they seem to be going to rebuild the whole Live application on Max/Msp. the only thing that never worked properly in Live now becomes the main trend there. what a pity.
skip that, go Flash!
It was a good talk. I'm gonna try to elevate it further. There's an infinite # of ways to create LFO's in mfl. There's also probably a hundred available mfl devices online. Without saying you are right or wrong, the implementation of max in live is sort of like the best LFO you could ask for. Without assuming anything about their priority list, I would bet that the best case situation for more possible LFO options is by breaking down walls between the company and supporting / making these features available to the user-base / developers.TomKern wrote:Are you for real?!LOFA wrote:Could you please give me an example of an essential native device that's missing? I must know!TomKern wrote: No sorry, if M4L hadn't been used so much to excuse not giving new (essential!) native devices...
I even mentioned the LFO in my post![]()
And if you are now planning to go on a tired rant about how a LFO is not essential, I'll simply point out that neither M4L nor Live itself is "essential"
Anyway thanks, good talk...
Just out of curiosity, aren't short-length unlinked automation clips (better than) the device-independent native LFOs you seek?TomKern wrote:I even mentioned the LFO in my post
This thinking is exactly why I'm afraid of this buy out, because I fear many at Ableton share it.LOFA wrote:It was a good talk. I'm gonna try to elevate it further. There's an infinite # of ways to create LFO's in mfl. There's also probably a hundred available mfl devices online. Without saying you are right or wrong, the implementation of max in live is sort of like the best LFO you could ask for. Without assuming anything about their priority list, I would bet that the best case situation for more possible LFO options is by breaking down walls between the company and supporting / making these features available to the user-base / developers.TomKern wrote:Are you for real?!LOFA wrote: Could you please give me an example of an essential native device that's missing? I must know!
I even mentioned the LFO in my post![]()
And if you are now planning to go on a tired rant about how a LFO is not essential, I'll simply point out that neither M4L nor Live itself is "essential"
Anyway thanks, good talk...
FWIW, an LFO is probably the easiest type of mfl device to reverse engineer. If it's something that you care deeply about, I imagine it would be the most effective way to acquire what you are looking for.
https://www.google.com/search?q=lfo+in+ ... e&ie=UTF-8
And how would you interact with the rate or the amplitude of the oscillation in a live situation?!lowshelf wrote:Just out of curiosity, aren't short-length unlinked automation clips (better than) the device-independent native LFOs you seek?TomKern wrote:I even mentioned the LFO in my post
/ducks /fastens seatbelt /raises blast doors
You make some good points, even if I disagree with some.TomKern wrote: This thinking is exactly why I'm afraid of this buy out, because I fear many at Ableton share it.
No a M4L LFO is not a good substitute for a native one at least until:
1.) Assigning the LFO to a parameter in Live does not limit me from modulating it via other means like with a controller or automation.
2.) Assigning a LFO to one parameter does not block me from assigning the same LFO to another parameter
3.) There is no more guess work if the next time I load my set, the settings of the LFO are preserved.
4.) Using the LFO does not spam the undo history anymore.
These are all limitations of the LFO delivered with M4L that exist, because it is a M4L device.
Besides the LFO is barely adequate. If Ableton wanted to design a good LFO they should have looked at the Fabfilter effects or Cableguys' MIDI Shaper. Those are great LFOs.
I put some time into learning mfl. It's been helping me with my bills my since beta. I was fortunate enough at times to be put in a place where clients asked me for features that seemed impossible, but still somehow came together. It gives me confidence that all the things you described are achievable. Also, with some scripting, it really seems like the sky is the limit. So, I'm going back to practicing a bit of that right now.ivarin wrote:wow i'm impressed one can defend m4l's LFO so hard))
LOFA, have you seen the LFO implementation in Bitwig, or Reaktor? within one click you adjust direction, depth and offset. and which is a pain in the ass when doing that in Live. and yes, i'm still able to tweak that parameter after it's been set under modulation
Oh yeah live manipulation would deaden that approach. Unless, of course, you resigned yourself to live (life) largely consisting of a limited number of predeterministic events and possible moves; and so planned your set accordingly.TomKern wrote:And how would you interact with the rate or the amplitude of the oscillation in a live situation?!
Now you are just making excuses.LOFA wrote:You make some good points, even if I disagree with some.TomKern wrote: This thinking is exactly why I'm afraid of this buy out, because I fear many at Ableton share it.
No a M4L LFO is not a good substitute for a native one at least until:
1.) Assigning the LFO to a parameter in Live does not limit me from modulating it via other means like with a controller or automation.
2.) Assigning a LFO to one parameter does not block me from assigning the same LFO to another parameter
3.) There is no more guess work if the next time I load my set, the settings of the LFO are preserved.
4.) Using the LFO does not spam the undo history anymore.
These are all limitations of the LFO delivered with M4L that exist, because it is a M4L device.
Besides the LFO is barely adequate. If Ableton wanted to design a good LFO they should have looked at the Fabfilter effects or Cableguys' MIDI Shaper. Those are great LFOs.
From what I can tell, what you are describing is something that can be done within mfl, but it's a case of quality control and implementation (which is put upon the developer, hobbyist or pro). In the long-run, creating a platform that affords the users to attain exactly what they want is far more efficient (imo) than having to dedicate a small company's development team to make tools and decisions, based on subjective / aesthetic assumptions about their customers and their needs.
Lol no, I'm not that greedylowshelf wrote:Oh yeah live manipulation would deaden that approach. Unless, of course, you resigned yourself to live (life) largely consisting of a limited number of predeterministic events and possible moves; and so planned your set accordingly.TomKern wrote:And how would you interact with the rate or the amplitude of the oscillation in a live situation?!
Reading the other posts I guess your native LFO isn't really some widget, it's the app-wide modulation matrix which some folks here dream about or reminisce about. A matrix with multiple LFOs, triggers, envelopes, step sequences, each routable to multiple destinations, with multiple inputs and scaling factors. Curiously, that reminds me of some other software, oh what was it now...
sure, there's nothing impossible. one can take C++ and write another DAW from ground up. but since Live is a DAW, not an IDE, i'd like make sounds rather than exploring the limits of m4l or whatever.It gives me confidence that all the things you described are achievable. Also, with some scripting, it really seems like the sky is the limit.
I don't think anyone is defending the current state of LFOs vs other programs, its more like all of you are bringing up how M4L isn't well integrated into Live, which IMO has a lot to do with it being a separate code base. Now that Ableton own Cycling 74, effectively owning the code, the implementation of Max in Live can be done on a much deeper level. All of you naysayers are completely missing that point.ivarin wrote:wow i'm impressed one can defend m4l's LFO so hard))
LOFA, have you seen the LFO implementation in Bitwig, or Reaktor? within one click you adjust direction, depth and offset. and which is a pain in the ass when doing that in Live. and yes, i'm still able to tweak that parameter after it's been set under modulation
that's the case. all these 5 years m4l's been proving it's instability and unreliability.Machinesworking wrote:Face it, Max 4 Live is now never going away, which after 5 years all of you should have come to accept as a fact. Now, it's entirely possible it truly delivers on its original promise, and Live becomes a truly impressive modular DAW.
what makes you think so? i see quite the opposite here. they hardly handle this level of integration, why on earth they're supposed to be more stable in deeper integration? on the contrary, instability of m4l will affect Live harder to my mind.Machinesworking wrote:... and the M4L integration gets much more stable