Page 3 of 4

Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 2:22 am
by cmreal04
I hate :evil: who ever made that post.........


CM

Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 2:39 am
by bensuthers
you should read the manual again.
you should read the manual again.

jlgrimes wrote:
I agree with you 110% on the mouse issue. Live suffers alot from:

1. having to manually arm everything (Reason, Logic, and Sonar has auto arming capabilities),

2. not being able to change I/O parameters or monitoring parameters on multiple tracks simultaneously.

3. no fader grouping or quick groups,

4. No clip muting,

5. No horizontal or vertical restriction movement in Arrange Window when moving clips by pressing a key modifier (great for making precise edits and moving stuff to different tracks,

6. no nudging,

7. No offline processing for audio clips,

8. No snapshot automation,

9. No automation curves in Session View (which really needs it since you can't record stuff realtime in there),

10. poor Groove Quantize and swing implementation (poor auto quantize implementation at that because you can't quantize at 1/32nd. Even some offline quantize is bad like no 1/32nd triplets),

11. Poor track management functions in arrange window. No Folder tracks. No auto fit tracks to Window function.

12. keybinding options could use improvements (Auto Quantize is hard to get to).

13. No default new clip length. (what percentage of users uses 1 bar most of the time for loops? I would guess many people are more likely to use 2 bars, 4 bars, 8 bars or even 16 bars) This would help reduce the mousing issue some.

14. Lack of Effects bins make it hard to copy effect settings to other tracks.

15. Not able to minimize VST windows (Sonar gives you a lot of control on this. You can even make them transparent temporarily).

16. Must use mouse to specify where you want Now Time to go. (In Sonar just hit F5 and type where you want to go).

17. Poor snap and quantize options (in the arrange view). Compare with Pro Tools and Sonar, you can snap to about anything (ticks, samples, warp markers, milliseconds, markers, clip edges to name a few). Only being able to snap to musical time is limiting.

Live is great for creating (because of Session View, Warping, Responsive Audio Engine, and Drum Racks), but when it comes too traditional studio tracking and mixing, Live leaves a good amount to be desired. It is possible to track and mix in Live but things like this makes it frustrating.


The mouse is good for learning new functions for the first time and for certain things like drawing and moving notes it is efficient, but to really move with a program, key commands are what are truly needed and a good solid and complete keybinding scheme of things. Sonar has keybindings available for about every function it has and gives you the almost total control on making your own combinations. Live needs to do the same to be a good DAW.

Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 2:56 am
by kenporter
cmreal04 wrote:I hate :evil: who ever made that post.........


CM
Hmm, you mean me for posting this thread or whoever did the DAW shootout? Pretty strong words huh?

Ken

Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 2:57 am
by kenporter
bensuthers wrote:you should read the manual again.
you should read the manual again.

jlgrimes wrote:
I agree with you 110% on the mouse issue. Live suffers alot from:

1. having to manually arm everything (Reason, Logic, and Sonar has auto arming capabilities),

2. not being able to change I/O parameters or monitoring parameters on multiple tracks simultaneously.

3. no fader grouping or quick groups,

4. No clip muting,

5. No horizontal or vertical restriction movement in Arrange Window when moving clips by pressing a key modifier (great for making precise edits and moving stuff to different tracks,

6. no nudging,

7. No offline processing for audio clips,

8. No snapshot automation,

9. No automation curves in Session View (which really needs it since you can't record stuff realtime in there),

10. poor Groove Quantize and swing implementation (poor auto quantize implementation at that because you can't quantize at 1/32nd. Even some offline quantize is bad like no 1/32nd triplets),

11. Poor track management functions in arrange window. No Folder tracks. No auto fit tracks to Window function.

12. keybinding options could use improvements (Auto Quantize is hard to get to).

13. No default new clip length. (what percentage of users uses 1 bar most of the time for loops? I would guess many people are more likely to use 2 bars, 4 bars, 8 bars or even 16 bars) This would help reduce the mousing issue some.

14. Lack of Effects bins make it hard to copy effect settings to other tracks.

15. Not able to minimize VST windows (Sonar gives you a lot of control on this. You can even make them transparent temporarily).

16. Must use mouse to specify where you want Now Time to go. (In Sonar just hit F5 and type where you want to go).

17. Poor snap and quantize options (in the arrange view). Compare with Pro Tools and Sonar, you can snap to about anything (ticks, samples, warp markers, milliseconds, markers, clip edges to name a few). Only being able to snap to musical time is limiting.

Live is great for creating (because of Session View, Warping, Responsive Audio Engine, and Drum Racks), but when it comes too traditional studio tracking and mixing, Live leaves a good amount to be desired. It is possible to track and mix in Live but things like this makes it frustrating.


The mouse is good for learning new functions for the first time and for certain things like drawing and moving notes it is efficient, but to really move with a program, key commands are what are truly needed and a good solid and complete keybinding scheme of things. Sonar has keybindings available for about every function it has and gives you the almost total control on making your own combinations. Live needs to do the same to be a good DAW.
Totally agree. There are quite a few issues listed that can be done easily in Live...

Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 3:02 am
by doc holiday
live is in it's own class.. that is the thing that is not taken into consideration

live is it's own software.. the others are all following a certain formula.

this is why live doesn't score well.. that and the fact that the suite does cost more the logic for a change

Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 10:16 am
by cmreal04
kenporter

Ohhh, sorry should have been more specific. Who ever is responsible for that stupid shoot out report

CM

Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 12:05 pm
by jlgrimes
kenporter wrote:
bensuthers wrote:you should read the manual again.
you should read the manual again.

jlgrimes wrote:
I agree with you 110% on the mouse issue. Live suffers alot from:

1. having to manually arm everything (Reason, Logic, and Sonar has auto arming capabilities),

2. not being able to change I/O parameters or monitoring parameters on multiple tracks simultaneously.

3. no fader grouping or quick groups,

4. No clip muting,

5. No horizontal or vertical restriction movement in Arrange Window when moving clips by pressing a key modifier (great for making precise edits and moving stuff to different tracks,

6. no nudging,

7. No offline processing for audio clips,

8. No snapshot automation,

9. No automation curves in Session View (which really needs it since you can't record stuff realtime in there),

10. poor Groove Quantize and swing implementation (poor auto quantize implementation at that because you can't quantize at 1/32nd. Even some offline quantize is bad like no 1/32nd triplets),

11. Poor track management functions in arrange window. No Folder tracks. No auto fit tracks to Window function.

12. keybinding options could use improvements (Auto Quantize is hard to get to).

13. No default new clip length. (what percentage of users uses 1 bar most of the time for loops? I would guess many people are more likely to use 2 bars, 4 bars, 8 bars or even 16 bars) This would help reduce the mousing issue some.

14. Lack of Effects bins make it hard to copy effect settings to other tracks.

15. Not able to minimize VST windows (Sonar gives you a lot of control on this. You can even make them transparent temporarily).

16. Must use mouse to specify where you want Now Time to go. (In Sonar just hit F5 and type where you want to go).

17. Poor snap and quantize options (in the arrange view). Compare with Pro Tools and Sonar, you can snap to about anything (ticks, samples, warp markers, milliseconds, markers, clip edges to name a few). Only being able to snap to musical time is limiting.

Live is great for creating (because of Session View, Warping, Responsive Audio Engine, and Drum Racks), but when it comes too traditional studio tracking and mixing, Live leaves a good amount to be desired. It is possible to track and mix in Live but things like this makes it frustrating.


The mouse is good for learning new functions for the first time and for certain things like drawing and moving notes it is efficient, but to really move with a program, key commands are what are truly needed and a good solid and complete keybinding scheme of things. Sonar has keybindings available for about every function it has and gives you the almost total control on making your own combinations. Live needs to do the same to be a good DAW.
Totally agree. There are quite a few issues listed that can be done easily in Live...

I've been reading the manual and Live 6 power and have not found an equivalent way to do these things in Live that is as elegant as Sonar or as quick as Sonar.

Sure there are workarounds to get around these shortcomings (all programs have some sort of workarounds), but workarounds usually aren't described in the manual and 90% of the time are an inefficient way of doing a task.

Basically from the things I listed, Live is great for sketching out ideas and composing songs, and Live performance, but when it comes to linear style recording, groove quantize, and mixing,

it needs improvement

Every DAW out needs improvement somewhere, those areas are just some of Live's weaknessess I noticed from coming from Sonar.

If you see something I stated that is untrue on the list point it out or state the page on the manual or something. I'm not perfect there could be like 1 or 2 things I'm unaware of but I really doubt Live is able to do more than half of those things because believe me I've been searching in the manual for them.

Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 7:44 pm
by leedsquietman
Also the test does not include Digital Performer or Samplitude both of which are excellent DAWS and comparable to Cubase, Sonar, Logic etc.

They could also include Tracktion and Reaper.

Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 12:48 pm
by vicz
leedsquietman wrote:I've used all of these DAWS and I think that overall many things are right, and specifically you get a breakdown of each category by clicking on it, but some things have perhaps more weighting than they should.

DAWS with surround sound capability score a huge advantage in that section, and certain 'special functions' seem to be worth more than other, for example, Logic definately has the best softsynths and FX plugins in that category and actually scores 5/5 on that but in the summarized breakdown it comes out below Sonar and Cubase because of other 'special functions' which seems illogical unless you click on that section and see the detailed analysis.

Also - Live Suite addresses this quite a bit in favour of Live but they only judge the basic Live 7.

What they cannot measure is the workflow and pure 'magicalness' of Live and it's session view which is what makes the software special. Every other daw is the linear DAW variety and most of us agree that Live breaks the monotony and rigidity of the linear timeline and is a big attraction, the drop and drag sample on the flyness, the speed of creative composition and such is just not accounted for in this test, which I think is pretty valid for most traditional DAWS but could never hope to measure Live in a positive way.

I think though that in terms of Sonar, Logic and Cubase over Protools LE it is spot on and a reason why people should shop around and not fall for the 'industry standard' line every time.
So basically you agree with me then :!:

Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 1:52 pm
by kraze
Now how ridiculous is that?

Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 2:37 pm
by ebowla
kenporter wrote:
condra wrote:
Workflow - No way IMO. Live is still far too mouse orientated in general, and editing in Arrangement view is painfull compared to Sonar/Cubase.
Heh, I disagree. :) I've set up a template with all sort of key functions that I start out with. Also, you could use a program like QuicKeys to make your custom key commands for some macros. I know 3rd party software, but it helps getting rid of clicking the mouse. And again, you can do a lot of things by creating a template using the key command assignments in Live. Took me a while until I set it up. Now I don't look back...
Please post me a template on how to do this! I want to use my triggerfinger knobs to change track selections and much more . I can do the basic midi assignments but that deep mackie emulation gets my brain lost . I need the setup for dummies instructions. Just actually bought live 7 3 weeks ago but have used it since 1 came out . Its all i use now and i have the m box and tools version 7 and stuff and never open it anymore now that i have live 7 .

Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 4:23 pm
by doc holiday
^^^

1.)you look at a list of cc's and note values that mackie control sends
2.)you pick the features you want to emulate.
3.)you program your midi device with these assignments
4.)you tell live your controller is a mackie control
5.)enjoy

you could only map one control to emulate mackie if you like.

Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 5:15 pm
by leedsquietman
Well I personally like Cubase better than Sonar and Logic, but you have to consider that I've been using Cubase for several years, so am familiar and the human condition doesn't like too much radical change.

Just preferred the GUI and certain features, but really both Sonar and Logic have strengths over Cubase in some areas, not least the quality of the synths and fx. Any of these 3 or DP or Samplitude are fully capable linear DAWS.

Live is it's own beast. It's qualities cannot be reflected in this comparison of rigidly linear DAWS and also they do not take into account the Suite instruments.

I am so addicted to Live that if I only could choose one DAW, I would choose it, even though it has some shortcomings compared to these traditional mature DAWS (most have been around 15-20 years), I could never go back to composing and arranging in any of the linear DAWS. But mixing and some deeper audio and MIDI tasks occasionally draw me back into finishing projects in Cubase but that is getting rarer.

I think within a release or two, Live will seriously score much higher on a test like the Digital DAW Shootout test.

Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 5:29 pm
by Casual Beats
why is our midi setup so low? what troubles did the author have?

Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 5:31 pm
by Casual Beats
well hell, this pretty much sums it up
I’ll start by pointing out that Cubase, the product with the highest functional rating also provides the least value for the money. On the other hand, FL Studio, the newcomer to the shootout, has the lowest functional rating but provides the most value for money.