Ableton Forum

never happned to me and ive put alot on live

reax wrote:There an mp3 of your song somewhere? Just curious what an arrangement like that sounds like.

http://tarekith.com/mp3s/Amethyst.zip

There's at least one more reason to watch out for consolidating, especially drums and basses. When you create new clips, usually Live will automatically turn on the Fade button in clip properties to reduce pops and clicks. It took me a while to figure out why in a 4-bar loop with a 4x4 kick, the first kick sounded a little dull - because of the Fade function. So you'll have to create loops and then remove the Fade.

The other thing I wanted to mention with this thread is that Sonar 1 was very similar to Live in terms of video performance. Users complained (a lot less than with Live) and they fixed it by Sonar 2. Now, Sonar and Acid are superbly fast with video, regardless of how much stuff you have going on, and only affecting the video performance when you get to like 90% CPU. Now I agree that Live has improved this issue a lot since v5, but this is a top priority. I can't believe that even with dualcore machines this is still an issue.

Tarekith wrote:

Shit dude if i did that to my ibook it would die. I do about four tracks on it and i'm absolutely screwed.

Time to upgrade methinks.

But Tarekith mind if i ask a q? Since that drum set is all on it own how do you know how it fits with every else in the song? or do u make drums first or something?

Do you render that to disk and then reimport that into the final mix whichever that might be or do you reimport the other singular tracks from other sets back into one whole set?

peace man,


matti

Looks a lot like the BT methodology of putting every sample on the timeline and creating patterns and fills with individual samples. Is that right Tarekith?

Also, one other thing to tests - do the graphics slow down even when you collapse the wave forms?

I can get about 50 tracks of audio on my laptop, but this graphics slowdown occurs when my CPU gets to around 50-60%. Again, this is much better in L6 than L5.

Answering a few different posts here:

But Tarekith mind if i ask a q? Since that drum set is all on it own how do you know how it fits with every else in the song? or do u make drums first or something?

>>>In this case the drums were done first, and everything else was written to those latter. The drums were actually a 2 bar pattern I made in the Machinedrum sometime last year. so they were done long before I even had the idea for my song. Once I have a pattern on the MD I like, record it track by track into Live, then cut out the silence between hits to isolate them for editing later on. Then it's just a mater of arranging. <<<

Do you render that to disk and then reimport that into the final mix whichever that might be or do you reimport the other singular tracks from other sets back into one whole set?

>>>Not sure I understand you, sorry. That last picture I linked to is exactly how my project looked when done, prior to the final render. Once it's rendered, then I switch to running Wavelab in Parallels to do the mastering. <<<

Looks a lot like the BT methodology of putting every sample on the timeline and creating patterns and fills with individual samples. Is that right Tarekith?

>>> More or less, I'm not exactly sure how BT does it to be honest. It looks time intensive, and for plain old drum patterns it probably would be. But once you get into doing all the fills and individual sample-mangling, it's incredibly faster to work this way. <<<

Also, one other thing to tests - do the graphics slow down even when you collapse the wave forms?

>>>Yes. I even tried freezing all the tracks to see if that helped, no luck. So it's definitely not an audio issue, but a graphics issue. Which I find slightly ironic, as the entire Live Project (less than 200MB) would just about fit into the graphics ram alone <<<

I can get about 50 tracks of audio on my laptop, but this graphics slowdown occurs when my CPU gets to around 50-60%. Again, this is much better in L6 than L5.

>>>I was averaging about 10-20% in this song when it was done. Saving the project on my 2.16 core2duo MacBook Pro would take about 10-12 seconds each time. It was very easy to delete a few tracks one by one, and see the save times decrease each time I did. <<<

I'd just like to point out that I arrange the same way, mainly because I like to be able to slice, reverse, etc the waveforms. I have a pentium m 2.0, which should be struggling way more than your macbook pro, and it would take several more tracks than that to have a problem (assuming you aren't running alot of fx).

Barely any effects.

I used to have this happen on my dual core desktop (with more tracks and vsts) when I was running 5. When I upgraded to 6 it performed much better and I haven't hit the ceiling yet.

tech44 wrote:I'd just like to point out that I arrange the same way, mainly because I like to be able to slice, reverse, etc the waveforms. I have a pentium m 2.0, which should be struggling way more than your macbook pro, and it would take several more tracks than that to have a problem (assuming you aren't running alot of fx).

For arranging, there shouldn't be much difference between your comp and Tarkith's. Your CPU is about equal to one of his cores. I don't think Live is smart enough to allocate interface handling over multi cores. But perhaps your graphics card is better, or perhaps XP is better at handling interfaces an/or perhaps the PC version of Live just has better UI code.

Michael-SW wrote:

tech44 wrote:I'd just like to point out that I arrange the same way, mainly because I like to be able to slice, reverse, etc the waveforms. I have a pentium m 2.0, which should be struggling way more than your macbook pro, and it would take several more tracks than that to have a problem (assuming you aren't running alot of fx).

For arranging, there shouldn't be much difference between your comp and Tarkith's. Your CPU is about equal to one of his cores. I don't think Live is smart enough to allocate interface handling over multi cores. But perhaps your graphics card is better, or perhaps XP is better at handling interfaces an/or perhaps the PC version of Live just has better UI code.

But wouldn't the graphics redering be handled by one core and the audio by another? I experienced a significant improvement in navigation/rendering from 5 to 6 on my dualcore desktop.

The cores are currently split among tracks, so track 1 goes to one core, track 2 to the other, etc.

No idea how the graphics are allocated.

If this is a vector issue, I wonder how Vista will affect graphics performance, given that the OS has gone into vector masturbation.

Machinesworking wrote:With the BD and Snare you have many tiny cut up clips. live stops addressing the hard drive every time the clip ends, then jumps into action when the next one starts, it's possible it's hard drive related. try rendering those two tracks as one big audio file, and see if that helps.

+1

Isn't that what freeze does though? I froze ALL audio tracks and no improvement.