Radium - a better(?) tracker...

Off-Topic
1

Just wanted to give a heads-up about a tracker called Radium. Some of you might already have heard about it since it’s been in developement for a long time. The best thing about Radium is that it’s pretty advanced and seems to already have implemented a lot of the features that Renoise-users have been requesting for years.

For example, it has graphical graphical notes (waveforms visible directly in the pattern), vertical automation and pianoroll (optional). As If that wasn’t enough, it’s also completely open-source and can be scripted with Python. It’s updated quite regularly too. Unlike Renoise, it has a subscription-based licence. But despite that fact, it’s still pretty cheap and I think it’s definitely worth checking out.

Here’s the link: http://users.notam02.no/~kjetism/radium/

radium_4_9_20_perspective.png
radium_4_9_20_perspective.png1920×1080

2 Likes
2

While it obviously contains some things Renoise doesn’t have, I’d bet a hundred bucks without even trying it that it lacks many features that Renoise does have. It’s unlikely there is one DAW/Tracker solution that literally “does it all.”

looks neat, for sure, but I can’t say I’m thrilled with the UI presentation, yuck.

Have you used it for any real songwriting, @olyrhc? If so, care to share how it holds up?

1 Like
3

yes it looks nice but rent pay for software is a no go for me

renoise is not at all great, but the user-friendliness, the workflow keeps me entertained again and again

3 Likes
4

Have you used it for any real songwriting, @olyrhc? If so, care to share how it holds up?

No, I’ve so far only had a brief look at it. It’s definitely an interesting piece of software.

Personally, I’m mostly using FL Studio these days because it has a workflow that suits me better (I still use Renoise sometimes though).

I agree that the UI in Radium does look a bit convoluted compared to Renoise. I just thought it might be a good idea to share this since

it shows a lot of promise and also gives a glimpse of what these new features looks like in another tracker.

Here’s a youtube video of Radium “in action”, playing a song:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYGDUpr1uYs

5

Heard of it , never tried it …

…downloading now …untill I noticed… ----->Annual subscription model ,100euro for the full version

F***k that !

It also requires Qt

6

…downloading now …untill I noticed… ----->Annual subscription model ,100euro for the full version

The full version is the same as the small version. The only difference is that you don’t get the same amount of support.

If you want, you could pay 2 Eur for the monthly subscription, download it and then cancel the subscription and

still use it as much as you like.

7

Always (mostly) glad to see new tools for making music.

Subscription is a deal killer for me, tho.

Would also likely prefer to stab myself in the eyes than script something with Python. But they also offer Scheme (interesting choice).

Being able to see wave forms in the editor would be nice. Odd though that I’ve not thought of it much while using Renoise. I think I just adapted to looking at tracks/instruments/samples and knowing what was happening where. Might be one of those things that you don’t appreciate until you have it to use.

No mention of OSC; such 20th-century thinking.

Mostly it’s hard to judge software without using it for a period of time, and I have little motivation to switch from Renoise (and Reaper, for some things).

8

Agree, that new software with good ideas is not a bad thing; yet also hoping that waveform view in #renoise gets a totally different approach.

:slight_smile:

9

Anyone tried it thoroughly? How’s the pd integration? If this is something like max for live, but for something similar to a tracker, it sounds nice.

10

It does seem interesting but to be honest I am too old and lazy to give it a go. I have seen it before. One thing i’d be interested in is multi-track recording in a tracker, that would be super handy.

I barely get to make music in the first place and Renoise is the tried and proven go-to tool for me. Old dogs don’t learn new tricks :smiley:

1 Like
11

Here’s a youtube video of Radium “in action”, playing a song:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYGDUpr1uYs

Makes Renoise look sane? This is a pretty crazy user experience. Maybe that’s a good thing. Definitely shakes up a lot of my preconceived notions of what a Tracker could be.

This one is also pretty cool:

1 Like
12

Being able to see wave forms in the editor would be nice. Odd though that I’ve not thought of it much while using Renoise. I think I just adapted to looking at tracks/instruments/samples and knowing what was happening where. Might be one of those things that you don’t appreciate until you have it to use.

I don’t understand the folks here who have (in other threads) repeatedly stated a desire for a visible waveform.

To me it seems like pure novelty.

You have a mixer. You have Scopes. You have the master spectrum. What does a visible waveform provide you?

Or put it this way:

What studio in the history of audio mixing has needed a visible waveform per-channel in order to perform great mix engineering? I’ll tell you: none of them, of course. This has never been a part of mixing, and I’m struggling to understand what benefit it would be today.

I’m open to hearing counter arguments, though! Renoise is, after all, an unconventional approach to making music, so sure, there are new and different possibilities that can and should be explored! It’s just that with this particular, much-requested thing, I simply don’t see the use. Other than eye-candy novelty, what does a visible waveform provide? AFAIC, If you know how to read meters, then you already have all the level info you need.

-M

2 Likes
13

Here’s a youtube video of Radium “in action”, playing a song:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYGDUpr1uYs

The realtime waveform overview visual changes based on automation are crazy!

I don’t understand the folks here who have (in other threads) repeatedly stated a desire for a visible waveform.

To me it seems like pure novelty.

You have a mixer. You have Scopes. You have the master spectrum. What does a visible waveform provide you?

Or put it this way:

What studio in the history of audio mixing has needed a visible waveform per-channel in order to perform great mix engineering? I’ll tell you: none of them, of course. This has never been a part of mixing, and I’m struggling to understand what benefit it would be today.

I’m open to hearing counter arguments, though! Renoise is, after all, an unconventional approach to making music, so sure, there are new and different possibilities that can and should be explored! It’s just that with this particular, much-requested thing, I simply don’t see the use. Other than eye-candy novelty, what does a visible waveform provide? AFAIC, If you know how to read meters, then you already have all the level info you need.

-M

The one thing I would like is a visual representation of duration of sample triggered. That said, I agree with you about the other ways to visualize, and have gotten by just fine without the in-track visualization.

14

Anyone tried it thoroughly? How’s the pd integration? If this is something like max for live, but for something similar to a tracker, it sounds nice.

It integrates with Faust language very well and natively too. Faust itself is being used in various products and is a component of the JUCE framework too if I am correct. Both are way simpler to code your own stuff with. A lot of kick ass software and plugins for Neo Soul/Keyboards/Bass that Gospelmusicians.com makes (Jamal Hartwell) uses JUCE which is why I am totally interested in the use of these modern frameworks. Faust and JUCE both have a large community behind it (a 2000 Euro prize too) and a very good set of ready made tools and APIs already done and well integrated into hardware products too. I think these APIs win on most counts of usefulness, popularity and that thing called ‘incentive’, as well as strong commercial potential. In future if Renoise can integrate these APIs it would certainly mean something to a lot of folks cos as of now notwithstanding the rather curious and dedicated group of Lua scripters here, its unlikely it will ever get tracktion in the mainstream sound API community.

(http://faust.grame.fr/news/2017/02/21/Faust-meets-JUCE.html)

I know there are many Reaktor users here but is anyone into CSOUND deeply (http://boulangerlabs.com) ? Also the RackAFX suite by Will Pirkle (willpirkle.com) for the development of VST plugins, does anyone else use it and built something with it?

BTW Radium website has this line:

_" Information to warez groups _

Since the source is open, it should be simple to turn the demo into a fully featured version. Please let me know of any problems. (Just compiling the source is cheating!)"

and this one too, which means we can get it for free if we hack the code or give a song made with Radium. He also mentions ‘swing’ as a parameter in song which is right up my sort of alley :slight_smile:

Radium needs more demo songs included with the program

If you provide a suitable demo song, you will get a free lifetime subscription.

The demo songs must:

  1. Not use external plugins. (Plugins that would be legal to include with Radium may work though.)
  2. Sound good. (Sound quality, creative use of effects, swing, and so forth, is more important than musical quality.)

Any genre is fine (and encouraged!), and there is no size limit (large samples can be downloaded on demand).

You will own all rights to the song. If you later don’t want the song to be included with the program, send me a note and I’ll remove it from further releases. If I later choose to remove the song from Radium, you will still keep the subscription. If you later choose to remove the song from Radium, or I am forced to remove it due to copyright claims, you will lose the free subscription. There should be no need to sign a contract. You can put any information you want into the “Songcomment” box. This box can be set to open automatically right after loading the song.

If you have something that could fit, please send it tok.s.matheussen@notam02.no.

15

I tried radium on linux quite a while ago. It seemed such an interesting concept, not beautiful but powerful…

I was turned off by it though, and went back to renoising.

Biggest showstopper was that the thing kept crashing all the time! I mean renoise sometimes does, too, saving its backup song…but radium was beyond good and evil, impossible to use seriously.

The crash rate also got into my way to try to learn the very…unconventional workflow descisions. I mean, renoise is pretty nice to learn, especially if you already used fast tracker 2 in the past. But radium made me frown again and again. I could not sense any consistency in the user interface scheme, it seemed to me like something very complex and chaotically grown with things attached somewhere where was place whenever the dev deemed to have another idea. Yeah I mean this prog has very many features, the dev seems to implement whatever comes to his mind, but the features don’t seem organised well for usability.

Maybe I just didn’t try hard enough though. I know the update frequency, and am wondering if the thing is stable now on linux. Not gonna try it again if it still keeps crashing like it was built for that sole purpose…

16

Sorry but Radium does not look ready for me, there is no real doc, no real webpage, no real forum, no community, it does not run really on Mac, he does not care for any standards or conventions. Yes, it is super nice from concept and everything seems to work already, but I don’t want to use a strange-behaving, linux-like behaving software in macos or windows. I hope though, the author will see that an audio app on macos has to support coreaudio, or it feels like a foreign body.

EDIT: Yeah, honestly, my words here seemed to be quite a bit devaluing, sorry for that. I edited the post.

17

This is why they callin ya the #Trackerfan…u really do luv #renoise :yeah:

Sorry but Radium is a mess, there is no real doc, no real webpage, no real forum, no community, the author does not really care for anything but his own microcosmos, it does not run really on Mac, he does not care for any standards or conventions. His source code looks quite messy, he does not care. Yes, it is super nice from concept and everything seems to work already, but I don’t want to use a crashing, buggy linux-like behaving software in macos or windows. So after watching this for 3 years now, I am pretty sure this won’t change in future, too. This software just is too autistic.

18

This software just is too autistic.

tenor.gif

Yes… first thing that came to my mind was… “damn this is ubernerdy”

19

I used this before when it was Amiga only , no sample support, strictly MIDI, hooked up via a Triple Play Plus interface, was pretty stable on the Amiga for me atleast, used it for many years, was free then.

Never tried the win version

Also used his early Octamed midi addon scripting,NSM and camd midi library, worked pretty nice.

Good times:-)

20

Well, it is more friendly to call a software autistic rather than a person. Why should I love Renoise, and what does that # all the time mean? Your stupid images and animations suck.