if live 9 is not 64-bit...

Discussion of music production, audio, equipment and any related topics, either with or without Ableton Live
Lazos
Posts: 653
Joined: Tue Dec 12, 2006 9:02 am
Location: Auckland
Contact:

Re: if live 9 is not 64-bit...

Post by Lazos » Thu Dec 16, 2010 3:06 pm

Machinesworking wrote:
Lazos wrote: I'm surprised you'd say that. You haven't noticed the number of threads debating the surround issue in Live? Right, of course all Live users only ever play in electronic dance music clubs with mono systems :x And of course surround sound only ever occurs in movie theatres. Oops my bad :roll: :wink:
Honestly, I can't think of single club or even larger venue in Seattle that has surround. Mostly all clubs are mono for a reason, if someone's on the right side of the stage in a crowded hall, all they're going to hear is a right side mix. I doubt any of that is different for a city half the size of Seattle like Portland. At the very most you might get stereo, and yes, surround is relegated to theaters.

As far as recording for film, I hear you, but in the live music realm you're pretty far off base.
I know I'm off base. I'm not a typical user. I'd love to have tun/scala file loading in the Ableton instruments for non-Western scales, but I'm sure I'm one of probably three people here that care about this sort of thing.

But, there is very little in the way of live performance software that supports multi-channel sound. Though playing in clubs that have only mono sound is part of what I do, I want to think outside the box a bit for the future, be involved in setting up my own installations and sound reinforcement for performance. I would hope that the Live user base (and thus how and where Live gets utilized) is a lot more broad than you make it out to be.

cotdagoo
Posts: 1037
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 5:34 pm
Location: canuhduh

Re: if live 9 is not 64-bit...

Post by cotdagoo » Thu Dec 16, 2010 3:13 pm

Geissler wrote:Ableton's RAM limit right now is, what, 2.5GB? Go over that and it crashes. Not acceptable - it's time to move on to 64bit.
It's not even a matter of going over 2.5gb.. you get anywhere close and you better start crossing your fingers and saving often.

I've yet to see a set of mine not crash or start acting odd when ram usage gets close to 2gb.

bring on the 64bit please

moreofmorris
Posts: 176
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 8:57 am

Re: if live 9 is not 64-bit...

Post by moreofmorris » Thu Dec 16, 2010 3:39 pm

Hoffoman wrote:I really hope they don't implement 64 bit yet as it would almost certainly lead to yet more instability. I couldn't care less about surround sound.

Things I would like to see:

1. session automation
2. m4L run-time
3. Render to mp3
4. convolution reverb
5. time-stretch in Sampler
6. Clip based midi effects (i.e. a transpose knob like we have for audio, plus note-length modification, etc)
7. Bezier curves
8. Dual monitor support
9. The ability to select non contiguous clips in arrange
10 The ability to sync to computers running Live together
11. Pitch correction plug-in.
12. OSC support
13. A really good step sequencer.
14. Lot's of small work flow improvements and UI enhancements
15. Global LFO's
16. Comping
17. A v.a. modeled drum synth
All of this. I could do without 17. But yes, this.

necho
Posts: 995
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 3:39 pm
Location: (y)UK

Re: if live 9 is not 64-bit...

Post by necho » Thu Dec 16, 2010 3:55 pm

littlejim84 wrote:
Hoffoman wrote:I really hope they don't implement 64 bit yet as it would almost certainly lead to yet more instability. I couldn't care less about surround sound.

Things I would like to see:

1. session automation
2. m4L run-time
3. Render to mp3
4. convolution reverb
5. time-stretch in Sampler
6. Clip based midi effects (i.e. a transpose knob like we have for audio, plus note-length modification, etc)
7. Bezier curves
8. Dual monitor support
9. The ability to select non contiguous clips in arrange
10 The ability to sync to computers running Live together
11. Pitch correction plug-in.
12. OSC support
13. A really good step sequencer.
14. Lot's of small work flow improvements and UI enhancements
15. Global LFO's
16. Comping
17. A v.a. modeled drum synth
All of this. I could do without 17. But yes, this.
14 is a bit vague, no?
_________
sigs suck.

Machinesworking
Posts: 11118
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 9:30 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: if live 9 is not 64-bit...

Post by Machinesworking » Thu Dec 16, 2010 3:57 pm

Lazos wrote: I would hope that the Live user base (and thus how and where Live gets utilized) is a lot more broad than you make it out to be.
I think you're reading too much in to what I'm saying. So you want to instal your own surround live performance systems and think Live should accommodate that, fine... but your original post was stating that it was somehow lame of Ableton not to be already capable, complete with rolling eyes smileys and the insinuation that live performance venues had surround in place. :)

Machinesworking
Posts: 11118
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 9:30 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: if live 9 is not 64-bit...

Post by Machinesworking » Thu Dec 16, 2010 4:06 pm

Hoffoman wrote: 1. session automation
2. Bezier curves
3. Dual monitor support
4. The ability to select non contiguous clips in arrange
5. The ability to sync two computers running Live together
6. OSC support
7. Lot's of small work flow improvements and UI enhancements
8. Global LFO's
9. Comping
Fixed for DAW specific requests. 8)

McQ714
Posts: 1851
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2008 10:12 pm
Location: Orange County, CA

Re: if live 9 is not 64-bit...

Post by McQ714 » Thu Dec 16, 2010 4:22 pm

64-bit would be beneficial for some, however the program seems to need a complete re-write to perform as efficiently as most other software (and to add session automation), so why not just do it now?

I also think the GUI looks old and tired. It could use an update. I'm not saying they should make it look like hardware, but give us some of those pretty graphics like Fabfilter or Camel Audio plugins. There is no reason to not make this change when the video cards in 99% of the users computers can handle more than what it's throwing at them. Give it some dimension. It looks like a program that was written for Windows 98.

necho
Posts: 995
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 3:39 pm
Location: (y)UK

Re: if live 9 is not 64-bit...

Post by necho » Thu Dec 16, 2010 5:01 pm

McQ714 wrote:64-bit would be beneficial for some, however the program seems to need a complete re-write to perform as efficiently as most other software (and to add session automation), so why not just do it now?

I also think the GUI looks old and tired. It could use an update. I'm not saying they should make it look like hardware, but give us some of those pretty graphics like Fabfilter or Camel Audio plugins. There is no reason to not make this change when the video cards in 99% of the users computers can handle more than what it's throwing at them. Give it some dimension. It looks like a program that was written for Windows 98.
The UI is perfectly functional and clutter-free..... but it could do with an update.

I'd be REALLY surprised if they do update it though...
_________
sigs suck.

deanthomastunes
Posts: 75
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 6:58 pm
Location: Norwich, UK

Re: if live 9 is not 64-bit...

Post by deanthomastunes » Thu Dec 16, 2010 5:07 pm

No 64-bit would not be a deal-breaker, but I would appreciate it as I run a 64-bit OS with 6GB of RAM. I would like Live to be able to access all 6GB of memory, and 8GB once I upgrade my RAM.

More importantly though, there needs to be a working and stable 32-bit bridge so that 32-bit plug-ins can be used. Considering that even DAWs such as FL Studio have bit-bridging and 64-bit capability, I doubt this would be too difficult to implement.
Progressive/Tech/Uplifting Trance
Soundcloud | Facebook | Twitter

LATEST RELEASES
BUY HERE

Hoffoman
Posts: 27
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 12:34 pm

Re: if live 9 is not 64-bit...

Post by Hoffoman » Thu Dec 16, 2010 5:10 pm

necho wrote:
littlejim84 wrote:
Hoffoman wrote:I really hope they don't implement 64 bit yet as it would almost certainly lead to yet more instability. I couldn't care less about surround sound.

Things I would like to see:

1. session automation
2. m4L run-time
3. Render to mp3
4. convolution reverb
5. time-stretch in Sampler
6. Clip based midi effects (i.e. a transpose knob like we have for audio, plus note-length modification, etc)
7. Bezier curves
8. Dual monitor support
9. The ability to select non contiguous clips in arrange
10 The ability to sync to computers running Live together
11. Pitch correction plug-in.
12. OSC support
13. A really good step sequencer.
14. Lot's of small work flow improvements and UI enhancements
15. Global LFO's
16. Comping
17. A v.a. modeled drum synth
All of this. I could do without 17. But yes, this.
14 is a bit vague, no?
Fair comment. I was thinking of things like:

1. Zoom on the main view not in preferences
2. Frequency analyzer behind EQ8
3. More file locations on left hand bar
4. A music library location that you can see artwork with for quick reference.
5. Better visuals for the metering
6.Ability to hide the clips part of session view so that the meters can be seen at full extension whilst looking at the racks :)
7. A toggle tool like the pencil to be able to de/reactivate clips, cubase style in arrangement.
8. A mixer/arrangement view.
9. Ability to name group clips
10. Scene follow actions.

zee verkawound
Posts: 92
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2009 3:55 pm

Re: if live 9 is not 64-bit...

Post by zee verkawound » Thu Dec 16, 2010 5:13 pm

someone mentioned "stability" as being more important. Funny, I thought the fact that Live was not 64bit *****is***** thee greatest instability the program currently has. It certainly is if you want to use the program as a typical DAW and not just a sequencing tool hosted by another program.

incidentally, the program cannot use 2.5 gigs of ram in 32bit. It crashes on the best of machines at 1.8. That's a fact.

Ableton won't get a penny more from me till they have progressed past the present state of being a virtual toy company. In today's music software world, (for the last two years anyway)64bit is NOT an option. It's essential.

UncleAge
Posts: 677
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 7:50 pm

Re: if live 9 is not 64-bit...

Post by UncleAge » Thu Dec 16, 2010 5:25 pm

zee verkawound wrote:someone mentioned "stability" as being more important.
I did.
zee verkawound wrote:Funny, I thought the fact that Live was not 64bit *****is***** thee greatest instability the program currently has. It certainly is if you want to use the program as a typical DAW and not just a sequencing tool hosted by another program.
Yet we used these programs for years as "typical DAWS" without 64bit functionality.

Is there a fear that most plugin manufacturers are going to stop making 32bit versions during the next year?

UncleAge
Posts: 677
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 7:50 pm

Re: if live 9 is not 64-bit...

Post by UncleAge » Thu Dec 16, 2010 5:42 pm

And since we've bastardized this thread into a wish list of sorts I'll throw my useless wish into the mix.

I'd like to see the Abe's come up with a an extension to the VST or AU spec that would allow plugins to use more than one core at a time. To me, THAT would be some useful $hit!

beats me
Posts: 23319
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2007 6:39 pm

Re: if live 9 is not 64-bit...

Post by beats me » Thu Dec 16, 2010 5:59 pm

Lazos wrote:
beats me wrote:
Lazos wrote: Bring us surround panning (especially for LIVE performance) :!:
:?:

As a lot of venues run a mono sound system how is this important?

Are you performing background music for corporate PowerPoint presentations at movie theaters?
I'm surprised you'd say that. You haven't noticed the number of threads debating the surround issue in Live? Right, of course all Live users only ever play in electronic dance music clubs with mono systems :x And of course surround sound only ever occurs in movie theatres. Oops my bad :roll: :wink:

Yes. L9 better be bad ass, in more ways than just one.

First off the people who post on this forum are a small percentage of Ableton's user base. Second the people who post on here that are interested in surround sound are a small percentage of people who post on here. So the people clamoring for surround sound are a small percentage of a small percentage. Get in line with the notation people.

It's great you want Live to be all things to all people but I think for certain things you're better off going with a more mature DAW.

studiologic
Posts: 174
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 4:23 pm
Location: Land of Funk

Re: if live 9 is not 64-bit...

Post by studiologic » Thu Dec 16, 2010 8:16 pm

zee verkawound wrote:someone mentioned "stability" as being more important. Funny, I thought the fact that Live was not 64bit *****is***** thee greatest instability the program currently has. It certainly is if you want to use the program as a typical DAW and not just a sequencing tool hosted by another program.

incidentally, the program cannot use 2.5 gigs of ram in 32bit. It crashes on the best of machines at 1.8. That's a fact.

Ableton won't get a penny more from me till they have progressed past the present state of being a virtual toy company. In today's music software world, (for the last two years anyway)64bit is NOT an option. It's essential.

thank you!!!!

Post Reply