The first thing that has to be solved with instrument libraries is copyright i fear. And i dont know if it can be solved to be honest (maybe user must agree that he used original samples?)
Ask not what your tracker can do for you, ask what you can do for your tracker. Iâm a little worried that I donât remember seeing Kern (I think thatâs his name, the Create Digital guy) talk about version 3 but Iâm more pleased than alarmed right now.
The demos come from the staff and the community, so if you want to have demos of Renoise making Brostep and Big Room, go ahead and make them. Donât wait for somebody else to do it.
METAL 
Peter did a brief write up when we announced the 3.0 beta:
Haha
Writing some demos and/or pull off a compo sounds nice. In practice you will run into the problem that required track attributes will eleminate or at least curb Renoise and each other. Renoise before 3.0 had a very effective handling of layered samples. Important to get the most out of minimal memory. This effectivity is gone, because every single sample - layered or not - is processed with itâs own filters and envelopes. Bye bye fat layered sounds from cycled waveforms. A few common layers would in best case demonstrate, how to bog down a CPU. Which of course would be an embarrassing kind of advertising. The other option is to use large samples. Actually not really an option, since your demo most probably would use too much memory. Well, thatâs at least gonna be the case, when youâre going to release a quality track with quality instruments. Which makes sense, when weâre talking about demonstrating the âpopular musicâ-capabilities of a DAW. At this point we havenât even talked about missing things like FM, OSC Sync, automatable loop points, free oscillators, instrument multi-filters and and andâŚ
Anyway, letâs assume you manage to keep the memory and CPU usage within the limits. The next problem you run into are a few really bad or even completely missing Renoise DSPs. Reverbs, Compressors, Maximizer/Limiter are inappropriate. Saturation, a decent Amp, transient design, pitch shifting, Multiband-processing (pls donât tell me about splitting things now), etc. ⌠All used in todays productions. Problems and lacks that arenât just a matter of taste. The existing environment simply does not fit the requirements of modern music production. Weâre talking about all the things you usually replace/manage by external VSTs. Without going into details, no matter how much effort you put into your mix and setup, the result is not going to sound professional. Of course you could use as many pre-processed samples as possible. But even ignoring the memory problem mentioned above, the upcoming question then is: is that still the demonstration of a DAW and itâs capabilities? No. Itâd become a demonstration of incapabilities.
Renoise on its own and all alone atm is not capable of keeping up with other DAWs and modern sound. Thatâs the only thing any âpopularâ demos in the current state of Renoise would prove. Itâd be realistic to face this fact
Edit: And just to stay clear, Iâm not saying everything in Renoise is bad. Not at all. But the things I mentioned are.
[quote=âBit_Arts, post:46, topic:41459â]
Writing some demos and/or pull off a compo sounds nice. In practice you will run into the problem that required track attributes will eleminate or at least curb Renoise and each other. Renoise before 3.0 had a very effective handling of layered samples. Important to get the most out of minimal memory. This effectivity is gone, because every single sample - layered or not - is processed with itâs own filters and envelopes. Bye bye fat layered sounds from cycled waveforms. A few common layers would in best case demonstrate, how to bog down a CPU. Which of course would be an embarrassing kind of advertising. The other option is to use large samples. Actually not really an option, since your demo most probably would use too much memory. Well, thatâs at least gonna be the case, when youâre going to release a quality track with quality instruments. Which makes sense, when weâre talking about demonstrating the âpopular musicâ-capabilities of a DAW. At this point we havenât even talked about missing things like FM, OSC Sync, automatable loop points, free oscillators, instrument multi-filters and and âŚ
On the other hand, I bought into Renoise because it was a fresh concep(for me at least). I loved that it wasnât trying to compete with other DAWs by sticking to itâs very individualistc guns. The day they try to be another logic, ableton is the day I loose interest in it.
There was a time where musicians didnât cared about what a tool could not do, but cared about what a tool could do and simply used his/her own artistic talent to also accomplish goals and effects using the existing tools in an inventive manner.
At least those are the artist to me and those are the artists that deliver the stuff on the song-forum (Well not all of them, but many do).
And if any of those artists complain, their opinion is valued.
Folks that want to make âPopular musicâ and already start complaining before actually producing imho should first start to learn to create music in the first place before they start nagging about the tools they want to use for it.
Look for opportunities instead of gaps and there you will find answers.
Not willing to start an argument, but some of this is incorrect.
Multiple samples can use the same modulation sets (in fact, they all seem to use one set by default), so you can use multiple waveform samples through the same filters / envelopes etc. Additionally multi-filters can be implemented by using multiple filters in an instrument FX chain. Iâve not really looked into the other things.
If you want to keep up with the best, the times of not caring about the capabilities of your tool are over. Because if one doesnât care, another one does. I miss some valid arguments in your reply about the things I mentioned in mine. Instead youâre just trying to provoke.
What youâre saying is, the opinion of a probably most skilled and experienced audio egineer wouldnât matter to you, because he doesnât compose or produce. Maybe answer yourself, how intelligent and valuable that is.
Why donât you just name them then?
Sorry, but thatâs not true. Weâve had long discussions on several threads about that on the forum, where Taktik confirmed the separate processing. There are even examples posted on the board, that demonstrate the issue. What sharing of modulation sets does, is sharing the settings of filters and envelopes for separately processed samples. Sharing instrument filters and envelopes themselfes, one for multiple samples, is exactly what Renoise does not anymore
Well, thatâs fine and I completely understand changing a whole concept can be a fresh breeze to someone. Maybe this is a misunderstanding. I wouldnât want Renoise to become an Ableton clone, or an FL clone or what clone ever. But the intention to play with the big ones requires to offer tools capable of keeping up with the results from those big ones.
Higher quality of DSPs, correction of wrong/redundant processings and adding missing features doesnât mean to give up the Renoise concept. I also and still understand weâre talking about a small team of developers. A quite valid argument to not get all those things things done. Itâd just be good to realize then, that itâs not possible to keep up with the big ones. And all Iâm saying is, trying to sound pro in some demos is going to become a demonstration of Renoise incapabilities. Not because Iâm saying that, but because Renoise simply has those incapabilities. Specially regarding sound and meanwhile also performance.
I recently started a singer-songwriter collaboration with some friends of mine, and found that since the last time I tried using Renoise for this sort of thing (about version 2.0), it had basically become a lot easier to pull this off - especially true with the introduction of Autoseek.
It didnât feel like I was trying to âshoehornâ myself into using Renoise, which was probably true the first time around 
To be honest, I donât know how much a software like FL Studio caters for specific genre needs. Trap hihat fills, now that was a joke right? But then again, if a software offers something like that as a native feature, it could probably be explored creatively, and applied to other things as wellâŚBut, judging from what I hear about FL, there are in fact a lot of such bells and whistles.
I personally find it great that such ânon-essentialsâ, âspecial needsâ are largely invented and shared as tools in this community.
Itâs true that the 3.0 release have focused on improving the instrument/sampler part of Renoise (I am personally happy never to have to use the terrible âauto-filterâ feature again), it really isnât about competing with each and everyone out there. I donât think Renoise has this sort of hybris - instead, it is about bringing the internal features on par with something we can all regard as a useful, modern sampler - even if we are not fully there yet.
Itâs been mentioned in this thread how the true attraction of Renoise is because it offers a different workflow that doesnât mimic the big DAWs. Keeping that in mind, it would be nice to apply some polish to the instrument (making the new features a bit more internally consistent) and then perhaps focus on what makes Renoise âdifferentâ once again. Viewing 3.0 as a necessary, if painful, step.
It was partly joke, yes. But on the other hand, no other software can make these rolls better than Renoise and Fl Studio and people on gearslutz know it 
.
I think this is going a bit into the wrong direction. I wasnât talking about the Renoise teamâs intentions, nor about the Renoise concept or something like that. This is only about the suggestion to somehow provide some more popular sounding demos. A suggestion I generally second to make Renoise more popular. Itâs just not gonna help, until Renoise provides the required tools for this. Because - having the goal âpro sounding popular musicâ in mind - the result atm most probably would demonstrate the opposite of what was actually intended to demonstrate. Of course everyoneâs free to prove me completely wrong, an all negative troll and liar, with some pro sounding tracks from native Renoise. I just seriously doubt this is gonna happen, no matter how skilled the producer is.
Very much this. The talent is there, somebody can do a one-off Dubstep or Big Room version of Mary Had a Little Lamb or Alouette or something like that. If you want such a thing, donât wait for someone else to make it, itâs your duty to the community and yourself to create something.
No i am trying to motivate people to look at their real goals and pursue those by doing instead of waiting for the developers to come and save the day.
I understand your point and was not attacking you personally.
This:
may perhaps not be as fast as
but both get you from point A to B. And both have their advantages and disadvantages. You just need to have a bit more patience in the first case and you rather wouldnât take the second case anywhere off-road
It seems the more people get, the more they complain about what they havenât got.
I find this rather confusing. This is not at all, what the GUI makes you believe at allâŚ
I donât want to sound harsh here, but the truth is, that in some areas the Renoise sampler is not even on par with features of 25 year old hardware samplers.
As Bit Arts explained it, the issue is not composing a song, but rather the production side. Of course you can compose nice songs in Renoise and then mix them in another DAW, use external plugins, master it somewhere else, etc. The result can surely be a professional sounding song. A demo song, however, should be a Renoise only thing and not just consist of a fully mastered mp3 loaded onto one track with autoseek enabled, right?