Why we keep coming back to Modplug Tracker

[Rxn]

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.

[Sam_Zen]

Agreed, Rxn.

[Relabsoluness]

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.

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).

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."

[psishock]

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

[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. 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.

[psishock]

their limited demo version

These 3-4 words may sounds very repulsive to the potential users, who may be interested to try it out , 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.

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).

[Louigi Verona]

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.

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."

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

I 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 =) )

[Rxn]

But 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.

[Louigi Verona]

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.

[Rxn]

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.

Code Select Expand

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.

[Louigi Verona]

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

[Waxhead]

a 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 )

[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? 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.

[Saga Musix]

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.

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.

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.

[Rxn]

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.