On Wed, 2008-04-02 at 21:48 +0200, schoappied wrote: > On Wednesday 02 April 2008 21:02:54 Andre Schmidt wrote: > > On Sun, 2008-03-30 at 16:59 +0200, schoappied wrote: > > > On Sunday 30 March 2008 16:47:46 Dave Phillips wrote: > > > > schoappied wrote: > > > > > Can someone explain me what the difference is between Renoise and > > > > > programs like Rosegarden, Qtractor and reaper? > > > > > > > > Renoise is built upon the design of a module tracker. The others you > > > > mention are more track-oriented audio/MIDI sequencers. > > > > > > > > The Renoise GUI may be a bit of a shock if you have no experience with > > > > a tracker, but it's not really very complicated, perhaps no more so (or > > > > even less so) than the contenders. ;) > > > > > > > > See Brett's post for other difference factors. > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > > dp > > > > > > Ok, so the question must be: > > > 'what's the difference between a module tracker and a track-oriented > > > audio/MIDI sequence?'... > > > > some views, > > > > "real" module trackers have "all" included. that means i can still play > > and edit! my fasttracker2 modules that i made like 15 years ago... > > (probably also due popularity and open file format) > > > > but my midi tracks made with <pick your favourite midi sequencer> are > > "useless" today, as i have sold my midi hardware and don't even have the > > sysexs of the sounds anymore... > > > > module trackers are like a midi-(step)-sequencer that have samples and > > sample-player built in. some have effects too, newer even synths... > > Ok, but you could also use Linuxsampler with rosegarden isn't it? Then you > have also a sampler... yup. but AFAIK you still would have separate files for linuxsampler and rosegarden (actually i haven't even tested those programs yet, so i may be completely wrong). module trackers have all in one file. (but in theory we could also let multiple apps to write in one file, or use zips with scripts, and so on...) > > And isn't it possible to convert midi to *.wav? yes, if you still have your sound generators around, be that samples, soft/hard synths, what ever... my point was that only my tracker modules are still editable after many many years of technology and life chages... (i no pro, so no studio and bling bling) > > > > but the biggest difference (beside looks) is probably the "work flow". > > > > "tracking" is pretty restricting and you stay 99% of the time on the > > computer-keyboard (real trackers don't use midi-keyboards;) and > > record/play/edit your piece seamlessly... > > > > in "sequencing" you move more between your (virtual-)midi keyboard, the > > computer-keyboard and mouse... > > mmh, ok..... It seems to me that a midi keyboard is an advantage when you make > music... everyone should have at least one midi-keyboard! :) alone because of the key velocity and and such... (and not to forget, other midi/osc (opensoundcontrol) hardware;) > And how does this programs relate to cubase? cubase is AFAIK a midi/audio sequencer (but my memory is many years old) .a > dirk > _______________________________________________ > Linux-audio-user mailing list > Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
