Sitting on the Fence - Push or Maschine

Discussion of music production, audio, equipment and any related topics, either with or without Ableton Live
deva
Posts: 1685
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 4:32 pm

Re: Sitting on the Fence - Push or Maschine

Post by deva » Sun Mar 31, 2013 3:12 pm

f4te wrote:I think a lot of you are mixing up sound design and writing music. I personally design sounds while on my Mac as its much easier to have a screen in front of you instead of 8 knobs. Plus, designing sound and writing music are two different animals. Once I get push I will automap my patches with 8 essential control macros that morph the sound. Push was never marketed as a sound design tool...

Some people do combine them together more...

The idea of designing sounds on a hardware device with tiny screens and having to page through to find the one I want sounds awful. That is exactly what I never liked about my old hardware synths and having to dive into menus to edit. The mouse and screen was a great liberation from that. I am happy if something improves upon that, but no way I want to go backwards.

deva
Posts: 1685
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 4:32 pm

Re: Sitting on the Fence - Push or Maschine

Post by deva » Sun Mar 31, 2013 3:14 pm

pencilrocket wrote:
onestep wrote:
pencilrocket wrote:No one wants to remember and edit hundreds of paremeters with only a few knobs, that's it.
Huh? There's no need to remember anything when all the parameters show up on a hardware display.
Who would want to read the shit small display and search over 10 pages to find estimate string of words instead of accessing exact knob/fader on the familiar GUI in your display directly?
Well, maybe some people want to... But that sounds like torture to me!

onestep
Posts: 63
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 12:11 am

Re: Sitting on the Fence - Push or Maschine

Post by onestep » Sun Mar 31, 2013 3:57 pm

deva wrote:
f4te wrote:I think a lot of you are mixing up sound design and writing music. I personally design sounds while on my Mac as its much easier to have a screen in front of you instead of 8 knobs. Plus, designing sound and writing music are two different animals. Once I get push I will automap my patches with 8 essential control macros that morph the sound. Push was never marketed as a sound design tool...
Some people do combine them together more...

The idea of designing sounds on a hardware device with tiny screens and having to page through to find the one I want sounds awful. That is exactly what I never liked about my old hardware synths and having to dive into menus to edit. The mouse and screen was a great liberation from that. I am happy if something improves upon that, but no way I want to go backwards.
You'd be surprised how many people prefer to be away from the constant clicking around with a mouse on the glowing computer screen, even though they also don't want to go back to the annoying limitations inherent in standalone hardware.

The thing with Maschine though is that it gives the user the choice to choose a completely mouseless workflow or a completely mouse-driven workflow, or anywhere in between mixing between the two opposite ends of the spectrum based on their individual preference. The point is that Maschine gives the user the option to choose just how much of each paradigm you want in your workflow exactly when and where appropriate. I find this to be a great liberation from the world of both old standalone hardwares and the typical computer software that forces you to use a mouse and stare at a computer screen most of the time. Of course, Push will let people have more options in this regard but it just can't come anywhere close to the freedom of choice offered by Maschine since it was never meant to be a fully dedicated hardware for every feature set of Live and never will be.

skatr2
Posts: 451
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:38 pm

Re: Sitting on the Fence - Push or Maschine

Post by skatr2 » Sun Mar 31, 2013 4:24 pm

onestep wrote:
deva wrote:
f4te wrote:I think a lot of you are mixing up sound design and writing music. I personally design sounds while on my Mac as its much easier to have a screen in front of you instead of 8 knobs. Plus, designing sound and writing music are two different animals. Once I get push I will automap my patches with 8 essential control macros that morph the sound. Push was never marketed as a sound design tool...
Some people do combine them together more...

The idea of designing sounds on a hardware device with tiny screens and having to page through to find the one I want sounds awful. That is exactly what I never liked about my old hardware synths and having to dive into menus to edit. The mouse and screen was a great liberation from that. I am happy if something improves upon that, but no way I want to go backwards.
You'd be surprised how many people prefer to be away from the constant clicking around with a mouse on the glowing computer screen, even though they also don't want to go back to the annoying limitations inherent in standalone hardware.

The thing with Maschine though is that it gives the user the choice to choose a completely mouseless workflow or a completely mouse-driven workflow, or anywhere in between mixing between the two opposite ends of the spectrum based on their individual preference. The point is that Maschine gives the user the option to choose just how much of each paradigm you want in your workflow exactly when and where appropriate. I find this to be a great liberation from the world of both old standalone hardwares and the typical computer software that forces you to use a mouse and stare at a computer screen most of the time. Of course, Push will let people have more options in this regard but it just can't come anywhere close to the freedom of choice offered by Maschine since it was never meant to be a fully dedicated hardware for every feature set of Live and never will be.
A program like live should never have that kind of dedicated hardware. Live is a do it all kind of daw where people don't just make music. They solve problems where something more dedicated can be equally limiting. Its detailed enough where you can design sound not just on a vst's qualities, but also on linking and racking multiple racks and presets to change and move sound. Live works best with certain controllers focused on specific actions. Apc40 for your live performance. Push or any number of midi keyboards for your rhythm and beat making. Mouse for that nitty gritty editing and rack making.

Machine while good from its interface is well short of the capabilities you have in live...specifically because of the need to integrate and keep the controller interface as the forefront. You can mouse around it sure...but honestly in my experience, machine works better and is easier to follow off the controller. But you will never get as acute of flexibility with machine to be a music maker, performance tool, and a full song editor as something like live. To add this kind of functionality to live would likely severely sacrifice both workflow as well as capabilities of sound design.

humnumb
Posts: 636
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:27 pm

Re: Sitting on the Fence - Push or Maschine

Post by humnumb » Sun Mar 31, 2013 4:52 pm

skatr2 wrote:
onestep wrote:You'd be surprised how many people prefer to be away from the constant clicking around with a mouse on the glowing computer screen, even though they also don't want to go back to the annoying limitations inherent in standalone hardware.

The thing with Maschine though is that it gives the user the choice to choose a completely mouseless workflow or a completely mouse-driven workflow, or anywhere in between mixing between the two opposite ends of the spectrum based on their individual preference. The point is that Maschine gives the user the option to choose just how much of each paradigm you want in your workflow exactly when and where appropriate. I find this to be a great liberation from the world of both old standalone hardwares and the typical computer software that forces you to use a mouse and stare at a computer screen most of the time. Of course, Push will let people have more options in this regard but it just can't come anywhere close to the freedom of choice offered by Maschine since it was never meant to be a fully dedicated hardware for every feature set of Live and never will be.
A program like live should never have that kind of dedicated hardware.
Just by looking at all the complaints about Push already surfacing, it seems like there certainly is an expectation that people think Push should be able to have full control over Live without having to use the mouse, at least for really basic things like being able to browse clips, load audio samples, activate record in arrangement view, and much much more...etc.
skatr2 wrote:Live is a do it all kind of daw where people don't just make music.
It doesn't "do it all" though, does it? Certainly not being able to control all of its features from a dedicated a hardware, or at least being able to control some very basic features like the ones mentioned above from a controller that costs as much as it does.
skatr2 wrote:Live works best with certain controllers focused on specific actions. Apc40 for your live performance. Push or any number of midi keyboards for your rhythm and beat making. Mouse for that nitty gritty editing and rack making.
Some people don't want multiple controllers:
deva wrote:I like the simplicity of having fewer devices
But yeah, it would be impossible for Live to have a fully dedicated hardware for every feature of Live like many people mistakenly believe the Push to be.

skatr2
Posts: 451
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:38 pm

Re: Sitting on the Fence - Push or Maschine

Post by skatr2 » Sun Mar 31, 2013 4:55 pm

humnumb wrote:
skatr2 wrote:
onestep wrote:You'd be surprised how many people prefer to be away from the constant clicking around with a mouse on the glowing computer screen, even though they also don't want to go back to the annoying limitations inherent in standalone hardware.

The thing with Maschine though is that it gives the user the choice to choose a completely mouseless workflow or a completely mouse-driven workflow, or anywhere in between mixing between the two opposite ends of the spectrum based on their individual preference. The point is that Maschine gives the user the option to choose just how much of each paradigm you want in your workflow exactly when and where appropriate. I find this to be a great liberation from the world of both old standalone hardwares and the typical computer software that forces you to use a mouse and stare at a computer screen most of the time. Of course, Push will let people have more options in this regard but it just can't come anywhere close to the freedom of choice offered by Maschine since it was never meant to be a fully dedicated hardware for every feature set of Live and never will be.
A program like live should never have that kind of dedicated hardware.
Just by looking at all the complaints about Push already surfacing, it seems like there certainly is an expectation that people think Push should be able to have full control over Live without having to use the mouse, at least for really basic things like being able to browse clips, load audio samples, activate record in arrangement view, and much much more...etc.
skatr2 wrote:Live is a do it all kind of daw where people don't just make music.
It doesn't "do it all" though, does it? Certainly not being able to control all of its features from a dedicated a hardware, or at least being able to control some very basic features like the ones mentioned above from a controller that costs as much as it does.
skatr2 wrote:Live works best with certain controllers focused on specific actions. Apc40 for your live performance. Push or any number of midi keyboards for your rhythm and beat making. Mouse for that nitty gritty editing and rack making.
Some people don't want multiple controllers:
deva wrote:I like the simplicity of having fewer devices
But yeah, it would be impossible for Live to have a fully dedicated hardware for every feature of Live like many people mistakenly believe the Push to be.
:roll: the douchebag continues to troll

skatr2
Posts: 451
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:38 pm

Re: Sitting on the Fence - Push or Maschine

Post by skatr2 » Sun Mar 31, 2013 4:57 pm

:lol: and on a subject he's stated he has no interest in. Keep on trolling numbnuts!

yur2die4
Posts: 6319
Joined: Sat Oct 03, 2009 3:02 am
Location: Menasha, Wisconsin
Contact:

Re: Sitting on the Fence - Push or Maschine

Post by yur2die4 » Sun Mar 31, 2013 5:51 pm

Yeah, I really enjoy the openness of Live too. It invites everyone to the party. Yeah, it certainly has its unique limitations. They are even unique mostly to Live itself (no dedicated midi cc for devices?). Those limitations are also advantages. When I say, invites everyone to the party, I mean, use the Controller that you specialize with, and make music in your unique way. Record 4 min of guitar, play a midi drum kit, intros devices and vst's (maye with LED feedback!), map nearly everything with nearly any midi controller. Even if they Did have something that had full control over every single parameter, I doubt you'd see someone happy with it.

At the end of the day, Live will let you take all your bits and pieces and arrange a nice full length track, details and all. Or, you can perform the shit out of the program. Road tested. I know some software doesn't play so nice with third party controllers on the parameters, leaving you stuck using the specific workflow devised by Nati, er, a company.

I also notice people talking about knobs/LCD screens in general. I get too excited about the fun gizmo tech aspect of it, but they are dead on with the true goal. Old styled synthesizers had tactile knobs and faders, without LCD, for pretty much every parameter. It was your only way of interfacing with the circuit. Then came the 80's and it was all, LCD this and Button that which I'm sure was frustrating as hell.
I think that over the years, developers have found a halfway point where the idea is to have a few knobs, often 8, control a Few of the main parameters for a specific patch. But, I think that for a lot of people, ideally it is either mouse, or if you're lucky, a ton of knobs mapped already telepathically to the synth you're using with zero doubt about what you are using. And some people totally go there, mapping away.

So, when it comes to knobs and LCD screens, I'm just pondering about what people like, trying to understand workflows. I definitely don't think any way is right or wrong. I feel I am learning things from reading these comments :)

Tone Deft
Posts: 23565
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:19 pm
Location: SF, CA

Re: Sitting on the Fence - Push or Maschine

Post by Tone Deft » Sun Mar 31, 2013 6:10 pm

humnumb wrote:But yeah, it would be impossible for Live to have a fully dedicated hardware for every feature of Live like many people mistakenly believe the Push to be.
from what I've seen you're the only person to make that mistake.
oddstep wrote:I agree with all of this. I'm just bored of writing "its music, just listen and trust your judgement"

humnumb
Posts: 636
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:27 pm

Re: Sitting on the Fence - Push or Maschine

Post by humnumb » Sun Mar 31, 2013 6:31 pm

Tone Deft wrote:
humnumb wrote:But yeah, it would be impossible for Live to have a fully dedicated hardware for every feature of Live like many people mistakenly believe the Push to be.
from what I've seen you're the only person to make that mistake.
Um, no. It's been obvious from Ableton's own admissions that Push would never have full dedicated control over Live.

Tone Deft
Posts: 23565
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:19 pm
Location: SF, CA

Re: Sitting on the Fence - Push or Maschine

Post by Tone Deft » Sun Mar 31, 2013 7:05 pm

skatr2 wrote::lol: and on a subject he's stated he has no interest in. Keep on trolling numbnuts!
I see what you mean.
oddstep wrote:I agree with all of this. I'm just bored of writing "its music, just listen and trust your judgement"

humnumb
Posts: 636
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:27 pm

Re: Sitting on the Fence - Push or Maschine

Post by humnumb » Sun Mar 31, 2013 7:57 pm

skatr2 wrote:on a subject he's stated he has no interest in.
skatr2, I don't need you to try to speak for me. I'm actually very interested in this subject of comparing Maschine and Push. Thanks.

lo.key
Posts: 360
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 7:05 pm

Re: Sitting on the Fence - Push or Maschine

Post by lo.key » Sun Mar 31, 2013 8:16 pm

thats excellent humnumb,glad you're keen. But i think the issue is that you've just been rehashing your old content with each post. It would be great to have you involved in a living dialog, but its pretty frustrating to just keep hearing the same things from you.

humnumb
Posts: 636
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:27 pm

Re: Sitting on the Fence - Push or Maschine

Post by humnumb » Sun Mar 31, 2013 8:38 pm

"living dialog", eh? Sounds like something inspired by easter sunday. Too many hard-boiled eggs in your system, perhaps? :lol:

Anyway, I think the issue is that posters like deva, skatr2, panten, et al. have just been rehashing the same argument with each post. It's pretty frustrating to just keep hearing the same things from them.

skatr2
Posts: 451
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:38 pm

Re: Sitting on the Fence - Push or Maschine

Post by skatr2 » Sun Mar 31, 2013 8:50 pm

humnumb wrote:
skatr2 wrote:on a subject he's stated he has no interest in.
skatr2, I don't need you to try to speak for me. I'm actually very interested in this subject of comparing Maschine and Push. Thanks.
Nobodys comparing them you twat. If anything they are contrasting and showing why they have different capabilities and applications on two very different software. Your too busy trolling and playing up machine to get it. But keep on defending it. I'll keep on calling you a douchebag.

Post Reply