When will 5.04 appear?

lola · Post by **lola** » Wed Jan 18, 2006 3:24 am

Everybody is in a hurry, inc me.
Can't work decent with live 5.02 cuz of cpu and rendering probs.
Can't work decent with 5.03 cuz of everything starts in the middle of a beat.

Make us happy again

Johnisfaster · Post by **Johnisfaster** » Wed Jan 18, 2006 4:19 am

I still can't believe they said it was intentional that the beat starts in the middle, claiming it was a way to not lose your place in long tunes or some bull. i really hope they wise up and fix that one cause EVERYONE IN THE WORLD wants the beat to start at the very beginning EVERY SINGLE TIME.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

henry ford · Post by **henry ford** » Wed Jan 18, 2006 4:38 am

you know those puzzles, where an image is divided into equal size squares, with one square empty, and you slide them around until the image is arranged properly ?

so you get one part of the image looking right, but the rest looks like a pigs mess. and then you try and tidy the pigs mess, but then the part that you had looking right now looks like a post modern nightmare. Well, I sometimes feel thats what the bugfixing process is like at abehq.

eyeknow · Post by **eyeknow** » Wed Jan 18, 2006 7:29 am

Johnisfaster wrote:I still can't believe they said it was intentional that the beat starts in the middle, claiming it was a way to not lose your place in long tunes or some bull. i really hope they wise up and fix that one cause EVERYONE IN THE WORLD wants the beat to start at the very beginning EVERY SINGLE TIME.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Cheesy I say..........especially when abe is pretty good most of the time with our complaints. Sounds fishy.........

Let's all agree, starting in the middle is not going to cut it..................

kennerb · Post by **kennerb** » Wed Jan 18, 2006 5:26 pm

I can't hold my breathe much longer. Went back to 5.02 but the cpu use is not so hot. Please guys before I pass out from holding my breathe.

hoffman2k · Post by **hoffman2k** » Wed Jan 18, 2006 5:46 pm

Yet, what doesn't make sense to you (beat starting in the middle)....
Makes perfect sense to others. (correct timing with long audio files or sequences)

I do agree that they should have at least considered that the majority of people would get pissed off about this.
Figuring everybody uses Live in different ways...

Angstrom · Post by **Angstrom** » Wed Jan 18, 2006 6:05 pm

I guess that ther is a large section of live users who like this 'starting in the middle' thing. perhaps 20%?

but even for those 20% of users who find this function useful, I bet they sometimes want all their clips to 'reset'. It may be a useful function for some, but not as a fixed default behaviour for anyone. All users want to reset sometime surely.

What really worries me is - why didn't Ableton realise this was such a bad move?
Why introduce this function in such a fixed way as to so ruinously affect their product that it requires a new version to fix it.

That is seriously not sensible.

Another famously worrying example:
I followed the way the orange dot was introduced and then its behaviour altered during the beta phase. The 'nudge' only got locked to the master quantize in a late beta, previously it was defined by clip quantize.
The thing is - most people have master-quantize set to "one bar" for clip triggering, if you nudge a long clip by one bar 'revert' actually remains greyed out. The sound jumps one bar ahead, but there is no visual indication. Even worse - when you restart the session the nudged track will not sound four nudged bars ahead, it will actually play as if you never nudged it. What the hell is that about, am I four bars nudged , or not?

I really hope they dont aim for Live6 for next summer, it would be a big mistake. Another one.

anti-banausic · Post by **anti-banausic** » Wed Jan 18, 2006 10:06 pm

For once, I think that a new LIVE in the upcoming summer may be a bad idea. Mostly because, with the exception of bezier curves and the ability to see more than one automation curve, there is little else that I want RIGHT NOW.

A 5.5 with all of the functionality and increased stability should be a paramount thing for Ableton to work on, though I am thinking right now they are working on universal binaries. Though they should probably work out the kinks and give us a 5.5 or so, that would make writing the binaries easier methinks.

Seriously, with the exception of the two aforementioned things, it seems that LIVE is right on the razor's edge of becoming bloated vs. the awesome simply functional piece of software that it wants to be.

I understand that there are still a lot of wishes in the wishlist, but until things get a little worked out, I don't think that video support should be a priority.

But that is just me.

Cheers, AB

LOFA · Post by **LOFA** » Thu Jan 19, 2006 6:26 am

anti-banausic wrote:I understand that there are still a lot of wishes in the wishlist, but until things get a little worked out, I don't think that video support should be a priority.

But that is just me.

Cheers, AB

No, it's not just you.

mr-e · Post by **mr-e** » Sun Jan 22, 2006 7:19 pm

When will 5.04 appear?

5.2 is on the way , somewhere in februari

Meef Chaloin · Post by **Meef Chaloin** » Sun Jan 22, 2006 8:37 pm

LOFA wrote:
anti-banausic wrote:I understand that there are still a lot of wishes in the wishlist, but until things get a little worked out, I don't think that video support should be a priority.

But that is just me.

Cheers, AB
No, it's not just you.

I think video support would be a very bad idea, i can imagine this would cause a lot of problems. Lets just focus on audio at for the moment.

iain.morland · Post by **iain.morland** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 6:19 am

Is there not going to be a 5.1 bugfix, prior to a 5.2 with Intel Mac support? Otherwise, why skip a number?

Angstrom · Post by **Angstrom** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 12:33 pm

they are skipping a number because of the potential confusion that
Live 5.1

might cause!
yep, really

mcconaghy · Post by **mcconaghy** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 4:44 pm

iain.morland wrote:Is there not going to be a 5.1 bugfix, prior to a 5.2 with Intel Mac support? Otherwise, why skip a number?

Because if they call the next version 5.1, this forum will be swamped by people posting about the "lack of advertised 5.1 surround sound capabilities"

iain.morland · Post by **iain.morland** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 5:15 pm

Are you serious about the surround thing? That's ridiculous.