Sorry about going haywire there. It was immature and stupid and i apologize morouche. I must’ve been on my period or something.
Something in me flicks into argh mode when faced with polarized opinion that leaps contrary to my own (equally polarized opinion 
Anyway i’m sorry. Hope it’s forgiven
And i still think zoomable patterns is totally uninteresting
Aodix and Renoise is two absolutely different hosts.
Only thing makes them comparative is that both of em based on ‘tracker’ concept.
So i don’t think they need to be mixed in one ‘tracker of doom’.
Each of em are great as it is.
And each of em has own way and own evolution path.
So, I read this and I understand some concepts. Some concepts are really strange for me. First of all: Why pattern zoom? I don’t understand what is the sense here. Smaller Ticks and higher bpm-rates, longer patterns are IMHO a perfect workaround.
Routing: Okay, the linear-routing in Renoise ain’t perfect but it is “approachable” - In fact, I refused to use AODIX or Buzz because I want to make music and not setup millions of virtual cables.
If there will be such ultra-complex-routings, I strongly vote for having them optional. I consider myself being oldschool-tracker and so I don’t need tooo many “classical”-stuff. Everything is possible with some fine hex-effects in the pattern.
Okay, that’s all just my point of view but I really do not want too many technical things that do not have anything to do with tracking.
For me pattern zoom or complex routing is as useful as a friggin beatslicer.
Well, to each his own, but IMHO this workaround is far from perfect. Not even good, in fact.
I kinda agree on you for the routing tho, as I also mentioned in my previous post. I don’t like those virual cables, too much work if you just want to have some simple routing.
Reaper is a good example of flexible and easy-to-setup routing. You can both “send to” any track and also “receive from” any track. (The latter can save some time, if you use it on a send track…) This is how it looks on a channel (track):
I know it may look messy/too many controls. But if you need them you know that they have to be there.
Not saying that in Renoise it should look like that tho, simpler could be nicer. The “receive from” feature could be left out for example, even tho it’s a cool feature in itself.
I think if renoise joined forces with another piece of software, especially this one, it would mess so many things up rather than making it a better product. The reason why there are loads of good products, rather than one super-product for making music is so you have choice. they are all tools to be suited to the right task. i use protools, but not for making music - just as tape in studios. i use logic (less now i have renoise lol) but i would never record a band using it. everything has its purpose, but you are in danger of creating a mess/bad product if you combine lots of good ones. this is one of the most common music software hypothetical questions: “imagine if you had the midi of logic and the audio of tools! how good would that be?!” the answer is it would be shit. same here. thats why super-software doesn’t exist.
And what of VST/MIDI setups that use Renoise to keep time? … I’m not sure I want my synth running at 4,190,000BPM just because my drums are 
hmm. Render selection to sample
Of course I know there are some real flaws but making renoise too technical and getting away too much from a simple tracker concept can’t be the right way in my humble opinion.
… you’re kidding me right? … have you ever tried to do Jungle, DnB, IDM or Breakcore? … each one of these genres has very dense percussive (and sometimes melodic) spacing, and they all focus on having ever-changing patterns… to render all these faster elements to sample JUST so you could get a VST to behave properly is insane at best… and a complete waste of disk space and ram. (and what if you ever wanted to change the tempo of your song without changing pitch?) I personally think that Renoise should stray away from such hackery… the ONLY reason oldschool trackers didn’t contain improvements like this in the first place was because of hardware limitations… but now that we’ve got the ability to make UI improvements, who’s to say we shouldn’t? If you actually take a look at Aodix, you’ll find that the workflow is that of a tracker… with some very useful improvements. Pattern zoom will not take away from the simplicity of the “tracker concept”, it will only serve to make it more functional. In no way will it remove functionality… and that simplicity you speak of, will only increase with additions like this (how hacking around a flaw like this is “simple” is beyond me)
I want to say that I have always chosen trackers over other music software because of their editing speed and total creativity, and I think tracking is the only reasonable way to compose music using a computer keyboard and a screen.
Now, ‘routing’ is a computer equivalent of the way you’d handle cables in the hardware situation, nothing more.
I deeply respect all tracking people in the world, and I think the only reason you think routing is ‘complex’ is probably because you haven’t tested it yourself properly yet. In fact, it is much faster for building the overall sound of your track since you don’t have to ‘memorize’ which way which track is sent or received from - it all fits on the single screen, neat and tidy.
You won’t believe it, but I ask myself almost every month: “Why a buggy and hacked piece of software (i mean buzz)makes me return to it over and over again, while I want to use nothing but Renoise?” And I know why. It’s the clarity and simplicity of the routing.
When I reopen a Renoise track after two weeks, I have to wrap my mind again around all the FX and sends I’ve used to rebuild the whole picture in my mind, while I may reopen a buzz track after a year, and I understand instantly how the whole track is built.
I’ts simple as that.
See, you admit it yourself, sending\receiving is very messy. I second to that.
And besides, most VSTs around support multiple ins and outs. Why should I load six instances of the same instrument instead of loading just one, and connecting it’s outputs to whatever tracks I want?
And why on earth am I not allowed to use limiters and compressors that support level inputs? It’s not fair.
I’d say, spend a day with normal routing, and you won’t want to return to the ancient ‘send\receive’ routines. They’re plain boring.
Still, Renoise rocks, and i sincerely hope to be able someday to use it for everything I need in music. Almost everything is there already.
A solution could be splitting the internal sampler from vst instruments. vst instruments would get the buzz-like studio approach (and an extra studio page - a button in between the sample editor and the instrument editor), and internal samples would use the mixing desk approach. this way you would get the best of both ideas. vst instruments would get assigned to the master track by default.
I love the fact that I can mix around the internal samples to different tracks (with different FX) and they sound different. But that idea doesn’t work at all with VST instruments - you get nasty clicks because all the sound output has to switch channels.
edit: actually with energyXT I can do this already. I just set up one copy of energyXT, made a bunch of aliases and dropped in some instruments which I all gave a seperate midi channel to react to.
Now if only this was implemented, then my energyXT usage as a modular environment would really take off: https://forum.renoise.com/t/view-presets/20080
I said it may look messy, but that’s more at first sight and because there are many controls. After one minute I already knew what all the controls do and how to use them.
If you want a simpler look you might prefer the routing matrix (still from Reaper):
R-clicking on a box opens up the detailed controls for a track. I probably don’t have to tell you how much faster and easier this is to setup a common routing scheme (like sending tracks to a reverb track), as opposed to using virtual cables. If you don’t believe me try it.
Multiple outputs on a VSTi can just as easily be managed with drop-down menus, I don’t see how using virtual cables could be of any more use here.
If you mean multiple ins/outs on FX then, as I said, to me personally that’s overkill, I wouldn’t need that. I also think most DAW users are happy with just routing to tracks.
I disagree. I say make both VSTis and internal instruments/samples routable to whatever track.
Yeah come to think of it, it would be kind of stupid not to have that option there as well. I just thought it would break a lot of things for some reason. Anyway, maybe it would be nice to have a common layer in between the instrument and the track, where you could route your instruments to tracks + layers of effects, which you can share between all instruments. So kind of like an advanced form of the “Assigned to track” section in the instrument box.
Well, in my situation it’s not just about ‘sending tracks to reverb track’. It’s about having a couple of submixers before sending their feeds (through respective limiters\comps) to a master mixer.
A simple 5 minute setup may look like this: (it’s not one of my pictures)
(too busy now to post any of my pics today, but believe me, my Aodix setups look way more spectacular in terms of sound schemes. I’ll probably post one soon, just for fun.)
It goes without saying that you CAN’T build even simple submixes like this in a send\receive environment (unless you have multiple buses or soundcards).
I can’t even begin to imagine how much more time I’d spend opening dozens of ‘dialogs’ to select where I need to send the signal. (I’d get lost eventually)
No. I prefer a CLICK-DRAG-CONNECT routine. Saves heaps of time. Not to mention the whole scheme is 100% visible and you can easily see each signal chain at any moment.
But again, that’s in my situation, where I make my living by this and have to QUICKLY deliver a track which would not put off the studio guys (who sometimes do all the postprod) for them to say ‘oh, no, this was done in a tracker! it’s got to be redone completely in a proper software to release it!’
No, I’ve managed to beat the sh%t out of their pretensions just by the quality of my mixes. And often all they do is a slight mastering polish. I don’t even TOUCH post-production ‘giants’ like nuendo or samplitude. I’ve seen the faces of ‘serious’ producers change to a higher esteem towards trackers. And that counts for me.
Ok, I see. I understand that the ‘virtual cables’ approach might be better for some complex routing schemes. But I see such routing schemes as exotic, rather than something commonly used.
And I don’t think they are needed to create a pro sound or something. (I’m not saying you implied this, tho, just saying.) AFAIK the most famous DAWs all use a more ‘track based’ routing and they are still considered pro.
So my argument is still that a ‘send/receive, track based’ approach will be better and easier for most (90+%) users (pros included), for the most common routing schemes (which are not that complex). And it would also be more in line with what is already there (mixer, tracks, fx chains…).
I’d like to remind people that jungle/breakcore/idm is no real argument. Artists cope wonderfully with the tools already available, and are still breaking new ground.
There is always something to say for doing things properly though
But Renoise has a switch telling the VSTi’s if they should recieve the BPM, or the BPM * BPM multiplier, right? So just go with 150 BPM at “F01” and …it…goes…very…fast, while VSTs should recieve just the 150 BPM tempo.
right now, with renoise. i can do everything my imagination allows.
please dont ruin this.
i do believe Aodix, was Licensed.
/end of thread
Ok, presuming that I’m only talking about added functionality, as opposed to complete workflow changes… what would the problem be? A +/- zoom button? A slight change in how the notes are drawn? Potentially multi-selectable draggable notes? Routable multi-in/out effects??.. I guess I’m just not seeing how these things would impede one’s current renoise paradigm.
It’s amazing how that /end of thread thing works… I should try that more often 