What happened, Ableton?

SatX · Post by **SatX** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 7:59 am

Hello! It's my first post here, but I've been using Ableton Live for months.

I haven't seen any posts from Ableton staff in this forum, but I still hope they can give us some answer to this.

First of all, I want to say I LOVE this software and you can do awesome stuff with it. One of the best out there.

But I got kind of disappointed when I saw Version 7. Sure, new features are great but- Are they really worth a new version?

There have been a lot of cool ideas (and even some things that are leaving Live behind!!!) that the team missed, including the highly requested such as Group Tracks, Bézier Curves, and VST while in ReWire mode.

I know the staff is working a lot in fixing bugs, but features are what make the software interesting, and I don't think it's necessary to move to a new version when adding a few catchy features.

I've seen older versions like 6 and 5 had much more new features on their release, and I was expecting the same from 7. Probably this happened to other users too.

I'll say it again, I love the software and the team has done a very good job, but I think you should listen more to "The People".

I'd like to hear if people agrees or disagrees. And I hope the Ableton Team read this. I think one of the most important parts of working on a software is to listen (and reply) to the community.

Thanks!

Rogue Scrunt · Post by **Rogue Scrunt** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 10:45 am

you are trippin'

forge · Post by **forge** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 10:56 am

the slicing feature has changed my life

and the New compressor and changes to EQ8 and sidechaining have also made a huge difference

but the slicing thing has been a total watershed for me

posssu · Post by **posssu** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 1:33 pm

Hi!

I agree with you, partially. I think they DID miss lots of the features at least I would've wished were there (like group tracks) and many things that would make Live better as a recording software.

But on the other hand, they also added many features that make Live better in other areas. I think the update was quite "small" in some ways too. However, they stated in some message that group tracks, for example, is high on their wishlist, but the didn't have time to implement it to this release. They wrote they want it to implement it in a way that doesn't make the interface too messy and think it through properly.

I hope they implement more of the DAW-stuff in Live 8......

jackjack · Post by **jackjack** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 1:42 pm

The most puzzling to me are the drum tracks. I don't think anyone requested them, yet they are so close to being group tracks which everyone did request.

If anything they should have made them a bit more flexible so they could do both.

Angstrom · Post by **Angstrom** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 2:10 pm

hmm, bear in mind that before L7 there were a LOT of comments about the lack of drum content for a program which is mainly used by beat heads.

I mean - Impulse has 8 slots and doesn't stack at all well.
No-one asked for DrumRacks by name, because that would be spooky, but they certainly did ask for "Updated Impulse with infinite slots".
Add to that upgrade - the ability to add any effect on each voice, group the drum voices how you like, use any instrument to be a drum voice, massively improved the choke grouping, etc. etc.

and I think that they answered the wish : "Please upgrade Impulse"
pretty damn comprehensively.

forge · Post by **forge** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 2:15 pm

jackjack wrote:The most puzzling to me are the drum tracks. .

I think he means inline rack mixer

Angstrom · Post by **Angstrom** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 2:32 pm

ah yes,
I do remember thinking that perhaps Ableton had misunderstood why we wanted Group tracks.

We want to make many tracks into one, and the Drum track makes one track into many !

they got it the wrong way round.
At least I got that impression, while I was beating Amo over the head with it !!

So yes, I also am not a fan of the inline mixer implementation,

the send effect (to main returns) implementation is over-complex,
the duplication of existing controls could have been handled by allowing the existing rack to resize vertically,
the idea of mixer strips for 40 drums does not make them easier to handle - 8 is the maximum that the inline mixer can usably display (the same as the existing RACK display!)
the clip slot space is totally wasted, with more than 8 drums that will be 80% of the screen space rendered useless.
it is wasteful of space while simultaneously being cramped,
I still don't like the fold out button position,

etc etc etc.

It just isn't a good implementation IMO.

I know that many disagree with me - but I would have preferred the new inline mixer to go in the rack space and allow that to resize vertically - that would mean we could use it in both Session AND Arrangement. Currently we have two mixers in Session, one un-resizably small and the other massive and cramped.

yes, I need to back away from this subject and calm down

forge · Post by **forge** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 2:53 pm

Angstrom wrote:ah yes,
I do remember thinking that perhaps Ableton had misunderstood why we wanted Group tracks.

We want to make many tracks into one, and the Drum track makes one track into many !

they got it the wrong way round.
At least I got that impression, while I was beating Amo over the head with it !!

So yes, I also am not a fan of the inline mixer implementation,

the send effect (to main returns) implementation is over-complex,

the duplication of existing controls could have been handled by allowing the existing rack to resize vertically,

the idea of mixer strips for 40 drums does not make them easier to handle - 8 is the maximum that the inline mixer can usably display (the same as the existing RACK display!)

the clip slot space is totally wasted, with more than 8 drums that will be 80% of the screen space rendered useless.

it is wasteful of space while simultaneously being cramped,

I still don't like the fold out button position,
etc etc etc.

It just isn't a good implementation IMO.

I know that many disagree with me - but I would have preferred the new inline mixer to go in the rack space - that would mean we could use it in both Session AND Arrangement. Currently we have two mixers in Session, one un-resizably small and the other massive and cramped.

yes, I need to back away from this subject and calm down

no I totally agree

I may have used it a couple of times, but I think that was to 'extract chains'

I still think the multi-lane automation was completely wrong approach too

tell me how that insane steaming pile of too much on the screen helps or speeds things up?

they need to be still thinking 'sequencer instrument' and imagine everything is realtime - isn't it far easier to right click on the device? Session auto and an LFO plug-in would make it all completely redundant

maybe it's because editing automation in arrange view is such an amazing pain in the arse that I just hate using it - I still just go to the bit where I want to change it, then hit record and tweak the knobs - sod that stupid inacurate breakpoint bastard who gives me RSI or pen tool that only goes from 0-64 and back

I actually am starting to think maybe we need a new full screen 'clip view' that looks really similar to the multi lane auto currently implemented, but it is actually the inside of a clip like the current envelope section in clip view

that would be heading into your arrangement clip territory too

but the whole automation system needs a total overhaul, and if it does not happen for Live 8 I will seriously consider a hunger strike

Poster · Post by **Poster** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 3:17 pm

Angstrom wrote:drumracks etc etc etc.

have you noticed the new solo behaviour in the current beta?

if you solo a drum chain mixer in the inline mixer,
it'll mute all other toplevel track mixers as well..

so the whole idea of being able to mix drumsounds within a track is pretty much crippled now..
a single drum chain is now regarded as a main track on its own..

just as I was getting along with this whole drumrackinlinemixer thing;

bang! bye bye workflow..

Angstrom · Post by **Angstrom** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 3:21 pm

I do use multilane automation as I do a large part of my work in arrangement and I do a lot of synchronizing parametric changes (which is a lot easier now you can see them all at the same time) So I do like having it there, it just has some bumps that need flattening which wouldn't occur in other audio apps.

EG : As it doesn't display clip envelopes there can be a feeling of "where the hell is the pitchbend ?" . Which I stumble across most days. I've no idea how they would address that one.

other than that, and the obvious : "beziers would be nice" and "death to the staircase" I don't really have a problem with the multilane.

Angstrom · Post by **Angstrom** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 3:29 pm

Poster wrote:
Angstrom wrote:drumracks etc etc etc.
have you noticed the new solo behaviour in the current beta?

if you solo a drum chain mixer in the inline mixer,
it'll mute all other toplevel track mixers as well..

.

yes, but perhaps I'm being thick ...
it hasn't actually affected me , in fact this new way seems more logical to me.

EG : If I have a big kit which contains a group called "toms", with 3 toms in, each with 4 microphone channels (12 faders!)

now if I solo "Tom Mid - Close" I will only hear that tom sample.
if I solo "Tom Mid" group, I will hear all the mics for Tom Mid
and If I solo the tom group, I will hear all 12 channels of the 3 toms.

to me that is logical. I can target what level I want to hear and I solo that. If I want more in the solo group I just alt & click.

I'm not understanding where the problem lies, and that's why I haven't said anything on the issue previously - because to me it works more logically now!

forge · Post by **forge** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 3:31 pm

Angstrom wrote:I do use multilane automation as I do a large part of my work in arrangement and I do a lot of synchronizing parametric changes (which is a lot easier now you can see them all at the same time) So I do like having it there, it just has some bumps that need flattening which wouldn't occur in other audio apps.

EG : As it doesn't display clip envelopes there can be a feeling of "where the hell is the pitchbend ?" . Which I stumble across most days. I've no idea how they would address that one.

other than that, and the obvious : "beziers would be nice" and "death to the staircase" I don't really have a problem with the multilane.

well I guess ultimately it's not so much that I have a problem with it, more that I thought they were just heading in the wrong direction

in any case, it's there now, so thinking about how it could develop - obviously just using the automation/break points/etc needs improving

but I have been thinking it could lead on nicely to session automation by making the view available to clips

Angstrom · Post by **Angstrom** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 3:35 pm

forge wrote: ... I have been thinking it could lead on nicely to session automation by making the view available to clips

I think that would be good, but of course - that collision of Session and Arrangement is a very important one and has many many ramifications.

actually make that

Many ramifications ^n

and that's why my Arrangement clips are taking so long

extreme hardness

Poster · Post by **Poster** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 3:42 pm

Angstrom wrote:
Poster wrote:
Angstrom wrote:drumracks etc etc etc.
have you noticed the new solo behaviour in the current beta?

if you solo a drum chain mixer in the inline mixer,
it'll mute all other toplevel track mixers as well..

.
yes, but perhaps I'm being thick ...
it hasn't actually affected me , in fact this new way seems more logical to me.

EG : If I have a big kit which contains a group called "toms", with 3 toms in, each with 4 microphone channels (12 faders!)

now if I solo "Tom Mid - Close" I will only hear that tom sample.
if I solo "Tom Mid" group, I will hear all the mics for Tom Mid
and If I solo the tom group, I will hear all 12 channels of the 3 toms.

to me that is logical. I can target what level I want to hear and I solo that. If I want more in the solo group I just alt & click.

I'm not understanding where the problem lies, and that's why I haven't said anything on the issue previously - because to me it works more logically now!

so you actually see the logic in soloing parts of a drum track that'll solo the whole set?

must be a personal workflow preference then because it totally ruined mine..

As I see it:
all inline mixer features are regarded as local features, not global..

If I solo parts of a drumrack, I want to hear them within the context of the set..
If I solo parts of a drumrack, just to hear those parts only, I'll solo the track and the respective drum chains..