is Max for Live the wrong answer to the wrong question?

Discussion of music production, audio, equipment and any related topics, either with or without Ableton Live
koranek
Posts: 460
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 3:51 am
Location: You got to be somewhere

Re: is Max for Live the wrong answer to the wrong question?

Post by koranek » Thu Apr 30, 2015 3:51 pm

The OP makes a valid point about how there are tradeoffs when you go deeper into any technology. When you do, you shift your focus and that can shift how you spend your time. Any programer can attest that you often can spend a lot of time coding and a fraction of the time using the programs you code.

I spent many years as a developer and when M4L came out, I was very conflicted about it. on the one hand my experiences might make me a perfect match for M4L. On the other hand, which would I love more: coding or producing? I dipped a toe in the M4L water very carefully and decided to leave it for someone else.

There is a reasonable argument that Ableton should have put their focus elsewhere also. I agree to some degree. But I like the results so far. Dub Machines, Dark Synth, Isotonik, Stray's work, Convolution Reverb, Monosequencer. Instead of a small Ableton development team, there is a community. Not everything is the highest quality, but there is so much out there. And some fairly original thinking also.

I also wonder if this will end up like the presets vs. patch programming argument. I wonder if someday someone will make the argument that unless you program all of your own vst's, that you are just a poser.

In the end, the choice of how deep you go is up to you.
Licensed Counselor
johnkoranekcounseling.com
https://soundcloud.com/johnkoranek

Mac Pro 3.33 Ghz 6 core Xeon, 32 G ram, OS 10.12.6
Push 2
Novation Impulse
iConnectAudio 2+, iConnectMidi 4+
Live 10 Sweet

Angstrom
Posts: 14686
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 2:22 pm
Contact:

Re: is Max for Live the wrong answer to the wrong question?

Post by Angstrom » Thu Apr 30, 2015 4:03 pm

moscom_musik wrote:Maybe to nuance the topic, you can use BEAP or Oscillot (although you have to pay for this one on top of max 4 live) to get closer to the left image.

On my side, it allows me to dig into many modular synthesis tutorials such as those by Rob Hordijk or Roland Kuit in a way close to that of the nord modular, at a fraction of the price of the modular synth depcited in the left picture, and with patch memory.
Well, my point is: think about the Live Device - Autofilter, in the context of that Doepfer module. It's somewhat similar. Autofilter has patch recall and everything you need in the context of DSP software although to match the Doepfer it could do with a few inputs, a few frequency and modulation inputs, also with this being software it could do with some more models, a ladder filter, a 12db, etc. it could have oversampling and drive.

To code that device you would need to know DSP quite well. To somebody who knows no code it might seem appealing to learn all about filter design and possibly build it from scratch, but are you really going to build something of the quality of FabFilter? The problem here is deep dark waters. Are you inherently as good at this at Andy Cytomic? Because not many people are. You may simply be on a long road to the self-discovery that you are not a "good" coder.

You followed a trail through the forest, you became entranced by the possibilities of code, only to find that you score 55% on the aptitude test.

Now, look at that Doepfer module again. It looks well made doesn't it? And if it doesn't work guess what, they send you another which does, because they really know their stuff.

Ableton could do the same thing, LFOs, Envelopes, Oscillators, these could be Live devices with full recall, housed in "racks". Filter modules could have modulation inputs, stored in presets. Live devices such as Operator could have inputs for modulators and carriers.

You could learn all about modular synthesis with pro quality components, with a UI designed by UI professionals and a commonality and learnability which builds on what every Ableton Live user has learned from using the rest of the application. A repeatable, learnable, quality assured modular environment with an intuitive interface. That's what Ableton Live is

moscom_musik
Posts: 152
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 9:57 pm

Re: is Max for Live the wrong answer to the wrong question?

Post by moscom_musik » Thu Apr 30, 2015 4:41 pm

Angstrom wrote: Well, my point is: think about the Live Device - Autofilter, in the context of that Doepfer module. It's somewhat similar. Autofilter has patch recall and everything you need in the context of DSP software although to match the Doepfer it could do with a few inputs, a few frequency and modulation inputs, also with this being software it could do with some more models, a ladder filter, a 12db, etc. it could have oversampling and drive.

To code that device you would need to know DSP quite well. To somebody who knows no code it might seem appealing to learn all about filter design and possibly build it from scratch, but are you really going to build something of the quality of FabFilter? The problem here is deep dark waters. Are you inherently as good at this at Andy Cytomic? Because not many people are. You may simply be on a long road to the self-discovery that you are not a "good" coder.
In my case, I solved the problem : I use the Drop indeed. Then I can modulate its parameters in Live, thus sort of use Live's modular capabilities. I should note that calling Live a modular environment is a bit of a stretch for me. Audio routing is excellent, but parameter modulation from one device to the other is almost non-existent. I do not know of any other DAW that gives such an ability (Bitwig maybe, Renoise? really no clue...), so Live is not better or worse than its competitor. It is just not fully modular in the sense of a modular synth.

By the way, I am not a coder, I play with Max humbly, just to figure out new synthesis methods I do not know, and then I transpose these methods to plug-ins I know.
Angstrom wrote: You followed a trail through the forest, you became entranced by the possibilities of code, only to find that you score 55% on the aptitude test.

Now, look at that Doepfer module again. It looks well made doesn't it? And if it doesn't work guess what, they send you another which does, because they really know their stuff.
Doepfer knows his stuff, that is for sure, and I believe Stretta, the guys at Cycling 74 or Christian Kleine also know their stuff. This Doepfer module looks good indeed, it does not make it sound good, and the fact that you can get a replacement for it is not a specific advantage in terms of sound and usefulness. If the point is that it is more intuitive than a piece of software, people looking at modulars and scratching their head absolutely not knowing what this was all about are as common as people scractching their heads in front of Reaktor, Bazille, etc...
Angstrom wrote: Ableton could do the same thing, LFOs, Envelopes, Oscillators, these could be Live devices with full recall, housed in "racks". Filter modules could have modulation inputs, stored in presets. Live devices such as Operator could have inputs for modulators and carriers.

You could learn all about modular synthesis with pro quality components, with a UI designed by UI professionals and a commonality and learnability which builds on what every Ableton Live user has learned from using the rest of the application. A repeatable, learnable, quality assured modular environment with an intuitive interface. That's what Ableton Live is
I have the feeling that I repeat myself, and I am going to be called a fanboy... but really what you are describing is like Bazille, BEAP or Oscillot, not Max. And the quality of these instruments is professional. Making Live modular may be a good idea but the user experience will have to be carefull thought out, otherwise it will be a disaster. That is apparently what Bitwig will propose at some point. I will be curious to know how it looks like...

I do not spend time coding. I spend my time creating patches in modular environments on a computer, and these interact with Live well (although most of them are CPU hogs, and it is not specifically related to Live). Now of course, the subjective part is important, and it might be more fun for some to patch on a hardware modular. But that is another story.
Macbook Pro Retina 2015, Live 9 Suite, Push, and a bunch of plug-ins I like :)

stringtapper
Posts: 6275
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 6:21 pm

Re: is Max for Live the wrong answer to the wrong question?

Post by stringtapper » Thu Apr 30, 2015 5:17 pm

Angstrom wrote:A repeatable, learnable, quality assured modular environment with an intuitive interface. That's what Ableton Live is
But the limitations I brought up in that thread in the M4L subforum sort of prove that you're wrong about what Live is.

From the very start of M4L in 2009 seasoned Max users who tried it found that they started running into all kinds of limitations. Limitations that they didn't have when using Max standalone. Things like sending data (Audio and MIDI) between devices, multichannel audio and MIDI, and sysex to name a few.

These are limitations with Live and if they were addressed then Live might be a truly modular environment as you claim. This is why I said in that other thread that solving these problems that hinder M4L would benefit everyone.
Unsound Designer

Angstrom
Posts: 14686
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 2:22 pm
Contact:

Re: is Max for Live the wrong answer to the wrong question?

Post by Angstrom » Thu Apr 30, 2015 5:45 pm

Yes, Live isn't a route-anything-anywhere modular, they have imposed limitations to prevent latency calculations coming unstuck.
But the Ableton Live paradigm is one where a track channel strip doesn't come with any EQ, until you drop one in. I can route audio and midi from and to tracks, and to sub-devices, all with ease. This is the established UX metaphor in Live. A musician can drag and drop components and send them to each other.

Are there limitations on that routing? yes there are.
Is Max responsible for the limitations in Live? No it isn't.

But that is not my point, and never has been. I have never said : "max limits connectivity"
The whole point of this thread is: if the question is "how do Ableton empower musicians and synthesists and producers to have more control over their sounds" then Max is not the answer.
What is the most intuitive way for them to proceed to deliver such features to users? What would be worth specifying?
As software developers Ableton specified a lovely software development tool. So rather than creating AutoFilter2 they invited the user to create their own, reasoning that this would be fun for users and provide a panoply of devices without staff overhead.
Rather than opening modulation and audio inputs on Operator3, they invite the user to create their own synth

Ableton said "stop being Tangerine Dream making mere patches, and start being Bob Moog - make your own minimoog".

I am a programmer by day, it is a very logical and tiring profession. I like synthesis and patching because it is fun, intuitive, stochastic. I could become a developer in this framework, but that's not what I needed from Ableton. I needed them to deliver a musically creative way to modify sounds which builds on what exists. Not a new parallel developer IDE

Look at the responses in this thread. That M4L must be good because skilled developers Like Christian Klein have made good tools in it. Nobody is saying "Just today I was playing a lead synth with two layers of Operator and it needed a parallel filter so I dropped one in and linked it to the note-on, it took two seconds and I didn't even think about it". No, the people who say M4L is good point at developers creating devices. Layers on layers of software.

Ableton actually took creativity away from musicians and gave it to developers.
They said "forget making patches, start making minimoogs"
Last edited by Angstrom on Thu Apr 30, 2015 5:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

stringtapper
Posts: 6275
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 6:21 pm

Re: is Max for Live the wrong answer to the wrong question?

Post by stringtapper » Thu Apr 30, 2015 5:50 pm

So where does the "don't fucking use it and keep asking them for the shit you do want" part come in?
Unsound Designer

Angstrom
Posts: 14686
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 2:22 pm
Contact:

Re: is Max for Live the wrong answer to the wrong question?

Post by Angstrom » Thu Apr 30, 2015 5:54 pm

Well, because when I ask them about the stuff I am interested in I am pointed at M4L

and i try to say but that's a developer solution. But nobody seems to understand my point that Live is 80% there and then they started ona whole new paradigm and it's not I was asking about ... and they GET SUPER ANGRY LIKE I INSULTED THEIR GOD. They tell me to fuck off, because my opinion is invalid. I am a cunt.I am soft, I am a dick.

I say "look, can we just have LFO, Expression and an Envelope Please. Please? Please? it so nearly works, just an LFo, and an Envelope, and perhaps open operators audio input up? You don't seem to be understanding? Is it not possible or something?"

and they say "M4L works great on my system, you are whiner fuck off . fuck off, its great fuck off, fuck off. stop whining. cunt fucking shut up whiner cunt get a mac"

and I say, I mustn't have explained myself. "I am asking for a fork and you are giving me a screwdriver" and they say "fuck off you, whiner"

and I say, well I'll make a thread which explains the issue in depth and hopefully nobody tells me to fuck off like a whiner cunt

Its good you have what you want . You are right, I shouldn't want what I want, I should be happy with what you want and I shut shut up because I am a whiner cunt

right? fuck me for explaining my point of view right?

stringtapper
Posts: 6275
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 6:21 pm

Re: is Max for Live the wrong answer to the wrong question?

Post by stringtapper » Thu Apr 30, 2015 6:07 pm

lol

Nah.

I think you make good points and I am spoiled because I am ok with what I have and a lot of that has to do with the fact that M4L is something I had dreamed about happening before it happened and then it happened. So it's kind of like year-round Christmas on steroids for me.

I don't agree with them not adding features just because it can maybe be done with M4L.

I don't think the point of M4L should be to plug holes and find workarounds. It should be for making weird and unique noises in weird and unique ways.
Unsound Designer

leisuremuffin
Posts: 4721
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2004 12:45 am
Location: New Jersey
Contact:

Re: is Max for Live the wrong answer to the wrong question?

Post by leisuremuffin » Thu Apr 30, 2015 6:18 pm

I mostly agree with angstrom. I was hopeful when m4l came out that it wouldn't matter that i couldn't be bothered to learn it, because there would be so much free community developed devices available for use. This has not turned out to be the case. And while there are some great devices out there no doubt, there's never a guarantee that any of them will work with the next live update and the only place you will be able to turn is to the guy who made the thing. That guy might not even be using m4l anymore, and will probably tell you, 'oh it's no big deal, just open the m4l patcher up and tweak x' to which i will say, 'fuuuuuuuuuuuck thaaaaaaaaaaaaat.' That forces me to be way more cautious about what m4l devices i depend on in my studio workflow. (won't use ANY live) I have exactly ZERO interest in messing around with m4l myself. That said, there are a ton of people in the electronic music community that are all about max, i'm sure this is great for them.

But yeah, if ableton had just added a few essential control devices and opened up the control path within Live itself, it would have been a much better outcome for everyone. Of course I say that as if it's simple to achieve, obviously i have no idea, it might be a near impossible task.
TimeableFloat ???S?e?n?d?I?n?f?o

Valiumdupeuple
Posts: 1049
Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 12:36 pm
Contact:

Re: is Max for Live the wrong answer to the wrong question?

Post by Valiumdupeuple » Thu Apr 30, 2015 7:29 pm

Angstrom wrote:
moscom_musik wrote:Maybe to nuance the topic, you can use BEAP or Oscillot (although you have to pay for this one on top of max 4 live) to get closer to the left image.

On my side, it allows me to dig into many modular synthesis tutorials such as those by Rob Hordijk or Roland Kuit in a way close to that of the nord modular, at a fraction of the price of the modular synth depcited in the left picture, and with patch memory.
Well, my point is: think about the Live Device - Autofilter, in the context of that Doepfer module. It's somewhat similar. Autofilter has patch recall and everything you need in the context of DSP software although to match the Doepfer it could do with a few inputs, a few frequency and modulation inputs, also with this being software it could do with some more models, a ladder filter, a 12db, etc. it could have oversampling and drive.

To code that device you would need to know DSP quite well. To somebody who knows no code it might seem appealing to learn all about filter design and possibly build it from scratch, but are you really going to build something of the quality of FabFilter? The problem here is deep dark waters. Are you inherently as good at this at Andy Cytomic? Because not many people are. You may simply be on a long road to the self-discovery that you are not a "good" coder.

You followed a trail through the forest, you became entranced by the possibilities of code, only to find that you score 55% on the aptitude test.

Now, look at that Doepfer module again. It looks well made doesn't it? And if it doesn't work guess what, they send you another which does, because they really know their stuff.

Ableton could do the same thing, LFOs, Envelopes, Oscillators, these could be Live devices with full recall, housed in "racks". Filter modules could have modulation inputs, stored in presets. Live devices such as Operator could have inputs for modulators and carriers.

You could learn all about modular synthesis with pro quality components, with a UI designed by UI professionals and a commonality and learnability which builds on what every Ableton Live user has learned from using the rest of the application. A repeatable, learnable, quality assured modular environment with an intuitive interface. That's what Ableton Live is
I use M4L a lot and love it, and even patch devices because it sometimes feel good to stuck my brains in this thing, and also because it opens up a lot of possibilities and I'm happy to enjoy these.
But I completely agree with Angstrom.
Oscillot is a good example of the problem because IMHO this fantastic piece of max coding is the best expression of what Ableton seems to be missing... complex systems should be native, extreme modularity should be native, simple devices like LFO should be native and rock-solid, the same goes for convolution reverb...
It's not efficient at all to rely on M4L for such features.
I don't have problem with any M4L device (except that a lot of them use an absurd amount of CPU), but I know a lot of users do so there's definitely something wrong going on here; it is not reliable for everyone. M4L is fantastic for experimenting (I'm thinking about Amazing Noises' devices for example, or Granulator...) and prototyping; it should not be the solution to what should be native.

login
Posts: 1819
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 12:41 am

Re: is Max for Live the wrong answer to the wrong question?

Post by login » Thu Apr 30, 2015 7:32 pm

Angstrom wrote:
The whole point of this thread is: if the question is "how do Ableton empower musicians and synthesists and producers to have more control over their sounds" then Max is not the answer.
What is the most intuitive way for them to proceed to deliver such features to users? What would be worth specifying?
As software developers Ableton specified a lovely software development tool. So rather than creating AutoFilter2 they invited the user to create their own, reasoning that this would be fun for users and provide a panoply of devices without staff overhead.
Rather than opening modulation and audio inputs on Operator3, they invite the user to create their own synth
Max is not the answer for you, you can't speak for all. I am sure some people like m4l and other as yourself don't.

I agreee with you that we would like to see more tools in Live as native devices, that operator could be expanded, that would be nice to have a new native synths. But those are just different needs and wishes, to me there a bigger issues are lack of drum rack mixer controls on any controller and metering (no RMS, no VU, no K system, etc.).

I don't know what Ableton was thinking when they brought m4l to Live, would be nice to hear. But since we are supponsing stuff I will also made my own: they tried to expand the market for Live in to the academic/experimental world in which Max/Pure data is popular.

login
Posts: 1819
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 12:41 am

Re: is Max for Live the wrong answer to the wrong question?

Post by login » Thu Apr 30, 2015 7:43 pm

https://cycling74.com/2009/01/15/my-per ... #more-2008
Nine years ago, Robert Henke told me about the edit button.

Robert was in Anaheim, giving amazing Live 1.0 demos non-stop at Ableton’s first NAMM booth, and before the last day of the show, we were chatting in the topiary-enhanced parking lot of Stovall’s Inn. Having used Max to prototype some of the first effects included with Live, Robert told me he wanted to be able to reprogram his effects on the fly, without stopping the music, just the way everything else worked in Live. At that time, the reality for Robert would have involved translating his revised patch into a C program and rebuilding a new version of Live. This was not exactly the real-time development cycle he was used to as a Max user.


At the time, I told Robert I thought his idea was cool and that we should make it happen. But then I began to immerse myself in the details. Would we have to shoehorn the entire Max environment into Live? If not, how could you edit a patch without hearing it? None of the alternatives seemed terribly attractive. Brooding quickly set in. Fast forward nine years. After a lot of negotiating, specifying, and programming, Robert’s dream is becoming a reality. It seemed appropriate to reflect on this newest evolution of our software, and why it has caused my mood to brighten considerably.



The Max device (Degrader) comes with an edit button, unlike the built-in Live device (Erosion).

From Ableton’s perspective, Max is the meta-feature. Live’s limits are now your imagination’s limits. (Who knows, maybe they won’t need to add any more features!) But what it does Max for Live mean for Cycling ’74 and our users? And why did we want to integrate Max into another piece of software?

I’ll answer the second question first.

As someone whose primary career interest has been software user interfaces, I have to say at the outset that Live has been an ongoing inspiration since I first saw it. The important thing for me is Live’s recognition that fluency was a fundamental goal in an interface for creative work. Particularly with version 5, we’ve tried to incorporate lessons from the Live interface into Max.

After Live appeared, it soon became clear that I wasn’t the only one who was impressed. Live has become a preferred tool of many Max users. Live’s performance orientation attracts a similar community to ours. And here’s a insider tip: Ableton’s MIDI, plug-in, and ReWire implementations were always the most stable we dealt with, and we actually knew people who were using the two programs together with success, on both Mac and Windows. That meant we could imagine that an integration project would have a good chance of actually working when we were finished with it!

Ultimately, it came down to this: my Cycling ’74 co-workers and I have come to believe the unique thing we have to offer the world is fundamentally about programming. In other words, we want to make edit buttons, and if we can put them in places where they have never existed before, all the better. It was clear to me that Ableton understood what it meant to have the Max environment work with their software. They weren’t just talking about more plug-ins.

We’ve been working with Ableton for more than two years to bring Max and Live together. From the outset, our goal was to create the concept of a dynamic Live device that would make the application itself seem editable. The result is not just another plug-in specification but an entirely new kind of workflow that manages to combine the interactivity and fluency of both applications without compromising anything.

Working on a complex task with another company separated by over 5000 miles and a nine-hour time difference has been an interesting challenge. Time and distance were not the only issue, however. Even though we respect each other’s software tremendously, the cultures of Ableton and Cycling ’74 are, within the narrow confines of audio software companies, pretty divergent. I suppose I should be careful in making comparisons between the two organizations, but I think it would be safe to say that Cycling ’74 operates in a manner that, by comparison to Ableton, could be characterized as complete and utter chaos. Yet for me at least, the experience of getting to know another company and its people has been intensely rewarding. Since December 2007, when Max for Live was first demonstrated (and yes of course, it crashed!) at an Ableton company meeting, the Cycling ’74 office began to receive requests for Max authorizations from Ableton employees. That was an encouraging sign for me that maybe we were on to something. For the past several years, we have actually managed to infiltrate the Ableton office in Berlin with one of our developers, Jeremy Bernstein. In retrospect, even with all the other pieces of the puzzle falling into place, it’s hard to imagine how we could have accomplished this task without Jeremy being in the right place at the right time.

Even Max users who never end up with Live have benefited from this project. In addition to some of the Live-influenced changes we made to the UI design, there were features we developed for Max 5 specifically to address challenges of Live integration. For example, given the size constraints of the Live device view, we needed a better method for displaying a compact interface that wouldn’t distort the logical structure of a patch. The result was presentation mode, which turned out to be a dramatic improvement for UI design for any patch. The task of integrating Max into Live has already prompted a number of innovations within the Max environment and I can confidently predict more will be forthcoming.

Finally, I want to leave you with a Max-centric perspective on what this project represents.

The most obvious thing you are probably seeing as a Max user is the ease with which you can get your Max stuff into Live, as well as share it with a new user community. But that is not the whole story. Instead of thinking about what Max is going to do for Live, think about what Live is going to do for Max. With this integration, a programming environment has just gained a set of powerful composing and performing tools. In Music-N terms, Max supplies the orchestra while Live holds the score. The “score” however is not just MIDI notes. It can be audio, triggered and manipulated in all the sophisticated ways Live provides. Or it can be automation, drawn inside Live and fed to Max as sample-accurate audio-rate ramps if you like. It’s equally possible to work the other way, where Max represents the score and Live represents the orchestra.

Those are just the raw capabilities. The real magic happens when you see how it can all work together. Because we started with the requirement to support dynamically changing devices, your “score” and your “orchestra” will evolve together seamlessly. For example, if you edit a device and add a parameter to it, you won’t lose the automation data you’ve already created for the device’s existing parameters. Then there is something we have been calling preview mode. Preview mode pipes audio, MIDI, automation, and timing from Live to Max (and back to Live) while you are editing your device. The result is a sound design process that feels completely integrated from the highest to the lowest level in a way nothing else has before.

Once you experience this integration, I think you will see how it has the potential to change the typical usage patterns of both applications. Max is the ultimate workaround for out-of-the-ordinary things you need to do in Live, while Live supplies the sampling and granular audio triggering Max users often find themselves constructing. Our new Live-inspired Max UI objects, with their effortless parameter management, tie everything together, and then you save it all into a single document, ready for tomorrow’s creative explorations.

That, in a nutshell, is why I like edit buttons.

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

Re: is Max for Live the wrong answer to the wrong question?

Post by TomViolenz » Thu Apr 30, 2015 7:54 pm

login wrote:https://cycling74.com/2009/01/15/my-per ... #more-2008
From Ableton’s perspective, Max is the meta-feature. Live’s limits are now your imagination’s limits. (Who knows, maybe they won’t need to add any more features!)
The bolded part is exactly the type of thinking the regular Live user fears Ableton has adopted in regards to M4L! :!:

LFO8
Posts: 333
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 7:12 pm

Re: is Max for Live the wrong answer to the wrong question?

Post by LFO8 » Thu Apr 30, 2015 8:39 pm

I agree with you Angstrom. Very deeply so. There are some good M4L devices out there but they have all been made by experienced coders and programmers. I could not do that, no way. I have a hard enough time getting to where I want; creating music I can be proud of.

Offering M4L like it is any kind of real solution to what Ableton Live is lacking is pure laziness imo. M4L is good for creating and testing out new stuff that the team may want to add to Ableton Live, but that is a job for the developers at Ableton, NOT the users.

If the Abe's were to chuck M4L as an end user solution and start developing native solutions out of it I would chuck M4L out the window so freakin hard an dance out of joy. Not only would that mean that we would not be forced into M4L any more anytime we are looking for better modulation options (and actual modularity) within Live (as for instance FL Studio DOES have natively), but it would also mean that the Abe's are investing again into Live to make it a solid, actual modular DAW it (imo) once strived to be!!







EDIT: oh.... and (sorry for anyone who loves their Push but) F*ck Push!! really...... Leave all the hardware integration-thingy's up to the hardware developers and focus on making each version of Live a better version of itself. It's hard enough being really good at one thing isn't it? So don't be trying to be all Leonardo DaVinci up in here. A jack of all trades is a master of none...

Sorry.. had to rant a little.
Last edited by LFO8 on Thu Apr 30, 2015 8:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

oblique strategies
Posts: 3578
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 9:57 pm
Location: Another Green World

Re: is Max for Live the wrong answer to the wrong question?

Post by oblique strategies » Thu Apr 30, 2015 8:44 pm

Valiumdupeuple wrote: complex systems should be native, extreme modularity should be native, simple devices like LFO should be native and rock-solid, the same goes for convolution reverb...
It's not efficient at all to rely on M4L for such features.

I don't have problem with any M4L device (except that a lot of them use an absurd amount of CPU), but I know a lot of users do so there's definitely something wrong going on here; it is not reliable for everyone. M4L is fantastic for experimenting (I'm thinking about Amazing Noises' devices for example, or Granulator...) and prototyping; it should not be the solution to what should be native.
Agree. Though I do have problems with quite a few M4L devices.

M4L is just another tool. But the rudimentary & fundamental tools Ableton is relying on M4L to provide should be native.

M4L has revolutionized the way I work with multi-speaker & spatialized sound; but these are basic tools common to other DAWs that need to be part of Live, & they need to be STABLE & not devour CPU.

login wrote:https://cycling74.com/2009/01/15/my-per ... #more-2008
Live’s limits are now your imagination’s limits.
This is marketing nonsense of the lowest order. Of course there are limits, & frankly limits are good. I don't want unlimited options, I want tools that work properly. I do not get this with M4L -it's just too erratic.

Post Reply