Rendering by Instrument

[Rxn]

Uncloned:

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

[psishock]

ill help you with that question
"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.

[Rxn]

Fastracker interface is anything but a new one.

[Rxn]

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.

[psishock]

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.

[Saga Musix]

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

[Rxn]

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.

[psishock]

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:

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.

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.

[Paul Legovitch]

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/

User 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).

[psishock]

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)

[uncloned]

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.

[psishock]

renoise 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.

Real 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.

Sonar 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.

[uncloned]

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.

[psishock]

understand 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.

Why 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.

[uncloned]

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 .