Rendering by Instrument

[psishock]

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:

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.

[uncloned]

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.

[Sam_Zen]

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

[psishock]

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.

[Saga Musix]

but 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.

Renoise 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.

Improving 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?

[Relabsoluness]

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.

[Saga Musix]

The 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...)

[Rxn]

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.

[Rxn]

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

[Saga Musix]

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.

[Rxn]

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.

[Sam_Zen]

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

[Rakib]

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

[psishock]

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" ^_^.

[Rxn]

I 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.