Ableton Forum

Hi, as much as I love the session view, one of the frustrations I have is the inability to store FX chains with individual clips. Each new FX chain requires a whole new track. So for example if I want 3 different hihat lines - say, one standard, one with some weird delay panning FX, 1 with a different eq setting and reverb, etc... - I have to create 3 tracks to handle this. PITA. What I'd really like to do is 1) make hihat line 2) copy clip 3) add FX to new clip 4) go to 2) and repeat. The end result being many different clips on the same track with different FX, without having to worry about the logistics of continously adding new tracks.

How to implement this?
I think the key to avoiding CPU shock is to automatically freeze the clip when editing is done. It doesn't have to be complex: for audio clips, just add a tab in the clip view for 'clip effects', when the app focus moves away from the clip, freeze it by rendering the FX to a new wav. For midi clips, allow midi clips to be dragged to an audio track - at which point the midi clip is automatically rendered to a wav. However, when the clip is selected it is automatically unfrozen, clip FX can be added and the midi events/automation can be edited (Midi tracks can remain exactly as they are now).

Some apps like Tracktion, Sonar, and Samplitude allow for FX to be applied to individual clips on a track, but they don't have the cool session view. I think this could be a nice addition to live, especially as it is billed as a clip-based proggie. What do you think?

assuming you have Live 6; there are multiple ways to achieve this with racks..

you can create different fx device chains for each clip on the same track..

OK thanks, you can do something almost similar with the rack chainer. The downside is that you can't freeze/unfreeze clips individually, you have to do the entire track at once. If pushing the CPU hard clip FX would offer some advantages.

But I have to say, now that I know about the rack chainer the added complexity of implementing clip FX doesn't really seem worth it after all .

qwanta wrote:The downside is that you can't freeze/unfreeze clips individually, you have to do the entire track at once. If pushing the CPU hard clip FX would offer some advantages.

you can automate different fx chains for each clip..
so that if you freeze the track, each clip has it's own fx in the audio file..

you can then drag/copy these frozen clips to an audio track and unfreeze the midi track again for further editing..

Poster wrote:you can automate different fx chains for each clip..
so that if you freeze the track, each clip has it's own fx in the audio file..

you can then drag/copy these frozen clips to an audio track and unfreeze the midi track again for further editing..

But for further editing of 1 clip you have to unfreeze the whole track, ie. all the clips on the track. With a high number of clips with intensive FX this might push your CPU over the edge, when all you really needed was to unfreeze 1 clip.

hhmm.. agreed..
but if FX don't process any audio they don't eat cpu..

really? I didn't know that, but that's certainly very cool if it works (I thought this was only part of the VST3 spec.)

Poster wrote:hhmm.. agreed..
but if FX don't process any audio they don't eat cpu..

This is correct for Live's fx, but not always for third party fx.

onslaught wrote:

Poster wrote:hhmm.. agreed..
but if FX don't process any audio they don't eat cpu..

This is correct for Live's fx, but not always for third party fx.

you're right..
not really aware of this since I don't use that much 3rd party stuff..