All times are UTC

 
 



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 780 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 ... 52  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Sitting on the Fence - Push or Maschine
PostPosted: Sat Mar 30, 2013 8:04 pm 

Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2007 3:06 am
Posts: 394
I don't know. Maybe I should just stick to my 25 key controller and a mouse to make drum tracks. I wish I could try a Maschine or a Push for a week to make up my mind, but since it is software I probably can't return either of them if I hate it.

_________________
Gig Rig - rMBP 2.3GHZ i7, 16GB RAM, 256GB SSD, OSX 10.8.x, Presonus FP10, Live 9.x, PRS CE22, Boogie Mk. IV.

Home Rig - 27' iMac i7 2.8Ghz Quad, 12GB RAM, 256GB SSD, Apogee Duet, Live 9.x, Logic 9.x


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sitting on the Fence - Push or Maschine
PostPosted: Sat Mar 30, 2013 8:08 pm 

Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 7:28 pm
Posts: 164
aldentinnin wrote:
Load an instance of Massive from Maschine and what are Maschine's first 8 parameters set to?... that's right Massive's macro controls - if you want a synth with physical knobs for every parameter get a hardware synth!

Um, no. The fact that the first 8 parameters of Massive that gets mapped are Massive's 8 macro knobs makes sense. Not sure why you're complaining about that, unless you're trying to mislead people into thinking that it only maps those 8 macro controls. You still get every parameter automapped which you can quickly move through on Maschine's hardware. And Maschine's automapping for all of Komplete 9 has been better organized as well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcWIW6Muw9U


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sitting on the Fence - Push or Maschine
PostPosted: Sat Mar 30, 2013 8:19 pm 

Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am
Posts: 18
blinkeye wrote:
aldentinnin wrote:
Load an instance of Massive from Maschine and what are Maschine's first 8 parameters set to?... that's right Massive's macro controls - if you want a synth with physical knobs for every parameter get a hardware synth!

Um, no. The fact that the first 8 parameters of Massive that gets mapped are Massive's 8 macro knobs makes sense. Not sure why you're complaining about that, unless you're trying to mislead people into thinking that it only maps those 8 macro controls. You still get every parameter automapped which you can quickly move through on Maschine's hardware. And Maschine's automapping for all of Komplete 9 has been better organized as well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcWIW6Muw9U


Not complaining or attempting to mislead, just illustrating that Maschine and Push are similar in this regard.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sitting on the Fence - Push or Maschine
PostPosted: Sat Mar 30, 2013 8:58 pm 

Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:38 pm
Posts: 443
humnumb wrote:
Wow, so first honest impressions of the Push are starting to come in and it's not a good sight. Push doesn't even have access to all parameters of Live's own devices 8O :

Valyo wrote:
The biggest turn off for me is that you can't really edit all the parameters of the synths. There appears to be a selection of important parameters but that really doesn't work for me. I use Operator extensively and inside out, and there isn't a way to control something as fundamental as the waveform of the oscillators!!!! So if you load the deafault patch and you don;t wannna use the mouse, all you've got is sine waves. Of course, I know that there is a way to map that to a macro, blablabla, but that's not the point. If you are following the dictum 'create songs from scratch' it is fundamental that you are able to control all of the parameters of the synths. Otherwise, what do you end up with? Using pre-programmed presets? Thanks, but no thanks! Or alternatively you have to spend time first designing the sounds you want to use, and then turn to Push just to play around, record some automation, etc. Sorry, but for me and for many other users the sound design is an essential part of the creative process. Otherwise, this device is just aimed at preset flicker type of 'producers'. I think it should not be such an issue to implement all of the parameters in the Push interface - sure you'll have to go back and forth between menus, but that's much preferable than having to spend separately some time with the mouse making sounds and then putting them to creative use. With time I can imagine getting really fast finding the parameters I need. And really what's the problem of having simply more pages of menus on the Push interface? (I am sure there is even a clever way to implement the powerful additive features of Operator of being able to build custom wave forms within push - it takes 4 fields - harmonic No, Harmonic level, next harmonic, previous harmonic) Anyway, I sincerely hope Ableton figures this out, becuase that's a major turn down.
I use Operator and Analog extensively and the way I work is by starting with a blank patch and creating the sound up to my taste and what works in the context of my track. I'm not interested in any presets.
Other minus points go for Drum racks limitations - like - there should be a way to control everything that you can do on the screen. Like creating nested effect chains and sending signals from each of the sample slots. Also, when you're building, a drum rack from scratch, the hot-swap function should work like it works in Live. When you click the Browse button and you are able to flick with the up and down green buttons, you should be able to hear the samples just by going up and down, and not having to load the samples. It should work like it does on the screen when you hit the hotswap button and you can flick witht he arrow keys to listen to the samples. I know it may seem like a minor point, but this slows down the workflow tremendously.
A big minus point goes also to the step sequencer mode when you want to edit the velocity of the notes. Why show relative changes in the value? what does this bring me, I can't figure out...just show the 1-127 values. I wanted to create some interesting ghost notes type of fills and I found it impossible to work with this relative values - if I know which note is playing at what velocity it would easier.
I sincerely hope these are all a matter of software tweaks and they will be implemented in future updates. If I have to be very crude, I'd say at it's current state Push is pretty much useless for advanced sound design type of work, when it comes even to the native Ableton instruments and devices. I won't even start with third party VSTs.


OMG! Numbnuts has yet another reason not to buy a controller he didn't need or want in the first place!
:roll:

Once a douchebag always a douchebag


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sitting on the Fence - Push or Maschine
PostPosted: Sat Mar 30, 2013 9:30 pm 

Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 7:28 pm
Posts: 164
aldentinnin wrote:
blinkeye wrote:
aldentinnin wrote:
Load an instance of Massive from Maschine and what are Maschine's first 8 parameters set to?... that's right Massive's macro controls - if you want a synth with physical knobs for every parameter get a hardware synth!

Um, no. The fact that the first 8 parameters of Massive that gets mapped are Massive's 8 macro knobs makes sense. Not sure why you're complaining about that, unless you're trying to mislead people into thinking that it only maps those 8 macro controls. You still get every parameter automapped which you can quickly move through on Maschine's hardware. And Maschine's automapping for all of Komplete 9 has been better organized as well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcWIW6Muw9U


Not complaining or attempting to mislead, just illustrating that Maschine and Push are similar in this regard.

How are they similar in that regard? Maschine automaps to plugins and all parameters are automapped. Push does not automap to plugins (unless it's a small plugin with 32 or less parameters) and requires you to do a workaround to beforehand (configure, options.txt, save as rack...). And Push can't even access all parameters of Live's own devices like Operator.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sitting on the Fence - Push or Maschine
PostPosted: Sat Mar 30, 2013 10:03 pm 

Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am
Posts: 18
With regards to mapping proprietary synths, they do it in a similar fashion (e.g., first 8 knobs are macros, and multiple pages of parameters). If they did this in the exact same way they would be identical, and if they were identical I would have said identical, but they aren't identical they are similar.

And next you will reply ... 'but that's not similar - they are completely different' and then go on to list several reasons why you think I'm wrong. And to this I will tell you the interpretation of similar is somewhat objective and in my somewhat objective opinion they are similar.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sitting on the Fence - Push or Maschine
PostPosted: Sat Mar 30, 2013 10:14 pm 

Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 7:28 pm
Posts: 164
aldentinnin wrote:
With regards to mapping proprietary synths, they do it in a similar fashion (e.g., first 8 knobs are macros, and multiple pages of parameters).

Huh? Correct me if I'm wrong but Push does not automap to plugins unlike Maschine. It's my understanding that Push requires you to do a workaround beforehand (configure, options.txt, save as rack...).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sitting on the Fence - Push or Maschine
PostPosted: Sat Mar 30, 2013 11:41 pm 

Joined: Sat Oct 03, 2009 3:02 am
Posts: 3500
Location: Menasha, Wisconsin
What I find most amusing is, people talking about the workaround as if it is an impossibility, and then talking about how Maschine is immediately a very effective midi controller for Live :P.

I really don't care about either, I use both techniques with no issues ever.

The vst mapping is identical with the exception of NI vst presets.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sitting on the Fence - Push or Maschine
PostPosted: Sun Mar 31, 2013 12:13 am 

Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 7:28 pm
Posts: 164
yur2die4 wrote:
What I find most amusing is, people talking about the workaround as if it is an impossibility

No one's ever implied that the workardounds would be impossible to do. The point people are making is that it would just be annoying to have to do those workarounds (and thus taking the "auto" out of automapping) when Maschine just automaps immediately without requiring those workarounds.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sitting on the Fence - Push or Maschine
PostPosted: Sun Mar 31, 2013 12:30 am 

Joined: Sat Oct 03, 2009 3:02 am
Posts: 3500
Location: Menasha, Wisconsin
All that I am saying, is that by that logic, Mashine would be useless as an Ableton Live controller, or at least annoying, amiright? :P

I'm really just playing devil's advocate. I like viewing from both sides of the fence. Actually, I am doing just that, happily owning both devices. For me personally, this stuff is really fun, INCLUDING personal customization. And I can absolutely see why Live does Not auto populate vst parameters. It'd be nice to be able to label the pages, or groups of 8 parameters haha.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sitting on the Fence - Push or Maschine
PostPosted: Sun Mar 31, 2013 4:19 am 

Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2010 10:46 am
Posts: 1420
No one wants to remember and edit hundreds of paremeters with only a few knobs, that's it.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sitting on the Fence - Push or Maschine
PostPosted: Sun Mar 31, 2013 4:37 am 

Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 12:11 am
Posts: 63
pencilrocket wrote:
No one wants to remember and edit hundreds of paremeters with only a few knobs, that's it.

Huh? There's no need to remember anything when all the parameters show up on a hardware display.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sitting on the Fence - Push or Maschine
PostPosted: Sun Mar 31, 2013 5:00 am 

Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 4:32 pm
Posts: 1556
blinkeye wrote:
aldentinnin wrote:
With regards to mapping proprietary synths, they do it in a similar fashion (e.g., first 8 knobs are macros, and multiple pages of parameters).

Huh? Correct me if I'm wrong but Push does not automap to plugins unlike Maschine. It's my understanding that Push requires you to do a workaround beforehand (configure, options.txt, save as rack...).



Yes, making a small change in options.txt is a terrible burden... not only that but you have to plug it in and turn it on. How antiquated!

_________________
Musings - A Diva soundset


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sitting on the Fence - Push or Maschine
PostPosted: Sun Mar 31, 2013 5:32 am 

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 7:41 pm
Posts: 11
I think a lot of you are mixing up sound design and writing music. I personally design sounds while on my Mac as its much easier to have a screen in front of you instead of 8 knobs. Plus, designing sound and writing music are two different animals. Once I get push I will automap my patches with 8 essential control macros that morph the sound. Push was never marketed as a sound design tool...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sitting on the Fence - Push or Maschine
PostPosted: Sun Mar 31, 2013 7:41 am 

Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2010 10:46 am
Posts: 1420
onestep wrote:
pencilrocket wrote:
No one wants to remember and edit hundreds of paremeters with only a few knobs, that's it.

Huh? There's no need to remember anything when all the parameters show up on a hardware display.

Who would want to read the shit small display and search over 10 pages to find estimate string of words instead of accessing exact knob/fader on the familiar GUI in your display directly?

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 780 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 ... 52  Next

All times are UTC

 
 

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group