benefit that, well, you’re still right.#content-182034. So, renosie may have such an ‘option’ but the effort is possibly so massive vs. You would still get alot of variations, though. But the offset is too course for alot of free adjustment with such high speed modulations. If one did do that (119 or 127 times?), at that point you could adjust the lfo amount and offset. But, it would be like copying that and adjust each note for correct frequency offset. It wouldn’t be the same as simply copying Dblue pitch device stuff. In renoise, someone just has to poke in all the values via an lfo which seems very boring. At very high speed if it is tracking the pitch, you just have to move frequency off a bit and it will cut the square into smaller ‘pulses’, as if well timed tremolo chopping up square waves with another square wave. If there is some self tracking (more or less approach as amp mod in particular scenario of pitch tracking with frequency offset but ringmod excludes the original signal which is a benefit for making pwm from it). I’ve used this for pwm sounds and if you only have a 4 or 5 note riff it isn’t much work. It will actually work as well controlled ‘tremolo’ at audio rate. Smart you brought that up since a dsp ringmod is be able to do this (and i bet the renoise one is as well, but analog not so much). Pulse width is not easy to emulate since the ringmod device does not have such an option It’s another way to work and it’s great, but i think it would be very sad if the arps disappeared from Renoise. All you really need is 6 3-note phrases (2 of them duplicates) at 12lpb in each of the two arpeggio instruments and in the pattern change the note of the odd values to the key where you mapped the corresponding phrase. I tried and it sounds pretty much identical actually. (Yeah, the paula had simply a filter “on” and “off” mode but nothing else to control the variation of it.) Besides the fact you could not apply filter effects and pulse width effects on the sound, but that is something i can’t blame the tracker developers for but Commodore to leave those features out of the Paula chip. (its gonna take me quite some time before i have that specific part updated to work in Renoise 3.0)īut still regarding old-skool chiptune mods:They exactly prove why the arpeggio command in trackers suck:they have no speed versatility, you cannot extent to have arpeggios containing more than three notes. The phrase not being able to take over the epic arpeggiator pitch arpeggiation feature is a pity though. I could however achieve something similar without requiring the arpeggio command though I have been messing with those but not that thoroughly. Okay, you got your point: I apologize about the phrases… mod made on protracker, converted to xrns.Ĭan you can get identically sounding results (track 03) with phrases in the same, simple manner or in any way at all? Nothing of what you wrote is related to the topic or helpful for the OP with his request for achieving that “oldskool sound“ with renoise.Įven when presuming that he is a registered user having access to the current beta, phrases are so totally different in their handling that you cant be serious about recommending them as a substitute for the arpeggio command, used in chiptune-esque music ever since the release of the first sample based soundtracker on the amiga decades ago. You’re using the arpeggio command in this, just incase you didn’t complement what i said above: Posting on the renoise forum, the OP probably wants to achieve the “oldskool sound” in renoise, rather than vortex. You can’t agree on something which has never been stated by the person you refer to. Phrases is like ornaments…i agree with vV
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |