Page 2 of 4

Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 12:41 pm
by forge
Josh Von wrote: Consolidate, consolidate, consolidate.

.
yeah this is basically the conclusion I came to in the last few "arrange sucks" type threads

what you wrote here backs up what I've experienced and reported

Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 1:36 pm
by Josh Von
forge wrote:
Josh Von wrote: Consolidate, consolidate, consolidate.

.
yeah this is basically the conclusion I came to in the last few "arrange sucks" type threads

what you wrote here backs up what I've experienced and reported

yes, and I would also like to add:


What we are saying here is not a solution. These tricks are a way to 'workaround' a fundamental problem with the way this program uses system resources ... otherwise we cant produce anything of any size or complexity.

Even using every trick I can possibly think of, production sets of any real size are a tossup -- whether they are going to load in a reasonable amount of time, or shut down gracefully and let me work on other applications.

Most of the time: no, Live at leaast hoses my system and locks everything up for minutes at a time closing out a project.

Major props to Abes for shuffling things around enough to let people use the Arrange grid even somewhat normally. Last version it was totally non-functional for so many people it was a broken product they were charging for (sorry you still have this forge)

I can see now though .. after working with 6 in depth the past few months for production ... in doing so they probably didnt get to the root of the problem, what I have been saying for a couple of years now:

This program is probably built on code from the very beginning ... and the memory allocation and basic philosophy behind how that code handles clips and the Arrange view was never meant to handle a full DAW load.

This is why every year they keep adding to it, and tweaking it and working around it, but nothing but a complete re-write from the ground up is going to fix these problems.

I dont see any evidence otherwise.

.

Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 3:25 pm
by mocker
I must precise : I only use the session view and same sh...
:-(

Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 3:43 am
by djod
I'm having the same problem, left ableton on for e few hours and sluggish as hell and stutter mania. First i started on loop ( sampler ), stutttettterre then it sound okish, sturttering sometimes, when I started the next loop ( track ( another sampler ) more sturttererrrr, and so on. After the 4th track i've left it looping to see if it clears out, but still it has some little hickups.
When I changed scenes, STUtterreerererrrr mania again.

I've also posted in the judder tread, there I'm suspecting the dualore, byt this could indeed bee more memory related, or maybe both. Heck, i'm no coder.

Still this is a nasty bug and needs fixin.

O, btw the rest of the programs are running fast and are snappy, so it definitely an Ableton problem.

laterz Jody

Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 1:20 pm
by mocker
Yeah and still nothing from Ableton.
BTW… I don't care if I sound harassing, cos' I think we deserve - at least - sort of an answer like "OK we heard you guys and we're working on it". But no, nothing. I'm extremely disappointed.

Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 1:31 pm
by eldar
:roll:

Bugs & Problems
We are not monitoring this forum daily. For a fast answer please contact us.

Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 4:24 pm
by mocker
The thread started Jan 17. So how often are "we" monitoring ? Do you feel you're part of the "we" ? Thanks for the help. :-( If you're not affected, lucky you, make music Mr. Sermonizer. And I DID contact "us", btw…

Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 11:39 pm
by eldar
sorry then, good luck with the troubleshooting.

Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:49 am
by mocker
Thanks and sorry for reacting a bit… angry ;-)

Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 2:42 am
by Josh Von
Here is another example of why it seems like Live's big problem performance wise is related to how the clips are allocated to system memory. And this has been since version 2 as far as i can recall.

Bounce a track to audio (render), and give it a name ... then bring that clip into the set into a clean channel. Now ... change your mind and delete all instances of the clip from the project.

Now bounce your original channel again, and try to overwrite the old clip with the new bounce, same name.

Live wont let you more often than not. It says the clip is still being used in your set, when its not.

So you have changed the configuration of your set, but the old configuration is "hung" in memory or a buffer somewhere. Its not shuffling things around correctly, it never has. And when you multiply this by adding mroe and more clips inn a set Live bogs down and chokes.

Everything points to this imo. The problems opening and closing, the frozen arrange view issue (which has improved, granted), many of the audio problems ... i think a lot of them are related and it has to do with this

.

.

Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 3:32 am
by eldar
in your scenario "undo" wouldn't work no more...

Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 3:44 am
by forge
mocker wrote:Yeah and still nothing from Ableton.
BTW… I don't care if I sound harassing, cos' I think we deserve - at least - sort of an answer like "OK we heard you guys and we're working on it". But no, nothing. I'm extremely disappointed.
actually they are well aware of the problem

they have commented before but it's a very difficult problem and it's hard for them to comment without giving some kind of commitment as to when it will be fixed, but if all you want is "we are working on it" then that assurance is already there

unfortunately I think there is a degree of truth about what Josh said about needing a rewrite - it's a very deep and complex problem

and mocker, what Josh has done here documenting it and giving examples is the best approach for helping fix it, the better the descriptions of what goes on the more chance of isolating it - so if you are able to do the same it will be alot more productive

Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 3:48 am
by Josh Von
eldar wrote:in your scenario "undo" wouldn't work no more...
The undo list should be a separate process that tracks the data, other actions shouldnt be dependent on its status in that way.
.

Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 4:01 am
by eldar
i'd prefer to have the files named like i have named them - and the files in one place...and in that case your scenario wouldn't work. :wink:

Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 4:18 am
by Josh Von
eldar wrote:i'd prefer to have the files named like i have named them - and the files in one place...and in that case your scenario wouldn't work. :wink:
I dont understand, what?

.