I often use this myself when looping segments or jumping between patterns.
We have this option in the preferences which can specify if voices are releasing during pattern navigation. I always disable this and control it myself, using a combination of OFFs and matrix mutes.
It means that I can control exactly when & where notes are released
This is beyond my comprehension Have you an example XRNS that show?
Mm, another thing: you know continuous paste, right? (Ctrl+P)
Of course! With Ctrl+V, the operation involves multiple times, that was the intention that brings him more absurd…If note-OFF has another useful function, I have never seen an example.
I’ve sometimes used to mark a line within a track, but I wish there was a symbol ( === or similar) marking and not mix with the note-OFF. I use note-OFF because there is nothing else.
Hm, I would have to shoot a video, because it’s what you _do_with the song.But let me try and explain.
imagine a song which is intended to be played live? Sometimes you want to loop/extend patterns a little bit, depending on the situation.
Now, the way Renoise works, looping a pattern means that voices that are triggered near the end of a pattern continue to play as the playback loops.
So you can have a sound playing at the top, even if there was no such sound the first time playback reaches this pattern.
But wait - perhaps I_don’t_ want the sound to play - maybe I want the pattern to sound like it did the first time?
The only real way to do this is to insert an OFF at the top - something which otherwise doesn’t make sense if you are just playing the song in a forward-going fashion.
Btw: another cool “pattern looping” trick is to trigger notes with a Gxx command - this lets you trigger a note just once during looped playback.
The absurd: You can fill an entire track with Note OFFsto infinity and beyond.As I have understood, is not a bug.But I do not know why it exists.
This is definately not absurd, how else would you be able to write random offs? If you want some randomness to the lenght of a key you can easily do that with random offs using the y command, but if you were restricted to one off after a note it wouldn’t have worked.
Well, you could still be able to enter a note-off,only visually, it should be shown as a block. If start is on previous pattern and a note-on in previous pattern, simply draw a block from top, but without a note inside. If no note-on in previous pattern, draw an old-fashioned “off”
Well, you could still be able to enter a note-off,only visually, it should be shown as a block. If start is on previous pattern and a note-on in previous pattern, simply draw a block from top, but without a note inside. If no note-on in previous pattern, draw an old-fashioned “off”
I think there will be graphical problems when treating OFF notes by the behavior they have, which is not strictly related to a current note.
No, I simply had the best idea in the world, didn’t you see? ^^
Intervals + blocks? Isn’t that what you’re after in a piano-lol? Doesn’t matter if your eye count spaces between blocks or simply reads numbers, right? maybe numbers are even faster, if you get used to it… So saving that ugly waste of space in a classical piano-lol.
No, I simply had the best idea in the world, didn’t you see? ^^
Intervals + blocks? Isn’t that what you’re after in a piano-lol? Doesn’t matter if your eye count spaces between blocks or simply reads numbers, right? maybe numbers are even faster, if you get used to it… So saving that ugly waste of space in a classical piano-lol.
^^ ^^
To clarify, most screenshots are sketches of an idea invites you to go further(at least in my case). Sometimes graphic is explained things that hundreds of words.I guess every user will have his positive idea on a piano roll or something similar to it, or disparaging opinion.
For me, a tool capable of displaying ordered all notes would be a breakthrough…, even extremely basic (move notes, duration and little more),the more integrated better. So I made this topic.
All this blocks and mark the notes is related, but most problems are graphics, depending on the current operation of Renoise.For example, having a floating window with 3 or 4 octaves of notes showing the neat would be great.And it would be great to be called piano-lol
Add blocks of colors, wipe the note-OFF, etc. things seem isolated, not something substantive.Today I have proposed an absurd thing. To paint the note-OFF of a different color.Any graphic help is gold, like your best idea.
Not shure if i understand your question, but no, your first example doesn’t make much sense because only the first ‘off’ would be read, rest of the lines it’s just trying to turn off something that is already off. If all the offs had a y command there would be a small chance it wouldn’t turn off at all.
Second example looks like it just wants to maYbe do nothing.
Not shure if i understand your question, but no, your first example doesn’t make much sense because only the first ‘off’ would be read, rest of the lines it’s just trying to turn off something that is already off. If all the offs had a y command there would be a small chance it wouldn’t turn off at all.
Second example looks like it just wants to maYbe do nothing.
Thanks TheBellows!
And this third case? This work?You can put a real example of using the parameter “Yx” with Note-OFF?
Last example looks like the correct way to use it, now there is a 5/16 (or wathever) chance it would turn off on the 6th line, a 7/16 (or whatever) chance on the 7th line and so on.
Last example looks like the correct way to use it, now there is a 5/16 (or wathever) chance it would turn off on the 6th line, a 7/16 (or whatever) chance on the 7th line and so on.
===========
C-4 50
OFF
OFF
OFF
OFF
OFF Y5
OFF Y7
OFF
OFF Y3
OFF
===========
So to avoid the absurd, it would be great to Renoise remove red note-OFFs automatically and add blue note-OFFs (or better yet, do not add anything blue note-OFFs, and work as in the case two).In other words, the Yx command is stronger, and does not need note-offs, is already the top note C-4.
Perhaps the addition of the note-OFF is necessary for insert the parameter Yx in the following pattern, the gap between patterns and for this reason it is necessary to always add… Or not.
What I mean is that Renoise could be more intelligent and avoid things that do not work.For example:
The last red note-OFF should disappear by entering the value Y3.
The first 4 note-OFF should disappear by entering the value Y5.
Renoise and works similar to insert the pure note-OFF (in the third case would becolor green)
If you mix paste a pattern with a Y command that has no off it would apply the Y command to any existing note on that current column/line, but if Renoise automatically changes the line to a note off just because it had a Y command in it then it would turn the existing note off. Nothing i really run into often myself, but it’s an example of how things can get confusing and end up with unwanted behaviour if Renoise should automatically change stuff you have no control over.
I prefer if Renoise does mostly just what i ask it to do without too much things happening that you would not expect.
I prefer if Renoise does mostly just what i ask it to do without too much things happening that you would not expect.
Yes, I agree. It would be incredibly hard for Renoise to guess the intention of pasting something. It might just be the first step towards something else. I would absolute hate if the program interfered, trying to be clever on my behalf.
Makes me think of Clippy. His single purpose in life was to try and be helpful:
Most of the time he just got it all wrong and annoyed people. Poor Clippy!
Also, the note-off editing approach is quite clever: by default note-off will look back and clear previous any note-off(s) - but you are a single SHIFT modifier away from a “naïve” note-off which will_not_clear existing ones (this modifier works with the track-wide CTRL+CAPS-LOCK shortcut too, btw.). You’re probably aware of this already, but in case someone else was reading
But to raise a critic voice: it certainly is true that dealing with note-offs in Renoise can be confusing to newcomers. Especially when you are used to piano-roll editors where notes are usually “painted” (which makes the duration a given). This is simply not the case in Renoise, here, a note is always open until you explicitly close it. And to make matters worse, we are using_CAPS LOCK,_ a button that many people would like to see be removed completely from keyboards
I prefer if Renoise does mostly just what i ask it to do without too much things happening that you would not expect.
Maybe you prefer because Renoise has always worked in this way.You are accustomed.The case is not the usual or custom, but do reasonable things automatically to make life easier for the user. So there are programs to streamline processes.
Also, the note-off editing approach is quite clever: by default note-off will look back and clear previous any note-off(s…
Just as that Renoise corrects the note-OFF in this case, it could be applied to other cases.Really you need to add the Note-OFF for the Yx parameter work?Is not the note C-4 above?To this I mean “intelligent”.
What I propose is if it is better not added the note-OFFfor the Yx parameter to work.Yx that work without the note-OFF.This does not confuse anyone.
Case 2) Not Work
===========
C-4 50
…
…
…
…
… Y5
… Y7
…
… Y3
OFF
===========
Case 3) Work
===========
C-4 50
…
…
…
…
OFF Y5
OFF Y7
…
OFF Y3
OFF
===========
I prefer Case 2) (cleaner and understandable). Yx more “intelligent” (Yx do not need the OFF to act)… and Note-OFF only for close the open note,was created for that.
Danoise, Clippy is middle failed tool . Bring a successful case and apply.There are intelligent tools or applications that act reasonably without confusing anyone (they are made by thinking human beings).
Precisely to not confuse novices, it is better than the Note-OFF only serve for one thing (close the note). If there are other behavior functions that, are other parameters no need to include again the OFF value., such as Yx in Case 2.
I think you misunderstood, Raul. Sorry for nitpicking, but this is really important to me:
If Renoise did try and “be clever”, there would be no way to insert X number of note-offs, even though (as it was pointed out) there are perfectly valid reasons for doing so.
The only valid approach is to let people do whatever they feel like doing, and optionally, expose some sort of “cleanup” feature that you can run on the pattern.
So, the removal of elements would become a conscious decision on the users part.
If Renoise did try and “be clever”, there would be no way to insert X number of note-offs, even though (as it was pointed out) there are perfectly valid reasons for doing so.
It does not have to be this way.You can paste with Ctrl-V (or Ctrl-P) infinite Note-OFFs.But at the time of using a Yx (or similar), Renoise can automatically clean up the leftover OFFs, since hinder the function of the Yx parameter.
Cases 1) Absurd!
===========
C-4 50
OFF
OFF
OFF
OFF
OFF Y5
OFF Y7
…
OFF Y3
OFF
===========
===========
C-4 50
…
OFF
OFF
…
OFF Y5
OFF Y7
…
OFF Y3
OFF
===========
===========
C-4 50
…
…
…
OFF
OFF Y5
OFF Y7
…
OFF Y3
OFF
===========
===========
C-4 50
OFF
…
…
…
OFF Y5
OFF Y7
…
OFF Y3
OFF
===========
If Yx always needs a Note-OFF to work, Note-OFF should automatically be added if the line is empty. (I prefer to Yx work without Note-OFF).
If you add a parameter Yx down (Y5), automatically delete note-OFFs above, since they cut the note and hinder the Y5 parameter.
If you want to place a note-OFF untidy anywhere, no problem.
Renoise not deleted Note-OFF if not necessary.
Look at this case:
===========
C-4 50
OFF
OFF
OFF
OFF
OFF
…
===========
===========
…
OFF
…
…
C-4 50
OFF
OFF
OFF
…
OFF
…
OFF
…
===========
These cases are compatible with the above.Put your Note-OFF wherever.
Have you an example XRNS that show?
. Bring a successful case and apply.There are intelligent tools or applications that act reasonably without confusing anyone (they are made by thinking human beings).