Ableton Forum

I'm trying to start using live 5, starting to like it, but in the first project I'm working with the cpu is in 90%.
7 channels only, 5 midi - vsti, 2 audio.
If you compare Live 5/Acid 6 to Sonar,Cubase and Pro Tools, Live and Acid are toys?
Sound quality and overall features?
I guy from Guitar Center told me that yesterday and since I'm changing the sequencer for something new I should go with something like Sonar,Cubase or Pro Tools the more expensive guys....
I'm not into live sessions and stuff, only house production.
I wonder if they are not better why they are more expensive?

Pentium 4, 3 ghz 1.5 of ram.
Mbox. buffer size 4096
I used to use Acid 5.

ecsmix wrote:I'm trying to start using live 5, starting to like it, but in the first project I'm working with the cpu is in 90%.
7 channels only, 5 midi - vsti, 2 audio.
If you compare Live 5/Acid 6 to Sonar,Cubase and Pro Tools, Live and Acid are toys?
Sound quality and overall features?
I guy from Guitar Center told me that yesterday and since I'm changing the sequencer for something new I should go with something like Sonar,Cubase or Pro Tools the more expensive guys....
I'm not into live sessions and stuff, only house production.
I wonder if they are not better why they are more expensive?

Pentium 4, 3 ghz 1.5 of ram.
Mbox. buffer size 4096
I used to use Acid 5.

never believe anything guys at guitar center tell you without getting a second opinion. this is the first thing. im only half kidding, not only are they under a lot of pressure to make sales and often will stretch or outright lie to make that happen ..

retail music sales people tend to not want to look like they dont know what theyre talking about. so they will reach to sound authoritative about things they really dont know all that well*

CPU usage:

Yes live uses more CPU at this point especially using VSTs in realtime vs some of the older sequencers. But i think its a mistake to base your decision entirely on CPU usage.

.

*for instance: sound quality. no difference. debated at length here on the forum, not a single person could measure or show any difference

No, I would like to continue to use live, but I don't know if it has the same issues of acid dealing with vst insruments and effects.
I am not using live for real time presentation, I'm trying to make a music at home.
I did the same thing in sonar, without freezing the synths, cpu 12% no glitches...

ecsmix wrote:No, I would like to continue to use live, but I don't know if it has the same issues of acid dealing with vst insruments and effects.

I am not using live for real time presentation, I'm trying to make a music at home.

I did the same thing in sonar, without freezing the synths, cpu 12% no glitches...

i use live as my primary sequencer, have tried all of the others in depth enough or know others that use them (pro and semi) pro and settled on Live well over a year ago for writing purposes

i know it pretty well, enough to teach it for performance and production here in orlando (yes i live here, by UCF) and partially base a business around it

for sheer creative writing purposes: 9 out of 10 in my opinion. its a very creative efficient way of writing - amazingly so

for performance in comparison with other sequencers: 4 out of 10 in my opinion. the arrange view is more or less crippled performance wise by comparison - on anything but exactly the right hardware and preferable 2 to 3 times the recommended avg system specs

VST consumption - yes, its very bad by comparison with cubase or logic especially. and the audio performance is buggy and glitchy on far too many systems ... definitley a major problem with this version

HOWEVER even with the performance problems, the method of working and writing music cannot be beat in my experience so its more than worth sticking with

... thats saying alot .. because if it werent that amazing ... the performance problems would be enough to make me say just forget it and go back to another way of writing. a long time ago, trust me

ableton are smart guys, care about the customers, made lots of money over the past years selling this program and they are more than aware of the big showstoppers in the program

we have a lot of faith that by this fall the new version 6 will solve and improve on this so we are ploughing thru the rough spots and waiting

SO if you are looking for better arrangement performance on your tracks and better use of VSTs ... no better way than to use Live in conjunction with another sequencer for that. But keep Live imo .. learn both and dont get rid of it whatever you do ... its way too useful on so many levels bro

Contact me if you have any questions or need me to show you anything, be glad to help out (PM or site info below)

Ditto, never use a salesperson for anything else than showing you where something is if you can't find it in the store, if they don't know you allready, you can have great fun acting a little dumb and confused so you can hear them bullshit you when you ask questions.

ILTK wrote:f they don't know you allready, you can have great fun acting a little dumb and confused so you can hear them bullshit you when you ask questions.

hahaha... werd
.

I think that there has to be something wrong with maybe one of the VSTs you are using, or your system.

I know that Ableton is CPU hungry, but I can't really believe that a set that uses 90% in Ableton is only using 12% in Sonar. That's a bit hard to swallow. If you are using audio, you may want to check if "complex" mode is enabled, or check whether there is a VST that is causing troubles.

I know that at this point, we shouldn't have to worry about VSTs being problematic, but those percentages are a little to spread to be believable.

I didn't solved the problem yet but I was wondering how you guys know the volume of every track exaclty and the master.
Because there is no markers, numbers, everythi8ng should be done by ear?