3 ms·

I'm intrigued by radium and I tried it once, didn't get too far. The feature set looks amazing, but doesn't seem exactly easy to use. I think this screen shot f

I'm intrigued by radium and I tried it once, didn't get too far. The feature set looks amazing, but doesn't seem exactly easy to use. I think this screen shot from the front page says it all. https://users.notam02.no/~kjetism/radium/pictures/radium_6_0_99.png https://users.notam02.no/~kjetism/radium/pictures/radium_6_0...

egypturnash 5y ago
Is it really that much less unfriendly-looking than the original Soundtracker? http://kestra.exotica.org.uk/files/screenies/59000/Soundtracker23b.png http://kestra.exotica.org.uk/files/screenies/59000/Soundtrac... I am not a musician by any stretch of the imagination, but I fooled around with Soundtracker on my Amiga back in the late eighties, and most of that screenshot makes sense to me: upper left is a pattern being edited, with some graphical display of the waveforms added in along with some lines showing the envelope of volume/effects/etc (instead of having to type in hex numbers), upper right is some effects, and most of the bottom is a sequence of patterns, with extra tracks layered on top of that, which is a pretty neat addition to the traditional tracker way of working - make a sequence of patterns as usual, then add in other stuff in a horizontal format based on timeline-based DAWs.
- dimatura 5y ago
  I think familiarity has something to do with it, but your own screenshot is definitely way less cluttered than the radium one, which is showing A LOT. It's not just the waveforms, which I get, but also what seem to be multiple layers-within-layers of sequences or something like that. To be fair, I've seen other screenshots of radium that look a lot more sane. This one might just be arranged to show off all the things that radium has going on.
  - egypturnash 5y ago
    Oh yeah, your Radium screenshot is hella complicated - but the surprising thing to me is how much it makes sense for me, even though the last time I touched a tracker was back around 1998.
sprkwd 5y ago
You could always try Orca: https://wiki.xxiivv.com/site/orca.html https://wiki.xxiivv.com/site/orca.html
- egypturnash 5y ago
  holy fuck

egypturnash 5y ago

Is it really that much less unfriendly-looking than the original Soundtracker? http://kestra.exotica.org.uk/files/screenies/59000/Soundtracker23b.png http://kestra.exotica.org.uk/files/screenies/59000/Soundtrac... I am not a musician by any stretch of the imagination, but I fooled around with Soundtracker on my Amiga back in the late eighties, and most of that screenshot makes sense to me: upper left is a pattern being edited, with some graphical display of the waveforms added in along with some lines showing the envelope of volume/effects/etc (instead of having to type in hex numbers), upper right is some effects, and most of the bottom is a sequence of patterns, with extra tracks layered on top of that, which is a pretty neat addition to the traditional tracker way of working - make a sequence of patterns as usual, then add in other stuff in a horizontal format based on timeline-based DAWs.

dimatura 5y ago
I think familiarity has something to do with it, but your own screenshot is definitely way less cluttered than the radium one, which is showing A LOT. It's not just the waveforms, which I get, but also what seem to be multiple layers-within-layers of sequences or something like that. To be fair, I've seen other screenshots of radium that look a lot more sane. This one might just be arranged to show off all the things that radium has going on.
- egypturnash 5y ago
  Oh yeah, your Radium screenshot is hella complicated - but the surprising thing to me is how much it makes sense for me, even though the last time I touched a tracker was back around 1998.

sprkwd 5y ago

You could always try Orca: https://wiki.xxiivv.com/site/orca.html https://wiki.xxiivv.com/site/orca.html

egypturnash 5y ago
holy fuck