Why are there no 'MIDI' LFOs in Live ?!?

[glitchrock-buddha]

ok, so no midi lfo's.....

....

...

But you are gonna give us timestretch in sampler right? (Ie, sample pitch change across the keyboard without the sample time changing....)

[kuniklo]

If this isn't going to get sorted out in Live 8 then *please* give us more midi controls for the instruments. We need mod wheel etc mappings for Operator and the other instruments.

[nobbystylus]

Apple Motion has an interesting way of dealing with having both keyframe data (clip based automation) and behaviours (realtime changeable data - such as LFOs). It allows both. Basically once the keyframe stuff has finished, the realtime behaviours take over. Everything is 'absolute' though..

http://www.me.com/ro/bighairmusic/Galle ... 4187180001

[ze2be]

Thanks for the honesty Robert and Ableton team! As mentioned earlier this is one of the most important reasons we love you guys!


Brainstorm:

What about inviting devoted users, that has the technical knowledge for understanding the whole picture, and make a closed brainstorm thread? Working as a graphic designer in a team, I know brainstorms can lead to good things fast!


My though right now:

What about Osc? Could you add it on top as a master of modulation and automation, and leave the rest just as it is?
If that works, the old projects will run just fine. And if one would like to do complex routings: add osc plugs or osc mode, and over ride the old system..

[forge]

ok, so no midi lfo's.....

....

...

But you are gonna give us timestretch in sampler right? (Ie, sample pitch change across the keyboard without the sample time changing....)

I know it's not the same thing, but you know you can do this with clips right? Have it play all the way up the keyboard and change pitch but not time?

[glitchrock-buddha]

ok, so no midi lfo's.....

....

...

But you are gonna give us timestretch in sampler right? (Ie, sample pitch change across the keyboard without the sample time changing....)

I know it's not the same thing, but you know you can do this with clips right? Have it play all the way up the keyboard and change pitch but not time?

Ya, but I'm talking about creating instruments that way, not pitch shifting loops. I think everyone would agree that mapping clips to a keyrange to create a keyboard instrument when that's what a sampler is for. But you bring up a point I've said before. The technology is already there. I think it should be in sampler. Anyway, sorry for that hijack. Back to no lfo's...

[forge]

ok, so no midi lfo's.....

....

...

But you are gonna give us timestretch in sampler right? (Ie, sample pitch change across the keyboard without the sample time changing....)

I know it's not the same thing, but you know you can do this with clips right? Have it play all the way up the keyboard and change pitch but not time?

Ya, but I'm talking about creating instruments that way, not pitch shifting loops. I think everyone would agree that mapping clips to a keyrange to create a keyboard instrument when that's what a sampler is for. But you bring up a point I've said before. The technology is already there. I think it should be in sampler. Anyway, sorry for that hijack. Back to no lfo's...

see I'm going to make a completely pointless and redundant point but when I got Live first I saw it more like a VSTi sampler - things like mapping the clips like that are what got me excited

so from my point of view, rather than making Sampler be able to time stretch, I would have preferred something like global track racks so that you could actually map everything an a track (or multiple tracks) inside a rack - so basically you could do what you're talking about but far more powerfully - if you could do multiple tracks then that would also solve the group tracks request as you could just combine tracks like you do now with racks

have unlimited macros on the track rack and all the usual key fades etc like instrument racks to use on clips

then maybe you could also manage the MIDI mapping within the rack itself so that it could also be saved with the rack, that would also solve the request of saving MIDI mapping templates

that would be cool

[Olga]

...this is a long story. I try to make it short.

.

Thanks for posting, but this MIDI lfo request is really ridiculous by the masses imo. I wouldn't even address it if I were you until Live ver 19. Anyone that actually uses Live as a DAW for a living and makes money from Live would tell you they want bezier curves and merging of audio in the arrangement view before any MIDI LFO/128 parameter nonsense end of story. On the to do list, I'd put bezier curves and merging audio together at #1 & MIDI LFO and + 128 parameter crap #456 down on my get it done today list.

[m:o]

....and merging of audio in the arrangement view....

what about consolidate? STRG+ J......merges audio into one (new) file.....
guess you know that ?!

[Olga]

....and merging of audio in the arrangement view....

what about consolidate? STRG+ J......merges audio into one (new) file.....
guess you know that ?!

Not the same thing you condescending ass. And if you had a clue, you'd know that.

[forge]

...this is a long story. I try to make it short.

.

Thanks for posting, but this MIDI lfo request is really ridiculous by the masses imo. I wouldn't even address it if I were you until Live ver 19. Anyone that actually uses Live as a DAW for a living and makes money from Live would tell you they want bezier curves and merging of audio in the arrangement view before any MIDI LFO/128 parameter nonsense end of story. On the to do list, I'd put bezier curves and merging audio together at #1 & MIDI LFO and + 128 parameter crap #456 down on my get it done today list.

well, you are really not making alot of sense there with these sweeping 'anyone who makes money from.." comments

frankly, Live is THE ONLY application available supposedly for playing Live - once called "sequencer instrument" - so things like LFOs should be immensely important

anyone who "relies on" things like arrange crossfades for a living would probably be better with Pro-tools/Logic/Cubase/Nuendo

[kaffein]

An LFO device, would make me want to upgrade.

...or free operator and sampler, kthx.

[pepezabala]

I still don't get why it's so complicated - so i can assign a midi-controllerknob to any parameter in live and turn it up and down rhythmically - that's what a lfo would do in the end, isn't it?

Instead of doing it with my hand I can write a patch in max or pd or use a 3rd party midi-lfo-vst. Fine as well.

Wouldn't it be nice if we had a little device in live that does exactly this? twiddle the parameters in live? With some nice shapes, maybe generated by summing two lfos? It could just sit there in every instrument/effect rack, invisible until you click a little circle on the left. And then you would be able to assign each macro or each deviceparameter to the lfo by rightclicking on the knob/parameter-field ...

And I don't see what's so complicated for implementation - if I can modulate a parameter by hand , why shouldn't this little lfo be able do this for me automatically?

[hoffman2k]

I still don't get why it's so complicated - so i can assign a midi-controllerknob to any parameter in live and turn it up and down rhythmically - that's what a lfo would do in the end, isn't it?

Instead of doing it with my hand I can write a patch in max or pd or use a 3rd party midi-lfo-vst. Fine as well.

Wouldn't it be nice if we had a little device in live that does exactly this? twiddle the parameters in live? With some nice shapes, maybe generated by summing two lfos? It could just sit there in every instrument/effect rack, invisible until you click a little circle on the left. And then you would be able to assign each macro or each deviceparameter to the lfo by rightclicking on the knob/parameter-field ...

And I don't see what's so complicated for implementation - if I can modulate a parameter by hand , why shouldn't this little lfo be able do this for me automatically?

Because its a control layer on top of a control layer on top of another future control layer.
You start with a parameter that is assigned to a filter cutoff, thats one. Then you modulate the same parameter with an LFO, thats two.
On top of that you have modulation and automation, thats three and four.
And to top it all off, there is another factor on which we have no fudging clue whatsoever: How will this all play with session automation if we should have that too? Thats 5...

So there are 5 ways to control a single parameter in this scenario where we have LFO's and Session Automation Recording.
And thats not counting factors such as assigning multiple LFO's to 1 parameter.
I don't know about you, but I'm looking forward to read the manual entry on that one.

[pepezabala]

ok, now I have thought a little bit more about the mess that this little thing could do when working in arrangement .... and have to admit that it's complicated ....