ABLETON LIVE 6

[Anderton]

Anyone who has followed my writings over the years, or come to my live performances, knows that I'm a huge fan of Ableton Live -- and have been since V1.0.

The first time I saw Live, it was one of those "moments"...like the first time I did an overdubbed harmony in a multitracking environment, stretched a clip in Acid, recorded an audio track to a hard drive, sang into a DigiTech Vocalist, or experienced any other of those other truly innovative moments in music technology. It seemed brilliant. Yet, it took a while for me to bridge the gap between an intellectual understanding of why it was cool, and actually using it to make music.

Fact is, Live is NOT based on the "let's replace a two-inch analog tape multitrack" paradigm that lies at the bottom of most programs (Pro Tools, DP, Sonar, Logic, Cubase, etc.). It has a different worldview that was the product of musicians needing software tools that didn't exist up to that point.

I'm fond of saying that Live is a musical instrument disguised as a piece of software. I still feel that way. Although quite a few people see Live as a DAW, I just don't get that viewpoint. Just because it CAN be used like a DAW doesn't mean, at least to me, that's the best way to use the program. You can also use an Alfa Romeo to go to the supermarket, but I don't think that's the reason why Alfa Romeos were invented.

I just wrote an analysis of Live 6 for the April issue of EQ magazine. It's not out yet, but here's a preview that seems like a good way to start this review.

THE TAO OF DUALITY: INTO THE MATRIX
Live’s most important aspect is that it offers two different ways to interact with the program, Session view and Arrangement view. You can use one, the other, or switch between the two. Arrangement view is like working with a conventional DAW, as there are tracks for audio and MIDI, visible waveforms, envelopes, automation, etc. Session view is what sets Live apart: This is a matrix of tracks (arranged as columns), and scenes, arranged as rows. Each row/column intersection has a clip slot into which you can drag audio (usually loops, but one-shots work too) or MIDI files from a Browser pane, located toward the left of the program’s window. You can also record audio or MIDI data into a slot.

Each track plays only one slot at a time, so if you want multiple clips to play simultaneously, you put them in the same row but on different tracks. Then, when you click on a row’s “Launch” button to turn on the row, any audio in that row — on any track in that row — begins playback. The ability to trigger a bunch of loops instantly and simultaneously by launching a row is very powerful.

Additional details, such as timing, make this matrix concept even better. Loop playback can be quantized to any of several rhythmic values, so that, for example, if quantization is set to 1 measure, you can launch a row up to several beats before a measure starts — the loops won’t trigger until the precise start of the next measure.

For figuring out arrangements, this is brilliant as you can set up individual rows to be sub-sections of the tune (intro, build section, verse, second part of verse, solo, etc.). But you’re not limited to triggering wholesale groups of clips, either. In fact, you can play any piece of audio in any track at any time, in addition to whatever’s playing in a row (within the constraint of one piece of audio per track, and with a start consistent with whatever quantization you’ve selected). For example, you can select a row, then add in audio from a track that doesn’t have audio in the selected row. Or, build a song a loop at a time: Enable a loop in track 1 to start, then another in track 3, then another in track 5, then switch to a more complex loop over in track 1 . . . then select a completely different row with a whole other collection of loops.

Want to turn off a track? Click on an empty track slot to stop a track from looping. Or, let the loop run, but mute the audio; and if you want a quick breakbeat, hit the solo button for that track.

This may sound confusing in print, but in practice, you have a very hip playing field laid out in front of you that is extremely flexible. I’ve done songs in Live with 30 or 40 rows, with each row representing a particular section of a song, and gone from row to row — sometimes in order, sometimes skipping around depending on how the audience reacts — but I’ve also done tunes with a single row containing multiple loops that I enable or disable as needed.

And that’s only how I use the program . . . some musicians use it to build up songs, a loop at a time, then improvise on top of what they’ve created. I’ve also played with musicians who used it as a sort of “ultimate JamMan” signal processor; Live is one of the few pieces of software I’ve seen embraced by rockers, avant-garde types, rappers, groove-oriented musicians, and DJs alike.

[Anderton]

My favorite kind of pro review is one where you can "follow along." In this case, you can download a demo version of Live 6 (http://www.ableton.com/pages/downloads/demo) to see if it works for you and if you do end up liking it, you can unlock it for unlimited functionality. The demo does not include the Essential Instrument Collection from Sonivox (more on this later) due to the sheer size of the sound library, but that's not necessary to understand Live's gestalt.

There's a product landing page (http://www.ableton.com/products) for Ableton's products, and an online shop. Actually there is a somewhat confusing set of options for Live: Download or boxed, with the EIC or without, with the EIC as a later add-on, the Sampler instrument (which you don't need to use the EIC, as Live comes with Simpler, a sampling-type instrument that can load the EIC sounds...with me so far?). There are also several upgrade options, so rather than go through all that stuff here, you can do directly to the online shop (https://www.ableton.com/shop) and sort it out for yourself.

To get up to speed on Live in general, check out the Ableton Live 5 Pro Review (http://acapella.harmony-central.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1026718) right here on Harmony Central. An interesting piece of trivia: Live 5 was the very first Pro Review ever done. I chose it to review because I felt that 1) it needed the Pro Review format in order to fully explore all it could do, and explain its uniqueness in a way I couldn't do with print; and 2) Dave Hill of Ableton was the ideal manufacturer representative in that he could talk about the program as a user, not a "marketing guy," and therefore set a precedent for how manufacturers should contribute to a Pro Review.

Dave has moved on to a different role within Ableton, but David Cross of Ableton (apparently, if you want a gig with Ableton, it helps to be named "David") will be checking in to answer any questions you might have.

[Anderton]

Click on the picture to check out Session View, which at least to me is what Live is all about. This shows tracks 7 - 18, along with two "return" tracks (as in send/return) and the master section. Tracks 16 and 17 are set for the narrowest track width possible because in this particular song, I used them as live audio inputs (for guitar and vocals, respectively). Yes, Live will let you use "live" inputs. The other tracks are for loops that provide rhythm beds.

Here's how Session View works, in the most basic terms. Check out the "master" section. If you click on the triangle marked "+BF1" (well, at least the names mean something to me :)), that will trigger the loops in tracks 7, 10, and 18. 18 is just a 16th note snare drum roll that gets brought in and out on occasion with the track's associated fader.

Clicking the triangle marked "+BF2" brings in an additional loop by triggering the loops in tracks 7, 8, 10, and 18.

Now go further down the master section and check out row "8-11<"; this triggers tracks 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, and 18. That's a lot of sounds, and it's a more climatic part of the song.

When I say that clicking on the triangle triggers these loops, actually the loop starts are quantized to a value you set. For example, if you set the quantize value to a measure, you can click just before you want the loops to begin (e.g., beat 3) and the loops will start with the next measure downbeat.

It's also worth explaining that loops from any number of tracks can play simultaneously, but only one loop in a given track can play at the same time. But this also means that you aren't forced to play back only loops that are in a given row. For example (follow along here!) in the above example where triggering "8-11<" triggers tracks 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, and 18, note that you could also click on a loop in, say, track 12, or a different loop in track 8, 9, 10 etc. in a different row (this still satisfies the requirement that only one loop per track can play back at a time).

This may sound complicated, but play with Live for five minutes and you'll get the concept. I should also add that when you trigger a loop, it's subject to the same quantization as when triggering a row in the master section.

Make sense so far?

[Anderton]

Okay, so you click around, trigger loops, record audio, move faders on your control surface to alter levels, and so on. Cool, that's fine for live performance...but there's more. If you click on Live's record button before you do this, your moves will be recorded (except, unfortunately, for solo button clicks...more on this later). Then you can switch over to Arrangement view, and what you did will end up looking like you recorded it in a DAW, and can be edited as such.

The picture shows the same project as above in Arrangement view after recording a bunch of moves. A loop is represented by a rectangular bar for as long as it plays, but also note that you can increase the track height and see the actual waveform. Also take a look at Track 11; note the automation data, which of course, is editable.

You switch between Session view and Arrangement by clicking on one of two buttons (one for each view). In a way, this reminds me of the famous "tab" key in Reason, where you can switch between the front of Reason's "rack" and the back.

But that's enough for tonight. It's late, I'm in a dreary but functional hotel room in northern California, and I need to get up early tomorrow. But in the immortal words of Arnold Schwarzenegger, the governor of this fair state, "I'll be Bach." Or was it "I'll be Beethoven?" I can't remember...

[Anderton]

Well how about that...Live is up to V 6.0.5. So, time to update.

One thing I've found is that you can uninstall the old version and go ahead and install the new one. (Within certain limitations, depending on the previous version you had -- you may need to copy over your library manually. This is discussed on the Ableton forum.)

The update is about 68MB, and as far as I can tell, it basically installs the entire program. The update is downloading right now on my other computer...hopefully I'll be back in a couple minutes with a shiny new version.

[Anderton]

Upgrading is simple: Double-click on setup, start program, enjoy. You don't need to re-enter your activation codes or anything. All the extra library packs are in place, and the library stayed in place.

Okay, what to cover next...the instrument rack thing is a big deal, as is the configurable mixer and the video window. Come to think of it, let's do the mixer first, for the benefit of all the people who want to know if Live can be used as a DAW. As I've said before there's no traditional mixer view and the metering was kind of lacking in terms of defining the extent of how much a signal goes over or under 0; let's see if that's changed.

[Anderton]

The first picture shows the smallest possible height for the mixer channels. Basically, you have the fader, channel active/inactive, solo, record, and pan (the numeric field to the left of the fader). Note how the panpot has an orange stripe that sits to the left of the field of the pan control goes left, and to the right of the field if the pan control goes right. This is a very cool and quick way to parse a bunch of mixer channels to see their basic panning situation.

Also note in the first picture that you can vary the width of the channel. For live use, where you're not going to be tweaking a lot, you can often get away with a narrower width in order to fit more tracks in total on the screen.

The second picture is quite instructive. The top of the fader strip has been dragged up to the maximum possible fader height, and has resulted in several changes. But let's also see how changing the width really alters what you can see.

Channel 1: This is set to the narrowest possible width. You can no longer see the pan control, and the fader sits on top of the track active/solo/record buttons to save space. The small circle at the top of the fader is your "overload LED." When it's chartreuse, you know the signal has gone above 0.0 for that channel at some point since playback began, but you don't know by how much. When it's white, the signal has not gone above 0.0. for that channel since playback began. You can click on the overload indicator to reset it. The channel strip is too narrow to show any send controls, as evidenced by the blank gray zone above the fader, nor can you see the track delay control.

Channel 2: This is slightly wider. There are now numerical fields for send controls (click and drag to change values), the panpot is visible above the active/solo/record buttons, and the fader now has a longer throw.

Channel 3: By going wider, the sends now have labels (A and B, in this case) and are somewhat wider. The "overload LED" now shows a more precise indication of how close the signal is to 0.0. The rectangle below it gives a precise readout of the fader position. This is a useful pair of indicators; for example, if the overload box shows that the signal went over 0.0 by 2.1dB, you can reduce the fader by 2.2dB to avoid distortion. Finally, as the panpot is a bit more expanded, you can see a letter that indicates if the panpot goes to the right or left. The track delay parameter is now visible as well.

Channel 4: More changes with additional width...the send controls are now knobs instead of numerical fields, the signal level indicators are taken out to another significant digit, and the panpot has become a knob.

Channel 5: This is the widest meaningful size (you can make it wider, but nothing extra will be revealed). The overload indicator now goes to two signifiacnt digits, and there are calibrations to the right of the fader.

[Anderton]

The mixer in Session view is most like a conventional mixer, unlike Arrangement view, which has more of an Acid/Sonar/Vegas kind of feel. So, will the configurable mixer satisfy those who want Live to be a DAW?

For some people, yes; for others, no. The improved metering is a big help in terms of knowing what's actually going on with your levels, and the "longer-throw" faders make it easier to dial in an exact value. I don't really care about seeing knobs -- fields work okay for me -- but if they make people comfortable, fine.

I'm a little surprised that when you expand a channel to show the panpot knob, then the numerical value for the panpot disappears. I would prefer to have a numerical value sitting on top of the panpot; there's certainly room for it. But this isn't a deal-breaker.

However, Live still lacks some major DAW features. As far as I can tell, you can't group faders or panpots, invert phase, or select pre/post options for each send. (Although you can change a set of sends from pre to post, and with the ability to insert up to 12 sets of sends - A through L - it's not a big deal to insert one set of sends specifically for, say, pre-fader send.) Nor can you do crossfades between clips in the Arrangement view, or use "clip handles" to add fade-ins and fade out to clips -- although you can do fades by drawing in envelopes while in clip view.

So does this matter? Not to me, I have DAWs :) As I mentioned, to me Live's charm is that is isn't another DAW. In fact, until doing this Pro Review, it never occurred to me that you can't group track volumes or pans because that's not how I use Live. It doesn't do surround, either...so what? Or perhaps more pertinently, who cares? To me, the bottom line is it has enough DAW-like features so you can overlay that sort of editing on top of what Live already does so well.

[Anderton]

I was about to start talking about the video capabilities, and loaded a video to work with. But as I moved it around, the video image in the window got corrupted -- the edge of the window would "tear," and occasional chunks of window would just kind of melt. Granted this would have been a really great feature back in the 60s ;), but I found it annoying.

This was on Windows, so I tried turning off Write Combining (Display Properties > Settings > Advanced > Troubleshoot) but this didn't make any difference. However, moving hardware acceleration down a notch ("Disable cursor and bitmap acceleartions. Use this setting to correct problems with the mouse pointer, or to correct problems with corrupt images") fixed it...so if any of you experience this problem, you don't have to put up with it any more.

[dCross]

Hi Craig (and all you lurkers) - this is David Cross from Ableton. I handle press for our company in the US and UK, and will be Ableton's Pro Review representative in this thread. I'm happy to help with any questions or comments you may have.

The "is it a DAW" question has been popping up with increasing frequency in the past year, especially with the release of Live 6. Some users actually feel it's too DAW and not "live" enough, while others have the exact opposite belief. It's a tough call, and it seems to depend most on the needs of each individual user.

By the way Craig - you could MIDI map multiple faders and pan pots to the same control and create a virtual group, but you'd have to re-map every time you wanted to change that group. Regarding phase - have you explored the phase settings inside our Utility Audio effect?

[Anderton]

The "is it a DAW" question has been popping up with increasing frequency in the past year, especially with the release of Live 6. Some users actually feel it's too DAW and not "live" enough, while others have the exact opposite belief. It's a tough call, and it seems to depend most on the needs of each individual user.

Well I think the balance has been handled very well, actually; you can pretty much ignore what doesn't apply to you.

Personally, I think the "DAW" issue is a little silly, but I felt I needed to cover it :) The real question is whether Live represents a valuable tool for making music, and if so, is it unique -- because if it isn't, why would you need a separate program? I think it qualifies on both counts.

I think the people who complain too much would have been unhappy when the 12-string guitar was invented -- "So is it a guitar or not?" And of course, the answer is, it's a somewhat different and unique take on the guitar.

Bottom line: Those who feel Live is not "DAW" enough should get a DAW too! No law says you can't have a pickup truck and a sports car. Those who feel it's too "DAWish" should simply ignore the features they don't like -- stick in Session View, don't mess with the configurable mixer, and you have all the basics of Live.

[Anderton]

By the way Craig - you could MIDI map multiple faders and pan pots to the same control and create a virtual group, but you'd have to re-map every time you wanted to change that group.

Which seems too much like work for me. Actually, most grouping in software seems too much like work. My favorite implementation so far is the Quick Group function in Sonar, it lets me do what I want to do, then get the hell out :) I mostly use it to Quick Group all volume faders, and bring the overall level down so I can keep the master volume at 0. I would actually prefer this type of limited grouping functionality in Live compared to a full-blown grouping option.

Regarding phase - have you explored the phase settings inside our Utility Audio effect?

Yes, and it certainly does the job. But I'm an inveterate phase flipper back to the days of multi-miking and analog consoles; I'm always checking for phase issues, so I like the convenience of having a button just sitting there. But I wouldn't request that you put this in Live, it seems less relevant than in a traditional DAW.

BTW welcome David! I can vouch to the people reading this review that David is a hardcore Live aficionado who is much more interested in talking about cool aspects of the program than giving marketing spiels. We're fortunate to have him monitoring this thread, so this is your opportunity to talk directly to Ableton with comments, concerns, praise, or whatever.

[markwayne]

I think the people who complain too much would have been unhappy when the 12-string guitar was invented -- "So is it a guitar or not?" And of course, the answer is, it's a somewhat different and unique take on the guitar.

Hmmm . . . well I enjoy a good 12 string guitar from time to time so I'll play. I have also used Live for several years and watched it evolve. I think a better analogy might be that Live was once a funky, tricked out, reso-ukelelee and then began adding stuff that made it capable of acting like a 6 and later a 12 string guitar.

Now that's cool and I still love and use Live on a regular basis. However, my question to Ableton is "what is the long-range vision for Live?" Earlier versions of Live had a minimal but refined set of tools. There was a clear focus on being a sleek, "live" performance instrument. However, now that Live pricing and features have moved it ever closer to DAW territory, it seems like a good time to ask "what are they trying to do here?" If they are going to add DAW-ish features, then they are inviting comparisons. I can't see blaming the people who just point out that Live is starting to look like a DAW.

I, for one, would rather they only add features when they can bring a fresh perpective to them. Why just add MIDI? Give me some crazy, cool, Ableton-ized MIDI. There were some aspects of this in Live 4's feature set. However, they seem to have stopped short on these and moved on to track freezing, virtual racks and bundled instruments, etc.. Hmmm . . . where I have I seen these features before?

Don't get me wrong. I'm very happy with Live. It has a fast workflow and I can sketch out ideas quickly. I repeat. I love Live. It is still a cool performance tool and it makes a wonderful sketchpad. I'm not bashing. I'm just hoping to get a sense of where Ableton feels Live is heading.

Wayne

[realtrance]

Just a quick opinion here. I've always felt that at many levels, sample-based synthesis really represents the REAL major next step electronic music-making can take, past the conventions of subtractive synthesis we've concentrated on over the past 36 years. The only problem with it has been its real or perceived relatively "static" nature, especially in a performative environment.

Live is one of just a few things (along with Reaktor, and Vsynth, in my opinion) that has begun to change that. The more the developers can move in the direction of bringing sample-based synthesis -- using the ability to manipulate samples, in real time, and get musical and expressive and performative results out of that -- the more I feel Live is being true to its original value and uniqueness as a kind of instrument to play music on. The more it moves towards just competing with conventional DAW features, the more it's at risk of losing focus on one of the key things that really makes it unique.

The problem is that I'm not sure people see the incredible power of approaching sample-based synthesis this way; in many ways, until we get a lot more experimental with what we consider acceptable music in the popular and commercial media (people found "Forbidden Planet" cool in the '50's, why not such a breakout success now, too!), we're not going to hear what's possible with this kind of technology and instrumentation.

Thanks for allowing me to contribute!

[Anderton]

Very good point, actually. I really think that Live itself is a pretty neutral platform, it's what you make it. People use Live in so many different ways, that speaks well of the fact that Live doesn't "push" you in a particular direction. The way I use Live seems incredibly obvious to me...until I see someone else use it in a completely different way :) It seems to me the DAW tools aren't about making it into a DAW, but allowing people to use Live in yet other, perhaps as yet unanticipated, ways.

Good point about VSynth, too, I always appreciated that it let you get "inside" the sample.

I'd also like to add that while I'll be covering the video support next, I'm very, very intrigued that the first few comments in this pro review have been of a philsophical nature. Every Pro Review takes its own direction as time goes on; there's no way to predict at the beginning how it will end. I do know that manufacturers really find the feedback they get from pro reviews helpful, and in this case, I suspect Ableton will find the philosophical comments as valuable as the more tech-oriented comments. So, back atcha, and thanks for contributing!

This is going to be fun :) ...

[percyexpat]

Thanks for doing this Craig, i've been anticipating and looking forward to this Pro Review for a while. Thanks also to David for being here to contribute!

I've recently started using Live 6, i'm still a little wet behind the ears so to speak but i'm enjoying it hugely!

I don't find a huge amount to criticise really, although the automation/envelope drawing leaves a little to be desired, without the ability to draw smooth curves with a Bezier style curve drawing tool. Ever tried drawing a smooth curved line with a mouse or track pad?...exactly... :freak: Its not such a big deal with fairly subtle envelope effects but for more dramatic effects it can be a problem.

[Anderton]

It may seem strange to put this early in the review, ahead of more "music-only" features like the instrument racks, Sampler, and the Essential Instrument Collection, but bear with me. Besides, I'm really into video, and I'm writing the review, so...:)

The reason why video can be so important with Live is twofold. First of all, it's crucial with video projects to be able to "fudge" the audio tempos a bit so that musical hits correspond with visual cues. It makes a huge difference in the overall experience when the video correlates tightly to the beat.

There have been several solutions to this, the most notable being Acid's inclusion of a video window, and Vegas 7's ability to use acidized loops. But Live's "warping" option is uniquely suited to working with video, because you can simply "grab" a place in the audio you want to match up to video, and drag it over to the appropriate place in the video. Now that's really, really cool. Add that to looping that follows tempo changes, and you have something that’s a great match for video operation.

(As an aside, I was told by someone from Ableton that there were pitched philosophical battles in the Ableton offices about how to handle a video window. After all, Live has always been a "one window" program (okay, two if you count Session and Arrangement views as separate): If you want to work with MIDI, or an instrument, or a browser, you don't open up another window; worse case is you "show" something instead of "hide" it. Some people really wanted to be able to hew to that philosophy with video, but in the end, it was decided that video would be a separate, resizeable window - and I think that was the right decision, especially with more people using dual monitor setups where putting video in the second screen makes perfect sense.)

[Anderton]

Rule #1: MOV files only, no AVI or MP4...bummer. Okay, there are plenty of ways to convert video formats, but Live should recognize it's not just a QuickTime world. I hope that support for AVI, MP4, and even WMV will be added at some point in the future.

Rule #2: You need to work with videos in the Arrangement view. This of course makes perfect sense, as video is linear, and so is the Arrangement view. (You can bring video into Session view, but it will be treated as an audio clip -- the video stream will be ignored.)

This also points out the beauty of Live's "duality": You can come up with some great theme in Session view without paying too much attention to the video, then punch record and bring it into the arrangement view, then warp it to picture.

You import video the way you do any other track: Drag it from the browser into a track in the Arrangement view. Check out the first picture; the video clip (called "CA Live" has been dragged into Track 1, and after setting the video track as the master, other loops have been brought in to reinforce the existing audio. Note that the video track looks like an audio track except for the "sprocket" graphic strip on top of the video's audio stream.

The second picture shows the video's original audio. Note that it has been put in Warp mode, with Master enabled, so it can serve as the master tempo to which the other loops will sync.

The audio here is probably not the best example of audio for video, because the tempo is constant; as the loops sync up naturally, nothing has to be sped up or slowed down to match hit points.

[amplayer]

Hi Craig,

As a nooby Live user, I have a couple issues I wonder if you might address:

1) For video, the manual says it can do 30 FPS, and does not mention anything about 29.97 FPS. Is that correct? Do they really mean 29.97 even though they say 30, or is it really 30? This is a deal breaker for me since all film and TV projects I work on are 29.97, not 30.

2) I use it on a Mac and also on a PC. I don't know why, but it opens ridiculously fast on the Mac (about 6 or 7 seconds from launch to fully open), but takes more than twice that time on my PC even though my PC uses a faster disk and has faster processors. Has this been your experience as well?
In any case, Live opens much faster than anything else like it, and I think that is one of its major benefits. Because it opens and also runs so fast, I am really considering using it as a general container for software instruments and effects. Since I'm still new to Live, I don't have a good understanding of the effects "racks" yet, but that is clearly the method I'll use once I understand it. I am looking forward to that part of your review.
Edit: I discoverd by RTFM that Live can only receive MIDI and output Audio when it is a rewire slave. In general, the Live manual is very thin regarding rewire mode, so I'm not 100% sure of this. However, it appears my dream of being able to send audio to Live from my host app and then process it in Live and send back to the host app is apparently not possible. If somebody from Ableton would like to comment on this, I'd really appreciate it.

3) Have you used it much as a rewire slave? I'm thinking of using Live as a rewire slave, but I'm concerned that it may not follow meter changes. I'm hoping Live is like Reason in this aspect: That is, even though its own sequencer can't understand meter changes, it will still correctly follow a host application that implements meter changes. This should be easy for me to test as well, but I just haven't gotten that far with Live yet.

[BuleriaChk]

Hi, all,

I use Live as my main performance/practice tool, and think it is extraordinary (I feel the same way about S6PE and Fruity Loops for different things.)

In any case, I find that the Amplitube 2 VST crashes in Live 6 (GR2 works fine). As long as Live isn't looping, I can play thru effects just fine, but if I try to loop or bring it up (after it has been minimized the first time); the program either freezes with a tone (cpu goes from 24% to 40 + and sometimes 100+ after the freeze) in the first case. In the second, I get either an "incompatible VST" from Live, or a run error ("Live has made an error and program must close, or the process stops - program disappears from Task Manager and the desktop).

I think this is an AT2 issue (ver. 2.1), since I have no problems with any other plug-in, but thought I'd throw this out to see if there are any others with this experience. AT2 is relatively recent, but so is my Live update (6.0.5) Also using Audio Kontrol 1 for an interface (but my UX1 did the same thing)...

(BTW, AT2 seems to work ok as a VST in Fruity Loops and Sonar 6, but I haven't tested them anywhere near as extensively as Live....)

[dCross]

However, my question to Ableton is "what is the long-range vision for Live?" Earlier versions of Live had a minimal but refined set of tools. There was a clear focus on being a sleek, "live" performance instrument. However, now that Live pricing and features have moved it ever closer to DAW territory, it seems like a good time to ask "what are they trying to do here?" If they are going to add DAW-ish features, then they are inviting comparisons. I can't see blaming the people who just point out that Live is starting to look like a DAW.
The impression I get from the developers is that a general long-term vision exists, but it's quite blurry.

Naturally, there was some intent behind Live's beginnings as a performance tool, it's development into a performance + sound design tool, and it's current maturation into a performance + sound design + music creation tool.

But this is a generalization, and it leaves the impression that the development path is rigid. Actually, imagined features have appeared earlier than expected, later than expected, or been dropped altogether. These changes have everything to do with our users, and their response to the software.

We try to please as many people and accommodate as many uses as possible with each release. These various desires certainly affect the development path (and we believe it does it for the better). I'm not saying that MIDI support would never have happened without our users, but there's no doubt that the people clamoring for it on our forums had an affect on it's implementation in Live 4. Additional warp algorithms and mp3 support is a similar story: if the developers lived in a bubble, there's a chance it would've come about - but it's existence was certainly hastened and partially conceived out of the wishes of our users. Stuff like this happens all the time with Live: video support, crossfader curves, improved effects, better navigation, etc etc - these features are all collaborative efforts.

So, what I'm trying to say in too many words is that the future development of Live is hazy because it's not 100% in our hands. It's shared with our users, because they're the ones we're serving by building the software.

It's like taking a cross-country road trip: we may be driving the car, and we may have a good idea of which road to take, but if you see something cool, or need to take a pit stop, we're happy to stretch our legs and take in the sights you guide us towards :)

[dCross]

...although the automation/envelope drawing leaves a little to be desired, without the ability to draw smooth curves with a Bezier style curve drawing tool. Ever tried drawing a smooth curved line with a mouse or track pad?...exactly... :freak: Its not such a big deal with fairly subtle envelope effects but for more dramatic effects it can be a problem.
Yep, I've seen this wish many times in our forums and in talking with users. I believe that this and similar requests in arrangement (ie: easy crossfades) rank quite high on our internal wishlist for future versions of Live. I can't make any promises that the feature will be in version X of Live, but "it's high on the wishlist" is usually a good indicator that it's a big glaring dot on our radar.

[dCross]

Rule #1: MOV files only, no AVI or MP4...bummer. Okay, there are plenty of ways to convert video formats, but Live should recognize it's not just a QuickTime world. I hope that support for AVI, MP4, and even WMV will be added at some point in the future.
Again, better video support (along with video export) is pretty high on the wishlist. This was one of those things where we decided to respond directly to the wish for a video window for scoring, only to find that it opened an exciting new can of worms, replete with even more ambitious wishes.

[Anderton]

So, what I'm trying to say in too many words is that the future development of Live is hazy because it's not 100% in our hands. It's shared with our users, because they're the ones we're serving by building the software.

Come to think of it...you do public betas, correct? Does that ever influence features and such, or is it purely an exercise in squashing bugs of a pretty much frozen program? Just curious...

[amplayer]

Hi, all,
In any case, I find that the Amplitube 2 VST crashes in Live 6 (GR2 works fine). As long as Live isn't looping, I can play thru effects just fine, but if I try to loop or bring it up (after it has been minimized the first time); the program either freezes with a tone (cpu goes from 24% to 40 + and sometimes 100+ after the freeze) in the first case. In the second, I get either an "incompatible VST" from Live, or a run error ("Live has made an error and program must close, or the process stops - program disappears from Task Manager and the desktop).

I think this is an AT2 issue (ver. 2.1), since I have no problems with any other plug-in, but thought I'd throw this out to see if there are any others with this experience. AT2 is relatively recent, but so is my Live update (6.0.5) Also using Audio Kontrol 1 for an interface (but my UX1 did the same thing)...

(BTW, AT2 seems to work ok as a VST in Fruity Loops and Sonar 6, but I haven't tested them anywhere near as extensively as Live....)

I attempted to recreate your issue with Amplitube 2, but on my PC it works great in Live 6.0.5. I minimized and looped, etc., but didn't get any abnormal behavior. On my PC, I am using a MOTU 828 MKII for Live.
Since you tried with multiple hardware units, is it possible your latency settting in Live is too low?

[BuleriaChk]

I tried all latency settings, with the same results.....

FWIW, the standalone version of AT2.1 runs fine (with the absolute minimum latency), concurrently with Live; I just can't use the VST. I also tried single processor mode, which didn't help ether....

I attempted to recreate your issue with Amplitube 2, but on my PC it works great in Live 6.0.5. I minimized and looped, etc., but didn't get any abnormal behavior. On my PC, I am using a MOTU 828 MKII for Live.
Since you tried with multiple hardware units, is it possible your latency settting in Live is too low?

[Anderton]

I inserted AmpliTube 2 into some tracks, looped, minimized, maximized, dragged into effects slot while looping...it all works up to spec on a dual core Athlon and E-Mu 1820 interface.

[BuleriaChk]

Thanks for testing it for me. I've already re-installed AT2.1. I'll try to re-install Live 6.0.5 (is that what you were using? Come to think of it, it might have worked OK in a previous version, as I remember), and if not, I'll go to Plan B...C....D...E.....(sigh)....

[amplayer]

Thanks for testing it for me. I've already re-installed AT2.1. I'll try to re-install Live 6.0.5 (is that what you were using? Come to think of it, it might have worked OK in a previous version, as I remember), and if not, I'll go to Plan B...C....D...E.....(sigh)....

My succesful test was on Live 6.0.5 with a Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 on an ASUS P5B motherboard with 2 Gigabytes of RAM and Win XP Pro SP2.

Amplitube is version 2.1.0 build 6K16.
Under Amplitube Preferences, I am running Pre Oversampling and High Resolution, but not Stomps Oversampling or Amp Oversampling.

[amplayer]

Thanks for testing it for me. I've already re-installed AT2.1. I'll try to re-install Live 6.0.5 (is that what you were using? Come to think of it, it might have worked OK in a previous version, as I remember), and if not, I'll go to Plan B...C....D...E.....(sigh)....

As an aside, I also run Amplitube 2 on my Mac as well. Usually, I do this as a plug-in running in MOTU Digital Performer 5.11. In this scenario, there is 2 plugins available, one that is just mono, and another that is mono to stereo (i.e., it receives a mono input and converts its output to stereo).
Running the mono to stereo version of AT2 crashes DP. IK tech support has confirmed this is an issue with AT2 in DP. So, until IK fixes it, I can't use any stereo capabilities of AT2 in DP.
The reason I mention this is because I wanted to know if you've contacted IK about your issue in Live on a PC. If so, how did they respond?

[BuleriaChk]

AmPlayer-

Well, you have exactly the same hardware as I'm using (except E6700) on my mid-tower (which also crashes, but much less than the laptop), other than the interface. On my Laptop, I turned off all overampling in AT2, which improved the problem, but it eventually crashed (5 minutes vs 1 minute). I also shut off everything in MsConfig, but that didn't help at all..... Latency settings have had no discernable effect on the issue, nor did turning off unused inputs in Ableton.

BTW, I have contacted IK and they are working on it. In the standalone version, I only get the 4 mono outputs, no 1-2,3-4 stereo. However, I can get around this for performance by running two concurrent instances of Amplitube 2 (gives me the 4 channels separated into two outputs). So far, the configuration of 2xAT2, 1xLive6 seems to be working fine, so I have plenty of processor power for the AT2 configurations (1 amp, no effects).
Awkward, but at least usable for live performance......

BTW, in Live 6 turning on GR2 increases cpu from 6% to 12% (1 amp, no effects), but AT2 goes to 24% (1 amp, no effects)...

FWIW, I have confiured the Laptop for always high cpu usage (i.e., turned off speed step), and set everything I could find for max performance on AC (which is how I use it at gigs)...

Here's another indicator....

I find that the Stand-alone version of AT2 runs fine concurrently (but separately) from Live 6. My Audio Kontrol has 4 outputs, which can be configured as separate mono outputs, or as two stereo outputs.

However, the configuration menu (for Audio Kontrol 1) in a single instance AT2 only gives me access to 2separate outputs in the audio setup panel.

If I run two instances of AT2 (concurrently with Live 6), I find that if I set on instance of AT2 output to channel 1 qnd 2, and the second to channel 3 and 4, I get outputs on all 4 of my Audio Kontrol jacks (presumably ganged ini Stereo).

Ableton Live gives me the choice of 4 mono outputs, as well as two ganged stereo outputs (which is what I would expect from the Audio Kontrol Hardware configuration).

Nevertheless, this configuration is inconsistent, and may be the source problem, since the audio setup panels are different for each.



As an aside, I also run Amplitube 2 on my Mac as well. Usually, I do this as a plug-in running in MOTU Digital Performer 5.11. In this scenario, there is 2 plugins available, one that is just mono, and another that is mono to stereo (i.e., it receives a mono input and converts its output to stereo).
Running the mono to stereo version of AT2 crashes DP. IK tech support has confirmed this is an issue with AT2 in DP. So, until IK fixes it, I can't use any stereo capabilities of AT2 in DP.
The reason I mention this is because I wanted to know if you've contacted IK about your issue in Live on a PC. If so, how did they respond?

[amplayer]

Hmm. I almost bought the E6700, but the Asus P5B is a great overclocker, so I opted for the E6600. I am currently running the E6600 at 3.3 GHz with no overheating issues. I think the CPU could go much faster than that even, but my other components start kicking the bucket at speeds much higher than that.
If you have a good motherboard that allows changing frequencies, you might consider overclocking. It isn't for the faint of heart though.
Nevertheless, for running Live with multiple instances of AT2, overclocking could definitely help if your system can handle it.

WRT no stereo outputs available in AT2, that sounds like a limitation of the hardware. Have you contacted NI about that?
Is it possible a single version of AT2 can be used in a dual mono output scenario? I don't know if it's possible, but if so, that would certainly make your system behave better.
I think the 2 instances means you can't use any of the stereo features of AT2. Do you pan one instance Left and the other Right and create your own stereo space? Still, that means the AT2 built in stereo capabilities are of no use (like my own case with DP on the Mac), yes?

AmPlayer-

Well, you have exactly the same hardware as I'm using (except E6700) on my mid-tower (which also crashes, but much less than the laptop), other than the interface. On my Laptop, I turned off all overampling in AT2, which improved the problem, but it eventually crashed (5 minutes vs 1 minute). I also shut off everything in MsConfig, but that didn't help at all..... Latency settings have had no discernable effect on the issue, nor did turning off unused inputs in Ableton.

BTW, I have contacted IK and they are working on it. In the standalone version, I only get the 4 mono outputs, no 1-2,3-4 stereo. However, I can get around this for performance by running two concurrent instances of Amplitube 2 (gives me the 4 channels separated into two outputs). So far, the configuration of 2xAT2, 1xLive6 seems to be working fine, so I have plenty of processor power for the AT2 configurations (1 amp, no effects).
Awkward, but at least usable for live performance......

BTW, in Live 6 turning on GR2 increases cpu from 6% to 12% (1 amp, no effects), but AT2 goes to 24% (1 amp, no effects)...

FWIW, I have confiured the Laptop for always high cpu usage (i.e., turned off speed step), and set everything I could find for max performance on AC (which is how I use it at gigs)...

Here's another indicator....

I find that the Stand-alone version of AT2 runs fine concurrently (but separately) from Live 6. My Audio Kontrol has 4 outputs, which can be configured as separate mono outputs, or as two stereo outputs.

However, the configuration menu (for Audio Kontrol 1) in a single instance AT2 only gives me access to 2separate outputs in the audio setup panel.

If I run two instances of AT2 (concurrently with Live 6), I find that if I set on instance of AT2 output to channel 1 qnd 2, and the second to channel 3 and 4, I get outputs on all 4 of my Audio Kontrol jacks (presumably ganged ini Stereo).

Ableton Live gives me the choice of 4 mono outputs, as well as two ganged stereo outputs (which is what I would expect from the Audio Kontrol Hardware configuration).

Nevertheless, this configuration is inconsistent, and may be the source problem, since the audio setup panels are different for each.

[BuleriaChk]

I'm now doubting it is the configuration; GR2 acts the same way (I just tested it), and runs perfectly. Also, I tried single channel in/output (simplest possible configuration) in Live using AT2 and it crashed as usual.

In order to access the 4 outputs of the AK1, I using two send tracks, assigning them to ext. outs 1/2 and 3/4 respectively (two stereo outputs, center panned which gives me the same signal at all four output jacks). Again, this works just fine for GR2 at about 6% cpu)

And again, AT2 works fine unless I start looping Live (that is, the VST
doesn't crash until I turn on the looping).

FWIW, I've been toying with the idea of overclocking, but I don't really need it for the stuff I'm doing so crawl along at 2.53 Ghz. My mb is also a P5B deluxe, of course. (I'm just using a single amp model with no cabs or effects until I can get it to stop crashing..) Of course, the laptop mb doesn't lend itself to overclocking anyway, although duo core 2 gHz should handle a single Live/AT2 instance.... And it is primarily the laptop I'm working on, since its crash is so consistent.

I still don't have the full AT2/AK1 issues sorted out, and of course I am in contact with Ableton, NI, and IK on this issue. But because GR2 is rock solid for every configuration I've tried, I can't help thinking that it is an IK AT2 issue....

But I'm beginning to get in way above my skill set................:-)

Hmm. I almost bought the E6700, but the Asus P5B is a great overclocker, so I opted for the E6600. I am currently running the E6600 at 3.3 GHz with no overheating issues. I think the CPU could go much faster than that even, but my other components start kicking the bucket at speeds much higher than that.
If you have a good motherboard that allows changing frequencies, you might consider overclocking. It isn't for the faint of heart though.
Nevertheless, for running Live with multiple instances of AT2, overclocking could definitely help if your system can handle it.

WRT no stereo outputs available in AT2, that sounds like a limitation of the hardware. Have you contacted NI about that?
Is it possible a single version of AT2 can be used in a dual mono output scenario? I don't know if it's possible, but if so, that would certainly make your system behave better.
I think the 2 instances means you can't use any of the stereo features of AT2. Do you pan one instance Left and the other Right and create your own stereo space? Still, that means the AT2 built in stereo capabilities are of no use (like my own case with DP on the Mac), yes?

[dCross]

Come to think of it...you do public betas, correct? Does that ever influence features and such, or is it purely an exercise in squashing bugs of a pretty much frozen program? Just curious...
In theory, the Alpha and Beta tests should be for bug squashing, but the DJ community did manage to get crossfader curve controls added to Live 6 in the 11th hour. We snuck it in as a secret in Beta version 9 - it took about 4 hours until someone found it.

There were some really vicious threads about the lack of that feature when the beta initially came out, so the development team decided to undertake the very unusual task of adding a new feature during the beta phase. I talked with the developer who implemented the feature - he basically looked at some documentation on curve controls, opened up a leading DJ mixer with a voltmeter to get some readings, then translated them into mathematical equations that Live could interpret.

This is the exception to the rule, though. In the grand scheme of Live's software development, adding curve controls was simple, and could be implemented without 'breaking' anything in the interface. Most wishes are not as easy to fulfill :).

[amplayer]

Most wishes are not as easy to fulfill :).

I realize we users always want our cake and eat it too.

However, as I posted earlier, I am concerned about the frame rate selections for video. In Live, it appears to be 24 or 30 only. Can that be correct?
In the US, all video is at 29.97, not 30. Does Ableton mean 29.97, or is it really 30?

[Anderton]

As Live has evolved, it gets used for more and more different types of applications. Early on, you couldn’t add instruments, there were no MIDI effects, and processing was relatively primitive. But now, some people use Live as live performance signal processor and don’t even take advantage of the improvised looping options of Session View or the extensive editing of Arrangement view. For them, Live is more like the ultimate JamMan than, say, Pro Tools.

Conversely, with the addition of MIDI and instruments, some users got away from using digital audio for live performance, preferring instead the flexibility of MIDI recording/playback/processing. As these types of users exploited the capabilities of instruments, it became necessary to make the use of audio effects, MIDI effects, instruments, and combinations thereof more manageable. For example, if you had some favorite combination of MIDI effects, an instrument, and audio processing for that instrument, with early versions you had to load up all those modules individually each time you created a new project.

Racks are designed to streamline the process of loading specific sets of devices, as well as open up the option for parallel processing – something most DAWs won’t do easily (with the exception of Mackie’s Tracktion, whose “rack” concept was always ahead of the pack – credit where credit is due).

Another aspect of Live’s racks is the element of control. This resembles the Synth Rack option in Sonar or Reason’s Combinator, as you can link specific parameters to controls on a sort of “virtual control surface.” With Live, each rack can have eight macros where you bring out strategic controls for easy manipulation; what’s a bigger deal, though, is that a control can affect multiple parameters. For example, you could have a “MegaDelay” control that increased delay feedback and amount simultaneously, while adding more upper midrange to the sound so it cuts more.

The picture shows macro mapping in action. The rack has been put into Map Mode, where mappable controls have a greenish overlay; all you need to do is click on the control you want to map, then click on the “map” button associated with a macro control.

Above the macros, there’s a list of which parameters are associated with which macros; Macro 1 affects two parameters. Also note that you can set a minimum and maximum value for each macro. This is great with hardware controllers, as you can use the full throw of a fader or rotary control to cover a limited range of a parameter (this way, you don’t go into uncontrolled resonance or delay feedback territory if you don’t want to).

[Anderton]

The whole rack thing is actually extremely deep. It not only covers what’s mentioned above, but can also be used to create splits and layers for keyboard instruments. In this respect, Live can now be a “command center” for soft synths that has nothing to do with sequencing or looping, and is instead all about MIDI control and routing. I think some could even argue persuasively that Live is a useful adjunct to any MIDI master controller.

There are a couple different ways to create a rack. The easiest option is to go to the browser for Live devices, as shown in the first picture; you’ll find an Instrument rack, MIDI rack, and Audio rack as the first listing under each of their respective categories. Just drag a rack into the Track view, and the rack is ready to populate.

The second picture shows a rack in the process of construction. From left to right, there’s the Macro controls section, followed by the Chain list. This shows all of the parallel chains in the rack; in this case, there’s only one chain. Note the buttons for Key and Velocity – these access the MIDI filtering options that allow only certain keyranges or velocity values to “make it through” the rack to the output. Continuing to the right, there’s a MIDI processor (the Scale effect) and then Simpler, loaded with a plucked guitar waveform. Out of view to the right is an audio delay effect that follows Simpler.

[Anderton]

The Key and Velocity mapping relate to traditional keyboard zones. There are also Chain selections you can do, but let’s keep things simple for now and deal with only one chain. Note that you can select which zone to show, or none if you want to save screen space.

The picture shows a key zone, where you can restrict notes based on pitch. This works like most samplers, in that the zone has handles you can drag to set the upper and lower limits. But also note above the zone, there’s a smaller strip. This can be dragged to create key and velocity fades…nice.

An obvious use for key zones would be to load up two chains, one with a bass instrument and one with a a melody instrument, then set up zones for each chain so the lower notes go the bass and the upper notes to the melody instrument.

A less obvious use is that zones make a great live performance option! You can create a MIDI sequence that covers a wide pitch range, then alter the high and low limits to “thin out” the sequence. When applied to drums, the kick drum is often a lower note; if you change the key zone so the lower limit sits above that note, you have the ultimate DJ “kill” switch for the kick – no EQ required.

Ah, but there’s a catch: You cannot automate, nor record, these changes; it’s for live performance only.

[dCross]

1) For video, the manual says it can do 30 FPS, and does not mention anything about 29.97 FPS. Is that correct? Do they really mean 29.97 even though they say 30, or is it really 30? This is a deal breaker for me since all film and TV projects I work on are 29.97, not 30.
I'm working on getting you an official response from our support team - have you tried it out for yourself?


2) I use it on a Mac and also on a PC. I don't know why, but it opens ridiculously fast on the Mac (about 6 or 7 seconds from launch to fully open), but takes more than twice that time on my PC even though my PC uses a faster disk and has faster processors. Has this been your experience as well?
Here's a response from some of my colleagues in the support team:
That could be due to a lot of different things, including hardware
interactions, power saving settings, and also:
-audio driver takes longer to load
-Preferences files got 'corrupted'
-some plugin (code is different on MAc and PC, including for 3rd party
companies), even a non-used plugin (not so likely but..)
etc...
-Windows XP cracked up by years of use/too many software installs/dirty
registry... (can happen on a Mac too :) )

In short: hard to say with so little info


3) Have you used it much as a rewire slave? I'm thinking of using Live as a rewire slave, but I'm concerned that it may not follow meter changes. I'm hoping Live is like Reason in this aspect: That is, even though its own sequencer can't understand meter changes, it will still correctly follow a host application that implements meter changes. This should be easy for me to test as well, but I just haven't gotten that far with Live yet.

Response from Support:
Live has difficulties to follow time signature changes at it is not
supported, but the feature is at the top of our head and at the top of
the feature wishlist.

Edit: I discoverd by RTFM that Live can only receive MIDI and output Audio when it is a rewire slave. In general, the Live manual is very thin regarding rewire mode, so I'm not 100% sure of this. However, it appears my dream of being able to send audio to Live from my host app and then process it in Live and send back to the host app is apparently not possible. If somebody from Ableton would like to comment on this, I'd really appreciate it.
I'm not 100% sure, but I believe these limitations may have more to do with the Rewire specification than with Live. Have you tried it out for yourself?

[dCross]

Ah, but there’s a catch: You cannot automate, nor record, these changes; it’s for live performance only.

I assume you mean you cannot automate or record these changes into Session View? My Macro Knob movements record perfectly fine as automation in Arrangement View.

[BuleriaChk]

I think I may have found the issue for this Live crash. I think there may have been two interacting settings (my disk speed is 5400 rpm).

1. The Plug-in buffer size in Preferences/cpu was set to 128 (although I had tried them all.
2. The "Default SR and pitch conversion" in Preferences/Audio was set to "High Quality"

I re-set:

1. to "as audio" (I don't know what it was when I upgraded)
2. to "normal" and turned off "Hi-Q" in all my .wav loops and samples.....

It has run for 10 minutes now, which is some kind of record.....:-) The only issue is an occasional distortion on one of the bass samples.. I may try reloading them in Impulse to see if that helps....

cpu is down to 10% which is comparable to GR2.......

Best Regards,

Chuck


I'm now doubting it is the configuration; GR2 acts the same way (I just tested it), and runs perfectly. Also, I tried single channel in/output (simplest possible configuration) in Live using AT2 and it crashed as usual.

In order to access the 4 outputs of the AK1, I using two send tracks, assigning them to ext. outs 1/2 and 3/4 respectively (two stereo outputs, center panned which gives me the same signal at all four output jacks). Again, this works just fine for GR2 at about 6% cpu)

And again, AT2 works fine unless I start looping Live (that is, the VST
doesn't crash until I turn on the looping).

FWIW, I've been toying with the idea of overclocking, but I don't really need it for the stuff I'm doing so crawl along at 2.53 Ghz. My mb is also a P5B deluxe, of course. (I'm just using a single amp model with no cabs or effects until I can get it to stop crashing..) Of course, the laptop mb doesn't lend itself to overclocking anyway, although duo core 2 gHz should handle a single Live/AT2 instance.... And it is primarily the laptop I'm working on, since its crash is so consistent.

I still don't have the full AT2/AK1 issues sorted out, and of course I am in contact with Ableton, NI, and IK on this issue. But because GR2 is rock solid for every configuration I've tried, I can't help thinking that it is an IK AT2 issue....

But I'm beginning to get in way above my skill set................:-)

[Anderton]

I assume you mean you cannot automate or record these changes into Session View? My Macro Knob movements record perfectly fine as automation in Arrangement View.

Automating Macro knob movements work great, no problem there. I was referring to editing the Key Zones themselves (moving the high end down, low end up, etc.). They aren't shaded and while I tried getting them to bind to the macro controls, I couldn't. Nor could I bind then to standard MIDI automation (if I'm missing something, let me know). I realize that setting keyboard splits/zones is generally not considered a live performance gesture :) but thanks to Live 6, I found out it could be...

But this got me thinking: Time for a new MIDI effect called "The Zone Ranger." It would have two parameters, Lowest Note and Highest Note. Only notes within the range would pass through the effect, and the parameters could be automated to do the sort of thing I was trying to do with the Zone handles. Make sense?

All I can say is try doing what I described with the Key Zone upper and lower limits while a MIDI sequence (with a fairly wide range of notes) is playing, and I think you'll see what I mean about this being a really musically useful effect!

[Anderton]

Chuck -- one other thing about Live and laptops -- when performing, I convert all my clips to RAM clips (I typically use 20-40 relatively short loops). This makes all the difference in the world with a 5400 RPM drive. If I keep them all as streaming clips, there tends to be sputtering/dropouts that wouldn't happen with a higher speed drive.

Since doing that, Live has NEVER hiccupped -- not even once -- during a show.

[dCross]

I realize we users always want our cake and eat it too.

However, as I posted earlier, I am concerned about the frame rate selections for video. In Live, it appears to be 24 or 30 only. Can that be correct?
In the US, all video is at 29.97, not 30. Does Ableton mean 29.97, or is it really 30?

Are you talking about Live's ability to slave to SMPTE code?

In Live, you can choose between MIDI Timecodes:

24 FPS
25 FPS
30 FPS drop
30 FPS non drop
and "all".

"all" means:
When the Rate is set to "all", Live will auto-detect the Timecode format of incoming sync messages and interpret the messages accordingly.

According to this, 29.97 FPS should be OK as MIDI timecode master and interpreted correctly by Live.

[dCross]

Automating Macro knob movements work great, no problem there. I was referring to editing the Key Zones themselves (moving the high end down, low end up, etc.). They aren't shaded and while I tried getting them to bind to the macro controls, I couldn't. Nor could I bind then to standard MIDI automation (if I'm missing something, let me know). I realize that setting keyboard splits/zones is generally not considered a live performance gesture :) but thanks to Live 6, I found out it could be...

Whoo boy, MIDI mapping of the key zones themselves..... I think the developers would suggest you simply use the chain selector if you want MIDI control over chains and chain ranges, but I'm not 100% sure.


But this got me thinking: Time for a new MIDI effect called "The Zone Ranger." It would have two parameters, Lowest Note and Highest Note. Only notes within the range would pass through the effect, and the parameters could be automated to do the sort of thing I was trying to do with the Zone handles. Make sense?

Hrm, I'm wondering if a chain of multi-mapped Ableton MIDI effects could accomplish the functionality you're looking for.

[Anderton]

Whoo boy, MIDI mapping of the key zones themselves..... I think the developers would suggest you simply use the chain selector if you want MIDI control over chains and chain ranges, but I'm not 100% sure.

That would work, it would be more precise but less spontaneous. I like the whole real-time tweaking aspect of moving the handles. But then again, I like working the Solo switch into my live act. Color me weird.

Hrm, I'm wondering if a chain of multi-mapped Ableton MIDI effects could accomplish the functionality you're looking for.

I'll check that out tonight. I'm stuck in a hotel room in Newark, NJ until Monday morning...my flight for today was canceled due to the big east coast snow storm, and I have nothing better to do than play with Live 6 :) Which makes me really glad I loaded it onto my laptop before taking this trip!

[amplayer]

What I meant is the ability of Live to import a Quicktime movie, not slave to external timecode. I read the instructions in the Live manual, and it seems to indicate that setting the movie as the master makes the movie run at its own rate, (which would normally be 29.97 for me), and the audio would then be a slave to that rate.
If my above statement is correct, it should work.

However, even if that does work, in order to actually use Live for scoring to picture, I have a couple other concerns:
1) Since there is no way to view the timecode in Live as 29.97, there's no way in Live to tell where you are with respect to movie time (SMPTE timecode). Is this correct?
2) I believe the only start time allowable is 00:00:00:00. For TV and movie work, many Quicktime movies have burn in timecode, and they almost always start at 01:00:00:00 or higher. If I am correct about this, it means that even if number 1 above were solved, there still isn't any way to make the live view of the SMPTE timecode match the burned in timecode in the Quicktime movie.

Even though it sounds like I'm moaning and complaining, I am really just hoping to use Live for my own moving scoring purposes. The fact that Live is so intuitive and ridiculously fast and responsive (especially for loops) makes it very nice for writing as a studio tool. Plus, the instrument and effects racks in Live are just incredibly useful; This is a feature totally lacking in my ... other DAW software.

Are you talking about Live's ability to slave to SMPTE code?

In Live, you can choose between MIDI Timecodes:

24 FPS
25 FPS
30 FPS drop
30 FPS non drop
and "all".

"all" means:
When the Rate is set to "all", Live will auto-detect the Timecode format of incoming sync messages and interpret the messages accordingly.

According to this, 29.97 FPS should be OK as MIDI timecode master and interpreted correctly by Live.

[SYN]

Yep, I've seen this wish many times in our forums and in talking with users. I believe that this and similar requests in arrangement (ie: easy crossfades) rank quite high on our internal wishlist for future versions of Live. I can't make any promises that the feature will be in version X of Live, but "it's high on the wishlist" is usually a good indicator that it's a big glaring dot on our radar.

I mentioned this to one of your sound designers. I agreed with him that it wasn't a huge priority, but that it certainly wouldn't hurt adding it somewhere down the line. I wasn't aware there was an audience for this topic before mentioning my concerns... :confused: Along with this was the wish for automation quantization where rubber band points would snap to a specified note value as you recorded movements. (personal bias: this is where line automation has an advantage)

Other than that I can't harp a bit. :love:

[Furly]

You go guys.
Interesting to read the knowledgeable interaction.
When code topics appear, that's precisely the kind of thing that scared me away from Pro Tools and other platforms, and led me to Live.
Whether it's a DAW or not doesn't concern me. After all, there aren't regulatory comittees that decide if a product can be called a digital audio workstation. (Whatever that is)
Having said that, I am truly glad that cats like you exist. Without you I would not be having so much fun with this amazing software.
The beauty of Ableton Live is how individuals make it work for them.
Even a lowly, incoherent bass player like myself can make music with it (I'm pretty sure it's music). The times I'm forced to use Pro Tools I don't feel nearly as free, so I find myself converting more and more files just to maintain my right to freedom.
The only technological hiccup is the problem with changing time signatures,
but I am confident that you guys will collectively get around to this one. It would certainly be good news to those poor souls that are writing music to picture.

[amplayer]

You go guys.
The only technological hiccup is the problem with changing time signatures,


Well I hope they address the time signature issue at a future time, but I can certainly see why it isn't a feature right now. I think the way Live's Session view works would make changing time signatures very difficult. Somebody from Ableton can feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.


It would certainly be good news to those poor souls that are writing music to picture.

Writing to picture is GREAT. To me, it is the people who DON'T get to write to picture that are the poor souls.

[Still Life]

Well I think the balance has been handled very well, actually; you can pretty much ignore what doesn't apply to you.

Personally, I think the "DAW" issue is a little silly, but I felt I needed to cover it :) The real question is whether Live represents a valuable tool for making music, and if so, is it unique -- because if it isn't, why would you need a separate program? I think it qualifies on both counts.

I think the people who complain too much would have been unhappy when the 12-string guitar was invented -- "So is it a guitar or not?" And of course, the answer is, it's a somewhat different and unique take on the guitar.

Bottom line: Those who feel Live is not "DAW" enough should get a DAW too! No law says you can't have a pickup truck and a sports car. Those who feel it's too "DAWish" should simply ignore the features they don't like -- stick in Session View, don't mess with the configurable mixer, and you have all the basics of Live.



I'm fond of saying that Live is a musical instrument disguised as a piece of software. I still feel that way. Although quite a few people see Live as a DAW, I just don't get that viewpoint. Just because it CAN be used like a DAW doesn't mean, at least to me, that's the best way to use the program. You can also use an Alfa Romeo to go to the supermarket, but I don't think that's the reason why Alfa Romeos were invented.



Mr Anderton,

Just as you are struggling to understand those who want to know if "Live is a DAW" or not, I find it hard to follow your logic (pun unintended) here. For me, just wanting to know if it can be used as a DAW doesn't mean that's the only, or even the best, use for the program I can think of. And no, not everybody can afford to buy both an Alfa Romeo and a pick-up truck, and not everybody has enough time to learn to use both Live and Sonar - and often Traktor, too. Instead, there are many of us who are just as excited about Live's unique approach as you are, but who still need to know if their music-making would be hindered by their choice of Live as their DAW - as their only DAW, that is. Indeed, there are many of us who are really excited about the prospect of buying and learning just one piece of software instead of three. I don't know how they do it, but it seems, increasingly, that Ableton really are pulling that off! And they're pulling it off without losing the live feel.

Still, I want to resist the temptation to push the symmetry here as far as calling your remarks "silly". Instead, I'd like to ask you to withdraw your judgment as to how silly we are. And I'd like thank you for all these great reviews (you may have heard this before...).

[simple]

Mr Anderton,

Just as you are struggling to understand those who want to know if "Live is a DAW" or not, I find it hard to follow your logic (pun unintended) here. For me, just wanting to know if it can be used as a DAW doesn't mean that's the only, or even the best, use for the program I can think of. And no, not everybody can afford to buy both an Alfa Romeo and a pick-up truck, and not everybody has enough time to learn to use both Live and Sonar - and often Traktor, too. Instead, there are many of us who are just as excited about Live's unique approach as you are, but who still need to know if their music-making would be hindered by their choice of Live as their DAW - as their only DAW, that is. Indeed, there are many of us who are really excited about the prospect of buying and learning just one piece of software instead of three. I don't know how they do it, but it seems, increasingly, that Ableton really are pulling that off! And they're pulling it off without losing the live feel.

Still, I want to resist the temptation to push the symmetry here as far as calling your remarks "silly". Instead, I'd like to ask you to withdraw your judgment as to how silly we are. And I'd like thank you for all these great reviews (you may have heard this before...).I agree. I have found the need to really simplify in order to focus on being a musician instead of getting too caught up with learning a bunch of programs. I am hoping that Live can do that for me (help me simplify).

I really want to have one program for recording and performance that is very intuitive – and that you can make sound just as good as any other dedicated DAW software.

[amplayer]

I'd love that too. However, "simple and intuitive" is an opposite goal of "making sound as good as any other DAW". The more features we users force Ableton to throw into Live, the more it will become a big bloated program, and probably with a steeper learning curve.

Actually, typing up this response made me realize something:
As much as I would love for Ableton to REALLY support scoring to picture, I am willing to give that up in order to keep Live fast. I simply LOVE the fact that Live boots up in just a few seconds. If Live becomes so full of features that it can't boot up and run so quickly, it loses one of its best features IMHO.

So, to the Ableton developers and marketers: Please give me my cake and eat it too. However, if that means Live doesn't boot up and run way faster than my "DAW" software, please don't.

P. S. Now that the Messe is over, I hope this thread comes back to life...

I really want to have one program for recording and performance that is very intuitive – and that you can make sound just as good as any other dedicated DAW software.

[simple]

I'd love that too. However, "simple and intuitive" is an opposite goal of "making sound as good as any other DAW". The more features we users force Ableton to throw into Live, the more it will become a big bloated program, and probably with a steeper learning curve.



I don't agree on simple and intuitive" being an opposite goal of "making sound as good as any other DAW". Ideally, you could accomplish both. It's not about having every feature under the sun in there. Instead, it needs to remain as streamlined and as easy as possible throughout the entire process - while providing all of the essential things needed for getting the best sound possible (and providing all of those essential things in a more intuitive way than other software to lessen the learning curve). So, I agree with you about avoiding it becoming a bloated program.

The other focus needs to be on efficient use of resources (e.g., CPU). Live definitely is more of a resource hog than other DAWs - and it understandable considering the way it is processing audio. However, it would be nice to have an easy way to switch to an "efficient" mode that is more in line with other DAW when you want to focus on pure recording rather than performance.

[Furly]

Not sure what software you're using that is gobbling up CPU in Live, but my experience is dramatically the opposite, at least compared to Pro Tools LE with the same firewire interface. With the track freeze capability, I can have numerous instances of VST midi. Audio taxation is nominal at best. One of the reasons it's my 'go to' platform. Now there is certain software, i.e., NI Kontakt etc., that can have a rather ravenous appetite. One piano can do you in. Lately I convert/commit to audio more and more, less options seem to be a good way for me to stay focused on the music and not the gizmos. But we all approach this differently, that's sort of the beauty of it, and makes these forums educating.

[Anderton]

Now that the Messe is over, I hope this thread comes back to life...

It will indeed. I've had a run of issues lately: Being stranded on the east coast because of that snow storm of a few weeks ago, which impacted my getting ready for Messe, then being at Messe, then catching the flu and sitting here with a fever acting stupid...I'm functioning at about 25% capacity. Apologies to all concerned for letting this slack off, but the one nice thing about a Pro Review is once it picks up again, word will get out and we'll be back up to speed.

[Anderton]

Just as you are struggling to understand those who want to know if "Live is a DAW" or not, I find it hard to follow your logic (pun unintended) here. For me, just wanting to know if it can be used as a DAW doesn't mean that's the only, or even the best, use for the program I can think of. And no, not everybody can afford to buy both an Alfa Romeo and a pick-up truck, and not everybody has enough time to learn to use both Live and Sonar - and often Traktor, too. Instead, there are many of us who are just as excited about Live's unique approach as you are, but who still need to know if their music-making would be hindered by their choice of Live as their DAW - as their only DAW, that is. Indeed, there are many of us who are really excited about the prospect of buying and learning just one piece of software instead of three. I don't know how they do it, but it seems, increasingly, that Ableton really are pulling that off! And they're pulling it off without losing the live feel.

Still, I want to resist the temptation to push the symmetry here as far as calling your remarks "silly". Instead, I'd like to ask you to withdraw your judgment as to how silly we are. And I'd like thank you for all these great reviews (you may have heard this before...).

Point taken! I understand completely that it would be really nice to be able to use just one piece of software to take care of all your needs. But "your" needs and "my" needs are quite different, probably. For example, some people are really pushing on Ableton to include notation, but I almost never need to use notation. Conversely, I need a DAW that allows me to edit Acidized files because I create sample libraries, so Live won't work for me as a DAW as well as Sonar or Acid (which also runs into the "Well, is it a DAW or not? question...and the answer there is also "maybe").

I think most "power DAW users" probably have some favorite feature that Live may or may not have. There are several features I use in Sonar that Live simply doesn't have. BUT that doesn't mean Live can't be a great DAW for those who don't need those admittedly esoteric features. Make sense?

I would say the bottom line is that whether Live would be a "great DAW" or not depends upon exactly what you need from a DAW. For many people, Live will be enough or even more than enough.

But that holds true of the "hardcore" DAWs as well. For example, think of how many people use and love Pro Tools; but it lacks a few tools that are essential for me. That doesn't mean Pro Tools isn't a good DAW :), that simply means it isn't a good DAW for my particular needs, which are admittedly not the same as everyone else.

[Anderton]

Actually, typing up this response made me realize something:
As much as I would love for Ableton to REALLY support scoring to picture, I am willing to give that up in order to keep Live fast. I simply LOVE the fact that Live boots up in just a few seconds. If Live becomes so full of features that it can't boot up and run so quickly, it loses one of its best features IMHO.

So, to the Ableton developers and marketers: Please give me my cake and eat it too. However, if that means Live doesn't boot up and run way faster than my "DAW" software, please don't.

I'm with you. I think it's really to Ableton's credit that they've been able to push Live into an ever-more evolved program without losing what made it so cool in the first place. Every time they mention some major upcoming change I'm afraid they're going to blow it, but they never do.

I will say one thing with absolute certainty: I wouldn't have used Live 1.0 as a DAW. But if all DAWs mysteriously disappeared tomorrow and all I had was Live 6, I could make music just fine.

What I'd really like to see is a "modular" DAW where you could have an "a la carte" approach (I know I'm dreaming). In other words, if you wanted video, you could install the "video" module with a video window, sync capabilities, the ability to lock events to time code, etc. On the other hand if you didn't do video, you could just forget about it and benefit from a faster program. I assume this would be hell from a coding standpoint, but wouldn't it be cool? "I'll take the Acidized file editing module, please."

[10101]

Point taken! I understand completely that it would be really nice to be able to use just one piece of software to take care of all your needs. But "your" needs and "my" needs are quite different, probably.

Yes, of course, but what I tried to say was mainly that there are two different ways of taking the "Is it a DAW?" question:

1) Is it officially a DAW? Does it satisfy the conditions enumerated in the UN charter on DAW features?

2) Can you please tell the your readers what features Live lacks and the other DAWs have that you think might be very important when using Live as a DAW?

Question 1 is a parody, of course, but it seems to me that something like this must be behind calling the DAW question a silly one.

In my earlier post I wanted to suggest that what people mean when they ask the DAW question is something along the lines of Question 2 here. And this is a legitimate question, not a silly one. What I should have added is that in your review you already covered this question very well indeed (e.g. no possibility to group faders, no event list, the acidization issue, etc.). Thanks for that. Now I, for example, can decide if Live is enough of a DAW for just my needs. (I think it is! I really think the event list, for instance, should be added in a future update, but I would not pay hundreds of pounds and waste countless hours just for that and a couple of other features.)

So my point was that the DAW question is a silly one only if interpreted in a silly way.

Thanks for taking the time to answer.

[amplayer]

Yes, of course, but what I tried to say was mainly that there are two different ways of taking the "Is it a DAW?" question:

1) Is it officially a DAW? Does it satisfy the conditions enumerated in the UN charter on DAW features?

2) Can you please tell the your readers what features Live lacks and the other DAWs have that you think might be very important when using Live as a DAW?

Question 1 is a parody, of course, but something like that seems to me be what must be behind calling the DAW question silly.

In my earlier post I wanted to suggest that what people mean when they ask the DAW question is something along the lines of Question 2 here. And this is a legitimate question, not a silly one. What I should have added is that in your review you already covered this question very well indeed (e.g. no possibility to group faders, no event list, the acidization issue, etc.). Thanks for that. Now I, for example, can decide if Live is enough of a DAW for just my needs. (I think it is! I really think the event list, for instance, should be added in a future update, but I would not pay hundreds of pounds and waste countless hours just for that and a couple of other features.)

So my point was that the DAW question is a silly one only if interpreted in a silly way.

Thanks for taking the time to answer.

I'm sure Craig can answer this better than I can. Nevertheless, my own observation about the DAWness of Live is that if you don't need the following 2 features, Live will work well as a replacement for other DAW software:
1) Meter Changes
2) Extensive scoring to picture

[OvertoneZero]

It's like taking a cross-country road trip: we may be driving the car, and we may have a good idea of which road to take, but if you see something cool, or need to take a pit stop, we're happy to stretch our legs and take in the sights you guide us towards :)


Hello David. Let me start off by saying that I am a huge fan of Ableton Live and have been using the program since version 1. Like Craig, the magic of Live grabbed me right away and was an epiphany of tool-discovery.

I'm probably more in the 'ultimate JamMan' section of the userbase, but I love the flexibility of Live and the ability to take a collection of clips and scenes assembled in Session view and form them into a linear piece using the Arrangement view. Many of the changes and improvements to Live have added depth and flexibility to the tool and features such as MIDI support, automation, racks, etc are all extremely useful.

Having said that, there are a few features that I am personally very interested in seeing incorporated into Live. I'm curious if you have any idea whether or not these features are a part of the priority 'Wishlist' for future development. These features have continuity with what I sort of understood the 'original concept' of Live to be: an extremely flexible loop-based performance and creation instrument focused on manipulating audio samples.

1 - Audio Overdubbing. Currently, you can overdub MIDI to MIDI clips, but you cannot overdub audio. This is limiting. An overdub recording mode for audio clips would add flexibility to Live as a loop-based composition tool.

There are a number of plug-ins that allow users to approximate this approach with varying degrees of functionality; however, none of the solutions currently available offer the simplicity and efficiency of workflow that this enhancement would provide.

2 - Setting Master Tempo via an Audio clip. It would be great if you could set Live's master tempo based on the tempo of a master audio clip. For example, you could begin recording a clip, play a two-bar phrase in 4/4, and enter playback mode. Live would then calculate the master tempo based on the something like 'master clip tempo mode settings', which would in this case be set to 2 bars 4/4.

Thanks! :thu:

[simple]

I am considering Mackie Tracktion for what looks to be a very simple and straightforward program for recording, that offers a lot at a great price. I am wondering what opinion people have on this software compared to Live.

It may make sense to have them both (because the performance aspect of Live doesn’t exist within Tracktion). But what about for just pure composing and recording – how do you think they compare?

[dCross]

Responses (and more questions) from Ableton developer Stefan Haller:

What I meant is the ability of Live to import a Quicktime movie, not slave to external timecode. I read the instructions in the Live manual, and it seems to indicate that setting the movie as the master makes the movie run at its own rate, (which would normally be 29.97 for me), and the audio would then be a slave to that rate.
If my above statement is correct, it should work.
That's correct; if the clip is set to "Master", it plays in real time (by adjusting the song tempo so that it is exactly inverse to the clip's warp markers). This has nothing to do with the clip's frame rate or timecode though; it also works for mere audio clips.

1) Since there is no way to view the timecode in Live as 29.97, there's no way in Live to tell where you are with respect to movie time (SMPTE timecode). Is this correct?
Do you really need 29.97 non-dropframe? If I understood it correctly, that's the format where the video's time code runs out of sync with the real time, i.e. at time code 01:00:00:00 the elapsed real time is one hour, 3 seconds, 18 frames. As far as I could tell from browsing the web, this format is only used for short TV commercials that are less than one minute. Do you think we need to support it?

For longer videos in NTSC you most probably want "30 drop-frame" as your time code format.

2) I believe the only start time allowable is 00:00:00:00. For TV and movie work, many Quicktime movies have burn in timecode, and they almost always start at 01:00:00:00 or higher. If I am correct about this, it means that even if number 1 above were solved, there still isn't any way to make the live view of the SMPTE timecode match the burned in timecode in the Quicktime movie.
That's a problem that we have on our list of things to do, but it's not easy to solve. Would it be good enough for you if we just offer an option to enter an offset for the time code for the whole arrangement?
What if there is more than one video clip in the song?

Do you only care about the time ruler in the arrangement, or also about the one in the clip view?

[dCross]

Hey Zero - thanks for the kind words :)

1 - Audio Overdubbing. Currently, you can overdub MIDI to MIDI clips, but you cannot overdub audio. This is limiting. An overdub recording mode for audio clips would add flexibility to Live as a loop-based composition tool.

I don't think it's very high on the list, but it brings up an interesting question: why do you need overdubbing when you could simply create another audio clip of the same length in another track? Is overdubbing a limitation, or is it not?

2 - Setting Master Tempo via an Audio clip. It would be great if you could set Live's master tempo based on the tempo of a master audio clip. For example, you could begin recording a clip, play a two-bar phrase in 4/4, and enter playback mode. Live would then calculate the master tempo based on the something like 'master clip tempo mode settings', which would in this case be set to 2 bars 4/4.
There is a way in Live 6 to have the an audio clip dictate a project's tempo, by using the [master] function inside of arrangement view. If I'm understanding your wish correctly, I believe that the wish for master clips in Session view may help fulfill this particular wish. That wish is pretty high on our list :)

[amplayer]

Hello. Thanks for the responses. Please see my comments below.

Responses (and more questions) from Ableton developer Stefan Haller:
Do you really need 29.97 non-dropframe? If I understood it correctly, that's the format where the video's time code runs out of sync with the real time, i.e. at time code 01:00:00:00 the elapsed real time is one hour, 3 seconds, 18 frames. As far as I could tell from browsing the web, this format is only used for short TV commercials that are less than one minute. Do you think we need to support it?

29.97 dropframe AND non-dropframe are both required for general video composition in the USA. It is true that non-drop means real time does not match SMPTE time, but non-drop is still used for videos encoded by people in the film industry. In film, there isn't a requirement to have SMPTE match real time. Also, for commercials, it's so short that non-drop is more convenient because you don't have video long enough to drop frames anyways. By the way, I think that Live has the potential to be an EXCELLENT choice for composing music for commercials.


For longer videos in NTSC you most probably want "30 drop-frame" as your time code format.

30 Frames per second is not used for most professional video in the USA. I would still like you to support 30 fps in addition to 29.97 if possible though.


Would it be good enough for you if we just offer an option to enter an offset for the time code for the whole arrangement?
What if there is more than one video clip in the song?

An offset is essentially the way my "other DAW" software does it. In MOTU DP, you set the start frame of the video. I personally don't work with more than one video per session. I think that app is more for people creating collages and slide shows, etc. Thus, an offset would be great for me, but may not be good enough for the other user types you mention.

Do you only care about the time ruler in the arrangement, or also about the one in the clip view?

Only supporting it in the arrangement would be acceptable to me.


Please note that support for video composition is a "nice to have" in my opinion. Composers for video have LOTS of software anyways. For me, I can still use Live for video even if you do nothing else to support it. What your current support level means is that Live becomes a starting point for creating grooves, etc., but that the project has to go into a different sequencer before it is done. That is acceptable.

[OvertoneZero]

Thanks for getting back with me on this stuff.

Hey Zero - thanks for the kind words :)
I don't think it's very high on the list, but it brings up an interesting question: why do you need overdubbing when you could simply create another audio clip of the same length in another track? Is overdubbing a limitation, or is it not?



Well, here are the things I generally run into:


1 - A lot of the loops I want to record have phrasing that 'starts' before the first beat of the loop cycle. They have a pickup beat.

If I record a clip beginning on the one, the 'beginning' (which is actually on the last beat of bar 4 of a 4-bar loop) of the loop gets chopped off because I play this part of the phrase before the clip record begins. You might argue that the pickup should be played at the end of the loop, but the reality is that often the dynamics, timing, etc of the performance of a phrase will be such that the end does not match the beginning and hence the transition from the pickup to beat one sounds abrupt, bumped, or clipped.


Time is horizontal:

Loop:[4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3]
Cycle : {1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4}

I want to play the looped phrase from the beginning [ when I record; I want to play the loop as I hear it. Recording begins on beat 1 of the 'loop cycle'.



It would be nice to be able to record a clip of the correct loop cycle length, turn on overdub mode, and then record the audio in real-time exactly as you would like to hear it within the loop cycle, exit overdub mode, and voila, your freshly-recorded overdub is playing.

To record a loop like this now, I believe that you need to pad the beginning of a clip with by entering record mode and then essentially recording nothing for the length of an entire loop cycle (say 4 bars per our example, but could be much longer) before you begin playing the actual content of your loop, then after you've finished recording, you need to move the loop start marker for the clip forward to the beginning of the actual loop content (before the pickup) to remove all of the padding time and set the loop length to the correct value. Then, once you have trimmed the loop, you then need to trigger clip playback at the appropriate time.

You could pad your loop with a length of time shorter than the full length of the actual loop cycle, but then you would be recording your audio in a different relative place within the 'loop continuum' than it will occupy once you complete recording the loop, trim the loop, and trigger playback at the correct time.




You might say that this padding approach takes just as long as recording a clip of the appropriate length and then overdubbing, but there are three differences:

A - What if you flub it? You need to re-record the whole thing WITH the pad time. If you had overdub mode, you could simply Undo the overdub, go back into overdub mode, and start recording the 'substance' of your loop again immediately in real-time exactly as you would like it to be placed within the loop cycle.

B - You can't go from recording directly into playback for a loop played with a pickup. You need to stop the clip, trim the clip, and then trigger playback at the appropriate time within the 'loop continuum'.

C - You need to use the mouse to drag the loop start marker to the correct place in the clip. Overdub mode could be triggered via a MIDI footpedal or
equivalent.



2 - What if I want to record a loop that 'bleeds' back into its own beginning? This is frequently desirable when creating an 'ambient' type of loop.


Say I have some guitar feedback I want to record that spans 6 bars of time, but I want to loop the first 4 bars and then have the last 2 bars overdubbed onto the first 2 bars of the loop. If there was an overdub mode, you could record your four bar clip (create the clip), trigger playback, but instead of just playing the clip back, the clip would go right into overdub recording mode, allowing you to continuously record the final 2 bars of your 6-bar feedback phrase over the first 2 bars of the loop.

# 1 and # 2 can both be accomplished by using long delays, but I don't want to have to use a delay or looper plug-in, because this means I need to record my audio with the plug-in and then resample it as a clip in Live. I want to be able to execute the operations described in #1 and #2 as seamlessly and in as close to real-time as possible.



3 - What if I don't want to record another clip? What if I prefer to add audio to an existing clip?


--


To me, it seems that the most simple and useful implementation would be a global audio overdub mode similar to the global MIDI overdub mode with the following results:


* If you turn on audio overdub mode while an audio clip is playing within a record-armed track, that clip goes into overdub recording mode.

* When you're in audio overdub mode and you finish recording a new audio clip, the clip goes directly into playback / overdub mode just like when you finish recording a new MIDI clip with MIDI overdub mode turned on.


Turn off audio overdub mode, and audio recording behavior operates as normal 'replace' mode (Live 6).




If I'm missing something in my execution or I'm ignorant of some relevant functionality, please let me know.




There is a way in Live 6 to have the an audio clip dictate a project's tempo, by using the [master] function inside of arrangement view. If I'm understanding your wish correctly, I believe that the wish for master clips in Session view may help fulfill this particular wish. That wish is pretty high on our list :)

I'm not familiar with the master function inside arrangement view but yeah, I think session master clip would do it based on your description of the master function.

[dCross]

Hello. Thanks for the responses. Please see my comments below....
Stefan says thanks :)

[dCross]

I am considering Mackie Tracktion for what looks to be a very simple and straightforward program for recording, that offers a lot at a great price. I am wondering what opinion people have on this software compared to Live.

It may make sense to have them both (because the performance aspect of Live doesn’t exist within Tracktion). But what about for just pure composing and recording – how do you think they compare?
Instead of taking someone else's word for it, I'd suggest you play around with each demo. Fortunately, Live and Tracktion both offer demo versions so you can find out for yourself what's best for you.

Tracktion Demo: http://www.mackie.com/products/tracktion2/index.html
Live Demo: http://www.ableton.com/demo

[OvertoneZero]

So David, what do you think? Does overdubbing audio to clips make sense in light of the applications I described?

[OvertoneZero]

Overdub functionality for audio clips would be outstanding... but I just had a dream on a plane this morning of a Live device named 'Looper II' with punchpoint recording length, overdub mode, and undo functionality... If I can see the GUI, it must be prophecy... :thu:

[amaury]

So David, what do you think? Does overdubbing audio to clips make sense in light of the applications I described?Hello,

I'm Amaury from Ableton - I am part of the specification team and I also am taking care our improvement list, so I thought I could add to David's help here.

Your points about overdubbing audio are very valid. I would have some reserve about the first one maybe but we don't have to go to that discussion to prove that overdubbing audio is a useful feature for many usecase. That said, our improvement list is long, and we can never promise if or when a feature would make it to Live.

Don't hesitate if you have additional comments, suggestions, or questions. I'd be happy to comment and answer.

Kind regards,
Amaury

[OvertoneZero]

Hi Amaury,

Thanks for the response. I thought of some more examples to illustrate the utility of audio overdubbing but it sounds like you're on top of it.

I'm sure that many users would enjoy the addition of audio overdubbing. There are other improvements I'd like to see implemented in Live but that's a big one, for me. Good luck with development!

:thu:

[amaury]

Hi Amaury,

Thanks for the response. I thought of some more examples to illustrate the utility of audio overdubbing but it sounds like you're on top of it.

I'm sure that many users would enjoy the addition of audio overdubbing. There are other improvements I'd like to see implemented in Live but that's a big one, for me. Good luck with development!

:thu:Hi,

Again, I can't promise anything. We have many things to take care off, and we have to prioritize according to our resources and to other factors that are complex. But sure enough, I totally see your point.

Regards,
Amaury

[openrivers]

amaury,
in your attempt to evolve live, please never forget its root of being a PERFORMING tool.
to be more specific, if you continue implement features from other audio RECORDING sequencers please never forget its a performing tool, never make it too complicated and cluttered...
i really enjoy my version and i really appreciate the clear tutorials and the great manual, something which is not often found with software.

[Anderton]

First off, I must apologize for not being more active in this thread due to a bunch of unforeseen (and hopefully finished!) circumstances.

Anyway, I met with Gerhard Behles at Messe and mentioned my wish of "gee, it sure would be great to be able to play the note range handles in a MIDI rack." He asked why I don't just use the Pitch MIDI plug-in, which can indeed restrict low and high note ranges. However, the problem I have with that is while you can freely adjust the lower note cutoff, the higher note cutoff adds to the lower note cutoff -- e.g., you can set the higher cutoff to be a certain number of semitones higher than the lower cutoff. So, if you change the lower cutoff note, you also change the higher cutoff note, whether you want to or not. So while this is good for cutting off the lower note (ideal if you want to get rid of a kick drum while leaving other drums in place) because you can simply set the high note to be as high as possible, it's not as flexible as what I would like to see.

[Anderton]

One of the cool things about chains if you can have several chains within a chain -- for example, with effects, this means you can have parallel effects chains.

I created two chains to process drums, one with Auto Filter and Pan, the other with Filter Delay and Redux. That alone is a cool feature, but we're not done yet.

Referring to the picture, note that there's a "Chain Selector" (the orange line). This can be MIDI-controlled, for reasons that will become clear shortly. Each Chain can cover a particular range of values for selection. If they overlap, then putting the selector in that range will enable all overlapping chains. If there's only one chain and the selector is over that range, only that chain will be enabled.

This actually is much less confusing than it sounds :) I couldn't wrap my head around when I read about this in the manual, but setting up a couple chains made it easy...so let's look at the concrete example in the picture.

In this case, the first chain covers a range of 0-96, and fades out over a range of 48-96. The second chain covers a range of 48 to 127, and fades in over a range of 48-96. Moving the selector from 0-48 means only the first chain of effects will produce an output at the end of the chain. Moving the selector further to the right, from 48-96, fades out the audio from chain 1 while fading in the audio from chain 2. Moving past 96 means you'll hear only audio from chain 2.

These ranges are arbitrary; for example, the first chain could cover a range of 0-24 and fade out from 12-24, while the second could cover a range from 12-32 and fade in 12-24. The reason why I chose a wider range is because I tied the Chain Selector to MIDI, and I could move the control over its full rotation. If I used a smaller range, I had to be more precise with how I moved the control.

Of course, you could stick more chains in there to create even more effects. In a sense, this becomes almost like "wave sequencing for effects," if you're familiar with that synthesis process (basically, multiple sounds fade in and out through envelopes to "morph" in and out of each other).

[Anderton]

The chain select function works with MIDI effects and instruments as well. With MIDI, filtering applies to notes and continuous controllers, and fades apply to velocities; the net result is like fades with audio effects, in that levels of what's being driven by MIDI fade out or fade in.

With instruments, you can use the chain selector to essentially dial in different instruments, as if you were changing presets. But the fade function works as well, so is easy to crossfade among various instrument sounds.

Anyway, the musical significance of all this is particularly germane if you have the selector dialed in to a MIDI controller, as you can get all these variations between chains in a rack. So a track can contain the same basic audio or MIDI data, but by running it through a chain, you can create a huge number of variations...you gotta love it.

[Anderton]

Before moving off of the subject of racks (unless anyone has any questions/comments), I should add that you can put racks within racks within racks within...you get the idea. A rack is basically an entity, and can be treated as a single device chain.

So, what use is this? Well, if you've built up a lot of rack presets you like, you might want to bring in a rack to another rack that's under development so you don't need to "re-invent the wheel." Frankly, though, I haven't had a reason yet to put a rack within a rack...I can pretty much get where I want to go without going deeper than parallel chains.

[Anderton]

While at Messe, we talked a bit about my doing a Pro Review. I said that one problem I had was that having been into Live since V1.0, I had adopted a workflow and way of using the program that often times didn't take advantage of the newer features his team had been adding. He didn't see anything wrong with that, as part of Live's charm is you can approach it in different ways...just because it has a feature doesn't mean you have to use it.

Still, I also realized that a Pro Review was just the thing to give me a kick in the butt, and become more familiar with other elements of what the program can do. I'm not sure all of them will become incorporated into what I do with Live, but all it takes is one or two cool features to add an entirely different dimension to one's use of the program.

Anyway, I realize this is a bit off-topic, but I thought it might be interesting to get some insights into how one of the main people at Ableton thinks about Live: That it's a very flexible, customizable tool and there's no "right" way to use it.

[amaury]

First off, I must apologize for not being more active in this thread due to a bunch of unforeseen (and hopefully finished!) circumstances.

Anyway, I met with Gerhard Behles at Messe and mentioned my wish of "gee, it sure would be great to be able to play the note range handles in a MIDI rack." He asked why I don't just use the Pitch MIDI plug-in, which can indeed restrict low and high note ranges. However, the problem I have with that is while you can freely adjust the lower note cutoff, the higher note cutoff adds to the lower note cutoff -- e.g., you can set the higher cutoff to be a certain number of semitones higher than the lower cutoff. So, if you change the lower cutoff note, you also change the higher cutoff note, whether you want to or not. So while this is good for cutting off the lower note (ideal if you want to get rid of a kick drum while leaving other drums in place) because you can simply set the high note to be as high as possible, it's not as flexible as what I would like to see.Hi Craig,

I would say, why don't you use a MIDI effect Rack for that matter?

-Place a MIDI effect Rack on your track
-Load a Pitch affect for example (that won't do anything, and that you can delete later if you want, but it serves to create a Chain)
-Now edit the Key range of the chain: set its upper and lower note at will, and you're done: you have a MIDI note filtering.

Even going further, you could have multiple 'preset' of key ranges within the same Rack, by creating multiple Chains with each their own key range. Using the Chain selector, you could then use one of the 'presets' at a given time.

I hope I'm not overlooking your use case.

Kind regards,
Amaury

[Anderton]

I think I mentioned earlier that I wanted to be able to control them in real time, with a MIDI controller, rather than have to open up a chain. For me, Live is all about live performance; I try very hard to minimize having to do anything in the program itself, as opposed to be triggered via MIDI or the laptop keyboard itself. That's why the pitch thing solves at least half the problem: You can restrict the low note range, and control it via MIDI. But I want everything! And I want it now!! :) :)

[nerol1st]

I don't think there is a program I hate more than Live. I have given this product a go more than once and can't stand the way it works.

[Anderton]

Hey, don't mince words, tell us what you really think. I presume you're not so much into the whole DJ/looping thing?

[nerol1st]

Sorry I will go in to a bit more depth.

To be more precise I have tried the demo (meh gives a good intro to live I guess) and have abelton live lite 4 (came with the my UX2).

My exsperience with both was sheer frustration. I was able to finally get it to record both midi and audio but that was as far as I was able to get (and it took me a while to get to that point). I was never able to actually do any arranging I do not get the workflow of the program, it's very frustrating for me as someone who is used to programs like Audition, PT, Nuendo,Cubase, Logic, Reason to get.

Yes it's exstreamly nice that they give tutorials, but even those are sometimes difficult to struggle through as sometimes you can't tell what part of the screen they are refering to.

Every DAW has a learning curve, I realise this but this particular program because of it's forien (to me) lay out seems a bit higher than the other ones I have listed. I imagine that if all you did was rap and the like this program would be a dream, but I just do not like it.

[Rabid]

The mixer in Session view is most like a conventional mixer, unlike Arrangement view, which has more of an Acid/Sonar/Vegas kind of feel. So, will the configurable mixer satisfy those who want Live to be a DAW?

For some people, yes; for others, no. The improved metering is a big help in terms of knowing what's actually going on with your levels, and the "longer-throw" faders make it easier to dial in an exact value. I don't really care about seeing knobs -- fields work okay for me -- but if they make people comfortable, fine.

...

I would like to address this point and your general sentiment behind it if I may. I’ve never noticed Live being marketed as a full DAW replacement, and after using it since version 2 have not considered that myself. Like you (I think) I consider Live to be a great tool for both live performance and quick arranging, but when it comes to finalizing a song I prefer to either export tracks from Live or rewire it to something like Sonar.

However, go to a forum like KVR and you will see thread after thread of people asking for recommendations about a DAW and there is always someone insisting that Live is all they need and that Live can do anything that any other DAW can do. Then people take their word, go out and buy it, and then start complaining that it does not have full DAW features. I used to think the hoards of people making this claim must not use or need a real DAW with multi tracking abilities to finalize a song in linier fashion but this week I got “Albleton Live 6 Power” and the author states on the first page of chapter 1 “Live is a full-blown music production environment suitable for any artistic style. You’ll find all the features you’d expect from other digital audio workstations.” No wonder people by this product and expect to be able to finalize a complete CD or produce a surround sound move soundtrack just as they would in Pro Tools, Sonar or Logic Pro.

I hate to see Live move in this direction. Both Acid and FruityLoops have followed this path and are turning into bloat ware. I know that software developers depend on updates to bring in continued finance and these updates is what drives software to expand outside of the initial focus, but software also tends to loose the market when it looses its identity.

Robert

[amplayer]

Like you (I think) I consider Live to be a great tool for both live performance and quick arranging, but when it comes to finalizing a song I prefer to either export tracks from Live or rewire it to something like Sonar.


I don't use Live for live performance, but it is obviously well suited to that application. I agree totally that finalizing a piece of music is better suited to a full featured DAW app though.


I hate to see Live move in this direction. Both Acid and FruityLoops have followed this path and are turning into bloat ware. I know that software developers depend on updates to bring in continued finance and these updates is what drives software to expand outside of the initial focus, but software also tends to loose the market when it looses its identity.


As I have already said in this thread, I fully agree that I don't want Live to get bloated with too many DAW features. I don't want Live to lose its beautiful way of operating quickly and efficiently for loop/section based music.

[Anderton]

One of the enhancements in Live 6 involves routing, where if a track (or Master) is selected as an input, you now have the option to grab the signal at three different points in the channel: Pre FX (the raw, unprocessed signal), Post FX (after any effects chains but not including mixer settings), or Post Mixer. Check out the image to see how these options are presented. With the latter, any fades, pans, etc. that you do with the mixer will affect the what gets recorded.

An obvious use, as described in the manual, is to use an audio track to record the output of a MIDI track, post-mixer. But here’s another use of routing which I find handy in getting around the “solo button doesn’t record” limitation when doing live performances: I simply set up a track Live to grab the final mixer outputs, and record them in real time. This track becomes, essentially, the stereo “master” recording that includes the final audio, including any breakbeats achieved by using the solo button. (Of course, the signal should also go to any regular outputs, like to a monitoring system, so you can hear what’s going on.)

Referring to the second image, track 13 has been designated the Master track for recording the mixer output. So, in the track Input Type, choose Master. As you want the recording to include any send effects or level changes (like if you do a fadeout with the master output slider), for the Input Channel, choose Post Mixer.

As to monitor, as you’re simply recording into this track, you don’t really want to monitor its output as you’re already monitoring the mixer output through whatever amplification system you’re using. As a result, I recommend turning Monitor off.

The only caution is to make sure your master levels are set so that the recording levels going into the “master” track aren’t too loud or too soft.

Once you’ve captured this track, you can render it to disk, edit, add mastering effects, etc. In most cases it’s easier just to press Live’s record button to record all your moves, but if you depend on hitting the solo button during your performance, recording from the outputs provides a suitable workaround.

[Anderton]

These days, it’s not uncommon to transfer a project from one DAW to another, which in most cases requires rendering any tracks with soft synths or processors (unless the target DAW has the same complement of plug-ins). On another subject, it’s not uncommon to run out of computing power and need to trim back some soft synths, especially if you need really low latency. Although Live has an excellent track freeze implementation, sometimes when you’ve created an instrument part, it’s simpler just to render it as an audio track and be done with it. (If you’re really concerned about re-creating the track some day, you can still remove the instrument: Keep the MIDI track, and save the instrument preset for later recall.)

Anyway, the new routing options make it easy to record a MIDI track as audio, or render a track. What’s more, if you want to render two versions – one with effects, and one without – that’s easy, too.

Referring to the image, Track 1 has Simpler set up with a guitar sound that includes reverb and delay. Track 2, SIMP+FX, is tapping audio from Simpler, Post-FX but pre-mixer (check out the Audio From section: It shows 1-SIMPLER and Post-FX). Meanwhile, Track 3, SIMP-FX, is tapping audio from the Simpler chain but note that Pre-FX is being selected. Therefore, this track has the Simpler sound only, without the reverb and delay.

If you then hit record with the clip looping, you’ll end up with two tracks in the Arrangement view – Simpler with FX, and the same part without FX.

[10101]

I agree totally that finalizing a piece of music is better suited to a full featured DAW app though.


Why? What will I lose if I use Live instead of another program?

[openrivers]

you can display only one automation track at one time.

when you change parameters by mouse IN A VST PLUGIN, only 128 parameters are supported to be recorded by automation.
cubase for example has not this limitation.

[Myshell]

Live 6 is working great for me. Haven't had a single crash and use it extensively in performance situations.

...made the switch from 5 after Armin Van Buuren recommended to it me. He told me he loved it. Does all his music from his laptop now...with just Logic and Live.

[amplayer]

Why? What will I lose if I use Live instead of another program?

Well, for me, Live is best used to create an individual groove that then becomes part of a larger piece of music. If you standardly work in only bars of 4/4, and you also do not write to video, then staying in Live will probably be fine.
For me, I often write to picture (at 29.97 fps), which Live only sort-of supports. Also, even when I'm not writing to picture, sometimes I like to have a bar of 2/4. While you could do that in Live, it is more convenient to do in a full DAW software package.

To me, Live is an EXCELLENT co-application to my DAW. Live is fast and easy to create grooves with, and that makes it a beautiful app when paired with a full-featured DAW, since it is great at the very things my DAW software is lacking.

[Anderton]

To me, Live is an EXCELLENT co-application to my DAW. Live is fast and easy to create grooves with, and that makes it a beautiful app when paired with a full-featured DAW, since it is great at the very things my DAW software is lacking.

...all the more reason why it's great ReWire exists!

[10101]

I understand that Live's tempo and pitch stretching algorithms involve compromises between sound quality and resource-saving. But when making DJ mix CDs, for example, it would be nice to have an "off-line" algorithm that would only go for pristine sound quality. Actually, it would not only be "nice", it would be just what one would expect from a professional DJ tool.

[10101]

Also, it would be nice to have playlists. This is simply essential for DJs (and mere folders won't do because there are multiple sort criteria, so it needs to be an XML library file - like iTunes and Adobe Lightroom), but producers and others should welcome it as well as it would enable flexible sorting of clips.

Any comments from Ableton on these two suggestions?

[amplayer]

I just ran into a problem in Live on the PC that I did NOT experience with the exact same setup in Live on the Mac.

Here's the scenario:
A Reason DrRex track is needed. Live 6 is invoked and Reason 3 is rewired into Live 6.
Rather than keep the sequence in Reason, I write the MIDI track to disk from Reason and import the MIDI track into Live 6 by dumping the MIDI file onto a session view track. The reason I do it this way is so I can fool around with the MIDI in Live.
On the Mac, this works great. On the PC, the playback stuttered drastically. I searched through the support areas of propellerheads and ableton and I found no issues related to this. Finally, after a lot of guessing, I decided to turn off multiprocessor support in Live even though I'm running on a Core 2 duo processor. I figured maybe it would help since there are 2 processes which could logically run on different processors. Well, this DID FIX IT.
I still don't get it though. On my Mac, the multiprocessor support is enabled, and no similar problem exists. My PC is a much more powerful machine than the Mac, so it doesn't make sense to me.

Anyone here know why this might be the case?

[amplayer]

...all the more reason why it's great ReWire exists!

Um. Actually, NO. Live disables all its plug-ins when it runs as a rewire slave. At least for me, that means I don't use Live as a rewire slave.

Enabling plug-ins when running as a rewire slave is a big wish-list item for me.

[Filch]

Um. Actually, NO. Live disables all its plug-ins when it runs as a rewire slave. At least for me, that means I don't use Live as a rewire slave.

Enabling plug-ins when running as a rewire slave is a big wish-list item for me.

Wow, That is a biggee. I haven't decided on what SEQ app to pair up with Live for rewire, yet. Glad I learned about this before I made any purchases. I guess you'll have to render any effects first..... meh

[amplayer]

Wow, That is a biggee. I haven't decided on what SEQ app to pair up with Live for rewire, yet. Glad I learned about this before I made any purchases. I guess you'll have to render any effects first..... meh

Yeah, well it might not be Ableton's fault. As far as I know, there aren't any programs that run plug-ins while running as a rewire slave. Maybe it is part of the propellerheads rewire specification. I don't know.
A really crummy workaround is to save all the effects as presets and then instantiate them from the presets in a different application later.

[Cmusicmaker]

As far as I know, there aren't any programs that run plug-ins while running as a rewire slave. Maybe it is part of the propellerheads rewire specification. I don't know.


I would be very surprised if Ableton did not add such functionality into Live 7. But right now...Project 5 definitely can host DX/DXi and VST/VSTi as a rewire host or slave.

http://www.project5.com

[Anderton]

I think the reasoning is that as you're basically using ReWire with a slave to feed raw audio in a host, that you would use plug-ins in the host. Of course, the "Achilles Heel" of that approach is what happens if the ReWire slave was proprietary plug-ins that have no other equivalent? Still, for my purposes, being able to treat live as a loop generator for use with other programs has turned out to be pretty useful.

[amplayer]

Still, for my purposes, being able to treat live as a loop generator for use with other programs has turned out to be pretty useful.

I personally don't like that approach because it means you have to START the whole process with both programs going. The thing I love about Reason is that you can start working on a loop or other chunk of music with ONLY Reason running, and then run Reason as a slave later without changing anything.

[x1fmradio]

LOG ONTO OUR WEBSITE TO RECIEVE FREE TICKETS TO UPCOMING CONCERTS HAPPENING IN SAN DIEGO!! THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE SUPPORT & KEEP LISTENING FOR YOUR FAVORITE ARTIST. WE ARE HEARD LIVE AROUND THE WORLD! ALWAYS TAKING REQUESTS & HAVE LIVE INTERVIEWS IN OUR STUDIO ALL THE TIME., www.X1FMRADIO.COM

[Myshell]

has anyone tried 'elastic time' in pro tools?

how does it compare to live???

[bighead734]

I'm fairly new to Live 6 and I have pretty much an entire song recorded in it. It was really easy to lay down all the tracks and edit what needed to be edited. The problem is the song is over 20 tracks long and when I hit play the sound cuts out and cuts in later in the song. The CPU overload light is going off and it is frustrating the crap out of me. I have an Hp desktop with XP Pro, 3 Ghz P4, 1 GB of RAM(I know I should up to 2), and a line 6 toneport for inputing. I've tried backing up all my data and completely restoring to factory settings and reinstalling everything and get the same problem. When there is only a few tracks playing it doesn't happen as often, but when I have a VST like EZDrummer running it doesn't like to cooperate. I've gotten rid of all the tracks that I didn't need anymore and deactivated all the VSTs after mixing down to another track and it still won't play straight through without skipping and cutting out.

Should I be editing all the empty areas out of all the tracks or should I group and mix down similar tracks to 1 or 2 tracks, I really don't want to do that should I want to make another mix of the song.

I have a digital 16 track recorder and I moved to PC recording so I could escape the confines of 16 tracks and mixing down tracks to free up additional tracks. Somebody please tell me I made a good choice in switching to PC recording. Keep in mind that I have NO money to spend on a new computer or a better processor at this time and probably not for a while. I just want to know of an easy fix to this problem.

Thanks

[Anderton]

1. "Freeze" any soft synth tracks.
2. Increase the latency of your audio interface.
3. Convert your short clips to RAM clips.

[bighead734]

I have no soft synth clips. And if I increase the latency, wouldn't that delay the tracks when recording? Also, what is a RAM clip?

Thanks for your help

[particlesguitar]

What you can do is try freezing the tracks that your not working on and then unfreeze em when its there turn to be mixed. This will cause your CPU load to go down dramatically. Increasing the latency of your toneport in the mixing process won't cause a delay because you aren't recording anything else. Hope this helps