No, its not! It’s ok, but far away from brilliant!
You’re not talking about Renoise, are you? 
I wonder what you’re doing that your CPU can’t handle both. Is your mastering chain that different than mine?
My chain: Mixer EQ; Monoizer, Clipper and Maximizer.
Or is Spire, Ozone and else that big in terms of CPU usage?
Here you go…
1 Like
I layer sounds and make group processing on top of a heavy mastering chain.
I should probably slim down as it’s not really noticeable.
Mine usually have multiband saturation, EQ, Clipper and then all the Ozone stuff. It use 20% of my CPU.
iZotope Ozone 9 has something for that.
1 Like
Do you have any objective arguments to substantiate your claim? Or anything that actually is interesting for the reader? I don’t think the Renoise team needs such black/white views. In fact, nobody needs this. Also content and context are kings these days. Please stop filling the world with even more zero-content- derailed-pathless-texts.
Do you mean that the Renoise team is brilliant? Nice that you want to give them some hugs then… I would agree, too. But I ask here, because this actually sounds more like the usual “Renoise is brilliant because I use it” logic, very often seen here, and honestly I am getting nausea from that.
It would be much more productive, if you would actually use your brains and give some proper described problem descriptions and an honest review written in a friendly manner, full sentences, using punction, not written like a 5 year old child 
The team is now developing, as you might realized, it is a good moment for that. Do you have something to contribute or not?
1 Like
Hope you get a better sleep tonight 
4 Likes
Renoise indeed is brilliant and so glad to see it being still in developement. Although nowadays I probably use Redux more than Renoise, inside Reaper. It works nicely as a sampler alongside Kontakt, which I mostly use to play back other libraries and Redux to create my own. Renoise/Redux sample editor is just so good and fast to use.
I started out with Reason in 2003 or so and still using it, but nowadays using Reaper more and more as the sequencer side in Reason is seriously lacking. Good thing Reason works as a plugin now so can be used inside Reaper. Also not a fan of the business model of Reason Studios with their subscription c**p and such.
Reaper is so fully featured and works well not only for composing but also for creating sound effects for games, scoring trailers etc. Reaper doesn’t have destructive sample editing but Redux or Audacity can handle those tasks when needed. And for some quick sample mangling when not having a midi keyboard around, Renoise still is the king. I love Sunvox too, which is becoming more and more powerful with each update and its limitations can be inspiring.
3 Likes
Thanks for the hint, but the latest update is from 2017 and will work in Renoise 3.1, but thanks to Garf I’m using Renoise 3.3 now (surprisingly Renoise 3.2 can’t open songs which were created in Renoise 3.3).
So the question is: Will this work properly in Renoise 3.3, too?
Thanks, I know that. Years ago I was thinking about getting Ozone, but I haven’t got it yet because it’s a) expensive for what you’re getting in return and b) you will have to render your song first if you want to use it in Ozone for the mastering (Or can it be used as a plugin in your master channel?). I know that probably the majority is doing it that way, but I can’t imagine how this method can be better than a master before the render. But of course I’m up for getting enlightened. 
That’s damn right! 
Personally I use Renoise because it’s brilliant. According to the logic of those who are denying that Renoise is brilliant, there can’t be even one single DAW which is brilliant, because every single DAW has its cons and there’s always room for improvement, right? The truth is that there’s no perfect DAW. Having that in mind there’s only one conclusion: Renoise is brilliant because it’s by far the best tracker around. Furthermore it’s expandable by tools and VST usage. And of course it’s brilliant because you can create music without being forced to use a shitty piano roll. Yeah!
1 Like
Just re-tested here.
That version (1.36) should auto-upgrade fine to 3.3 when installed. The new APIs often add rather than remove/ change stuff, so a lot of older versions will upgrade without problems.
There is a beta 1.39 later in the thread which ran into a renoise API bug which I’m not sure got fixed, so if interested, probably best to stick with 1.36.
1 Like
You can use Ozone as a regular VST/AU or as a standalone. If you want to place it at the end of your mastering chain in Renoise, that’s definitely one way to do it. I use it separately in Reaper, because I have a few other plugins I use as well, and it is less CPU strain to work on a finished .WAV file. But you can use it as a plugin. I like to A/B my work in separate applications, because the way I mix it in Renoise would just cause me to fiddle around more 
I’ll also mention again - it’s got it’s own separate effects built in, and they are each very strong in their own way. It’s the last plugin in the chain. Using the tools it’s got built in will get some great results. It’s definitely better for subtle changes, and for those that try to be extreme with it, the results are usually awful. I use it to boost volume, subtle EQ, and exciter/stereo imaging. That being said, you can also get some excellent results using Renoise’s built-in effects in the same way, and I highly recommend using them as well. For me, it depends on the type of music I’m making.
2 Likes
Thanks for your efforts! 
I think I will give it a try as soon as I’ve got the feeling that a song needs to be compared to a reference song.
@Neuro_No_Neuro
Good to know, I knew there’s something I forgot. Using Ozone as a plugin at the end of the mastering chain is the only way I can imagine using it. I never had any CPU problems at all, no matter what I was doing. I also do everything you’re doing in Ozone, but I do it by using Renoise “natives”. Boost volume (Maximizer) and suibtle EQ (Mixer EQ), but I wouldn’t use an Exciter in the master track. I’m already a customer of iZotope and as soon as there’s the next special offer I would like to get it, but I’m not willing to pay more than 50-60 € for this product. I know that there are several guys who grabbed it for that amount of money. But I don’t mind if I wouldn’t get it for that price, I don’t necessarily need it.
I’m pretty sure it’s the opposite in my case. If the mix sucks you can’t fix it with the mastering, and mixing and mastering is a merging process, so I prefer to keep it together. This way I can keep control over the process more easily and will get a faster (and probably better) result.
1 Like
I shoulda clarified - I A/B back and forth between Renoise and Reaper about 5 million times… (exaggerating slightly) 
I just don’t have that powerful of a computer to run the mastering plugins in Renoise at any level of personal comfort. Yeah, it can handle it, but nope, don’t want to hear the Mac Mini fan running. I mix back and forth a ton. I listen in Reaper, make adjustments bit by bit, go back to Renoise and change volume/timbre as necessary, then bounce it out, go back to Reaper, and repeat this over and over again. Boooooooooring
Same combo here. I’ve found that I hugely prefer programming drums in a tracker, but also hugely prefer writing/recording other stuff in a piano roll (and Reaper’s is fantastic for multi-track MIDI editing if you set it up right).
I’m a piano player, so the fastest way for me to get melodic/harmonic ideas from brain to DAW is to play them at the keyboard. A lot of the time I want to lay down unquantised or lightly quantised parts in MIDI and clean them up a bit, which makes a hell of a mess in Renoise. And automation is much easier to deal with on a global scale in a traditional DAW.
But then a lot of the time I want to mangle some breaks and drum samples and synth drums and sequence them… which makes a hell of a mess in a tape-machine style DAW. Either you’re cutting up little audio clips (which gives you a ton of control over sound design but is ridiculously clunky and tedious as far as sequencing goes), or you’re pencilling in MIDI/automation, which is finicky compared to the per-step control you have in a tracker.
So my process is usually something like
A. Write a bunch of drum parts or loops in Renoise, export stems as audio into Reaper, build a track/arrangement around them. I can do traditional drum replacement stuff in Reaper, too, if I feel like it.
or
B. Write a whole thing in REAPER with no or few drums (maybe some placeholder kick/snare stuff and a reversed crash here or there), export stems into Renoise (autoseek!), write drums to the whole thing, back into Reaper.
or
C. Some combination of the two. Sometimes I’ll chuck stuff into Redux and fool around with phrase offsets, sometimes I’ll start slicing up rendered stuff from Reaper in Renoise and having fun with it. Different processes lead you in different directions, so it’s all useful. Eventually everything winds up back in Reaper as stems.
1 Like
I had a license til 2.8 and recently upgraded to 3.3… hope to see further developpement long life to Renoise.
1 Like
You can master or stem master in Renoise just like any other program. Just be sure to treat it like a separate process. Make your song, mix your tracks, render whole or stems, THEN take those .wav files where ever you like to do your mastering.
I’ve too often made the mistake of trying to incorporate a final mix or master in to my creation workflow on Renoise. That poor CPU never stood a chance.
1 Like
I do see how mixing and mastering would be a lot easier in regular DAWs because of the easy way to automate parameters in curves that are not restricted by the patterns, but I also come across many problems bouncing down individual tracks when I use a lot of send devices/send channels and group effects. I also use custom key tracked envelopes a lot and I completely lose control over these as well.
I would love to be able to put one point of an automation curve at pattern 01 and put the next point of the curve in pattern 12 and then be able to adjust its curvature.
They, or taktik I assume, made a lot of improvements on the automation curves already, I really hope he/they consider developing it further. 
2 Likes
I just “rediscovered” the Renoise compressors. I tried a lot of VST compressors the last years (all the common suspects), but then in the end I always come back to Renoise and am amazed about these two dsp devices. I can’t even tell exactly why that is. It just works like I imagine, and others don’t. I guess since I do not use the others correctly I think Renoise ones use quite uncommon release curve shapes, also the attack detection seems to use secret “hold” value or so. The bus compressor is awesome as, yes, “bus” compressor and also master compressor, but also for slowly shaping track sound. I even love the distortion of “compressor”, if you gone too far. Don’t know if this is hipster analog like distortion or simple digital distortion, but I really like it.
The only thing I miss here is a upward compression mode (not to be mixed up with parallel compression, it sounds different) plus a range then (required for upwards mode). Just like tb_compressor_v3 provides:
I guess since the algorithms of these devices came from 3rd party, there is not much hope for any changes. I requested now a mix knob for both compressors. This would already expand the use cases of the compressors by a lot! Please vote the request up.
4 Likes
I used to think OTT, even though not the most conventional compressor, was very good, but i have later realised that it is completely useless for mastering. It can be good for sound design though, but just don’t use this in the master chain.
On the other hand i used to think the native compressors were not all that great, but i have later realised they’re actually pretty good. Especially for subtle compression, but for limiting i prefer Limiter64 though, because i think the native ones seem too slow and fails absorbing the worst peaks without harsh clipping.
I use less and less compressors overall these days, realised that compressors are made to degrade music by design. Of course, these days you can’t make music without any compression, it is an essential tool, but has to be used with care.
For mastering there are basically two plugins i use, Waves Abbey Road TG Mastering Chain and Limiter64, in that order. The mastering plugin is imo the absolute best plugin i have purchased, it works like magic. Limiter64 also does magic and is able to absorb the shortest peaks almost completely transparent if used subtly and not for increasing the volume.
Also even the Maximizer which supposedly is hard-clipping, they add quite big peaks more than you would think. The Maximizer need a true-peak limiting functionality but from reading the manual about the Maximizer
The Maximizer is a hard limiter which boosts and limits audio signals. It will hard-clip a signal that exceeds the Threshold, but then soften the Release when it falls back under that Threshold (contrary to plain hard-clipping). The Maximizer is often used for final mastering to block any stray, unnecessary peaks without harsh sounding full hard-clipping.
But why is SPAN reporting True Peak clipping? 
I must be doing something wrong
1 Like