Ableton Forum

leisuremuffin wrote:

sdfak1234 wrote:

leisuremuffin wrote: the item you quoted was directed at a post, that you didn't make, that included language that i found to be fucking stupid. it has nothing to do with my argument that PDC isn't a fundamental flaw FOR WHAT I DO WITH THE PROGRAM.



.lm.

Oh shit, I forgot about something.... actually the PDC problem is fundamental for you, if you're planning to use Live9's session automation during live work... yeah, it's kinda big deal.

since we don't know how session view automation and PDC are going to work in live 9 i'd say that's not really something we can talk about now.

and i don't even know if i'll update to 9 yet. 8 works perfectly fine for me. i probably will just because i have upgraded every time since v2 but this time i might be too broke from buying eurocrack modules.


I actually do use live in the studio, too, but i've been aware of these issues and print to audio when i need to get around it.

like i said, i want the shit to be fixed too, but it is not a deal breaker for me and what i do. And while i appreciate the enthusiasm for getting it fixed that you have, i still cannot read, "derp, the pros can't use this to make the hits" without wanting to slap a bitch. (which, by the way, you didn't even write.)


.lm.

I know I didn't write that but it did resonate with me a little, I hear what you're what you're saying.... we do know how session automation works there are videos on the site, and I'm a tester... I would like to see it in Live9 or at least some help making us understand when it's coming, or why it's not coming. The bounce workflow is far too limiting when you've been given a taste of what is possible. I can't go back... and to me, the nature of the limits remove all the advantages.

A couple of notes (not directed to anyone, just hope to clarify some things) ...

• PDC and automation sync IS an issue - you can't ignore it, it's a fact. - no need to get offensive and say it isn't a problem.
• Ableton admitted these issues in 2011, please understand many of us want these fixed in 2013.
• Resolving these issues is good. Everyone benefits (whether you only do live sets or you also produce). - no need to get offensive and say it isn't a problem.
• Live is more than just a LIVE program - arrangement view is clearly for making ARRANGEMENTS and thus, doing productions.
• Automation should be in sync under ANY circumstances (I'm holding my breath for session clips automation being out of time - also important when playing live btw!)
• When doing productions, you don't want phase issues because of bad PDC - resulting in a muddy undefined and un-tight sound.
• PDC and automation sync is no rocket science, please make sure you understand the impact and consequences of these issues well enough before posting.
• Bouncing doesn't work for everyone or in any situation (bouncing bad unsynced automation results in bad unsynced automation)
• Some of us NEED ultra tight precision (I do) some of us don't. Respect each other for that.

Sense, Sarrova-Q.

just to push this thread I would like to report another PDC problem, I worked on a track today and tweaked the individual drums by ms, after some hours and a lot of effects later I did notice my kick drum was lacking bass (I didn't add any other tracks), I had to nudge it some (1 ms exactly) ms due to phase cancellations... hmmm

seriously, I think ableton would do the right thing to get some info if and when they will fix it. I can with it, but I don't want to wait until live 10 before we can work sample accurate.

We still don't know the PPQ of Live too.

sdfak1234 wrote:they may want to recall their old work, they may even change their attitude (I may actually fall into that camp) and suddenly realize I didn't like how the machine changed my work even slightly and now it no longer feels valid, because it wasn't exactly what I wrote... now some may see this as insignificant, but I really feel on a very deep level, it really is, it's not pure expression as an artist, it's my opinion but it's also logical.

First of all, most of what I'm going to say isn't that much about PDC. It's about this idea of exactness and pure expression.

It sounds like you have thought about it a lot, and have strong ideas about artistic integrity and the consequences of end results not being "exactly what you wrote." Actually, it reminds me of how I used to think back in the day. However, I have since come to consider such an approach an intellectual burden -- even though, when sporting it, it also functions as an intellectual badge you can show off when rationalizing how "true" your goals and maybe even your creations are. After all, you're an artist, and everything you create has been dictated by yourself, in an exact manner.

The problem is, there are numerous levels of both abstractions and physical interactions between the artist and the end results in many many artforms, especially ones so tied with electronic and programmatic tools. There is a constant illusion of absolute exactness, yet the "machines are changing your music" all along. Twist a knob here, push a slider there, and (oh my, how painful it becomes if you're dealing with some sought-after vintage gear) you can only guess what is exactly happening behind the scenes.

Yes, the numbers you see denote an exact change, the oscillator tuning shows you an absolute value, but there are some magical qualities in certain tools that (might) make them sound better, just because they actually have nonlinear and in some cases even unpredictable responses. Twist a knob, push a slider, and you get... something, and it's up to you to decide if you like the actual sound. What you hear is what you get. You don't get the numbers, neither do the listeners.

Will you be disappointed with your truest creation when you find out, years later, that the mojo EQ you have been using changes the curve shape behind the scenes in a weird way when you change the band gain? How about the creamy ambience you got out of a synth that was badly calibrated, still perfectly usable but not really giving you the exact sound you dictated using numerical values? The machines are changing your music. That is, they are changing it if you think your music is the sum total of abstractions consisting of all the directions you dictate as an artist. They aren't changing your music if you concentrate on the sound. Again, what you hear is what you get.

"But that's different from the automation PDC thing! I want stuff to be automated exactly where I so dictate", you'll say. Yeah, Live's automation compensation is shit if you don't watch your back, isn't it?

However, back to the more important stuff. Nowadays I firmly believe the creative process is a dialogue, not a monologue. Dictating the end result in an absolute manner is usually just an illusion of control, or at the very least, an illusion of the degree of control. Instead, look through the layers of abstraction and interaction, and see/hear what the rawest end result of your every action is, the actual sound you're getting, the actual way the pigment spreads in an aquarelle. Then respond to it and again observe.

Like right now, I'm observing I can't stop coming back to the PDC thing. Crap. Compensating automation along with audio would be swell, thanks. In my opinion, keeping this wish visible high up in the feature/fix wishlist is a good thing. In the mean time, though, while constructively critiquing it, if the way it currently works bothers you, either change the way you work or switch tools.

This isn't a snarky remark in the vein of "if you don't like it, gtfo!" It really, really pays off to switch to something more suitable if Live isn't enabling you to do what you want at this time.

There's a host of detailed info on how to avoid the actual pitfalls (even in this thread), and if you're willing to go through those changes in the way you work, everything will most likely be fine. Hell, everything might be fine already. That being said: I've done a lot of work in Live, recently mostly game soundtracks / sound design, and I know Live would be a better tool if this aspect functioned as expected in all production situations.

Still, it's futile to take the "oh no, I want my art to be exact, it pains me if it's being altered by my tools without my consent" train. If you do, at least expect that philosophy to come back and bite you in the ass later

Be in a default state of dialogue with your chosen raw medium, not mere abstractions, and you're good.

"The authenticity of latency, a journey", the new existentialist novel by Nokatus, out now.

Nokatus wrote:

sdfak1234 wrote:they may want to recall their old work, they may even change their attitude (I may actually fall into that camp) and suddenly realize I didn't like how the machine changed my work even slightly and now it no longer feels valid, because it wasn't exactly what I wrote... now some may see this as insignificant, but I really feel on a very deep level, it really is, it's not pure expression as an artist, it's my opinion but it's also logical.

First of all, most of what I'm going to say isn't that much about PDC. It's about this idea of exactness and pure expression.

It sounds like you have thought about it a lot, and have strong ideas about artistic integrity and the consequences of end results not being "exactly what you wrote." Actually, it reminds me of how I used to think back in the day. However, I have since come to consider such an approach an intellectual burden -- even though, when sporting it, it also functions as an intellectual badge you can show off when rationalizing how "true" your goals and maybe even your creations are. After all, you're an artist, and everything you create has been dictated by yourself, in an exact manner.

The problem is, there are numerous levels of both abstractions and physical interactions between the artist and the end results in many many artforms, especially ones so tied with electronic and programmatic tools. There is a constant illusion of absolute exactness, yet the "machines are changing your music" all along. Twist a knob here, push a slider there, and (oh my, how painful it becomes if you're dealing with some sought-after vintage gear) you can only guess what is exactly happening behind the scenes.

Yes, the numbers you see denote an exact change, the oscillator tuning shows you an absolute value, but there are some magical qualities in certain tools that (might) make them sound better, just because they actually have nonlinear and in some cases even unpredictable responses. Twist a knob, push a slider, and you get... something, and it's up to you to decide if you like the actual sound. What you hear is what you get. You don't get the numbers, neither do the listeners.

Will you be disappointed with your truest creation when you find out, years later, that the mojo EQ you have been using changes the curve shape behind the scenes in a weird way when you change the band gain? How about the creamy ambience you got out of a synth that was badly calibrated, still perfectly usable but not really giving you the exact sound you dictated using numerical values? The machines are changing your music. That is, they are changing it if you think your music is the sum total of abstractions consisting of all the directions you dictate as an artist. They aren't changing your music if you concentrate on the sound. Again, what you hear is what you get.

"But that's different from the automation PDC thing! I want stuff to be automated exactly where I so dictate", you'll say. Yeah, Live's automation compensation is shit if you don't watch your back, isn't it?

However, back to the more important stuff. Nowadays I firmly believe the creative process is a dialogue, not a monologue. Dictating the end result in an absolute manner is usually just an illusion of control, or at the very least, an illusion of the degree of control. Instead, look through the layers of abstraction and interaction, and see/hear what the rawest end result of your every action is, the actual sound you're getting, the actual way the pigment spreads in an aquarelle. Then respond to it and again observe.

Like right now, I'm observing I can't stop coming back to the PDC thing. Crap. Compensating automation along with audio would be swell, thanks. In my opinion, keeping this wish visible high up in the feature/fix wishlist is a good thing. In the mean time, though, while constructively critiquing it, if the way it currently works bothers you, either change the way you work or switch tools.

This isn't a snarky remark in the vein of "if you don't like it, gtfo!" It really, really pays off to switch to something more suitable if Live isn't enabling you to do what you want at this time.

There's a host of detailed info on how to avoid the actual pitfalls (even in this thread), and if you're willing to go through those changes in the way you work, everything will most likely be fine. Hell, everything might be fine already. That being said: I've done a lot of work in Live, recently mostly game soundtracks / sound design, and I know Live would be a better tool if this aspect functioned as expected in all production situations.

Still, it's futile to take the "oh no, I want my art to be exact, it pains me if it's being altered by my tools without my consent" train. If you do, at least expect that philosophy to come back and bite you in the ass later

Be in a default state of dialogue with your chosen raw medium, not mere abstractions, and you're good.

This is a great reply, it's probably gonna take me a few reads to take it all in. I pretty much agree, I'm not particularly that perfectionist when it comes to the practicality of making music, I have come to accept a lot of things, I mean, effectively I do the bounce/printing thing at the moment, and I see trade offs there that are similar, but really I am talking about the practical side of this problem, for me, and my projects, it has become a very serious workflow problem, and not the absolute/philosophical/fundamental issue I've wrote about... although obviously I still believe this is true. It's more the problem of very fine sound design in large productions. It's weird for me at the moment, because I invested a lot of energy moving my mindset from the traditional DAW studio work I was doing, and now I find myself going back into that mindset... I'm probably going to try and get what I need done via some combination of cubase and live, I would love it so much if I could streamline everything into Live, what kills me is that I can't even do sound design properly in Live, and it effects even work with session view automation, I've already had to face this in testing. It's kinda frustratingly making everything go backwards and this just wasn't my expectation for Live 9.

I've written a little bit already about avoiding pitfalls, I can do that, but I feel limited and fundamentally, again from an artistic perspective, I have opinions about how I like to work to get the best results, for example, I like to design patches with chains, I like to experiment in realtime to find the 'sweet' spots, I think a lot of producers do this, and it involves dragging and dropping plugins onto tracks, changing automation, etc... I can get Live to sound great if I am controlling it and recording basically all the output as audio.. but because of the PDC automation issue, I have practically no hope of capturing the automation properly and or writing the same stuff without using a controller.... that's really limiting, and bare in mind, I can do it with Cubase.. it feels like Live should be able to do this, it's better suited to it in many ways. Now I understand that you should be a default state of dialog with your chosen raw medium but obviously there are limits to this concept, I mean choose the right tool for the job, but if a tool can be obviously improved, then do it. I guess what I'm saying is that I can't choose Live as my raw medium if it doesn't do this automation thing .. I know this is labored at this point ... but it's a worthy cause... I am going to be upgrading to Cubase 7 on Dec5th, I think I'm just having to accept that Live is mostly useful for playing out live. I'm happy that it works well live now, I actually gave up on playing it out Live with 8, due to crashes, but I feel a bit stupid that I've told other producers you could use it as an arrangement tool. I'm not going to upgrade Live until they have this feature, there is no point really because the new features don't really apply to me as much without automation compensation. I would go all out with the live/studio hybrid vision/approach of the future if I could do it reliably, I can see it, it appears to be there but it's not workable without this feature. I hate to say it but I think Bitwig will have it.

I also want to say, in regards your reply, I do want to make the distinction between things like analog voodoo, I don't see the parallels with PDC automation, I think the big thing for me is that it's not by design, it's not really an expected function, even if you work around it, the timing is supposed to compensate, it's more like a broken piece of equipment than an artifact or some effect of degradation...believe me I am very familiar with the traditional forms of capturing sound.. I mean maybe it's just me who sees it this way... I don't see it as a luxury item is what I'm saying.

Nokatus wrote: It sounds like you have thought about it a lot, and have strong ideas about artistic integrity and the consequences of end results not being "exactly what you wrote." Actually, it reminds me of how I used to think back in the day. However, I have since come to consider such an approach an intellectual burden -- even though, when sporting it, it also functions as an intellectual badge you can show off when rationalizing how "true" your goals and maybe even your creations are. After all, you're an artist, and everything you create has been dictated by yourself, in an exact manner.

The problem is, there are numerous levels of both abstractions and physical interactions between the artist and the end results in many many artforms, especially ones so tied with electronic and programmatic tools. There is a constant illusion of absolute exactness, yet the "machines are changing your music" all along. Twist a knob here, push a slider there, and (oh my, how painful it becomes if you're dealing with some sought-after vintage gear) you can only guess what is exactly happening behind the scenes.

I want to tackle a few points here. Regarding the level of abstraction, to me this is almost a floating point value, a degree to which it's abstracted and you have to accept how far abstracted is acceptable... I think this is obvious, but to me it's all about intention, if I intended to drop an effect on the first beat, and I did, then I looked back at that project and the effect is no longer on the beat, I don't see that as any kind of abstraction and there is no illusion as to what happened. Absolutely I strive to understand the mechanics of any sound I create, but I accept a lack of control and understanding for most of what I do, for example, I've tried to have this discussion with people who are against electronic music, in many ways I see using a Strat guitar like a patch on a synth, but I box it off like that, and it's important that I can recall that objectively. To be honest, to me the major issue of capturing raw expression is there in sound, IF you want to print it and never change anything, but I can't do the same thing free flow in exact precise mode... it's very different than the concepts you're talking about I think.

Heh, sdfak1234, from the sheer length of your reply and the fact your ideas are a lot like mine, someone might think you're actually me, and I've completely lost it.

But no, seriously, I think we have an understanding, so to speak

sdfak1234 wrote:I mean choose the right tool for the job, but if a tool can be obviously improved, then do it.

For me, this sums it up on the practical level. All the pondering on the creative process aside, this is exactly what I meant when I said I've done so many projects with Live, and obviously like it and think it's special, but at the same time I know it would be a better tool if this aspect worked consistently. Like you, I would prefer keeping Live as my primary production environment, as it just clicks with me in a way which inspires experimentation that just wouldn't happen otherwise.

sdfak1234 wrote:I'm not going to upgrade Live until they have this feature, there is no point really because the new features don't really apply to me as much without automation compensation. I would go all out with the live/studio hybrid vision/approach of the future if I could do it reliably, I can see it, it appears to be there but it's not workable without this feature. I hate to say it but I think Bitwig will have it.

Personally, I'm not ready to go as far as saying I'll never upgrade Live before this feature is sorted (as I've come to expect some surprising killer features from Ableton that are must haves in any case). I've sadly made the same decision on Live 9, though. It will be the first version I skip.

I'll keep using Live 8 as my main host, but I figured the money going towards Live 9 would be better spent elsewhere. No matter what else there is or isn't in Live 9, with full PDC I still would have bought it. So, for the first time in years, now I've looked around for something I can use to get a fresh perspective on those few things that feel restricting in Live. After going backwards and forwards about it, I've set my sights on Studio One (with the upcoming 2.5 update), to use in tandem with Live 8. Then it's all about producing more stuff with what I have and waiting for Live 10.

Again I must emphasize that there is currently nothing available that would actually replace Live for me. In my opinion, in many ways it's truly in a class of its own. And as for Bitwig, ugh, it's such a wildcard I don't know what to think about it at this point. I will test it, of course, but I'm so heavily invested in Live (any way one can count it, time, money and creative potential/material I've built up in it over the years) that BW would have to be dramatically better, not just marginally so, before I'd switch.

sdfak1234 wrote:I also want to say, in regards your reply, I do want to make the distinction between things like analog voodoo, I don't see the parallels with PDC automation, I think the big thing for me is that it's not by design, it's not really an expected function, even if you work around it, the timing is supposed to compensate

Ah, but it is by design, actually. Still, I understand what you mean. If I were to push the design point further, I guess it would just be pedantic, so I'll drop it . Especially as you also said:

sdfak1234 wrote:Regarding the level of abstraction, to me this is almost a floating point value, a degree to which it's abstracted and you have to accept how far abstracted is acceptable...

This is almost exactly how I considered putting that particular thought in my initial reply. Also, at this point I need to appreciate the fact that the differences in our workflows lead to the (surface?) differences in the way we see this. Even though I, too, construct elaborate chains/racks in Live for sound design purposes, you clearly like to change your chain structure in realtime a lot more, that is, keeping the project running and experimenting with plugin order on the fly, dropping stuff here and there after committing automation, and so on.

About the level of abstraction: it can be a drag, sometimes, deciding the level on which you want to zoom into a particular set of processes. At least for me that decision is always something of a compromise. I'm one of those guys who (being a programmer, or at least having been a programmer -- haven't done that in something like five years and feel like I should brush on that side before too much is lost) got into Max 4 Live thinking how cool it will be to build stuff effectively from the ground up if I feel like it, and then at some point I went "ahhh to hell with it" as I realized I was going for more and more abstractions and drowning in them instead of pushing out actual sound

Nokatus wrote: About the level of abstraction: it can be a drag, sometimes, deciding the level on which you want to zoom into a particular set of processes. At least for me that decision is always something of a compromise. I'm one of those guys who (being a programmer, or at least having been a programmer -- haven't done that in something like five years and feel like I should brush on that side before too much is lost) got into Max 4 Live thinking how cool it will be to build stuff effectively from the ground up if I feel like it, and then at some point I went "ahhh to hell with it" as I realized I was going for more and more abstractions and drowning in them instead of pushing out actual sound

It's good that people can see things in a similar way. I write software for a living and music is involved, I spend most of my time at a console, so I've definitely got a kind of pure attitude when it comes to making music, the programmer part of me has certain expectations, but obviously it also creates a curiosity in the process of making music rather than just the music itself.. this is something I've come to accept and appreciate, as I think there are lot of producers nowadays who are captivated by the technological/engineering aspects as well the raw musical/emotional aspects of music.

Music has become more technological and I think that's why these precision issues are much more pressing. I still like to understand what I'm doing, at least on some level, and I like to have some intention and expectation on some level, this is what I think makes good art, or at least that what I'm willing to accept of myself, to feel good about what I've done...I need to have some notion of what just happened, that's just me, but it's worked out, I mean, I've made records that were almost accidental, and that's great, it's valid, but there are some that I really got to grips with on a fundamental level, and I found those much more creatively satisfying. Now don't get me wrong, I too, went through a kind of technical adolescence, where technology got in the way of actually producing stuff, but I learned how to cope with that and actually I have quite a productive workflow, I think I've managed to balance these forces. I just think the PDC automation issue is a step beyond, it's more fundamental than other technology and sounds issues I've had.. and it's tough to swallow especially because I didn't even prepare myself for the notion that it wouldn't be fixed by now, it's shocking to have to reinvest in another platform, it's kind of a real bubble bursting moment... but who knows maybe Ableton will reconsider this, because it's really not cool to have the main new feature that is highly in-precise and not intuitive.

Nokatus wrote:
Again I must emphasize that there is currently nothing available that would actually replace Live for me. In my opinion, in many ways it's truly in a class of its own. And as for Bitwig, ugh, it's such a wildcard I don't know what to think about it at this point. I will test it, of course, but I'm so heavily invested in Live (any way one can count it, time, money and creative potential/material I've built up in it over the years) that BW would have to be dramatically better, not just marginally so, before I'd switch.

One thing I have to say about this point, and I think this is important, despite the fact that I love Ableton Live, this issue is enough to make me replace it. First of all, the competitors look pretty good right now. Live has some killer features but if I'm doing sound design in something like Cubase, I'm going to invest completely in that platform, sure I lose racks and time saving features, but those features are no use to me without automation compensation so I may as well give them up anyway. I already do audio to midi stuff with melodyne. I will miss using session view to compose, but in this respect I will only use Ableton as an instrument, and nothing more, it seems like a huge shame. It's also another knock back that makes me lose faith in the company, I've been unhappy for years that Live was so unstable for actual live use, I wrote a thread about it before the apology letter, and I got flamed pretty hard, then the communication blackout which I almost found offensive, now this version which seems quite far behind. It feels like a sinking ship and sorry to drop the p word again, but to be professional, you've got to invest in viable working platforms that are supported and I don't feel supported by Ableton at the moment.

sdfak1234 wrote: One thing I have to say about this point, and I think this is important, despite the fact that I love Ableton Live, this issue is enough to make me replace it. First of all, the competitors look pretty good right now. Live has some killer features but if I'm doing sound design in something like Cubase, I'm going to invest completely in that platform, sure I lose racks and time saving features, but those features are no use to me without automation compensation so I may as well give them up anyway. I already do audio to midi stuff with melodyne. I will miss using session view to compose, but in this respect I will only use Ableton as an instrument, and nothing more, it seems like a huge shame. It's also another knock back that makes me lose faith in the company, I've been unhappy for years that Live was so unstable for actual live use, I wrote a thread about it before the apology letter, and I got flamed pretty hard, then the communication blackout which I almost found offensive, now this version which seems quite far behind. It feels like a sinking ship and sorry to drop the p word again, but to be professional, you've got to invest in viable working platforms that are supported and I don't feel supported by Ableton at the moment.

Exactly !!! Agree 100% !!!

Comes in the fact, that Live8 was announced and sold with full PDC !
Live 8 PDC should be fixed too !

Great, multiple walls of text! That means I am not going to get time to follow the disucussion for a while. Its nice that people dig deep into it, but at the moment I have no chance to follow the thread.

/Back to the live set for tonight: I have spend some time this week to clean up some of the audible latencies in the individual tracks. To me the positive outcome of these pdc threads is better awareness of the issue, where it happens and how to fix it.

Im still hoping for some developers to release a paper that explains this in detail.