ModPlug Central

Is there a handy way to render mods by instruments, i.e. a single
instrument in a single wav file rather than a separate track in a separate
wav file?

I know XMPlay can do this, is there any other convenient ways,
preferably using ModPlug playback engine?

at the moment it's only possible to mute instruments one by one (from the treeview) and then render the track manually each time.

No good, the reason why I am asking, is because I tried that.

Very tedious and easy to make a mistake.

I saw there was a tool designed especially for such task, I think it was
even based around ModPlug, did not need it then and too bad cannot
remember what it was now.

well, this has been requested before, so it is possible that it will appear in one of the next releases. possibly maybe.

Cool, absence of selective rendering was quite a turn-off for some time now
considering that Modplug is probably the most feature rich tracker ever.

*cough cough*

Buzz and Psycle are not trackers really.

Possibly didn't heard from Renoise then. =)

I don't find an attempt to make a number of years old interface look
fashionable (or usable for that matter) successful unless you grew up on it.

Granted, it has decent multi I/O ASIO support but other than that I don't know.

well, were to start...

Gui "skinning" is one of the totally less important stuff, you can even ignore it.
- It has a multicore support, i needed it to have multiple processing power that modplug hasn't gave me.
- It has an automatic VSTi instrument bypassing engine, so if the instrument is not played, it will "unload" and will not eat up processing power, modplug don't have this and it's very important if you use lotsa instruments.
- Renoise separates VST instruments and VST effects. (it handles VST instruments as modplug handles samples and normal instruments, they are totally separated from the "plugins" area)
- You can utilize a separate VST effect chain for every single channel. Modplug only have one general VST chain, and even the VST instruments are mixed between them, and it can be very messy to work with and not least not efficient.
- Can open separate "effect" channels in patterns that will allow you to do crazy routing and additional space for playing with effects.
- Automation is ridiculously easy to setup, just click on the wanted knob/slider/anything on your VST(i), and the draw the automation line, or automation points. Also you can automate almost everything, means any stuff that you can mess with manually, you can surely automate it.
- Has many integrated and great VST effects (chorus, flanger, phaser, compressor, distortion, resonant filter, delay, reverb, eq, gainer....)
- LFO (integrated vst) tool, one of the coolest features, it will allow you to do repetitive automation even more easier, it has the basic shapes like square, saw, sine, but you can use use noise for random variations, or your custom shapes. You can bmp sync it of course with the tracker. You can use this tool for almost everything, to control volume levels, control your VSTi, give your sound a vibration.... you name it.
- VELOCITY (integrated vst) tool is great if you want to have some effect to start when it detects a note hit on the pattern. Example you can setup delay, vibration, reverb or similar stuff, and it will only trigger/reset when it detects a new note. Its not the best example, but you can surely get creative whit this tool.
- the GUI (graphical user interface) is modular, so you can turn on and off parts of it, that you need, or not. The good thing is that while you work you don't need to switch between tabs, everything is on 1 screen, it's very fast and comfortable.
- The pattern order list is easy to work with, you can select multiple patterns, drag and drop them anywhere, name them, duplicate them, ect.
- You can expand a channel to have more note columns in it, it's totally neat if you are planning to make chords, you don't need to end up using 6-7 channel for your stuff, but only one.
- When you copy and paste your data, even if your new pattern is accidentally shorter than the original (example your copied data from a 128 row long pattern to 64), your data won't be cut to half, it will stay on the "memory" of the pattern, so if you expand it later to 128, you will have everything there.
- The copy/paste can be filtered, means that you can mark one (or many) channel(s) and select the stuff that you want to copy/paste. Example you can chose to only copy the notes and the effects, and leave the instruments, volume or any other input alone.
- You can duplicate channels (with pattern data and effects), instruments (hurray, easy duplicate instruments!), automation or almost anything.
- You can easily drag and drop instruments, VST effects from a place to another.
- Of course, you can setup shortcut keys for every favorite, often used action.
- Automatic PDC (Plugin Delay Compensation) precise timing correction engine in short.
- Every note column (can) have a separate volume, panning, note delay and 4 additional universal-effect subcolumn. Modplug have one universal effect subcolumn and one small (for volume, panning, ect) mixed column.
- Cross track routing the meta vst effect information between channels, so inside Sidechaining, or other reaction/intensity based stuff are possible.
- ReWire-ing support with other software, so its easy to work with other people in the field, or studios.

And the list could go on, these are the features that i have in mind right now, but you could surely get the main picture with this.

What Modplug have is compatibility. It can import/export to almost any tracker format. With Renoise you can import many tracker formats, but it can only save in Renoise (.xrns) format, since it's too advanced to be compatible with other formats (you can however export .midi data, so you can share at least the patterns with non Renoise users). This can be an issue if you plan to publish/share your work with people, but as for me, i'm sticking with the WAV/mp3 format, so it's ok. However, Modplug is heading to this way too. Its unavoidable. If you add new "technical" feature to the song format, it will break compatibility with old systems that are based to regular old school system. Modplug will (is) have the MPTP format for this purpose, but it will follow the same route like the XRNS example, with every extra technical feature.

hope that it helped. ^_^

As long as you have each instrument in a separate channel, then you have the option to export each channel as a single wav.

I also requested the export by instrument.

What Sam says is good if you are using lots of channels. I normally try to reduce the number as much as possible - and also all of my older modules are in the 4-channel style - even when it 18 channels.

I just work like that.

Obviously is a nice but not necessary thing because one could do it manually.

Quote from: "psishock"Gui "skinning" is one of the totally less important stuff, you can even ignore it.

Not really. I actually hate skinned and that's one of the reasons why I love MPT or Miranda. About the other-points, yeah that's some nice DAW blah blah, but they are not really valid if you want to compare Renoise to trackers since most of them are not DAWs.

Yep, that's what i love about Miranda and MPT too, and their light weightness. But a modular, graphical gui is something that you cant really archive effectively with default win gui engine, and therefore i love that functionality on Renoise too.

Quote from: "Jojo"About the other-points, yeah that's some nice DAW blah blah, but they are not really valid if you want to compare Renoise to trackers since most of them are not DAWs.

Aren't we having a little conservative view over the term trackers? :D
We could just stop the time with Impulse Tracker, since it has all the features, that any tracker should offer to a person. Even it dont have that flashy new windows gui like OMPT.

You are denying yourself with that statement, because you too are adding (slowly) new functions that will make OMPT better and more feature rich. Which is a great thing of course, makes everybody more happier with every update. Have faith on "trackers" (i have surely), they should not be left on the past, and be called some legacy music making softwares from the amiga and early pc era. They have their place right here and in the future, in front of present and new musicians also, were are sequencers dominating at the moment. A tracker isnt anything less from them, its just a different approach to composing, so they should definitely have every demanded new features (just like sequencers are adding new stuffs all the time up), that will allow to please the composer and make his life more easier, comfortable and faster.
My points are valid Jojo, look how many musicians are working example with Renoise every day, they love the way it constantly develops to something more greater, and the fact that developers are adding up frequently required features, really much pleases them. The same phenomena can be observed with OMPT too. But very old trackers are left in the dust, slowly totally forgotten, and especially new musicians wont even look to them.  
I can understand that you may not want to compare OMPT to DAWs, 'cause it's suffering from some lack of modern features (so call it "handicapped" at the moment), but i can assure you that trackers have their right place, in front of any modern musicians. I wont accept their role to be reduce simply to "legacy" softwares, with the old school systems like c64, DOS stuff, and the rest.

Quote from: "Sam_Zen"As long as you have each instrument in a separate channel, then you have the option to export each channel as a single wav.

That is true, but you don't necessarily have to export your own modules.
In my spare time I entertain myself every now and again taking some
oldie or someone else's track that I like and try to do some mastering on
it to sharpen my skills.

Very few writers work in "one istrument -- one channel" mode.

Quote from: "psishock"We could just stop the time with Impulse Tracker

No, but we could stop the time with fasttracker interface.

I gave renoise a chance on a number of occasions but their reluctance to
accept that there has been some change in OS GUIs since the beginning
of the nineties defeats the purpose of having a ton of bells and whistles.


It was a very wise Olivier's decision to abandon the DIY interface
approach in favour of the standard looking application rather than
reinvent the wheel.

There is really really no point in employing prehistorical interface design approach anymore.

Quote from: "Rxn"
No, but we could stop the time with fasttracker interface.

It was a very wise Olivier's decision to abandon the DIY interface
approach in favour of the standard looking application rather than
reinvent the wheel.

There is really really no point in employing prehistorical interface design approach anymore.

+1

The same reason why I prefer mpt over renoise.

Quote
You are denying yourself with that statement, because you too are adding (slowly) new functions that will make OMPT better and more feature rich.

While MPT does get new features indeed, it is still compatible with its own roots - Unlike Renoise, which dropped compatibility in favor of new features. The big difference between the two is that Renoise is what people call a 3rd generation tracker (a DAW), and I'd say MPT Is a 2.5nd generation tracker. Still showing its roows (FT2, IT), but also offering some features modern DAWs has. Being true to its origins doesn't contradict with adding new features, on the contrary, stopping development doesn't indicate that it's true its roots.

Oh, and a "modular" interface can also be done without painting all controls black and orange.  That is very well possible. And it's also possible to be modern by using the operating systems' own file selection dialog, in contrast to the shitty built-in file dialog in Renoise, which it inherited from FT2, where it was even worse.

Quote from: "Rnx"No, but we could stop the time with fasttracker interface.

I gave renoise a chance on a number of occasions but their reluctance to
accept that there has been some change in OS GUIs since the beginning
of the nineties defeats the purpose of having a ton of bells and whistles.

It was a very wise Olivier's decision to abandon the DIY interface
approach in favour of the standard looking application rather than
reinvent the wheel.

There is really really no point in employing prehistorical interface design approach anymore.

I can see where this is going :D, but if one cant give up the highly favored microsoft windows 98 skin over the feature list, there is really no point of the comparing.
I can assure you that having every of the essential controls on one screen is a lot more functional and faster than browsing through several separate windows constantly, while working on your music. Just have to think more open about a good and funtional gui, it's really not about "ton of bells and whistles" that you will barely use. If working with something else than standard win98 gui seems impossible, and that problem has better impact that whole of the feature list, welcome to OMPT, it really is your best choice over win98 gui trackers.
I wasnt even tried to be a Renoise missionary on the first place, only reacted to your post, about OMPT being the most advanced tracked out there, showing some feature facts that are clearly denying it.

Jojo:
Yep, compatibility is OMPT-s strength, i've even said that. But if we look on it, the fact to be "compatible" with legacy formats is getting less and less important. People are usually working with the formats that is offering them the most functionality. Even in the old times, trackers developers changed their formats, and invented a lot of different features that didnt allowed backward compatibility.
Take MOD and IT example: Can you load up MOD to IT compatible trackers? Sure. Can you load, saved IT files to only MOD compatible trackers? Nuh-uh. The same is happened with XRNS example, it can load every popular legacy module formats, only backward compatibility just isn't available.
OMPT have added new "technical" features that didnt really work "compatibility" wise, like VST support on IT files, filters on IT files, big pattern length, mix levels, or 128 channels for instance. Try to load up those IT files with Impulse Tracker, or and IT module player. I'm sure you know what will happen.
It is not really working well, those files will be opened successfully only with OPMT, and having this in mind, the MPTM will become more and more important for the task, because people are loving and using those new features all the time (that is the point of the new cool feature :D).

Now i knooow what you're thinking. "ok these might be right at some level, but hey, that is still not reason to drop saving compatibility to old formats, just need to disable these new features while using them"
Well, if one needs to work on MOD files, dont really give a damn about any of the fancy new features for starters, his totally fine with even the early versions of MPT as well. Renoise recognized that fact, that why they dropped the legacy format saving compatibility (i totally agree that loading support for wide list of legacy formats are highly recommended, and it has that feature). You can use any time the old versions (or other old trackers) for old formats, however if you happen to need any of the new stuff, you can load up them any time to the new tracker versions. Having that in mind, saving compatibility for legacy formats doesn't really matter at some point.
(I'm not even getting into "how important are (or will be) the legacy formats, for our musicians". Everybody can have his own reasons why is he using them, and for what purpose. But i believe the massive percent will simply not care about it, and will highly demand the new cool features.)

QuoteBut if we look on it, the fact to be "compatible" with legacy formats is getting less and less important. People are usually working with the formats that is offering them the most functionality.

That is not the point. MPT is more than a tracker. You can listen to many modules in legacy formats, and that's exactly the point. People would not want MPT to be elss compatible to "work" with it. Because working can also mean "being an excellent mod player". And that way, compatibility is not getting less important.

QuoteEven in the old times, trackers developers changed their formats, and invented a lot of different features that didnt allowed backward compatibility.

Wrong. FT2 could handle MOD, ST3 could handle MOD, IT could handle MOD, S3M and XM. There was no need not to be compatible to others.

QuoteTake MOD and IT example: Can you load up MOD to IT compatible trackers? Sure. Can you load, saved IT files to only MOD compatible trackers?

You're talking about forwards compatibility here, not backwards compatibility. Renoise cannot even load MOD/S3M/XM/IT properly, it's just a very rough import. And when you look at other trackers, that is exactly what they do differently: MODs sound correct in ST3 or IT. Of course, you can't load the MPTM format into ProTracker, but you can load MODs into MPT and they still sound correct.

QuoteWell, if one needs to work on MOD files, dont really give a damn about any of the fancy new features for starters, his totally fine with even the early versions of MPT as well.

Also wrong, because MPT is not getting less, but more compatible. Just look at the 1.17.03.02 changelog: Roughly 50 playback bugs have been fixed.

I have to weigh in on Jojo's side here.

I still work with my older modules. Compatability is important to me.

uncloned:
you, me, some other people that are from past tracker era. But take a look at the new musicians (generally), that are looking for a music making software for instance. They may look for one that suits their needs the best, and can do the most tricks they want, they barely gonna care about old formats that they didnt even heard from. Old formats are slowly fading away, as the old users are using more advanced ones, and the new ones are looking for the exact same.

Jojo:
Bugfixes are super important for sure, but this has nothing to do with actual features example, they are just errors in the code that are finally corrected.

Also i'm completely aware that developers will tell the final role of the software, because they are coding it.
I just thought that it may rise from the simple old school meaning of trackers, to a suitable primary DAW choice for any musicians. I understand, but somewhat disappointed to hear, that is nowhere the aim. Two very different ways. As i've understood, the main role from the developers view is to become a super accurate, both-way compatible program with all the available legacy tracker formats.

Oh well, that is not that im personally looking for. :)

Well, different developers behind MPT have different preferences and goals. My goal is certainly not to turn MPT just into another Renoise clone. If anything, then it has to be better. But my primary goal is to make it a proper 2nd generation tracker first.

Since things have taken an unexpected turn here is the very question:

If the modplug community got a chance to develop Modplug 2.0,
something of entirely new level both in terms of functionality as well as
usability, something that could bring trackers to a new golden era, should
we try and do that?

To be honest, i've even brained about the matter more. We would have a big gap without this format combining, legacy accurate tracker, and OMPT is very much excellent for this purpose. On the other hand, Renoise has perfect approach and focus to be the "choice of modern, everyday DAW", for the people who are looking to work with the tracker gridded system, and not feel really familiar with sequencer pianorolls example. Does the job nicely, and i don't even think anything could ever overleap it, 'cause it is already focusing 100%, with great team on that primary role of his.

The two systems doesnt even need to be competitions for each other, because they both have their important role, and they are surely fulfilling them very nicely. Both great on their own field, we can use them for different purposes, as we (i'm) are doing it even now.

Rxn: Try your luck, but don't expect it to be easy. :P Audio processing requires quite some knowledge. And I actually know about such a project (not necessarily MPT-centered, though), but I cannot elaborate on it at this point.

Jojo, it is not I who needs to have his luck tested in this case:) The whole
community should sit down and develop thorough specifications of
functionality as well as GUI.

Psishock is probably right in saying that we should let develop OpenMPT
as it does now and start something entirely new from ground up without
looking back into the past.

I doubt that a whole community would be useful to create a new tracker. On the contrary, the few people who would actually code this thing then would be frustrated by all the "but I want feature x to be in there as well" mails.

I understand your point. The key is in having a detailed specification
beforehand approved by the developers.

Anyway, this all is "what if..." scenario. Maybe it will happen someday,
but as for now tracking community is somewhere in the desert.

Dear Rxn

what would you want different?

Uncloned:

that is a damn good question to start with, isn't it?:)

ill help you with that question :D
"Every single modern feature that Renoise has, but with OMPT gui!"

I am somewhat 100% positive that this "new tracker from the scratch" will never happen. Get yourself over that one sided gui question Rxn (you will grow to like any new ones over time), and learn to use Renoise if you are looking for all around modern DAW tracker, i've done that too. And use OMPT if you are looking for legacy compatible/accurate ones.

Fastracker interface is anything but a new one.

It doesn't have to have all the inbuilt processors and effects that Renoise
has: there is no need dither developers' efforts on what has been
successfully implemented by free and commercial VST developers.

the early base design may had been based on FT2, but i can assure you, its the most modern and functional interface that you can find in any present trackers.
You will be better of, if you would stop the hate prejudges about his past, and just focus on the functionality and features. :)
But then again, its your choice if you will continue to hate it, its not us who will get less benefit from it. :D

what's so modern about a built-in file browser that's nowhere as functional as Windows' own file browser?

Psishock:

I just started renoise again and poked around the color settings trying to
replicate my pattern colors in MPT. You know what -- it failed, you can't
even set the color of the instrument. There is also no highlight of every
16th row either.

Please don't tell me anything about advancedness of Renoise's GUI.

Quote from: "Jojo"what's so modern about a built-in file browser that's nowhere as functional as Windows' own file browser?

Well i've named several gui features that are far superior at this moment than OMPT can offer. But you have dragging over, turning on/of gui elements, custom build buttons, sliders that will take very little screen space and can be variously optimized and placed, you name them.
It may be available with the win gui over heavy coding, but i havent seen much progress yet on any program, based on the default win engine. (proving me wrong with implementing 1337 features will make us happy anyway. ^_^)

The file browser, well i think it serves the purpose rather well. I've tried it while learning stuff, but to be honest i have always used the drag and drop feature from TC example, with songs, instruments and patches. I dont really use embed file browsing engines in other programs as well. Drag and drop is cool and very functional.

Rxn:

Quote from: "Rxn"I just started renoise again and poked around the color settings trying to
replicate my pattern colors in MPT. You know what -- it failed, you can't
even set the color of the instrument.

well the skinning engine is not a chameleon engine like Winamp has example, so its normal that you cant really mimic OMPT very closely. Have in mind, that we're talking about two different software here. Try to approach with compromises in this matter.

Quote from: "Rxn"here is also no highlight of every 16th row.

yep, get used to it, its just a habit. It was unusual for me too, but you will find out that they aren't even necessary, but will feel those steps anyway. Primary beat highlights are important, and you have those. Apparently people haven't really demanded it too, because it would been long time implemented.

When looking at a new software, mayb should try to check at first, what all can it offer you, the good features, that will make your life a lot easier (for instance that OMPT couldnt, and made you search for other ones). The few negative stuff that you may miss from OMPT can surely be compensated by them. That's what i think at least.

Also keep in mind that Renoise is not a finished product, its constantly developing (rapidly), so new features can be expected all the time. If you have something that you highly demand, fire it up on the forums, if many people are finding that useful, developers will look for a way to put it in the upcoming releases.

Speaking of color settings, the channel color box (recently requested here) has been implemented in Renoise 2.5 (registered users only - which I'm not)
http://www.renoise.com/about/what-s-new-2-5/

QuoteUser definable colors for tracks, which are also visible in other parts of Renoise (like the pattern editor) for better overview, grouping

(But looking at the screenshot, it seems the colors are blended with black, so the contrast is poor).

It's exciting to see Renoise developping so fast, and at the same time It's great that OMPT and Renoise are so different : more choice to find what's suited for you.
OMPT is the greatest player / editor for the MOD S3M XM IT repertoire, and the mptm format, as an enhanced IT format, continues the tracker legacy (the sequence feature being very promising). Imho OMPT's developement is on the right track. ;)
And it's still a little and fast application where you can open loads of songs in multiple windows, drag and drop intruments from one another, etc (on a slow computer by today's standards). I think Renoise can't manage more than one song.
OMPT also has a lot of new interface features that can be overlooked as they are neither clearly documented nor self-explanatory (a manual and startup tips could be where the "whole community" would be useful perhaps).

Quote from: "Paul Legovitch"I think Renoise can't manage more than one song.

yep, but fire up another instance of Renoise, and you can work with another song. Imho a better way, since you can easily drag and drop pattern data or instruments witch could be a little tricky with the Window Browser, even this way you can have both in front of you open at the same time, enabling you to exchange data also fast. (and yep, OMPT can handle multiple instances as well)

but a big big difference in my mind is that renoise wants money

that is really against the spirit of the scene.

the scene was / is built on community, freedom, and sharing.

OMPT deserves a great deal of praise for continuing this tradition.

There is very little that I want to do in a tracker that I can't do in OMPT.

I frankly never saw the joy of Buzz and its machines - and apparently renoise has this too. What this comes down to is a marriage of a synthesizer to a sequencer that happens to have a tracker type interface.

Now - I know people here would rather use a tracker interface to sequence whatever - but to me a tracker is still about samples. All of this VSTi stuff is icing as far as I'm concerned - and handled with a great deal more ease in something like Sonar or Reaper.

Real tracker music, if I may repeat myself, is about using samples.

Otherwise - its just a sequencer like any other.

Quoterenoise wants money/ spirit of the scene

Renoise wants money yes, but the are working with 200%, to bring new and widely demanded features with every single release. But the free version of Renoise is totally functional too, you can use 98% of the features, can work, load, save and trade the songs, with friends if thats what the user demand. You arent forced with 2 jackhammers to pay for it, if you arent able to. :) The Scene is working fine and it will continue to work in the future. But i think, in this point we cannot forget musicians that arent only hobbyist and try to work on more advanced level/professionally. They may demand modern features and easy willing to support the developers with 50-60eu, to have a suitable all around DAW for their composing and working needs. (i can note here that most of the commercial sequencers are a lot more expensive in the market)

about tracking:
"Tracking" is just one style of composing approach uncloned. It can be based on samples, on some systems its based on soundcard soundbanks (adlib hardware sounds, or console, c64 chip sounds example), can be based on midi music (windows midi audio files example), and it has a place in the hardware, vsti world as well.
Renoise in not a sequencer, but a DAW. Sequencers are a type of DAW too, but they have different working structures.

QuoteReal tracker music, if I may repeat myself, is about using samples.

a statement... hmmm, well ask the people in c64 era, on that time trackers weren't able to support samples, and worked with SID sounds, anybody would tell that tracker music is about cool chiptunes and chip sounds. Time passed and we had more powerful processors and soundcards, so (first very low, then higher quality) samples were made available to trackers, but software analog synthesis was very much out of the question on that time. Processors were too weak and memory sizes were too small. But nowdays, with the hw technologies rapidly enhancing, we have very powerful processing power available to the masses, so VSTi-s can be widely used, pushing features of the trackers to the next level. It may be interesting to hear, what will people think about modern trackers after 10-20 year period for instance. I think that we shouldn't put their role between 4 strict walls.

QuoteSonar or Reaper

You may find working with synthesizers more comfortable in Sonar/Reaper, some people would give their vote to Ableton Live or Fruity Loops Studio. There are a lot who can work fluidly with Renoise too with these technologies.

understand I'm not attacking what you do

on the other hand OMPT deserves a lot of praise.

There is a project - perhaps I saw it here - called revisit - that frankly I haven't tried because I don't' understand it. And also it again uses IT commends... nonetheless the concept is good - use the tracker as a rewire device.

Perhaps that is the logical place for OMPT to grow.

Why make OMPT a renoise clone? Renoise already exists.

Quoteunderstand I'm not attacking what you do

of course ^_^. We are sharing important informations, teaching each other, and having a cool chatter. You should know me uncloned very well, im not attacking you, the rest of the community nor OMPT himself. I'm never upset, never try to take the "wrong" meaning of others comments, and always looking for a good, informative, constructive chatter.
So you can relax, this is not a battlefield. :D

QuoteWhy make OMPT a renoise clone? Renoise already exists.

Renose is the (only?) tracker that really took the role to advance the meaning of "tracking" to the highest, modern level as possible. Having more trackers that aims for the role does not make them "clones" automatically. They can have features that others doesnt have, they can have totally different work-flow, working methods, that may appeal to different users better.
Look at the sequencers, you have a some bigger couple of them in the circulation, yet the choice of  people are very differing. Having (common) important modern features is not restricting them to "clone" status, they may have many other aspects that are making them totally different.
Take your example on this, how would you like to work with FL studio? It can be considered as a sequencer clone, just like Sonar. Its really not that simple isn't it.

If OMPT could have modern features (in some distant, utopistic future), it may appeal to those people who just could find their way with Renoise, it may also have a lot of new, cool ideas/features that Renoise dont have, and not least it may still be a free alternative.

FL has a lot more in common with a tracker than Sonar - for what it is worth.

I've tried FL.

However - a reasonable nitch is to do what trackers do best - samples - really really well.

Here is another avenue - have the ability to ally VST effects to samples - not as they play but to modify the sample - advanced sample editing - less VST's running real time means less resources .

I know uncloned, even i can list some features that are still missing from Renoise, but if i would go to sequencers, i will miss a lot more, i've tried quite a number of them.

Renoise may have channel "freeze"-ing abilities as well in near future (the function that you have described), it has been demanded by a lot of users. Also it may have "audio streaming" tracks, this will make the work with recorded instruments, vocals, timings super easy. Some fictional drawing of the idea:
(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u303/Pinwizkid/Photos%20for%20the%20blog/RenoiseSuggestionMockupJPEG.jpg)
There is still a brainstorming about these two features, and how should be implemented to be the most effective solution. And i would like to see much more detailed automation envelope possibilities as well. Its not a finished product i know that fact, but the developers and the users are looking to have the general important features implemented, to make it a handicap-less all around DAW program.

Well, that's good I suppose.

Sonar, for what its worth, does everything you mention on that wish list. All it doesn't have the tracker note entry interface - but that is what the Revisit project is all about. But of course Sonar costs a great deal more.

But what Sonar can't do, though this matrix interface is getting real close, is handle samples like a tracker. BUT now I've purchased Kontakt and it is supposed to be a super sampler - I've only explored it a bit - loading some of my gazillion soundfonts - and it was wonderful I must admit - even microtonal to boot. I've played with loading straight wav files just a tiny bit with good results there too.

Nonetheless - I still wouldn't recommend OMPT trying to do all Renoise is trying to do - I'd recommend OMPT becoming really really excellent - a first choice for sample handling.

But this is just my opinion - and you know what those are worth.

Improving an app is done by enhancing its own qualities, not by adding tricks from other apps.

I agree Sam.
But we can separate newly developed own features, from massively demanded, "industry standards" (take VSTi support for instance). Renoise is inventing new, and also improving its own, given features with every new release, but in other hand also trying to implement those demanded, nowdays called "standard" DAW ones, that will make it a comprehensive choice of DAW for most of the musicians.

That "implementing" doesn't quite mean carbon copying the features, but more like finding our own way for the raised problem. Example, people always longed to have a system that allows them to work easily with long, recorded samples. Most likely, we cannot use the same principle that sequencers do, because with trackers, you can have totally random pattern order, and even can reuse any of them, not so speak jumping from one row to a complete different one for instance, with the right coding. So maybe a better approach to the problem would be: enabling the engine (by a separate special channel, or added channel switch) to calculate the exact position of the used samples, and play them with the right offset, from our choice of starting row. This will give the "illusion" of the constant streaming (and will enable the user to work with several pattern long, pre recorded samples), because you dont have to rewind the starting positions to the note start every time, and it definitely wont break compatibility with the given "unordered" tracker system.

Carbon copying direct features from other programs are not really a way of choice. It may happen, if the problem is dead simply solved, and totally works with the given software too. But most of the times people are ending up finding their own, working ways to meet the given demands, that will suit their program the best way.

Quotebut a big big difference in my mind is that renoise wants money

You may not remember it, but back in the days, some o the most famous trackers were shareware or at least donationware. You were not even allowed to produce commercial music with some of them.
And I personally don't see Renoise part of the tracking scene anymore anyway.

QuoteRenoise wants money yes, but the are working with 200%, to bring new and widely demanded features with every single release.

You might not want to hear what I say you, but they even ignore the most simple feature requests made by registered users (which are preferred when it comes to implementing features, as far as I can gather from the FAQ). I know some people who actually paid for Renoise but who are frustrated because nobody pays attention to their simple requests.

QuoteImproving an app is done by enhancing its own qualities, not by adding tricks from other apps.

Not looking at what others do is like re-inventing the wheel. Of course it is part of improving an application! How else would MPT have been started as a project at all?

Interesting discussion here. The comparisons between Renoise and OpenMPT seem somewhat funny: the other is a commercial product with a team of paid, full time workers(Renoise does have such people?) while the other is a open source project with only a few more or less active, non-professional, people who work with the project when they have time from their day job etc.. It would be absurd if Renoise wasn't significantly more advanced in many aspects compared to OpenMPT, which of course does not mean that Renoise would better for everything for everyone compared to OpenMPT or that OpenMPT should mimic Renoise. They both have their domains of use and especially because OpenMPT can't really compete in development resources, it must use it resources better than trying be a bad clone and instead provide something that Renoise doesn't. And of course resist the "let's start rewriting everything and never finish it"-disease.

QuoteThe comparisons between Renoise and OpenMPT seem somewhat funny

Well, people also compare GIMP with PhotoShop, WaveLab with Audacity, Blender with 3D Studio Max, etc... On difference, though, is that those OSS projects mostly have a large developer team.
I have actually made a comparison of OpenMPT and Renoise in an assignment, not on the feature basis but more from the developer's view (the assignment was not about content, but on research techniques etc. so it's not very profound or anything...). It's written in German, but if anyone wants to have a look at it, I will leave it online a few more weeks:
(well, a few weeks are over now...)

My Internet connection fell off today, had nothing else better to do as to
mess around with Renoise for few hours.

Shortly, it is nothing I didn't think it wasn't. The DSP part if fairly good
from what I can tell, sound decent enough without straining the system.
Setting parametres and settings are on par with Ableton and the likes so
I guess not the worst.

Instrument view part was a bit funny after years in Modplug but seems to
work. Samples section is somewhat lacking, resampling modes limited to
linear and cubic, though the loop tuner is quite good. In one of the songs
could not get one of the samples to play back -- selection was playing
okay but the whole sample won't.

Generally loop, sustain, fade, note off features are scattered between the
sample and instrument sections and are hard to figure out how they work
exactly, at least I didn't this time. On the other side, these things were
just about as confusing in Modplug in its time.

The main grief remains -- the pattern editor is the what the user looks at
90% of the time and it seems to fall behind badly compared to Modplug's
appearance and color customization. Font is fairly sad looking too, no row
highlights apart from every 4th. The effect notation system should be
editable or at least provide a choice of different tracker notation styles.
Default colors of the pattern editor will give the user seizures (same as the
interface colors in general) but after an hour of tweaking or so it became
more or less bearable.

In the €49 stock price VAT is not included, should have it mentioned on
the website before the entering the credit card details.

That is shortly the impressions from the program. The key issue remains
-- the pattern editor which many will not be able to overcome. With this
and default color setting issues resolved we could be talking about
something that can get the job done without getting into your face. Of
course that can be only before Modplug 2.0 is released.

I would really like to have a look at that assignment, no German on this
side of the line, unfortunately:)

Well, you can try google translate, but I dunno if it's really worth the effort decoding their "great" translation, as the assignment's primary topic is really not Renoise vs OpenMPT - it's just an example mentioned in the last chapter.

Ah, yeah, forcing the user to hexadecimal system all around is a big no-no.

BTW, if going commercial helped Modplug to receive a more steady and
rapid development I would be very much be both hands for it.

I don't mind at all using hex-codes. Bigger numbers with less characters.

Me also but I know there are people not feeling the same way. So do not exclude them.

Indeed, in fact i'm loving the hex system, but definitely not everywhere. For instance, i like to use decimal row numbering, but hexadecimal midi values.
I think working with hexadecimal can be really fun, im writing 80, but in my mind i am imagining 128, or simply "half" ^_^.

QuoteI think working with hexadecimal can be really fun, im writing 80, but in my mind i am imagining 128, or simply "half" ^_^.

I'd say non-tracker public might not find it as much fun. No good, since
some of potential user base gets cut off.

That is very true Rxn, and to be honest very little of the (potential) musicians like the idea of the hex stuff. They are looking for the simplest way to make their music, and dont want to start learning or getting used to any "special" technologies, unless its totally necessary. That is one of the main reasons why people choose the piano-roll vs. the tracker grid interface. The people just feel the piano-roll to be more friendlier and self explaining to use. The dark grid and all those mathematical alphanumeric numbers on it are scaring the s**t out from most of them. :D But in the end, that is what trackers are all about.

I've seen on Renoise forums that they are brainstorming about implementing a piano-roll to it too, possibly to make their appeal to wider audience. If they find a way to do it, i'm sure that the users could choose from tracker or piano interface when entering notes. So us "geek people" will still have the grid system untouched, but people who may not like that system, will be able to use the program too.

I don't know about the piano roll, but if there was more customizability
and improved look to the pattern view that should be the first step to
make to appealing to a wider tracker audience to get started with.

Also, I think I was a bit too quick about decent multiple ASIO I/O, you
can have only one send per track. So if you want to route a track to a
specific hardware output and then route it to an FX track you'll have to
duplicate the track for every output you want to use.

No good, that unnecessarily increases the number of tracks and CPU load.

Well, having Hex codes everywhere is certainily something that makes trackers fast and unique. You have to get into it, but admit it, it's easy. I cannot imagine a tracker that's not using hex at all. If someone is seriously interested in making music with a tracker (which you really have to be IMHO, because else you will very soon give up), they will also be willing to learn the basic of Hex.

I'm not sure about that, modplug uses decimals for the instruments and
vol/pan column, no-one has complained so far.

Actually, I figured how to use multiple ASIO outputs per track, not as
straight-forward as I thought but seems to be working okay. The new
pattern matrix view is something that I have contemplated for a while
only in form of "macro instruments" but their approach appears to have
more advantages.

Quote from: "Rxn"I'm not sure about that, modplug uses decimals for the instruments and
vol/pan column, no-one has complained so far.

Yeah, that's ST3/IT style. It makes sense there because those columns were only supposed to to up to 99 respectively 64 (though modplug broke that by allowing more than 99 instruments).

I agree with Jojo.
If you want, understanding Hex (it's not even 'learning') is a piece of cake, quite easy.

I have told my granddaughter, when she was 8 years old, about the hex-system.
She got it within an hour, recognizing hexnumbers and being able to convert to decimal and vice versa.
The main obstacle was the awareness that Decimal is just one of those number systems.
After that, I could even explain the binary system...  Or, if I had wanted, the octal system.

And ModPlug is not the only one. So complaints are somewhat premature.
For example many graphic utilities use standard colorcodes in hex like '9C33C9'.

There is no need to force people to learn what is not necessary to know.

HEX system was used in older trackers because monitors of those days
had limited resolution and size and you wanted to keep every millimeter
of space you could gain. On modern half a meter size screens it really is
no problem any more. By the way, modern monitors is another reason
why Renoise's dark scheme is no good: everyone is on LCD panels
theses days and they are no good at displaying dark looking stuff, but
maybe this approach made sense back in CRT times.

And I am not even saying to abandon HEX altogether -- only give an
option to switch between DEC and HEX, that is all.

Quote from: "Rxn"There is no need to force people to learn what is not necessary to know.

Indeed, there is no need to force people to use trackers.

Quote
HEX system was used in older trackers because monitors of those days
had limited resolution and size and you wanted to keep every millimeter
of space you could gain.

Maybe you should ask Karsten Obarski again if that was really his intention.