ATTN: Buzz users

  qnio said:

news from official buzz site:

 

  Quote

Original Buzz being rebuild by Oskari!

Yes, it's not a very late aprils fools joke, it's true. Oskari, the developer behind Buzz is rebuilding Buzz from his old backups. Check out his beta site here, which contains a changelog and a downloadable beta of buzz.exe. You can follow or participate the discussion at buzzchurch.com here. Leave your comments here at buzzmachines.com!

YESSS

got a buzz kit recently -actually i'm using buzé-, and i can't work this thing out: how do i create a pattern for a couple of samples i added to the wavetable? so far there's one pattern called "Global", but there isn't a note column :confused:.

help!

  qnio said:

got a buzz kit recently -actually i'm using buzé-, and i can't work this thing out: how do i create a pattern for a couple of samples i added to the wavetable? so far there's one pattern called "Global", but there isn't a note column :confused:.

 

help!

you have to add a tracker machine, try matilde tracker - it's pretty close to the functionality of ft2.

  modey said:

  qnio said:

got a buzz kit recently -actually i'm using buzé-, and i can't work this thing out: how do i create a pattern for a couple of samples i added to the wavetable? so far there's one pattern called "Global", but there isn't a note column :confused:.

 

help!

you have to add a tracker machine, try matilde tracker - it's pretty close to the functionality of ft2.

thanks!

i like renoise

the interface is a little strange to use at first just balance out your reading and engaging in tutorials with fucking around

the sample editor is great though and overall i like the layout, but it can get a bit confusing when you have a ton of samples and tracks

i think the thing i like best about renoise is that i haven't found a problem that i cant work with or work around. in regards to the knob twiddling you can get a good deal of midi info into the tracks but you may find yourself fumbling around in the shitty automation area to really get a lot of power and morph out of your instruments and effects. fortunately there are 3rd party applications that can help work with this.

  ET said:

...my question is, before i spend 3 months learning this thing, is there anything this program can do that other programs cannot?...

Would anyone care to expand on a bit further on this one? Certainly, there are always multiple ways of accomplishing similar tasks, but - Is there a single, distinguishable answer?

  acid1 said:

...I think to a specific degree most programs can do what all other programs can do... ...The power of buzz comes from its modular routing, open source community, sub patterns, and the quickness you can achieve with it...

Has Acid1 said it all?

8 years of buzz

and i cant switch on other software after buzz

  Dementia said:

  ET said:

...my question is, before i spend 3 months learning this thing, is there anything this program can do that other programs cannot?...

 

Would anyone care to expand on a bit further on this one? Certainly, there are always multiple ways of accomplishing similar tasks, but - Is there a single, distinguishable answer?

 

  acid1 said:

...I think to a specific degree most programs can do what all other programs can do... ...The power of buzz comes from its modular routing, open source community, sub patterns, and the quickness you can achieve with it...

 

Has Acid1 said it all?

like i said before,

  Quote

complete automation of every single parameter through precise numerical values.

that's the advantage. no knobs, no pretending that the interface is an actual piece of hardware, just sliders with numbers that can be automated either by recording, typing them in (or making a smooth transition between two parameters), or using PeerLFO/PeerEnv to apply an automatic LFO or ADSR envelope to any parameter for any machine. for example, the PeerEnv machine can be triggered in a pattern, so that every time it is triggered, it sends an ADSR envelope to control a parameter, so you can effectively have a trigger to speed the song up temporarily.

been using buzz for 8 years now....wouldn't change it for the world.

  modey said:

like i said before,

  Quote

complete automation of every single parameter through precise numerical values.

that's the advantage. no knobs, no pretending that the interface is an actual piece of hardware, just sliders with numbers that can be automated either by recording, typing them in (or making a smooth transition between two parameters), or using PeerLFO/PeerEnv to apply an automatic LFO or ADSR envelope to any parameter for any machine. for example, the PeerEnv machine can be triggered in a pattern, so that every time it is triggered, it sends an ADSR envelope to control a parameter, so you can effectively have a trigger to speed the song up temporarily.

you can do that with renoise.

yeah but renoise is 50 euros, and buzz is free.

EDIT: And buzz is awesome in every way.

Renoise has a far, far superior Audio engine, is much more stable, and has good current support for OSX and Linux.

Buzz is free, and has a bit more flexibility with all of the kay-razy buzz machines out there, although more and more to me this becomes moot as more and more crazy VSTs and whatnots are released that cover 90% of what you'd get from Buzz machines anyway.

Either one rivals what you could have done in a recording studio perhaps 15 years ago though, so just use whatever feels good.

buze is hot!

instant test of buze's beta 0.5.3

+ some basic patterns and live-tweaking stuff

result:

  ten fingers ten toes said:

Renoise has a far, far superior Audio engine, is much more stable, and has good current support for OSX and Linux.

Three general comments ...

1. Buzz has the most accurate sound engine possible that your sound card can compute. I talked to this Oskari about this and the engine does absolutely no coloring the sound at all, its 100% floating point computation. Buzz supports dithering but you shouldn't be using dithering in Buzz. If Renoise appears to have a clearer audio engine, then its simply either coloring the sound or you are hearing a placebo. This is defiantly the case in some audio engines.. Nuendo for instance, does a fair amount of softening and EQing the sound behind the scenes.

2. Stability in buzz is based on which machines you use.

3. Buzz has a very well done working clone in Linux called Aldrin (like Buzz Aldrin lol). Aldrin right now might have more support then Buzz does currently.

you's is talking the truth. I read that huge thread on BuzzChurch about the whole colouring of sound on different DAWs and it certainly opened my eyes to the awesomeness of Buzz (not that I ever doubted it of course !)

  acid1 said:

1. Buzz has the most accurate sound engine possible that your sound card can compute.

Just wrong, sorry: http://www.simonv.com/tutorials/quality.php

Arguru's sync in Renoise is perfect. I'm not saying you can't make music that sounds good in Buzz, I'm just saying Renoise is superior because its superior to EVERYONE.

  Quote

3. Buzz has a very well done working clone in Linux called Aldrin (like Buzz Aldrin lol). Aldrin right now might have more support then Buzz does currently.

Aldrin isn't really as complete and perfect a distribution as Renoise. Renoise in Linux works exactly, and I mean to the tiniest feature exactly like Renoise in Windows does, with no stability issues or install woes. It's literally just "./install" and go.

tftt, you are comparing one of buzz's worst samplers against other samplers. Again this isn't the audio engine itself, this is just one machines shifting algorithm. If you want to compare aliasing, then compare renoise to Buzz's best free sampler Jeskola XS-1.

How are you gauging what is a perfect distribution? Alderin comes with a ton of plugins including fx and synths. To be fair Alderin isn't a perfect clone and isn't trying to be. Its also open source and has a great community.

btw I'm not attacking renoise, I'm just trying to point out some inaccuracies in your post that could give people the wrong impression about Buzz.

  telefunken said:

buze is hot!

 

instant test of buze's beta 0.5.3

 

 

+ some basic patterns and live-tweaking stuff

 

result:

blabla

hot

Jeskola Xs1

Renoise

Fruity Loops

Thus, who gives a fuck?

DiscoDSP compared XS-1 and it aliases slightly worse than Renoise as well:

http://www.discodsp.com/highlife/aliasing/xs1_full.png

http://www.discodsp.com/highlife/aliasing/...e_sinc_full.png

I'm just saying that Renoise is Linux is a very professional package. I have no doubt that Aldrin has a great community, but it doesn't seem to have near the robustness and ease of install that Renoise has, which is what I was basing it on. In fact, there has been nothing at all to do with audio in Linux that has worked half as easily for me as Renoise. I've been running Linux for 12 years and I develop Unix software at work and it really realyl impressed me with how well thought out and easy the install is.

Aldrin seems cool, but it's very raw in comparison.

That Renoise shot is from the realtime engine, not Arguru's Sync.

  ten fingers ten toes said:

  acid1 said:

1. Buzz has the most accurate sound engine possible that your sound card can compute.

 

Just wrong, sorry: http://www.simonv.com/tutorials/quality.php

 

Arguru's sync in Renoise is perfect. I'm not saying you can't make music that sounds good in Buzz, I'm just saying Renoise is superior because its superior to EVERYONE.

Well that spectral output only shows the aliasing problems for resampling using Matilde Tracker (and I'm guessing the first version of it). There's more to Buzz than just the trackers generators....

The point is simply that, as I originally stated, that Renoise is more accurate when rendering to wav. I said 4 posts back that sure you can get great sounding results out of Buzz, but since my original statement of Renoise's superior audio engine was challenged, I supported my statement. You basically can't render to wav more acurately than Arguru's sync in Renoise.

  ten fingers ten toes said:

DiscoDSP compared XS-1 and it aliases slightly worse than Renoise as well:

 

http://www.discodsp.com/highlife/aliasing/xs1_full.png

http://www.discodsp.com/highlife/aliasing/...e_sinc_full.png

It'd be a much more reliable comparison if they used the same scale and spectral resolution, all that seems to show at the moment is that Renoise seems to miss out notes.....

hey guys, just a question, do we make music here? or just audio for pure analysis?

  modey said:

hey guys, just a question, do we make music here? or just audio for pure analysis?

  Quote

The point is simply that, as I originally stated, that Renoise is more accurate when rendering to wav. I said 4 posts back that sure you can get great sounding results out of Buzz, but since my original statement of Renoise's superior audio engine was challenged, I supported my statement. You basically can't render to wav more acurately than Arguru's sync in Renoise.