The Pattern Editor

board flood control wastes my time…
but that’s no important

i’ve used scream/fast/impulse tracker, axs/dreamstation,buzz… but wait, buzz is the keyword!

renoise still uses the conventional tracker commands
buzz already revolutionized the old f45 a67 what ever stuff away, and you had a column for each thing you wanted to change… some buzz synths have this huge list of command columns, that’s overwhelming, k, but it’s still the most plain way to edit!! you can’t forget or mix up anything, it’s user friendly!
i was always using trackers, but the command stuff is too crypted (i managed to use it but i don’t like it), why don’t you provide a column for every thing like vib depth vib speed … bpm…ticksperbeat… slides… the pattern editor is too old fashioned. you know, you don’t need piano roll to visualize editing, just go the buzz way and make that even more plain and intelligent. (got no clue what to say about buzzle).

for me it seems like you just can’t throw away support for old songs, but the pattern editor, to be honest! has no concept at all, it’s full of inconsitency and limits, and it’s not prepared for zooming or being really user friendly…renoise needs a heart transplantation dr. shruggy says.

can you inform me how much i’m wrong, how much you’ve done about new patten editor concepts?..


The pattern editor is just there for compatability sake, the rest in Renoise we call DSP and automation.
Ever seen it?
And if you haven’t registered Renoise, you miss out the nice new mixer and line-in device and syntax colouring.

I’ve regged renoise. Yeah renoises automation is better than automation in fruity…
Ok, if the pattern editor isn’t that important… well… i’m gonna play piano and forget about it.

I for one thought Buzz:s pattern interface was a mess.
You had to scroll through multiple columns just to get to the note editng.
Much better to have a visual automation view than punching numbers in a column.
IIRC the FSM Infector (someone should convert that to a vst) had 20+ parameters.

Much easier to just have notes/volume etc. in the pattern and then use automation al’a Renoise.
Just my opinion of course and one I’m glad the devs have developed.

haplo you’re absolutely right, scrolling to the wanted column was a mess
if i could just drag a column for a certain thing into the pat ed, it would appear there and i’d enter values…

they could preserve compatibility… just add new track-types…

note-only-track … just notes…
value-only-track… just values for anything

they need some gui controls to choose where this new type of patterntrack should send it’s data (which instrument and for value-tracks additionally which (vst) parameter)… and then you have just two slim new track types… add them where you want… and if you could switch the value-track to curve-view, you get a curve with the values as points, shown vertically… side by side… :P

00:C-5 0</Instrument 7 (Pitch) values 0:0.7897995567

view mode curve == traditional automation editor but vertically, uses entered values as points,
feature in future maybe, not so important

i’d remove the old patterntrack types for any new song i make and use the new ones… welcome back modularity, old songs still work

I think that it’s not just about compatibility, it’s about classic tracking, but with ability to use modern features like VST(i), automation, mixer etc. I need tracker commands for sample mangling, I need full keyboard control, and I don’t want to mess with some ultra-flexible pattern editor/interface, that just gets in my way. I’m actually a bit afraid of the announced new pattern sequencer - I hope it won’t be like the one in Fruity Loops, because I hated that one. True, now we can only put patterns in different order together, but I like this just fine, and I think it works great with the types of music that trackers are most suited for (loop/pattern based, like hiphop, electronic etc.).

Renoise is a bit like MPC in the world of samplers/drum machines. It’s not the most full featured, it’s not the most flexible, it doesn’t have state-of-the-art sequencer, but people love it because it’s simple, straight-forward and powerful.

Btw., if you want flexible tracker interface, with zooming and everything, try Aodix. It’s really kind of revolutional, and many people like it, but I like Renoise’s pattern editor much more.

Good idea about putting automation curve vertically and combine it with pattern commands though…

aodix isn’t bad, really, but, when I used it, it painted the characters one over another, was that a feature?..

renoise does make things fast!
but over the last months i felt like, i really want to spend time for the music i make, because often i end up spending much time there anyway. so, it was ok for me, that pattern editing in fruity loops is actually a slower keyboard/mouse-driven process. renoise is a bit faster, no matter what short-cuts i use in fruity.

but the added automation zoom / interpolation whatever shows, renoise was / is still missing editing granularuty. often i got not the choice to put something exactly where i want to have it, e.g. if i tend to use “f” for cut-at-tick but there are already velocity values (dunno how good my examples are, but renoise offers some conflicting features, i can’t be that stupid not to find the right way??)

so, back to my thought, fruity takes more time that i want to spend anyway and enables to do just more things, that’s why i preffer it today, even if i’m pissed of by some short cut’s and heavy mouse use.
one thing, i think, oskari tammelin (and others) just thought "forget about the tracking traditions, i’ll just take any gui idea from any of the software categories, and if one one more are part of classic tracking, that’s ok. if classic trackers would be perfectly modelled music editors i would stick to them, but they aren’t. standard software have a better design. even my steinberg card 32 for c64 was just more sophisticated than scream tracker or fast tracker or something, although these were much fun. but i don’t esteem that fun i had with trackers, today i just hate to have drawbacks from old days. i’d always be willing to learn a new editing system, containing ideas from everywhere, but it has to be modular, granular and fully consistent, otherwise i’m just too frustrated to go on using it.


You can add cuts and retrigs command on both volume and panning column in 1.8, so if you already have a velocity value in the volume column standing, use the panning column for cut / retrig.
If there is only one note on that row in case of retrig you can always expand to the effect column to apply retrig.