Wishes for next releases

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).


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


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.


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 :slight_smile:

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. :blush:


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


+1 for more responsive envelopes and more flexible filter architecture and more filter types :+1::+1::+1:

Still my must have is parallel routing and modulation in/out in doofers. This would be huge huge


to be able to turn off pattern follow, but have it switch patterns automatically.

1 Like