The state of Push 3 stand alone

[Machinesworking]

In another thread I mentioned this, and IMO this deserves civil discussion. When Ableton bought Cycling 74 and added Max 4 Live at Live Suite 8, the internal testing obviously wasn't enough, and everyone on the public beta was too excited to really give actual feedback. Live was a terrible mess for many people and Ableton even made a public apology about it. It was obvious something about addding in M4L had destabilized Live internally. I was on the public beta and it was the first version of Live since I bought it that I waited a year to upgrade.

The whole process of the Push3 stand alone roll out reminds me a bit of this. There are a lot of complaints about buggy hardware, and the actual software is extremely limited. I ordered one and it was due in a week or so now, but I cancelled. I'll post my reply to rech support here, and for the true believers, yes, IMO it's going to be an amazing piece of gear in a year or two, if a few things get added in the software, it will be the default king of hybrid stand alone's but right now IMO that title goes to the MPC's.

go ahead and cancel my order.

I would like to give some feedback on this, hopefully it doesn’t fall on deaf ears. I’ve been using Ableton since version 3 or 20 years. I was super excited to see Push 3 have MPE support, an audio interface and a mobile CPU with Live on it.
Then I found out that Follow Actions weren’t currently able to be implemented in stand alone, then no real way to compile a Set of Scenes into a song/arrangement that you can play back and arrange further. No time signature attached to separate Scenes to make a song in multiple time signatures. In other words as of right now, Push Stand Alone is a sketch pad, it has the possibility of being more powerful that any of the other stand alone hardware DAWs, but as of right now, It’s less powerful than Maschine and infinitely less powerful than the MPC line up. I already own Push 2, but thought that Push 3 stand alone would replace Push 2, a Babyface interface, and a laptop, and it really can’t. I went ahead and got the MPC Live II, it will be my mobile device that allows me to create full songs in multiple tempos and time signatures in stand alone while away from home.

I hope at some point this changes for Push 3 stand alone, but as of right now all the issues that prevent me from being interested in Maschine + are even worse with Push 3 Stand Alone time signatures and basic song workflow are non existent. It’s pretty much a loop machine, which will be an issue with sales in the future after initial reports come back and people start talking about this. IMO the world doesn’t need more limitations on musicians in terms of them getting stuck making multiple unfinished loops. Hopefully your developers and marketing teams see the point I and others are and will be making about this issue with stand alone.

Thanks and a reminder, cancel my order, I’m not buying Push 3 until it’s capable of being used in stand alone and actually writing a full song. This is entirely possible, the MPC Live can do this, so I have hope you will compete with Akai for people like me etc.

[elbows]

For me it isnt a question of being a 'true believer'. Its a question of understanding the limitations in advance of ordering one, and whether my expectations were broadly in tune with its capabilities at launch. In this respect it has delivered pretty much exactly what I expected it to. A question that arises from that is whether Ableton did all they could to make potential customers fully aware of the limitations. I cannot really give a straightforward answer as to how I was able to get the right impression of what the device would be to start with.

I treat hardware issues and bugs as a somewhat different topic. I'm not surprised by the sort of bugs being seen due to the fact that this is hardware married to software where we are used to seeing all sorts of bugs in the software squished by subsequent beta releases, and indeed plenty of push-related bugs are listed in the release notes of the current beta release. In terms of hardware issues, clearly there is much variety between users and we are more likely to hear from people with one or more hardware problems at this stage. And it is certainly unfortunate that support do not seem able to respond in a timely way to everything at this stage.

[Machinesworking]

Sure, I'm just frustrated that Ableton can't release some way of not using the computer to arrange a couple parts into a song.
Their direct competition is Maschine+ and the stand alone MPC hardware, Live II, X, One etc. Live II is miles ahead of the stand alone software in Push 3.

Maschine+ is capable of arranging a song, and has arguably a similar quality of on board instruments and FX to Push 3 with Suite. It also can't do more than one time sigature.

MPC hardare is simply much more robust in the song creation department, and not so much in the instruments, but for me personally it's more important to have the ability to flesh out a basic song arrangement without a computer in stand alone hardware. (there are add on instruments recently that are top notch etc.) You can always replace instruments on the computer later. There's literally nothing missing from the software version. Granted it started off as hardware, but it's not like it isn't software and computer based in all practical senses.

It's just weird to me that Ableton didn't take into account that the DAWless crowd will tear P3 stand alone up about no real arranging capabilities at all. That the two obvious software/hardware hybrid stand alone's besides P3 that it will be compared to, can get the basics done, or even complete an entire song on just the hardware.

I'm certain that in the future this changes, it's too blatant of a limitation to not address, it's just personally been a rocky ride getting hyped about Push 3 Stand Alone, then realizing for me it would be a waste of $2000, right now as it stands.

[TheLoudest]

from the point of view of a Dawless setup, it would be nice if they at least add some basic parameters for midi clips...
like program change..!!!.
and follow-actions

with follow-actions on scenes for example, I think I could live without arrangement mode
(btw I don't even know where they'd put it...there's no dedicated button for it, so it would be really weird in terms of design...)

I often use the arrangement timeline to cut/deconstruct/reconstruct/reconsolidate samples, and it would be really nice to have at least this possibility for an audio clip (given the Push3's low screen height, we won't be able to display more than one track comfortably anyway...)
but most of all for such a mode it would certainly be very tricky to make an efficient workflow without a mouse or a touchscreen (like the one on the MPC/Force)...
they didn't even include warp markers on P3S ! precisely because I think it's not that easy to manage audio editing with 8 buttons/encoders and a non-touch screen...

[Tarekith]

My own thought is that Push 3 Standalone does everything that push 2 does, just without the cables. Used as such, it functions the same as Push 2 so really cool having that ability on the go now. There’s a few bugs, but in terms of a Push centric workflow, not too many.

I think the issue is that they then advertised it as being the hub of a hardware studio, and the functionality just isn’t there yet. Also, I think too many people are expecting everything Live does in a hardware box, and it was never advertised as such. I keep saying this, but it’s Push standalone and not Live standalone. It’s like expecting Note to do everything Live does, even though it’s never been advertised that way.

All that said, there’s clearly a lot of room and scope to add more functionality to Push 3 Standalone, so you can bet the developers are planning on at least some of the more obviously things. I honestly have no idea what the roadmap is, so just saying that as a long time user.

[TheLoudest]

My own thought is that Push 3 Standalone does everything that push 2 does, just without the cables.

Yes I can hear the argument that the Push3 is nothing more than a Push2 without the cables (and indeed, that's what it is at the moment... unfortunately!)
but that can't be satisfactory
firstly, because when "dawless musicians" dreamed of an AbletonLive-in-a-box, it really means what it says...
maybe not with all the little functionnalities of the DAW, or even without a big part of it (for example personnally I understand why there is no arrangement mode)
but at least the basic functions that have existed since the first versions of Live...

in fact you can't put in parallel Push 3 standalone and Push 2 this way, since they're not the same product at all
one is just a controller.
so the missing functions aren't really a "problem"... it's just that we can't access them from the hardware but we can still grab our mouse and access that function in the software
whereas here, we're on a "standalone" device, so we are no longer in a computer configuration
( otherwise we'd be using it in controller mode... which is still possible, of course... but that's not why people spent 2000 euros I guess... )

I think Ableton made exactly the same mistake as Native Instruments
they didn't understand that you can't stamp a controller "standalone" just by adding a CPU on it

[102455]

@Tarekith amen to that - but this is the internet. People love to moan.

[TheLoudest]

Not people on the internet, "customers"...that's a (very) BIG difference...

[dcjams]

I'm sad for the people who are disappointed with Push 3 standalone. It sucks being disappointed. I don't think I'll be disappointed with it when mine arrives. I think I know what to expect. Hardware issues would certainly bum me out though, and if I have any it'll go straight back again, and again and again if need be.

I'm surprised the hardware issues haven't been identified in reviews. Sure some reviews are just paid promotions and they'll say anything, but the Sound on Sound review, for example, gave it a clean bill of health. A print magazine with a thirty year reputation for excellence, integrity and independence. It did however feel that at the price point the lack of an arrangement feature was a problem.

I wonder if Ableton got unlucky with their manufacturing partners once they hit the go button for the first batch? Is it possible that review models were part of a prototype run and avoided any gaffes? I've often seen reviewers mention they're demoing a unit from an early production run. The point being manufacturing problems can be fixed quickly. Inherent design problems can't so much. Somebody suggested the touchstrip going crazy could be a grounding issue. That sounds like a good example of sloppy assembly. The next batch may well be error free.

Not much help for early adopters, I know, and not hearing from support for days on end is disconcerting for sure.

[elbows]

Well when it comes to hardware issues, I think if we place to one side the touchstrip issues, the number of people reporting other hardware issues is within expected parameters. The woe of those with other issues has of course been compounded by delays in getting adequate responses from Ableton support.

So for me the question of hardware issues does largely hinge on whether they are able to work around the touchstrip issues via a firmware issue, and how long that takes. And how quickly their support system returns to an acceptable level of service.

[elbows]

My own thought is that Push 3 Standalone does everything that push 2 does, just without the cables.

Yes I can hear the argument that the Push3 is nothing more than a Push2 without the cables (and indeed, that's what it is at the moment... unfortunately!)
but that can't be satisfactory
firstly, because when "dawless musicians" dreamed of an AbletonLive-in-a-box, it really means what it says...
maybe not with all the little functionnalities of the DAW, or even without a big part of it (for example personnally I understand why there is no arrangement mode)
but at least the basic functions that have existed since the first versions of Live...

in fact you can't put in parallel Push 3 standalone and Push 2 this way, since they're not the same product at all
one is just a controller.
so the missing functions aren't really a "problem"... it's just that we can't access them from the hardware but we can still grab our mouse and access that function in the software
whereas here, we're on a "standalone" device, so we are no longer in a computer configuration
( otherwise we'd be using it in controller mode... which is still possible, of course... but that's not why people spent 2000 euros I guess... )

I think Ableton made exactly the same mistake as Native Instruments
they didn't understand that you can't stamp a controller "standalone" just by adding a CPU on it

Well there are some issues of expectation management there, and there is more than one way to solve those. Adding all the required functionality to live up to all the pent up desires of more than a decade is one approach, there are others too.

I did think of the Push 3 standalone as being more than a simplistic evolution of the Push 2, but I did not truly think of it as a total solution for the "dawless musicians" in its initial form. Maybe it will go much further in that direction in the years ahead, but initally I thought of it as being suitable for a hybrid workflow. One where a computer is still involved at times, but where workflows exist where you have some sessions that are only done with the Push 3, and some that are very much still reliant on the computer. For example you could start on the Push 3 to sketch out ideas, then move to computer for some refinements and fleshing out of certain areas. Or the opposite, where you build more complex stuff on the computer to start with and then move the project to the Push 3 to take the project out on the road. The fact that Live running on a computer is required in order to transfer files to and from the standalone Push 3 is a big clue as to the limitations and intended workflows, but not everyone is going to have taken that as a hint as to where their dreams should end for now, and so ideally there should have been other ways to make this explicit. Requiring a Live license is another clue too I suppose.

[resequenced]

Ableton's plans for the Push 3 standalone aren't particularly relevant. The fact that they've failed to communicate properly what state the hardware and software are in at release is the issue. The product is a mess. Ableton is as quiet as a mouse.

The software is so buggy that it appears to be somewhere between an early alpha and a beta version. We've been made unwilling participants in the testing of a product in exchange for a lot of money. This isn't a cheap product. I don't want to pay this much money to do free work for Ableton by testing their unfinished product. I've lost track of the number of hours spent testing to figure out if something is a bug, working around bugs, writing reports for Ableton for the bugs, analyzing my own logs, telling Ableton what they may want to do to improve the Push 3 standalone's OS and so on. What's the goal? To help make the product actually be the product we've already paid 1900 euros or 2000 to receive?
Why should we bother to do Ableton's QA work?

The Push 3 standalone comes with an outdated UEFI firmware for the NUC compute element. Issues such as battery drain and several other issues we experience can be due to that as well. Issues with latency can be caused by non-maskable interrupts caused by the firmware of the NUC compute element. The version running on my unit was [...]68 from last year. The latest one when I checked was [...]72 from May.

The Ableton OS which is based on Linux could use some improvements of its own. It's running a custom version of the 5.15.48 Linux kernel. This is an older version. Newer versions of the 5.15 kernel are likely to include bug fixes for ext4 file system corruption. Such bugs may be the reason why some Push 3 standalone units stopped booting. A capable team of developers shouldn't have any difficulties updating this kernel in 2-5 days and pushing it out for broader testing. An upgrade to a Linux 6.1 kernel would bring some incredible performance improvements for audio processing software of all kinds. Countless improvements have been made to ALSA (which is used by the Push 3 standalone for audio), to drivers, to the CPU scheduler (which has a major impact on performance, even more so under heavy load), to the file systems (ext4 has received many performance and stability improvements), to the network code (better for Ableton Link, better for downloading packs, transferring sets and other user library content) and to many other parts of the kernel. All of this means you'd get a much more reliable product with better performance and more stable latency.

Statements which praise the Push 3 made by people who haven't held a Push 3 in their hands don't mean much. That's not even mean or condescending. It's the hard truth. You watch review videos on the Internet, read an incomplete manual and you might expect things to work properly or the hardware to be usable. You might find out when it arrives that there's one bug or that there a few bugs which don't allow you to do even the most basic things in your workflow. I'm not even thinking of cutting up audio, recording, editing samples, comping, mastering, live performances and many other things people are doing using the desktop version of Live.

[Audivit]

Amen!

Also, correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't Ableton violating GPL by not sharing "Ableton OS" source code?

[Machinesworking]

My own thought is that Push 3 Standalone does everything that push 2 does, just without the cables. Used as such, it functions the same as Push 2 so really cool having that ability on the go now. There’s a few bugs, but in terms of a Push centric workflow, not too many.

I think the issue is that they then advertised it as being the hub of a hardware studio, and the functionality just isn’t there yet. Also, I think too many people are expecting everything Live does in a hardware box, and it was never advertised as such. I keep saying this, but it’s Push standalone and not Live standalone. It’s like expecting Note to do everything Live does, even though it’s never been advertised that way.

All that said, there’s clearly a lot of room and scope to add more functionality to Push 3 Standalone, so you can bet the developers are planning on at least some of the more obviously things. I honestly have no idea what the roadmap is, so just saying that as a long time user.

You're as usual not wrong with those thoughts, but I will be very very surprised if Ableton just decides to keep Push 3 stand alone as a glorified Push 2, that would be a total waste of potential. I like the MPCs and had planned on getting one again, but there really isn't any way Akai could compete with even a 90% Ableton Suite running on it's own hardware. As it stands an update to Force could obliterate Push 3, and that would be, weird.

[resequenced]

Amen!

Also, correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't Ableton violating GPL by not sharing "Ableton OS" source code?

Yes, they ship compiled versions of a large number of GPL software components. The kernel is one of them. They don't display the licenses of any open source software they've included, nor do they publish source code as required.

They'll be obliterated in a German court if someone decides to sue them there. German judges have ruled against GPL violators in the past. There's legal precedent.