# Why instrument pages jump in nines but the numbers are in hex?

I don’t understand why the instrument pages are counted in 9 instruments but the numbering is in hex. Is there some logic to it? This makes it a bit confusing to navigate with shortcuts especially when the browser is hidden as the first alphanumeric character of the instrument number doesn’t represent an instrument page.

I know it’s conceptual but these concepts contradict.

edited to correct that an instrument page is 9 instruments

You are probably asking why the instrument slot numbers start at `0` while the key bindings start at `1`?

I think it would be better if the key bindings were changed to start from 0. However, one could also think that starting from 1 would be more intuitive.
I think the reason instrument numbers start with 0 is because they can be written in a pattern editor, for example. In decimal, you have to increase the number of digits to describe the instrument number 255 (FE); in hexadecimal, you only need two digits.

What I mean is that when I use the instrument page jump shortcut it jumps f.ex. from 00 to 09 and then from 09 to 12. What’s the use of “instrument pages” if the page is for some reason set to, actually not 10, but 9 instruments, while they are numbered in base 16.

It’s just totally random and doesn’t help me navigate nor organize my instruments at all. It would make sense that an “instrument page” would be 16 instruments and then I could organize and navigate my different kinds of instruments with page jump shortcuts easier.

It would be helpful if you could use the exact terminology used in the manual, as it is confusing.
Perhaps you are referring to the unit of measure that moves the selection with PageDown/PageUp when the focus is on the instrument selector?
That it is not good because it is in increments of 9?
This appears to be linked to the 9 increments on the numeric keypad.
I am new to this, but isn’t this a reasonable design?

1 Like

The instrument numbers are in hexadecimal because that is how they are described in the pattern editor. This is the tradition of the tracker and leads to its unique ease of use.
When you use the numeric keypad to access an instrument, 1-9 are bound from the top of the page, so you won’t have any trouble when you want to work in order.
But when you want to access them randomly, you have to add them up in hexadecimal, which, as you say, could be a troublesome part of the process.
I think this is a trade-off for the other conveniences I indicated above.

1 Like

The instrument box is resizable and it’s different depending if you have the browser visible or not and user can make their own keybindings. There are nubers 0-9 in the keypad so if that’s the logic then we should have instrument pages in 10s and could use 0-9 to acces instruments on each page of 10. Then we could instantly see from the first digit what page we are on currently. Say I have my drums on page 0, basses on page 1, pads on page 2 and leads on page 3. Super easy to navigate.

Renoise uses the term instrument page in the shortcuts, so that’s there.

1 Like

Well, you are free to create such a tool.
I don’t know what the current workflow there is modeled after, but it is hard to find a default that satisfies all people.

Renoise uses the term instrument page in the shortcuts, so that’s there.

I can’t make a tool that changes how the instruments are numbered. This is such a typical Renoise forum attitude, it’s like this forum would be populated by Linux geeks. Not everybody has dev skills and I don’t think it’s feasible to leave it to users to make the software make sense.

The interface is originally modeled after Fast Tracker 2. That’s a very old and very dated and somewhat clunky and stuffed interface.

2 Likes

If not you, others may be able to make it.
I am not sure of the usefulness of what you propose, but if someone is convinced of it, they may be willing to implement the feature.
Even if it were to be a standard feature, I think the developers would need to be convinced of its usefulness beyond the cost of changing the default.

They could care about logic and cognitive ergonomics even if you don’t. It’s not our job to speculate here what the devs want to do, they manage their backlogs theirselves and I think it’s quite obvious without stating it that they decide for themselves. What you’re really saying is that you don’t care about this.

This is only a matter of changing the page jump shortcut to jump in 16 rather than 9.

I am sorry if I have offended you. I certainly wasn’t concerned about it.
I just wanted to know what your real request was.
I am glad that you have clarified that to some extent.

1 Like

No worries, I just didn’t understand what you were trying to say personally so drew my conclusions. I’m not really offended, just a bit frustrated, that happens. My request was to get some input should there be something I didn’t quite see or if this is something that could be a nice thing to change to others too, even though it’s a small thing. Great things are made of many good small things.

1 Like

Yes, if you would like to “organize” your instruments that way, it would be nice to have 8 instruments per page instead of 9 (16 is too much imo). Right now it looks like it’s just a way to scroll faster if necessary for whatever reason (the mouse is superior in that matter), so seemingly there’s no deeper meaning in terms of “instrument pages”. Personally I don’t care, but I’m up for a change.

1 Like

I used to do this with a tracker already like 25y ago - putting the same instruments to same positions if possible in banks, whether conceptual or actual. That way I can navigate them without sometimes even looking at them, I know what the keys do, but when I look at them I know exactly what those numbers mean and where I need to go to find what I’m looking for. Just a QoL thing, makes things fast and easy.

I’d vouch for 16 but I do understand that might be too much for people who use them in another way. Anyway, I’m glad you chimed in!