Ableton Forum

I to was having major crashes on a PC. Although it did get better with 8.1.3 but was still there...Then I realized it was an incompatible VST(DMXIS 1.1.0) causing the issues. A work around was running DMXIS as a host application. May I suggest that you start watching your log.txt file and see when, where, and why it crashes. If you need help finding your log file click here. If your on a PC a cool application to watch the log file with is Trace32.exe. It can be found in the Microsoft SMS Toolkit 2 here.

The majority of my Live 8 headaches were due to 3rd Party instruments and effects. Once that was squared away, my system has been fairly stable. I do however feel that the Live 8 upgrade was a bit overpriced in my opinion (with or without all the crashes and instability people are experiencing).

the pricing scheme for Ableton's upgrade system is what is the most frustrating. It should be less with a higher up front cost for the suite.

TheRealZoltan wrote:does ableton owe us something for a crap ver.8?

auto-lock wrote:i think ableton owes us something for share, i bought 8 for share... how fucking stupid is that!!!

share was/is included in the price,, or am I wrong?

if so that means that they do owe us something.
better question would be what?

in their defence I see the whole share thing quite differently - Share was in internal testing for quite some time, and it seemed to be working ok for the most part, then it went into public beta and was there for a little while and in all honesty it was slightly underwhelming in what it could do…. i.e. it wasn't really much more than automating the process of creating a live pack and uploading it to FTP.

So while it was in beta they realised there were far bigger conceptual issues than they had originally foreseen and they were taking it back to the drawing board to make it much better from the ground up. Personally I think that took a lot of guts to openly make and admission like that.

Share will be there, they just really didn't want to put it out as what they saw as an inferior and flawed implementation. You could have had it now and everyone would be complaining that it didn't do enough…etc

To put it in a wider context - When Live 3 was released we were all totally blown away by clip envelopes. It was an awesome feature that made it hugely powerful. It wasn't until MUCH later on that we found out that Ableton had committed to a paradigm that would make it very difficult to add session automation without a total rewrite, and session automation is now probably one of the most common requests. If when Live 3 was released they could have made a decision like they did with share then maybe that could have made a difference? don't know that's a total guess on my part, but you can see my point.

But anyway I'm going to stop defending them, they can do that themselves… they've been quiet a bit too long now IMO.

alex.the.forge wrote:they've been quiet a bit too long now IMO.

I'm sure everything is fine, over there, at their offices.
let's just check the webcam



oh

Angstrom wrote:

alex.the.forge wrote:they've been quiet a bit too long now IMO.

I'm sure everything is fine, over there, at their offices.
let's just check the webcam



oh

Looks like theyre taking StarCraft 2 a little too seriously over there...

alex.the.forge wrote: So while it was in beta they realised there were far bigger conceptual issues than they had originally foreseen and they were taking it back to the drawing board to make it much better from the ground up. Personally I think that took a lot of guts to openly make and admission like that.

...

To put it in a wider context - When Live 3 was released we were all totally blown away by clip envelopes. It was an awesome feature that made it hugely powerful. It wasn't until MUCH later on that we found out that Ableton had committed to a paradigm that would make it very difficult to add session automation without a total rewrite, and session automation is now probably one of the most common requests. If when Live 3 was released they could have made a decision like they did with share then maybe that could have made a difference? don't know that's a total guess on my part, but you can see my point.

...

+1

and the fact that they have a liberal policy on their forums is a good sign too ...

Please just get the M4L runtime or an edu price happening.

dj_blueprint wrote:the pricing scheme for Ableton's upgrade system is what is the most frustrating. It should be less with a higher up front cost for the suite.

Yes Upgrade or buy Reaper + Renoise + VST's.

AceLuby wrote:

Ben_Binary wrote:For the record... Ableton doesn't owe us for crap stability in L8.
They are building something and I appreciate that they are working on it.

Its the lack of support and penny pinching marketing LIES that have changed my opinion of them. They have a choice about what they charge and what they promise.

APC40 support and M4L runtime. simple.

APC40 support?

Ableton should support the APC40 rather than leave out features that are in the APC20.
Ableton should support the APC40 rather than leave it to Hanz to add this support HERE

At the very least they should give Hanz a proper place on their website. and some cash.
lots of cash. and all the hookers n blow he needs to keep working on it.

Hi Ben,

not completely sure of the differences between the apc 20/40 ... but it seems kind of likely to me that any differences in function might be down to decisions made by Akai...not strictly Ableton on their own.

I speculate, but it seems like marketing skullduggery 101.

"Gotta get 'em all"

"does ableton owe us something for a crap ver.8?"

Umm NOPE

JuanSOLO wrote:"does ableton owe us something for a crap ver.8?"

Umm NOPE

thanks juan.thats all i need to know.

dum wrote:Hi Ben,

not completely sure of the differences between the apc 20/40 ... but it seems kind of likely to me that any differences in function might be down to decisions made by Akai...not strictly Ableton on their own.

I speculate, but it seems like marketing skullduggery 101.

"Gotta get 'em all"

S4racen wrote:
http://createdigitalmusic.com/2010/03/1 ... #more-9890

The article details the work done by this forum's excellent Hanz Petrov!!

Having spoken with someone at Akai, their position is that all the APC does is provide midi messages,
its up to Ableton to implement anything else!!

Cheers
D

If Ableton and Akai say they managed to design the APC40 without the APC20 in mind ...
Does that make them deceptive or incompetent ?

S4racen wrote:
http://createdigitalmusic.com/2010/03/1 ... #more-9890

The article details the work done by this forum's excellent Hanz Petrov!!

Having spoken with someone at Akai, their position is that all the APC does is provide midi messages,
its up to Ableton to implement anything else!!

Cheers
D

Oh OK, I missed that..

Ben_Binary wrote: If Ableton and Akai say they managed to design the APC40 without the APC20 in mind ...
Does that make them deceptive or incompetent ?

It would have to be numero uno ? No ? Unless the apc20 was some kind of after thought based on apc40 feedback/sales ?

In principle I understand why you're annoyed, I would be too. I still entertain the notion that the motivations amount to basic marketing "gotta get 'em all" skullduggery - isn't the apc20 marketed as a companion piece to the apc40 ? do Ableton get a cut from controller profits ? That's more speculation of the unadulterated & idle variety. If receiving no cash from controller sales then I'm really curious to know the reasoning.

Sux whatever way you dice it.

Good luck.

dum wrote:
In principle I understand why you're annoyed, I would be too.

Cheers Mate but im not that annoyed. I should tone it down a bit.

... when they release M4L runtime or edu price.



But its mainly to warn people and save them time, and give props to Hanz and others !