Do you like Max for Live?

[33tetragammon]

no,i LOVE IT!!!!!!!!!!

totally,absolutely.

slightly off-topic : i also own Reaktor 5,but never could get into creating my own stuff.tutorials were horrible in my opinion.
that aside,it was and still is my go-to tool(inside Live):so much amazing ensembles in there.

the Max/Msp/Jitter tutorials are just so damn good and clear,it's fantastic!!!!!!
man,i'm having fun learning how to do stuff.
for me,in the two weeks i now own it,i have been totally blown away by all those patches.


thank you all at Ableton&Cycling 74!!!!!!!

[33tetragammon]

i personally reached a level, where creating a specific devices for some tasks take less time than researching for other tools that might do the same thing. this is how all the devices here: http://www.monolake.de/technology/m4l.html were created. i think the devices there show clearly where the strength of Max For Live can be.

thanks for the link!
trying them out right now........

[zigzag]

yes and no is my answer.

Yes - if you have a clear vision of what you want to achieve -- or -- time and capability(skill) to grasp it and do it.
No - if you dont have time & skill and just want to be browsing other's plugins: most might not be useful for what you want -- or -- existing plugins are too limited (for what m4l can do) since the product is new.

I feel I paid too much for what the product has to offer right now, but I can certainly build my knowledge, expand it and enhance my understanding. I think of it more like an investment rather than a fixed product. This will take me to different paths for sure, at the cost of time.

Its all a matter of choice.

[davepermen]

yes.

i think it's too complicated/lowlevel/strange to be absolute superb, but it opens possibilities, which are great.

[realtrance]

I have to say I absolutely love M4L; I absolutely love Reaktor, too! They're both stupendously stimulating to creative thinking about what music is, what sound is, how to encompass both within the bounds of the principles of synthesis and logic.

They approach that immensity in different ways, and I think people underestimate either program when they summarily dismiss them.

I think Reaktor lends itself more immediately and more quickly to thinking first, in traditional modular hardware synth terms, if you begin just with using the built-in modules/starting points as if you were assembling your own various modular hardware analogue synthesizers; then, to graduating to thinking about synthesis in "DSP terms," as I'd shorthand it, in other words, from the higher-level of disassembling each of the fundamental elements of classic synthesis -- oscillators, filters, modulators of various sorts, etc. -- down into the components that go into creating all of those digitally, to the lower-level, dare you get into Core programming, of really understanding how to manipulate fundamental principles of DSP programming, translated into software terms, to creating or revising very fundamental elements of digital synthesis and logic. At that point, you're no longer just building equivalents of modular analogue synths in software; you're no longer "just" creating filters, oscillators, samplers, sequencers etc. digitally; you're now dealing with how to create a specific kind of filter, etc. with specific qualities you want to focus on, using the principles of electronic synthesis programming you'll have to study up on, and ideally, understand the mathematics behind, to really manipulate.

Can Max do all that, too? Of course, but it approaches it all from a slightly different angle. Max really starts off more explicitly with a concept of programming modules, which look and feel from the outset a lot more like bits of programming than they do attempts at being "analogues" of anything. So, in a sense, you're "beginning" at a level closer to where you end up at with Reaktor with its Core tech, except that with Max how you deal with programming at that level is a little simpler, and more directly correlated with the kind of programming you do in other synthesis programming languages, be they Csound or PD or SuperCollider or Eric or Whatever. You start with the programming abstraction, and work your way "up" (that's how in my brain it feels, structurally) towards things you can more readily recognize as typical elements of synthesis -- filters, oscillators, envelopes/modulators, sequencers, etc.

I'm newer to Max so maybe I haven't found the deep sea of readymades (already-made examples) of everything from synths/ensembles to logic components you'll find in the Reaktor library that is maybe out there, but because there's no direct access to something like that with my purchase of M4L thru Ableton, I'm left with the impression that, comparatively speaking, I'm a lot more on my own to start putting all those typical pieces together. The Pluggo examples shipping with M4L are great, ingenious, lots of fun, primarily audio and MIDI effects with some very rudimentary synthesizer examples as well, but they're a fraction of what you'll find as a new user starting out with Reaktor, and in some cases that'll leave you with the (probably misguided?) impression that "Max is only good for creating MIDI and Audio effects" or something. There's a lot less "free stuff" that way, but then again you have a cornucopia of incredible instruments already with Ableton Suite 8, so you're ridiculous for complaining about that if you don't have another thirty full-scale, detailed synthesizers shipping with the M4L components as well.

ON THE OTHER HAND, big other hand: the Max tutorials available with M4L, both internally to the Ableton stuff and online as part of Max's documentation, are absolutely stupendous, far more systematic, far more dynamically hooked in with interactive examples of _everything_ that's being discussed, than you'll find with Reaktor. So not only can you read extremely logically, well-written, thoroughly-edited documentation for all of Max, you can play with examples of all the principles you're being presented as you're studying Max, which is absolutely huge for understanding. You have to be a lot more "pro-active" with Reaktor to find an ensemble that'll reflect what you're reading up on with Reaktor's included documentation, and will have to know what you're looking for before you really know what you're looking for to find the right ensembles or components to play with, to rehearse your understanding of what you're studying in Reaktor.

But jeezus, joseph, bob and sadie, in both cases, what you're getting for mere hundreds of euros/dollars is a compendium of intellectual, musical, software, and instrumental riches that you couldn't buy a few short years ago if you owned all of Dubai and Saudi Arabia all by your lonesome!

Suffice it to say, if I were any kind of musician (I am), and any kind of soul eager to learn (I am), and had any kind of love of software because of its intricate ingenuity and accessibility, (I do), I'd probably sell organs to get the cash to buy both these programs if I weren't already fortunate enough not to have to do so, and I mean like kidneys, not Hammonds or B3s! <g>

So, hope that helps.

[pandakar]

I have to say I absolutely love M4L; I absolutely love Reaktor, too! They're both stupendously stimulating to creative thinking about what music is, what sound is, how to encompass both within the bounds of the principles of synthesis and logic.

They approach that immensity in different ways, and I think people underestimate either program when they summarily dismiss them.

I think Reaktor lends itself more immediately and more quickly to thinking first, in traditional modular hardware synth terms, if you begin just with using the built-in modules/starting points as if you were assembling your own various modular hardware analogue synthesizers; then, to graduating to thinking about synthesis in "DSP terms," as I'd shorthand it, in other words, from the higher-level of disassembling each of the fundamental elements of classic synthesis -- oscillators, filters, modulators of various sorts, etc. -- down into the components that go into creating all of those digitally, to the lower-level, dare you get into Core programming, of really understanding how to manipulate fundamental principles of DSP programming, translated into software terms, to creating or revising very fundamental elements of digital synthesis and logic. At that point, you're no longer just building equivalents of modular analogue synths in software; you're no longer "just" creating filters, oscillators, samplers, sequencers etc. digitally; you're now dealing with how to create a specific kind of filter, etc. with specific qualities you want to focus on, using the principles of electronic synthesis programming you'll have to study up on, and ideally, understand the mathematics behind, to really manipulate.

Can Max do all that, too? Of course, but it approaches it all from a slightly different angle. Max really starts off more explicitly with a concept of programming modules, which look and feel from the outset a lot more like bits of programming than they do attempts at being "analogues" of anything. So, in a sense, you're "beginning" at a level closer to where you end up at with Reaktor with its Core tech, except that with Max how you deal with programming at that level is a little simpler, and more directly correlated with the kind of programming you do in other synthesis programming languages, be they Csound or PD or SuperCollider or Eric or Whatever. You start with the programming abstraction, and work your way "up" (that's how in my brain it feels, structurally) towards things you can more readily recognize as typical elements of synthesis -- filters, oscillators, envelopes/modulators, sequencers, etc.

I'm newer to Max so maybe I haven't found the deep sea of readymades (already-made examples) of everything from synths/ensembles to logic components you'll find in the Reaktor library that is maybe out there, but because there's no direct access to something like that with my purchase of M4L thru Ableton, I'm left with the impression that, comparatively speaking, I'm a lot more on my own to start putting all those typical pieces together. The Pluggo examples shipping with M4L are great, ingenious, lots of fun, primarily audio and MIDI effects with some very rudimentary synthesizer examples as well, but they're a fraction of what you'll find as a new user starting out with Reaktor, and in some cases that'll leave you with the (probably misguided?) impression that "Max is only good for creating MIDI and Audio effects" or something. There's a lot less "free stuff" that way, but then again you have a cornucopia of incredible instruments already with Ableton Suite 8, so you're ridiculous for complaining about that if you don't have another thirty full-scale, detailed synthesizers shipping with the M4L components as well.

ON THE OTHER HAND, big other hand: the Max tutorials available with M4L, both internally to the Ableton stuff and online as part of Max's documentation, are absolutely stupendous, far more systematic, far more dynamically hooked in with interactive examples of _everything_ that's being discussed, than you'll find with Reaktor. So not only can you read extremely logically, well-written, thoroughly-edited documentation for all of Max, you can play with examples of all the principles you're being presented as you're studying Max, which is absolutely huge for understanding. You have to be a lot more "pro-active" with Reaktor to find an ensemble that'll reflect what you're reading up on with Reaktor's included documentation, and will have to know what you're looking for before you really know what you're looking for to find the right ensembles or components to play with, to rehearse your understanding of what you're studying in Reaktor.

But jeezus, joseph, bob and sadie, in both cases, what you're getting for mere hundreds of euros/dollars is a compendium of intellectual, musical, software, and instrumental riches that you couldn't buy a few short years ago if you owned all of Dubai and Saudi Arabia all by your lonesome!

Suffice it to say, if I were any kind of musician (I am), and any kind of soul eager to learn (I am), and had any kind of love of software because of its intricate ingenuity and accessibility, (I do), I'd probably sell organs to get the cash to buy both these programs if I weren't already fortunate enough not to have to do so, and I mean like kidneys, not Hammonds or B3s! <g>

So, hope that helps.

well said!

[shubford]

I have to say I absolutely love M4L; I absolutely love Reaktor, too! They're both stupendously stimulating to creative thinking about what music is, what sound is, how to encompass both within the bounds of the principles of synthesis and logic.

They approach that immensity in different ways, and I think people underestimate either program when they summarily dismiss them.

I think Reaktor lends itself more immediately and more quickly to thinking first, in traditional modular hardware synth terms, if you begin just with using the built-in modules/starting points as if you were assembling your own various modular hardware analogue synthesizers; then, to graduating to thinking about synthesis in "DSP terms," as I'd shorthand it, in other words, from the higher-level of disassembling each of the fundamental elements of classic synthesis -- oscillators, filters, modulators of various sorts, etc. -- down into the components that go into creating all of those digitally, to the lower-level, dare you get into Core programming, of really understanding how to manipulate fundamental principles of DSP programming, translated into software terms, to creating or revising very fundamental elements of digital synthesis and logic. At that point, you're no longer just building equivalents of modular analogue synths in software; you're no longer "just" creating filters, oscillators, samplers, sequencers etc. digitally; you're now dealing with how to create a specific kind of filter, etc. with specific qualities you want to focus on, using the principles of electronic synthesis programming you'll have to study up on, and ideally, understand the mathematics behind, to really manipulate.

Can Max do all that, too? Of course, but it approaches it all from a slightly different angle. Max really starts off more explicitly with a concept of programming modules, which look and feel from the outset a lot more like bits of programming than they do attempts at being "analogues" of anything. So, in a sense, you're "beginning" at a level closer to where you end up at with Reaktor with its Core tech, except that with Max how you deal with programming at that level is a little simpler, and more directly correlated with the kind of programming you do in other synthesis programming languages, be they Csound or PD or SuperCollider or Eric or Whatever. You start with the programming abstraction, and work your way "up" (that's how in my brain it feels, structurally) towards things you can more readily recognize as typical elements of synthesis -- filters, oscillators, envelopes/modulators, sequencers, etc.

I'm newer to Max so maybe I haven't found the deep sea of readymades (already-made examples) of everything from synths/ensembles to logic components you'll find in the Reaktor library that is maybe out there, but because there's no direct access to something like that with my purchase of M4L thru Ableton, I'm left with the impression that, comparatively speaking, I'm a lot more on my own to start putting all those typical pieces together. The Pluggo examples shipping with M4L are great, ingenious, lots of fun, primarily audio and MIDI effects with some very rudimentary synthesizer examples as well, but they're a fraction of what you'll find as a new user starting out with Reaktor, and in some cases that'll leave you with the (probably misguided?) impression that "Max is only good for creating MIDI and Audio effects" or something. There's a lot less "free stuff" that way, but then again you have a cornucopia of incredible instruments already with Ableton Suite 8, so you're ridiculous for complaining about that if you don't have another thirty full-scale, detailed synthesizers shipping with the M4L components as well.

ON THE OTHER HAND, big other hand: the Max tutorials available with M4L, both internally to the Ableton stuff and online as part of Max's documentation, are absolutely stupendous, far more systematic, far more dynamically hooked in with interactive examples of _everything_ that's being discussed, than you'll find with Reaktor. So not only can you read extremely logically, well-written, thoroughly-edited documentation for all of Max, you can play with examples of all the principles you're being presented as you're studying Max, which is absolutely huge for understanding. You have to be a lot more "pro-active" with Reaktor to find an ensemble that'll reflect what you're reading up on with Reaktor's included documentation, and will have to know what you're looking for before you really know what you're looking for to find the right ensembles or components to play with, to rehearse your understanding of what you're studying in Reaktor.

But jeezus, joseph, bob and sadie, in both cases, what you're getting for mere hundreds of euros/dollars is a compendium of intellectual, musical, software, and instrumental riches that you couldn't buy a few short years ago if you owned all of Dubai and Saudi Arabia all by your lonesome!

Suffice it to say, if I were any kind of musician (I am), and any kind of soul eager to learn (I am), and had any kind of love of software because of its intricate ingenuity and accessibility, (I do), I'd probably sell organs to get the cash to buy both these programs if I weren't already fortunate enough not to have to do so, and I mean like kidneys, not Hammonds or B3s! <g>

So, hope that helps.

Well said!

My points will be much briefer and will try to avoid saying what was said above.

Personally I think there is a no point comparing M4L and Reaktor. They do similar things, and different things at the same time. M4L has midi effects which Reaktor doesn't have.

As for one being easier to use than the other, I would disagree and say that they both require probably as much time if you want to examine the prog as deep as you need to do.

Something which Reaktor has in it's in favour are it's instruments, in particular it's synths some of which are mindblowing. Personally, I think some of the ones in the User Library blow out any of the ones which come with M4L, which let's be honest aren't that many of, especially if you already had Pluggo (like myself) . Reaktor also has a near enough infinite user library of synths and effects and samplers and stuff.

Something which Reaktor doesn't have in it's advantage is that it devours CPU, M4L seems comparatively lighter but buggy as hell for the time being. At this moment in time, I would not use M4L live but when it's a little more mature it would be an awesome avenue for live usage instead of Reaktor.

Personally, I use them both as much as each other. Apart from PSP Eq and Compressor M4L and Reaktor have an equal split of usage. I'd recommend someone if possible to buy Reaktor and M4L if possible.

[Machinate]

As for one being easier to use than the other, I would disagree and say that they both require probably as much time if you want to examine the prog as deep as you need to do.

what does that mean, exactly? Building a subtractive synth is just about the same amount of objects in both pieces of software, but if you want to "dress it up" it's actually easier in MaxMSP. If you want to add midi/OSC then MaxMSP/Max4Live is ALOT easier - hell, Max4Live has a functioning OSC method, which Reaktor arguably does not.

Something which Reaktor has in it's in favour are it's instruments, in particular it's synths some of which are mindblowing. Personally, I think some of the ones in the User Library blow out any of the ones which come with M4L, which let's be honest aren't that many of, especially if you already had Pluggo (like myself) . Reaktor also has a near enough infinite user library of synths and effects and samplers and stuff.

you're right. If you want to use stuff others have made then, for the time being, you can spend ages in the Reaktor User lib. Personally I don't find much of it mindblowing. A few things, like SOFA and the SIAC, have that raw sound I look for in a synth. And guess what, they're both relatively hard to actually edit. Most of the "Native Instruments" ensembles have those annoying graphic knobs making it really difficult to even see what's going on inside.

Something which Reaktor doesn't have in it's advantage is that it devours CPU, M4L seems comparatively lighter but buggy as hell for the time being. At this moment in time, I would not use M4L live but when it's a little more mature it would be an awesome avenue for live usage instead of Reaktor.

I would not personally *edit* a maxforlive device "live", but run it? Sure, it's a lot more stable for me than most 3rd-party plugins ever were.

[Palmer Eldritch]

Mhhh, what was the question ? Ahh, remember. - >> Answer: Yes, yes, yes !!!!

[mescalin]

it's so good i am banning myself from using it for a few weeks so i actually write some music rather than making my dream sequencer, additive synth and custom reverbs

[vladidj]

Great addition to Live but...
Remember when tracks came out on vinyl and whatever genre it was you could rarely find something really badly produced. Well that was because not so many people had access to a professional production gear and those who did were really determened to what they are doing. When access to music production equipment became easier due to flourishing and relatively cheap (comparing to analog gear) DAW market - thousands of people became "producers" which in turn led to increasing amount of insanely shitty "productions". So if 5 years ago i liked 2 tunes out of 50 now it's 1 out of 1000.
I'm pretty shure that the same is going to happen with introduction of M4L. Thousands of people will become "coders/programmers" resulting in copious amounts of plugins poping up, out of which one or two will be note worthy.
For now i'm sticking with original Live plugins. Actually I can't imagine what is there that can't be done with Live Racks and built in plugins unless of course you want plugin that will dim the lights in your studio, make you a cup of tea and give you a blowjob.

[LOFA]

I'm pretty shure that the same is going to happen with introduction of M4L. Thousands of people will become "coders/programmers" resulting in copious amounts of plugins poping up, out of which one or two will be note worthy.

Hey man, I represent that statement

I think you don't fit the target market, and not so much because of your interests but your approach. With the investment of time being put into something like max/msp or M4L you save on future time spent putzing around with knobs and depending on the instruments of others when trying to develop sounds in your head or creating new forms of inspiration. It is an investment, and in the that process there are going to be gazillions of crappy patches made by me alone. Your argument scans like: "the internet is bad because there is so much garbage on it."

Meanwhile, I don't believe there is a such thing as a bad m4l patch. Frankly, I am sick of all these developed ones. As I learn the api I am much more interested in undeveloped patches that generate specific concepts.

[vladidj]

I'm pretty shure that the same is going to happen with introduction of M4L. Thousands of people will become "coders/programmers" resulting in copious amounts of plugins poping up, out of which one or two will be note worthy.

Hey man, I represent that statement

I think you don't fit the target market, and not so much because of your interests but your approach. With the investment of time being put into something like max/msp or M4L you save on future time spent putzing around with knobs and depending on the instruments of others when trying to develop sounds in your head or creating new forms of inspiration. It is an investment, and in the that process there are going to be gazillions of crappy patches made by me alone. Your argument scans like: "the internet is bad because there is so much garbage on it."

Meanwhile, I don't believe there is a such thing as a bad m4l patch. Frankly, I am sick of all these developed ones. As I learn the api I am much more interested in undeveloped patches that generate specific concepts.

You are complitely right about everything. Yes internet is "bad" and i sometimes fall victum to this "badness" - jumping from one link to another wasting my time on this digital garbage. If i buy M4L i know i'll seek and download every M4L patch that is out there. So in order to keep myself away from doing it at least for now i'll just follow this forum without purchasing.

[shubford]

Dear Ableton/Cycling74

I have to say, I am f*cking delighted with M4L and for note I am not affiliated to them in anyway.

I just got around to recording/mixing some tracks (in the avant guitar Rosy Parlane, Grouper, Fennesz type stuff) and the current tracks I made IMO are the best ones I have ever made. For the first time I felt I was achieving the sound which was in my head. M4L patches were massively integral in shaping my sound, ones I got from the maxforlive.com.

So thank you again,

If anyone wants to hear the stuff I made I'd be more than pleased to post up a link or a PM.

[flowdesigner]

I think this API stuff is difficult!