ModPlug Central

I thought the discussion in the tread "ok, so, is modplugtracker good for old-skool rave/hardcore?" took an interesting turn, so I'll take the liberty to create another tread. So that we can discuss this further without going OT. Instead of discussing this in another tread .

So guys and gals. What are the reasons that you use MPT? Have you tried other tracker (sequencers), (like I? I've tried lots) and come back? Or do you use (O)MPT together with other programs.

I would love to hear all the different stories that folks on this forum have. I will maybe elaborate on my own story somewhat later, but it is nighttime here and I need my precious sleep. :)

I began by writing this in the rave-tread:

QuoteI have actually tried to use FL Studio and Orion, but I always seem to get back to Modplug Tracker. At the end of the day it is simply the fastest way for me to realize my musical ideas.

Harbringer continued by writing:

QuoteFor fear of hijacking the thread, i have also tried other trackers, most recently sVartracker and reViSiT. Both have lots of features, but they lack one of the most basic: configurable keys. It's hard enough learning a new tracker, and i hafta re-learn keys? No thanks. I know MPT inside and out (actually i STILL don't know everything about it) and can do anything i want. Yes, it's imperfect and it's difficult from what i understand to tweak the code to better suit our needs, but it's tried and true, plenty of features, and pretty decent "customizability". When the others get configurable keys AND use VSTi's AND can use different tunings AND can read and use many different tracking formats, then i'll give 'em another look. Like you, i keep coming back to MPT.... Wink

Feel free to continue. :)

Well to start the discussion, lemme give a contra to this. :D
I've passed about a few months almost totally to Renoise now and i'm very satisfied with it. OMPT was almost perfect, but as i've improved myself, found out that it needs a lot to improve, lacks of many features, but currently we just don't have the sufficient manpower. Strangely enough, Renoise already had almost every requested OMPT feature, so made my work with music much more easier and faster than OMPT did before. The learning process took about 1-2 days, there are much similarity to OMPT (possibly because the tracker logic), the GUI is very flexible and most shortcut keys can be configured.

As for other sequencers like FL studio or Reason, they are simply more complicated to use, not this comfortable/fast as the trackers, and basically in the end, you have the same results when it comes to producing music.

And the most interesting thing to me is your first statement:

QuoteI always seem to get back to Modplug Tracker

Well what made you switch in the first place? When everything is going good with it and you can work fast and comfortable, there is definitely no reason to look for another program. I wouldn't at least for sure.

Renoise is confusing to me. Tried to understand the interface a couple of times, but as I've never used anything else but MODPlug, I don't really like it. And of course, I'm coding MODPlug, so why should I switch to something else? :P

When Dos went Windows, I switched straight from FastTracker II to ModPlug. A logical step.
I could realize my ideas in a much more sophisticated way.
Since then, I never had any reason to look for another tracker app. On the contrary, OMPT has been improved in many ways.
About he comparison with things like FL, Renoise, Reason, Rebirth, etc. :
A tracker can be used as a sequencer, a sequencer can't be used as a tracker.
I've worked with them, but I didn't felt the freedom I have with tracking.

any resemblance to this topic? I've already answered there if you want to read my answer.
http://www.renoise.com/board/index.php?showtopic=18964

I have also tried other trackers. I even have the demo of Renoise 2.0 installed. I do like it, but it costs money, and I'm not willing to spend money on an app if there's a free one that performs as good. (yes, thats modplug tracker)

Sure, there are some things that I would like to see in OpenMPT that aren't present, but I can still track pretty fast in OpenMPT.

Psisichock wrote:

QuoteWell what made you switch in the first place? When everything is going good with it and you can work fast and comfortable, there is definitely no reason to look for another program. I wouldn't at least for sure.

There are some features that I miss in OMPT. I think I began experimenting with Modplug back in 1997/8... And I still think it has a superior graphical user interface. I also think there's a aspect of challenging myself into trying new things. New programs and see if there is anything that might help me improve writing music. But I also tend not to have the patience to learn them fully and irritate at them not working in the manner that I've grown used to (and fond of) from Modplug.

I actually would love to see other trackers incorporating the genius way that MPT let's the user incorporate notes and tracker effects with the mouse. OMPT represents the tried and true to me. I have learned to work around it's limitation. But at times things like automation would be sweet.

The only two programs that I've actually finished tracks in, other then MPT, are Tuareg and Orion. But I've installed and fooled around with Jeskola Buzz Tracker, Psycle, FL Studio and Renoise. I loved the way how you chained effects graphically with Buzz. The sequencer though was not my thing. The same with Psycle. I have friends who work with FL Studio, and it's all fine and good but has an uninspiring GUI. And Reason, well, from what I've heard it can not use VST and VSTI technology. Renoise and Orion are those that I see lasting potential in learning and getting the grips with.

Basically, I wouldn't mind learning other programs more properly. But still OMPT is the benchmark for which I compare everything else with...

Quote from: "Sam_Zen"About he comparison with things like FL, Renoise, Reason, Rebirth, etc.

Just to make sure, Renoise is a tracker :D, the rest are sequencers.

Jojo: agree, if you don't have any reason to switch (and OMPT is perfect for compatibility with tracker files, players, working with samples) then i really don't c the point why would you do so. =)

Rakib: so basically its the GUI issue? After playing with it, i've found that its much more flexible that OMPT gui, you can drag channels anywhere, extend effect and note columns, hide any elements what you don't need, and the most important, you dont have to switch to tabs while working, everything is shown on one screen. Even the mouse and the marking/copying/pasting features are a lot more extended. You can work very fast with it.

LPChip: So true, but unfortunately OMPT is not performing near good as Renoise because it lacks of multicore support, automatic vst(i) bypassing and some more optimizations. As for free trackers, completely agree, no one can beat OMPT.

maleek: interesting, what would those features be, that you need? Maybe i can help you with pointing some good sides of the alternative host for you. Reason example is one of the worst choices from the commercial sequencers imo (and i wouldn't recommend to use a sequencer anyway), your hands are limited in many ways there.

Quote from: "psishock"Just to make sure, Renoise is a tracker

OK.

Quote from: "Jojo"And of course, I'm coding MODPlug, so why should I switch to something else? :P

JoJo - is reverse sample triggering in the mptm format somewhere?

Oliver has put it into the original MPT but it seems gone now...

uncloned: It's S9F, just like in .IT. works perfectly here...

Thanks JoJo,

I missed it on the effects list then somehow. Thanks for answering me.

chris

Oh, and the second "j" in "Jojo" is not capitalized. :P

oh? then i'm not fine with Psisichock too. :P

That's nice Psishock. Thanks for offering your help. Maybe I'll drop you a PM if I get around specifying what I "need". :)

Quote from: "psishock"
Rakib: so basically its the GUI issue? After playing with it, i've found that its much more flexible that OMPT gui, you can drag channels anywhere, extend effect and note columns, hide any elements what you don't need, and the most important, you dont have to switch to tabs while working, everything is shown on one screen. Even the mouse and the marking/copying/pasting features are a lot more extended. You can work very fast with it.

I'll maybe give it a try or two later. For now I prefer MPT, and learning a new program is a big hazzle.

There are three stages in a music project creation:
[list=1]

• Composing
  
• Mixing
  
• Mastering[/list:o]
  
  Renoise tries two kill two birds with one stone attempting to attend to both 1 and 2 stages. One of the side effects of this is quite a heavy cluttered interface even on a relatively high screen resolution.
  
  The main problem with this approach is that when you want to do two jobs done at the same time you'll end up with two half-done, while ModPlug does not look beyond the first stage.
  
  That means that we have better chances to get both sequencing and mixing done right as they are distinct stages (especially when done by different people each of them is better than the other at what he does). The bad news is that with you doing mixing externally you'll have to use a multitrack for it and for a decent piece that would set you back at least as much as the cost of Renoise itself.

To me tracking was a wonder when I just started out because all the musicians I knew at the time were using stuff like Cakewalk which without a decent sound card sounded like a toy.

But the main problem with trackers for me was
1. non-visuality (all the processes are difficult to follow, them being columns of numbers)
2. too much typing work (it was so tedious doing simple things like fade in or fade out, echo, etc. reminded me of excel spreadsheets tbh)

and most importantly

3. there was no ability to make filtered bass lines.

At that time I was listening a lot of trance music, to stuff like Scooter and they all had superb bass lines and synths lines with beautiful filter work - something that is absolutely impossible in a tracker. I did use samples from MAZ which had squelching sounds of various frequency but it sounded lame. And I was also tired of the dry sound of the tracker with no ability to use effects. In other words - what I got in a tracker despite my best efforts sounded absolutely different from what I heard from my fav artists - and the gap was too large.

So my friend who worked in the studio brought me Fruity Loops 3.4
From that time on my life changed.

Since then I did try tracking but I return here more to communicate. I do not track anymore and while memories of tracking are sweet, I find a tracker to be a very inconvenient tool for the type of music I do.

I actually do all the stages in OpenMPT for quite a while now.

I have done mixing/mastering in Acid Pro 4 long ago, but I found it quite tedious to render the channels to wave for post production, not alone the diskspace it takes.

I then searched for good mastering plugins that preferabelly are free. Together with Xlutop Chainer, I'm able to mix and even master my track before rendering. I do not really use the channel volumes nor the instrument volumes anymore due to this. Basically because its quite tedious to have all the volume sliders next to eachother and move the sliders to see all the effects directly.

QuoteBut the main problem with trackers for me was
1. non-visuality (all the processes are difficult to follow, them being columns of numbers)

It is purely a matter of habit.

Quote2. too much typing work (it was so tedious doing simple things like fade in or fade out, echo, etc. reminded me of excel spreadsheets tbh)

True, when it comes to re-editing, for example, channel volume slides, that can be a ton of hassle. Although I have an idea how to help it by a lot, though I'd like to find a way to test it first. If it works, chances are tracking won't be the same tedious any more, yet remaining tracking.

Quote3. there was no ability to make filtered bass lines.

There is now. While it is not a top notch quality it does its job for the composing stage. Proper filtering should be applied at the mixing stage.

That is the general point of separating the work in stages, effects and filtering could be much better done in the mixing stage in a multitrack, and my experience shows you get much cleaner results as well it saves hassle in the tracker where one worries about the writing of the song, not how it sounds.

aaaaand of course, the best way to get filtered bass sounds is to actually buy a tb-303. I believe that was much easier back then.

QuoteProper filtering should be applied at the mixing stage.

I do not agree. Actually, before you said it, I've never heard of such a way to do things - that is, apply filters at the mixing stage.

Actually, I cannot imagine making trance and applying "proper" filtering on the mixing stage, when trance IS about filtered bass lines and filtered synths. No musician will be able to do just some small things and then make most of the tune at some mixing stage. Mixing tools allow you to mix, not use sophisticated filters, most of which have to be tied to the tempo or some other events in the tune. Plus, why go into such complication when all you can do is just switch from a tracker to a sequencer and have all the possibilities in one application.

I do understand that for various reasons some people find the tracker interface simply more convenient for themselves, but there is a difference between personal preference and objective list of features and possibilities. I mean, one can write a novel on a text emulator in Game Boy, but the awkwardness of controls and the whole process is obviously not as convenient as a normal notepad on computer. It is even less great than the good old pencil and paper.

Trackers were fabulously fantastic when the only alternative were midi programs, which
1. were proprietary and thus had unreasonably high prices
2. using them and not having your tunes sound like children's toy meant getting a Turtlebeach pro soundcard.
So it was all about big money. And trackers not only were available for no fee whatsoever, they allowed to use actual sounds, not some abstract notes which required a bank of instruments from a soundcard - you could use wav files, which at that time brought on many holywars between midi and tracker people. Midi people were saying that tracker guys focused too much on sound thanks to the fact that they could have sound. Midi people only had notes and were very proud of it. It was a fun time.

But most importantly, trackers had a unique community existing around them which made everything very colorful and every moment of life worthy. Being part of that community was the greatest thing in the world and it was your world and you were completely in it, because it changed everything about your life. For one, it changed the music you listened to and in teenage years that's basically most of what makes you. And when your friends were getting the latest album of Guns n Roses, you were there hunting down the latest tune by Hunz or Vibrants. And secondly - you were a musician that could produce music, not just compose it on an old piano. You went to you home studio, which consisted of a computer in your bedroom and a cheap boom box, and then came back with a tape for your friends which had a recording of actual music - with beats, with sounds, with everything one could dream of. It was indescribably cool and I remember that me and my friend could make a stir even with the crappy tunes we did back then.

But one has also to remember that tracked music always sounded specific - nothing like what you heard on radio. Thanks to its unique algorithms and ways to work with sound, there was a list of things you could and couldn't do. So the resulting music always had a special flavor to it, not always making it sound in line with top of the pops.

And then times and technologies changed. The expensive midi software which by the old business model created a large price gap between a professional and amateur user, were no longer required - lots of the so-called software sequencers started appearing, offering nice interfaces, visual ways to do things, plugins that allow to automate things like delays and which add a whole heap of effects which before were possible only using expensive hardware.

Times changed for the tracking scene as well - it started slowly falling apart. Old sceners grew up, started families and jobs and the new generation was mostly into sequencers, not really knowing what it was like to be able to see how everyone does things by simply downloading a file and opening it in your tracker, what it was to create a delay effect by hand, etc.

Of course, sweet memories stay with many. Old habits which inspired for years sometimes will not go away. Some people simply like the interface. Some people value the skill you needed to have to do simple things.

But this is a usual story. If today's composers do not have to care about things which for the previous generation required skill, it doesn't mean anything. And if we are comparing results, in my opinion trying to reason that trackers offer the same functionality and quality as sequencers is hopeless. Because they do not. At least not OMPT.

Renoise is an example of a tracker that does offer serious quality. However, with it's features it is now questionable whether it can be considered a tracker at all. Because one can look at it as a sequencer with a horizontal piano roll. But to be fair, I still think it is a tracker, cause it has a table and notes - it is still not a piano roll. (And it is also proprietary software and in FAQ they inform you straight out that you can use their software only under a nasty condition - that if you buy a license, you cannot share tracker with a friend. So I wouldn't recommend a software like that to you guys - you of course do not want software that tries to control your friendships and limit your personal freedom.)

So anyway, in conclusion I would say that trackers have many cool stuff and in their time they were the Thing and using them was progressive and very-very cool, but today sequencers are objectively better, so arguing that trackers offer better functionality is a waste of time.

What is not a waste of time, though, is using a tracker because it makes you happy, inspired and because you love the software. So my argument is limited to technical side of things only, which is not always important and heavily depends on the kind of music you do.

Thx for the attention! ;) Lots of letters came out of me this morning =))) I really miss the tracking scene. I really do. And I still desperately love scream Tracker 3, though never in my life managed to do a decent tune with it.

Interesting, but not necessary right point of view Louigi.
Every tracker with VST/midi support can produce the same "quality sound" as any sequencer, it's purely the matter of VSTI or hardware attached to it. Samples are out of the question in the first place (speaking about electronic sound, not live instruments), because the system is not flexible enough to modify and make variable every single aspect of the sound, and usually that's what is modern music all about. Renoise does not have any better sounding than OMPT for instance, and why should we ever call it a sequencer? Cause it has more pre-integrated tools and nice features? Nah, its still very much a tracker, but in a nice and modern robe. It does have a perfectly designed modular GUI, some integrated VSTs stuff for general needs, bypassing unused VSTi-s feature, multicore and additional (less or more important) features that are overall making me able to work a lot faster, and that is why i'm using it. But in the end, i could do the same stuff in OMPT, but with more effort+time. You've mentioned Trance music, well can challenge any commercial sequencers or artist, and produce the same quality stuff with mere tracker.
Piano roll or tracker grid? It's all about how you've used to work. I've tested a lot of software and never loved the piano roll, because i found it hard to work with. I could (and can) work a lot faster with keyboard, do the moving, editing, writing the notes, and most of the things with one device and using the mouse usually for turning the knobs and drawing the automation envelopes. I have a midi keyboard, and most musician are using similar devices, but i still found myself using the PC keyboard because it's still faster for me to enter the notes and do the editing, etc on one device, than moving my hands all the time from one hardware to another. (it's nicer to play on it however, because it have many octaves in a row, velocity sensors and no additional keys to disorient the user).

Long story short, nowdays trackers can make the same "quality songs" like sequencers, but with different approach. Commercial (and maybe free) sequencers have a tons of integrated VST, possible better designed GUI that will make your life easier, but that doesn't means that the composer automatically can do black magic on them, what couldn't have been done with tracker.

Quotebut that doesn't means that the composer automatically can do black magic on them, what couldn't have been done with tracker

Never was my point. Really.

Ok, mayb i've missed the point and read your whole post again. :D (don't look at it like sharp argument, opposite, i love to hear other people's options, chat with them. I am one of those types who is almost unable to get offended)
But you've talked about (sound) quality and overall software functionality right?
I've said that the sound quality shouldn't be and issue, they can be equal. About functionality, i can work faster with Renoise than any other sequencers that i've tried, and it's very very comfortable i can tell you, don't need to do any extra work or complex workarounds or something to get what i need. 99% don't need to open extra tabs for different functions, everything is on the same GUI. As it was invented for me :D, the learning procedure last about 1-2 weekend days, and i've covered the most of the functions, most of them were self explaining. Other trackers are maybe not that sophisticated for nowdays work because of the lack of development, but who are willing to do a little extra work can get the same effect anyway. I'm not sure about every free sequencers, they may not be so great too, same as "our" free choices of trackers.

Yeah, sure, I understand what you mean completely. I am just saying that back in the days when there was no Renoise and I wanted to do trance stuff, it couldn't be done at all. Trackers simply lacked this functionality completely. What you could do were workarounds - like one shot samples with different squeaking or offset function when you would play different parts of a pad to produce varying filtering effect.

As for Renoise, I can see it is pretty sophisticated - but yet again - it is the latest generation tracker and in my speech I was referring to usual oldschool trackers, more from the perspective of history. Renoise certainly is a competitive product today - no doubt about it. If it can use vst effects properly, it means it can use filters and any effect one would want. So yeah - Renoise pretty much changed what trackers can do. I would be happy to explore it myself but the fact it is proprietary. A very nasty thing to do, it is a pity developers chose to do that. I would've loved to pay for my copy but I will not give up my freedom and relationships with friends, no.

QuoteA very nasty thing to do, it is a pity developers chose to do that.

Blame the monetary system, not the developers LV. Look at most of the open source trackers for instance, they are barely developing, because there is almost no interest on it. People only do something without any financial support if their time after real life work allows it.

psishock, it is a long argument. there are lots of other ways to fund your work - real, non-utopian methods - which do not involve asking people to betray their friends. if you want, you can go to gnu.org and read about it. or just think what would you do.

Alright, let's leave that aside.
You've used multiple times now the words "betraying friends". Why do you think that sharing your work on streamable media is any sort of evil? I don't feel that LP, Sam, Uncloned, Barry, Jojo, even You or any of the people here (or on the other forums) betrayed me because i couldn't check the source. If any commercial software was used, or live instruments for instance, hardware, etc that is all fine for me. To be honest, i don't even care how were things made most of the time ("regular" listeners are not for sure, and most of the composers think the same), only care about the "product". If any special part was digging my curiosity, i've always asked and got an answer, so is anyone. Also just merely seeing every source and trying to imitate them won't make you a good musician at all. It's the best that one learns to think for himself, invent his own methods. If complete examples are needed to be shown for newbie trackers, the Net is already full of tracked sources anyway, they can dig as deep as they want.

I like to stay on the 'sequencer' issue for another moment. A discussion which has passed more here.
To me, Rebirth or Reason are sequencers. They're built to make sequences like a drum pattern.
So they are dedicated tools. To make trance or whatever style.

Trackers like OMPT are not dedicated sequencers. One can use it for that purpose, but also for other sound-constructions.
So, for a composer of electronic music, a tracker is much more free and versatile to work with.

If I want to make an 'environment' (ambiance, not ambient), like with "The fourth Seas", it's possible.
Then the tracker is not a sequencer at all, but a, let's say, serial sound generator.

And if a piano roll means a horizontal score, like on paper, I certainly prefer the vertical scrolling pattern grid.
It's a more logical way when using a screen, and reading what happens simultaneously is easier.

Interesting statement Sam, i must oppose it right away. :D
Professional musicians are using sequencers all over the word for really every type of music genres, ambient, pop, drum and bass, techno, classical, pick any as you like (i've picked up Trance because it's one of my specialties and LV said that a tracker are not sophisticated enough for building that type of music). Trackers, specially the older, less developed ones are surely more unflexible than their modern brothers or the sequencers). Sequencers are flexible enough for most needs Sam, music that we get from the world is the proof for that.

I understand why you don't care about the source code. I don't do either. For non-programmers this should be unacceptable (from Renoise FAQ):

QuoteCan my personalized version of Renoise be used by others?
The license is bound to a single person, the licensee. Your personalized version of Renoise is only to be used by yourself. Sharing (eg. p2p, warez) your personalized version will violate our terms and invalidate your license, which means you are no longer registered and no longer able to login to Renoise Backstage. Keep your copy of Renoise off the internet! Check your p2p share folders.

What if my friend sees this software and says - wow, I really love it - can I have a copy? What should I tell him? "No, please go and buy it, this copy is for me"? Because this is what the end user license of any proprietary software tells you. It says - you can only use our program if you do not give it to anyone.
Now I would understand if they asked not to sell the software - this is cool. But they chose to divide people in the name of money. They also assume that all we need is software. And that we value good software above freedom and friendship.

Sam

QuoteSo, for a composer of electronic music, a tracker is much more free and versatile to work with.

Why?

You really start annoying me with your ideas of sharing protected works. You even mention the keyword - "Personalized Version" - It is personalized to you! Would you share your personalized wedding ring with your friends as well, just because it's so gold and shiny?

Jojo, I think this is comparing apples and pears.
Protected works are protected because the makers want to be the only ones to make money with their program.
Sharing a copy with a friend is something else, in fact it could be seen as a promotion of the product.
And how would Renoise investigate that your version is also on a friends computer ?
And what is a 'personalized version of Renoise' anyway ? Is this some gimmick like 'My' computer ?
Unrealistic bluff..
Again : a friend is something else than offering it to anybody via p2p.

QuoteSo, for a composer of electronic music, a tracker is much more free and versatile to work with.
-
Why?

Because it's not designed to produce some common genres.
And versatile means the possibility for workarounds, or non-default outputs.
Many times I used OMPT not to produce a complete song, but to export selected channels into WAV for seperate tracks in the multitrack mixer.
Because I could be sure that every single track had exactly the same byte-length.

Jojo: it is not my idea, it is a widely supported idea of free software. And it concerns software, not material objects. I may have started to annoy you, but you did not even bother to try to understand why do I consider this important. Maybe it is important for you too, m? Maybe it's important to all of us?
So really, there is no need to be annoyed. I strongly believe in ideas of free software and I can't help to promote and mention them each time we talk about software - because it matters a lot.
Instead of being annoyed try to really read into this philosophy - it's not so complex and if you are not Microsoft or IBM, those ideas will appeal to you, because they are good, clear ideas. They are not just someone's personal views, just like the value of friendship and community are not just someone's personal views - those are universal values understandable and dear to all people in the world.

As much as I love the concept of free software, as much I'm aware of the other side: That not everything can be free. Everyone has to make a living out of his work. You simply cannot get all software for free. Well, you can, but it's immoral. Imagine you're selling stuff in a shop. What would you think if people come in there and simply take everything without paying, you can't pay your bills anymore, you can't buy food anymore? If you want to make a living out of something, then do so, and you have the right to do so.

QuoteAs much as I love the concept of free software, as much I'm aware of the other side: That not everything can be free.

According to this, you are not so well aware. No offence meant, Jojo, but giving software away for free is not the concept of free software - in fact, it is a pretty silly concept.
Free software (free as in free speech) is about respecting freedom and community. If you are interested, read this article:

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.html

And this, about selling free sotware:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html

Free software is not some utopian idea of communism or whatever stereotypes about it there are - it is an ethical and economically absolutely realistic way to look at software.

i know enough about free software, thank you. and I'm not that hardcore that there's only one solution (namely only free software) for me.

This is not a situation where you have many good solutions and you have to be flexible to be able to choose which fancies you now. If the situation endangers friendship or the spirit of community - then your only solution is to defend them. Yes, in this case you should be very firm about this or else you'll loose your freedom. This is how it happens. But according to what you wrote above, I strongly believe you are confused on the concepts to the point of loosing the point.

Yeah, and GPL is not the only free software license, so you have many solutions, yep. Within free software.

Quote from: "maleek"So guys and gals. What are the reasons that you use MPT? Have you tried other tracker (sequencers), (like I? I've tried lots) and come back? Or do you use (O)MPT together with other programs.

The reason I use OMPT is simply that it was one of the few "system look" programs out there that did the same job as ProTracker :) off course you had MED and other stuff but I like ModPlug's way of doing stuff.

Also I did write a ProTracker clone for the Amiga called AdeptTracker (can be found on aminet here http://aminet.net/search?query=AdeptTrackerV1 ). So ModPlug was basically the closest thing I could find to my own program :)

Also I have tried a lot of other trackers but since most (all) of them use a skinned interface I stick with OMPT :). (I am under the impression that a program should NOT skin itself - the OS should ... like MUI for Amiga if anyone remember that)!

And above all - the OMPT community is stuffed with cool people ;)

Right on, Waxhead ! Let's get back to the issue.
Interesting point of view about 'a program should NOT skin itself - the OS should ...'
On first hand, I would agree.

Quotea program should NOT skin itself - the OS should ...

yet again, i have the opposite views about this. I personally dislike the OS skins/bacgrounds/3d mouses and whatsoever, so i have then all disabled. But in other hand, i like to have special "skins" for some software that offers better overview on the specific situations and/or offers better functionality, and that means different setup for different programs. So the solution should be a choice for every software, not a general "skin" that the OS dictates for every user program. That should be the most flexible for every type of user.

Well you're right Psi, because the OS we're dealing with is M$ windoze. So bad news for overview and functionality..

Yup
(http://i40.tinypic.com/2hzqnux.jpg)

QuoteActually, before you said it, I've never heard of such a way to do things - that is, apply filters at the mixing stage.

Think about it. Multitrack is the main post-production tool in instrumental music. Modplug is analogous to writing\recording stage. This system has been developed over years for the reason of efficiency and it works.

I am a qualified sound engineer, btw.

Although I do admit that I tend to abuse delay in the production stage as well as extensively use in-built filtering but track-by-track rendering happens completly dry.

Agreed, Rxn.

Quote from: "Louigi Verona"And if we are comparing results, in my opinion trying to reason that trackers offer the same functionality and quality as sequencers is hopeless. Because they do not. At least not OMPT.

Of course they don't offer the same functionality and quality; more relevant question is which one is better given the intended use and the user.

Quote from: "Louigi Verona"So anyway, in conclusion I would say that trackers have many cool stuff and in their time they were the Thing and using them was progressive and very-very cool, but today sequencers are objectively better, so arguing that trackers offer better functionality is a waste of time.

'Objectively better'? Do you claim that for all possible uses of music production software, whether it's creating orchestral piece or chiptunes, sequencers are 'objectively better' (in technical level)? If yes, I strongly question your argumentation. If not, you agree that sequencers are not 'objectively better' for every realm of use, and in this case use of 'objectively better' is misleading in my opinion. So in both cases, your claim is quite biased (in my opinion).

Quote from: "Louigi Verona"What if my friend sees this software and says - wow, I really love it - can I have a copy? What should I tell him?

How about this: "Here you go, here's the almost completely functional version of the software. If you really like the software and want to be a cool dude like me, you can help it's development and get some 'thanks for helping the development'-features."

I must add to the argument that the only limitations, on the "demo" version of Renoise are the lack of ASIO support and the disabled WAV rendering. It's basically fully functional software without time limit, anyone can use it, it's really not that drastic Louigi, the developers are not evil :D. I think our famous Impulse Tracker had almost exact same limitations and many many people used it anyway.

The fact that tracking public listens to the tunes in the actual tracker a lot has brought designers of Renoise to using a lot of post-production tools. So, their limited demo version makes sense for the majority.

But again, that is not critical for production stage, all one really needs is a quality resampler and renderer as well as VST support when necessary. In this case all the bells and whistles of Renoise are not needed.

Quote from: "Rxn"their limited demo version

These 3-4 words may sounds very repulsive to the potential users, who may be interested to try it out :D, but think about it, the only real thing worth mentioning is the disabled WAV renderer, and you're getting the program for free. With little effort, one could figure any basic external sound recording software and boom, we have a fully functional program. Why would any (tracker) musician be sickened about this? As i've said our famous Impulse Tracker had this very same limitation and still, everybody who used it, loved the software.

Quote from: "Rxn"The fact that tracking public listens to the tunes in the actual tracker a lot has brought designers of Renoise to using a lot of post-production tools.
But again, that is not critical for production stage, all one really needs is a quality resampler and renderer as well as VST support when necessary. In this case all the bells and whistles of Renoise are not needed.

Most of those "bells and whistles" are a part of actual sound generating process, that i would call pre-production process, because one usually sets these stuff on channels, instruments, before the actual notes are even laid on the patterns. Again, a big part of them are used closely together with composing, and only a (very) few are used in actual post-production. They are mostly critical, unless one can replace them with similar VST plugins, that suits those given needs.
But again, these are only a part of Renoise's positive sides, because it has a tons of lesser and bigger features that very much speeds up, and helps in the actual composing, overall working process. These stuff are even more important than integrated tools, because if concordant, can't really be replaced by any VST (or any other host if sophisticated enough for the user).

Relabsoluness:

Sequencers can't do chip music - there are some plugins available, but they don't do the job. So trackers are best for chip music.
Trackers which do not have VST support (old school ones) are objectively technically less better - simply because they technically do not allow you to do many things. You will not be able to apply several effects on one sound, you will not be able to create reverb, flanger or whatever effect within the tune, you will not be able to use filters - those things are simply not present in the functionality.
I believe Renoise, having VST support, is technically equal to any pro sequencer out there.

QuoteHow about this: "Here you go, here's the almost completely functional version of the software. If you really like the software and want to be a cool dude like me, you can help it's development and get some 'thanks for helping the development'-features."

Why can't this work with a completely functional piece of software? This I really do not understand. Because if you carefully analyze this situation, what happens by giving people almost complete programs is that they are forced to pay. Why force people to pay? Won't they pay without being enforced? Why do this at the expense of community spirit and friendship? Will you tell your friend if he has no money at this moment - like, he is studying in a college - that you will not give him the software you have and he will not be able to render wav or use asio? I mean, using asio on my laptop for instance is an important thing. without it vsti simply glitch so much I wouldn't be able to do music without ASIO. if you can't render to wav you cannot release your music for people who listen to mp3.

This is really a very simple thing. If the clause said - you can give software to your friend but encourage him to buy a license if he likes and uses the software - I think the effect would've been ethically much better, while being the same financially, plus much more people would use the software. In fact, why not built a button into the software itself - "Support development"? And one can send money as many times as he wants. You made a cool tune and thought - I just love this software, why don't I send at least a dollar? Now imagine people from all over the world sending small sums of money, but all the time? It would be enough income to not have a day job.

No matter what reasons one might bring up, forcing people to not be cooperative in the name of developer's income and even in the name of good software is not worth it - at least for me, for the values I have. Maybe my values are unique here, I don't know. I value friendship and community cooperation above good software.

Rxn:

Yeah, I understand. But why I mentioned trance is that in trance music specifically filtering work is the main part of the composition. Maybe I am a complete lamer, but I haven't heard of trance artists working like that - doing just drums in a sequencer, having unfiltered synth lines, which without filters sound pretty awkward, and then do this complex filtering work without tempo sync in a mixing editor? Hm. You got me confused. I would understand not having reverb and delay on tracks for further mixing, but filters?


psishock:

Yo

QuoteI think our famous Impulse Tracker had almost exact same limitations and many many people used it anyway.

People use a lot of things. They use Windows. They use Word. Most people in the world are also officially considered criminals for sharing software with their friends or not owning a "licensed" copy of software. If millions of people in the world are considered criminals, maybe something is wrong with the law.

We can even bypass the whole philosophical debate and just think practically - how can one ask money for a copy when nowadays software doesn't even require any physical carrier and copying is a matter of couple of mouse clicks? How can one control this? It is simply impossible to control without controlling each computer in the world from the inside. Are you ready to give up your personal freedom? Soon you'll have the chance to choose, with "trusted" computing on the way.

There are other ways to make money writing software. Selling copies in a digital world is absurd. Not allowing people to copy when they are a couple of clicks away from sharing is like criminalizing sex - in half a year most people would find themselves in jail. (so then they can have sex in jail =) )

QuoteBut why I mentioned trance is that in trance music specifically filtering work is the main part of the composition.

Lougi: it depends on how you use filtering. Most of the filtering in trance
music consists of plain slides.

Please refer me to a module or two where it is not the case.

Well, perhaps you are right, but as a composer I would be very uncomfortable composing music that way - that is, not hearing the result immediately. I do not see the benefits of this and also I have solid proof that professional musicians (my example is Saafi Brothers) use applications with all in one. They do filtering inside. I don't see a reason to do this in several steps. But again - I might be missing some info, I am not a sound engineer.

Lougi, I did not say you can't use ModPlug filtering during the composing
stage. As I said, I do that myself, it is just when it comes to instrument-
by-instrument rendering for subsequent mixing all (or most) of the
effects and filters are taken off to be reapplied with a greater precision in
the multitrack software.

By the way, I found just one track (raludesira.it by by Ralud Ergus) on
my disk that uses bits filtering to play a melody but that is probably the
only track ever I've encountered since I started using ModPlug in 2001.

ModPlug Tracker  IT
|G#307...Z7F
|...........
|...........
|...........
|........Z60
|...........
|...........
|...........
|........Z58
|...........
|...........
|...........
|........Z7F
|...........
|...........
|...........
|F#307...Z6F
|...........
|...........
|...........
|........Z50
|...........
|...........
|...........
|........Z48
|...........
|...........
|...........
|........Z6F
|...........
|...........
|...........
|A#307...Z5F
|...........
|...........
|...........
|........Z40
|...........
|...........
|...........
|........Z38
|...........
|...........
|...........
|........Z30
|...........
|...........
|...........


Other than that all I've ever heard were just plain slides at most.

well, can a tracker deliver tb-303 kinda filtering? I thought it cannot.

Quote from: "psishock"

Quotea program should NOT skin itself - the OS should ...

yet again, i have the opposite views about this. I personally dislike the OS skins/bacgrounds/3d mouses and whatsoever, so i have then all disabled. But in other hand, i like to have special "skins" for some software that offers better overview on the specific situations and/or offers better functionality, and that means different setup for different programs. So the solution should be a choice for every software, not a general "skin" that the OS dictates for every user program. That should be the most flexible for every type of user.

Well this was sort of what I meant. The OS should be able to set a user defined skin for EACH individual program! e.g. the programs code should not be bloated with extra code to handle skinning / themes since the OS / Windowing system (X windows anyone?!) should draw the buttons and stuff like the user decides. That way there are a possibility that programs still work with different DPI settings, different fonts etc etc... ;)

(Sorry Sam_Zen, Now I am the one going off topic :P )

It can't work like than Waxhead, because of one simple reason. How should that poor OS determine what elements should each single user program have for best usability? This should be the job of the program developer to set. Sometimes extra buttons, different alignments, etc. The OS should only be imho a hidden, background platform to serve flexibly our user work softwares. The less "bloated" functions are preinstalled to it, the best. =)
Linux has experimented with installable GUI manager over the OS, which is already a better idea than our heavily integrated win GUI, but the best choice would be still to leave that to each individual program, because if anyone, their developers knows functionality needs the best. It can easily happen' that they have a working idea that neither the OS or any present GUI manager offers at the moment. Plus, if you have a very heavily stuffed GUI manager installed, it will take your precious memory all the time because it needs to be ready for serving your softwares. On the other hand, if it's a part of the chosen specific program, it will totally unload itself right after you close the process, because it's not needed any more, and memory is fully free again.

Quote from: "Sam_Zen"Jojo, I think this is comparing apples and pears.

not necessarily. Both are personalized, i.e. they carry your name, so I'm not sure if I would want to give a personalized software to someone else, so it would write my name in their modules for example.

Quote
How about this: "Here you go, here's the almost completely functional version of the software. If you really like the software and want to be a cool dude like me, you can help it's development and get some 'thanks for helping the development'-features."

Exactly my point. It's not like you HAVE to buy renoise.

I wonder, why do you even bitch about Renoise so heavily? Go bitch about Impulse Tracker instead! You also had to buy the WAV Writer back then (and it was pirated and that why development was cancelled) and (maybe this was FastTracker and not IT, i don't know exactly) you were not allowed to use it for creating commercial music (or well, it was pretty restricted)! There's no such limitation in Renoise.

Quote
well, can a tracker deliver tb-303 kinda filtering? I thought it cannot.

Now YOU are comparing apples and pears. It's not the step-sequencer in the tb-303 that produces filtering, so you can't compare it to a tracker. You have to compare it on a sample basis, and the tb-303 is 100% analogue, so YES, a digital tracker can't be compared to analogue circuits. But you can use samples of a real 303 in your tracker.

Quote from: "Louigi Verona"well, can a tracker deliver tb-303 kinda filtering? I thought it cannot.

I don't know if you have been reading my posts backwards, or sideways,
or what, but that has been my point all this time so far.

Quote from: "psishock"It can't work like than Waxhead, because of one simple reason. How should that poor OS determine what elements should each single user program have for best usability?

Maybe we are confusing skins and themes... As for theme it should be no problem for a OS to be able to control a the look for programs. All each program had to do was just return something to the OS like md5("this_is_my_unique_id"); and there you go!. Now the OS know each program!

Also you talk about elements. This is ADDING or REMOVING functionality to a program based on what skin is in use. A fundamental failure if you ask me. A skin should be a SKIN and not a extra limbs. For that you have advanced / simple GUI options. And a proper skin should adapt to that!
For themes it's another story. That's jut the look of buttons, titlebars, mousepointers etc etc... A theme has NOTHING to do with the layout / position of buttons relative to eachother.... meaning you should find the button at the same place no matter what theme / font you are using!

Quote from: "psishock"
This should be the job of the program developer to set. Sometimes extra buttons, different alignments, etc. The OS should only be imho a hidden, background platform to serve flexibly our user work softwares. The less "bloated" functions are preinstalled to it, the best. =)

Is the alternative any better? you are bloating program code and many different programmers have to reinvent the wheel each time unless they are using a framework capable of supporting skins. Again the code depends on third party software and not to mention all the crap that happens on a improperly configured skinning system. Ever tried to change DPI / fontsize etc on a program that uses skins? sometimes you have to click outside buttons to click on them, sometimes fonts are writen larger than the button etc etc....
We are talking about STANDARIZING stuff. If the programmer of a tool follows the OS/Windowing system guidelines it's up to the OS to rearrange / rescale the window so everything fits.
I agree that the less bloaty functions are preinstalled the better...
However if those pesky skins are supposed to be used I would think the stuff is better done on a layer other than the programmer who write the tool.
(As you probably have understood I don't like programs that use skins ;) )

Quote from: "psishock"Linux has experimented with installable GUI manager over the OS, which is already a better idea than our heavily integrated win GUI, but the best choice would be still to leave that to each individual program, because if anyone, their developers knows functionality needs the best. It can easily happen' that they have a working idea that neither the OS or any present GUI manager offers at the moment.

This is again talking about adding / removing functionality. As said the programmer should in such a case offer advanced/simple view.
Most users expect a skin to be exactly a skin e.g. a decoration of the program. Not a extension / removal of functionality!

Quote
.

Quote from: psishockPlus, if you have a very heavily stuffed GUI manager installed, it will take your precious memory all the time because it needs to be ready for serving your softwares. On the other hand, if it's a part of the chosen specific program, it will totally unload itself right after you close the process, because it's not needed any more, and memory is fully free again.

This does not make sense. What you basically are saying is that it's better to have 10 skinned programs (who each handles skins in a individual way).  that WILL consume more memory AND CPU resources than a slightly bloated GUI manager who can skip skinning for programs that don't require it AND can do a standard procedure for ALL programs that require a skin?!
It's way more effective to have a central management system for such things - Also the GUI manager is free to do all the skin and rescaling stuff in the background without requiring a context switch before updating the bitmap on screen thus saving resources.
Plus the usage of skins and bitmaps for backgrounds etc etc DOES consume more memory than a "clean os gui only program".
If you have 10 skinned programs each program technically have to go through (possibly) several context switches to update the skins on their GUI. Maybe they also have to query the OS about X, Y size, font size etc.

- - -  M O D E R A T O R S  - - -
Someone please split this topic before it's to late!!!!!!!  ;D

Quote from: "Rxn"

Quote from: "Louigi Verona"well, can a tracker deliver tb-303 kinda filtering? I thought it cannot.

I don't know if you have been reading my posts backwards, or sideways,
or what, but that has been my point all this time so far.

Then I sincerely apologize - I have never known trackers to have such features.

http://forum.openmpt.org/index.php?msg=24173.0 <-------
grabs Waxhead's appealing ears and pulls them here: :smile_: