::Ableton New Product Speculation Thread::

Machinate · Post by **Machinate** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:38 pm

Angstrom wrote:they don't mean: "make me a cubase, and please ditch the session" they mean "can I have crossfading audio" and are using an example.

That's true - and even so every year Live inches closer to the DAW drabness of Cubase, Logic et al.

THAT's the problem, not us complaining.

Angstrom · Post by **Angstrom** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 1:28 pm

Yes, I would say that is closer to the truth.
Or has been closer to the truth in the 06-07 development period at least , who knows what's happening at the moment.

But that is my problem with the "other users are giving us cubase/logic" because it's attempting to address a much broader issue but reducing it down to an attack on a certain set of users.

hoffman2k wrote: Because users didn't like that software and want Live to become the very thing they didn't like.

is simply not true.

Users have a broad selection of creative problems to solve and there are a large set of solutions for those problems, subdivided into the known solutions and the unknown solutions. The 'unknown' solution set is a riskier proposition for a company,but if that were successful it can be ultimately much more profitable. See beard-based technologys inc for an example, or Ableton itself .. founded on innovation ("wow, a session view!!")

All Ableton's users like the program because it is 'different' and 'more creative' , but it's been a while since Ableton made a groundbreaking leap like Session view. And they haven't actually managed to squeeze all the juice out of that fruit either.

So the idea that any users are asking Live to become like Cubase is simply wrong : all users are asking for creative problem solving tools that they don't currently have. They want the result, not a particular process.
It's up to Ableton to deliver whatever solution to the problem they see fit.

If those problem solving tools get delivered in a startlingly original and yet successful way then users will be even more pleased, but that's a big gamble for a company and much much harder to achieve.

The key thing is for Ableton to capitalise on their difference, establish themselves as innovators rather than copyists. But once again there is no user-push for any copying, only requests for solutions to common issues.

It's up to Ableton to solve common problems in a way which does not introduce the limitations which are found in other software.

xzusa8ky · Post by **xzusa8ky** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 1:50 pm

I guess it's a new Ping Pong feature! No more joysticks! Play it via your midi keyboard!

hoffman2k · Post by **hoffman2k** » Fri May 02, 2008 8:56 am

Edit-- Too Quick on the button

hoffman2k · Post by **hoffman2k** » Fri May 02, 2008 9:11 am

Angstrom wrote:Yes, I would say that is closer to the truth.
Or has been closer to the truth in the 06-07 development period at least , who knows what's happening at the moment.

But that is my problem with the "other users are giving us cubase/logic" because it's attempting to address a much broader issue but reducing it down to an attack on a certain set of users.

hoffman2k wrote: Because users didn't like that software and want Live to become the very thing they didn't like.
is simply not true.

Users have a broad selection of creative problems to solve and there are a large set of solutions for those problems, subdivided into the known solutions and the unknown solutions. The 'unknown' solution set is a riskier proposition for a company,but if that were successful it can be ultimately much more profitable. See beard-based technologys inc for an example, or Ableton itself .. founded on innovation ("wow, a session view!!")

All Ableton's users like the program because it is 'different' and 'more creative' , but it's been a while since Ableton made a groundbreaking leap like Session view. And they haven't actually managed to squeeze all the juice out of that fruit either.

So the idea that any users are asking Live to become like Cubase is simply wrong : all users are asking for creative problem solving tools that they don't currently have. They want the result, not a particular process.
It's up to Ableton to deliver whatever solution to the problem they see fit.

If those problem solving tools get delivered in a startlingly original and yet successful way then users will be even more pleased, but that's a big gamble for a company and much much harder to achieve.

The key thing is for Ableton to capitalise on their difference, establish themselves as innovators rather than copyists. But once again there is no user-push for any copying, only requests for solutions to common issues.

It's up to Ableton to solve common problems in a way which does not introduce the limitations which are found in other software.

There are some very thin lines here. Like for example in your previous post you dismissed Folder Tracks and MetaClips as being basically the same thing.
Folder Tracks are a feature for a linear DAW or just the arrangement view in Live.
Metaclips is something that comes from one of your requests, which boiled down to arrangements being contained within a single session clip.
Its like a sub feature of folder tracks. But way more useful to all of us.
And logically its a feature that should come after folder tracks, but we both know if folder tracks were to be added. Ableton would market the crap out of it.
Call me paranoid, but I see a domino effect here.

I guess my beef really isn't with user requests. Its with how Live's image changed from "Live sequencing instrument" to "Complete Music Production Solution" which it isn't. We all laughed about that little piano, but that little sucker was the harbinger of doom.
Off course there's the Cycling partnership to consider too. Its been what? 14 months since the announcement? Thats one hell of a crescendo... Another modern miracle in marketing: Keep your users sane by driving them nuts.

We'll see how it pans out. I've stuck around for all these years. If they can bridge the gap between Live and Max, then we're just around the corner of the mother of all "image changes". And with Ableton there's always the possibility that the new product is something we haven't even considered in 14 months of speculating....

Anyway. You say you see no user push for Ableton to go of the innovative stuff we love from Ableton. But you can see the changes in how Live is marketed.
Do you see no correlation between the 2 things?

Ah fuck it. I'm just pissed because the box isn't green anymore!

Kozak · Post by **Kozak** » Fri May 02, 2008 10:06 am

I would love to see a more advanced arpeggiator with a step sequencer like the one in NI Massive where you can also adjust glide and velocity etc. Shouldn't be too hard to upgrade the current one!

andydes · Post by **andydes** » Fri May 02, 2008 10:43 am

hoffman2k wrote:There are some very thin lines here. Like for example in your previous post you dismissed Folder Tracks and MetaClips as being basically the same thing.
Folder Tracks are a feature for a linear DAW or just the arrangement view in Live.
Metaclips is something that comes from one of your requests, which boiled down to arrangements being contained within a single session clip.
Its like a sub feature of folder tracks. But way more useful to all of us.
And logically its a feature that should come after folder tracks, but we both know if folder tracks were to be added. Ableton would market the crap out of it.
Call me paranoid, but I see a domino effect here.

Yay! Meta clips! Can we have another big push for that? It was my top request on the survey. Trouble I don't think that many people know about the idea and what it would allow them to do. That's the trouble with asking for improvements like this, whereas if you post a thread with folder tracks in the title, everyone knows instantly what you're talking about.

Of course, I can see how the meta clip idea could be hard to implement. It may even need to be implemented after an absolute automation control in session. Tricky.

Folder tracks, though I don't think are just an arrangemnet feature. I see them working very much like racks are now in the session view mixer. Except that you will expand to see see the individual clips or collapse to just be able to launch and stop the clips as one. I find it highly unlikely they'd introduce them without the obvious (and easy) benefit to live performers.

The same can be said of a lot of "DAW" feature requests. If implemented correctly, many will be very useful to performers. Ableton just needs to be careful how such features are added.

As for Cycling, who knows. Everyone seems to assume that Max will somehow be integrated into Live. As far a I could tell, they said they had formed a partnership. This could mean anything. Maybe just an exchange of ideas and techniques, maybe a completely separate project destined to be released in another 4 years. Who knows.

Angstrom · Post by **Angstrom** » Fri May 02, 2008 11:25 am

hoffman2k wrote:
There are some very thin lines here. Like for example in your previous post you dismissed Folder Tracks and MetaClips as being basically the same thing.
Folder Tracks are a feature for a linear DAW or just the arrangement view in Live.
Metaclips is something that comes from one of your requests, which boiled down to arrangements being contained within a single session clip.
Its like a sub feature of folder tracks. But way more useful to all of us.

I don't see folder tracks and metaclips as equivalent functions, I'm not sure where you get that idea. I said

Angstrom wrote: they want to be able to fold multiple clips into one clip - either as a folder track or a 'metaclip.

Which is not that metaclips and folders are the same thing, but to illustrate that people in general want a variety of workflow improvements on the caore application, rather than "Uber-Basoon pack III".
I wouldn't say that folder tracks are only of use in the studio either. Track hiding and folding is a great way of tidying up a mixer so it's easier to use and manage a 'rhythm group' or a 'drum group' ... or even a foler track of "Song 1", and "Song 2" because some users work horizontally through their sets. Folder tracks means "make all these tracks into one fader" and that is a useful function.

Anyway. You say you see no user push for Ableton to go of the innovative stuff we love from Ableton. But you can see the changes in how Live is marketed.

nope, that is the opposite of what I see.
I see a massive user-push for Ableton to go for the innovative stuff, which is why I said

Angstrom wrote:All Ableton's users like the program because it is 'different' and 'more creative' , but it's been a while since Ableton made a groundbreaking leap like Session view. And they haven't actually managed to squeeze all the juice out of that fruit either.

So I'm not sure where you go that idea from. In my mind there is a user push for innovative solutions, a massive one. But from Ableton's point of a view : the more innovative a solution they aim for, the more perilous the profit line becomes.
It's a lot easier to be innovative when you are a young company, but when lots of peoples jobs are on the line it becomes more difficult to put everyones neck on the line.

forge · Post by **forge** » Fri May 02, 2008 11:37 am

andydes wrote: The same can be said of a lot of "DAW" feature requests. If implemented correctly, many will be very useful to performers. Ableton just needs to be careful how such features are added.
.

this is actually the basis of most of my complaining about Live 7 - I think they went about it the wrong way and should have done the folder tracks first

I understand they needed to make something like Drum racks, but I am actually finding them quite overwhelming to use.

I actually had no problem using just a simpler on a normal MIDI track for each drum, or a simple rack of them to layer a sound - what I needed was a way to group them together - group tracks would have been far far better than the current mess

combined with multi-lane automation and inline rack mixer I feel like all I am doing now using live is staring at endless faders, lanes and menus - it got way deep really quickly, and the biggest problem is they are still trying to squeeze everything into this tiny all-in-one interface rather than accepting it has been outgrown and expanding

it's weird, on one hand I'm enjoying making music with Live more than ever because of the sounds I can get out of it, but I also feel far more frustrated with it than I ever have before

so, obviously somethings were right, but I think they really need to finally break free of the all in one interface because it is becoming unworkable

I think they actually need to take a really big step back and rethink the GUI concept - Live always worked because it had great big simple knobs and everything was simple - there was even no right click!

If there is one word I would NOT choose to describe Live 7 it's simple, and that was always the first word I used when describing it in the past.

Poster · Post by **Poster** » Fri May 02, 2008 12:04 pm

forge wrote:Live always worked because it had great big simple knobs and everything was simple - there was even no right click!

the right click> contextual menu has been used too much to prevent GUI bloat..
this way Live is still easy on the eyes.. sure..
but the down side is that Live has a whole contextual world 'behind' it's direct visible interface..
this has made Live very complex as well because interaction is not that immediate anymore..
I mean; how many people discovered the contextual "stretch notes" years after it was implemented, by accident?

I always compare these 'hidden' features to bad designed websites where one first has to hover an anonymous object to discover it's purpose..
Like you first have to hover a black square when it then says "go to pictures".. why don't you say 'pictures' in the first place..
wrong interaction..

I don't mean to say that every single feature does need it's own private button, not at all.
But I do think that they have to be very carefull to not stuff a larger part of non visible features away as contextual lists..

the right click> contextual menu can easily be the easy way out..

a perfect example to this is the "attach text notes" feature..
why they didn't go for a visual clue to hint where you have attached notes is really beyond believe..
if you think a visual clue will bloat the GUI, fine.. but either don't implement this feature at all or come up with an alternative solution..
currently it's not even a feature..

forge · Post by **forge** » Fri May 02, 2008 12:13 pm

maybe something they can do - perhaps as a by product of the C74 thing can be a 3rd 'modular' view - and we can use it either to do Max style wizardry, or we can also use it as a 3rd view to construct our own screensets

if the 'mini-max' add-on could also give us the Ableton GUI 'modules' then we could make a screen out of it

now that would be cool

Angstrom · Post by **Angstrom** » Fri May 02, 2008 12:22 pm

I agree there is some correlation with "mystery meat" website navigation, but there is a world of difference in the scale.

MMN is a sin because all the designer had to do was write "Home, News, About, FAQ, Contact" and they were good to go. In the case of Live it is a much more complex beast. It really does have a hell of a lot of functions and they have to go somewhere, and as you say "a button for everything" wouldn't work.
So it shares some problems with MMN, but it is a whole order of scale different and that is why it is so hard to solve properly.

Perhaps there are some users who want to throw away a load of functionality to make the app simpler, but for each user the "functions I don't use" set is different and different each day.

It's a hard, hard problem to solve. The app needs the complexity, the various functions, but every day it becomes like writing a new episode of the Star Trek franchise, around every corner is a different shaped fanboy chastising the author for neglecting some arcane item. The wriggle room gets smaller each iteration.

I find it hard to come up with a solution myself, so I can't criticise anyone else for failing to find an amazing innovative solution!

Nobody seems to want Live split into two products, so my best suggestion is a modular load, similar to an #include method

Angstrom: load mode:My Stage Template
#include Session
#include Mixer

Angstrom: load mode: My Studio Template
#include Session
#include Mixer
#include Arrangement
#include Arrangement Mixer
#include Folder Tracks

etc

In fact I'm going to put a wish in for that, just for a laugh

Poster · Post by **Poster** » Fri May 02, 2008 12:39 pm

Angstrom wrote:I agree there is some correlation with "mystery meat" website navigation, but there is a world of difference in the scale.

MMN is a sin because all the designer had to do was write "Home, News, About, FAQ, Contact" and they were good to go. In the case of Live it is a much more complex beast. It really does have a hell of a lot of functions and they have to go somewhere, and as you say "a button for everything" wouldn't work.
So it shares some problems with MMN, but it is a whole order of scale different and that is why it is so hard to solve properly.

thanks for the MMN.. didn't know that one..
you're absolutely right about the different scale..
it's more like I sometimes get that MMN feeling, not a 1:1 comparison though..

Angstrom wrote:Perhaps there are some users who want to throw away a load of functionality to make the app simpler, but for each user the "functions I don't use" set is different and different each day.

It's a hard, hard problem to solve. The app needs the complexity, the various functions, but every day it becomes like writing a new episode of the Star Trek franchise, around every corner is a different shaped fanboy chastising the author for neglecting some arcane item. The wriggle room gets smaller each iteration.

I find it hard to come up with a solution myself, so I can't criticise anyone else for failing to find an amazing innovative solution!

it's that I sometimes feel that the interface is still build arround the Live v.1 core feature set..
what I mean by that is that core features from 1.0 are not the only core features anymore..
7 is a whole different app that needs a GUI build arround the current lot of core features,
and thus not always hiding new features into context lists or cramping drumracks into that small area..

but agreed; very complex matters..

Angstrom wrote:Nobody seems to want Live split into two products, so my best suggestion is a modular load, similar to an #include method

Angstrom: load mode:My Stage Template
#include Session
#include Mixer

Angstrom: load mode: My Studio Template
#include Session
#include Mixer
#include Arrangement
#include Arrangement Mixer
#include Folder Tracks

etc

In fact I'm going to put a wish in for that, just for a laugh

this sounds very interesting..

forge · Post by **forge** » Fri May 02, 2008 1:08 pm

glad you both agree on the GUI front - you are obviously both far more qualified to talk GUIs than I am, I'm the guy at the fisher-price end of the scale who just want's nice big obvious buttons and knobs, and wherever possible just instant mapped to my controller

Poster · Post by **Poster** » Fri May 02, 2008 3:57 pm

forge wrote:glad you both agree on the GUI front - you are obviously both far more qualified to talk GUIs than I am,

naah.. you're just as qualified since you're a user as well..

that's all it takes..