ok.. that's makes a bit more sense.. still, girls like real faders and knobs.. but yeah, I'm sure there will be plenty of useful patches that will be made, but I haven't been sold yet on the videos currently out.. Plus I honestly think it will be counter productive for me.. when I have too many options and infinite possibilities and such will be the case for me with M4L, I don't know where to start.. I swear it was easier back in the day with a Tascam 4 track and a MPC..jOop. wrote:True, it did sound like crap. However, replace the note data with CC data (routed to a filter, parameters on a grain delay, snapshot selection in Reaktor or whatever) and you might have a more useful item.nuxnamon wrote:that's a cool vid but like many M4L videos, technology is overcoming the importance of music.. again it's cool and all, but honestly, the music was blah.... why create a patch like that when for one it's probably alot easier to play a midi keyboard or controller.. It just looks like he's typing stuff up on the Star Trek Enterprise computer.. seems like it's about cool gimmicky stuff and forget about how it sounds..mike@TrackTeam Audio wrote:http://www.vimeo.com/6949577
I'm a bit confused: Ableton and Jitter?
Re: I'm a bit confused: Ableton and Jitter?
Re: I'm a bit confused: Ableton and Jitter?
[quote="jOop."]Max for Live will included the Jitter suite, or at least Jitter objects show up in a screen shot on the M4L page.
Anybody have any clue what these would be used for? I'm familiar with the program (and Nato 0+55 before it). What I'm not familiar with is how these objects will integrate with the
Live environment. Live hasn't had any video stuff included in it, has it?[/quote]
Well, are people here not crying for VJing stuff in live for years now? Do we not all need video? (reading this forum for years I got the impression) ... So, that is it ... What are they for - well doing video I guess, or matrix calculations, or abstract visualisations, or ... Jitter is quite powerful you know.
In 2003/2004 cycling ones stressed that Jitter is more about matrices and matrix operations than video (otherwise one could have done more efficient things which came with I think Jitter 1.5). Incidentally you can do video with those matrices and operations, and incidentally this is what most people understand more easily than more complex matrix operations (of 4 dimensional matrices) ...
How do they integrate with Live .. well, they can get audio and control information from Live, seems obvious... I guess the can, as within Max/MSP-Jitter open their own windows (floating or not) to output video, which can be placed anywhere or communicate with video hardware.
Best
Anybody have any clue what these would be used for? I'm familiar with the program (and Nato 0+55 before it). What I'm not familiar with is how these objects will integrate with the
Live environment. Live hasn't had any video stuff included in it, has it?[/quote]
Well, are people here not crying for VJing stuff in live for years now? Do we not all need video? (reading this forum for years I got the impression) ... So, that is it ... What are they for - well doing video I guess, or matrix calculations, or abstract visualisations, or ... Jitter is quite powerful you know.
In 2003/2004 cycling ones stressed that Jitter is more about matrices and matrix operations than video (otherwise one could have done more efficient things which came with I think Jitter 1.5). Incidentally you can do video with those matrices and operations, and incidentally this is what most people understand more easily than more complex matrix operations (of 4 dimensional matrices) ...
How do they integrate with Live .. well, they can get audio and control information from Live, seems obvious... I guess the can, as within Max/MSP-Jitter open their own windows (floating or not) to output video, which can be placed anywhere or communicate with video hardware.
Best
Last edited by steff3 on Wed Oct 14, 2009 6:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: I'm a bit confused: Ableton and Jitter?
[quote="jOop."]What really confuses me about this is how Ableton can either
A) Think to charge $$ for a feature most people will probably ignore
or
B) Give a $$ application like Jitter away essentially for free.
I'm very pro jitter, but I can imagine a lot of people would rather see M4L cheaper than have those objects included (I wouldn't be one of them).[/quote]
Well, I think cycling cares not very much about price moaners ... so, maybe that will translate to M4L ...
What makes you think that they will charge anything more for M4L with Jitter than without Jitter? I think it would be great if they priced M4L with Jitter for 500 and M4L without Jitter for 800 ... so, all those who do not want to pay for Jitter have an option ...
It is funny how all the people hanging out on forums know how prices are made ... maybe go back to make music instead
best
A) Think to charge $$ for a feature most people will probably ignore
or
B) Give a $$ application like Jitter away essentially for free.
I'm very pro jitter, but I can imagine a lot of people would rather see M4L cheaper than have those objects included (I wouldn't be one of them).[/quote]
Well, I think cycling cares not very much about price moaners ... so, maybe that will translate to M4L ...
What makes you think that they will charge anything more for M4L with Jitter than without Jitter? I think it would be great if they priced M4L with Jitter for 500 and M4L without Jitter for 800 ... so, all those who do not want to pay for Jitter have an option ...
It is funny how all the people hanging out on forums know how prices are made ... maybe go back to make music instead
best
Re: I'm a bit confused: Ableton and Jitter?
umm.. Mainly because they charge exorbitant frees for the program by itself? Cycling74 would also want to shore up any pricing exploits Live users might use to gain access to their applications cheaper than their current customer base did (i.e. they don't want to piss off people who actually paid for that stuff originally). Remember, Live has a larger market penetration than Max/Msp/Jitter at the moment.steff3 wrote: What makes you think that they will charge anything more for M4L with Jitter than without Jitter? I think it would be great if they priced M4L with Jitter for 500 and M4L without Jitter for 800 ... so, all those who do not want to pay for Jitter have an option ...
It is funny how all the people hanging out on forums know how prices are made ... maybe go back to make music instead
best
ps: I have my degree in economics, so yes.. I do understand how prices are made (from a classical, marxist and neo-classical perspective).
Re: I'm a bit confused: Ableton and Jitter?
[quote="jOop."]
umm.. Mainly because they charge exorbitant frees for the program by itself?[/quote]
No, it is not exarbitant. If you want to do things that are possible with Max/MSP-Jitter - you either do it with that or you can spend a lot more on developing stuff yourself (assuming that time is money) ... (Ok, there is Pd with extensions, but to my taste, in media related projects, it does not comes close in terms of efficiency of workflow).
Things have their price. If you want the options, well, ...
Of course, you can ask if that is what one needs in Live ... It may seem oversized ... there are no prices announced yet, so ... why not just wait (I do not know the price either) ...
Just because some people do not see the potential, do not need it or are not able to use the potential does not make something bad or overpriced.
Depending on the price policy (which I do not know) it might be helpful to have options, like lite versions, players, etc. But I think both companies make a living out of what they do, so I would assume that they are clever enough to come up with this and that they will react to the market reaction to the offering they do ... they will see each month what they earn with M4L and they will simple evaluate their options and react ... This concept seems very easy ...
[quote="jOop."]Remember, Live has a larger market penetration than Max/Msp/Jitter at the moment. [/quote]
Yes, so what ... will this change? does M4L change the price of Live? What is your point? It is an option .... Do you complain that the pricing of Lexicon reverb suite is out of mind (which seems true) because Live is so affordable and ... I mean live can host plugins, so plugins should cost 100 US$ or what?
best
umm.. Mainly because they charge exorbitant frees for the program by itself?[/quote]
No, it is not exarbitant. If you want to do things that are possible with Max/MSP-Jitter - you either do it with that or you can spend a lot more on developing stuff yourself (assuming that time is money) ... (Ok, there is Pd with extensions, but to my taste, in media related projects, it does not comes close in terms of efficiency of workflow).
Things have their price. If you want the options, well, ...
Of course, you can ask if that is what one needs in Live ... It may seem oversized ... there are no prices announced yet, so ... why not just wait (I do not know the price either) ...
Just because some people do not see the potential, do not need it or are not able to use the potential does not make something bad or overpriced.
Depending on the price policy (which I do not know) it might be helpful to have options, like lite versions, players, etc. But I think both companies make a living out of what they do, so I would assume that they are clever enough to come up with this and that they will react to the market reaction to the offering they do ... they will see each month what they earn with M4L and they will simple evaluate their options and react ... This concept seems very easy ...
[quote="jOop."]Remember, Live has a larger market penetration than Max/Msp/Jitter at the moment. [/quote]
Yes, so what ... will this change? does M4L change the price of Live? What is your point? It is an option .... Do you complain that the pricing of Lexicon reverb suite is out of mind (which seems true) because Live is so affordable and ... I mean live can host plugins, so plugins should cost 100 US$ or what?
best
Re: I'm a bit confused: Ableton and Jitter?
To be fair, I was using "exorbitant" as a synonymy for expensive not "excessively expensive." However, that was a bit of creative license on my part and I shouldn't fault you for
taking me to task on it. However, these words are all highly subjective so you can't really say they're out of place regardless of my intent (it's worth noting that Jitter was really cheap compared to Nato 0+55 which was the only alternative before Cycling took that bitchy developer to task).
Anyhow, the point I was trying to make is that they're highly unlikely to give the product away for free and far more likely to factor its inclusion into their pricing scheme for M4L.
I still feel that much of what Jitter has to offer to the Live producer will fall more into the "gimmicky" department and, therefore, will be a hard sell to the (audio-centric) community once pricing is unveiled.
taking me to task on it. However, these words are all highly subjective so you can't really say they're out of place regardless of my intent (it's worth noting that Jitter was really cheap compared to Nato 0+55 which was the only alternative before Cycling took that bitchy developer to task).
Anyhow, the point I was trying to make is that they're highly unlikely to give the product away for free and far more likely to factor its inclusion into their pricing scheme for M4L.
I still feel that much of what Jitter has to offer to the Live producer will fall more into the "gimmicky" department and, therefore, will be a hard sell to the (audio-centric) community once pricing is unveiled.