The sample offset technique is practically obsolete…
It would be handy to be able to define ‘markers’ (like in Soundforge) in the Renoise sample editor environment. Markers could be utilised in the same manner as sample offset, so you may commence a sample from a possible list of 256 pre-defined locations rather than a step between 00 and ff.
100% accuracy and no guesswork.
More artistic freedom with percussion loops.
Manual quantization/tweaking of samples instrumental lines and vocals.
Faster workflow; no need to break up parts into separate instruments.
I concur. Additionally, there could be a beat-detect button which would automatically place markers, and a traditional “256 divisions” button to make it work like the old days.
This would also make vsti like Phatmatik pro obselete. Mwahaha
A strong critisizing slogan for only one feature that today became underconditionally facilitated concerning it’s scalability factor.
I can say a lot things against such statements, but i just leave the joy by letting another user indirectly take the honour of saying the fitting response to your quote:
(Remember that up to today nothing touchable has been ever released regarding IT3 and it has been a rumour for a complete lustrum by now)
I had a idea similar to this one, but the sample offset is not obsolete. If you have the break timed right it works perfect. Some breaks like apache and soul pride might not have been perfectly timed when they were played, but a little editing of the sample can easily fix that.
Basicly, I would really like this feature, but it should not be a replacement. It should be added as an option with the original sample offset.
Markers would be an excellent extension. If the markers were global to the sample you could keep 09xx working as it currently does, then use these markers for either Offset, Loop Start or Loop End position changes (and probably other functions as well.)
This would require three more pattern effect numbers though, which would mean moving away from hexidecimal into the alphanumeric realm. Personally I don’t see that as being too much of a problem though…
I don’t agree. If you are wanting to use these markers for more than just offset, such as for setting sample loop points, then having them user definable, where you can set them precisely on the zero crossing, is a lot more avantageous than just having more resolution.
Also it’s a lot easier to remember a few markers and which number relates to what than it is to remember a load of 3 or 4 digit hexidecimal values.
Preferabley you would want to be able to give each marker a value of your choice, then you could use a system that helps you remember. Say marker 01-0F you use for sample start offsets, 10-1F for loops start points, and 20-2F for loop end point. Of course there are still loads more that could be done, and each person may like to work slightly differently.
True, but I would personally still prefer to play them from a offset via the pattern editor so I can play at which pitch I choose, using half and double speed if desired.
Oh true it could all be done with a four digit offset value (probably suitable enough for longer samples) and a lot more work plus a few work arounds, but it wouldn’t be anywhere near as intuative or neat for the user.
I was not bitching either, but i noticed the IT3 avatar on your user-profile (when i was looking it up) so actually wanted to make fun of the situation this way.
Yes, a lot of IT2 functionality i would have liked in Renoise, but i have forgotten IT2 since i’ve been working with Renoise.
You get used to it.
But the sample-offset i don’t think anyone should worry too much about it.
There is a flexible way to resolve it’s inaccurate positioning system with some extra elements but yes, they have to be implemented first.
In some way i see the effect commands phasing out of the system and being replaced by meta devices and automation relationships.
But this is just my personal future vision of how Renoise would likely evolve.
There is hardly room for the usability of the commands if the range only reaches 256 independant values.
Sample offsetting is the primary reason I moved to trackers.
I personally think it would be a mistake to change too much about it.
I think it’s pretty much fine the way it is.
As long as you chop your breaks/samples properly 256 points of resolution really is not too much of a limitation, and the kick/snare/hihat hit’s are predictably distributed.
Why bother with markers?
Traditional oldsk00l offsetting will always have its place.
Replacing offset with markers is a bad idea, because traditional offsetting is useful for lots of artistic and practical reasons. Marker offsetting should be an addition to the command set.
I am thinking markers would be more useful with longer samples which span across patterns. Eg. vocals, instrumental lines, loops that are tempo unfriendly and imperfectly clipped.
Perhaps an extension of this idea is to combine marker offsets with traditional offsets. The traditional offset value would work in relation to the specified marker point and the next, rather than work in the context of the entire sample length. So example, when working with loops, you could alter the transients slightly to give a human but precise quality. Just food for thought.
Because then you could easily use it to play a sample of a speach from different point, singling out words and phrases which never sit exactly on the devisions like looped beats do.
Also they could be used for setting loop points, and could be put on zero crossings (which is needed for loops.) whereas the currently there is no way to do this at all but I think just about everybody agrees it would be a great addition to renoise.
If you could arrange 256 places to set your offset markers 100% accurate you will probably have enough for a while and considering you probably won’t be needing more than at max 20 markers; Wouldn’t it be easier to just set markers at crucial points where you desire your sample being played from and put them in the first 20 slots of the marker area?..
Wouldn’t it be easier that 0900 points to slot 00 which could be the base drum offset, 0901 points to slot 01 which could be a snare and 0903 could be pointing to a snaredrum offset?
In this case you would arrange the offset in advance instead of on-the fly plus that you don’t need to manually chop your samples anymore.
That is at least a dozen of steps you don’t need to take and the first dozen only once.
I made suggestion similar to this basic idea using the same concept as being used with midi messages, in that case a reference will be made to the sample-number and the offset-marker for that sample.
This makes it possible to add multiple large sampled drum-loops and sequenced elements in one instrument and giving each sample their own table of 256 marker positions.
Add to this an automatable meta-device and there will be a powerfull tool that doesn’t nessesarily require a pattern effect command.
I just had an implementation idea. The offsets could work the same way as tabs in a wysiwyg word processor ruler. By default, every nth would be set to n*samplelength / 256 offset, and the user can create a new offset that cancels all offsets to the left of it so that:
(1) point 00 in the sample will always be referenced by 0900
(2) all user offsets are considered first (much like the tabs) so that the first user offset is 0901, the second 0902 etc.
(3) The remaining 09xx where xx > number of user offsets are divided evenly throughout the remaining part of the sample. I guess the way it divides could be specified by the user in case precise beat locations need to be preserved.
I think, that the 09xx command shouldn’t be changed, because it would break lots of songs. I would prefer something like an alias sample, which has a reference to the original sample. One could edit the alias sample within the Renoise sample editor without actually destroying the sample (only a reference to the original), it only holds information like the starting and end cut point and has an own envelope. If one could map the alias sample across the keyboard, it would be perfect IMO.
Old songs could be converted pretty easily as the current 256 value would never be extended.
I would not worry about that this change would affect old songs.
Just that if you in your old song would have
091f
093c
0967
098f
You will instead have
0900
0901
0902
0903
and the sample as four new references to point 1f, 3c, 67 and 8f stored in the table.
