live 9: speed and stability versus live 8

[Patso]

Live 9.0.1 64bit running like a dog comparing to Live 8.4 32bit on my MBP (OS X 10.8.3, 2.2GHz i7, 16GB RAM).

Checked with Live 8 projects with bridged (jBridgeM 0.76b) plugins as well as with 64bit plugins only (Dune, Massive, FM8, iZotope, Omnisphere, Voxengo). All plugins used in reasonable instance numbers, optimised sidechain (return) and returns, quality normal on 44100 and external interface.

Live 8 32bit still performs better than Live 9 64bit version on same device.

[szeno]

I'm running Live 9 and notice my CPU is being used up much faster compared to Live 8.

Tried opening an older project I started on Live 8. Bam, CPU usage off the roof, above 200%, and not a sound. This never happened in my Live 8 before.

I've been scouring all morning looking for solutions to this!

[tom.luft]

I'm running Live 9 and notice my CPU is being used up much faster compared to Live 8.

Tried opening an older project I started on Live 8. Bam, CPU usage off the roof, above 200%, and not a sound. This never happened in my Live 8 before.

I've been scouring all morning looking for solutions to this!

Same here.

[monks]

Live 9.1 is definitely more unstable than 8. Compare no crashes in 3 months with 8. 3 crashes in 4 days with 9.1 with absolutely no stress put on it- less than 10% cpu load. It crashed twice when I wasn't even at the computer and it was just sat there. And the irony is, my version 8 was a crack (sorry but I had to evaluate it). We're intending using it for live gigs....and now I'm over £400 lighter.
I'm not at all happy with the outcome. I'm not condoning it but this is often why people use cracks. Now, can we risk using this live??...or is this money down the drain?

I'm in the process of trying it out on my laptop which is the machine we'll be using in gigs. I hope it's more stable on that. We have high hopes for using Ableton in out Live set so forgive me if I seem angry!

System Win 7 64, Quad i7, 32 GB RAM.

monks

[re:dream]

sorry but I had to evaluate it

[monks]

...
No way should live be bumming out like that on what is to all intents and purposes, a workstation. I only hope the laptop proves more stable. No way we're looking t**** on stage. We don't need Ableton to do that

monks

[H20nly]

i installed Live 8.0 so that i could test and reply to this thread.

i found Live 9.1 to be much faster and much more stable.

hope this helps.
H

[eyeknow]

Actually, if it wasn't for the fact that it's "new" and "improved" I like 8 more. On this new computer it was just easier to install 9.1/packs and be done. Too complicated to do 8 + 9 and the different packs. 9.1 seems as on the old computer to run just fine (but they BORKED packs in 9! )

[Khazul]

With the 32 bt version, I find L9 to be generlly much more stable. As for faster, Im not sure. It certainly desnt seem noticeably slower.

The 64 bit version however when using 32 bit plugin does seem to be more CPU heavy, but that is to be expected with the bridging. As for 64 bit L9 vs 32 bit L8 - no idea as I dont have a project to compared that can use all 64 bit plugins.

The biggest L9 improvement for me however is getting dual screen support at last.

[Captain Johnson]

i installed Live 8.0 so that i could test and reply to this thread.

i found Live 9.1 to be much faster and much more stable.

hope this helps.
H

What system specs you got? 32-bit or 64-bit live?
Also wasn't live 8.0 a really screwed version? haha!

[H20nly]

i have 20 GBs of RAM so i run 64 bit.

and yeah... i was kinda kidding about 8.0... kinda, because 9.1 kicks its fucking ass.

[SpeedKing]

Since this thread got resurrected, I'll chime in. 9 and 9.1 are very stable. I've probably had 3 or 4 crashes in the last year with 9 / 9.1 versus 1 crash for ever 2 uses for Live 8. Projects take a lot longer to load in Live 9 than they ever did, but with my i7/16GB RAM new computer, it still only takes like 7-10 seconds max for new projects.

But yeah, everything else is faster, better and more stable.