Live 9 browser NIGHTMARE !!!

[Michael Hatsis]

I didn't upgrade to Live 9- a big reason is because of the "browser", so i can't test this out. Wouldn't you have to do this trick every time you boot up live?

Mike

[Amaury]

What's describe here doesn't make a difference: files and folders added later to a folder are scanned the same as if they were present in the first place, when registering the folder.

Again: we're suffering from a bad issue which makes indexing painful. We are addressing it as we speak. It's much worse on OSX than on Windows:
- The Indexer may take way too much CPU, which may cause dropouts. On Windows, as far as I can tell, the CPU usage of the Indexer is not impeding music making.
- Indexing takes far too long. We are working on improving this dramatically. It may be done in different steps so that we can continuously improve. In the end, the desired behavior is that files should appear as fast as possible.

Kind regards,
Amaury

[ze2be]

Thank you for keeping us notet here Amaury, we appreciate it more then you know!

[androids]

Hi don't know if this helps but first time installing live 9 it scans all external folder for samples when you add it as a 'Place' folder.
Try making that folder very small, let it scan, close Live, then add all your samples to that location. Start Live, folders should now show up under that Place folder/drive, with content and without scanning every file as was the case before in Live 8.

That's not true.
I added empty versions of all my subfolders in my main "sample folders", scanned them, then closed Live.
When I start Live again, the "Ableton Index.exe" process is starting and start scanning all the content, done in background.

Anyway if you dont scan the content, it will no be displayed, so the only solution is to add and scan all you sample/lib content, wait, wait, wait, wait until it's done and use live.
Too bad if you have a slow computer.

I also noticed that on windows the "Ableton index.exe" process is launched with a default priority of "lower than normal", so if you want to process scan at first, before really using ableton, I suggest to change the priority to something like "high", it should be faster ...

[androids]

- The Indexer may take way too much CPU, which may cause dropouts. On Windows, as far as I can tell, the CPU usage of the Indexer is not impeding music making.

That is pretty wrong : yes it runs in the background and do not impact on realtime audio process (by chance), BUT you *need* to scan you whole disks/folders/lib/whatever to have them displayed, so to say it short : you CANT make music without first indexing the whole stuff. (unlike in Live 8 ...)

So, it *IS* impeding music making at first stage !

[3dot...]

- The Indexer may take way too much CPU, which may cause dropouts. On Windows, as far as I can tell, the CPU usage of the Indexer is not impeding music making.

That is pretty wrong : yes it runs in the background and do not impact on realtime audio process (by chance), BUT you *need* to scan you whole disks/folders/lib/whatever to have them displayed, so to say it short : you CANT make music without first indexing the whole stuff. (unlike in Live 8 ...)

So, it *IS* impeding music making at first stage !

I think this is mainly to do with the intention to make the browser 'intelligent' and abstracted.
so there is no control or knowledge of what and when the browser is doing its thing.
this would've been great if it was actually discrete and not intrusive process...
when it takes a toll on the program globally.. then its bad.

I think user disabling folders ("places") from indexing (by default) will fix this.
Let us choose when and which "place" is indexed.

In Windows browser, you can still search un-indexed locations.
you are prompted with a notice that says search will be slower because of this. and you are given an option to index the location.

I would also suggest an entry in the browser for browsing the computer folder hierarchy without making it a "place".. for simple browsing.
as in Live 8.
I don't mind using the Win browser.. but this wasn't (as) necessary in L8

[ian_halsall]

I was discussing the other day with a colleague how it was ridiculous that Microsoft have never managed to get windows exploder to work properly.

Coming from a UNIX background you expect it to work like grep - but it doesn't.

Slightly tangential I know but it highlights the problems of getting an indexed file system scanner to work properly.

[Amaury]

- The Indexer may take way too much CPU, which may cause dropouts. On Windows, as far as I can tell, the CPU usage of the Indexer is not impeding music making.

That is pretty wrong : yes it runs in the background and do not impact on realtime audio process (by chance), BUT you *need* to scan you whole disks/folders/lib/whatever to have them displayed, so to say it short : you CANT make music without first indexing the whole stuff. (unlike in Live 8 ...)

So, it *IS* impeding music making at first stage !

Ok I see what you're saying. I used the wrong words. The fact that the indexer doesn't impact audio playback is not by chance though, rather by design.

[Amaury]

- The Indexer may take way too much CPU, which may cause dropouts. On Windows, as far as I can tell, the CPU usage of the Indexer is not impeding music making.

That is pretty wrong : yes it runs in the background and do not impact on realtime audio process (by chance), BUT you *need* to scan you whole disks/folders/lib/whatever to have them displayed, so to say it short : you CANT make music without first indexing the whole stuff. (unlike in Live 8 ...)

So, it *IS* impeding music making at first stage !

I think this is mainly to do with the intention to make the browser 'intelligent' and abstracted.
so there is no control or knowledge of what and when the browser is doing its thing.
this would've been great if it was actually discrete and not intrusive process...
when it takes a toll on the program globally.. then its bad.

I think user disabling folders ("places") from indexing (by default) will fix this.
Let us choose when and which "place" is indexed.

In Windows browser, you can still search un-indexed locations.
you are prompted with a notice that says search will be slower because of this. and you are given an option to index the location.

I would also suggest an entry in the browser for browsing the computer folder hierarchy without making it a "place".. for simple browsing.
as in Live 8.
I don't mind using the Win browser.. but this wasn't (as) necessary in L8

That's understood. Our first priority is to make the indexing work as we envision it. To repeat: to make the indexer work faster, and less taxing on the CPU.

[TYLRbass]

If I were going to use Live 9 for a gig (because I want to use max4live) is there any way to turn indexing off?

I suppose I could get rid of all of my Places but then I will have to go through all of that annoying scanning again..

Maybe I could move the index file temporarily and then replace it after the gig?

[androids]

That's understood. Our first priority is to make the indexing work as we envision it. To repeat: to make the indexer work faster, and less taxing on the CPU.

We dont need it to work faster, because with 2.5To of data, faster would not even be fast enough.
We need it to work *smarter* : being able to browse in folder, even if it's not indexed yet, and still continue to index in background ...

If you add a BIG library folder in Places, *nothing* is displayed during the first 10 minutes ... is it smart ??
My first guess was : oh new browser is *not* working at all !
I think the process of folder/file display is not very CPU intensive so it could run at the same time as indexing run ...

Indexing and browsing are two different things. One is background task, and could last a long time, the other is realtime and need to reflect what is there instantly.

and please : dont tell me to use explorer instead ... explorer doesnt play the sample in sync with the current track ....

[zeepster]

- The Indexer may take way too much CPU, which may cause dropouts. On Windows, as far as I can tell, the CPU usage of the Indexer is not impeding music making.

That is pretty wrong : yes it runs in the background and do not impact on realtime audio process (by chance), BUT you *need* to scan you whole disks/folders/lib/whatever to have them displayed, so to say it short : you CANT make music without first indexing the whole stuff. (unlike in Live 8 ...)

So, it *IS* impeding music making at first stage !

Ok I see what you're saying. I used the wrong words. The fact that the indexer doesn't impact audio playback is not by chance though, rather by design.

Yes that. Please let us just browse our disks normally without having to index first. This is the first stage when making music, immediate access to every sample, mp3, .mov, whatever. You've completely crippled the workflow forcing me to import every folder/disk.

[skatr2]

I haven't read everything through this thread, but I think a lot of whats happening with these moves is how hard it is to deal with how things are changing. One of my hardest sells on iTunes and similar programs when it first came out was "where the hell is it stored"? It was a hard transition going to mac as well; the thought of using a program to access content rather than directly looking for the content first. I got so used to knowing what folder held which song and navigating via that method that I said "I don't need a program to organize for me, I have my own organization".

As computers and the like evolve, they are moving away from our own forms of organization and going with the computer doing the task while we focus on what we need to focus on. Once your stuff is integrated, you can narrow down your search easier. The tough part is the integration process...which will likely be a hiccup in any system. Now I use iTunes to simply sort by genre, then artist and I just narrowed things down just as well as if I was navigating folders. Point being these changes are adaptable and so long as you take a moment to incorporate them, you will be infinitely more up to the change. If you are that locked into your original method, why bother upgrading in the first place? You clearly didn't need the change.

As I have played with live9 trial, I have liked the browser so far, albeit I have not attempted to throw in extended libraries into the mix...and likely won't on the scale that the original posters of this thread are stating. If anything I want to consolidate my library at this point.

[Angstrom]

I haven't read everything through this thread, but I think a lot of whats happening with these moves is how hard it is to deal with how things are changing. One of my hardest sells on iTunes and similar programs when it first came out was "where the hell is it stored"? It was a hard transition going to mac as well; the thought of using a program to access content rather than directly looking for the content first. I got so used to knowing what folder held which song and navigating via that method that I said "I don't need a program to organize for me, I have my own organization".

As computers and the like evolve, they are moving away from our own forms of organization and going with the computer doing the task while we focus on what we need to focus on. Once your stuff is integrated, you can narrow down your search easier. The tough part is the integration process...which will likely be a hiccup in any system. Now I use iTunes to simply sort by genre, then artist and I just narrowed things down just as well as if I was navigating folders. Point being these changes are adaptable and so long as you take a moment to incorporate them, you will be infinitely more up to the change. If you are that locked into your original method, why bother upgrading in the first place? You clearly didn't need the change.

As I have played with live9 trial, I have liked the browser so far, albeit I have not attempted to throw in extended libraries into the mix...and likely won't on the scale that the original posters of this thread are stating. If anything I want to consolidate my library at this point.

I disagree. There are two issues.

#1 the indexing system currently has some issues so that large directories, removable drives, etc. are added too slowly
#2 the categorisation does not match user expectations

regarding issue #2 , you say that it's something that the user must get used to . That the chosen categorisations are something which should be accepted. I would say that every user thinks of every item of content differently, and differently dependent on context of requirement.

An example I've used before is shown in the categorisations "Ambient and Evolving" and "Pads". Now, we have a Rack Instrument preset called "All Alone Pad". which category would you say that this should be in? Which of the two?

Answer: it actually resides in "Ambient and Evolving", and I say that this is not wrong, it is obviously correct for whoever put it there. It's simultaneously not right, because that's not where anyone else would look for it.
Categorisations of multi-faceted objects should not be mutually exclusive. However, in this system they are.


Mutually exclusive categorisation
A real world object might be defined as having many properties, such as [flat, hard, shiny, static, reflective, breakable], that's a mirror. I can categorically find it by filtering for breakable flat things, or reflective hard things. I would get a group of objects in a contextual family. A mirror, a chrome sphere, a glass picture frame. All contextually useful results.

Now how about we define an object with one property [Flat] ?
Is that a success? What sort of results might we expect from this?
How about [bass] ?

This system only allows single category parents, an arbitrary hierarchic tree. So you cannot claim that it is better than a file-system derived hierarchic file browser. Because in a file-system hierarchic browser we can use parent folders as taxonomic indicators, and in this system we cannot. It has the same tree-like restrictions of an OS file system, but the only benefit delivered is "fast text filtering". Actually browsing is less functional.


tldr;
there are two issues. Indexing, and categorisation.

[ian_halsall]

I must admit that I have grown to like it much more than the old live 8 browser.

2 panels is so much better than 1 and although I hate the fact that the l8 library is not properly integrated I can live with this and I don't use search that often anyway.

That's just me of course - I never perform live and I rarely add huge swathes of samples and stuff.

I also run it on a xw6400 which is pretty fast and can easily devote one core to indexing and I won't notice - I don't think....