petition: tighten move playing position in M4L

Questions and discussion about building and using Max for Live devices
pucklermuskau
Posts: 118
Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2004 7:26 pm
Contact:

Re: petition: tighten move playing position in M4L

Post by pucklermuskau » Thu Sep 09, 2010 5:23 pm

thats a good point, and i appreciate that there is a lot going on here. I can only hope for genius and innovation from the ableton krew...code hard folks, your work is appreciated!
i drop on the lokeymassive

souladventurer
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2009 10:52 pm

Re: petition: tighten move playing position in M4L

Post by souladventurer » Wed Sep 15, 2010 10:53 pm

Bump it! any news?

XPM
Posts: 304
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 1:20 pm
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: petition: tighten move playing position in M4L

Post by XPM » Tue Sep 21, 2010 8:51 am

Bump again. Any news from the developers?
Image

asha.dan
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun Jan 21, 2007 10:53 pm

Re: petition: tighten move playing position in M4L

Post by asha.dan » Tue Sep 21, 2010 12:26 pm

+1 from me too!

Emanuel Frey
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 9:33 am
Contact:

Re: petition: tighten move playing position in M4L

Post by Emanuel Frey » Wed Sep 22, 2010 2:03 pm

+1 from my side

:D
:D
:D
:D

Jabbon
Posts: 156
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2008 8:57 am
Contact:

Re: petition: tighten move playing position in M4L

Post by Jabbon » Thu Sep 23, 2010 8:17 am

A buffer~ stores its samples in the RAM, this is why I would suggest to not create buffers which are too long.
The clips are mainly read from HD, so loading the clip in RAM does help, but does not solve the ridiculous problem of the difficulty in setting sub loop points, and the even more ridiculous issue of not being able to distinguish from Loop start and end points and Sample start and end points, which are quite different in definition.
I had to invent such workarounds for this that I decided that it s MUCH better and safer to use a combination of buffer/stutter to do exactly what I would like and theoretically could do already with the m4l combination.
There is really a lot of redundancy in Live which I think is a pain in the *** .
I do not care that a sound file looped is reproduced in time with the 4/4 Timeline and keeps the thing in the back, I just want it to start when I want, and to be in sync... simple like this.
If then the zillion users who actually use Live as a Playstation need it, then give the possibility of having a profi version of Live, and a consumer version.
Sometimes I really don´t get it, well most times.

so + 74
A=B B=C C=A

drones
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 4:25 pm
Location: paris, france

Re: petition: tighten move playing position in M4L

Post by drones » Sun Oct 03, 2010 11:31 am

Do you think one day this move playing position issue could be fixed?
Waiting this for month!

XPM
Posts: 304
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 1:20 pm
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: petition: tighten move playing position in M4L

Post by XPM » Thu Oct 14, 2010 10:37 am

:?: news :?:
Image

broc
Posts: 1148
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2004 8:37 am

Re: petition: tighten move playing position in M4L

Post by broc » Thu Oct 14, 2010 11:44 am

As I understand it, the problem is due to inaccuracy of observing the playing_position since observers are polled at an interval of about 50ms.
So with the current concept of observers there is no solution I guess.

tchan
Posts: 48
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 9:21 pm
Location: Toronto, Canada

Re: petition: tighten move playing position in M4L

Post by tchan » Fri Oct 15, 2010 12:34 am

@broc
would this implementation of the observers explain the timing problems between live and max for live? it sounds as if a possible solution would be to significantly decrease the polling interval...which may of course adversely affect performance.

anyway, just trying to get a better understanding of the problem to see if this problem can ever be resolved :?:

broc
Posts: 1148
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2004 8:37 am

Re: petition: tighten move playing position in M4L

Post by broc » Fri Oct 15, 2010 9:19 am

tchan wrote:@broc
would this implementation of the observers explain the timing problems between live and max for live? it sounds as if a possible solution would be to significantly decrease the polling interval...which may of course adversely affect performance.

anyway, just trying to get a better understanding of the problem to see if this problem can ever be resolved :?:
Yes, a smaller interval can improve accuracy, but any interval above sample rate would induce timing errors. I think that observers are just not suited for time-critical operations. On the other hand, there is a [timepoint] object for the global timeline that triggers a bang at any specified position. Perhaps something similar could also be implemented for individual clips..

tchan
Posts: 48
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 9:21 pm
Location: Toronto, Canada

Re: petition: tighten move playing position in M4L

Post by tchan » Sun Oct 17, 2010 9:33 pm

broc wrote:there is a [timepoint] object for the global timeline that triggers a bang at any specified position. Perhaps something similar could also be implemented for individual clips..
would this need to be implemented in live itself or can this be done in max for live? it's good to know what can be causing the problem...but as an end-user it's a little frustrating. most of us simply have no idea what it's going to take to make these changes...nor the unintended performance consequences that may arise with any proposed solution. we just want all these cool patches to work as best they can ;-)

broc
Posts: 1148
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2004 8:37 am

Re: petition: tighten move playing position in M4L

Post by broc » Sun Oct 17, 2010 11:03 pm

tchan wrote:
broc wrote:there is a [timepoint] object for the global timeline that triggers a bang at any specified position. Perhaps something similar could also be implemented for individual clips..
would this need to be implemented in live itself or can this be done in max for live? it's good to know what can be causing the problem...but as an end-user it's a little frustrating. most of us simply have no idea what it's going to take to make these changes...nor the unintended performance consequences that may arise with any proposed solution. we just want all these cool patches to work as best they can ;-)
Well, I could only speculate on technical details and consequences.

So at this point we'd really need a comment from the developers.

drones
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 4:25 pm
Location: paris, france

Re: petition: tighten move playing position in M4L

Post by drones » Thu Nov 18, 2010 12:19 pm

Please ableton team and ableton developers, have a look inside this issue !

altoaiello
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 8:24 pm

Re: petition: tighten move playing position in M4L

Post by altoaiello » Thu Nov 18, 2010 1:30 pm

I wonder why no response from the gang. Tighten it up, boys, or let us know to try other means of chopping.

Post Reply