Both Dom and Robert have both repeatedly said a major rewrite is needed to have x,y,z functions which are considered high priority by many users. Including session automation and the 128 parameter limit.
Perhaps there is a level of defensiveness and exaggeration, but I trust what they say. Whether theis major rewrite means start again from the ground up, or just start again on certain modules, is unclear but major work is needed to deliver what a lot of users want.
REC AUTOMATION TO SESSION LIVE REWRITE?
-
leedsquietman
- Posts: 6659
- Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 1:56 am
- Location: greater toronto area
http://soundcloud.com/umbriel-rising http://www.myspace.com/leedsquietmandemos Live 7.0.18 SUITE, Cubase 5.5.2], Soundforge 9, Dell XPS M1530, 2.2 Ghz C2D, 4GB, Vista Ult SP2, legit plugins a plenty, Alesis IO14.
Well for starters Ableton don't use their own warping engine and license one instead, so no work involved on that. Then there is all the user interface code which is pretty much totally separate from the audio code, so no work on that either.
I'm not saying there wouldn't be a lot of work involved in a "ground up" re-write, just that there are significant chunks of code that wouldn't be affected by it. Plus programming in general is a lot easier today than it was 10 or more years ago, when a re-write would quite often mean a complete re-write of most of the code.
I'm not saying there wouldn't be a lot of work involved in a "ground up" re-write, just that there are significant chunks of code that wouldn't be affected by it. Plus programming in general is a lot easier today than it was 10 or more years ago, when a re-write would quite often mean a complete re-write of most of the code.
-
madhattared
- Posts: 308
- Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2008 1:13 am
- Location: Brooklyn
Live is incredible in so many ways. Demanding a rewrite of the application is a failure to see all of the powerful ways to make music in live or to understand the difficultly level of large scale real time application development.
If you're so upset with Live, write your own application to do what you would like. This is why VSTs are so powerful.
Start with a tempo shifting algorithm, and once you've written that see if you have the nuts to go up on stage and use it. Do you trust your own code not to crash?
There are obviously many features live lacks, but in due time. They certainly don't seem to require a major rewrite, hence redesign of the entire application. The fact the application has seemingly slowly evovled is not a bad thing. Unix is decades old. It still survives to this day because the code base was carefully carved and written for the long term. If we demand such hasty re-writes there is a risk we end up in a vista like scenario. I do not want that to happen with Live.
As as responsible user community of the application it is our duty to amplify requests to the motherland for improvements of the application. I actually think this forum is commendable at doing so. I often see requests I would love appearing on the forum because another user had tried to do something creative. If the idea is great it gains momentum and appears.
If you're so upset with Live, write your own application to do what you would like. This is why VSTs are so powerful.
Start with a tempo shifting algorithm, and once you've written that see if you have the nuts to go up on stage and use it. Do you trust your own code not to crash?
There are obviously many features live lacks, but in due time. They certainly don't seem to require a major rewrite, hence redesign of the entire application. The fact the application has seemingly slowly evovled is not a bad thing. Unix is decades old. It still survives to this day because the code base was carefully carved and written for the long term. If we demand such hasty re-writes there is a risk we end up in a vista like scenario. I do not want that to happen with Live.
As as responsible user community of the application it is our duty to amplify requests to the motherland for improvements of the application. I actually think this forum is commendable at doing so. I often see requests I would love appearing on the forum because another user had tried to do something creative. If the idea is great it gains momentum and appears.
Live 7 hackintosh 10.5.2 q6600 raptor 4gig x3d pk FW410 bcr2k xboard49 Ultrasone DJ1 BM5a
Ok good points has/should the abes made provision for the slow metamorphis of live into whatever it needs to be? I hope so.madhattared wrote:Live is incredible in so many ways. Demanding a rewrite of the application is a failure to see all of the powerful ways to make music in live or to understand the difficultly level of large scale real time application development.
If you're so upset with Live, write your own application to do what you would like. This is why VSTs are so powerful.
Start with a tempo shifting algorithm, and once you've written that see if you have the nuts to go up on stage and use it. Do you trust your own code not to crash?
There are obviously many features live lacks, but in due time. They certainly don't seem to require a major rewrite, hence redesign of the entire application. The fact the application has seemingly slowly evovled is not a bad thing. Unix is decades old. It still survives to this day because the code base was carefully carved and written for the long term. If we demand such hasty re-writes there is a risk we end up in a vista like scenario. I do not want that to happen with Live.
As as responsible user community of the application it is our duty to amplify requests to the motherland for improvements of the application. I actually think this forum is commendable at doing so. I often see requests I would love appearing on the forum because another user had tried to do something creative. If the idea is great it gains momentum and appears.
The continual lack of some requested features through
quite a few versions is just making me impatient, especially as
I see all the tack on's added before core feature feature requests are addressed.
I spend enough time programming my lemur atmIf you're so upset with Live, write your own application to do what you would like. This is why VSTs are so powerful.
Start with a tempo shifting algorithm, and once you've written that see if you have the nuts to go up on stage and use it. Do you trust your own code not to crash?
allthough the lemur scripting is rewarding I am looking forward to some practical music fun again.Ive thought about audio software design as I am freinds with a very tallented programmer but have decided to start messing with hardware as
the said programmer works for a eletronics hardware company
specializing in industrial dsp.
lol that should keep me busy till I'm dead.
-
leedsquietman
- Posts: 6659
- Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 1:56 am
- Location: greater toronto area
Madhattarad you miss the point. Dom and Robert have both stated that major work is required to update Live to include the features that it's userbase want. Even in Live 8 and especially beyond. Perhaps this is one of the reasons we didn't get a yearly upgrade.
If this is the case, then it will need to be done - eventually. Just like 150 year old sewers need replacing EVENTUALLY, you can only keep patching up holes for so long before everything falls down and you wouldn't want a sewer system to fall down, that would be chaos.
Everybody appreciates Live. Some of us, me included, love it. However, to take the product further will require a major effort, not just trying to tack some code onto what is already there. Cubase SX was eventually a big improvement on VST, it's only the first couple of releases after that were painful. And eventually, there will be competition in the field and just using band aid solutions will cause the product to fall behind.
Sure there are people happily still running Cubase VST in ignorance, but they are missing out on a lot of features from better audio quality to track freezing and delay compensation and a whole batch of other things.
Even VSTs themselves have limited power, which is why Steinberg released VST 3.0 The SDK for that was made public in February but so far no other company has added it in, but it greatly improves multichannel and multitimbrality. Developers are grumbling over the costs. And besides, some people using Live don't want to get too deep into VSTS, they want the program to be as integrated as possible. There are many people with the Live Suite who do not use 3rd party plugins at all.
If this is the case, then it will need to be done - eventually. Just like 150 year old sewers need replacing EVENTUALLY, you can only keep patching up holes for so long before everything falls down and you wouldn't want a sewer system to fall down, that would be chaos.
Everybody appreciates Live. Some of us, me included, love it. However, to take the product further will require a major effort, not just trying to tack some code onto what is already there. Cubase SX was eventually a big improvement on VST, it's only the first couple of releases after that were painful. And eventually, there will be competition in the field and just using band aid solutions will cause the product to fall behind.
Sure there are people happily still running Cubase VST in ignorance, but they are missing out on a lot of features from better audio quality to track freezing and delay compensation and a whole batch of other things.
Even VSTs themselves have limited power, which is why Steinberg released VST 3.0 The SDK for that was made public in February but so far no other company has added it in, but it greatly improves multichannel and multitimbrality. Developers are grumbling over the costs. And besides, some people using Live don't want to get too deep into VSTS, they want the program to be as integrated as possible. There are many people with the Live Suite who do not use 3rd party plugins at all.
http://soundcloud.com/umbriel-rising http://www.myspace.com/leedsquietmandemos Live 7.0.18 SUITE, Cubase 5.5.2], Soundforge 9, Dell XPS M1530, 2.2 Ghz C2D, 4GB, Vista Ult SP2, legit plugins a plenty, Alesis IO14.
As much as I'd love to see any arbitrary feature implemented, I feel like the key is to meet the standard of 'I can set this up to be tweaked effectively in real-time'. Live needs to be a lean program with a clean, focused interface that lets us zero in on what we're trying to get at quickly. If for no other reason than increases in the capability of hardware have challenged some of the original assumptions in the design of Live, I'm excited by the idea of some major revisionsleedsquietman wrote:Dom and Robert have both stated that major work is required to update Live to include the features that it's userbase want.
The best example I can think of is clip envelopes, they worked perfectly I think for audio tracks that were playing loops but on a track with several VSTi in a rack with a ton of effects, things can start to get a little ugly and unmanageable. There are workarounds but workarounds of ugly unmanageable things is I think what ought to be avoided as much as possible in Live. I'm quite optimistic there are good, clean and clear solutions that will make us very happy as users - hopefully some of those are in the works.
http://www.soundcloud.com/xherv
I know EVERYTHING that I know and you don't know, and don't know what I don't know that you know, so I'll ignore that stuff. Wassup now?
I know EVERYTHING that I know and you don't know, and don't know what I don't know that you know, so I'll ignore that stuff. Wassup now?
-
Euklid.fox
- Posts: 175
- Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2004 12:24 pm
sometimes I have too make really hard 3D scenes with complex settings,
and when Igo too speed on my first basis setup, then I realize hour after hour that I should have fixed this "little boring thing" that could be seen in the final render, but's kind of "too late" so I don't fix...now with time I prefer to RESET when I feel the result will be better...
imo LIVE true vocation is to record LIVE on the fly' our automation in a clip
just imagine a second how faster we would build/get ideas for the liveset ,
I would be 100 ok to rezet my sets if I know that new tool will allow me to build 10x times faster. live 7 is mature enough for me to let time (even one more year ) for a RESET
live is so ultimate, now it just needs to be "perfect"
and when Igo too speed on my first basis setup, then I realize hour after hour that I should have fixed this "little boring thing" that could be seen in the final render, but's kind of "too late" so I don't fix...now with time I prefer to RESET when I feel the result will be better...
imo LIVE true vocation is to record LIVE on the fly' our automation in a clip
just imagine a second how faster we would build/get ideas for the liveset ,
I would be 100 ok to rezet my sets if I know that new tool will allow me to build 10x times faster. live 7 is mature enough for me to let time (even one more year ) for a RESET
live is so ultimate, now it just needs to be "perfect"
-
leedsquietman
- Posts: 6659
- Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 1:56 am
- Location: greater toronto area
When they do eventually rewrite from scratch or near as dammit, they will find many efficiencies, there will be redundant code and stuff which duplicates itself in there right now.
Although they will also likely add new features too which somewhat negates that, but I remember Cubase VST5 being 168MB and Cubase SX (1) being 166MB even though it had many new features (and a few missing ones). Cubase SX3 was almost double but it did include a whole bunch of new stuff AND patch in a lot of missing VST features. C4 is over 400MB, but includes a bunch of new plugins and vst3 architecture.
Simple fact is, what the majority of people want to be included in Live 8 cannot be in the present code and architecture, or will be such a mammoth task that they might as well recode the whole thing. I trust Dom and Robert on this one. Although let's see what Live 8 DOES bring to the table first maybe !
Although they will also likely add new features too which somewhat negates that, but I remember Cubase VST5 being 168MB and Cubase SX (1) being 166MB even though it had many new features (and a few missing ones). Cubase SX3 was almost double but it did include a whole bunch of new stuff AND patch in a lot of missing VST features. C4 is over 400MB, but includes a bunch of new plugins and vst3 architecture.
Simple fact is, what the majority of people want to be included in Live 8 cannot be in the present code and architecture, or will be such a mammoth task that they might as well recode the whole thing. I trust Dom and Robert on this one. Although let's see what Live 8 DOES bring to the table first maybe !
http://soundcloud.com/umbriel-rising http://www.myspace.com/leedsquietmandemos Live 7.0.18 SUITE, Cubase 5.5.2], Soundforge 9, Dell XPS M1530, 2.2 Ghz C2D, 4GB, Vista Ult SP2, legit plugins a plenty, Alesis IO14.
coming from the digital peformer threads a rewrtie is not gonna be fun. DP6 is so shot full of holes I haven't upgraded yet. I've had live for about a year now and for some reason in the last 2 months I've really been cooking on it. I haven't felt this excited about making music since I first got reason back in '03. I have made some of my most creative stuff using live. It's night and day to work between the two but I feel they compliment each other nicely. live for sound design and sketching. DP for recording audio(and crossfades!) then back to live for fucking it up. I've never been happier with a set up.
I don't know what I'm missing with why you guys wanting these new features but I have yet to feel limited by live. If I had to have ONE piece of software on my laptop for the rest of life it would be live and live only. Of course I used to make great tracks with just reason 2.0.
I don't know what I'm missing with why you guys wanting these new features but I have yet to feel limited by live. If I had to have ONE piece of software on my laptop for the rest of life it would be live and live only. Of course I used to make great tracks with just reason 2.0.
-
sunrahrahrah
- Posts: 142
- Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 9:38 am
+1 on the total rewrite
do it in such a way that even though you cannot open old Live 7 & below files in it, when you use it it will operate as Live 7 did - thus not alienating your old user base completely.
the new features people are requesting are options, to be used if you want them.
You don't have to use an lfo to control your mixer, you can still just draw automation.
You don't have to have limitless access to synth parameters, you can still just use your favorite macro 8.
You don't have to use groove templates, you can still just make robotic on the grid music.
But you might like it once you do
LFO to control every single parameter in live, more than 128 parameters, and groove templates, are to me the only (very important) things really missing from this software.
Of course that vocoder would be nice too.
do it in such a way that even though you cannot open old Live 7 & below files in it, when you use it it will operate as Live 7 did - thus not alienating your old user base completely.
the new features people are requesting are options, to be used if you want them.
You don't have to use an lfo to control your mixer, you can still just draw automation.
You don't have to have limitless access to synth parameters, you can still just use your favorite macro 8.
You don't have to use groove templates, you can still just make robotic on the grid music.
But you might like it once you do
LFO to control every single parameter in live, more than 128 parameters, and groove templates, are to me the only (very important) things really missing from this software.
Of course that vocoder would be nice too.
many of us who use Live as their main sequencer have been arguing for more DAWlike features... proper surround support, decent midi editing, folder tracks, and so on and so forth.
recently however i have switched to using Cubase (and occasionally REAPER) as my primary DAW. and since then i've started to see the argument in a totally different light. it's something forge and others have been saying for a while: that every new DAWlike implementation dilutes Live, bloats it, distracts it, diverts it from its real strengths - i.e. a wonderful working environment, incredible real-time audio trickery, etc. etc...
so - i was thinking.
would it be possible (or desirable) to diversify the product range to include a LIVE version of Live?
apologies if something similar has been posted before... basically, i'm thinking a simplified, back-to-basics, small-footprint, fast-as-hell performance version of live. i don't know whether this is something the Ableton people would give a fuck about, or whether it's technically feasible, but it strikes me that it might be a nice idea to produce something intentionally streamlined for live performance. something really fast, really small footprint, and really really really fucking rock solid. it could be bundled with the big daddy Live packages or even sold separately.
it might have limits (number of channels / inserts / sends). it might have no arrangement page. it might be almost indistinguishable from the full app...
what do you think?
http://forum.ableton.com/viewtopic.php? ... highlight=
digitally yours
exactly why do people fear change? live will still be live just with more flexibility & more room for creativity.sunrahrahrah wrote:+1 on the total rewrite
do it in such a way that even though you cannot open old Live 7 & below files in it, when you use it it will operate as Live 7 did - thus not alienating your old user base completely.
the new features people are requesting are options, to be used if you want them.
You don't have to use an lfo to control your mixer, you can still just draw automation.
You don't have to have limitless access to synth parameters, you can still just use your favorite macro 8.
You don't have to use groove templates, you can still just make robotic on the grid music.
But you might like it once you do
LFO to control every single parameter in live, more than 128 parameters, and groove templates, are to me the only (very important) things really missing from this software.
Of course that vocoder would be nice too.