Live 7 "Better" sounding?

Discussion of music production, audio, equipment and any related topics, either with or without Ableton Live
leisuremuffin
Posts: 4721
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2004 12:45 am
Location: New Jersey
Contact:

Post by leisuremuffin » Mon Nov 26, 2007 4:48 am

well, once again you edit after i reply....

anyway by now, maybe you've read your actual quote, and would like to reconsider that statement?



.lm.
TimeableFloat ???S?e?n?d?I?n?f?o

Josh Von
Posts: 253
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 2:38 pm

Post by Josh Von » Mon Nov 26, 2007 4:49 am

leisuremuffin wrote:cute, asshole. here's some of your bullshit from the orig thread:
Josh Von wrote:
Cryptic UK wrote: Think what you will and death to the warp :P
I also disagree with this and - although its highly dependent on the source material - warping even at original tempo can definitely alter the sound.

The algorithm is still operating on the sample even at original tempo.

The problem is that - in aggregate - when you have many samples running simulataneously in arrange grid - all of them warped, at original tempo - all these slight alterations in the source material add up.

I totally believe this is the main reason for the controversy about Live's audio quality in comparison with the competitors. The warping is on on these clips and people forget about this factor when they are judging the quality

.


why is it so hard for you to admit you were WRONG.


.lm.

AHh ok ok ... lol ...

I'll ignore the "bullshit" and "asshole" and other insults because I'm a
grown man and I realize now that thats just your style.

But yes -- did you run a test that proved that warped vs unwarped clips at original tempo are completely identical in output?

I think to be accurate you would also need to run a test, with numerous (say 50) warped clips in beats, bounce the output ..

Then unwarp all those clips, bounce that .. then compare the output. Have you tried that?

I don't have a bias toward hating on Live. Why would I? Its software


.

leisuremuffin
Posts: 4721
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2004 12:45 am
Location: New Jersey
Contact:

Post by leisuremuffin » Mon Nov 26, 2007 4:51 am

Josh Von wrote: But you have an agenda Mike, you are a true believe and defender of the faith. You dont show respect for people, you dont listen, you are rude on here and you are persistant to the point of being unstable, honestly ...


bullshit.

i don't just give respect to anyone, they have to be deserving of it.

most folks here are.

You are the one who did not listen and did not show any respect. I provided a clear argument with evidence, you provided nothing but an unfounded opinion.



.lm.
TimeableFloat ???S?e?n?d?I?n?f?o

dataspore
Posts: 148
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 7:00 pm
Location: vic, b.c.

Post by dataspore » Mon Nov 26, 2007 4:56 am

grow up the both of you.
if you both respect each other that little,
why should you either of you care what
the other thinks.
bye!

leisuremuffin
Posts: 4721
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2004 12:45 am
Location: New Jersey
Contact:

Post by leisuremuffin » Mon Nov 26, 2007 4:57 am

Josh Von wrote:
But yes -- did you run a test that proved that warped vs unwarped clips at original tempo are completely identical in output?

I think to be accurate you would also need to run a test, with numerous (say 50) warped clips in beats, bounce the output ..

Then unwarp all those clips, bounce that .. then compare the output. Have you tried that?


.
oh, i sure did. Right in that very thread. you ignored it. I didn't bounce, but i ran a metric fuck ton of clips at once, because you suggested that cpu load, or number of tracks could be an issue. I didn't just do it, i provided a very simple and quick way to do it that would take anyone less than 5 minutes to complete.



all you have to do is say, "i was wrong" and we're all cool.

but until then, in my opinion it *is* bullshit and you *are* being an asshole.



.lm.
TimeableFloat ???S?e?n?d?I?n?f?o

Josh Von
Posts: 253
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 2:38 pm

Post by Josh Von » Mon Nov 26, 2007 5:02 am

leisuremuffin wrote:
Josh Von wrote: But you have an agenda Mike, you are a true believe and defender of the faith. You dont show respect for people, you dont listen, you are rude on here and you are persistant to the point of being unstable, honestly ...


bullshit.

i don't just give respect to anyone, they have to be deserving of it.

most folks here are.

You are the one who did not listen and did not show any respect. I provided a clear argument with evidence, you provided nothing but an unfounded opinion.

Ok ... about this technical debate that happened (almost a year ago or more?) on a software messageboard that I can hardly recall at this point:

I am unbiased and will totally look at any evidence that is provided to see whether or not there is a difference.

Do you have it? Go ahead and post it again because (honestly) I dont recall seeing it. Its been a long time ....

I still stand by my original opinion as stated, because -- in reality -- most people

a. Do not carefully track which clips are set to which modes 100% of the time and

b. Take advantage of Lives timestretching on a routine basis -- by pulling in loops and changing the original tempo to fit the set -- and by changing the project tempo during the course of the project.

Thats not vague and unfounded, its common sense.

But on that purely technical point you might be right, I dont know and never focused on it all that much to be honest ...


.

Josh Von
Posts: 253
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 2:38 pm

Post by Josh Von » Mon Nov 26, 2007 5:04 am

dataspore wrote:grow up the both of you.
if you both respect each other that little,
why should you either of you care what
the other thinks.
bye!

I would like to be able to post on this board, without being attacked by the same person for an incident that happened a long time ago, over and over again for no reason lol.

We're trying to straighten this out. This is really important to him so I'm letting him prove his point.

.

Josh Von
Posts: 253
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 2:38 pm

Post by Josh Von » Mon Nov 26, 2007 5:07 am

leisuremuffin wrote: I didn't bounce, but i ran a metric fuck ton of clips at once, because you suggested that cpu load, or number of tracks could be an issue. I didn't just do it, i provided a very simple and quick way to do it that would take anyone less than 5 minutes to complete.

Ok cool I'll take your word for it.

all you have to do is say, "i was wrong" and we're all cool.
I was wrong. I just learned something

Are we cool?

but until then, in my opinion it *is* bullshit and you *are* being an asshole.

Still?

.

leisuremuffin
Posts: 4721
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2004 12:45 am
Location: New Jersey
Contact:

Post by leisuremuffin » Mon Nov 26, 2007 5:07 am

Josh Von wrote: Ok ... about this technical debate that happened (almost a year ago or more?) on a software messageboard that I can hardly recall at this point:

I am unbiased and will totally look at any evidence that is provided to see whether or not there is a difference.

Do you have it? Go ahead and post it again because (honestly) I dont recall seeing it. Its been a long time ....

I still stand by my original opinion as stated, because -- in reality -- most people

a. Do not carefully track which clips are set to which modes 100% of the time and

b. Take advantage of Lives timestretching on a routine basis -- by pulling in loops and changing the original tempo to fit the set -- and by changing the project tempo during the course of the project.

Thats not vague and unfounded, its common sense.

But on that purely technical point you might be right, I dont know and never focused on it all that much to be honest ...
no, see, you're confused.

this is not about the quality of warp when it's being used. Of course it changes the sound when the tempo has been changed.


your statement was that at orig tempo, warping can change the sound.



I am absolutely not going to rehash all of my evidence. It is now the accepted truth by the vast majority of users that warping in any mode other than complex at orig tempo produces a waveform 100% identical to the same wave unwarped.



.lm.
Last edited by leisuremuffin on Mon Nov 26, 2007 5:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
TimeableFloat ???S?e?n?d?I?n?f?o

leisuremuffin
Posts: 4721
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2004 12:45 am
Location: New Jersey
Contact:

Post by leisuremuffin » Mon Nov 26, 2007 5:10 am

Josh Von wrote:
leisuremuffin wrote: I didn't bounce, but i ran a metric fuck ton of clips at once, because you suggested that cpu load, or number of tracks could be an issue. I didn't just do it, i provided a very simple and quick way to do it that would take anyone less than 5 minutes to complete.

Ok cool I'll take your word for it.

all you have to do is say, "i was wrong" and we're all cool.
I was wrong. I just learned something

Are we cool?

but until then, in my opinion it *is* bullshit and you *are* being an asshole.

Still?

.



fine, we're cool. That is all i ever wanted from you. I'll happily ignore your patronizing comments thruout this thread in the interest of the greater peace.



.lm.
Last edited by leisuremuffin on Mon Nov 26, 2007 5:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
TimeableFloat ???S?e?n?d?I?n?f?o

Josh Von
Posts: 253
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 2:38 pm

Post by Josh Von » Mon Nov 26, 2007 5:12 am

leisuremuffin wrote: your statement was that at orig tempo, warping can change the sound.
I conjectured that it might. You apparently ran some tests that proved that it doesnt.

Cool -- again -- I learned something, we all did. You were right, thanks
for running the tests.
I am absolutely not going to rehash all of my evidence. It is now the accepted truth by the vast majority of users that warping in any mode other than complex at orig tempo produces a waveform 100% identical to the same wave unwarped.

I agree (Im not kidding lol, Im sure you are right)


.

leisuremuffin
Posts: 4721
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2004 12:45 am
Location: New Jersey
Contact:

Post by leisuremuffin » Mon Nov 26, 2007 5:24 am

Y'know, that's all i needed to hear, and i commend you for being able to do so after all this time. I really didn't think you could do it.


I want you to understand that i also wouldn't have gotten angry at all if you had actually attempted to back up your statements with evidence of your own at the time.
I'm actually quite reasonable.


thanks.

.lm.
TimeableFloat ???S?e?n?d?I?n?f?o

djgroovy
Posts: 2025
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 12:15 pm
Location: Portugal

Post by djgroovy » Mon Nov 26, 2007 2:29 pm

Image

hoffman2k
Posts: 14718
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 6:40 pm
Location: Belgium
Contact:

Post by hoffman2k » Mon Nov 26, 2007 3:03 pm

Ah, is it this time of the year again?

Time to dig up Ingo's Quote. For those who do not know Ingo, he's an Ableton developer who knows almost as much about warping as Leisuremuffin knows :wink:
ingo wrote:Some remarks concerning unwarped playing
for warpmodes when the file tempo equals song tempo:

Unfortunately there is currently no indicator in the gui when
file tempo or song tempo are cut of after the second decimal.
So they might well differ a small amount, even though they
seem to be equal. This is what i assume to
be the case shown in the video.

In fact, even for such small differences in the tempo
this will not immediatly lead to warping for most warp modes,
they propably will make a different decision as to what grain
is played at some points but for most of the time will just
play unwarped with a constant sample offset resulting
from such decision.

There seems to be a quirk in the "tones" warper that
causes such an offset quite from the beginning.

"Repitch" starts pitching the sample to accomodate the
small tempo difference, and in effect diverts
more and more from the unwarped sample.

"Complex" mode is different from all others in that it
does no "grained" playing of the existing material.
It performs a time base analysis and transformation
of the input material. Furthermore "complex" also
does the resampling necessary for
sample rate conversion. In effect it diverts in almost all
cases from the "unwarped" sample.

Independed of the above i experienced single sample
offsets (from jitter) between warped and unwarped after subsequent
starting and stopping with "Shift+Space".

For the time being (meaning as long as there are no
envelopes for unwarped clips, no "clip tempo to song tempo" button)
i suggest the workaround:
- use more or less integral clip tempo
(equaling song tempo, naturally)
- use beats mode

I hope this was helpful,

regards, ingo

90's child
Posts: 214
Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 4:13 pm

Post by 90's child » Mon Nov 26, 2007 3:03 pm

leisuremuffin wrote:Y'know, that's all i needed to hear, and i commend you for being able to do so after all this time. I really didn't think you could do it.


I want you to understand that i also wouldn't have gotten angry at all if you had actually attempted to back up your statements with evidence of your own at the time.
I'm actually quite reasonable.


thanks.

.lm.
Damn! I was about to get involved in this discussion. And offer evidence.
:D

Post Reply