Sample Modulation Improvements

Just read the whole thread again :slightly_frowning_face:. It’s been more than 5 years now. The modulation system is still the same, and besides the initial interest of several sound design companies there is not a single commercial sound set available for Renoise/Redux.

Let’s start a new thread with new ideas. Bit-Arts isn’t around here anymore.

You may like or dislike the sample modulation, but it surely isn’t the (well, at least only) reason that there are not many commercial sound sets available for Renoise. Renoise is a niche product in a niche market. For most of the sound content producer out there it simply isn’t worth it creating content which only can be sold to Renoise users.

thats a great idea a new thread compiling all the cool ideas people have been posting here for quite a long time now

Why new ideas? The “old” ones seem to have been spot on.

I know, it’s a pity.

I was just referring to danoise mentioning that several companies were interested, but surprisingly none of them actually followed through with it.

I would bet no company jumped on because of the lack of disk streaming, managing big data samples, round robin etc. Such sample library basics. Not saying that I personally wish it was implemented :slight_smile: Redux does not have to be a niche product, or does it? There are not that much really good/fun sampler vsts out there.

Well, I’m still here. There’s just not much to say. :smiley:


I often felt what is missing the most is the possibility to route a modulation set through another, thus stacking the filters in serial or parallel ways. Maybe some mod set signal flow matrix would be a nice addon. It would extend the capabilities of the engine in great ways.

I also feel other aspects of the current concept are lacking, but I want to try not to make this post too cluttered. Thinking about stuff like granular/wavetable functionality, random/automated sample start points, a proper pitch shifter, formula modulation operators,…

I must say the current engine is pretty nerdy stuff, I can understand why people hesitate to dare more serious sound design with it. It is just too different and quirky in its possibilities to what is also on the market. It is easy to do simple sounds, but for more complex stuff you have to really wrap your head around rather unusual concepts. I like it that way, especially with instr.fx and meta modulation it can become very a powerful sound design tool once you find your ways. Powerful, but different. Maybe it is just lack of advanced demo instruments and good tutorials and demos showing the potential of the engine and teaching ways on how it can be used.


I have to say I love the modulation stuff. Sometimes the gui glitches out a bit but on the whole its very useful for creating FX and adding odd, unique elements and progressions to sounds.

I would realy love for all modulation devices to have a “relative” mode. So effect parameter have it “default” state and when we turn on LFO the changes that are made are from default value.
helm synth, and probly bitwig have it working that way where you can see “value” and modulation range on parameter.
For now i have to reset parameter to wanted value every time i turn off modulation.

29a: could you explain a little better what you mean? Are you talking about resetting macros or something?

I really like the way it works now, but i wouldn’t mind if new features were added, but i don’t see a reason to change it too much.
I suggested earlier to add another modulation stage so each sample can be modulated twice before routing to the FX chains, i still think it’s a good idea.
Edit: i think zeroopslfly already mentioned that and i’m also hoping for sample start/end/loop automation and pitch/stretch possibilities that sound a little bit better than the 900-9ff trick.

ie. I have analog filter LPF set up for 400hz on one track, in one part of the song i want to automate its cut-off with an lfo. I need to find an proper amount of offset on LFO to find “400hz” and after LFO is turned off i need to reset LPF cut-off again to 400hz. If later i would like to change cut-off to IE. 300hz i would then need change it in all places (base value, lfo offset, automation for reseting).

With “relative mode” for lfo it would modulate acording to lfo cutoff, cutoff=(effect value + LFO value) if lfo is turned off LFO value would be 0, if lfo is turned on, lfo value would be seted by oscilator acording to rules set up in lfo device.

I hope that now it is understandable.

To me your workflow sounds a bit confusing, but i guess we just work differently. I thought you were talking about the modulation in the instruments, which the topic was about.

If the base frequency of your filter is 400Hz, couldn’t you simply offset the LFO to this frequency and slide down the amount instead of turning it off? Then you can just offset the frequency to 300Hz later if you need to change it?
Why do you turn off an LFO? That makes no sense to me.
If i need to turn off the modulation i slide down the amount, reset, makes time -inf or offset if i need to, but i NEVER turn off the LFO.

Same thing applies for the instrument. For me, most confusing is when i attach modulation to the fx i have to reset it.

edit: bitwig modulation -, lfo applies from “fx” state.

I’m not sure if i understand correctly, but it simply just sounds to me that you’re not doing yourself a favor by turning the LFO off instead of making it transparent.

One solution could be using the formula device, with a simple formula like “A+(B-0.5)*C”…control A to set cutoff, while hooking the LFO into B. Thus you would for example have a cutoff control and let the LFO put vibrato on the cuftoff, which intensity would be controlled with the LFO Amplitude or parameter C.

I can do it even way i do now. We are talking about improvement here. For me “relative” mode for LFO/meta devices wound be an improvement, something that would save few moves for my workflow and also made it much clearer from interface. Sometimes i forgot that i have LFO on something, while i return to track after a while, when i remix it for live purpouse (changed parameters doesnt have any kind of info that they have meta devices attached).

I don’t think there will be any changes in the next version, there is already enough to do.

But maybe in some years, then I would suggest to use a proper synth as a template for a redesign, so you be able to

  • use filters in serial or parallel
  • use modulation slots in serial or parallel
  • use sample aliases, or a better slot routing many->many, not one->one
  • curves for ADHSR
  • samples start modulation
  • round robin
1 Like

Commercial viability is mostly a reason for a sound design company to invest in a product. If a product sells well, the company will deal with whatever technical depth to get their sound set to market.

If a company would create an exclusive and incredible sound set for Redux, that would probably help sell the product. That has been the reason for me to buy some plugs at the time, like Refx vanguard with vengeance sound packs for example.

Ok then, you all seem to think that also Redux “is just a tracker”, or something? I like its GUI, and find it pretty advanced over Kontakt in many ways. I guess I am crazy then.

I don’t think so :kissing_heart:

Well my point is about commercial viability, not about Redux’s quality or being a tracker or not. Personally I love Redux is wish not but world domination for the Renoise team.