Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.

9322624

Collapse
X
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    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!
    CHECK IT OUT: Lilianna!, my latest song, is now streamable from YouTube.

    Subscribe, like, and share the links!

    Comment


    • #47
      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 00000. For TV and movie work, many Quicktime movies have burn in timecode, and they almost always start at 01000 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.

      Comment


      • #48
        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... 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.
        The new blog: http://synonymmusic.blogspot.com/





        Originally posted by Walters9515
        yes he is SIG:

        [...]where is where but where could where be because where is he to where ,where

        I know u have a full blow studio where and haven't ever heard what a envelope follower is or have never used one in your life beside with a Quack which u are quacking like a rubber ducky in a tub

        Comment


        • #49
          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.

          Comment


          • #50
            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.

            Comment


            • #51


              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...).

              Comment


              • #52
                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.

                Comment


                • #53
                  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.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    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.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      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.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        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.
                        CHECK IT OUT: Lilianna!, my latest song, is now streamable from YouTube.

                        Subscribe, like, and share the links!

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          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.
                          CHECK IT OUT: Lilianna!, my latest song, is now streamable from YouTube.

                          Subscribe, like, and share the links!

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            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."
                            CHECK IT OUT: Lilianna!, my latest song, is now streamable from YouTube.

                            Subscribe, like, and share the links!

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              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.
                              www.myspace.com/dj10101

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                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

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X