Sitting on the Fence - Push or Maschine

[deva]

I've had maschine and spark. I know how well they work in live...which is about as good as any other controller. The added benefit of push (which I don't have yet) is more from the access to lives menus (which maschine does not have). Maschine only has access to its own. I am going somewhat by presumption based on demos I have SEEN, but also a lot on experience with other controllers.

fair enough. I'm reading lots of strong opinions on a device that's not even out yet. same with Bitwig, lots of fanboys and haters but it's mostly people talking out their asses.

I generally don't talk out of my ass. But I can see how my statement could be misconstrued. Truth be told I have been impressed with the gains maschine has made as a controller for live. Its a good option for some...but using maschine was not an easy task in my opinion for controlling live. While it was simplistic in its layout, it felt complicated remembering which button or shift combo did what. The selling points like chopping don't work in the live side...its done from the maschine side. So you are still relying heavily on their software for all of its selling points. I personally only wanted VSTs for sound synthesis, not for doing all the jobs that I bought live for in the first place.

From all appearances from the demos, push seems like it will work well with my workflow and seems to have more straight forward operation with live. Whereas I felt like maschine has a more straight forward operation with its own software(understandably). The new template though in maschine does make the transition between live and maschine appear fairly well constructed. so I tip my hat to NI for actually taking the time to implement those changes. They were definitely needed.

That is one of the basic points I like about Push. No additional software layer which has to be learned and remembered. Everything is right in Live and at any moment I can switch to screen/mouse to do some task. Maybe I want to edit a synth preset and with Push it will be right there in Live on a big bright display ready to go.

[humnumb]

aside from not yet having physically tested it out, the entire vst philosophy for Maschine vs. Push having any advantage in this regard is debunked. Not only that, if you want to be ridiculous, both require even the most basic modifications in Preferences in order to be available in the first place.

Not true. Maschine does not require any setup or any "modifications in Preferences" beforehand for plugin automapping.

[Tone Deft]

IMO there's a lot to be said about work flow. without actually owning one and learning to work with it one can't make an accurate judgment about it. people will speculate and judge prematurely because we love this stuff.

look at what it won't do. so what? universal solutions don't exist for anything (except maybe beer.)

look at what it does. you don't know how well it actually does it yet.

[dysanfel]

If you compose your beats and such in Maschine can you easily get those tracks out of Maschine and into a Ableton track as MIDI or audio quickly, painlessly, and in sync? Especially automatically giving each Maschine track its own Live track. Do you have to do a real time bounce for audio? Are you bouncing individual tracks or all at once?

Yup. It's super easy and Maschine is flexible enough to cater to different workflows:

1. You can drag and drop as audio or MIDI of each group directly from within Maschine (whether used as plugin or in standalone mode) into Live. You can isolate tracks with Mute/Solo using this method.

2. You can just use Maschine by itself in standalone mode and do an audio export of the entire arrangement or a loop range and choose between individual tracks/group/stereo master. That gives you wav files in a folder that you can drag at once into a DAW.

3. You can load Maschine as a plugin in Live and route the audio of each track (you have 32 mono outs from Maschine) into each audio track in Live and do realtime tracking.

4. You can also load Maschine as a plugin and route the MIDI of each track and record into each MIDI track in Live: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=144164

5. You can also integrate Maschine and Live together without drag&drop/export/routing between the two. Here's one example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WcbjOm1uhY&t=02m55s

Thank you! This is golden information. The more I see a Maschine the more I like it. But, your not making my choice any easier!

[yur2die4]

I meant the availability Of a vst in the first place.

In both softwares, vsts are not available until you determine a root folder and make sure to install in that folder.

Actually, I use Maschine and Live each differently in this respect.

For Live I use a folder full of shortcuts to vsts. Specifically for Live.

Maschine can let me have multiple vst destinations, but I also am picky. I don't like having access to ALL available vsts, it equates to mild clutter (for instance, it'd be completely useless to have any vocoder or side chain dependent vsts on my Maschine list). So when I scan, I have to be particular about the ones I accept.

Also, if you need vst parameters in a specific order on either software, it still requires a form of arranging and saving.

Edit: I've gotta say though, Live's vst parameter handling can be pretty shitty. For instance, when recalling presets, I'm pretty sure I've had cases where the sliders in Live do not jump to the new setting displayed in the vst.........

[humnumb]

I meant the availability Of a vst in the first place.

In both softwares, vsts are not available until you determine a root folder and make sure to install in that folder.

lol That's not what people mean when they say plugin automapping. It's about when you load a plugin, whether the parameters are automatically mapped.

Push has no automapping of plugins, period. You need to pre-configure each plugin beforehand, or save as a rack beforehand if you want changes and settings saved and recalled when you load that plugin again.

Maschine has automapping that just works. You load a plugin, the parameters are automatically mapped, and all the settings are saved and recalled when you load that plugin again.

[yur2die4]

I was merely explaining the most extreme case at first. I said 'if you want to be ridiculous (intending to mean, about setting up and using vsts overall), it does require some use of mouse to set up vsts before using them in the software'

As for remapping and then reloading, I am pretty sure that in Maschine, if you remap vst parameters, and you want that particular layout to come up the next time you load it, you still have to save it in its current state. Otherwise, the next time you load that vst, it'll simply revert to the repopulating parameters state.

Best part of all, none of this really applies directly to my own workflow haha

[skatr2]

I meant the availability Of a vst in the first place.

In both softwares, vsts are not available until you determine a root folder and make sure to install in that folder.

lol That's not what people mean when they say plugin automapping. It's about when you load a plugin, whether the parameters are automatically mapped.

Push has no automapping of plugins, period. You need to pre-configure each plugin beforehand, or save as a rack beforehand if you want changes and settings saved and recalled when you load that plugin again.

Maschine has automapping that just works. You load a plugin, the parameters are automatically mapped, and all the settings are saved and recalled when you load that plugin again.

But that's the whole purpose of racks. A pseudo automap...that works with any controller that uses the rack. Yes you can map VSTs on maschine and the settings recall when you load that vst. But you still have to manually map that in the first place to get those presets to stick. Out of the box, maschine doesn't control non-NI VSTs. You need to establish some base. Same goes with racks. You set it up so later you can use specific setups as you need it.

[dysanfel]

Would I also assume sample pack expansions for Maschine more plentiful and varied?

[yur2die4]

After having Just tested out the Options.txt method of populating vst parameters with a vst and my remote SL mkii (visual display of parameters), I have to say, Maschine and Live are nearly dead even on standard vsts.

Maschine still Does have a few advantages.
1. You can display the vst simply by pressing the title of it on the controller (this is assuming that you're into looking at the screen, which I do not mind ). Live has no equivalent of that feature.
2. Maschine supports Komplete . I think that speaks for itself....
3. Maschine supports more Pages of control, Live has 8.. ....actually, on my Novation, it scrolls up to the total amount. We'll have to see what Push supports.

Aside from that, nearly zero differences. I'd go as far as to say that creating an Options.txt file is on par with having to drag files into Live's directory when making midi control support work.

Edit: And, I tested the mapping situation with vsts in Maschine. It is identical. If you do not save as default (equivalent of Grouping and saving in Live), you are stuck with the automatic assortment of parameters spewed out by the vst, same as Live. Live's small advantage in this case however is, if you clear assignments, Live doesn't rely on Pages to re-assign individual parameters. Maschine makes you add each page of 8 in advance. In Live, if you Do autopopulate the vst, with the random assortment, one advantage is that you can turn on Configure and move the sliders around.

Actually, this is all getting really interesting to me!! Next I want to look more into parameter feedback. (Percents vs. freq, waveform, etc. I'm sure this depends also on the actual vst)

[pencilrocket]

I meant the availability Of a vst in the first place.

In both softwares, vsts are not available until you determine a root folder and make sure to install in that folder.

lol That's not what people mean when they say plugin automapping. It's about when you load a plugin, whether the parameters are automatically mapped.
.

No. That's the impression we have. Auto-mapping is practically useless.

[yur2die4]

Would I also assume sample pack expansions for Maschine more plentiful and varied?

If you can't find a Maschine exclusive pack, Maschine supports a basic form of Komplete, which also supports any extra NI pack as an add on.

As a bonus, those are essentially used via their respective vsts, allowing you to use then in pretty much Any DAW, not exclusive to NI.

Ableton packs on the other hand....... Work great within Live haha

[Buleriachk]

I'm going to try out Maschine Mikro as the alternative to Push. I purchased Ditto and tried the emulation on my Launchpad, trying to project what it might be like to have knobs and buttons....

At this point in my life, I am much more into creation in odd time signatures than performance in nightclubs, so my emphasis is on creating backing tracks... I also mention that I have an APC40, a Launchpad, a PadKontrol, and other controller gear...

1. I agree with others that Live is more oriented toward performance than creation. I think Live is fantastic for playing loops that already exist (except I don't see why one has to launch every fricken clip in a row with the scene, one of Lives major shortcomings, IMO).. But I am underwhelmed with the Suite Library; there is a lot of stuff, but most of it not up to the quality I hear from others (Dimension Pro, Kontakt, what I have heard of Kore Komplete).

Nevertheless, it is absolutely excellent at what it does, and I don't regret upgrading to Live 9 (and supporting Ableton) in the least.

2. For creation, I just purchased Mikro (I had tried out Maschine). I don't really need the immediacy of the knobs and buttons of Maschine in creation mode; in addition, Massive and Kore Elements come with Maschine, so I'm hoping I can find what I want without springing for Komplete. (I already have Battery 3 and Guitar Rig 5).

While I will keep the APC40 live, I hope to be able to switch out the other units as needed e.g., replace the Mikro after I've created the loops and imported them into Ableton (I was really disappointed with Geist, since it didn't have the capabiity to timestretch audio to be consistent with triple meter time signatures..... a major, major advantage of Ableton.....

So with the above considerations, the only other reason (other than unnecessary integration - browser, etc.) - for me - would be Push as a Live Instrument, whith a total change in paradigm. I may be wrong, but I believe I can do this with Mikro running inside Live as a VST, and using the chord and scale MIDI effects, but in any case it would be learning a whole new physical paradigm, and as a guitarist, I have enough problems with keyboard (which does have black and white keys).......

Anyway, just thought I'd weigh in again at this point in my musical journey.....

Best Regards,

Chuck

[Dalmu]

After having Just tested out the Options.txt method of populating vst parameters with a vst and my remote SL mkii (visual display of parameters), I have to say, Maschine and Live are nearly dead even on standard vsts.

Maschine still Does have a few advantages.
1. You can display the vst simply by pressing the title of it on the controller (this is assuming that you're into looking at the screen, which I do not mind ). Live has no equivalent of that feature.
2. Maschine supports Komplete . I think that speaks for itself....
3. Maschine supports more Pages of control, Live has 8.. ....actually, on my Novation, it scrolls up to the total amount. We'll have to see what Push supports.

Aside from that, nearly zero differences. I'd go as far as to say that creating an Options.txt file is on par with having to drag files into Live's directory when making midi control support work.

Edit: And, I tested the mapping situation with vsts in Maschine. It is identical. If you do not save as default (equivalent of Grouping and saving in Live), you are stuck with the automatic assortment of parameters spewed out by the vst, same as Live. Live's small advantage in this case however is, if you clear assignments, Live doesn't rely on Pages to re-assign individual parameters. Maschine makes you add each page of 8 in advance. In Live, if you Do autopopulate the vst, with the random assortment, one advantage is that you can turn on Configure and move the sliders around.

Actually, this is all getting really interesting to me!! Next I want to look more into parameter feedback. (Percents vs. freq, waveform, etc. I'm sure this depends also on the actual vst)

any daw supports Komplete as long as you have HD space.

[blinkeye]

2. Maschine supports Komplete . I think that speaks for itself....

any daw supports Komplete as long as you have HD space.

What yur2die4 means is that Maschine has exclusive support for Komplete where all presets from all of Komplete can be browsed and loaded directly from the Maschine hardware and all the parameters are automatically mapped in a logical way (even more improved now with Komplete 9): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcWIW6Muw9U