Who is actually happy with the direction Ableton is going?

[UncleAge]

To me, It seems like they are moving away from a 'choose your workflow' style program to a 'this is how you should use Live' style program. Things like Push, the new so-called 'browser' and lots of the little changes they have forced upon users with no option to revert back to pre-Live 9 behavior are pretty good indicators of this change in attitude.
If you remember back, one of the reasons it took so long for them to actually make a dedicated controller for Live is because they said they didn't know how to approach the creation of a one size fits all controller because of all of the different workflows that users had. Now not only do they have a dedicated controller, but seem to be designing the program to fit the workflow of this new controller.

Personally, I don't need Ableton to make a controller, there are plenty of amazing controller options out there. I need them to make Live faster, more efficient, and more flexible.

I'm still on Live 8.

Mike

+1

My guess is that they also want to accelerate their sales of live packs. However, they needed a platform to host that endeavor. I guess its good to have multiple streams of revenue.

I'm not giving up hope on them just because I don't see enough there for an upgrade though. But at this point and time, my experience with the browser alone was enough for me to put my credit card away and await either some serious update or the next version.

[nemoy]

...i probably should have done that too...
live 9 so far is much more work, than actually enjoying making music...

[mholloway]

Definitely not efficient if you are organizing your own content. Also, I cannot efficiently browse my hard drives either, unless I index them and wait- no thanks.

I agree that the inability to browse one's HD without first scanning it is totally bogus, and to me is the major failure of the new browser.

I completely disagree that it is less efficient for organizing your own content. Using the "user library" section I have been able to create a folder heirarchy of user content -- everything from racks to clips to presets -- that is far more user-friendly and efficient than anything I ever did with the clunky Live 8 browser.

[andydes]

As for Push, I don't have a problem with it, nor am I likely to get one. It's clearly an attempt to counter to Maschine. I think they need to make sure that push and any successors ate designed to work with live. Not the other way round.

I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around the Push vs. Maschine sentiment.

I wouldn't read too much into what I said. I certainly don't want to start another which is better discussion. I just meant in terms of having a dedicated controller they must have looked closely at maschine. They obviously had their own different take on what they wanted to do of course.

That said, when they had a user survey of things people wanted, a dedicated controller was pretty high on the results. As was session automation, automation curves, spectrum in eq, better midi editing, better transfer from arrange to session. Sure people have asked for other things that haven't been included, but they've done some of the big user requests.

I don't think ableton can be accused of ignoring their customers.

[blinkeye]

I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around the Push vs. Maschine sentiment. There is some overlap between the two but actually a lot less than pretty much any other two controllers set side by side. Maschine is geared towards sampling and drum programming. Push is geared towards song writing, composition, instrumentation. Just because they are both geared towards doing more outside of the box doesn't make them exclusive competitors.

You're right that they're not exclusive competitors at all and that there's very little overlap between them but not about being Maschine just geared towards sampling and drum programming. It's just as much a full-on workstation host for song writing, composition, and instrumentation. It's a common misconception though, perhaps because of the way it was marketed by NI when it first came out but it's grown up massively since then.

Push is for someone who would work with a traditional style or modern pattern based hardware sequencer and Maschine is for someone who would prefer an MPC style sequencer. They can each do a bit of what the other one does, theoretically, but their workflows are completely different. You can't cut samples with Push and you can't play complex chords and melodies at the same time on Maschine.

As for a "modern pattern based hardware sequencer" vs. "MPC style sequencer", while Maschine does have the MPC-style hands-on sampling workflow, Maschine's sequencer is more similar to Live's session view with scenes and pattern clips. MPC's sequencers are structured differently with sequences, programs, and tracks. Maschine has actually been a viable hands-on alternative to Live's session view for production duties for a while, especially because it's always been able to do realtime recording of automation to clips (aka session view automation in Live 9).

[SuburbanThug]

You're right that they're not exclusive competitors at all and that there's very little overlap between them but not about being Maschine just geared towards sampling and drum programming. It's just as much a full-on workstation host for song writing, composition, and instrumentation. It's a common misconception though, perhaps because of the way it was marketed by NI when it first came out but it's grown up massively since then.

I said it was "geared towards sampling." Not that it was "just geared towards sampling." Please don't twist my words. It is not a "misconception." The proof is in the build of the MPC-style hardware. As I said Maschine hosts a sequencer and you can write with it. Having 16 pads puts it in the sampling/drum machine category rather than a traditional sequencer workstation which would have a keyboard since it is geared towards composing rather than arranging small groups of samples.

Of course you can work around that on a Maschine, pawing through octaves, but this gets annoying for someone who composes leads and chords simultaneously or just wants some range in their writing. I don't want to sequence chords and then melody if I can do them both at the same time. This makes Maschine too limiting for me. In fact, if I found myself wanting a Maschine I would just make the jump to an MPC, so as too work on samples on the go. No need for a computer at all! This wouldn't capture Maschine's ability to work with soft synths but, hey, I already have a Push for that.

[blinkeye]

Having 16 pads puts it in the sampling/drum machine category rather than a traditional sequencer workstation which would have a keyboard since it is geared towards composing rather than arranging small groups of samples.

Of course you can work around that on a Maschine, pawing through octaves, but this gets annoying for someone who composes leads and chords simultaneously or just wants some range in their writing. I don't want to sequence chords and then melody if I can do them both at the same time.

That makes no sense since you can use a keyboard together with Maschine. It doesn't need to "have a keyboard" attached to it to be a "sequencer workstation". This way, you have the option to choose which type of keyboard to use with it, if at all.

[SuburbanThug]

Having 16 pads puts it in the sampling/drum machine category rather than a traditional sequencer workstation which would have a keyboard since it is geared towards composing rather than arranging small groups of samples.

Of course you can work around that on a Maschine, pawing through octaves, but this gets annoying for someone who composes leads and chords simultaneously or just wants some range in their writing. I don't want to sequence chords and then melody if I can do them both at the same time.

That makes no sense since you can use a keyboard together with Maschine. It doesn't need to "have a keyboard" attached to it to be a "sequencer workstation". This way, you have the option to choose which type of keyboard to use with it, if at all.

Oh. I get it. When you get a keyboard to go with it THEN Maschine becomes a full size workstation capable of playing chords with your left hand and leads with your right. Guess I'm more classical in my approach than I thought!

Back on topic. +1 Andydes. I had a little trepidation about Live 9 when I saw a lot of the discontent on this forum but it's obvious some serious developments went into this version. For me personally it's a power house that is still getting major improvements over time. It's not going to suit everyones needs perfectly but what tool does? I am hoping in the next couple years they update the APC40 or update the Push functionality to contain more APC like function. Can't really replace those faders though!

[pencilrocket]

Machine isn't Daw. It's a toy for that purpose.

[kryptonitejesus]

bump for 9.0.3

lol have they fixed rewire yet?

[Michael Hatsis]

Definitely not efficient if you are organizing your own content. Also, I cannot efficiently browse my hard drives either, unless I index them and wait- no thanks.

I agree that the inability to browse one's HD without first scanning it is totally bogus, and to me is the major failure of the new browser.

I completely disagree that it is less efficient for organizing your own content. Using the "user library" section I have been able to create a folder heirarchy of user content -- everything from racks to clips to presets -- that is far more user-friendly and efficient than anything I ever did with the clunky Live 8 browser.

Sounds like what your doing is exactly the same as in Live 8. So I don't see any change in efficiency there.
No bookmarks for places and the fact that all the all folders you add just show up there with no way to sort color or add a custom icon make it a chore to use.
The whole top portion ( categories ) is useless unless you have a Push. Very inefficient as well. I don't even think i have to get into this as it's been discussed a bunch of times here and in the beta forums.
I'm not trying to argue here and I can keep going on about this.

[Michael Hatsis]

One thing I like about the direction ableton are going is the fact that they are outsourcing alot of things to people better suited to the task at hand. ie, the filters on new EQ8, the audio to midi stuff...pretty cool idea, never heard an eq that damn good in any daw before.

MIke

[bartend7]

no,
the excitement of live has worn off and as i begin to listen i can't help but start to listen and agree with those that complain about the sound engine. sorry, but FOR ME, it does sound a little weaker than logic or tools. but hey, they don't have session view which is the truth of live FOR ME. I've been going back to logic more and more. i guess live is the best for controllerism but after a few years, that shit gets boring.

[Michael Hatsis]

no,
the excitement of live has worn off and as i begin to listen i can't help but start to listen and agree with those that complain about the sound engine. sorry, but FOR ME, it does sound a little weaker than logic or tools. but hey, they don't have session view which is the truth of live FOR ME. I've been going back to logic more and more. i guess live is the best for controllerism but after a few years, that shit gets boring.

This sound engine stuff has nothing to do with this topic...

[bartend7]

why not. it seems a good direction would be to improve the instant sound quality.