Lets Talk Tuner ... and then a lot about M4L

Discussion of music production, audio, equipment and any related topics, either with or without Ableton Live
Machinesworking
Posts: 11101
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 9:30 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Lets Talk Tuner

Post by Machinesworking » Wed Feb 25, 2015 7:39 pm

stringtapper wrote: Those are fair points. It you look at it only from the standpoint of production then it would have made a lot more sense to make Max for Logic.
I actually don't think it made sense for Max to be embedded in any DAW. Cycling could never use Max as a VST or AU in a Bug free way, how on earth is that lack of developer skill set going to translate to them embedding in a complex internally DAW like Live? They're amazing programmers on their own, but IMO embedding them is a mistake. Max should have stayed a separate program IMO, and Cycling should have hired people to help them with their VST/AU implementation.

Again I don't run this show, and there are things about Live that I like a lot more than their obvious competitor Bitwig, but the lack of sandboxing of VSTs, and the modular environment from a third party embedded into their code part not so much, that's where Bitwig are getting it right.

thecld
Posts: 45
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 11:49 pm
Contact:

Re: Lets Talk Tuner

Post by thecld » Wed Feb 25, 2015 7:50 pm

+1000000 on making Live more modular without the need of M4L.

There should also be option to MIDI map various parameters to controllers BUT with addition to choose whether this mapping should be always 'on' or it should be 'on' only when track is armed - I've already wrote about this to Abletonians during Live 9 beta.

I like to build my own instruments (using Instrument Racks and M4L modulators) and use expression pedal, mod wheel, etc. to modulate multiple parameters of those instruments. Those Instruments can easily become very CPU hungry and it's all because of M4L. Another thing is when Live crashes, some of those M4L modulators lose their mappings (I'm talking about LFO device, Expression Control, Envelope Follower, etc.) and when it happens in a complex Instrument Rack device - it ruins everything.

I really hope that they're working on making Live natively more modular. That + some new native devices or just upgraded old one would make Live really stand out :D
Image

re:dream
Posts: 4554
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2007 9:42 am
Location: Hoerikwaggo's sunset side...
Contact:

Re: Lets Talk Tuner

Post by re:dream » Wed Feb 25, 2015 8:17 pm

@ String... have you ever gotten into Audiomulch?

(Now imagine if Ableton had gotten into bed with them 8O we should count our blessings.)

More seriously, it seems to me that there are upsides and downsides for Ableton to this whole deal.

On the one hand they now have a whole community of M4L developers who turn out all kinds of cool shit that no-one in-house would have thought of. That extends their functionality in many ways.

On the other hand, speaking as a user, M4L brings this whole new level of clunkiness and wobble into the architecture... I would much rather use a well designed Ableton native device or even a nice VST than an M4L device, any day.

But it's a decision that can't be unmade.

stringtapper
Posts: 6272
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 6:21 pm

Re: Lets Talk Tuner

Post by stringtapper » Wed Feb 25, 2015 8:35 pm

re:dream wrote:@ String... have you ever gotten into Audiomulch?
I've looked at it and it seems like it could be a lot of fun, but I've put so much time in and am comfortable with Max to the point that having another environment like that would drive me crazy. I don't even use Reaktor anymore.

This debate about M4L kind of relates back to the debates that were going on around the time it released. Most people just want to use stuff, and so many clamored for a Runtime version of M4L. There are very few of us who want to make things that work exactly the way we want them to work instead of waiting for someone else to make it.

And I don't want to misrepresent myself here: I'm no Max god by any stretch. I still have tons to learn. Besides a couple of those I've shared on maxforlive.com, most of the devices I make are very simple and probably wouldn't appeal or even be useful to others.

But I can't argue with the instability claims. I just haven't experienced them myself.
Unsound Designer

pinkpaint
Posts: 173
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2011 3:14 am

Re: Lets Talk Tuner

Post by pinkpaint » Wed Feb 25, 2015 9:55 pm

sorry I havent read all posts, but is anybody going to use tuner to tune their kicks? Havent downloaded beta yet im interested to hear if anybody has tried using it for such things.

Angstrom
Posts: 14664
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 2:22 pm
Contact:

Re: Lets Talk Tuner

Post by Angstrom » Wed Feb 25, 2015 10:09 pm

stringtapper wrote:
re:dream wrote:@ String... have you ever gotten into Audiomulch?
I've looked at it and it seems like it could be a lot of fun, but I've put so much time in and am comfortable with Max to the point that having another environment like that would drive me crazy. I don't even use Reaktor anymore.

This debate about M4L kind of relates back to the debates that were going on around the time it released. Most people just want to use stuff, and so many clamored for a Runtime version of M4L. There are very few of us who want to make things that work exactly the way we want them to work instead of waiting for someone else to make it.

And I don't want to misrepresent myself here: I'm no Max god by any stretch. I still have tons to learn. Besides a couple of those I've shared on maxforlive.com, most of the devices I make are very simple and probably wouldn't appeal or even be useful to others.

But I can't argue with the instability claims. I just haven't experienced them myself.
Personally I don't want premade items, that's not my interest.
If i were to make a parallel with analogue synthesis -

A: Minimoog = great quality but limited flexibility
B: modular synth = great features and intuitive flexibility, with some limitations
C: build your own modular synth from schematics = very few limitations, but unintuitive and fraught with pitfalls.

I want B. I want dynamic creative flexibility.
Max4Live is C very few limitations but fraught with complexity and pitfalls.
Packs made in M4L are like a very wonky A
I want B. Modular intuitive flexibility

I'm not incapable of tangling with a C project, in fact my guitar wiring is in a constant state of flux as I add phase switches and binary routings, but I know I will spend all my time debugging a C project so prefer B. It remains creative, rather than logical.

Michael Hatsis
Posts: 1807
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 6:27 pm
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Lets Talk Tuner

Post by Michael Hatsis » Thu Feb 26, 2015 12:59 am

Ableton is great
Max is great
Max for Live fails

I was one of the people who were very excited when MFL was coming into fruition. Was on the Beta team and stuff. U can't even imagine how buggy it was back then. I couldn't believe they released it when they did as it was just a huge crash fest - even with the few devices it came with.

My big problem with MFL is that there is nothing that guarantees a few years down the line, that a .als w some MFL devices in it will open and then sound exactly the same, and have all of its modulations and linked parameters still mapped. Also, when you crash, lots of times parameters get unlinked, which basically means you lose work.
I have learned that you cannot rely on these MFL devices. Anytime you upgrade anything - ableton, your OS, MFL, Java, you are risking that these things will get messed up.
Ableton is marketing MFL like it is part of Live and that MFL Devices 'act and look just like native ableton devices' which is bad info. They boast about the "New Convolution Reverb"( which is quite possibly one of the most impressive max patches i have ever seen ) that comes with Ableton Suite - and Ableton feel that these MFL toys satisfy user requests for things like LFOs, Envelopes, Modulation tools....they use MFL as a crutch - "Oh, just use MFL to do that" - when in truth, MFL devices and workarounds don't count and are unusable for the reasons I just mentioned.
Their new users are in for a nasty surprise when they open a set later on down the line and everything is off and all those nice convolution reverbs they set up are off or don't work.

Like I said, Max is a great tool, Live is a great tool, MFL is unusable unlesss you want to do alot of freezing, bouncing and resampling, which is a workflow killer in this situation.

re:dream
Posts: 4554
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2007 9:42 am
Location: Hoerikwaggo's sunset side...
Contact:

Re: Lets Talk Tuner

Post by re:dream » Thu Feb 26, 2015 9:50 am

Hence my question in the other thread about essential M4L devices.

It strikes me that other than the Convolution Reverb, everything in M4L is at best a 'nice to have'...

tedlogan
Posts: 1343
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2012 7:23 pm
Location: Leamington Spa, UK
Contact:

Re: Lets Talk Tuner

Post by tedlogan » Thu Feb 26, 2015 9:59 am

re:dream wrote:Hence my question in the other thread about essential M4L devices.

It strikes me that other than the Convolution Reverb, everything in M4L is at best a 'nice to have'...
Yup, pretty much so, at least for me.

Bitwig indeed got this right.

TomViolenz
Posts: 6854
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 6:19 pm

Re: Lets Talk Tuner

Post by TomViolenz » Thu Feb 26, 2015 10:15 am

re:dream wrote:Hence my question in the other thread about essential M4L devices.

It strikes me that other than the Convolution Reverb, everything in M4L is at best a 'nice to have'...
and it's not like this is the only or even best convo reverb available.

The Hofa IQ reverb for instance sounds really nice has a great graphical interface and is only 149€.
A lot lighter on the CPU as well. (yes I chose one of the cheaper ones, Altiverb and such cost three times that, though to my ears that's mostly brand name markup)

If they would have included the convo reverb as a (comparably) light native device, would have reworked the algo reverb and made the modulation devices native, I bet 90+% of Live users (me certainly included) would have been much better served than including M4L in Suite and calling it a day! :x

re:dream
Posts: 4554
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2007 9:42 am
Location: Hoerikwaggo's sunset side...
Contact:

Re: Lets Talk Tuner

Post by re:dream » Thu Feb 26, 2015 10:22 am

TomViolenz wrote:
only 149€.
8O 8O 8O

TomViolenz
Posts: 6854
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 6:19 pm

Re: Lets Talk Tuner

Post by TomViolenz » Thu Feb 26, 2015 10:27 am

re:dream wrote:
TomViolenz wrote:
only 149€.
8O 8O 8O
check out the demo for 14 days here:
http://hofa-plugins.de/en/plugins/iq-reverb/

I did, liked it, decided I'm more the algo reverb type (and don't have 150€ atm :lol: ) and continued using the Valhalla Vintage Verb.



But one of these days.....



PS: SOS review: http://hofa.de/media/presse/HOFA-IQ-Rev ... -01_14.pdf

Machinesworking
Posts: 11101
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 9:30 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Lets Talk Tuner

Post by Machinesworking » Thu Feb 26, 2015 7:42 pm

TomViolenz wrote:Altiverb and such cost three times that, though to my ears that's mostly brand name markup)
At the end of the day, after everyone reverse engineered plug ins like Altiverb, the convolution algorithms are going to be roughly similar for sure, but you're not paying for just the plug in itself. Audio Ease spent hundreds if not thousands of hours flying around the world taking hundreds of high quality impulse responses of various spaces, this is the huge advantage of Altiverb, high quality proprietary impulse responses. That is why I think about getting Altiverb, branding has nothing to do with it.

H20nly
Posts: 15838
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 9:15 pm
Location: The Wild West

Re: Lets Talk Tuner

Post by H20nly » Thu Feb 26, 2015 8:00 pm

Angstrom made a grievous error in assigning a subject to this thread; Let's Talk Max4Live

please include the change in your release notes.

stringtapper
Posts: 6272
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 6:21 pm

Re: Lets Talk Tuner

Post by stringtapper » Thu Feb 26, 2015 9:58 pm

Machinesworking wrote:
TomViolenz wrote:Altiverb and such cost three times that, though to my ears that's mostly brand name markup)
At the end of the day, after everyone reverse engineered plug ins like Altiverb, the convolution algorithms are going to be roughly similar for sure, but you're not paying for just the plug in itself. Audio Ease spent hundreds if not thousands of hours flying around the world taking hundreds of high quality impulse responses of various spaces, this is the huge advantage of Altiverb, high quality proprietary impulse responses. That is why I think about getting Altiverb, branding has nothing to do with it.
I'm pretty pissed that Audio Ease has gone full on iLok for all their apps. Speakerphone is one of the greatest things ever but if I want anymore updates I have to get the damn dongle.

:x
Unsound Designer

Post Reply