live's "quality for discussion......

eyeknow · Post by **eyeknow** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 12:33 am

minimal wrote:pointless to bitch about rendering since you can just resample

A whole song? Not sure I follow.....

eyeknow · Post by **eyeknow** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 12:41 am

I think what I was really trying to get at is the shit (live 6) does way more, but at a cost in the simple/quality that used to be the live experience.

I'm trying not to have to type so much (hard to keep everything in check so to speak) but it seems that there are too many niggly little things that hinder the way I used to work vs. 6.03-current.

Maybe this isn't making sense......sorry about that.......

leisuremuffin · Post by **leisuremuffin** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 4:54 pm

i wonder why all sorts of people aren't coming out of the woodwork to tell angstrom he's wrong.....

hmm. guess it's just when i do it...

C'mon, where's all the pro's who can hear the difference between two identical waves??

.lm.

bencodec · Post by **bencodec** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 5:01 pm

eyeknow wrote:I think what I was really trying to get at is the shit (live 6) does way more, but at a cost in the simple/quality that used to be the live experience.

I'm trying not to have to type so much (hard to keep everything in check so to speak) but it seems that there are too many niggly little things that hinder the way I used to work vs. 6.03-current.

Maybe this isn't making sense......sorry about that.......

eyeknow, i'm confused, what has changed so much, i can still use live 6 exactly the same way i used live 2.

dpel · Post by **dpel** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 6:03 pm

Tone Deft wrote:I rendered the same trance song in Live 5 and Live 6, Live 5 is definitely warmer. If 6 doesn't cut it, 4 still rocks. 7 is going to suck until the Covert Operators get their Max MSP Slicer plug-in perfected.

I find Live 6 to be little more cyan than Live 5.

dpel · Post by **dpel** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 6:08 pm

Angstrom wrote:speaking of lazy.

has anyone compared a resample 'render' with a normal render?
phase invert one and add them together, what are the differences?

obviously a good choice of source material would be essential, nothing with a freely sweeping LFO which would make both renders slightly different.

Obviously I've not tried this, I would do it now but I have to go out.
I would hope that both are exactly the same.

-----------------------

edit.

I just tried it, I rendered out 8 bars of a simple 5 track thing (I froze the tracks first).
I then 'resampled ' the same 8 bars to a new audio track.
I opened the rendered version in a wave editor, phase inverted it and pasted it as a 1:1 mix with the resample version

total cancellation.

0 bits left over.

If you try this remember tomake sure that your resample and your render are at the same bit depth BTW (I just found out my resample has been on 16 bit for god knows how long!)

anyway, to my mind resampling and rendering are equivalent.

I just did a simple test with a resample mix and a rendered mix. VERY similar if not identical. Inverted one mix, combined the two and heard the verb returns. I tried this for the other mix and found the same results.

eyeknow · Post by **eyeknow** » Fri Apr 06, 2007 8:08 am

bencodec wrote:
eyeknow wrote:I think what I was really trying to get at is the shit (live 6) does way more, but at a cost in the simple/quality that used to be the live experience.

I'm trying not to have to type so much (hard to keep everything in check so to speak) but it seems that there are too many niggly little things that hinder the way I used to work vs. 6.03-current.

Maybe this isn't making sense......sorry about that.......
eyeknow, i'm confused, what has changed so much, i can still use live 6 exactly the same way i used live 2.

Well, I'm not trying to cause angst or anything......I think I'll have to "re" think what I'm saying......just seems to me that I have more problems editing/exporting/rendering..........It's like little bugs that seem now to be perminently introduced into the product.....I spend more time trying to figure out if it's me or a bug, or whatever....where I used to just get things done.

eyeknow · Post by **eyeknow** » Fri Apr 06, 2007 8:15 am

leisuremuffin wrote:i wonder why all sorts of people aren't coming out of the woodwork to tell angstrom he's wrong.....

hmm. guess it's just when i do it...

C'mon, where's all the pro's who can hear the difference between two identical waves??

.lm.

Well, as I've stated, this was not "supposed" to be a quality of wavs rendered or 16/24 bit.....or oooogly boogly sample rates and phases and such. To THAT I say live (per sample/wav/aiff/whatever) is as good as most daws........I admit I didnt phrase it correctly, but what I really mean is before 6.03 (and back a LONG time) I could do what I needed to do in live without so many headaches.

What I am really trying to determine (and trust me, I hope it's mostly me) is if live is getting to be to "overdone".......where the new features introduce new headaches!

I don't think I stating the point to well, sorry about that.

leisuremuffin · Post by **leisuremuffin** » Fri Apr 06, 2007 3:27 pm

oh, i wasn't really making any comment on what you had to say.

just curious that when i present phase cancellation as a proof people tell me i'm wrong without providing any evidence to the contrary. Then they act like i'm a huge asshole for getting pissed off about it...

But i will say this about live:

The one thing that has bugged me over the past 2 updates is the big cpu hit. Back in live 3 my g4 lappy was a monster. Now i can barely handle pretty basic stuff. ...but i'm finally getting a new deck this month so that problem will be over.... I guess computers get old, who knew?

.lm.