Ableton Forum

In a freshly opened , empty session there IS no configuring to do short of choosing ur hardware. Butwang was just using more Ram.. thats all.

Machinesworking wrote:Update, for all of you loyal to Live really good news!

Live 9 on the same Mac Pro can run 54 instances of Massive without crackling.

Bitwig got served, and Ableton are lying liars, 64 bit does matter. (plus the optimizations in 9 must be there too!)

Like i said.. Initial test.. Silly.

I'm running live 9 as u should have been when benchmarking.

Machinesworking wrote:Update, for all of you loyal to Live really good news!

Live 9 on the same Mac Pro can run 54 instances of Massive without crackling.

Bitwig got served, and Ableton are lying liars, 64 bit does matter. (plus the optimizations in 9 must be there too!)

not to be a fanboy, more like just cuz... but... hell yeah!

H20nly wrote: not to be a fanboy, more like just cuz... but... hell yeah!

Is your name supposed to be hydrogen only or water only? If it is water only, does that mean you're straight edge? I cannot evaluate bitwig properly without this information.

It means dihydrogen only. Now go test Bitwig.

The more I read bitwig threads, the more confused I get. Sure are entertaining though.

H20nly wrote:

Machinesworking wrote:

Y u make me miss my bass?

It is interesting to note all the performance issues.

For me, CPU usage etc is not the key issue. Perhaps because my music will use 16, 20 tracks max

The big claim for BW is the workflow improvements. That's a more difficult claim to evaluate, partly because it takes a while to get used to new kit, and partly because workflow judgements are more SUBJECTIVE

At the moment, with BW, I can see lots of nice things e.g. about MIDI editing. But on BW I lose all the investments I have made with Live - customized MIDI controllers, STC, Tom's Push mapping - hell, even Funken's Mac Shortcuts for the Fourth Workers' International ... And the switching between the different views all feels very un-intuitive still. So I am not an unbiased judge.

I guess those issues will only be revealed with time.

infernal.machine wrote:

H20nly wrote: not to be a fanboy, more like just cuz... but... hell yeah!

Is your name supposed to be hydrogen only or water only? If it is water only, does that mean you're straight edge? I cannot evaluate bitwig properly without this information.

pure flow, but i'm kinda liking

stringtapper wrote:dihydrogen only. Now go test Bitwig.

this

H20nly wrote:

Machinesworking wrote:Update, for all of you loyal to Live really good news!

Live 9 on the same Mac Pro can run 54 instances of Massive without crackling.

Bitwig got served, and Ableton are lying liars, 64 bit does matter. (plus the optimizations in 9 must be there too!)

not to be a fanboy, more like just cuz... but... hell yeah!

Yeah I'm impressed. Live 8 looks like crap compared. Wonder why this isn't talked about by the Abes more?
Mostly it seems that 9 is using all 8 cores, where Live 8 is using 3… Very impressive compared to DP too, as DP does very well in these tests.
Updating original post.

Machinesworking wrote:

H20nly wrote:

Machinesworking wrote:Update, for all of you loyal to Live really good news!

Live 9 on the same Mac Pro can run 54 instances of Massive without crackling.

Bitwig got served, and Ableton are lying liars, 64 bit does matter. (plus the optimizations in 9 must be there too!)

not to be a fanboy, more like just cuz... but... hell yeah!

Yeah I'm impressed. Live 8 looks like crap compared. Wonder why this isn't talked about by the Abes more?
Mostly it seems that 9 is using all 8 cores, where Live 8 is using 3… Very impressive compared to DP too, as DP does very well in these tests.
Updating original post.

U can also admit u were wrong if u like..

Never! In internet land, one MUST defend their stance to the last!

Of course I'll never be wrong about bitwig. I'll never try it.........never...........not ever!!!!!! well maybe someday

Just to add to this. Live 9 is doing well for sure compared to Bitwig.
Compared to Digital Performer 8 at the same buffer size it's still at the same disadvantage that it's always been at compared to a lean DAW.

DP8 at a 256 buffer scores 76 instance of Massive compared to 54. The same 30% or so cpu loss as always. I don't think this will change and seeing as how Bitwig is looking even worse as of now, I would say it's due to the whole "keep the audio running at all costs" thing that they have to do to make live performance possible.

Hi there,

After testing the Birtwig demo 2 evenings, i really think it's a joke...
Sure there are some good ideas, but it lacks too much essential features for the moment and there are so much bugs (try setting your audio interface at less than 256 buffer size...)

But it's promising for the future versions to come...

Cheers
Vinz

One Reason wrote:U can also admit u were wrong if u like..

Sorry kid, tests don't lie. Live 8 runs like ass on this machine for sure, but nothing I posted has been wrong, barring my conjecture that Live 9 wouldn't be a big improvement. This guess was based on evidence given by Ableton themselves:

But a 64-bit version of Live has a better system integration and therefore performs better than a 32-bit version on my 64-bit operating system, right?

Not necessarily. There are no differences in the CPU handling between the 32-bit and the 64-bit version.

The only advantage to be gained from the 64-bit version is the ability to address additional RAM.

The used RAM on this test is just over 1.5GB, not anywhere near enough to cause issues, and Live 9 isn't being lauded by the user base as that much better CPU wise, but then most people are using 4 core machines or less.

Plus really? I bothered to actually do a comparison, you haven't done anything but wax anecdotally… no prize for no tests!

vinz89 wrote:Hi there,

After testing the Birtwig demo 2 evenings, i really think it's a joke...
But it's promising for the future versions to come...

a promising joke. huh.