ModPlug Central

Do you think that Modplug should have improved VSTi capabilities, Better sampling, and other features that have become industry Standard? Or should Modplug remain a Tracker software in a separate school of its own?

I want to see how much demand we have for improving Modplug. Once we know this, well have a better idea where to take it from there.

i agree with better VST(i) support, but i really don't it to become yet another Cubase or whatever...

Just to Clarify... OMPT will always remain as a Tracker, and not a sequencer.

I'm just looking to see if people are interested in implementing features that have become required for professional output. That means automation, 24 bit sampling, Better threading, maybe even video synch support. Would additions like these improve your life, or do you think that this is going too far and OMPT should remain a "hobbyist" tool?

Yeah, I think OpenMPT will (need to) move forward. However, the devs don't always have time. If we, as a community, could sponsor someone to develop it full-time, we'd have our every desire satisfied in no time. But there's been no talk of that...

As a matter of fact, I have talked about it for a while behind the scenes with our team, its true that cash isn't really the issue, but time at the moment. Lets see where we stand with this poll and we can move forward from there.

I am trying to work with mpt on a (semi) professional basis, so improvements that have become industry standard would be most welcome.

There are always things that can be improved, but I personally don't see those as a motivation to push OpenMPT towards a proffesional kind of music tool.

I think that one of the strength of OpenMPT is that it has this hobby feel to it.

True, for songs where I work with VSTi's and such it could be nice, but I also work on songs like chiptunes, and in those cases the tracker can't really be improved.

I think everyone (except the insane people :P (and the people saying "in know how to make a song in IT2 that won't sound exactly the same in MPT1.12 so MPT suxxors")) wants OpenMPT to improve in every aspect. I doubt that the lack of omnidirectional leaps forward are as much about what people want as it is about who is prepared to do it.

Also, considering the userbase of OpenMPT/MPT is likely quite large, this community is very very small. I wonder why that is.

Quote from: "seventhson"I am trying to work with mpt on a (semi) professional basis, so improvements that have become industry standard would be most welcome.

idem

The choice is a bit suggestive here : 'better' or 'old-school'.
I always get suspicion when hearing about a new 'industrial standard'.
Is it following things for trendy reasons or for technical reasons ?

And I don't agree about this 'hobby' and 'professional' separation as imago.
The 'old-school' format offers maximum control, which demands a professional
approach, knowing about filling in codes, instead of the dragndrop of a soundloop.
It's about craftmanship.
Maybe that's why this community is quite small.

Of course OMPT should be moving forward, but I think it has enough inside potential for development,
instead of following external trendy things, and lowering down to some 'super groove maker'.

Quote from: "Sam_Zen"Of course OMPT should be moving forward, but I think it has enough inside potential for development,
instead of following external trendy things, and lowering down to some 'super groove maker'.

I think we've discussed this before and it turned out that you haven't really ever used a modern sequencer enough to know what you're talking about. Accessibility is not a bad thing.

Hmm. I'm quite familiar with how things like Rebirth or Reason or AudioMulch works.
And I think the priority in progress of accessibility of a sound-program is always in serving the blind people.

I as well use modplug on a "professional" level (since my cd is available in stores where I live, I qualify that as professional).  I have never used Reason, but have been in studios where Cubase is used, and although the sound is phenominal, I personally think that program is way overhyped.  I think it's a case of "the emperor's new clothes", if you know that story at all.  It's a program that appears (again, I have not used it myself, so I am a bit biased) so large and user unfriendly that creating a song becomes a heavy burden. I could be wrong, so please inform me if I am.   Modplug is a small program, yet extremely powerful. You can use soundfonts, samples, vst effects, vst instruments, and the interface is super easy.  Tracking, in my opinion, has taken music writing to a level that enables people with no musical history (like me) to be able to acurately create the music they want, without years of training.  As far as I'm concerned, tracking is to music what the printing press was to reading. It has opened music to the masses.  I will always, always be a tracker.  And while I would like a bit better vst implementation, automation, time code, and 24 bit sampling, (although 24 bit gets compressed to 16 bit on cds anyway, does it not?...which is still industry standard), the only thing in my opinion that would make modplug a "true" professional tool is the sound quality from the sound engine, and from my understanding, at this stage it's not too far off from the industry standard to begin with.  Am I wrong here?  Exactly what is the difference in sound quality with modplug compared to cubase or reason?

Sorry for the long rant, I guess I'm just passionate about this program.  Technology will always change, and media formats will continue to change.  As long as modplug keeps up with those changes, it will remain a powerful tool, and as long as the sound engine of the program is kept current, how can this program not be considered professional?  If I am way off base please inform me.  And anyone coding and testing modplug, your work is outstanding, and I thank you.

I can't see why would MPT not develop towards "industrial standards". After all, if we get better VST support and everything else, it doesn't mean that MPT loses it's tracking capabilities or easy user interface or "hobby feeling". So, if MPT can't develop in some aspects, it can develop in others and still maintain all of them.

Quote from: "Dictator"I can't see why would MPT not develop towards "industrial standards". After all, if we get better VST support and everything else, it doesn't mean that MPT loses it's tracking capabilities or easy user interface or "hobby feeling". So, if MPT can't develop in some aspects, it can develop in others and still maintain all of them.

+1 :)

Right on, tvdude.. Nice words.
And you're right about the 16 bit on cds. Eventually it gets to that, and it's quite sufficient for the human ear.
Although I can understand the need for higher resolutions in the mixing stage.

I know it won't be possible in the near future but OMPT+modular environment would be cool

Better VST and automation would be very useful.

Quote from: "KrazyKatz"Do you think that Modplug should have improved VSTi capabilities, Better sampling, and other features that have become industry Standard? Or should Modplug remain a Tracker software in a separate school of its own?

Neglecting the problems set by the reality, why not both? Having some 'industry standard' features doesn't have to mean that the essence of MPT as tracker would change.

Quote from: "KrazyKatz"As a matter of fact, I have talked about it for a while behind the scenes with our team, its true that cash isn't really the issue, but time at the moment.

Generally speaking, lack of time may be due to the fact that one needs to go to work in order to get money.

Quote from: "Dictator"I can't see why would MPT not develop towards "industrial standards".

There could be surprising reasons: like the one why such a major software as Audacity doesn't provide build-in VST support.

I still feel a priority for 'compositional standards', not for industrial. Tracking is a choice for expression.

Ok, VST support is introduced in OMPT, so it should be handled as correct as possible.
But something which is a 'support' shouldn't take over how the program should be.

I agree with Relabsoluness : "why not both?". But this is not an item in this dualistic poll.

Interesting how the response is turning out.

Anyhow, without quoting here's addressing a few points:

Programs like 'Reason' are groove makers. Cubase however is far from it. Which brings me to address tvdude's queries:

I use both Modplug & Cubase , and they're two separate worlds. Let me explain it like this:

Modplug is more of a composing tool. Sort of like pen and music paper to write out your music.

Cubase is more of a record and edit tool. You're Keyboard, or guitar are the composing tool used and Cubase simply records it.

Mixing is another story. Modplug isn't made for mixing. Cubase clearly is.

There are areas where both programs intertwine, and Modplug is stronger in some areas, whereas Cubase is stronger in others.

Current Cd's do use 16bit sampling, but this is slowly become phased out, since DVDs use 24bit. There is clearly a hearable difference in 16bit and 24bit and even so, for mixing, 24 bit recordings produce superior results.

Sam Zen said

QuoteI still feel a priority for 'compositional standards', not for industrial.

He hit the nail on the head. The reason that I've made this poll is that I feel Modplug needs enhancement in order to create better compositions. It's frustrating knowing what I want to achieve and simply not being able to, due to limitations of the program.

Interesting response indeed.

You rightfully call Reason a 'groove maker'. I've smelled it, and decided that it was meant for 'consumers', not for 'composers'.

You rightfully use both Modplug & Cubase. In my case it's ModPlug & Cool, because I don't use MIDI, but the idea is the same.

In my experience these are just two sets of tools for different functions.
The difference between a composition-maker and the production-maker of that composition.
So far, I don't demand the composition-maker (OMPT) to be able to achieve what the production-side can do.

I consider a tracker-module as a written score of a composition, just like on paper.
The electronic composer has the advantage to listen to his compo instantly with all the instruments nowadays,
but the final production of the piece is another stage. And another field of skill.
Why should OMPT have a Doppler-effect plugin, while other progs can do this in the production phase ?

Very interesting tread!

I have been using OMPT for quite a few years. And I would say that I use it for roughly 80 % of my compositional needs. The reason is the tracker look with an extensive mouse interface which to my mind makes tracking easier then in Buzz or Madtrader. It is a matter of personal taste.

During the years I have tried to work around the limitations of MPT with VST och VSTI:s. Mixing inside OMPT is subjectivly harder then in other programs, but not impossible by any means. The perks of the general interface wins over the accesibility of other programs. But I see a real benefit of OMPT to grow and become a better tool then it is.

Basically I would very much welcome OMPT to incorporate changes that would make my production easier. First and foremost with automation possible with vst and vsti:s.

Quote from: "Sam_Zen"Interesting response indeed.

You rightfully call Reason a 'groove maker'. I've smelled it, and decided that it was meant for 'consumers', not for 'composers'.

As far as i know Reason is a full fledged modern sequencer with it's own effects,sampler and instruments. (not my preferred sequencer however)
There are plenty of professionals out there that use it, so talking about it as if it is merely a toy is a little bit foolish.

Quote from: "Sam_Zen"You rightfully use both Modplug & Cubase. In my case it's ModPlug & Cool, because I don't use MIDI, but the idea is the same.

In my experience these are just two sets of tools for different functions.
The difference between a composition-maker and the production-maker of that composition.
So far, I don't demand the composition-maker (OMPT) to be able to achieve what the production-side can do.

I consider a tracker-module as a written score of a composition, just like on paper.
The electronic composer has the advantage to listen to his compo instantly with all the instruments nowadays,
but the final production of the piece is another stage. And another field of skill.
Why should OMPT have a Doppler-effect plugin, while other progs can do this in the production phase ?

I consider modplug as the program wherein sequencing, adding effects and creating the final mix is done.
For mastering however i would use a different program.

This has perplexed me for some time.  How can modplug not be considered a mixing (or production) tool?  Not only are there appliable effects options for each channel, but there are volume controls on each channel, not to mention volume controls and effects controls within each channel.  How are other mixing programs superior to that?

Quote from: "tvdude"This has perplexed me for some time.  How can modplug not be considered a mixing (or production) tool?  Not only are there appliable effects options for each channel, but there are volume controls on each channel, not to mention volume controls and effects controls within each channel.  How are other mixing programs superior to that?

graphic automation, volume slide precision (no step), enveloppe processing...
but I mainly mix my tracks on MPT... :)

As maleek stated, first of all it's a matter of taste. Everyone has his own toolset to achieve the results.

Quote from: "seventhson"There are plenty of professionals out there that use it, so talking about it as if it is merely a toy is a little bit foolish.

Well, I was a bit rude on that, but I didn't call it a toy.
There was a discussion about this before, but I still consider, although both MPT and Reason technically can be called 'sequencers',
that they are different categories. One wouldn't call MPT 'just another groove-maker', because it can be much, much more.
I don't see myself making an a-rhythmical soundscape with e.g. Rebirth.

Quote from: "tvdude"How can modplug not be considered a mixing (or production) tool?

You're surely right. It is too. Before I had a multi-track mixer, I did the production with MPT.
And if I want a straight and simple stereo-mix I still do. The volume, panning and player options are quite sufficient.
And I trust the developers of MPT in keeping on enhancing and finetuning the program.

But for quite some time I make my final productions as a four-channel WAV (quad), so then it's another story.
Then I am considering the composition made with MPT as a kind of 'premix', so still as 'raw material'.
The beauty of MPT is, that one can export one channel or a selected group of channels as a single WAV-file,
to be imported in the multi-track mixer. This is a great property to achieve a more detailed 'master'.
In this way I can split the tracker module into let's say a set of 8 stereo WAVs, with different instrument-groups,
to be imported in the multitrack-mixer.

I think our common interest is that MPT is growing in a balanced way, not bending to the direction of the
hype of the day, nor bending to the direction of a 'purist' kind of view.

Quote from: "Sam_Zen"I think our common interest is that MPT is growing in a balanced way, not bending to the direction of the hype of the day, nor bending to the direction of a 'purist' kind of view.

Nicely put.

+1

Quote from: "Sam_Zen"I don't see myself making an a-rhythmical soundscape with e.g. Rebirth..

So you base your opinion on Reason 4 on a ten year old TB-303 emulator?

okay i think a lot of you have some weird ideas about what modplug is and can do!
as far as i can see then modplug as a program for composing music at a basic level (i mean putting everything in the place you want, but not caring about quite how it sounds in terms of production) has pretty much everything you need, the only things now required are to make some things easier to use and perhaps to remove some old shite (for example does anyone really need the awful modplug reverb & Eq settings? )
i think that you can track anything that can be written in conventional music notation with modplug as it now stands (and has for years). you can now also use alternative tunings easily. the resampling is already pretty good, could be a tiny bit better but it's good enough at the moment (and the fact you can change resampling methods per sample is ace as well as possibly unique to modplug). the mixing is perhaps iffier - i think there is a bit of a tell-tale 'modplug sound' but it's very hard to do a decent comparison of mixing routines, comparing antialiasing is much easier. but yeah, that's all the basics covered. if you had PERFECT samples then i think any piece of music possible could be recorded in modplug? (nice to know if someone has some cases where it can't!)

where modplug starts being 'professional' is where the VST support comes in - without this then modplug just doesn't cut it, with it you have access to the use of a huge array of external effects and instruments that can be used to get tracks up to a decent professional standard.
modplugs current abilities are lacking 3 major things (there are limited get-arounds for the first 2 of these but they're clunky or wasteful on resources or instances):

-better routing & mixing for vst plugs (ie the ability to alter the % sent to an effect per channel or per instrument and the ability to do things like side chaining)

-plugin delay compensation (some plugins take a while to process so you get everything put through one effect coming out a second later than it should or of course phase cancelling if you're mixing in original signal with something with a shorter delay, nasty!)

-better all round support! (a bit general but there are quite a few dodgy plugins that modplug doesn't like or behaves strangely with, the only crashes i've ever had in 9 or 10 years are from VST use)

one more very important thing that modplug lacks is the power to automate EVERYTHING - some plugins have too many params and modplug can't send control changes to these.
so in summary: based on the VST support modplug is 'sort of' professional, it's extremely capable but there are a few things that are not achievable and some that are more difficult than they should be.

Quote from: "bvanoudtshoorn"

Quote from: "Sam_Zen"I think our common interest is that MPT is growing in a balanced way, not bending to the direction of the hype of the day, nor bending to the direction of a 'purist' kind of view.

Nicely put.

Indeed

Quote from: "älskling"So you base your opinion on Reason 4 on a ten year old TB-303 emulator?

LOL. Yes, probably.

Quote from: "KrazyKatz"Modplug is more of a composing tool. Sort of like pen and music paper to write out your music.

Agreed - I always viewed MPT as an instrument and not a studio mixing/mastering software suite.

One of the pet peeves of the original author of the MODPlug software (Olivier Lapique) was requests to make the software "all-in_one", i.e. MP3 support for the MODPlug Player.  He believed, and I agree, that it was not the intention to make the software support every file format, videos, plugins, etc. but to focus on module music specifically.

Of course I think that there can be many improvements made to MPT that will help composers to create music, which as some have posted here already should be the main focus of MPT.  When VST support was added it just expanded the possibilities for composers, and I think that there are other options that could also add to the abilities of MPT.

Let's make MPT the best "instrument" that it can be, and leave the other things to the software that specializes in the mixing/mastering end of things.  It doesn't need to be an "all-in-one" production environment, especially when there are plenty of other tools out there already.

Right on, Kim.
Olivier's spirit still should be maintained in the growing of MPT.

I don't think anyone here wishes for Modplug to do their math or cook nice pasta. But really, there is no reason why not to want Modplug to move forward while maintaining the core of what the program is and means to people. I mean, there are apparantly several things that can get better. It seems most people agree on that point. :)

Sure, that's why we're here on this forum. Getting it better, That's why we post the bugreports, requests, suggestions, etc.
Afaik a program is never really finished. Even if it's functioning perfectly, a new OS comes along, or a new fileformat.
New graphic environments, etc. So new demands coming up, and the choice how to deal with them.
It's the same reason why the message on a website "under construction" is quite silly.
So often a pronounced 'standard' had to make place for 'the new standard'. And so on.

In this light the choice of Olivier, not to add MP3 import as a sample, is a crucial one.
I see that as a long-term policy.
I happen to be a fan of the OGG format as compression instead of MP3.
So now I could request the capability of this format as well. Does this mean any progression? I don't think so.
I just accept the fact that I have to offer the basic material in the WAV format.
Also because technically, MP3 or OGG would mean a rather useless extra decompression routine in the process.

MPT does have the ability to export as MP3. That's a bonus. But that's the right position to decide to add it or not.
At the output.
Do you want a quick MP3 to be used instantly, or do you want to use the WAV(s) for a next proces of final production?

Quote from: "Sam_Zen"In this light the choice of Olivier, not to add MP3 import as a sample, is a crucial one.

IIRC, Olivier said something along the lines of that since MP3 compression removes some frequencies, the sound quality will sufferwhen previously compressed samples are resampled. That's a valid point, but I would like to be able to make the choice myself. Compressed samples can be extremely pracical if one wishes to distribute a mod that contains e.g. vocals or other non-sequenced sounds.

I also think that speculating in "what would Olivier do" is more of a curiosity than a sign of which direction OpenMPT should be developed. Then again, I see no reason for the developers to implement anything they have no personal interest in, all we can say is "pretty please".

Quote from: "älskling"IIRC, Olivier said something along the lines of that since MP3 compression removes some frequencies, the sound quality will sufferwhen previously compressed samples are resampled. That's a valid point, but I would like to be able to make the choice myself. Compressed samples can be extremely pracical if one wishes to distribute a mod that contains e.g. vocals or other non-sequenced sounds.

In this case, the MO3 (http://www.un4seen.com/mo3.html) format comes in pretty handy :lol:

Älskling wrote:

Quote
I also think that speculating in "what would Olivier do" is more of a curiosity than a sign of which direction OpenMPT should be developed. Then again, I see no reason for the developers to implement anything they have no personal interest in, all we can say is "pretty please".

I wholeheartedly agree. Since I cannot contribute with coding I, as well as everyone else, can only ask and suggest. Not demand anything really. I am quite humble in face of everyones personal lifes, especially sine we are talking about freeware.

Quote from: "älskling"I would like to be able to make the choice myself. Compressed samples can be extremely practical if one wishes to distribute a mod that contains e.g. vocals or other non-sequenced sounds.

Valid points too. But it would be my last choice, only when the mod itself would become very huge.

Things have drastically changed in that perspective concerning filesize.
In the pre-VST time, with only lo-res samples, and only short vocal samples, size of a module tracker was independent of duration of the output.
Like a WAV or MP3 is. The longer, the bigger.

A mod could have about 600 KB of samples, and could result in a WAV output of 2 min. or one with a duration of 10 min.
Maybe the 2nd one added a couple of KB's to the 600 KB, because of some extra patterns in the row.

Lately, I've met posts in the Download section, where people saying :
- I will post a link to a simplified version of this mod of 3:20, because the original is 1.5 GB..

Quote from: "älskling"I also think that speculating in "what would Olivier do" is more of a curiosity than a sign of which direction OpenMPT should be developed.

Certainly - the only reason that I brought his name into the conversation was due to his interest in keeping the software focused on making and playing back module files, something that I also believe should be the focus of the software.

As it is now open source, any developer can add whatever feature(s) they feel are worthy of their time.  I am just hoping that new features will help to make MPT a better instrument, and not start to go off in the direction of making MPT a complete production environment, since it seems that would be a bit of "reinventing the wheel".  But as you mentioned, all we can do is say "pretty please" unless we have the time and the knowledge to modify the source code on our own.

VST support, while not in the arena of "oldskool" tracking, was IMHO one of the best new features for making MPT a better instrument to work with.  (The *.ITI format comes in a close second - no more 120MB files!!)  Improvements like these (and the fact that it is free) are what keeps MPT a viable option for anyone wishing to make music on their computer.

Maybe this should be in feature requests, but I'm just curious if it would be possible to add a "crossfade loop points" function in the samples editor.  This would be great, particularly for stereo samples.  Also, the ability to select the area for fade in and fade out, and resampling for changing the sample rate would be nice.

Just some thoughts.  Actually, I'm very, very happy with Modplug and I'm not even using the most recent beta build.  I will probably wind up buying Renoise at some point, but one of the reasons I have held off is simply that I enjoy the openness of the format and the flexibility of the program.  While it would be nice to see less buggy VST handling and better VST mixing abilities, I am frankly amazed that this program exists for free.  There is a collection of features available that doesn't exist even in some commercial programs -- the combination of the ability to use a wide array of formats, VST support, midi export, solid wav renderer, built in sample editor, good (and flexible) sample ramping, etc.

Thank you developers!  If you want a list of things I'd like to see, I'm sure I could keep you busy, but I think the most important thing is to keep a stable program that works well with samples and the known module formats.  As I said, a few additions to the sample editor would be most helpful.

I can't tell you how much I've enjoyed working with Modplug.

Thank you for all your votes and comments fellow craftsmen. We've all come to realize quite a bit from this. Modplug must remain firm in its traditional roots and improve by all means without becoming a generic DAW.

I'm personally going to be looking for options to start implementing the features, so stay posted for future threads where YOU can make a difference to Modplug.

Keep on tracking.

Scripting. If MPT had a scripting engine, with access to all of its internal variables, small features could be added in really quickly... Pascal Script, Javascript, whatever. (I'd prefer not VBScript, but I'd handle it! :D) Only problem is that, AFAIK, it'd be a bit of a nightmare to implement. :)

'Keep on tracking' it is. (my signature on the old forum)
As known, I barely use VST, but I think as it's implemented in MPT now, there is an obligation to finetune the function of it.
I'm a bit afraid that it would be a continuous process, because VST's are an external factor with its own developments.
So MPT can only react to those devs afterwards.
I agree with mrvegas about some sample handling improvements. But that's for the Request department.

EDIT: Missed Barry's post while writing the previous.
Being able to use some kind of script has been my wish from a long time ago.
For the output, it could be a means to perform the same composition in different ways, while the original module can stay the same.

Examples :
~ For a short version skipping stanza 3 and refrain 3, by making a jump in the patternrow.
~ Enable the effect-settings in the player-tab after pattern n.
As for an input to create a script, there are fancy possibilities too, like recording a macro-file, while the song is being played,
and some values are changed, or a channel is muted, and could be saved.
This can be reversed-engineering of course. Not depending of complicated realtime recording, but composing a script on forehand,
how the composition should be performed.

If it's about the format of such a script, I prefer to start with basic options. Like e.g. a .BAT or an .INI file ascii.
All kinds of script-languages possible, but first question is : Which script-formats already can be read by MPT?
Before adaptation to a new format.
I can imagine a file 'song.ini' next to 'song.it' being loaded first, to define the actual performance of the song.

So each song can/will be a set of 2 files.
If this is the case, one can't expect to ask from other module-players, like XMPlay, to read this properly.
But the counterpoint to compatibility is exclusiveness. Only MPT can do it.

People tend to forget that OpenMPT already has great capabilities.

For instance, the few examples Sam_Zen asks for are already possible. Perhaps this "scripting" will make it easier, but why add something if it can be done already?

You can simply apply an effect at a certain stage by settings the plugin's wet/dry ratio from 0% to 100% using the Zxx macro functionality.

To repeat that verse, simply enter those patterns in the orderlist.

But I think the best way to get this "scripting" to a next level is by altering the OpenMPT in such way that its not so heavilly dependend on all those libraries, and therefor rely on Visual Studio so much. Then we could easilly get coders, because you don't need such expensive program.

LPChip:

You are of course correct. But although macro is splendid for it's preciseness, it isn't always intuitive. A more visual/graphical approach is sometimes exactly what you need to get out your ideas fast.

I know very little of Visual Studio and the possibilities of using different programs, but I really like the debates and the discussion. Modplug should be an alive community with different ideas. :) And it's nice to see that people are opinionated, although I wish we could be more people active in the discusisons.

Quote from: "LPChip"But I think the best way to get this "scripting" to a next level is by altering the OpenMPT in such way that its not so heavilly dependend on all those libraries, and therefor rely on Visual Studio so much. Then we could easilly get coders, because you don't need such expensive program.

I doubt getting rid of VS means that it would be easy to get coders. Related to this, some might be interested that recently it was announced (http://www.microsoft.com/Presspass/press/2008/feb08/02-18GSDPR.mspx?rss_fdn=Press%20Releases) that Visual Studio among other programs will be freely available for students in various countries(with special terms of use, though).

i was thinking recently that the 'visualise effect' thing would be great to be useable to change the volume as well (and the code would be pretty much the same i think), and then thought 'why not the notes as well?' and then realised that as simple as the visualise effect pane is it's hugely effective and intuitive and not so far from a very simple piano roll type thing if you could just use it to set note pitch and length. would that be a simple(ish!) way of appeasing the people who wish for a more graphical interface without changing the interface for anyone else? so for an example - instead of writing in the notes as usual you select a channel and right click select 'visualise note' (uhh, probably a better name than that can be thought of by someone!) this then shows a mini piano roll style thing, the notes can then be drawn into here and they're added as regular tracked notes in the column that was selected. perhaps advance that a wee bit to do multiple channels (ie chords).

- just an idea i thought i'd throw out in the open, personally a more graphical interface is not something i'd like prioritised but i think a lot of people would disagree. i've probably overlooked some daft reasons for why this wouldn't work or would be rubbish! (i have considered the horizontal Vs vertical thing but i think if it's popping up another wee window it could go either way)

I vote that we keep things nice and easy. Progress and features are nice, but it invariably means that the software gets more complicated, or less intuitive, or more error-prone, or all of the above. For me MPT is the next best thing to full on-board synth/sequencer, which i can't afford right now. My muse can still dance while i'm poor...

However, i would like to see an MPT that makes music creation EASIER. I'm constantly coming up with nice beats and basslines in my head, but they become lost when i begin to put them into a snippet i can come back to later. What i need is a "note"pad, a sort of tracker template where i all i need to do is set a tempo, punch notes into their spots in the phrase, select instruments for the notes or the tracks i put them on, then save it in a little file that MPT can read and load into a fuller setup. The notepad would have a simple interface, no tabs or anything, drag-n-drop, no VSTS, just punch and save (and maybe a place for comments so i don't forget the original inspiration.)