ABLETON LIVE 6

[Still Life]

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!

[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.

 

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...

[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!

[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!

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.