It really boils down to personal preference... and my preference is to not bother looking at those kinds of modules; what a headache.
Just give me the NSF, please. :P
Most everything done at Speed 1 can be replicated at higher speeds. I simply don't understand the desire to make one's workflow more cumbersome with tedious tasks like copying and pasting volume and effect macros for every note just for a sense of fine detail that could have been done with instruments, anyway.
Sincerest apologies if my words are a bit sharp; I guess I harbor some ill-will towards this subject. Don't mind me. XD
And yes, "900 BPM" is a misnomer, but I think we're stuck with it.
BPM doesn't really have as much to do with note length as it does beat length. You can have lots of really short notes without resorting to instruments, but the song's time signature and the number of rows-per-beat are what ultimately decide the tempo. "900 BPM" is just there as a helpful guideline under the default assumption that you will have 1 beat per 4 clock cycles, which is just silly. :D
...says you with your 900bpm Outpost track. Seroiusly, Kayin showed me that when I was learning Famitracker. Do you have any idea how friggin intimidating that was? Sigh ~-~
_______________________
"im going to continue making this crazy stuff then after a while my style will be so sick that you will be like damn suuun that shit is so sick i dont even get it. i will be like bro its ok.. you dont have to." -omgdonut
Since the thread's around again I may as well say I think tracking at 900 bpm is stupid and inane; maybe for complicated note sequences, maybe, but not much more, especially if you're working with only blank instruments. The convenience of having instrument macros is to avoid having to do that. It just strikes me as stupid and making things harder simply to make things harder.
VRC7 doesn't offer the ability to create instrument macros, so whenever you need to switch instruments or notes quickly, you'll have to use speed 1 to achieve it.
I personally don't like it but I prefer it over tracking at low speeds. I will always try to approximate to speed 3 or 2 when I make music but speed 1 makes me go nuts, though making something at speed 6 or so would limit me to practically abuse of instrument usage because there's little room to place notes and effects.
In most cases, for me an approximate of speed 3 will be enough, and perhaps a few instruments. I do the rest with just blank ones.
Since the thread's around again I may as well say I think tracking at 900 bpm is stupid and inane; maybe for complicated note sequences, maybe, but not much more, especially if you're working with only blank instruments. The convenience of having instrument macros is to avoid having to do that. It just strikes me as stupid and making things harder simply to make things harder.
Completely disagree. 900bpm tracking isn't any more complicated compared to any other speed in my opinion. I tracked many things at that speed, even the cover of Cosmo Babylon which I submitted to FCM10. I am able to add more detail, and avoid having to spam Fxx in order to keep a semi-consistent tempo.
To each his own, from my experience 900bpm is a headache. The difference between speed 1 and speed 2 is two fold, so slowing it down while you are working doesn't give me good results. Also my buffer is 60ms, which gets very inaccurate with more speed.
I've worked in slow tempos and quick ones. I don't feel one has an advantage over another. My priority is keeping it organized, where frames start on the downbeat. So far I tend to stay at 5 as my highest, and 1.5~ as my lowest speed. It really depends on the song.
Visually it's more interesting to watch all the channels with all the effects going on in them instead of just regular tracking yes, but...aren't we here for music people?
[Attachment] is the lengthiest thing I could make in speed 1. At least I gave it a try.
.png)
) 
