Page 10 of 16
Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 6:20 pm
by Angstrom
it's a popular wish this one isn't it.
I wonder if it's just because it says "pro" in the title
Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 10:51 am
by andydes
I can't make music if there's anything out there more "pro" than Ableton.
Reaper has E Pro and Ableton has E Efficient
=> Ableton is just a toy
=> my music sucks.
QED.
But, yeah, it should have it anyway. Think it will have a more noticable improvement on sound quality than the 64 bit mix engine business. And, I'll wager a lot easier to implement.
Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 4:08 pm
by djgroovy
andydes wrote:Think it will have a more noticable improvement on sound quality than the 64 bit mix engine business.
Word.
Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 12:57 am
by bitpull
Nokatus wrote:As timestretching functionality has always been at the core of the Live workflow, in my opinion adopting these kinds of technologies and keeping them up to date should be one of the top priorities in Ableton's plans.
agree! Also, it should be selectable between pro, efficient and soloist because of the workload.
Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 10:51 am
by Hervé
Nokatus wrote:As timestretching functionality has always been at the core of the Live workflow, in my opinion adopting these kinds of technologies and keeping them up to date should be one of the top priorities in Ableton's plans.
Yhea, timestrech have been the main abl argument in all the adds/ interview thes did, for years...
+1 for the pro algorythm.
Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 1:50 pm
by Advent57
Yes Please
Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 8:21 am
by mekon
+1 for quality stretching
Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 5:50 pm
by friend_kami
mekon wrote:+1 for quality stretching
+1
Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 5:59 pm
by mr.adl
+1 this could definetely get an improvement.
Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 6:44 am
by poshook
bitpull wrote:Nokatus wrote:As timestretching functionality has always been at the core of the Live workflow, in my opinion adopting these kinds of technologies and keeping them up to date should be one of the top priorities in Ableton's plans.
agree! Also, it should be selectable between pro, efficient and soloist because of the workload.
and always set Pro during mixdown option
Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 10:30 am
by cmcpress
+1
Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:30 pm
by cashen
+1
Word.
Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 5:20 am
by Gravis
agreed
Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 5:22 am
by tricil
poshook wrote:bitpull wrote:Nokatus wrote:As timestretching functionality has always been at the core of the Live workflow, in my opinion adopting these kinds of technologies and keeping them up to date should be one of the top priorities in Ableton's plans.
agree! Also, it should be selectable between pro, efficient and soloist because of the workload.
and always set Pro during mixdown option
Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 1:10 pm
by Angstrom
tricil wrote:poshook wrote:bitpull wrote:agree! Also, it should be selectable between pro, efficient and soloist because of the workload.
and always set Pro during mixdown option
I'm not sure that "
always set pro" is a good idea as it would change the sound. In a case where someone is abusing 'Efficient' at extreme settings to get a certain sound they wouldn't want a mandatory switch at render time.
I think if people are wanting an 'offline' warp that is a different matter than asking for Elastique Pro.
Even though Elastique Pro is better than 'efficient', it is still not artifact free, it is just a better featured real-time stretch than 'complex'. It is not a quality offline stretch.
An offline stretch is something else entirely.