btw carbonthief, I wasn’t having a go at you. i clearly see that you have a link to your music in your sig 
and i too like to muse about gear, but mostly in real life to real humans, not on the internet. it’s a rare thing to be able to muse freely on the internet without people becoming defensive and overly sensitive and it turns into fan-boy flame-war.
I like that perspective. Perhaps it depends a bit on how you look at what you do or want to do: a product or art. If you create a product, then standards, expectations of others, commercial potential, and how it compares to competing products matter. If you create art, then expressiveness, originality, meaning, and self-sufficiency matter. Both desires are valid.
There is some overlap, and music can be both product and art, but rarely (or never) in equal parts.
absolutely.
i guess i’m more talking about those on the internet who claim to have all of this knowledge about gear, yet have no problems criticizing other’s creations without providing examples of their own work. you know, classic over compensation…
Your free to read my video posts as you please. I try not to put any extra words on it,
sometimes I do, I actually deleted words on the first video post.
I post them mainly for me, to satisfy my relevancy in threads I’m mnemonically invested in.
Meaning, I have this thread in thought with other non related but possibly could be related
online researches such as tools and sociology.
If it helps others, great, if it doesn’t, it doesn’t.
To the general public… not attacking anyone specific or attacking random readers.
Professional by a very general definition means your making money off your chosen market.
That’s how I view “professional sound”. What a musician uses is just as important
as the context it is used in and how a musician attempts to attract its fan base.
Sociological context, psychological context, tool context.
Why is the 808 in some areas of the world attached to urban music, or acid ?
Who’s responsible for that public perception ?
Making money off of music is where I personally see the real complaint.
Why do I see it that way ? Because most musicians are users not builders.
Users of tools from builders. Musicians, generally have no control over this.
To a great degree, musicians are standing on the backs of long dead great contributors.
If you, anonymous reader, is going to attempt to collide musical integrity with economics.
My suggestion at the moment is to not put all your eggs in one basket.
Additional reading material on the subject of digital sharecropping.
To stay with your metaphor, the cart won’t even make it to B, because of stale gear or in worst case cattle dying on some hill slope on their way to B.
Agreed for a lot of purposes. It just still doesn’t help for the purpose and actual goal we’re talking about.
There’s a good chance to make this happen, when people keep getting things they didn’t ask for, while still lacking essentials. It’s btw not complaining, just stating facts.
Nailed it. 10/10
Maybe checkout the FL forum. It is part of their terms, that released demo *.flp are only allowed to use native FL. Not everyone is keeping it that way, but most do. Some really good demos there.
Do you think, that’d also be what helps to promote Renoise? Becaus that’s the point of the discussion.
One more nailing it.
I have to admit, I’ve thought several times about challenging the guys telling so for a native Renoise dance track compo, one on one, to shut them up for good. But seriously, there’s a good chance then you’d just be the boasting asshole and nothing else would happen. No matter what you do, when you’re criticising Renoise, you’ll always be the asshole. I’m meanwhile quite used to it.
To exemplify my own statement, my musical compositions can live in other places other than Renoise.
text editors
Excel (Excel to Renoise)
my hands (muscle memory)
my mind
on paper
in other people’s minds and hands (If I ever humbly reach that level of keep on earth)
R programming language (If I get through the course)
For production, I own Renoise, VST’s, guitar and pedals, laptop, no audio card, gaming headphones, the internet bill for research, and electricity.
Why do I mention this, because of the contrast of free ideas to the economics involved in solidifying those ideas.
How much does your attempt to solidify your ideas cost yearly ? Can you sustain that and maybe grow with it financially ?
I ask these questions in the same line of thought of music for fun and therapy or music for economic profit.
The musician seeking tools must clearly define his or her intentions and plan accordingly.
I suppose I could do more to say “I make my music with Renoise” and I definitely will tell someone so when asked.
The frustration I’m expressing is that I remember that you showed some really nice techniques on the forum some time ago, so I know that you should have skills to back up what you’re talking about, but aside from those sounds here and there, I have no idea who you produce or what you make. This damages the context of your commentary because I’m making assumptions about your motives are, and I’m sure other readers are too. I have absolutely no idea what you do, but I wish I did.
I maintain that Renoise is a small, community driven thing, so any demos, any advertising, ought to come from that community, it will turn out better that way than expecting the usual demo artists to work outside their natural styles. I understand that it’s a bit unfair to reply “Sounds like a plan, why don’t you do it?” to a suggestion, then complain when that person doesn’t want to be the one to act, because it sounds like I’m calling that person lazy for not wanting to do something that I don’t really want to do either. (I’m not qualified to make an EDM demo myself, at best I might get a grime bass and a loud drum here and there.) I’m sorry if that makes me sound like a hypocrite.
Some of the FL plugins that count as native cost individually more than an entire Renoise license. The “Fruity Edition” that costs around as much as Renoise doesn’t even allow audio recording. The demos work because all editions include demo versions of all plugins.
Reaper and Bitwig come without any demo songs.
Okay, first of all, there was no intention to attack you. Seriously. The discussion atm as I understand it, is about promoting Renoise with some popular and professional sounding demo tracks, like from the charts, clubs, radio. And I just couldn’t see, how “I prefer to make music I like to the best of my ability.” does fit that topic, because that’s actually what everyone does anyway. Agreed? The point is, does that fit the purposes of the demo tracks or not. And that’s actually already it.
Why you’re frustrated? I’m a bit suprised it seems to matter to someone who I am, only to handle my comments. Why does it? Some superstar telling a load of bullshit doesn’t beat some nobody telling substantiated facts. At least not, when things are about the topic. Please don’t rate people’s contributions by who they are, but first of all by what they say. If it helps, let me tell you I’m none special. Just some guy having spent a huge amount of time with Renoise, having collected quite some knowledge, practice and still spending a lot of time with sound design, production techniques and gear, because of being bored by plain composing. I don’t exactly understand how “who am I” damages the context of my comments. Of course I’m responsible for the things I say, but I’m not responsible for other people’s assumptions and never will be. Posting off-topic, wrong and unsubstantiated crap damages the context of comments. Not who’s posting it. My motives are quite simple: getting the most out of Renoise.
I really guess, you simply got me wrong or maybe I said it the wrong way. I wasn’t intending to force you to contribute or something like that. So just relax. 
The same thing is gonna happen with Redux soon. Beside that I wonder what kind of argumentation it is to desperately search for worse examples and arguments to keep a bad example up. Strange attitude.
i don’t know much about other daws but what other daw-package has all those tools for mixing and mastering on a pro level included “natively”?
my guess is: none for around the 65 EUR that renoise costs. (i don’t claim to know but i got a hunch… the cost for all that dsp dev must be covered somewhere)
isn’t those awesome native dsps/software synths what you are paying for primarily for the pro versions compared to the basic versions? else, why upgrade?
here’s the pricing for fl
FL Studio + ALL Plugins Bundle €663.96
FL Studio Signature Bundle €221.65
FL Studio Producer Edition €159.00
FL Studio Fruity Edition €79.00
You compared Renoise to FL with 700 euros worth of plugins. Referencing Reaper is not “desperate”, but actually a more appropriate comparison as it roughly costs the same as Renoise and is a well-respected tool used by actual professionals. In the context that you raised (“professional sounding”), that is a better comparison than FL Studio.
If you do use FL Studio as a reference, then you either need to compare the non-demo content of the edition that costs the same as Renoise or compare Renoise + 700 euros worth of plugins to FL Studio with all of Image-Line’s plugins. Otherwise you get flawed results. You can’t make the vast majority, if any at all, of the FL demo songs with the edition that costs as much as Renoise. You can only play them back.
Checkout Reaper for $60. The demo is even unlimited btw…
It’s kinda funny how the comparison between Renoise and the popular DAWs isn’t okay, as long as Renoise loses, but suddenly becomes okay, when it seems to win.
I’ve just friendly related to some simple user demos on the FL forum, that Akiz obviously didn’t know about. No need to crap any pants.
Oh, really!? Where did that happen? Would you please be so kind and quote the part, where I did? Thank you!
You were referencing FL Studio’s demo songs. Most, if not all of them, are made with plugins that are not included with the €79 version of FL Studio. Would you mind posting a “professional sounding” song that you created with only Fruity Edition? Or with Reaper and its stock plugins? This would help me to better understand what you can do with them (without external plugins) that you can’t do with Renoise (without external plugins).
Akiz told, he had never seen pure native FL tracks and I told him where to find them. That’s all. Everything else is your pure fantasy. I have no idea why you’re thinking I’d have to prove something to you, because I for sure don’t have. If you want to find out about other DAWs, get them an work with them. I’m not your tutor nor your salesman for DAWs.
Frankly it is never okay, whether Renoise wins or looses, the engine structure is different from the other DAWS, but that can also be said for the other DAWS compared to eachother.
As long as nobody besides the developers of these software applications know the insides, comparing can never be fair, but in specific regards it should also not be the actual point of discussion.
What matters most in such discussions is if capabilities simply are not possible, not even with any possible workaround.
For me personally Renoise 3.0 is a stepping stone to the next level, but 3.0 does not experience fully usable for some and in some areas even seem a bit degraded when it comes to comfort. (Layering samples is less simple and more restrictive than it was in 2.8 which is a good fact nobody can ignore).
I think there plenty of areas and options that need more detailed crystallization and a lot of users agree for their own personal reasons with this thought. If Redux is properly thought out and all the best benefits of it are also added to Renoise, that might be the best time to put more effort in an advertisement campaign.
I would still advise to those who desire improvement of the instrument structure, to subscribe to the Redux mailling list for having it tested out, specially if you use another DAW as your main application.
With Redux the XRNI saga will continue and you can continue submitting your ideas regarding the Renoise instrument structure, and share the experience results of how it performs in other applications.
Reaper is cool, did some crossvertizing for them on Youtube.
You don’t have to prove anything to me. You came into this thread and stated that one cannot make “professional sounding” music with a native Renoise. You didn’t define what “professional sounding” actually means to you, even after Tape asked, so I wondered if you had an example that you created and that illustrates the difference.
This wasn’t a request for proof, but an opportunity for you to clarify what you mean, allow everyone to be on the same page, and to show that you are an expert on the subject of your criticism.
Get a well produced Renoise track and compare its sound to commercial music from the charts. In best case don’t use the kiddy-headphones from the last happy-meal for comparison. There you are. Not very hard to understand.
Well, yes, that would actually be quite an improvement over the Renoise stock plugins I think. The Reaplugs are of pretty nice quality and so are some of the JS plugins.
Definitely don’t agree here. Someone who knows their way around mixing/mastering a record can do it in whatever software/hardware you give them. There would be some difference ofc but it wouldn’t be like “Oh man how the hell am I gonna mix this thing down without FL??? I mean there isn’t even a Maximus here”
“Commercial chart music” sounding better than Renoise is a quite weird statement. It’s surely more about the skill level/experience of the person producing them? I mean give Andy Wallace Renoise and he would still make the Nevermind album sounding fantastic.
And this stuff is purely personal you know…