This is too bad. May I ask why?
Is it so hard to implement or is Linux not important enough for the Renoise developers?
ladspa/dssi and linux-vst are practically dead and all the the good new stuff ( CALF, Guitarix, various Synths, etc.)
is LV2 now. I don’t use Windows and I don’t use Windows VSTs on Linux, so I have to stick with Renoise’s own DSPs, which are great but not sufficient for my usecase. It’s almost 2014 now and I think Renoise developers should start accomodating Linux users a little more if they are serious about this port. Apart from that, I really love Renoise, but I won’t spend 70€ on a software that doesn’t directly support most of the plugins I use. Routing stuff through Jack is not a viable solution anymore.
I guess I will have to take a closer look ar Ardour3 for the time being and stick with Renoise 2.8 for some more specialized stuff.
Lack of time and main focus on sample engine improvement: The new instrument structure also forms the base for Redux which will be a VST plugin itself.
If the current basics (even in their current crippled form) work out, there is a solid base to extend on which i suspect will include plugin and midi enhancements (routing of audio and midi, extending to LV2 on Linux).
I’m not sure how hard it is to support Lv2. I noticed BitWig developers also mentioning not supporting LV2 plugins in their 1.0 version. Which gives some indication of the level of complexity of these plugins. I suspect these plugins have much more capabilities than ordinary VST plugins which also means that the host must have features available for them.Features that usually are quite interwoven throughout the whole audio engine i suspect.
Thanks for the claridication. I really hope that it will happen some day, because contrary to my earlier statement, I just purchased Renoise 3 Just couldn’t resist…
Perhaps try to create some native instruments with contents of the LV2 plugins, you might perhaps be able to do something with that. (next to it, you get the hang of what the internal Instrument section of R3 can do.)
Thank you. I will definitely try this. Also, I just realized R3 has a native convolver now, which greatly reduces my need for LV2 plugs (I’ve been using the awesome IR:LV2 for a while now). Let’s see, maybe I can do without LV2 at all for a while…
I don’t know about you, but i’ve owned Renoise since 1.6 and i just got more of my wishes fulfilled than any other update. I’ve said earlier i want an improved instruments section rather than native synths, i think this was a great decision.
We’ve been doing lots of mockups during the entire alpha phase, and not just redoing everything in one giant step.
Still, no one is saying it’s perfect - and a certain amount of finetuning is bound to happen.
the new renoise 3.0 beta “select instrument, select sample, select effect” supports VST AU and Native EFX.
You can script this very easily. I have a setup where I, instead of having “Sample Recorder monitoring On/Off”, instead, when i start recording (pattern-synced, of course), the script creates an audio line-input device i.e., runs your synth through the efx you have enabled, then records it dry, then when you quit sampling at the end of the pattern, it erases the lineinput device.
the only thing that would take this even further would be API Lua control over which channel/input the Sample Recorder samples from (and left/right/stereo control of course).
But anyway, it is possible, just fiddly. That’s why I can’t wait to see the new Renoise 3.0 API LUA feature-list of changes and added api hooks.
Redux? Everyone needs this. At least as long as ReViSiT is not available for OSX.
Cream costs anything from “a lot” to 29€.
Cthulhu costs 39$.
Neither offer true control that Renoise 3.0 with Phrases with LUA Api scripting control will do.
Question: can you press a button and your midi-sequence phrase on your big DAW is inside Cream or Cthulhu? Oh, no? Well, you could script that with Renoise, and someone will.
Proposal: someone can write a script that takes the chosen midi-sequence, bumps it into a Phrase and creates 32 copies of it (LPB1-LPB32) in the Phrase Editor.
It’s easy to say “we don’t need this, we can just buy a vst/au plugin”, but most people just won’t, and some already see that there is a robustness in having native solutions for this kind of stuff.
If you’re interested in what Renoise Phrases do as compared to Kirnu Cream or Cthulhu, I’d recommend compiling a features list of all 3, and then see which things cannot be done with Renoise scripting for Renoise Phrases, and then let’s see what we can do that’s better.
So far it seems that the most major thing for me, would be to work on a 0pattern in Renoise, work out the patterns, then bump them into Phrases and actually arrange them at LPB1 into 1 single pattern. That saves a lot of time, especially once one can do the phrase-bump.
I’d be surprised if there aren’t already API functions for that in Renoise 3.0Beta.
the doofers: don’t know what they are, yet. if they are really exactly the same as device chains, i wonder why they were invented, or why it’s called different when you can create a instance of a device chain from that fx treeview. on the other hand, maybe this is groundwork/framework again: later you can put together modules that are *too basic to be a complete device, so the doofers are maybe a start of a reaktor thingy. ah dunno. didn’t even try
midi routing: don’t know what that actually is routing masterkeyboard A to softsynth 1, and B to midi-out 2? routing individual channels too? along with velocity/key curves/mappings? maybe i look like a fool now, but i have no idea what that routing should include. all i know is, if it would look like the routing in reaper, i will probably never use it. if it looks like the buzz machine view, then yeah.
macros: no idea, didn’t click. am i supposed to create a velocity curve with them?..
phrases: they should remove that tiny create button and always start with two empty phrases. two empty things probably don’t hurt, even not as useless stuff in a song. and write the labels with deep black. it’s really a beta issue, not an alpha issue.
the new view: yep, had the same feeling. “i find nothing!”. for the instruments, it was necessary. the new stuff must be arranged with the old stuff in a senseful way. all other gui changes: devs, think of xp users and about habits. just let the options at the wrong place, because the new place is wrong too. meta device is dsp for some people, for others not. imho with that stuff, nothing should be rearranged, it never makes 100% sense.
but overall i had no problems. and there’s one though: why actually that illogical “3.0” at all? i mean somebody creates a software, his improvements go from x.1 to x.2 up to x.9 and becaue we have decimal system now he suddenly has to make the best release ever? there are folks that go on with x.10 and x.11 and concerning the waiting for a release: see bitwig.
Hi, an instrument can have multiple phrases inside it, just like an instrument can have multiple samples key-zoned/key-mapped into it. phrase-zones you could call them.
Is this not what you’re looking for?
I see a few people stating that LV2 and SF2 non-support are deal-breakers. i’m not sure why, but i have this feeling that Renoise DevTeam already know about those two. Anyway, I don’t mind either way, I got Phrases!
So… If we create Renoise Instruments in Renoise; including phrases and modulation and stuff. Save those instruments as a preset, then the preset would theoretically load right into Redux and be available for use in another daw like for eg Reaper?
Please stop it! The new interface is the best. For me it works beter than the previous one. Im more productive!!!
Its looks better and the workflow mimics those of a real DAW. Im a happy user.
Please dev team, do NOT change the interface. You are going into the right direction.
Im a system ui programmer too!
Is there any guarantee that i can use instruments made in beta in the forthcoming stable version? Wouldn’t want to spend hours making lots of instruments that will be useless in a month or two.
I think that the instrument change alone warrants a demarcation, since r3 instruments won’t work in r2. Much simpler and clearer in the future to say ‘works with Renoise 3 and above’?
Just couldn’t resist…
routing masterkeyboard A to softsynth 1, and B to midi-out 2? routing individual channels too? along with velocity/key curves/mappings? maybe i look like a fool now, but i have no idea what that routing should include. all i know is, if it would look like the routing in reaper, i will probably never use it. if it looks like the buzz machine view, then yeah.
