Live 7

[ze2be]

no I think he should have worded it "input for sampler" - recording as a secondary option - if you could allow an input into sampler then you could use all it's tools and resynthesis on any audio clip in live! In the other thread I mentioned how I've wanted for a long time to have an LFO plug-in, a simple ADSR plugin and recently an FM/Resynthesis plug-in ala sampler - you could do all this at once by allowing audio in to the sampler


AAside from this, my nuber one things for live 7 are really to do with the record and arrange functionality

to me the biggest things I would like to see are:

1. a way to record sequence and automation seperately - so you dont have to record everything at once

2. a way of linking clips in session and arrange - IMO I imagine when Ableton brought in the arranger they would have thought long and hard about whether to have it record new clips into arrange(as it does now) or whether to just record the sequence of clips and have it so if you edit a clip in arrange you are also editing the original in session - I personally would have preferred the latter and in Live 7 I would like to see an option to choose that - maybe Ghost clips

Wouldnt it be better with an integrated midi lfo plug, that could controll any parameter in live? Using lives midi maping system. Clip automation should be able to do that also...well, you could get there partly.. You can get close to this in reason with the matrix plug. Its very cool when going complex modular! It can output 4 envelopes to four outputs, that you can patch to everything you want, if I remember corectly. (left it some years ago) I just think a sampler should be a sampler, and not an effect, but I might not be progressive thinking here...

@1. I agree, and I know a lot of people are missing that. Its not on my top wishes, but among them.

@2. Dont you think it would get messy, tracking down what is what? Suddenly you miss a clip in session mode, because youve worked for some time in the arranger, deleting something you thought you werent using etc etc. I think youd loose survey. I to have given this some thought, and I think they came up with it like this to keep survey, so the arranger is just linking everything that is in the session. I like it like this, but arranger should be more adwanced for shure. Id rather think ghost clips was the way to go..

[sweetjesus]

yeah its almost totally redundant to have clips are seperate copies to what's in the session.

its nice being able to do some editing,c onsolidating and have clips in the arrange view which are not messing up your sessions.

[forge]

@2. Dont you think it would get messy, tracking down what is what? Suddenly you miss a clip in session mode, because youve worked for some time in the arranger, deleting something you thought you werent using etc etc. I think youd loose survey. I to have given this some thought, and I think they came up with it like this to keep survey, so the arranger is just linking everything that is in the session. I like it like this, but arranger should be more adwanced for shure. Id rather think ghost clips was the way to go..

I'm not completely sure I follow - the whole point was so I can easily keep track of what's what

let me explain the reason/scenario behind this that bothers me:

How i tend to work in Live (as I'm sure is quite common) is I will start in session throwing clips around and generally "jamming" trying differnt clips together etc - then when I feel I'm getting some kind of solid working groove I hit record which records it into arrange

now the way it's set up you are kind of encouranged to stay there because it's not really that easy to come back and continue jamming

say you have 200 hundred clips in session, many of them the same colour, many of them copies of other ones that have just been changed a bit (like the same audio but with different clip envelopes) then if you want to carry on in Lives super-on-the-fly method of jamming session clips then you have to go and find which clips correspond to the ones you've recorded into arrange exactly, otherwise when you take over from it it will jump suddenly to the different clip you trigger

so in fact even just having the clip the arrange clip came from light up in session so you know exactly where to go straght away would make a big difference

this would really steamline the process and keep the whole process more "Live"

then likewise for a second scenario if you are working in arrange and start editing a clip and get it how you like, but you still would like to "jam it" some more and let it run from session - to mix it up with other clips, use follow actions etc - basically change the sequence (which isobviously better to do from session) then you have to copy the clip you have editied in arrange and paste it in session before you do

So what I'm saying is if you could have the option of having them linked - or even if you could record the sequence of clips as if it was automation (like microtonic does) in more of a pattern sequence way, but really it would be better to just have the same clip playing in session and arrange at the same time - then I would use that option always and never use the current method, and I reckon it would make a HUGE difference to workflow and keeping things moving on the fly and in a Live way

At the moment once it gets into arrange it becomes like a new thing, more in keeping with traditional sequencers and no longer takes advantage of the spontanaeity of the session view

another idea I had was to have play buttons on each track in arrange view - along to the right where volume etc is - so if you press it it retriggers the clip that's currently playing on that track and keeps playing until you change it - which would effectiely allow you to jam in arrange like you do in session.

I just would like to keep Live in the live and spontaneous way it is in session, which I dont feel arrange is at the moment - but you need arrange to finish anything

I would like to see the 2 views linked more closely

[sweetjesus]

i think a more elegant option would be to

* have a channel in Live's session view that is also the same in the arrangement view

* this channel does not scene launches and is independent.

* the channel would have clips in it that define which scene is to be played and then you could draw in a sequence of scene order.

* then in the routing panel of each channel, there could be an icon which allows people to select whether that channel is overidden by the arrangement view or the session view.

[forge]

i think a more elegant option would be to

* have a channel in Live's session view that is also the same in the arrangement view

* this channel does not scene launches and is independent.

* the channel would have clips in it that define which scene is to be played and then you could draw in a sequence of scene order.

* then in the routing panel of each channel, there could be an icon which allows people to select whether that channel is overidden by the arrangement view or the session view.

well, I'm not sure I totally get you but it sounds like this ties in with the whole business we were discussing during the alpha of allowing midi to be routed to the midi map/live remote

which you can do now using midi yoke

i did play around with it a bit but it isnt ideal

if you set up the scenes on keys accross your keyboard then you can record these as midi clips (via midi yoke) and do what you said - have one channel that acts as a sequence channel

so you could in effect just use a clip in session (or copy it into arrange and zoom it right in) to trigger the scenes

this would then mean your song arrangement is one big midi clip so each instance of a scene or clip is represented as a midi note

it is a strange thing to get your head around as visually you're just looking at a bunch of notes all the same colour and not named along the left

also you cant double click on the corresponding track of one to bring up all the FX etc on that track/sends etc

so it would actually be even more confusing

I think the best option by far would be for the arrangement to not exclude the session so it is not either one or the other, but instead have whatever's going on in arrange actually triggering the clips in session

I guess ghost clips is another way of describing it

[Silicon/Silicium]

* ability to record automation into clips in the session view

how did they miss that??? why wasn't it a top priority? magazines, users, reviwers are complaining about it since live 3.....

[headquest]

Any moment now sombody will mention adding a stale bread slicer...

[headquest]

I may not be popular for this suggestion, but my number one request would be for Ableton to concentrate on the core application and quit spending their time developing expensive add-ons. There's plenty of great companies making instrument (and for that matter effect) plug ins, many of whom produce excellent products. Ableton, on the other hand, make imho the best sequencer/audio application in the world, and should put their energies into adding to it the many exciting features they clearly have planned.

It is clear from the comments that Robert Henke has made on this forum that Ableton failed to include everything in Live 6 that they had planned to include. That actually means that they are not being true to their own vision. And there has been disappointment from some about features expected - but missing - in Live 6, some of which it seems clear WERE intended to be there.

I did buy Operator [can't honestly justify the cost of Sampler] and I agree that the Ableton "take" on instruments is refreshing - the innovative GUIs and integration with Live are all superb, as is sound quality. BUT if they wish to develop more instruments they really should be bundled with Live anyway - Lord knows the competition bundle enough instruments (Logic, Sonar, all the new ones given away with DP recently) without charging extra. And perhaps they should leave them until later, and focus on getting Live how they want it to be first.

[Martyn]

I may not be popular for this suggestion, but my number one request would be for Ableton to concentrate on the core application and quit spending their time developing expensive add-ons. There's plenty of great companies making instrument (and for that matter effect) plug ins, many of whom produce excellent products. Ableton, on the other hand, make imho the best sequencer/audio application in the world, and should put their energies into adding to it the many exciting features they clearly have planned.

It is clear from the comments that Robert Henke has made on this forum that Ableton failed to include everything in Live 6 that they had planned to include. That actually means that they are not being true to their own vision. And there has been disappointment from some about features expected - but missing - in Live 6, some of which it seems clear WERE intended to be there.

I did buy Operator [can't honestly justify the cost of Sampler] and I agree that the Ableton "take" on instruments is refreshing - the innovative GUIs and integration with Live are all superb, as is sound quality. BUT if they wish to develop more instruments they really should be bundled with Live anyway - Lord knows the competition bundle enough instruments (Logic, Sonar, all the new ones given away with DP recently) without charging extra. And perhaps they should leave them until later, and focus on getting Live how they want it to be first.

I totally agree.

There are enough new features in Live 6 for me to upgrade, but major improvements like automation (Live's weakest point imho) have not been looked at, let alone the awful midi.

If I'm going to buy a sampler I'm afraid it'll be one of these two .

http://www.vemberaudio.se/info.php?page=scfeatures

http://www.image-line.com/documents/directwave.html

Both of these are much more reasonably priced than Live 6's sampler, they open similar sample formats more accurately, and in the case of shortcircuit, have 28 filter types, 2 of which can be assigned per voice! They are both better instruments that can patch change over midi, something that Live's instruments still don't seem to be able to do.

I think Ableton now have a powerful marketing department (something I'm all too familiar with) and the pressure to release a new product at the same time every year has become more important than anything else.

I'm still going to upgrade, but it might be my last time. There are small developers making new and innovative music software thats very valid creative kit. Besides that, everybody and his dog isn't using it yet.

All my humble opinions of course, I've been using Live since version 2, and there is a definate pattern forming here, the true innovation peaked at version 3, everything since has just been improvements, add ons and the downsides of trying to please everybody.

Cheers

M

[deva]

I started off saying I would rather Ableton focused on the core app instead of instruments. But then again, the improved Saturator is very nice. I am also liking the Dynamic Tube effect and the new EQ8... an improved version of the EQ4. I like the Live effects because they are so small and easy to edit in relation to each other and the new ones sound good. They have upped the quality a notch.

Then there is the 20 operator drum kit in a rack someone posted. It would be harder to tweek if it were a 3rd party FM synth because Operator fits so nicely in the rack.

It is a powerful paradigm Ableton is developing and their instruments fit it well... so I am not sure I feel that way anymore. Mostly I just wish that Sampler was wowing me more... If it had the equivalent of time and tone machine from Kontakt and does a good job importing libraries, I would sell Kontakt and go with Sampler

[hoffman2k]

"Downsides of trying to please everybody"

There is the problem isn't it?
How do you decide who to please?

Unlike their huge presence in the electronic music world, Ableton is really a small company. Desperatly in need of more good developers in order to be able to live up to the expectations...

People like headquest keep trying to make the point that Ableton shouldn't waste time on add-ons. While those add-ons were only made by a handful of people.
And bring money in the bank to hire more developers.
So that Ableton and Live can keep growing.

If they just did 99€ updates, then they would be out of business pretty soon.

Hell, those who think it's so easy to implement little last minute features... Have they ever been involved in creating an app?
I'm involved in that process now and i've learned every feature you add, makes even newer features seem obviously missing. Meaning that it's a never-ending process of new possibility's that create new possibility's.

In the end, you spend more time thinking about a feature then you actually need to develop it.

Be glad that there are still people thinking outside the box. If Live just becomes another pro tools, logic, cubase,.....
Then whats the point?

[headquest]

Unlike their huge presence in the electronic music world, Ableton is really a small company. Desperatly in need of more good developers in order to be able to live up to the expectations...

I've no doubt you know more about Ableton's business than I could possibly know (you went there, right?)... but...

Is that really still true? From what I have seen and read, Live has been massively outselling the more established sequencers such as Cubase over the last two years. In fact Steinberg (who actually don't employ a massive team anyway ) are only still in business now because of the injection of cash they got from first Pinnacle and then Yamaha.

It seems to me that most companies in this position concentrate on building business by:

* attracting new customers (which is done by improving the core product and making it more competative in terms of cost)

* attracting inward investment for the company

* forming alliances with strategic partners

... rather than concentrating on trying to extract more money from PREVIOUS customers by producing (fairly expensive) add-ons.

Ableton have lovely offices in Berlin and quite a growing number of employees. When you consider what one-man developers like Jorgen (eXT) and Justin (REAPER) can do, I'm a bit lost trying to understand your point...

...I do accept your other points though

[hoffman2k]

Ableton have lovely offices in Berlin and quite a growing number of employees. When you consider what one-man developers like Jorgen (eXT) and Justin (REAPER) can do, I'm a bit lost trying to understand your point...

Yeah i get what you mean. I know great one-man developers too. Stiwi (Automat) and Mike (Audiorealism).
They both do very amazing jobs at creating their vision of what their product should be.
But that's one man's vision.

A team like Ableton has, along with its userbase (because they DO listen to us all)..... thats a lot of different visions to deal with.

[Poster]

Ableton have lovely offices in Berlin and quite a growing number of employees. When you consider what one-man developers like Jorgen (eXT) and Justin (REAPER) can do, I'm a bit lost trying to understand your point...

Yeah i get what you mean. I know great one-man developers too. Stiwi (Automat) and Mike (Audiorealism).
They both do very amazing jobs at creating their vision of what their product should be.
But that's one man's vision.

A team like Ableton has, along with its userbase (because they DO listen to us all)..... thats a lot of different visions to deal with.

one man meetings and discussions take less time; you always agree with yourself

[headquest]

Absolutely they DO listen to us users, I know!

I'm really not trying to be at all negative... and I love Live 6. I will certainly be upgrading (probably getting the box with EIC as well in fact!). So my points are coming from somebody who very much appreciates Ableton and Live... it's just that aspects of the business model and direction they are taking are slightly confusing to me at present. But don't worry I'm hanging in there and expect to be a Live fan for many years to come