Ableton Forum

[/quote]Ok I see what you're saying. I used the wrong words. The fact that the indexer doesn't impact audio playback is not by chance though, rather by design.[/quote]

That is nonsense, my audio skips on and off while recording and playback during indexing.

i7 940, 24 GB RAM, Steinberg UR28M. Win 7 X64

Actually: to me the new browser is a dream come true.

vido wrote:Actually: to me the new browser is a dream come true.

this is unacceptable!

you clearly are not making music right!

[/sarcasm]

Just for the record.
9.0.2 works... Both MBP and iMac...
Keeping my fingers crossed and eyes open...
After all that complaining I feel obliged to report improvement.
I'm satisfied!
So long at least...
Skål!

My wish right now is that the browser would keep folders open without having to use cmd but still, had no indexing issue here but all is on local drive.

Timbeaux wrote:thx 4 the reply, but i downloaded live 9, installed it, added the folder and it was there, no 3 hours of waiting. so is my library not indexed yet?

Indexation is still running if you have the icon on the left ot the "PLACES" label.
Once it finished the icon disapear.

Yes it does instantly show up, but if you have a lot of sub- and sub-sub-folders with many files it take a very long time to achieve.

Maybe you dont have a lot of file, but all of them are pretty big ?
Or your disk is SSD ?

naahh, that are many files. i tried it again with another folder i dint put inplaces. and now i recognized the indexing symbol. but it disappeared after 5 seconds.

Maybe i just didnt recognized it when i put my main sample folder in places. Does the indexing affect the performance/cpu usage?

Timbeaux wrote:naahh, that are many files. i tried it again with another folder i dint put inplaces. and now i recognized the indexing symbol. but it disappeared after 5 seconds.

Maybe i just didnt recognized it when i put my main sample folder in places. Does the indexing affect the performance/cpu usage?

Well yes and no.

No because on fast machines it runs in the background with no interference.

Yes because it still use CPU, and the CPU it takes would not be available for Live ...

Just want to confirm that my 9.0.2 still runs smooth as a dream...
My problems (crashes) were related to Automap...
As an old conservative prick I still have my Automap Pro 3.7.4. (the last one you had to pay for...) installed on my iMac. Time to update this one as well...
On MBP I have Automap 4 and had no issues with 9.0.2 at all.
Greetings.
Skål!

Thanks for that update Goddard. That gives me some confidence in actually installing Live 9!

I've been reluctant to install 9 on my new MBP because of the indexing issue. I've got an SSD and am going to purchase an external SSD for samples, but first I was just going to install all the packs and not mess with the samples yet just to get familiar with 9 and start writing some music with it. I was also considering getting the new Puremagnetik Rackmagnet and load up some packs as well.

Does this seem like a safe bet?

Just saw this in the release notes for 9.0.3b1:

Bugfixes:

Scanning folders containing a huge amount of files could take longer than necessary.

Goddard wrote:Just want to confirm that my 9.0.2 still runs smooth as a dream...
My problems (crashes) were related to Automap...
As an old conservative prick I still have my Automap Pro 3.7.4. (the last one you had to pay for...) installed on my iMac. Time to update this one as well...
On MBP I have Automap 4 and had no issues with 9.0.2 at all.
Greetings.
Skål!

that's good to know. thanks for taking the time to update your status.

what about indexing now? do you see anything at all you would consider disruptive from the new browser, not where the folders are and all that, but the indexing and/or choking that others have described?

Live 9 is getting zero use, apart from one project that i started in 9. Wish i could rveert that back to 8 too.
The new workflow is killing me in 9.

Let me browse my disks in the browser normally. I'm not gonna add every nook and cranny location. And i'm not going to let live 9 eat up my ssd with their indexing. And stop closing my folders.

For the rest i'm using only 8.

I can't grasp why they don't allow us to use windows folder shortcuts and why oh why we can't simply stop indexing??

Just make it optional ON, or OFF and be done with it..Everyone pleased..

maky355 wrote:I can't grasp why they don't allow us to use windows folder shortcuts and why oh why we can't simply stop indexing??

Just make it optional ON, or OFF and be done with it..Everyone pleased..

I'm just guessing, but I would assume its because...they can't

IMO, Ableton made a decision to move to the embedded database for browsing. Period. They did not architect the new browser to accept the previous method of browsing. It is "wired", if you will, to the database. The UI, the underlying methods to retrieve this file locations in Live and display them to you, etc. Its just not there. There's no "switch" to flip. They would have to re-architect and re-code the browser, something that would take a considerable time and resources. Architecture changes and these decisions happened months ago and they take months to change.

They also probably realized during the beta period that they had some massive tuning issues with the embedded database/data model/indexing structure/sql configuration/etc when people with large sample libraries had to insert data into the database. A business decision had to be made:

1. Ableton believes in the new database architecture and feel with proper tuning they can get through these data loading issues.
2. They have to delay the release and rewrite/rearchitect the browser and file management to work in Live 9 like Live 8.
3. A hybrid solution: They tune the database now to alleviate most of the issues with speed and design a way to integrate a Live 8 "like" method of browsing within the Live 9 architecture to fix workflow issues for certain users that like the previous browsing methods.

I think they are going with 3.

Live 9.0.3b1 just came out and the release notes say that they have a bugfix for scanning folders containing a huge amout of files ould take longer than necessary. I think they have changed the way they bulk load data into the database (there are a ton of ways, and well documented ways, to optimize this process). This is a quick win for them (if it works) and then they can focus on rewriting some portions to help with workflow issues.

Just spit ballin