Also Ableton’s piano roll is just a horror show, and the mixer, too. Cubase is a dinosaur regarding workflow. So these DAWs cannot compete with a more modern approach like Renoise or Bitwig. Logic is similar to Cubase, but also turned into an Apple-One-Company-Freakshow, so it’s not really interesting anymore, since Apple shits on Proessional Users tm.
SO NOW EVERYTHING IS SAID / WRITTEN.
I kind of disagree here.
You miss my point, I have Bitwig already and I see it as something different to Renoise. Out of the box I can do things in Renoise that are much more difficult to achieve in Bitwig and vice versa. However for the money I spend on Bitwig (£300ish) I could buy Renoise + plugins which give me better EQ and compression than stock Bitwig plugins.
The only difference is that some things (like automation, spline curves, vocal comping) will take longer to do in Renoise but conversely taking that longer approach ‘may’ take you down more interesting and creative paths and lead to outcomes you hadn’t anticipated.
Anyway I have Bitwig, Live and Renoise, they are all awesome but I don’t think any of them help me make better music. My creative process makes the difference and I tend to have more success with that in Renoise. But I am not advocating one over the other, do what makes you happy, I just think that a new DAW is not the thing that will make the difference to how good your tracks are and how satisfied you are with them.
Oh yes, it seems I missed the point. I only want to say that _ RENOISE IS NOT COMPLETE WHEN IT COMES TO THE BASICS _. And there is no excuse not to fix this (expect personal decisions of the devs of course).
I tend to have more success with that in Renoise
This is so true for me too. I’m even not doing music since months or a year and having sorrow that there is a problem with the software I would use if I begin making music again.
Renoise has the right balance of straight note input (docked, reasonably sized etc) and a straight to use sampler, and more. It simply has worked when I wanted to create something that I found important.
Ok people. Then go on to whitewash your Renoise…
Ok people. Then go on to whitewash your Renoise…
Well, see it like this: If there really was a perfect DAW, they would market it for that like crazy and sell it for the price of cubase x 2.
NO NO NO
I am not talking about a “perfect DAW”. I am talking about common basic standards in DAW. Nothing fancy or totally expensive.
If those points would be added, Renoise still was not perfect. But at least, not so annoying anymore.
They can’t be added. Renoise can import lots of modules, has probably an array like way of storing the cells, has - taktik afair once said this - thousands of dependecies.You’re basically talking about a new software.
The automation… even Steinberg had to come to VST 3.0 to employ a technique that works with plugins, too. If taktik made the instruments/sampler many people ask for, he had to implement the whole thing twice or new, because at first the envelopes etc (just guessing here) were only there to automate VST 2.0 which had no way of sample precise automation. So, all that does not come into Renoise is not because taktik doesn’t understand it or doesn’t care about the users. It’s probably simply too hard and not rewarding.
In the other DAWS, except Bitwig, stuff is so much reinvented in every plugin they have added. That way of development would make Renoise suck, I guess.
Nothing will change. Send MIDI to plugins, accept limitations. 
Steinberg introduced VST3 for note expression, but also for side chain (???). They did not seem to know/be aware of that side chaining simply already was possible using input 3+4 in the VST 2.4 standard (they invented that thing?)… So you see Steinberg people have their own universe. That’s why (lot of) developers still refusing or refused to support VST3, the API also is unnecessarily complex in comparison to VST2.4.
Bitwig also supports kind of note expression, thru polyphonic aftertouch at least. And it’s only VST 2.4 support. At least I can plugin my seaboard + equator synth and record note expressions in Bitwig. What for is VST3 required then? Maybe for asioguard…
The automation in Renoise already can be manually set with fine resolution, only not recorded. And this is not because of the tick concept, since it doesn’t even support tick resolution while live. I would guess, it is kind of “lazy” solution to avoid problems with obvious recording imprecision.
I am not talking about changing Renoise to fully OO code, but ONLY FIXING/ADDING the basic stuff. No dependencies have to be changed. Adding spline curves isn’t that complicated either.
EDIT: Time could be saved by giving up downwards compatibility (to anyway not so well designed features).
Ok, maybe there are things that could be changed. They probably can break other things, will need months to test. Taktik needs money, and still the whole situation stays. Without source, nobody can even try to reason about what’s going on.
Just one additional point. No matter what you fix, the next wish will come. I want antialiasing that I can use, that is, I’m not eager to reimplement a wavetable synth by hand. I know that virtually no multisampler works differently than Renoise, but the point is, using the software one will always recognize what’s possible and ask for it.
@Mark2 & @ffx_away…
I’ve been scrounging Renoise (v3.1) very deep this past year and not only at a musical level!What I think is that some areas of work are resolved with just enough to work, nothing more.What does it mean?To understand, we can compare the sample editing area and the automation editing area and their histories.
The sample editor has evolved significantly, with a lot of functions (controls) that were not in the initial versions.On the contrary, the automation editor has not evolved at all, it is treated with tweezers. In other words, the area of automation could be a beta version. This is just one example of so many.
However, not to be underestimated the ability of a serious programmer.These people are able to do wonders in a very short time.On the other hand, Renoise’s code is not anything cluttered and absurd that holds itself thanks to a miracle.A serious programmer thinks about building the code to be able to add, change, things in the future without too many complications. It’s been thought that way from the start, and I’m sure Taktik has done that with its software (Renoise v1…v3), except in a very fat problem, the GUI (the subject of the screen resolution).Most of the complaints I have been reading on the forums are directly related to the workflow.This means that the work areas are included, but some are poor, “are not finished”, are beta phase, or whatever you want to call it, made with just enough to exist.If you think adding functions and buttons here and there means turning Renoise and making a mess, you are wrong.
In most cases is to add some lines, and in others add some lines and change others already written. But hey, that’s programming, not miracles.What I want to say is that, it is not so complicated to add things to improve the workflow, ultimately improve Renoise. It is not so complicated to understand this. ffx_awayhave already said it very clearly.
What’s more, many of the options that can be added in each work area are so simple that they can be solved with tools. And with the tools you only add lines, you do not change anything at all under Renoise’s bonnet.But do not worry. Taktik is not stupid. He knows perfectly the virtues and the possible improvements that could add, without the need that nobody in the forum comments them.
Improving renoise does not mean transforming it.Now, adding other tools under the hood is another story, which has nothing to do with improving Renoise, but to expand it, which is not the same.There are many examples of small things that can be improved in Renoise’s work areas.And those improvements I’m 100% sure would be liked by 100% Renoise customers, because they are that, improvements!
Finally, and not to create controversy, do not compare Renoise with the rest of DAWs of the market, because in the end it is not necessary.Renoise is as powerful and clear as software, which already has a clear map of where it can go, even if it existed in a world where only he is, with no other DAW as an alternative.In other words,No need to look at other DAWs to know what can be improved from Renoise, it’s very clear.The problem is that it is lagging because the hardware does not stop.Software always has to go hand in hand with the evolution of hardware. It is a universal rule in computing. Renoise is not fulfilling it.
And all the time I’m not talking about bugs or errors in the code.Most bugs or bugs are small things in the code that are solved at lightning speed. Others are more complex, but in general, to fix 40 bugs in a program does not need to elapse 1 year.However, if it can be a more labor-intensive job, having to copy the new version already resolved for different versions of operating systems, for Linux, Mac, Windows, x32 x64, and perhaps for this reason, there is only one new version every year or two years.In the background it does not have to do with the complexity of solving bugs or adding things to be able to compose more comfortably.
But deep down talking about these things is useless. I like to know the opinion of others, and to comment things, because I learn (from any nonsense you can learn something).But our opinions do not matter. They are ignored, for Renoise’s team (ultimately). Has an established world, a way of thinking, a way of doing things from the beginning, and will not change.Put another way, Taktik will continue to do as he pleases.And deep down, it’s what he has to do. It is your product.It is their problem, if in the end it does not satisfy their customers (or a few).It’s a shame, because Renoise is great software, but could be polished in some ways, where everyone would be happy, it would benefit everyone.And care, in the background is being fulfilled. Taktik continues to improve its software.He is now covering bugs.In a year or more he will do another version. But it’s going too slow, and that’s not new, it’s always been like this.
You can affirm that things are not improved because there are so many that it is impossible to attend them all. That’s an inexpensive excuse that helps confusion. There are things that are very clear that are not resolved, and because someone says them, does not mean that it will only benefit that person, because it is that person who has commented on that improvement.
Come on, it’s not that complicated, and do not be alarmed by words like perfection, improvement, development, evolution, update, bug.What’s more, for any programmer it is a pleasure to improve a program, anyore.
But cheer up!!! We will have Renoise for a long time!!!
IMO The problem that kills Renoise is that it’s trying to be both, fancy and reduced.
Ony the one hand a company can create software that looks good, does a lot, attracts many customers, makes much money. The point is, in the end I don’t really care about products, I care about design. An honestly, it’s a stupid situation. Everyone is addicted to - sorry - stupid things. One of them is automation envelopes. They are intuitive - yes. They make you design good synth patches - maybe. But they are so f*ing overrated, because they look good. The first thing I always did in FLStudio was clicking around the nice looking envelopes, oh lovely curves, whatever formula. Problem: In the music you don’t need them and don’t hear them. Of course you’ll spot how volume and filter curves have been made, but that’s all. The envelopes are nothing more than a big challenge for the music software developers, everyone has the need to implement them. But then look at the music, where in all those great hits that you know do you think it was important that there was a (even precise) envelope? ABBA? Dubstep? Rock? Jungle and breaks? Chiptunes? Orchestra? None of them really needs envelopes, but they keep being what everyone seems to be after in a DAW. You could also send numbers, that is sample-and-hold envelopes and nobody would notice.
The situation is so bad because actually the big DAW makes partly teach us sh*t.
Sorry to frame it that way, but this was just my intuition now.
But then look at the music, where in all those great hits that you know do you think it was important that there was a (even precise) envelope? ABBA? Dubstep? Rock? Jungle and breaks? Chiptunes? Orchestra? None of them really needs envelopes, but they keep being what everyone seems to be after in a DAW. You could also send numbers, that is sample-and-hold envelopes and nobody would notice.
Seriously ? Really ?
Orchestral music is one of the most dynamic music styles at all. You have quiet and loud parts, crescendos, decrescdenos, fortepianos, slow and quick and so on. All those elements are actually envelopes. Abba was mixed by top professional engineers, which moved sliders on huge mixing consoles in realtime - a volume and panning envelope. In Dubstep you have wobbles - not possible without envelopes. Electronic music lives and breathes because of envelopes. No hits without them. Envelopes are vital to music and especially electronic music.
@Mark2. the Automation Editor is only a example of various. View all of Renoise.No matter how big or small a product is.You can do it right or leave it incomplete or unbalanced.I speak at the programming level.
In the case of the automation area, you can not work comfortably.I do not care at all what other artists do if they use automation or not.You can use Renoise in general, and more or less works well to work fluid, except in some details to improve more drastic. However, the automation area is at a much lower level.No need to talk about artists or musical styles.But this (automation editor) is just an example, not the center of the discourse.
Ignore to the outside world and view only the Renoise software.The truth is that there are things to improve so simple that they are not resolved, and the vast majority are simple, not a mountain. There’s no more.
After that, look at the outside world and the manias of each person; all this is another story.
Seriously ? Really ?
Orchestral music is one of the most dynamic music styles at all. You have quiet and loud parts, crescendos, decrescdenos, fortepianos, slow and quick and so on. All those elements are actually envelopes. Abba was mixed by top professional engineers, which moved sliders on huge mixing consoles in realtime - a volume and panning envelope. In Dubstep you have wobbles - not possible without envelopes. Electronic music lives and breathes because of envelopes. No hits without them. Envelopes are vital to music and especially electronic music.
Doesn’t count because when you record the instrument, the sound changes are in the recording. What you change electronically is artificial.
Yet, I’ve yet to hear a 2016 EDM hit that uses filter envelopes. It sounds like 2000’s stuff. You have to think about the envelope editor, not the way music changes. It can wobble without automation (!) envelope.
PS: Please don’t take the overstretched (sample-and-hold…) argument isolated, it will of course be false. Look at Renoise and what users expect from it to show. From a design view it’s simply not that clever.
PS2: The ABBA/Fader argument can probably be seen as a linear envelope. Did they move the way FLStudio shows envelopes? SPline etc? … Nah.
Seriously ? Really ?
Orchestral music is one of the most dynamic music styles at all. You have quiet and loud parts, crescendos, decrescdenos, fortepianos, slow and quick and so on. All those elements are actually envelopes. Abba was mixed by top professional engineers, which moved sliders on huge mixing consoles in realtime - a volume and panning envelope. In Dubstep you have wobbles - not possible without envelopes. Electronic music lives and breathes because of envelopes. No hits without them. Envelopes are vital to music and especially electronic music.
And for the symphony orchestra, even much more than electronic music!!
However, I feel like desplaced in these forums. Here people basically compose electronic and experimental music. I compose orchestral music mainly, yes, with Renoise, fully capable. Automation is a headache.And use parameters directly in the pattern editor as well, because it is filled with a multitude of numbers, and change it later is a problem.That is why it is necessary to have a tool to automate that does not brake.
And for the symphony orchestra, even much more than electronic music!!
However, I feel like desplaced in these forums. Here people basically compose electronic and experimental music. I compose orchestral music mainly, yes, with Renoise, fully capable. Automation is a headache.And use parameters directly in the pattern editor as well, because it is filled with a multitude of numbers, and change it later is a problem.That is why it is necessary to have a tool to automate that does not brake.
Raul, please don’t feel misplaced. It (forget about envelopes) is an overstrechted argument to make it feel better that Renoise died. You probably simply won’t get an update for the env editor, not the one you like. Just that.
Seriously ? Really ?
Orchestral music is one of the most dynamic music styles at all. You have quiet and loud parts, crescendos, decrescdenos, fortepianos, slow and quick and so on. All those elements are actually envelopes. Abba was mixed by top professional engineers, which moved sliders on huge mixing consoles in realtime - a volume and panning envelope. In Dubstep you have wobbles - not possible without envelopes. Electronic music lives and breathes because of envelopes. No hits without them. Envelopes are vital to music and especially electronic music.
Absolutely true when you hear the music. Of course I want envelopes.
Doesn’t count because when you record the instrument, the sound changes are in the recording. What you change electronically is artificial.
Yet, I’ve yet to hear a 2016 EDM hit that uses filter envelopes. It sounds like 2000’s stuff. You have to think about the envelope editor, not the way music changes. It can wobble without automation (!) envelope.
PS: Please don’t take the overstretched (sample-and-hold…) argument isolated, it will of course be false. Look at Renoise and what users expect from it to show. From a design view it’s simply not that clever.
PS2: The ABBA/Fader argument can probably be seen as a linear envelope. Did they move the way FLStudio shows envelopes? SPline etc? … Nah.
Sorry man, but what you try to tell here is utterly and complete nonsense. Nothing more to say.
Why not stick with Acid?
(why not stick with renoise, its last release was 6 years more recent…)