Pixel shader

Share your wishes for the future of Ableton Live
liquidfx
Posts: 121
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 5:51 am
Contact:

Post by liquidfx » Sun May 07, 2006 10:51 pm

Rizem, Rza, whatever?

What are you talking about, lol. Coloring outside what lines?
Image

supster
Posts: 2133
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2004 6:26 am
Location: Orlando FL

Post by supster » Sun May 07, 2006 11:52 pm

rizem wrote:Dan,

Your points are valid, they would contribute to the overall performance and efficiency of the program itself, which by standard is not a bad idea, it on the other hand is actually a very good idea.

Why people would not want a well trimmed piece of software that utilises every efficienct aspect of programming technology there is today is beyond me.
.

totally agree

the simplicity of the interface in concept is great, in actual practice its probably too inflexible to make the best of existing and future features.

pixel shading not only allows that to change, but might actually help solve the horrendous arrange view performance of this program (by offloading visual processing and saving main CPU for audio)

.
--
NEW SPECS: Athlon 4200+ dual; A8N-SLI m/b; Win XP Home SP2; 1 GB RAM; 2x 7200 RPM HDD: 1 internal, 1 Firewire 800 (Firewire is project data drive); M-Audio Triggerfinger

josh 'vonster' von; tracks and sets
http://www.joshvon.com

zappen
Posts: 345
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 1:42 am

Post by zappen » Mon May 08, 2006 4:19 am

i agree with Dan, thumbs down for Liquidfx

Poster
Posts: 8804
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 2:21 am
Location: Amsterdam

Post by Poster » Mon May 08, 2006 1:59 pm

liquidfx wrote:And as for my "sig" you kids are just jealous you couldn't whip up something so visually appealing yourself. if you oppose, i dare you to post something better. a true artist can paint masterpieces over multiple forms and mediums of "so called" art. Live is one of my canvases, photoshop is just another. later dorks. :P
if you call your signature art then I'am very curious how your music sounds.. :wink:

Dan had a valid point here, try to READ what he says before you rage as a design cop..

Toonman
Posts: 101
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2005 6:57 pm
Location: Montreal, Canada.

Post by Toonman » Mon May 08, 2006 2:55 pm

I'm sorry, but I don't think this is a good idea. Pixel shaders would definitely accelerate the UI, offloading it from the CD. However, I don't think the effort to implement this would justify the gains. Here's why...

1. The amount of CPU cycles spent on UI refresh tasks may be minumum.

2. Making use of Pixel Shaders would mean users would have to upgrade their computers with new videocards. Yes, many users might already have one, but many may not.

3. Which Pixel Shader model would you support? Are you gonna go with Dx? OGL? Model 1? 2? I guess you'd be talking about supporting the latest incarnation, which means supporting model 2 under Dx... which would leave our Mac friends in the dust... (no Dx on Mac OS)

4. With Vista in sight, it would mean upgrading to Dx10, which would require again another video card... I don't know if users would rather spend those $300 - $500 on a USB drive, or a new audio interface, or a new plugin.

Pixel shaders, and anything related to GPU rendering, are not trivial implementation tasks. It takes a lot of effort and development time, and I'd rather see that time spent on tuning the realtime audio engine, or on the development of a new reverb plugin. Honestly, I think it woule be akin to trying to come up with a toaster that has a screen and a DVD player... yes, it would probably look cool, and I could watch a movie while waiting for my toast to be ready, but... would it be practical?

Cheers!

quandry
Posts: 1611
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2003 2:31 am
Location: San Francisco
Contact:

Post by quandry » Wed May 10, 2006 4:57 am

all of this is above my head, but I can concur that when I'm working on my band's songs with 15+ 24bit wave tracks, lots of effects, when I am trying to zoom in and out, shit can get slow, especially when zooming way in. This is the main (if not only) problem I've had graphically with the speed of the interface. If pixel shading or some other technical solution addressed this issue, I'd be psyched. carry on.
Dell Studio XPS 8100 Windows 7 64-bit, 10 GB RAM. RME Multiface, Avalon U5 & M5, Distressor, Filter Factory, UC33e, BCR-2000, FCB1010, K-Station, Hr 824 & H120 sub, EZ Bus, V-Drums, DrumKat EZ, basses, guitars, pedals... http://www.ryan-hughes.net

Toonman
Posts: 101
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2005 6:57 pm
Location: Montreal, Canada.

Post by Toonman » Wed May 10, 2006 9:25 pm

We would need to know the specs of your machine then. I've noticed Live starts to bog down after a certain point, and now that I'm starting to mix, adding lots of effects certainly has an impact. I'd suggest bouncing tracks as you feel they're ready... that should ease the burden on your CPU (at the expense of straining your hard drive).

Fledz
Posts: 166
Joined: Tue May 09, 2006 9:40 am
Location: Sydney - AUS

Post by Fledz » Wed May 10, 2006 11:42 pm

As Toonman has already touched upon, the problem is that pixelshader supportable graphics cards would be a must. Afaik, if you don't have a pixelshader you cannot run a program/game at all. There's no slowdown, it just doesn't work. And I don't think there's a way to disable that. Many users still have graphics cards that don't have pixelshaders. While it would be nice and look better, I think it looks good enough and am mainly after audio performance rather than visual in Live. You have to look after the interests of as many people as possible, rather than only the ones with beast's of a computer :)

kettensaege
Posts: 106
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2004 2:42 pm
Location: Germany

Post by kettensaege » Thu May 11, 2006 2:20 pm

Dan,
I think what you really wanted to say is: put the burden of redrawing the UI on the graphics card and NOT the CPU. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't need pixel shaders for that :) Nice idea, but I'm not sure how much we would gain compared to the additional work required and potential gfx driver problems that might occur.

gomi
Posts: 1133
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 8:29 pm
Location: earth

Post by gomi » Thu May 11, 2006 4:13 pm

liquidfx wrote:haha. fluck off losers.

seems like the true audiophiles agree with me. we are working with AUDIO software dedicated to creating musical/audio wonders. If you want something graphical, get photoshop or avid.

You are a moron.
I am sorry but it's true.

Using the Pixel Shaders on modern GPU to display the ableton gui
would not in any way change what it looks like.
It would merely move all processing of the gui off the main CPU
giving more juice to the AUDIO. Modern GPU's are much much
faster then the CPU in your computer.

liquidfx
Posts: 121
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 5:51 am
Contact:

Post by liquidfx » Thu May 25, 2006 6:05 am

gomi wrote:
liquidfx wrote:haha. fluck off losers.

seems like the true audiophiles agree with me. we are working with AUDIO software dedicated to creating musical/audio wonders. If you want something graphical, get photoshop or avid.

You are a moron.
I am sorry but it's true.

Using the Pixel Shaders on modern GPU to display the ableton gui
would not in any way change what it looks like.
It would merely move all processing of the gui off the main CPU
giving more juice to the AUDIO. Modern GPU's are much much
faster then the CPU in your computer.
hey jerk,

im pretty sure i said "hey if it will improve Live performance-wise, then why not" or something to that effect.

you can't read. sorry but its true. next time read the whole thread. jerk.

like i said before, if it will make the program faster and over better, then yea thats great. if al its going to do is make Live look "prettier" then we don't need it.
liquidfx wrote:do agree that if it makes Live faster, and flow easier, then go for it. but is its nothing but pretty bells and whistles then fluck it.
go sit on a cock, jerk. :P
Image

Sales Dude McBoob
Posts: 2840
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 9:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC. USA
Contact:

Post by Sales Dude McBoob » Thu May 25, 2006 2:09 pm

Okay... Let's move on... Flame war over...

I don't know anything about Pixel Shaders, but I agree with Dan 100% that something needs to be done to improve Live's graphic rendering speed.

I love the look of Live's interface. My issue is with the speed at which Live draws out waveforms. This is an issue I have with Live 5, but never had with 4 or 3. I work mainly with longer sets. When I open a set it can seriously take Live a few minutes to draw out the waveforms of a 30 minute long set. This is a set with 4 tracks of audio and no midi. This issue even occurs when I have a very short set, like a short song sketch. If the set is two minutes long I will see Live draw out the waveforms somewhat slowly. This never happened with Live 4 or 3. It's awful. It reminds me of Sonar 2. It can really waste valuable time when I'm trying to edit longer sets. If I have to wait 3 minutes for Live to draw a waveform so I can see what needs to be edited, I have just lost those 3 minutes forever.


Serious, serious issue :!:

longjohns
Posts: 9088
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 3:42 pm
Location: seattle

Post by longjohns » Thu May 25, 2006 3:09 pm

what you're describing sounds strange to me. is this a saved set which you are re-opening?

when i open a set, all the waveforms are right there. i've always assumed they are part of the .asd files.

when i see the slow "drawing" is when i drag in a new long sample and it's analyzing it and/or auto-warping it.

Sales Dude McBoob
Posts: 2840
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 9:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC. USA
Contact:

Post by Sales Dude McBoob » Thu May 25, 2006 4:28 pm

longjohns wrote:what you're describing sounds strange to me. is this a saved set which you are re-opening?

when i open a set, all the waveforms are right there. i've always assumed they are part of the .asd files.

when i see the slow "drawing" is when i drag in a new long sample and it's analyzing it and/or auto-warping it.
Yes, the sets I'm talking about are saved sets. Saved as self-contained on an external FW800 drive.

I'm familiar with the drawing you are talking about, but the issue I'm having is different. With the longer projects I've been working on, after you open them all the tracks are blank. Slowly you will see the waveforms start to draw themselves out. When you first open the set and the tracks are visually blank, you can press play and you will hear the audio. It's just a matter of waiting for the waveforms to be visually present. It's really a time waster because often when I am opening them what I need to see immediately are the waveforms so i can do some quick edits. There is nothing quick about it. :?

noisetonepause
Posts: 4935
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2002 3:38 pm
Location: Second row from the expensive puddle, under ten others

Post by noisetonepause » Thu May 25, 2006 4:43 pm

LiquidFX, your signature picture is incredibly ugly. The green burning effects are annoying and hard on the eye and the screen grabs look blurry. Also, you clearly can't read, your punctuation is appalling, and you have the people skills of me when I was 12. Why not stay offline for a few years and then come back? You might make some friends.
Suit #1: I mean, have you got any insight as to why a bright boy like this would jeopardize the lives of millions?
Suit #2: No, sir, he says he does this sort of thing for fun.

Post Reply