This device alone makes Max4Live worth it...

[glitchrock-buddha]

I originally got Max for Live for one very specific type of device, but unfortunately have been so busy that I haven't been able to get deep enough into it yet.

Luckily Hoffman2K has been busy making very cool stuff though and made some devices that were very similar to what I had in mind, and with a gentle nudge, even modified his original device to be even more towards what I was after (I like to think of myself as a "consultant" in this matter Actually more like a pest though).

Ever wish you assign macros to a group channel track from the devices in the child tracks? I've wished it ever since Live introduced group tracks. Ever wish you could tweak a whole bunch of parameters and then hit a button to make all those parameters jump back to some stored setting? I sure have. Or what about being able to morph between two presets like you can with Kore? Or having a device with more than 8 macros?

Well these are very possible now with Max for Live and Hoffman2k has made this little beauty that I think really demonstrates what useful devices can be made and I thought I'd call attention to it for those who aren't really sure about what's going on in the Max for Live world:
http://forum.ableton.com/viewtopic.php? ... &start=180

This device went through a few different versions, starting with Clipmapper, which let you assign parameters from any track to the device and store those parameters with a clip, so triggering different clips brought up a different set of parameters on the devices controls. Then the 16 macros device came along, which permanently assigned parameters from other devices to it's macro dials. The amazing thing with this is that there is either an audio effect or midi effect version, so you could put it before a device or on a group track, and you can put many of them in series. So you could have a whole whack of tracks in a group and assign whatever parameters you want from those to this device on the master group track for easy access with an APC40 or Remote SL or whatever automapping device you have. Very very useful! The newest version in the thread posted above is Snapshot morpher which can store snapshots of the parameter values which can be recalled by the (midi-mappable) button, or morphed between two snapshots. So what I would do with the APC40 for example, would be to map the "load" button to a spare hardware button, like solo (not needed for performance), and then when I need my parameters to revert to some default state, I just hit that button. And then the morphing is just cool, a single knob to mutate between two presets.

To me this kind of thing just solved many of my problems/wishes in Live: I can group tracks but still be able to use automap easily with those, I can have a snapshot button and also have more than 8 macros and morph between settings.

Hoffman2k was also kind enough to post a tutorial on some of the techniques he used in coding these devices:
http://forum.ableton.com/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=141249

Hey Hoffman, I just went to covert ops site looking for a donate button but didn't see one!

[distaudio]

After watching the tutorial video of this I think would have to agree with you.

This would be great for me as I wish to use dummy clips for sends on vocals when I perform live gigs. Having assignable controls will be great when I fire off a new scene.

I'm sitting here thinking about the possibilities of this device from changing from song to song.

Seriously considering M4L based off this.

Thanks

[3phase]

that sounds indeed good.. ..

so the hoffman guy is not only good as benimm schwester.....
anyway.. i am deff on the buy mfl ear..

[hoffman2k]

I originally got Max for Live for one very specific type of device, but unfortunately have been so busy that I haven't been able to get deep enough into it yet.

Luckily Hoffman2K has been busy making very cool stuff though and made some devices that were very similar to what I had in mind, and with a gentle nudge, even modified his original device to be even more towards what I was after (I like to think of myself as a "consultant" in this matter Actually more like a pest though).

Ever wish you assign macros to a group channel track from the devices in the child tracks? I've wished it ever since Live introduced group tracks. Ever wish you could tweak a whole bunch of parameters and then hit a button to make all those parameters jump back to some stored setting? I sure have. Or what about being able to morph between two presets like you can with Kore? Or having a device with more than 8 macros?

Well these are very possible now with Max for Live and Hoffman2k has made this little beauty that I think really demonstrates what useful devices can be made and I thought I'd call attention to it for those who aren't really sure about what's going on in the Max for Live world:
http://forum.ableton.com/viewtopic.php? ... &start=180

This device went through a few different versions, starting with Clipmapper, which let you assign parameters from any track to the device and store those parameters with a clip, so triggering different clips brought up a different set of parameters on the devices controls. Then the 16 macros device came along, which permanently assigned parameters from other devices to it's macro dials. The amazing thing with this is that there is either an audio effect or midi effect version, so you could put it before a device or on a group track, and you can put many of them in series. So you could have a whole whack of tracks in a group and assign whatever parameters you want from those to this device on the master group track for easy access with an APC40 or Remote SL or whatever automapping device you have. Very very useful! The newest version in the thread posted above is Snapshot morpher which can store snapshots of the parameter values which can be recalled by the (midi-mappable) button, or morphed between two snapshots. So what I would do with the APC40 for example, would be to map the "load" button to a spare hardware button, like solo (not needed for performance), and then when I need my parameters to revert to some default state, I just hit that button. And then the morphing is just cool, a single knob to mutate between two presets.

To me this kind of thing just solved many of my problems/wishes in Live: I can group tracks but still be able to use automap easily with those, I can have a snapshot button and also have more than 8 macros and morph between settings.

Hoffman2k was also kind enough to post a tutorial on some of the techniques he used in coding these devices:
http://forum.ableton.com/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=141249

Hey Hoffman, I just went to covert ops site looking for a donate button but didn't see one!

Aw shucks

I'm glad you're liking these devices. Its a perfect example of why I love M4L. You wouldn't see these things as native Ableton devices. I got like a dozen threads detailing what I don't like about automap.
The day Ableton lets us access parameters of devices within racks, these devices will officially become my masterpieces.
Hopefully its some day soon. Because not having access to racks is cramping my style

[hoffman2k]

that sounds indeed good.. ..

so the hoffman guy is not only good as benimm schwester.....
anyway.. i am deff on the buy mfl ear..

A manner nurse? Something got lost in translation here I think

I realize not everybody is into learning how to patch and to make devices by trial and error. But one day there will be at least 10 devices for everybody's taste that aren't available as VST's, AU's or native devices. What got me excited about M4L was the prospect of having a MIDI Delay.
I'm very sure there will be a runtime in the future, because at some point all the easy things will have been built. Making the full M4L package even less attractive for people who do not wish to tinker with code.

[glitchrock-buddha]

The day Ableton lets us access parameters of devices within racks, these devices will officially become my masterpieces.
Hopefully its some day soon. Because not having access to racks is cramping my style

I hear that! It's the only downside of using a Max for Live macro device to have more controls - If you use a rack to layer instruments you're back to being stuck with 8 macros again. For that reason I now lean towards group tracks instead of racks because with your device, macros can be assigned from the child tracks. Of course then the only issue is that you can't record enable directly from the Group master track (to emulate the functionality of racks). Would that be possible with Max for Live? Would the device be able to "hear" record enable being activated from something like an APC40 and send that message to the child tracks?

And of course we have to be more careful moving tracks around now then just with a rack.

Anyways, even with these minor issues, there is a level of control now that Live 7 couldn't even come close to. And I think many people see Max for Live as some weird experimental environment for creating abstract sequencing functions etc, but really it can be an amazing utility.

As an example of how useful 16 macros/Snapshot morpher can be: I like to limit myself to 8 tracks in Live so that I can improvise the arrangment, but it gets tough if you want to use dummy clips or use a multi-timbral plug-in like Stylus RMX and still be able to keep things tight and get access to lots of parameters. So say I have Stylus RMX and need 8 other tracks to trigger midi sequences of 8 of the parts within stylus, but want to keep Stylus within one track of the song. I can group the Stylus track and the midi tracks, but then stylus is no longer on the visible track to get at parameters with automap if I want to assign levels, send or chaos controls. So with 16 macros/Snapshot morpher, I can put a few on the group track as audio effect and assign 8 levels, maybe 16 or even 24 sends (3 each) and maybe some other effect for the 8 parts. That would take 2 devices of 16 macros which can easily be selected with for example the APC40 from one track. I think a lot more people would be doing this kind of thing if they knew you could.

[hoffman2k]

The day Ableton lets us access parameters of devices within racks, these devices will officially become my masterpieces.
Hopefully its some day soon. Because not having access to racks is cramping my style

I hear that! It's the only downside of using a Max for Live macro device to have more controls - If you use a rack to layer instruments you're back to being stuck with 8 macros again. For that reason I now lean towards group tracks instead of racks because with your device, macros can be assigned from the child tracks. Of course then the only issue is that you can't record enable directly from the Group master track (to emulate the functionality of racks). Would that be possible with Max for Live? Would the device be able to "hear" record enable being activated from something like an APC40 and send that message to the child tracks?

And of course we have to be more careful moving tracks around now then just with a rack.

Anyways, even with these minor issues, there is a level of control now that Live 7 couldn't even come close to. And I think many people see Max for Live as some weird experimental environment for creating abstract sequencing functions etc, but really it can be an amazing utility.

As an example of how useful 16 macros/Snapshot morpher can be: I like to limit myself to 8 tracks in Live so that I can improvise the arrangment, but it gets tough if you want to use dummy clips or use a multi-timbral plug-in like Stylus RMX and still be able to keep things tight and get access to lots of parameters. So say I have Stylus RMX and need 8 other tracks to trigger midi sequences of 8 of the parts within stylus, but want to keep Stylus within one track of the song. I can group the Stylus track and the midi tracks, but then stylus is no longer on the visible track to get at parameters with automap if I want to assign levels, send or chaos controls. So with 16 macros/Snapshot morpher, I can put a few on the group track as audio effect and assign 8 levels, maybe 16 or even 24 sends (3 each) and maybe some other effect for the 8 parts. That would take 2 devices of 16 macros which can easily be selected with for example the APC40 from one track. I think a lot more people would be doing this kind of thing if they knew you could.

This current workaround may be a keeper for some situations though. Given how multi-core processing works, you seem to be better off with groups rather than racks (if no sends are involved). Once we got something reliable and fast for inter-device-communication, you could have a device in a rack that sends midi. And its received by some CPU intensive instrument on its own track. Meaning you could play an 8 track set, but not be limited by having 8 tracks.
Not sure if that made any sense, but I'm sure it will once its technically possible.

Btw.. Access to devices in racks.. Sounds like it would be practical, but you don't know half of it. Imagine the madness we could unleash by having not a single limitation left when it comes to Rack building. Which reminds me, I probably should finish up my MIDI Delay. Delayed chords.. yum!

[3phase]

that sounds indeed good.. ..

so the hoffman guy is not only good as benimm schwester.....
anyway.. i am deff on the buy mfl ear..

A manner nurse? Something got lost in translation here I think

I realize not everybody is into learning how to patch and to make devices by trial and error. But one day there will be at least 10 devices for everybody's taste that aren't available as VST's, AU's or native devices. What got me excited about M4L was the prospect of having a MIDI Delay.
I'm very sure there will be a runtime in the future, because at some point all the easy things will have been built. Making the full M4L package even less attractive for people who do not wish to tinker with code.

when i look at thees mfl patches i real get a headache.. i dont have problems with complex nord modular or reaktor patches.. but this? mfl apears to be really far out. I once learned a programming language.. very simple ancient one on honeywell bull card programmed computers.. that seemed to be simple in relation to max

what is more difficult to learn.. to program in phyton or to program in max?

[davepermen]

my personal experience is, max is veeery different. if you know a bit programming (sequencial workflows) python is easy to learn. the audio part you know allready, so it might be more easy than max.

sure is for me.

max still doesn't allow me to 'drop the penny' (is that the right phrase?).. means, i don't "get it" yet, so that it's sorta natural.

and indeed, some patching on hw would be more simple for me than max (and i haven't had real hw in hands yet. but i guess i would understand it more quickly from what i've seen).

so lets call it different. very different.

too different for me, but still it was worth the purchase. showed me some new worlds to dive in (and got my tiny part working..)

[3dot...]

Bjorn and co. get all the credit .. because they actually deserves it !

the stuff 'CovOps' make is brilliant.. any Yokel can create multi-sampled racks...
they CovOps stuff always go further .. and always are clever as much as useful !

I would buy your whole catalog if I didn't enjoy building this stuff for myself so much...(almost did several times)

aside from that .. the tutorials are second to none..

Covert Operators == quality!

+very generous

[hoffman2k]

when i look at thees mfl patches i real get a headache.. i dont have problems with complex nord modular or reaktor patches.. but this? mfl apears to be really far out. I once learned a programming language.. very simple ancient one on honeywell bull card programmed computers.. that seemed to be simple in relation to max

what is more difficult to learn.. to program in phyton or to program in max?

I'd say python is harder to learn. But I can only go from personal experiences.
I can read a little python as much as I can read javascript. I don't even understand every Max patch I see. They can give me headaches too. Try working on a patch from my colleague Machinate. It makes your head explode.

Python is code and imagining mathematical functions and such in your brain. Put more simply, you're better off with a mathematical background. With Max you combine visual feedback with logical thinking. Its 2 different things to learn.
It'll be easier to learn Max after you mastered Python than the other way around. But then again, you can execute python code from Max. So you may not need to learn Max to use it if you know python..

I'm currently teaching a Reaktor convert some M4L, so hopefully I'll be better equipped soon to explain Max to people who worked with Reaktor, Plogue Bidule, Quartz Composer and similar things. From what I picked up so far, the biggest problem is a different terminology.
If you can build a sequencer in Reaktor, it shouldn't take too long till you can do the same and better in M4L. But I'll have more details on that statement once I can back it up.

[hoffman2k]

Bjorn and co. get all the credit .. because they actually deserves it !

the stuff 'CovOps' make is brilliant.. any Yokel can create multi-sampled racks...
they CovOps stuff always go further .. and always are clever as much as useful !

I would buy your whole catalog if I didn't enjoy building this stuff for myself so much...(almost did several times)

aside from that .. the tutorials are second to none..

Covert Operators == quality!

+very generous

Thanks 3dot...!
We know its fun to build things, so you'll notice some different kind of content coming from us very soon.
One thing a Sound Designer can never have enough off is a new interesting sound to tweak.
But more importantly: Now with Max for Live I prefer to spend my time making fun sound design tools and use the sounds for my own projects which have been on the backburner for far too long. And I know Machinate always has some crazy stuff cooking too.

"Almost nothing has been invented yet!"

If you haven't heard that quote before, check out this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HF9G9M0cR0E
Yeah that is right.. Forrest Raves without the noise pollution and no cops to bother you. Apartment studios anybody?

[3phase]

I'm currently teaching a Reaktor convert some M4L, so hopefully I'll be better equipped soon to explain Max to people who worked with Reaktor, Plogue Bidule, Quartz Composer and similar things. From what I picked up so far, the biggest problem is a different terminology.
If you can build a sequencer in Reaktor, it shouldn't take too long till you can do the same and better in M4L. But I'll have more details on that statement once I can back it up.

i just do sequencers in reaktor..but to get all the visual feedback wth luchpad is a hard nut.. it dont allways behaves consistent..sometimes you have to patch around strange behavior.. its sometimes difficult to get the event timing wright especially with midi I/O..

do you reall think such things are easier in max? are ther event tables or alike? smother and compare modules? flip flops and other logic functions as we know them from the electronic domain?

realtime writeable gate time sequencers an easy task in max?

i really doubt that..but it well maybe that the program is better equiped fro suc tasks.. is it?

How is the timing..reaktors timing is close to perfect when done wright..very precise in the clocking ( host dependend ) and follows easily the timeline...

how is that in max? if i run a complex sequencer in max all 16 notes engaged and send that back to a live clip or outside..

are the event positions precise without any jitter ( i consider +/- 1 sample around the host clock as no jitter..) ?

It would be quite hard to decide for max and steep learning curve because its integrated to end up with inferior results...

has anybody done measurements yet?

[hoffman2k]

I'm currently teaching a Reaktor convert some M4L, so hopefully I'll be better equipped soon to explain Max to people who worked with Reaktor, Plogue Bidule, Quartz Composer and similar things. From what I picked up so far, the biggest problem is a different terminology.
If you can build a sequencer in Reaktor, it shouldn't take too long till you can do the same and better in M4L. But I'll have more details on that statement once I can back it up.

i just do sequencers in reaktor..but to get all the visual feedback wth luchpad is a hard nut.. it dont allways behaves consistent..sometimes you have to patch around strange behavior.. its sometimes difficult to get the event timing wright especially with midi I/O..

do you reall think such things are easier in max? are ther event tables or alike? smother and compare modules? flip flops and other logic functions as we know them from the electronic domain?

realtime writeable gate time sequencers an easy task in max?

i really doubt that..but it well maybe that the program is better equiped fro suc tasks.. is it?

How is the timing..reaktors timing is close to perfect when done wright..very precise in the clocking ( host dependend ) and follows easily the timeline...

how is that in max? if i run a complex sequencer in max all 16 notes engaged and send that back to a live clip or outside..

are the event positions precise without any jitter ( i consider +/- 1 sample around the host clock as no jitter..) ?

It would be quite hard to decide for max and steep learning curve because its integrated to end up with inferior results...

has anybody done measurements yet?

Like I said earlier, the biggest communication issue between Max and Reaktor users is a different terminology. I never spent much time building in Reaktor, so many of the things you just referred to sound alien to me. And I'm familiar with the electronic domain.

In regards to visual feedback on the launchpad: The device is more complex than it looks. If you read the programmer guide you can see it has 2 memories. So the speed, or at least the perceived visual speed, can be increased by efficient programming. With both API control and regular MIDI control, I'd say: Yes, M4L will work better with the launchpad than Reaktor. But you could probably make it run as efficient without the API control which is slower than MIDI.

I'm not sure which kind of sequencers you're missing, but I'll eat a hat if anything you can come up with is impossible.
Honestly, I'd pay to see you try

As for timing. Good question, I've only just started to make some timing checkers. And the result is always 0, so I'm definitely doing something wrong. As for checking it visually from a recording:



This is from Cycling's own step sequencer. Its off by about 1/10th of 1/16384th. Or 1/163840th I suppose. Live doesn't measure that far down. And it definitely can't be measured in milliseconds. Its like 1/100th of a millisecond and that is a guess..
Sequencing IN Live seems to be tighter than sequencing WITH Live, but don't quote me on that.
As for the latency of parameter modulation, that is a simple one. The delay is exactly 1 audio buffer. (eg 128 samples)

For any more measurements, you'll need to ask a MSP head to measure it all in samples. Come to think of it, maybe a phase cancellation test between clips and a Max sequencer. Maybe when I'm really bored...

[3phase]

i patched an clock jitter measuring ensemble/instrument in reaktor that can answer such questions..

http://www.3phase.de/Test/ClockJitterScope.ens.zip

but it also is an interesting question how much effort it is to patch such a measuring device in max...

it was pretty easy with reaktor because the wright tools are provided by the program.. just very simple thing..

incoming clock or audio pulses get amplified and limited.. and aplied with a negativ offset.. so we have a straight square pulse above the zero line..than the distance between uprising zero crossings is counted at samplerate.. the result is placed in a buffer..
next event arival is counted.. first buffer gets shifted to a second buffer.. first buffer is subtracted from second buffer.. result is displayed..

so you get the timing derivation from one event to the other..


and regarding the sequencers. i know thats possible.. just the amount of action and the timing precission that one achives is in question here. There was an articel regarding a max sequencer with automatic harmonic correction that goes even further than my attempts.. so it is possible with max.. but for sure not easy.. especially with sequencers its not only the code..it´s the general handling of the thing..

one of the more complikated but still simple sequencers i patched for the nord modular is still one of the most usefull on stage for me...

its a realtime sequencer but it´s designed in a way where you build up from a half bar motiv to a complete 4 bar theme, repeats what i play automatical but quantized and as soon you touch the keyboard the sequencer is off..so you can variate the theme live on stage with additional chords.. a pretty good house music sequencer..

Just to develop this motiv to scene routine in a way that you can operate it without much thinking on stage has needed much time.. and all my trys to do a more simple less cpu hungry version fail on stage because the results get more simple than aswell.. it eats 100 % on my nord and only has a pitch detection.. so i cant play stakato notes on the same pitch..

i allready have the algo to fix that..just combine pitch and velocity detection and there you go ..it only rarely misinterpretates the input than because you only rarely get the velocity the same on stakato playing on the same key..

problem.. i dont get it up to 4 bars than...

however.. i will improove it on the nord aswell..plan this since month.. but patching time?

That what scares me with max the most.. that it needs to much time.to achive the goals..

to do the same in reaktor is actuall much harder work than on the nord.. however it will be more capabel in the end...