I have no interest in this debate either, but want to add this..
there's too much talk over nothing, really.. but I guess that's what keeps all the interwebforums going..
if you're an engineer I can understand all this tech talk,
but from a musicians point of view, debating Live's audio quality can be shortned to a few words;
you like it or you don't..
Live is quality software, its succes is total proof of that and it's core is non debatable i.m.o...
If there is REAL and obvious inferior behaviour; proof it, but not with marginal arguments or subjective feelings..
otherwise; do music with another DAW of choice if you think it really gets in the way of your creative process and goals..
Looking at todays computer based musicians I think the whole process of making music can get too theoretical..
It can be seen as a logical conclusion to what software offers these days;
from rough sketches to mastering can be done at home, with one affordable package, within everyones reach..
In the non software days, musicians who could not afford equipment other than instruments,
would not have argued the quality of the whole process that much because they weren't confronted with these issues on a daily basis..
Making music is a first priority, technical finalizing something of later worries, or not even..
Using software almost demands getting knowledgeable about things that don't have anything to do with the actual process of making music and expressing one self..
In the end this knowledge gets in the way of the creative processes of alot of people..
Making music has become a thing of the masses; everone is doing it, everyone claims knowledge and therefore too much useless talk is generated, less actual music is made..
People focus too much on sound itself and quality of sound, not the actual music..
What do my ears tell me vs. what does this magazine say about what I hear or should hear?
Alot of people just carry too much of the wrong luggage..
Conclusion; use the demo before you buy
