Renoise vs FL Studio

General Discussion
37

It has been much discussion about adding a piano roll vertically.I think I prefer something simple, similar to the previous idea.

Now there are 12 columns per track (R3.1), it would be very interesting to arrange the notes in live recording, without developing a pianoroll or something similar with the horizontal route. In other words, integrate the composition in the tracker, simply ordering the notes in the track,without adding anything else.and this would be an optional feature, not conditional.

@gova, do you agree with this?

38

There were 12 columns per track since longer than I can remember. :stuck_out_tongue:

Simple ordering can be done with toolrealtime and has been done with tools offline. Wanting to have a major design change optional is in the nature of any major design change, isn’t it though :P?

What I would like is an optional text-free tracker, with selected automation lanes right near the track etc.

But making it so would probably alienate previous piano roll users and the new feature would loose some of its purpose.

39

There were 12 columns per track since longer than I can remember. :stuck_out_tongue:

…

And remember well.Yes, I know.But now,the novelty is that the new versionevery column says “Note” (12 notes, 1 octave is supposed).You can change the name and everything,column name, orassociate it with the name of an instrument ora note.This makes sure that people talk more about recording the notes. :slight_smile:

I think as an idea it easy to add, without changing almost nothing inRenoise, can be welcomed.Making big changes itself already is a problem.

Sometimes I thinkhow is possible thanRenoiseTeam does not go crazy with so many suggestions from people. :wacko:

Each suggestion has to have a big justification,otherwiseit will never be added.But there are also small additions that do not change anything, and do a great job, for example, split the pattern.Another might besort thenotes natively,that works well integrated,live recording, or after recording,an addition that involves including a button;something simple as associating the same note of all octaves to a single column within a track (each column, only accepts ten octaves of each note, eg: Column 01: C-0, C-1, C-2, C-3…C-9)…But there is a problem, overlapping notes.This problem makes the idea is discarded.And so with many ideas,some because they cost too much work, others because they do not work well at 100%…

40

Raul: Hm, ok, if you do really, really multiple times record in very time you may get a good recording result even without live quantization. But somehow renoise lacks of standard midi recording features. Like in advanced editor quantization options, only live!!! (a.k.a. more intelligent raster matching). Or overdub/overwrite is missing. Or live quantization of notes + preserving length (live). etc.

Also changing the behavior of the delay column, like it was suggested some weeks ago (cannot find it, was like delay = 80 is normal + with negative values!) would highly improve post-editing time, imho.

I do not usually ask overly.When I compose, I use a lot of live recording. I need.

I like the soundtrackstyle music, orchestral,with many nuances,also new age, trance and progressive.Therefore, I use the live recording many times.But I have enough.I justregisteran instrument 01, I record with keyboard Midi and metronome, live. Then I grab other instrument 02 and other track separatelyand I repeat the steps.After I fixnotes, delays, velocitiessetc. adjusting.But before we start I already know what will be the resultin most occasions.With R3.1 I can already do this.

But add more MIDI controls would also be interesting. I think they’re working on it in this days.Secondly, atracker (Pattern Editor in live recording) who can identify the notes and order natively would be great!Renoise can still improve a lot.but I am very satisfied with what is already there.Renoise I just hope it does not become a heavy DAW with thousands of things, some redundant.

41

I proposed this idearight now:https://forum.renoise.com/t/idea-intelligent-tracker-in-live-recording-with-midi-notes/44744

This idea has to do with this too:

Yeah, and while that approach probably makes sense for drums, it doesn’t make sense for when you’re playing chords. Of course, there’s always ledger’s note reorder tool.

42

Sometimes I thinkhow is possible thanRenoiseTeam does not go crazy with so many suggestions from people. :wacko:

I can only speak for myself, but I started to categorize ideas & suggestions a while back.

And I update the topic whenever features are actually implemented - 3.1 and Redux are looking quite good in this regard:

https://forum.renoise.com/t/list-of-feature-suggestions-for-renoise/40515

I should mention that one solution for the column mess is, of course, to record into different tracks. But setting up your midi controller to do that everytime you want to record something is quite something. It would be great to be able to have a template for that or so. So that you can switch between “record into current track” and “record into this specific configuration” with a single toggle, for every connected midi controller.

Yes, in Renoise, instruments are bound to the MIDI controller - not the other way around. So if you load an instrument, it might specify a certain input. That’s cool, but it leaves room for the opposite approach:

This tool (which is 2.8 only, AFAIK) examined that type of workflow:

https://www.renoise.com/tools/midi-management-console

Would be interesting to revisit that idea, not as much for voice-doubling (although cool), but more for a quick overview and managing “performance templates”, like you point out.

43

I can only speak for myself, but I started to categorize ideas & suggestions a while back.

And I update the topic whenever features are actually implemented - 3.1 and Redux are looking quite good in this regard:

https://forum.renoise.com/t/list-of-feature-suggestions-for-renoise/40515

Yes, in Renoise, instruments are bound to the MIDI controller - not the other way around. So if you load an instrument, it might specify a certain input. That’s cool, but it leaves room for the opposite approach:

This tool (which is 2.8 only, AFAIK) examined that type of workflow:

https://www.renoise.com/tools/midi-management-console

Would be interesting to revisit that idea, not as much for voice-doubling (although cool), but more for a quick overview and managing “performance templates”, like you point out.

Yes, it’s nice that someone made a tool. But things like this should IMO really be core functionality. Why? Well, because it guarantees functionality over time. The link you posted is a perfect example why the tools fail in this regard. The API is broken (read: not backwards compatible) with pretty much every update. If tool authors do not update their tools, the functionality is gone.

So, what I am trying to say is that tools are a great addition, but important functionality should not depend on them. And I am afraid I do get a bit the impression that as soon as something has been made available as a tool, it does not get much attention anymore by Taktik and crew (because: the functionality is kind of there…just use the tool). This is a subjective feeling I have, and might not reflect the real situation, though.

Anyway, just thought I’d share this thought.

44

I can only speak for myself, but I started to categorize ideas & suggestions a while back.

And I update the topic whenever features are actually implemented - 3.1 and Redux are looking quite good in this regard:

https://forum.renoise.com/t/list-of-feature-suggestions-for-renoise/40515

…

Hi Danoise

Yes, I think you’re making a huge effort chasing and ordering ideas and interesting suggestions there in the forums.I guess the whole Renoise Team which will visit forums, noting the interesting ideas to implement as soon as possible, if they are suitable within the own project of the program,ordering priorities…This is great because we all participate in some way contributing things,each with what he can,although some things are ignored…

The feeling is mutual.We are lucky to have the team Renoise, keep going for arrangethings, help and listen to ideas.At the same time, RenoiseTeam is lucky to have users disinterestedlycontribute ideas.This is great!!On the other hand, other users with their tools complement Renoise.

I think the path traced is good. The Renoise project has an owner, and should remain so, with very clear ideas of what to add and what not to add.

All this reminds me of the TV series "Halt and Catch Fire"in the second season, the blonde protagonist refuses to sell his company for $5 million. She feels that your project is powerful, is largeeven though no money.She (Cameron Howe) believes passionately in your project,despite the time, despite the money. But ultimately Cameroncommand!For me, Cameron Howeis like Eduard Müller.He is creating a piece of art, and your project will continue to grow, with the help of us all,despite the cryings…Of course, this is just an impression.I recommend you to see the show,is about hardware and programming, also. :slight_smile:

Even in these forums existbig ideas, terrible ideas, joys, cryings, tension, disappointment, passion, art, discussions, community!All this is good, and this does not exist in other forums where everything is locked with closed source.

I only ask that yourselves continue!

45

I think if there was a mandatory selection of category tags for a submitted feature request, the search for doubles and summary would be much more easy. currently the tags are used totally random.

just like in a bug tracker software.

46

Yes, it’s nice that someone made a tool. But things like this should IMO really be core functionality. Why? Well, because it guarantees functionality over time. The link you posted is a perfect example why the tools fail in this regard. The API is broken (read: not backwards compatible) with pretty much every update. If tool authors do not update their tools, the functionality is gone.

So, what I am trying to say is that tools are a great addition, but important functionality should not depend on them. And I am afraid I do get a bit the impression that as soon as something has been made available as a tool, it does not get much attention anymore by Taktik and crew (because: the functionality is kind of there…just use the tool). This is a subjective feeling I have, and might not reflect the real situation, though.

Anyway, just thought I’d share this thought.

Once again I think similar to you subjective feeling.I’ll remember this comment:https://forum.renoise.com/t/idea-add-a-new-models-type-menu-in-automation-editor/44559

Here I reflect my feeling about some things related to the development of Renoise. For example,when an external tool is created and is very useful, it is because something is missing under the hood of Renoise.Here are many examples: curves in Automation Editor, tool for order notes in track in Pattern Editor,great features that speed up and clarify the composition.So if any use is created automatically seems to ignore by theTeam Renoise.So I think the really useful things, should be native, and delete external tools,precisely the most useful. Because it would be good if they were integrated natively.

The best example is the tools natives in Automation Editor. The Automation Editor isused to modify any parameter DSP.It is a very importantEditor.He deserves special treatment, with large native tools, not external.

Theexternal tools are magnificent,have value and cost of encoding:

But it is so great, it makes the native editor automation, is almost deserted. Aletdown!

Other eg:

Most do not work properly.If all this were native, it works perfect forever.

However, it is in thePattern Editorwhere Renoise still not exploited enough.WhyPhrasesEditor has a beautifulVirtualPiano, and thePattern Editor does not?Whythe Virtual Pianonot write with the mouse? (also a work tool,not only visual)

Of course, we must always think to work with one monitor, and 2 monitors.

And now comes the greatest…When the tracker either"intelligent", and help the composer to automatically agree to arrange the musical scale notes in the Pattern Editor, Renoise will reach the end of the road. (Now, only collects pretty stones of the road).The pattern editor has enormous potential.Foul squeeze the maximum, and letadditionalpianorolls and bollocks. One only trackcould be a pianoroll with one octave musical (multiplied by 10). Indeed it is, only that it is not automatic.Many people have messes with the tracker (in Pattern Editor and the notes), because no ordersautomaticallyto writenotes according to the musical scale.There is no relationship between columns and notes.Maybe there could be an added option for this…If I have time I will try to develop some screenshots unifying ideas, something like an advanced editor to automate notes and order patterns. We just can do that,provide non-destructive ideas.

I’m sure the team Renoise knows all these things, and others that would like to have insurance and can not, because it’s hard work.The conclusion is that there are priorities.But it’s about time that profits are implemented natively, expanded and improved.We can only provide good ideas, and support each other. If an idea is good, we must study it and support it.On the contrary,all this is useless.

I for now, happy to enjoy R3.1!!! :smiley:

47

I think if there was a mandatory selection of category tags for a submitted feature request, the search for doubles and summary would be much more easy. currently the tags are used totally random.

just like in a bug tracker software.

I think the same. Yes, there may be tagsmother.Take Renoise areas and divide all. Eg: Installation, Control Panel, Menu Primary, Pattern Editor, Matrix Editor, Automation Editor, Track DSP Panel, Instrument Editor, Instrument Box, Samples Box, Phrases Editor, Keyzones, Virtual Piano, etc etc, Manual User, Help, etc etc…With a handful oftagswe cover all Renoise.

But of course, with mandatory tags.

I would go into a forum that only call"PatternEditor".

I would go into a forum that only call “Keyzones”.

Things like that…

48

I know this is an ancient post but I couldn’t agree more with the original posting. I have used Renoise for years and I have just given FL Studio a second try… and I just cannot be bothered with FL Studio! The thing that makes Renoise (or any other Amiga tracker tool clone) great is the fact that you can use your computer keyboard and see/hear things. Being forced to use a mouse or MIDI keyboard to enter/record notes is so painful in my experience. I love Renoise.

The only reason I had another look at FL Studio is because my new MIDI keyboard is “FL Studio ready”. The FL Studio knob detection is cool… I think I just need to spend more time with Renoise learning how I can map my MIDI controller knobs to different controls on my VSTs - that’s the unknown area for me.

49

FL was my main for a long time. It’s VERY mouse oriented, and that sucks big time. Beat makin’ blue balls lol

I bought Redux and whoo the relief :face_exhaling:. Coming from a hardware background, keyboard shortcuts galore just seems natural and more productive.

I use Renoise, FL, and Live. But when I’m not in Renoise, Redux replaces EVERY sample module or plugin in FL/Live.

Quick tip: Load Redux inside of Plogue Bidule(Plugin inside of Plugin) you can map the command-open UI to a controller cc toggle or button and bring up the Redux UI without clicking. Feels just like a Workstation

1 Like
50

I got some help and managed to get my keyboard knobs to control my VST knobs. I think my next task is to see if I can make some mapping templates that I can use for each of my regular VSTs. You kinda need the techy workflow figured out beforehand so the techy stuff doesn’t stop the creativity. Of course sometimes it’s hard to know what you want in your workflow until you start using it… Hmm…

I originally bought FL Studio because the piano roll seemed way nicer than Cubase’s (and I use Cubase for mixing and guitar take recording) but nah… I just have no time for the mouse. I’ve composed music in various “mobile” locations too - back of the car… sitting outside… by the swimming pool… They’re not really places for a mouse but excellent places for creativity! I admit though that once I start tweaking filter/cutoff knobs… they’re not really places for a midi controller keyboard either lol… Even the Korg Nano devices are cumbersome - USB cables everywhere… I think I need like a vertical midi controller with nothing but knobs that works via Bluetooth or something.

51

YOu can use your pc keyboard to play and record in fl studio

2 Likes
52

That and moving through the playlist but not nearly as much functionality as Redux or Renoise. For instance, you can’t switch focus to your sample browser, load your sample, then switch focus to the sample, reverse, normalize, slice, etc… all from the keyboard, in FL

53

It’s kind of impossible to compare a tracker to a piano roll based DAW because they appeal to two completely different crowds.
As much as I love the workflow of Renoise, I can’t live without a piano roll. I worked professionally as a programmer for 16 years - I don’t want to program my music as well lol Being able to visualize my notes and slides is also way too beneficial. All that being said, I hate FL Studio’s workflow… while it’s rather simple to understand, it somehow also makes no sense. I don’t even know how that’s possible. Renoise’s rather minimal design is far more efficient and still does just what you need.
If I could merge Renoise with FL’s piano roll and virtual keyboard I’d never look at another DAW again.

1 Like
54

it all comes down to writing loops :star_struck:

55

When I tried FL Studio here and there between 2010 and 2018 I hated how everything was disconnected, too much visual clutter and you have to assign each track in the mixer, that tracks in the arrangement aren’t really tracks, oh and writing automation was a pain! Also the last version I liked was 10 or 11, after that the UI and functionality went downhill imo. I love automation in Renoise, being able to draw automation or with pattern commands, interpolate, etc, also that everything is in plain sight, and the integrated sampler :grinning:

2 Likes
56

I think they both are good on they own way.

I started with FL when it was still Fruity Loops. I checked the recent versions some time ago - it is great, but why are they moving away from the pattern arrangement grid? That was the thing that made it so clear and intuitive. But I guess they need to move into more serious DAW market.

I hope Renoise will retain it’s oldschool simplicity. It just works, and on linux too - that is great!

2 Likes