Page 14 of 63

Re: LIVE 9 : PDC IMPROVED OR NOT ?

Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 2:44 pm
by Ghost Mutt
RD444 wrote:
dude there is a setting in the menu that does this now.

TRY this

PDC

- Play some music
- jam some automation .......
- add a few plugs
- oh no everything is all out of time a rubbish

PDC take 2

- Play some music
- add a few plugs with tempo sync (like a filter with LFO)........
- add another plug before it...
- oh no everything is all out of time a rubbish
Step 4 doesn't work for me.
how many is a 'few' and what are they?

Re: LIVE 9 : PDC IMPROVED OR NOT ?

Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 2:57 pm
by Nokatus
Ghost Mutt wrote:Step 4 doesn't work for me.
how many is a 'few' and what are they?
Anything that introduces enough latency. Try a linear phase EQ, for example.

The simplest case I can personally think of:

On any channel, simply add a sound source (a simple audio clip will do) and then something that you automate. For example, a filter, and draw cutoff automation peaks that hit at specific moments in the arrangement.

After that, decide that you need a high quality linear phase EQ on that channel - and I emphasize, add that after doing the automation. You will find that the peaks aren't hitting at those specific moments any more. The automation isn't taken into account when compensating for the delay introduced by the plugin. You will literally need to manually move all the automation in the Arrangement on that channel to be visually in the wrong place.

Edit, five days later: it's not this simple, though. If you add the EQ further down the chain, everything is fine. The discrepancy only happens if you add the latency-inducing plugin before the one you're automating. I should have made sure.

Re: LIVE 9 : PDC IMPROVED OR NOT ?

Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 3:24 pm
by simpli.cissimus
How about the latency of the time line in piano roll view when adding more plugins with latency.
Is that still behaving like in Live 8 ???

It's so late I don't wanna look at it anymore.

I mean that is just too funny when it still is... :lol:
Oh common, that is wrong from the first day of Live 8 !
:roll: ...

Re: LIVE 9 : PDC IMPROVED OR NOT ?

Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 3:38 pm
by merges
…so, tying up this loose end… since PDC is a complex issue. Does anyone want to comment on whether the automation-timing issue with plug-in delay has apparently been addressed in the present beta of L9?

Re: LIVE 9 : PDC IMPROVED OR NOT ?

Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 3:48 pm
by simpli.cissimus
merges wrote:…so, tying up this loose end… since PDC is a complex issue. Does anyone want to comment on whether the automation-timing issue with plug-in delay has apparently been addressed in the present beta of L9?
I don't expect it going to be different as in Live 8.
This whole new version is not a progress functionality wise.
There isn't much good to say when so many things haven't been fixed or improved.
...better I stop here, because I said enough things about this.

Re: LIVE 9 : PDC IMPROVED OR NOT ?

Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 4:16 pm
by Akshara
Ghost Mutt wrote:how many is a 'few' and what are they?
1) Any timing dependent VST or AU (i.e. tempo synced delays, filters, gates, arps, etc.) placed in a series after any other plugin with latency;
2) Any VST or AU plugin with sufficient processing latency (i.e. high-end EQs and dynamics processors);
3) As of Live 8.3, any of the built-in Live Devices in this list.

There are two issues at play here:

1) Automation being moved audibly out of grid sync due to inserting latency inducing plugins. The return audio is compensated by Live's PDC. (2 and 3 above)
2) Automation and return audio being audibly out of grid sync due to inserting timing dependent plugins in series after latency inducing plugins. The return audio is not compensated by Live's PDC. (1 above)

The following is a clear and succinct explanation from Ableton from Jan '11.

viewtopic.php?p=1247289#p1247289

Hope that clarifies things, some.

*Edited the first and last entry for accuracy. Timing dependent effects only lose polling of the transport timing when inserted after plugins which induce latency.

Re: LIVE 9 : PDC IMPROVED OR NOT ?

Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 4:31 pm
by Tone Deft
petit nuage wrote:if behind the pdc problem is the ableton 's schyzophrenic positioning between the dj/live side of the soft and the producer side, IMho they must take a decision but NOW, for this version and they must communicate about their vision of live's future !
or YOU need to realize that Live isn't for you, sell your license and get on with life.

buh-bye.

Re: LIVE 9 : PDC IMPROVED OR NOT ?

Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 4:56 pm
by Akshara
Akshara wrote:
Ghost Mutt wrote:how many is a 'few' and what are they?
1) Any timing dependent VST or AU (i.e. tempo synced delays, filters, gates, arps, etc.) placed in a series after any other plugin with latency;
2) Any VST or AU plugin with sufficient processing latency (i.e. high-end EQs and dynamics processors);
3) As of Live 8.3, any of the built-in Live Devices in this list.

There are two issues at play here:

1) Automation being moved audibly out of grid sync due to inserting latency inducing plugins. The return audio is compensated by Live's PDC. (2 and 3 above)
2) Automation and return audio being audibly out of grid sync due to inserting timing dependent plugins in series after latency inducing plugins. The return audio is not compensated by Live's PDC. (1 above)

The following is a clear and succinct explanation from Ableton from Jan '11.

viewtopic.php?p=1247289#p1247289

Hope that clarifies things, some.

*Edited the first and last entry for accuracy. Timing dependent effects only lose polling of the transport timing when inserted after plugins which induce latency.
Following upon this, I wanted to just add a personal thought, as to why this is so important.

Because this issue only happens when using very specific types of processing in a certain order, the micro-management to avoid the issue is overly complicated. If the issue itself were less complicated, we'd be able to work around it and manage it ourselves in a more reasonable manner. Once things like automation nodes get visibly off the grid, it becomes very difficult to keep track of large projects in one's mind, or on paper, of what needs to be manually compensated for, and where.

Finding the latency for every plugin in a project is not a casual process. It is possible to create a database of every plugin's latency, and which plugins poll the timing transport, and what they will do when combined together in series. Then we could take that information and delay tracks forward, or manually scoot them, to line up with any delays in audio from other tracks. However, there is still the problem that moving an entire track of automation in Live is not handled in the same manner as it is with moving audio, and often has to be done on a per node level.

The point is that managing all of this requires a complicated process with a considerable amount of time and effort. And when other applications are able to make this a complete non-issue, or at least bring the complexity down to a more manageable level, then that has a noticeable effect on the project. Time and resources go into other areas of the production, and it's not something one worries about it. Having trust in one's tools is a big deal, and can influence confidence and trust in other areas of the process, such as the composition and performance. For some artists, creation can be a delicate process.

That is why I feel that this is important, and is why I would like to see this addressed in a future version of Live.

Re: LIVE 9 : PDC IMPROVED OR NOT ?

Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 5:18 pm
by Nokatus
On my behalf, I can honestly say I wasn't expecting basic automation to be out of sync in Live 9 any more.

I will continue using Live 8, it's a wonderful tool and the main environment I use (and enjoy using) - but damn am I disappointed with this omission. It's tragic we're even discussing this, it should be a non-issue. I was under the impression this is way up on the to-do list, so maybe it's included in the final version after all?

To be sure: I'm not even talking about timing information dependent plugins here! In my opinion, at least the basic operation of Live's own automation curves, when edited in the arrangement view, should simply work and always be in time. That's a given. An automation curve should really change the parameter at the specific place it visually indicates a change, no exceptions. And the timing of those parameter changes most certainly shouldn't change depending on whether I decide to add a plugin in the chain or not.

Re: LIVE 9 : PDC IMPROVED OR NOT ?

Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 5:35 pm
by simpli.cissimus
Nokatus wrote:On my behalf, I can honestly say I wasn't expecting basic automation to be out of sync in Live 9 any more.

I will continue using Live 8, it's a wonderful tool and the main environment I use (and enjoy using) - but damn am I disappointed in this omission. It's tragic we're even discussing this, it should be a non-issue. I was under the impression this is way up on the to-do list, so maybe it's included in the final version after all?

To be sure: I'm not even talking about timing information dependent plugins here! In my opinion, at least the basic operation of Live's own automation curves, when edited in the arrangement view, should simply work and always be in time. That's a given. An automation curve should really change the parameter at the specific place it visually indicates a change, no exceptions. And the timing of those parameter changes most certainly shouldn't change depending on whether I decide to add a plugin in the chain or not.
Yes..., why upgrade when it's basically the same software...!

Re: LIVE 9 : PDC IMPROVED OR NOT ?

Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 8:26 pm
by petit nuage
@tone deft : sooo creative and funny ..as always :roll:

(that's sad...)


take care bro you seems tired :wink: ...

i love live and its my only daw and i want to buy live 9 because it seems exiting but without a solid pdc ....much less
but i hope when i see its new automation features...otherwise it will be absurd ?!!

Re: LIVE 9 : PDC IMPROVED OR NOT ?

Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 10:28 pm
by TTOZ
esp81 wrote:
pencilrocket wrote:How can DAW add delay not only to audio but also to the Automation and MIDI? It will need delay compensators for every plugin wrapper, sliders and knobs.

Are there any sequencers that do this?
Yes..Cubase, Pro Tools, and FL Studio do compensate automation.
and logic, and sonar, and orion even, and motu DP, and plenty more.

There are about 2 (minor hosts) which don't have pdc at all these days and live is the only one i know of on the marketplace which DOES have it but that is so heavily broken.

Re: LIVE 9 : PDC IMPROVED OR NOT ?

Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 11:05 pm
by Luke J Warren (Dj/Producer)
So have any of you guys banging on about the PDC being broken in Live 9 actually used the Live 9 beta to confirm the issue still exists ? It seems rather stupid to be getting so perplexed by an issue which may or may not exist in the latest update ?

Re: LIVE 9 : PDC IMPROVED OR NOT ?

Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 11:09 pm
by sdfak1234
Luke J Warren (Dj/Producer) wrote:So have any of you guys banging on about the PDC being broken in Live 9 actually used the Live 9 beta to confirm the issue still exists ? It seems rather stupid to be getting so perplexed by an issue which may or may not exist in the latest update ?
Yes. it happened quite far back in the thread, that's why we're 'banging on' about it.

Re: LIVE 9 : PDC IMPROVED OR NOT ?

Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 11:11 pm
by Nokatus
Luke J Warren (Dj/Producer) wrote:So have any of you guys banging on about the PDC being broken in Live 9 actually used the Live 9 beta to confirm the issue still exists ? It seems rather stupid to be getting so perplexed by an issue which may or may not exist in the latest update ?
It was tried with the beta of Live 9 earlier in the thread, and it doesn't work. Also, no statement from Ableton anywhere in this thread speaks volumes.

However, any of this doesn't mean it wouldn't be included in the final version. It does make it seem highly unlikely, though.