Recommend me a new DAW


(Raul (ulneiz)) #181

@Fsus4.No doubt. When a user is willing to spend a lot of money on his favorite software, he is very happy with it, and that is magnificent.

However, do not compare Bitwig’s business model with Renoise.Renoise is a gift.Bitwig is starting to go through cash very assiduously at the expense of its customers.You will pay each year as if you bought half of Bitwig, and it’s not cheap.Actually the effort of an annual update is like building half of Bitwig?Are they going to change half of the program or something every year?

It seems they want to compete seriously with other, more expensive software like Cubase.In other words, doing business seriously. I hope they do not disappoint their most loyal customers.

I’ve seen the news and version 2.0 looks great and I recognize that he has much resemblance to Renoise!It is clear that it has been a good source of inspiration.


(ffx) #182

This is rantland!


(gentleclockdivider) #183

Pretty sure the bitwig dev’s are in serious financial troubles .

This annual upgrade price is a slap in the face of the early adopters , which is the reason why bitwig survived in the first place .

Second …their promise of opening up their inhouse modular system is still NOT fullfilled …

And let’s be honoust , the modulation system is ok , but their built in synths are NOt that spectacular …fm is a joke ,

I tried and liked it , but this whole new policy is a turn off , same reason why I never went the apple route , (.cramped overpriced hardware + Lots of dongles .)

Clearly bitwig is focussed at laptop musicians , who needs A lot of WoOOoobble Lfo’s .

I also gladly pay money for hard working developers , hard/soft/ boutiqe …but I can’t justify this …

To each their own .

Shitwig


(neopan) #184

funny to see this thread evolve from renoise bashing/bitwig love into bitwig hatred.

btw no need for an expensive Apple hardware dongle, you can build your own intel-based OSX dongle :slight_smile:


(Conner_Bw) #185

Recommend me a new thread.


(neopan) #186

https://forum.renoise.com/t/devs-on-what-you-are-currently-working-on-redux-update/47067

sorry couldn’t resist - desire for… trolling… must… obey :ph34r:

Recommend me a new thread.


(gimmeapill) #187

https://forum.renoise.com/t/bitwig-2-160-annual-upgrade-wtf/47232

Recommend me a new thread.


(toblerpone) #188

now make up an kiss, everyone


(neopan) #189

DAW intercourse for a true new DAW :badteethslayer:

now make up an kiss, everyone


(Chris Edberg) #190

Who is this question to? Sounds like it’s you who’s whining… :rolleyes:

Anyway, to answer it - in my case the thing that bothers me about Renoise and that I think will never be resolved is the rigid structure of a pattern, i.e. the fact that all tracks are tied together horizontally, so whenever I want to do an arrangement over time I need to copy & paste or cut the parts in unused tracks, I need to keep track of the automation per pattern (because there’s no such thing as global automation) and even within tracks I usually have musical loops of different length: from very short (like 1/8th of a pattern) to very long (spanning several patterns). Considering I don’t have a lot of time for my music writing hobby (2-3 hours / week if I’m lucky) it becomes really difficult to actually complete anything, because I simply forget what was where. What I was hoping for Renoise would get eventually is (varying length) tracks detachable from patterns, organised as clips, ideally with separate automation clips. Something like Buzz Tracker’s sequencer, but hopefully evolved. I love the tracker interface of Renoise to enter & edit notes, I love the flexibility and quality of internal FX, sample-focused instruments, etc., but as soon as I have my draft idea done I’m getting stuck with this mind-numbing, tedious copy / paste / delete loop that’s simply killing my workflow. Instead of just writing music, I feel like I’m doing some esoteric programming or creative accounting. That’s why I turned to hybrid clip & timeline -based DAWs (Live, Bitwig), even though VSTi-s or the pianoroll are an alien & foreign concepts for me. I bought Renoise only recently (when v3.1 was published) and will definitely come back to it once in a while, mostly to quickly get some things done that are more complicated to achieve in “traditional” DAWs.

Happy now? :slight_smile:

Although your reply was intended to someone else, I agree with the stuff you brought up here. Interestingly, I’ve thought about exactly this lately as well.

The tracker interface could indeed be more intuitive if it’s clip-based, it’s right on the point. As you mentioned, not only one has the freedom to shrink and expand certain clips on different tracks etc, but it would have some other great advantages over the piano roll and the “old-school” tracker view respectively when done correctly. I’ll try to explain this further, to ensure some may have missed this brilliant idea.

Basically, this is just how a traditional DAW works - except that when you select a clip there’s a tracker-styled editing in the second window, instead of the piano-roll editing. You can however come somewhat closer to this with Redux + a DAW supporting the clips-timeline. But clearly, it’s not the same thing either. I understand there could be some technical limitations to make it work with Redux, but what do I know.

Needless to say, I would really appreciate a feature like this in Renoise (or another DAW with a vice versa feature). That way you can edit and view several clips side by side, although the tracks themselves aren’t necessarily next to each other; just select two-three “tracked clips” and get visual presentation (as long as they correlate on the timeline).

Example: Useful for manual arpeggio-input for a clip, while a clip containing some pad-notes being revealed as a guide ( if you don’t have the best memory of what you’ve done earlier :lol: ). In these cases there’s not necessarily to select, for instance, all the drums tracks while editing the above example = more visual space for the above task, for the moment.

Meaning, with the “old-school” tracking view in mind, you rather have to be a bit lucky if the arp and pad-tracks happen to be next to each other. It’s quite cumbersome to move tracks back and forth, instead of just quickly selecting clips.

So, in theory this should be even better than a piano roll and an “old-school” tracking view for certain purposes. With a piano roll it sometimes just looks messy when selecting several clips simultaneously, depending on how similar the notes are (in a tracker view this is never a problem).

And on the other end of the opinion-spectrum; just add a bunch of tracks with long clips and select them all. :stuck_out_tongue:


(wellard) #191

As others have said, I think it’s time we crowdfunded a more open version of Renoise, something more public domain with some element of profit as an incentive for programmers.

The current model, as others have said, is moving too slow and the sole remaining (?) owner is running it into the ground.


(Bungle) #192

Why are you using ‘We’ as if the community has some say in Renoises future, they never have and never will (Well they had some feature vote a ton of years ago)

Then you switch to the current remaining owner, which is closer to the truth yes, but completely opposite to your first line.

Just move on, there is nothing to see here, the only threads with significant interest in the forum are these two about Renoises future being crappy, and the other one has been closed by a brand new moderator account that seem to have been created just to close the thread haha.

There is complete stupidity like members of the Renoise team saying “there will be a bug fix and definitely a 3.x, I know i have seen it” which while they may not have mean’t it, has just fanned the flames of silliness and elitism.

So again, just move on, go buy a better host if Renoise is not good enough for you, it’s a hobby project.


(wellard) #193

I meant “we who use the software being discussed”. I clearly was not directly talking about Renoise’s future in that specific post, i was specifically talking about forking a new project.

All the rest, right on :slight_smile:


(wellard) #194

I’m talking about a salvage operation, creating a free tracker scene like there used to be in the public domain days of the Amiga - I meant, making Renoise public domain and yes, anything else that’s in public domain e.g. DSP FX and taking it from there.

It’s obvious this ship is going down, let’s treasure its last few moments, while the band plays on. Let the fanatics make useless chiptunes, let EatMe make the same tune over and over, let people brag about buying a Machinedrum that they’ll never use.

Goodbye, and thank you for the music!


(vitaminx) #195

A question to the devs of Renoise:

Let’s say I want to contribute code to the core functionality of Renoise, how do I do that?

I mean, how do I join the circle of Renoise devs?

Should I send a CV or something or how does that work?

This is a serious, not a sarcastic question…

Best regards.

P.S.: my two cents to the topic:

I don’t think that the people behind Renoise have any obligation to continue developing it, by bying Renoise you don’t buy any future obligations, but an existing software “as is”.

But if the project is abandoned one day I would also appreciate that the code is open-sourced.It would be a nice gesture towards the community. Of course I hope that it’s not the case and everything you people write are rumours.

But again, it’s no one’s obligation to do so, all we can do is to ask nicely instead of bragging, complaining and claiming what we think are “our rights”. Because they are not.


(Ledger) #196

A question to the devs of Renoise:

Let’s say I want to contribute code to the core functionality of Renoise, how do I do that?

I mean, how do I join the circle of Renoise devs?

Should I send a CV or something or how does that work?

This is a serious, not a sarcastic question…

I guess you could contact them here:

https://renoise.com/contact

or direct to: taktik [at] renoise [dot] com


(Chris Edberg) #197

The other thread closed just when it started to get interesting. But well, I understand.

Yet, I simply have a question to Danoise (from his latest post in that topic).

Renoise is taktiks creation, of that there is no doubt. We’ve worked together for a few years now, and I can tell you that he has a very keen sense of what this software needs and doesn’t need.

This is interesting, and perhaps even groundbreaking.

Since the (vision) future of Renoise is clear already, why not allay the users by just mentioning:

  • What exactly this software need.
  • What exactly this software doesn’t need.

? :slight_smile:

I’m sure people would respect whatever the answers to these questions are.


(gentleclockdivider) #198

The other thread closed just when it started to get interesting. But well, I understand.

Yet, I simply have a question to Danoise (from his latest post in that topic).

This is interesting, and perhaps even groundbreaking.

Since the (vision) future of Renoise is clear already, why not allay the users by just mentioning:

  • What exactly this software need.
  • What exactly this software doesn’t need.

? :slight_smile:

I’m sure people would respect whatever the answers to these questions are.

Good luck trying


(Bungle) #199

P.S.: my two cents to the topic:

I don’t think that the people behind Renoise have any obligation to continue developing it, by bying Renoise you don’t buy any future obligations, but an existing software “as is”.

I see this total nonsense posted in various forums, and of course it is just that, total nonsense, if you buy something and it says supported up to xxx version (A full version in the case of Renoise i believe) then there is a certain level of expectancy from the purchaser that the software will at least be updated to xxx

Obligation, yes, if advertising as “You are buying this version, you will get no updates, be happy” then they would probably get less sales, so the updates to xxx is being used as a sales tool.

Does that mean people can demand things, no, it just means that their is a level of expectancy and so their should be.


(taktik) #200

I see this total nonsense posted in various forums, and of course it is just that, total nonsense, if you buy something and it says supported up to xxx version (A full version in the case of Renoise i believe) then there is a certain level of expectancy from the purchaser that the software will at least be updated to xxx

Obligation, yes, if advertising as “You are buying this version, you will get no updates, be happy” then they would probably get less sales, so the updates to xxx is being used as a sales tool.

Does that mean people can demand things, no, it just means that their is a level of expectancy and so their should be.

That’s also the reason why we are giving away those nearly fully functional Renoise demos: We’re first making people addicted, then charging the hell from them when people realize that they need ASIO, and finally torturing them here in the forum with the lack of news about Renoise updates.


Relax guys. There very likely will be some Renoise update some time. Let’s do something useful in the meantime?

Oh, or what was this thread about?