jamester wrote: Just did, but not sure what I'm supposed to see or do with it. I feel like I understand the workaround (two tracks, monitor and record) solution better than I understand the problem!
Ok, Send A doesn't kill it (but is phasing or something), Send B kills it.kb420 wrote: In the "drum1" track, turn send #1 up and see if that kills the audio. Turn it back to it's oringinal position.
Then turn send #2 up and see if that kills the audio.
In my setup (which is also a Jim Rosenberry pc) send #1 doesn't kill the audio, but #2 does.
mdk wrote:and whats with this attitude of attacking the people who are highlighting the problem? some of you make it seem like choosing a sequencer is like being part of a religion.
im grateful there are people who are providing clear information and instructions to reproduce it for ourselves.
thats real science right there.
popslut wrote:You're never going to get Ableton to address this as a bug because it isn't a bug. They've designed it to do this on purpose.
The monitor on/auto/off issue took me a while to work out, but I've got it fixed in my head now and it can be made to make sense if you approach it from a programmer's point of view.
From a musician's point of view it is the most insane scheme anyone ever cooked up.
The basic issue is that Live doesn't apply latency compensation when the channel is set to monitoring 'on' or 'auto'.
What Ableton have concluded is that a human playing a synth with 30ms latency will automatically compensate for this latency by playing consistently 30ms early. They assume that the human is capable of latency compensation. Anyone who has ever tried this will know how impossible this is.
Likewise, they assume that a singer monitoring through the software will compensate for the latency by singing consistently 30ms early.
If this were possible, their on/auto/off scheme would make perfect sense. Any audio or midi recorded with monitoring set to 'on' or 'auto' - according to Ableton's theory - will have been compensated for in the singing or playing - in order for it to sound correct whilst recording - and so will not require compensating for again.
This is obviously ridiculous to anyone with any experience of recording.
I've read [in this thread, stated by Amaury] that this is the only way it can be done due to the constraints of the laws of the space-time continuum, but anyone who has ever used Cubase, Nuendo, Logic, Sonar, Reason, and every single other piece of audio software available to mankind know this is nonsense. They all manage to do it seamlessly - Ableton is the only sequencer that doesn't automatically compensate for latency in the background.
I want my audio software to compensate invisibly for any latency. I want my softweare to "know" that if I hit 'that' key as 'that' kick drum sounds from the speakers i want 'that' bass note to be placed beside 'that' kick drum.
This doesn't require a rewrite of the laws of physics - it simply requires that as soon as the note is played during recording that 30ms [or whatever the latency amount is] be subtracted from the "real" note position. It really is not rocket science.
When I record vocals I use direct monitoring through my soundcard. No singer likes performing with latency in their headphones.
Occasionally, I'll forget to set the monitoring to "off" on the Ableton channel and only realise when I play back my recorded vocal and discover it is late by the total latency amount.
Can anyone at Ableton please explain to me in which circumstance this would be a desirable outcome?
While you're there, can you also explain to me why my external midi equipment responds with the same latency as my VSTis?
I'm using Ableton as a midi sequencer - my Kurzweil K2000 is connected to my analogue mixer and goes nowhere near my soundcard. yet, I find that midi data that passes through Ableton Live is subject to the same latency as audio. WHY???
I can think of no technical reason why this should be the case - every other midi/audio sequencer on the planet manages to pass midi data through its recording engine without adding audio latency delay. Why not Ableton Live?
I must say - Live is an absolutely amazing piece of gear but this is one aspect which needs changing really soon. It keeps being reported as a bug and this is because to most musicians this behaviour is so counter-intuitive and illogical it is difficult to believe anyone could have thought it was a desirable way to operate.
That's the point. Take a good look at the setup and you will see all he's doing is making a drum bus for all of his drums, and also making an effects bus for all his effects, and there is obviously a delay since he is inverting the phase on the "A to bus" return channel. Do you see the "Utility" effect there on the "A to bus" with both the right and left channel phases inverted?jamester wrote:Ok, Send A doesn't kill it (but is phasing or something), Send B kills it.kb420 wrote: In the "drum1" track, turn send #1 up and see if that kills the audio. Turn it back to it's oringinal position.
Then turn send #2 up and see if that kills the audio.
In my setup (which is also a Jim Rosenberry pc) send #1 doesn't kill the audio, but #2 does.
that's bad I'm assuming...
I don't think it is completely to do with some quasi-spiritual defense of a preferred DAW. For me personally, there's something about the apocalyptic tone of these warnings and complaints ("scary thread ... please address!") that makes them a little laughable.mdk wrote:and whats with this attitude of attacking the people who are highlighting the problem? some of you make it seem like choosing a sequencer is like being part of a religion.
absolutely, it started off bad and went downhill from there.keithtalent wrote: I don't think it is completely to do with some quasi-spiritual defense of a preferred DAW. For me personally, there's something about the apocalyptic tone of these warnings and complaints ("scary thread ... please address!") that makes them a little laughable.
no, because for the people who are bothered by it they find a solution, either turn off monitoring or use some other software.These problems may be real for a number of people, but I don't think they are keeping musicians from making important records. Do you?
