Should Renoise And Aodix Join Forces?

Hahaha, in your FACE. He sure showed you, rite?

Also, the sub-pattern or pattern macros thing has been discussed before, and it would be totally awesome.
+1

Actually, we don’t?

What I meant is that if you “add” another effect column, you can press the ← button again to “collapse” it but the data is still there and the effects still work ;) … same with the note columns

Nope :)
Both hidden note columns and hidden effect columns are disabled/inactive.
The data remains there as you would expect, but it does not do anything while hidden.

.

Oh… I should have tested that before speaking up… but now that you’ve set me straight, I have to ask: why not? :(

I actually think it makes sense and I frequently rely on it behaving this way. I will often lay down quick ideas and other things in the extra columns, then I’ll hide those columns as I begin to refine things while still wanting to keep a backup of the original data.

I definitely agree that a purely visual track collapse function would be incredibly useful, but I do think that the column hiding/disabling functionality is logical and should remain the way it is now. If a track collapse function is ever introduced, then these two behaviours should be able to co-exist in my opinion.

.

Agreeing with dblue. The way it works now has it’s strength, but the mute function for note columns isn’t bad (in that area) either.

I think pattern zoom (going back to earlier posts) is useful for those to manage songs reasonably. I’ve never liked tracking faster than 1ROW=32nd NOTE, but have always been in a position where I wanted some of the advantages of having 64th, 128th and 256th notes later in the song, but decided to just omit that due to the headache of having retardedly stretched out patterns for a majority of a song just for a cool effect now and then.

As far as routing, I’d only support that if it remained CPU friendly. It seems a lot of new programs and VSTs put out are completely disregarding the fact that they use so much CPU. Most of it is coming from audiophile snobs, it seems, “It’s 9 million times oversampled for %-0934506y205 anti-aliasing! YOU CANT BEAT DIS SOUND QUALITINIZATIONISMS!” etc. That’s fine and all for rendering, but while playing, it’s crapfully slow. Any new additions to ReNoise I’d only request as long as it’s CPU efficiency is not sacrificed. While it’s not the fastest program in the known universe, it does have good sound and respectable speed. Please, never forget the guys who don’t care about upgrading their computers every 6 months.

The collapsible columns and such I think could be changed slightly…add a ‘mute’ button as there are for individual columns in a track for effects that shuts them off and use the collapse to hide-but-still-hear idea. It works both ways just fine. It could even go further and darken the column being ‘muted’ or replace everything visually with dark red " - - - - " or something to that nature.

Beatslicing? What?

I’ll make a video about how ReNoise doesn’t need speakers to sound good! :)

Well, well. I had been tracking Aodix development since 2004 and I really had my biggest hopes with this software. I even suggested the way to implement MIDI in\out pins on the KVR forum thread, which got implemented later.

I was gruesomely dissapointed when arguru announced that he chose to discontinue Aodix development; by that time it had grown into a pretty damn stable and seamless piece of innovative code. A bit CPU hungry, yes, but in every other way - awesome.
I finally purchased it, but Zaf returned the money saying they would release it for free now. Shame really, it was worth that money, and with a bit more work it could really break into indie market. Who knows, maybe even join forces with Renoise. Man, that would be awesome!

So far I have produced only one commercial track using Aodix (an electro clash piece for a russian dj), tho postproduction was done in nuendo by another guy (I can’t stand the guts of nuendo and the like!).
I can say that the strongest points of Aodix are, of course, ability to route the multiple inputs\outputs, AND the awesome nested patterns. I’m not even sure which one is more important because routing allows to unlock the ears while nested patts unlocks the brain. It is ultimately cool.

The only drawbacks are CPU hunger, no ‘VST suspend’ feature which makes CPU go all the way up and stay there sometimes, and of course the lack of assignable shortcuts.

So, if I would talk about The Ultimate Tracker of Doom (which would bring about the End of Days for this rotten and corrupt world of moneygreedy zombies mwuhh-ha-hah!) I’d say the brew must be cooked like that:

Renoise as it is + routing view, pattern zoom and (optional!) nested patterns + flexible peer controllers (like those developed by btd for buzz) = The Dream Come True!

As of now, I realize that if Renoise don’t develop a better FX\track routing capabilities by 2.0 I don’t think I’ll renew my license, because for what it’s good for it’s more than good as it is now. When I need sound capabilities, I’m still forced to go elsewhere - Aodix and, erm, (scusi, ItAlien), buzz. But I sincerely hope for Renoise to light the way in this direction too!

I think Aodix has 2 big conceptual advantages over Renoise:

  • The object oriented routing concept also available in Buzz

  • The not-tick-based internal timing that makes smooth and sample-accurate positioning possible, zoom, vertical pianoroll etc

But besides I like the massive detailed comfortable options and stability in Renoise much more.

I agree that these conceptual ideas could be taken over to Renoise…

I’m all for a more flexible routing.
But I don’t like how it’s handled in Aodix, GUI wise. I’d rather have drop-down menus on channels/instruments.

edit: I don’t even want routing to individual FXs (as this seems to be possible in Aodix, if I’m not mistaken). Routing to tracks is cool.

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.