and sell it as a plug in for a price that would buy enough copies of renoise for all your friends.
I have always thought that those velocity layers and stuff like that are waste of time. We can’t really compete with Kontakt here. Nobody cares about building those huge instruments anyway. People just want to take a sample, and make it sound cool. That’s been the idea of trackers for a long time. More attention should be directed at that approach.
Let’s be honest here, nobody is ever going to create reasonable amount of big multiinstruments for renoise, EVER. Even if the sampler is going to be upgraded 10 times and is functionally similar to competitors. Because this is not what people who use trackers care for anyway and there is always going to be larger libraries for Kontakt etc.
personally, I have found very useful to record multilayered drumkits from VST plugins using the automatic recorder. others may found other ways to use that feature.
however, and for many different reasons, the following sentence will probably still remain true:
Sorry Suva but it’s comments like that which make me which make me wish Lili’s trolling hadn’t caused the removal of the Minus button fpor rating posts.
Sample layering and envelopes per sample/zone are a couple of the most common requests I’ve seen since starting to use Renoise and I don’t think such oft-requested features should just be ignored and brushed under the carpet forever!
well, i have not been ‘on the scene’ for a very long time, but from what i’ve seen, the definition of ‘people who use trackers’ has changed a bit over the years. afaik, trackers used to be the domain of people making chiptunes and rave-music and stuff like that, and it was all very much underground. Renoise has done its part in changing all that a bit i think, and helped pull the tracker out of obscurity. as a result, loads of different people use Renoise now for loads of different genres of music.
i feel your above comment is more applicable 10 years back or something than it is right now.
Yeah, well, you share the thoughts of one group of people that indeed think like this, but i’m not one of them.
And yes i use those velocity layers because i want to have a set of instruments containing a natural sounding including some natural behavior around it.
You can’t accomplish this with one layer and one layer group unfortunately. And i’m not interested in purchasing every commercial sample pack out there that does the job.
Specially not since i have synth-plugins that simulate a very good aproach where i can get as much required dynamics from it as i desire.
I don’t know if nobody is ever going to create a reasonable amount of multisample instruments for Renoise but i don’t doubt that people who do, might not be very generous to share these libraries.
There is currently not really a way to protect these libraries from unwanted sharing whereas Kontakt has the ability to allow commercial protected libraries.
Sorry i don’t agree on this matter. Some won’t care but there are definately a lot of people having asked for this.
