Detailed, searchable; documentation.
Thanks for Renoise! = )
1 Like
not really, he just made a comment once about PlayerPRO and pointed out some things he considered an issue in Renoise.
1 Like
Well, maybe they are bored by Renoise and it’s old code base or something…
The issues he was talking about were implemented?Or rather the render issue.Works 100 per cent for me?
Wishes for next release
A release… a release of any kind; or at least something, anything to show a sign of life.
2 Likes
It was never properly addressed, sadly. Glad it works 100% for you even tho I don’t know if you understood what the problem is since I didn’t provide further explanation but you can find some threads here about the said issue (resampling/render to sample issues), it’s no big secret and it’s a Renoise issue, not a user issue, Taktik even gave an explanation why the issue occurs in one of the recent threads about it.
Huh, I’ve never had any resampling/rendering issues… Is this with VSTs or something? Native resampling is always flawless in my experience
Its so problematic in my experience that I almost always avoid using it. If you’re curious about it I created a thread about it not long ago, I provide a deep explanation of the problem and evidence (you even commented there). On top of that Taktik also provides important information that unfortunately isn’t present in Renoise’s manual.
Fortunately I now own Rolling Sampler but it’s 2023 and this whole process is properly implemented in most current DAWs like Bitwig, Ableton Live, etc. As a user I shouldn’t struggle with it neither I should have to constantly find workarounds to annoying limitations.
1 Like
I’m sorry to condescend, but I think you’re relatively new to renoise (user as of a few years ago) – an update every 1-3 years been how updates have worked with Renoise since 2010. They come slow, and they will never cover every feature requested, because this is a specialist product that is being built by a small team and offered at an incredible bargain for the power and focus you get.
Regarding your rendering issue: I looked back through the threads, and I’m not understanding your problem. The files that you uploaded have expired, so I cannot verify exactly what issue you were having.
I know several people (including me) who use the resample/render effect all the time with absolutely no problems (with very cpu-heavy signal chains)
Taktik responded to your initial bug report with a valid explanation (that you seemed happy with). Whatever the issue is that you’re having, I’m not seeing very much effort on your part to clarify, and there’s a lot of evidence that the render/resample behaves as documented.
Now, does that mean that it works exactly how you want? Maybe not, and I’m not saying that you should be happy with that, if that’s what the problem is. (I record vocals in renoise and boy can I tell you that the workflow leaves something to be desired.) I’m glad to hear that you found a work-around that supports your workflow.
The reason I’m addressing your points here is because I don’t appreciate the attitude that it brings to the forum. To say that renoise is legacy software is ridiculous – it supports ARM64 which is more than I can say for half of my vsts. Is it perfect? Of course not, renoise can never be everything for everyone, and I think the team is doing a pretty good job of striking a balance there.
What I don’t appreciate, with so much amazing software, and even better yet, so many resources to learn how to make your own software, truly, what is the value in complaining about the things you’ve been complaining about? (I wouldn’t describe what you’re doing here as seeking a solution, I’d be happy to help you if that’s what you’re looking for). What do you see these complaints as accomplishing?
And again, if you’re still having issues using the resampling/render functionality, start a new bug-report with a clearer demonstration of your issue. Or hell, PM me and I’ll happily work through the issue with you one on one, because I can tell you for sure that rendering natively in renoise works fine for me on all platforms (unless you are still having issues relating to your soundcard/ASIO driver, in which case I would make the same recommendations 2_daze_j did in that thread.)
My sincere request to you and others is: please be more mindful of the tone you bring into a pre-existing community. We want to help you make good music, and we want to have the best vibes in trying to do so 
If renoise isn’t cutting it, no hard feelings, there are other great DAWs/approaches out there. Otherwise, please be more careful about how you seek resolution to your problems, and save your nonconstructive negative opinions, they just make it an unpleasant space for nothing, honestly.
3 Likes
Also, since it came up, here are the “complaints” I think people are referring to from Richard.
About PlayerPro though,Id like to write a chunk about that program.
Its very simple compared to modern things like Renoise BUT it had some advantages over it Here’s the main things I loved about Playerpro. You could drag instruments from the list on the right, directly into the arrangement window, this alone makes writing things SO much faster than say Renoise and SO much more fun and less ballache. I know you can play them in from the keyboard but you need both. Next is if you right click a note in the arrangement window, you get a list of possible column functions/FX AND notes with octaves, This is a really fast and intuitive way to program and most importantly edit things you played in. Ive tried in vain to make Renoise coders listen, help!
You could print plugin effects directly & destructively onto the sample, hence fr eeing up CPU but you could hear the effect first before you printed it. I’ve really pecked several people to do this and it did get finally done in Renoise but its still not as accurate as PP, gain is not handled correctly last time i checked, Renoise has that great highlight part of the arrangement thing but the gain doesn’t get worked out properly when you have a bunch of fx, be top if this is fixed now? The other reason this feature is so good and powerful is because most people these days setup EQs on each channel etc and they just sit there wasting CPU and most importantly the urge to carry on tweaking it always remains. You would be amazed how it can train your brain to get it right the first time when you are forced to make a decision about EQ and then can’t change it, a bit like with a digital camera, you just take loads of shit pictures of the same thing instead of one thats right, I’m generalising. But every sampler VST i’ve seen does this as well, its the wrong way to do it, all your plugins should be available in the sample editor to apply to samples, not on the mixer, well you need both. I think its because in the beginning of audio on DAWS, coders were fixated about replicating real mixing desks and recording bands but this didn’t take into account the new way people were going to start using DAW’s But even if you can’t take that discipline you could just have an undo history on the sample…so you wouldn’t have to re EQ the EQ if it were wrong…you could also have an amazing cpu guzzling EQ on every sound. It just doesn’t make any sense to have a live EQ on static samples…yet every DAW does this, unless I missed one? > Ive checked all of them and they all do that…frustrating when everyone goes down the same wrong road. Also helped code some really different sounding granular and FFT plugs for it which was the icing on the cake… But it was really limited so would prefer those functions in Renoise rather than resurrecting good old PP.
Not exactly sure what the first paragraph is about, but between the auto-detect instrument feature and the plethora of keyboard shortcuts, I have no issue quickly getting a specific instrument into the pattern editor.
As far as the “highlight part of the arrangement thing” goes – I have used this on several tracks recently for resampling various parts of a track, including the full pre-master bus mixdown, and I can verify that the gain is “correct” in that you get the exact gain that you have selected in the signal chain (this is for “Render to Sample” in pattern editor).
I have to admit, if I’m comprehending his last concept – that would be dope as fuck?? DSP system where all “effect units” are pre-rendered onto the sample before playback? The devil would be in the details, but it’s a really inspring concept!
2 Likes
Sorry, first of all, let me clarify that I’m not interested in going into a “if you’re not happy with the software that you bought, just make yours” discussion because it’s honestly pathetic and this place is already full of them. Second of all, I wasn’t rude at any point and appreciate if you and everyone can be reasonable enough to understand that as a user I’m entitled to politely express my discontentment. My experience as a user is as valid as yours and as everyone else here and I feel honestly offended with this type of behavior that tries to invalidate other’s experiences just because they’re not according to what you expect or experience yourself.
This is not a cult, as far as I know I’m allowed to express my thoughts in a civilized way. Resampling is just one of the issues I had with Renoise and, no, I wasn’t happy with the explanation since it didn’t provide any solution, I was just glad to know that I wasn’t insane and that was indeed an annoying limitation in the software.
2 Likes
I never called you rude, and indeed, I am here myself expressing my own discontentment at the way you are going about “expressing your discontentment” – I’m expressing that I don’t find it helpful and I wish you would consider going about it differently. You are entitled to disagree, and in response, you can choose to do whatever you want.
Yeah, Richard’s ideas were pretty dope indeed
“I’m expressing that I don’t find it helpful and I wish you would consider going about it differently. You are entitled to disagree, and in response, you can choose to do whatever you want.”
Cool that we agree on that. The only reason I’m posting about this is because I love Renoise and it’s really sad to keep running into the same annoyances after years using it (and hearing the same complaints coming from friends of mine that have been using it way longer than I’ve been).
2 Likes
This ^^^ is CDP in a nutshell!
I think I’m remembering now… It’s not resampling that’s the issue IIRC, but fx printing from the waveform editor. (A link to the other thread might be useful here…) Which does work great in many cases, eq being one of them. If you have any time based fx, though, you have to add an adequate amount of silence to the end of the original waveform for it to render properly. Resampling through the pattern editor using render selection and the render dialog yields more consistent/expected results.
I personally use both (well, all three) methods depending on the situation. Sometimes the fx print function is just the thing and works perfectly. But it has to be the right situation/application, with user understanding of the limitations of the function. Render selection to sample is usually the way to go, though. With longer sections or multi track selections handled best through the render dialog. Maybe I’ll make a video illustrating the differences between the various methods and their application, because resampling is such a huge and powerful aspect of sound design and production these days. It helps to be efficient at it.
In these days of high technology, it’s easy to forget that these (software) tools aren’t magic wands that can do anything and everything we might wish, but are tools that we are tasked with learning how to use effectively to achieve what we do wish. The right tool for the job helps immensely, of course, but understanding the right jobs for the tool (ie what it is capable of and how best to interface with and leverage those capabilities to achieve what we want it to do) is of equal if not greater importance, imo
4 Likes
I think the “render selection to sample” / fx button / re-sampling issue had something to do with working in higher bitrates then 44100. Don’t have the technical chops to explain properly, but I think details were lost because internal re-sampling rate is different/limited, so there is a ‘quality’ difference. @taktik @dblue correct me if I’m wrong.
3 Likes
I’m going by the aphex interview where he mentioned not being able to print fx to sample properly,I have no issues regarding this at all,for time based fx printing I just add silence.if more headroom needed to print, I use the adjust sample option in sample editor.
1 Like
Sorry for stepping in, but I gotta point out something.
First of all, to be clear: I’m not talking about you, @uncle_c. These are just generalizations, based on my short experience on Renoise forums, and I’m just replying to your comment to keep the thread flowing.
I felt no negativity coming from @moloko’s comment. In fact, I think it was neutral, and necessary to maintain the debate, so the software can keep getting better and better 
We can’t get emotional when it comes to software feedback, yet this is something recurring in the Renoise community. I know y’all have been here for quite a while and got emotionally attached to the software the way it is, but you can’t take suggestions as negative or personal rants.
When someone suggests a new feature or requests a bugfix, it’s pretty common for people to go “Oh, but it’s a small dev team”, “You’re being negative”, “If you don’t like it, don’t take it”, “It’s a cheap program”, etc. I could address some of these arguments, but I’m not spending energy with that (like the fact that Reaper also has a small team but keeps delivering top tier updates at a low price, etc).
I mean, I know you guys love Renoise (and so do I), but these posts are not personal. Renoise is not your beloved child you must protect at all costs (it is, sorta, but that’s not the point here). We’re talking about development, and we should be open to critique: because that is a foundational aspect of a good software.
In short, let’s not get emotional. Let’s stay rational and open to critique.
That’s true, and I think there’s a big opportunity being wasted. I dream of trackers becoming popular outside our niche, and Renoise could easily lead that movement if the devs had the energy and/or interest in that. There’s literally zero competition out tere. Of course there are different trackers, and even free ones, but none of them have the same professional standards as Renoise. Times are changing, new kids are getting into music production (more than ever), and the type of feature being requested is also changing. We gotta adapt to the new decade, or we’ll be stuck with a bunch of old people yelling “Don’t step on mah tracker, sonny!!! It gud as it is!!”.
Renoise is not legacy software, and I don’t think we should make that comparison - but it’s not far from becoming one at this point!
Great question.
Now lemme play the software therapist: Renoise devs, what can we do, as a community, to encourage development? What does the team need? Is there something bothering you? I know you guys have personal lives, children, marriages, etc to handle, and Renoise is not your only concern, but is there anything we can do to help?
It’s time for us to do the listening: I think this interaction between community and devs can be very fruitful.
Anyways, sorry if I offendend anyone in this giant wall of text. My only wish is to see Renoise getting better, and seeing the community engage in polite discussion. 
9 Likes
Thanks for your kind words, you worded a good deal of what I wanted to say but in a MUCH better way.
UPdate for the envelopes (both ahdsr and graph), it still bugs me that you can’t do fast attack between 0-100 ms
The filter will only start to really go to full 100 % around 80-100 ms ( when zero decay and sustain ) .
This has been reported 8 years ago so I kind of have given up hope for faster envelopes
The added tension curves are great , so the develoeprs are certainly listening to userr requests
Better filters
Option for the sat stage TO NOT affect the envelopes ouptput , in it’s current form the sat is POST filter /envelope and thus shaping the evelope’s final shape output .
Also more poles for the filters in the instr.editor , some of them are only 2 p
All in all it’s the software I keep coming back to , renoise and loomer architect are my favourite weapons for sequecing
3 Likes
+1 for more responsive envelopes and more flexible filter architecture and more filter types 
Still my must have is parallel routing and modulation in/out in doofers. This would be huge huge
3 Likes