Hei,
First week using Renoise and I’m still strong 
One thing I noted is that in the pattern editor, the note and the instrument are written like C-400. Would be more UX friendly if it was written like C4-00? I think A2, C3, D1 are very common way to name notes, specially when you study music theory or piano. At least, this is my thought.
As I still didn’t figure out why notes are named like that, any enlightenment would be great.
Cheers
not a bad idea
If you would rename for example C-3 in C3, how would you differ C from Cis? In this case Cis would be C#3. So the line in the middle between the note and the octave makes sense, right? Just like this:
IMHO it comes down to SoC. Separation of concerns is a design principle in UX too. In my view, you are presenting two pieces of information, a note and an instrument. Visually, for me, it is easier to recognize those two different entities when they are separated properly. So, since A3, B2 are convention de fact, it would make sense to keep that.
The whole thing is that when I saw C-400, my mind automatically separated between C and 400. Which is wrong.
@TNT I’m not sure if I got your point, but I don’t see problems with C#3, G#1. The pattern editor can be like:
C3-00
C#4-01
G1-02
A#2-00
Am I making sense?
That doesn’t look correct to me. I would get irritated by its inconsistency.
I like it the way it is. And that’s how I know it since exactly 30 years. It may help to change the color of the instrument number, so it would be easier to differ the note and octave from the instrument. But if you ask me even this is not really necessary. Once you’ve got used to it you don’t want to change anything anymore.
From my eyes ,I prefer the idea of @oldcastle
It’s very logic…segmented
More natural
By adding many nice little ideas like this,It can make big changes in the future
Agreed @Tall_TeQ .
You could also have both systems. A checkbox in the preference section can fix that. You can keep the way it is and have a checkbox to for the “new” convention.
Again, I’m just throwing some ideas from a fresh new user here.
All old trackers i used on my Amiga back in the 90s also show the notes like Renoise does. So i think it has its reason, like @TNT wrote, it’s a placeholder for #. All the trackers i know are displaying the notes the same way like Renoise does…
Oktalyzer:
Schism Tracker:
Protracker:
Fasttracker:
Octamed:
…to name just a few…
Just look closely. What’s wrong now? You have to think logically, the lines are placed in a vertical column. It will result in a vertical “chaos” because all the instrument numbers now are all displaced and not in a straight vertical line.
As you can see, it also has the reason to get some order into the column.
More sense would make, to have some more empty space between the notes and the instrument numbers:
Interesting…but my Renoise doesn’t look like the below image. Below you have a space separating the note from the instrument. That’s ok. Is that your mock-up, or is there a setting in the preferences to look like that?
It was edited in a paint tool just for showing all the differences and what they would look like…
So the right feature request could be: "…could we get the option to have some more empty space between the note numbers and the instrument numbers for a better overview?.."
It could be like that, but it also would make the track wider, which means you can’t see as much tracks as before on your screen. Instead it makes more sense to change the color of the instrument number, just like I mentioned above, right?
I’m happy with that!
Yes, this would. For me it’s enough as it is. It’s like Xmas. We can’t get everything we want…
Indeed. But if you look closely you will see that there already is a gap between the note and the instrument number. It’s just not that big like you did in paint, but it’s clearly there. 
The C-4 convention is to allow space for a # to show C#4 which is C sharp.
