Ableton Forum

Felonius wrote:Or more specifically: should it run decently on an i3, 4 GB ram, if one is not a plug-in piggy?

Thank you.

yes.

i still agree with trying the demo, but it should be fine.
my processor is a dual core 2.2 AMD... i've never run out of CPU. i'm not a pluggin piggy at all and my track counts aren't ridiculous but you asked if it should run decently... so, i say yes based on my experience.

Warp, eh?

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/dec06/a ... h_1206.htm

I see the point, but I don't think that it would be as useful for me as it would be for some folks.

Why would somebody buy Live and then turn warp off? Makes no sense.

According to Simon Price's article in SOS: One of the sources of confusion is that there are really three different ways in which time-warping comes into play in Live. The first is when importing audio loops, or 'Clips'; the second is when you import longer passages of music; and the last is when you adjust the internal timing of a Clip manually.

Is that a correct assessment? If so, should warp not be off if you are not doing one of those three things?

Warp is a term Ableton uses to describe time expansion/compression. Maybe read up on that first.

It is used when you want to take a piece of audio recorded at one bpm to be played back at another. There are multiple ways Live can do this, which is the main crux of the program. If all you want is a CPU friendly 'traditional' audio recorder try Reaper. Also a free demo.

But really, download the demo and try it yourself, we cannot say this enough.

savyurrecords wrote:Warp is a term Ableton uses to describe time expansion/compression.

I understand that. Why leave warp on if you are not using it to do just that?

dazzer wrote:Why would somebody buy Live and then turn warp off? Makes no sense.

Live is nothing to do with warp. It's other company's technology. Your logic make no sense,

pencilrocket wrote:

dazzer wrote:Why would somebody buy Live and then turn warp off? Makes no sense.

Live is nothing to do with warp. It's other company's technology. Your logic make no sense,

Oh, it's Logic's technology. Now I see.

My question has been well-answered. Thanks to all who helped.

Hey, felonious.

Warping IS cpu intensive and a pain in the ass if you don't need it.

For example, if I'm tracking drums or a whole band-at-once, I'll leave warping off for the clips in question unless I need to change the timing.

Decide on a track by track basis.

The "3 different ways" that the quote describes really is inaccurate. They are 3 parts of the warping workflow, not 3 options, 3 algorithms, whatever.

Warping is the whole point of Live... That and session view. Without those, I'd be suggesting another DAW.

Read the manual. It explains it all.

Ian

PS - it's not Logic's technology. It's Ableton's technology. Apple's technology is called Flex-time. Ableton call it warping. It's the same principle implemented differently.

Felonius wrote:According to Simon Price's article in SOS: One of the sources of confusion is that there are really three different ways in which time-warping comes into play in Live. The first is when importing audio loops, or 'Clips'; the second is when you import longer passages of music; and the last is when you adjust the internal timing of a Clip manually.

Is that a correct assessment? If so, should warp not be off if you are not doing one of those three things?

All is related with audio stretching. Live's time stretch is relying onto warp. This is source of CPU consumption and audio quality loss(I don't know whether Live will export different version in rendering. It may export clips in best quality, it may not.)

socialjusticeman wrote:Hey, felonious.

Warping IS cpu intensive and a pain in the ass if you don't need it.

For example, if I'm tracking drums or a whole band-at-once, I'll leave warping off for the clips in question unless I need to change the timing.

Decide on a track by track basis.

The "3 different ways" that the quote describes really is inaccurate. They are 3 parts of the warping workflow, not 3 options, 3 algorithms, whatever.

Warping is the whole point of Live... That and session view. Without those, I'd be suggesting another DAW.

Read the manual. It explains it all.

Ian

PS - it's not Logic's technology. It's Ableton's technology. Apple's technology is called Flex-time. Ableton call it warping. It's the same principle implemented differently.

No it's not ableton's technology. They paid the license fee to zplain for using competitive algorithm . Don't hype around the forum or tell a lie to noob.

I just read that sound on sound article and, while I agree with the detail, the dude makes his point in a very round-about way.

If you ignore the "3 different ways" thing, you'll be fine.

And pencilrocket - you're really not helping this poor dude.

He's being confused by all of this and you're bringing up issues like "who bought what from whom and when". Who cares who bought the technology? Who invented it?

Live's implementation of time-stretching is called warping. In protools it's beat detective. In Logic it's called flex-time.

socialjusticeman wrote:I just read that sound on sound article and, while I agree with the detail, the dude makes his point in a very round-about way.

If you ignore the "3 different ways" thing, you'll be fine.

And pencilrocket - you're really not helping this poor dude.

He's being confused by all of this and you're bringing up issues like "who bought what from whom and when". Who cares who bought the technology? Who invented it?

Live's implementation of time-stretching is called warping. In protools it's beat detective. In Logic it's called flex-time.

You said " It's Ableton's technology." then I said no. It's not. If you don't care why did you mentioned about it? You rather confused him by telling him wrong thing which you were no longer caring. How the sales copy is calling this technologie doesn't matter if we know what the technologie is and where came from. That is a true information for user community. The sales copy is useless for knowing the function, rather obstacle.

Great, only 2 replies and we're onto the minutia of semantics.

Congratulations. You win. Happy?

Ian