Wishes for next releases

Ideas & suggestions
124

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
125

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
126

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
127

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
128

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:

9 Likes
129

Thanks for your kind words, you worded a good deal of what I wanted to say but in a MUCH better way.

130

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
131

+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

3 Likes
132

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

1 Like
133

I wholeheartedly agree
My journey with Renoise started sometime in March 2020 (right as the pandemic hit), and as jokingly that I’ve been making remarks of tfw no update since last year, it’s a little sad to see no consistency with updates and support (outside of forum and Discord servers).
As @moloko has stated, the software is capable of much more, especially with their point of introducing a new generation of musicians, beatmakers, producers etc etc;.
Now, I’m not asking for it to be as consistent as say, Reaper, but, it would be nice at least once every nine months, or like a little update like, "Hey, we’re listening to your input/feedback, especially with bugs (cough cough midi_import).

At this point, it feels as if the forum can sometimes be like if we’re talking to a brick wall instead (in terms of receiving communication from devs).
One key point I’d make is, open up positions for some programmers who actually would be able to take into account the bugs, feature requests (that are reasonable).

But who knows, I’ve probably drained your retinas from my nonsensical blabbering.

Regards,

  • Bloodclot
7 Likes
134

Taktik simply should work for Bitwig, adding a tracker editor and optimizing / hardware-accelerating their components and adding better ideas. This would fix 99% of world problems.

2 Likes
135

he would have to fix their graphics library first. I find Bitwig very unresponsive on slightly older machines.

2 Likes
136

I would love a native alternative pattern sequencer, with “islands”, like NerdSEQ. The current one feels to me like the only bit of Renoise where the UX really falls down. It’s too conditional and far too mystery meat with regards to how elements work.

Sure, it’s functional after you spend long enough clicking and dragging around at bits of it, but you’re way too dependent on implied UI function and it guessing what you want. It feels far too approximate, compared to the rest of Renoise, which tends to be direct and zero bullshit.

1 Like
137

But I… but I would like a new homepage. www.renoise34.com.

138

Alright, here’s my wishlist, which should cover everything…

No brainers and general requests:

  • External audio FX device to be able to use outboard gear. Should include automatic delay compensation.
  • Support for audio input to instrument plugins. (See: Support for routing audio to instrument plugins)
  • Add the possibility to modify slopes of the Curve envelope as well, just line in the Lines mode! Currently for complex shapes you need to create multiple segments and adjust the slopes manually by eye, which is a bit tedious and time consuming.
  • The Doofer device could use a lot of improvements, such as band splitting, parallel FX chains and built in dry signal mixing. In other words bring it to at least the same level as Live’s “Audio Effect Rack”.
  • Crossfading around loop-points in the built-in sampler.
  • Granular synenthesis in the built-in sampler.
  • Built-in arpeggiator and generative note sequencing functionality (think: MIDI effects in Ableton Live).

Improvements to DSP devices:

  • Better oversampling filters to relevant devices (filter devices, distortion), currently the cutoff is set way too low (starts cutting before 17kHz already) and the response is not steep enough. The FIR kernel could just be longer, honestly. This is a really bad flaw imo, since the oversampling filter cuts the high frequencies too severely.
  • The distortion in the analog filter doesn’t sound good, since it seems to be just a saturator at the filter output. Would be better to integrate the nonlinearity directly into the filter structure, although I understand it’s challenging with the ZDF filter topologies. It’s still possible though, since it’s been done before, and would be a huge upgrade to the built-in filter sound :slight_smile:
  • Non-cramping EQ filters. At least something similar to the Orfanidis filters should be the minimum standard these days. Also optional spectrum visualization, M/S mode, “adaptive Q”, possibly a steepness setting alongside just the standard 12db/oct filters, etc.
  • Optional multiple taps to the chorus device. Also optionally more analog sounding implementation, since there’s been some solid papers on this recently, and other manufacturers have made their implementations available.
  • Better reverbs. The current options are seriously dated and provide limited control.
  • Same with the compressors. I can’t say what’s exactly wrong with them technically, but I always found them to sound extremely unsatisfying. Also could use much better visualization, including things like gain reduction history graph.
  • There should be more comprehensive utility tools available. E.g. there’s no M/S matrixing built in at all, or the ability to swap L/R channels.
  • A proper ping-pong mode in the Multitap delay. The “Ping Pong” option which according to documentation just swaps the L/R channels on repeating echoes, which is not what ping-pong delay is.
  • Missing devices: pitch shifter, better saturation device, resonator type device (not talking about just a comb filter), vocoder.

Maybe some day…

  • Audio tracks with waveforms visualized.
  • A horizontal arranger view.
  • An API to make native DSP plugins for Renoise, including the same UI components available to the current native devices. A bit like what Max For Live enables, but without Max, I’d be happy with just C++.

EDIT: a couple more after reading other people’s suggestions:

  • “Really truly disable effect/plugin/device without any PDC”.
  • More than ±100ms of static track delay.
6 Likes
139

A detach editor option similar to the detach mixer or instrument editor. It’d use a vertical monitor as a secondary display and it works well when working in the editor. I’d be nice to designate that monitor for just the editor panel and I can keep the main renoise window on my main horizontal monitor.

140

Fixing various VST / VST3 plugin issues :pray:

1 Like
141

At this point I just wish for an update lol (also everything @noby said. For real)

1 Like
142

Renoise FX Devices with a Diagrams and/or Pegelmeters should have always a Viewmode “graphics only” like the Renoise EQ Devices. This would give the ability for Doofers with Macro automatising and graphical Feedback. I prefer the big round Macro knobs because they are more ergonomic quicker and easyier to use in most situations.

This is cool…

image

But to see when Compressor is going interventing we need expand the Comp to see the Levelmeter and get this unergonomic and bad usable Doofer View. You see the Macro programmer buttons disturb the readability of the Macro buttons values and the Comp faders are unneeded redundant.

Not so cool…

image
image758×128 18.3 KB

But if we had graphical only mode for all Devices with any diagrams/pegelmeters we could have this.

Very Cool…

image

happy tracking :slight_smile:

2 Likes
143

Indeed the doofer device could be heavily improved by adding simple extensions, e.g.:

  • Macro controls only mode + vu view
  • More macros, 16 instead 8
  • Sidechain input
  • Support for vst3 parameter scaling
  • Small knobs view, two rows
  • More space for value and label display / smaller font / less space waste
  • …
2 Likes