Ableton Live - wow

[Meffy]

Acolmiztli, think you don't like plots? Imagine how much the salesmen at graveyards[1] must hate them!
________________________
[1] oops, I meant "cemeteries"[2]
[2] oops, I meant "memory gardens"

[headquest]

(i write this as someone whose 2 main sequencers are T2 and live4)

youre both right ... but there might be more to it too ...

Hey Rob!

You make some excellent points, too, and I think that I get where you are coming from. I think that you always had a more "experimental" approach to Tracktion than I did!

There's just one thing where I don't see eye-to-eye with you though, which is your point about completing tracks in Ableton Live.

Like you I used Live and Tracktion alongside each other for some time (about 2 years, in fact). When I decided that I was full up of Tracktion's bugs/issues/problems, I thought that I would need to find a direct replacement, and considered Cubase, Sonar and Podium as alternatives. I have come to realise though that Live's arrange view has everything I need (and bear in mind that I have Adobe Audition to do the linear recording duties that are important to Lunch Money, for example).

The arrange view seems to do everything that Tracktion's arrange view does so far as my own workflow is concerned. For example you can record and edit audio or midi directly into the arrange view and then drag + drop "filters" VST effects/instruments straight onto the track and open their properties in the lower part of the screen. Seems identical!

Then when it comes to automation the options are also similar. You can add nodes and drag automation envolopes directly over the track as in Tracktion, or record in automation using a controller just the same. In Live 4, over-and-above the Tracktion functionality you can use the pencil tool as well, which can be useful. And with the Aux return and master tracks hardwired into the arrange view, it is even quicker, easier and more logical to add automation envolopes for master fades, tempo changes, etc. I also find mixing in the session view to be very quick and easy... probably better and quicker than in Tracktion as well (especially because the aux send/return and master faders are all layed out in a logical and easy to use manner). The signal flow is lateral just as in Tracktion, which I like a lot in both programs.

This is all on top of the clip-based automation in the session view, which absolutely rocks!!

Although the Session view and gapless audio engine in Live 4 is fantastic, I find that I spend just as much time in the Arrange view. Once I have added a clip it is easy to drag out loops just like in Acid, or move clips around.

So I've come to the conclusion that Live 4 does everything from Tracktion that I needed, so I don't need to fork out for *another* program. Best of all I don;t need to invest in an expensive program that I actually don't like that much, simply to fill in a perceived void in my setup! Thank goodness for that!

So I would say that Live 4 is capable of doing complete production. Add to that the fact that it is such a joy to work in, and I think that Live 4 really is the sequencer I have been longing for for a long time

[pHz]

well said TBH ... i didnt mean to come across as saying live4 COULDNT get me to a finished track ... just that for some reason it rarely did ...

... its (as ever) a totally subjective thing ... i KNOW the arrange view in live4 does everything (and as you say - maybe even more ... there is a strong lobby for clip-based automation in T2.n as you know) that T2 does but unlike you i dont find it as comfortable to work in or as easy to do what i want ...

... when it comes down to it i think we all are trying to find a (difficult to achieve) balance between a sequencer that does what we want it to in terms of features and one that we subjectively find comfortable to use ... and its how far you overlook the former to find the latter (or vice-versa) that determines what you end up with ... in my case i can get over not (yet) having the timestetching and clip automation of live4 in T2 since i find it easier to use (for somewhat unquantifiable reasons TBH) than the ableton app (although as stated i use and enjoy both - for different purposes) ...

... the question of perception is important too ... you say you now see more of how i might be using T2 which initially quizzed me ... i think to some extent we all assume that other users see and utilise the tools we use in the same way we use them when in fact thats probably ABSOLUTELY not true ... i guess my way of using T2 is as alien to you as gregs preplanned linear approach is to me ...

... also - i dont necessarily see an inability to get stuff finished in live4 as a big issue ... i KNOW its me and not the app ... so im more than happy to use it in the way i do to throw rough ideas around knowing i can switch to another tool if i want to do something more considered or 'finished' ...

... remember folks - we 'hobbyists' (what an AWFUL word) could ALL still be tied to a four track and a shitty microphone ...

slainte rob

[headquest]

Well said Rob - I'm with you all the way there! Some really interesting and well put points

[Lunch Money]

Since we're all seeing eye-to-eye, I wouldn't want to ruin the warm fuzzy vibes; however, it should be mentioned that racks are in no way a workaround for multi-out instruments whatsoever, headquest.

They're a modular routing envirtonment, period. The fact that they can be used for multi-out instruments is simply one out of many (and for some, the least important) of their functions.

I gotta say, whether or not I'd complete any tracks, I WOULD like to have a copy of Live. It's just too expensive for me as a hobbyist. That $400 is much better spent on other needed equipment.

[headquest]

Since we're all seeing eye-to-eye, I wouldn't want to ruin the warm fuzzy vibes;

Uh-oh, you're not going to be disagreeable now are you? <ducks for cover>

however, it should be mentioned that racks are in no way a workaround for multi-out instruments whatsoever, headquest.

Strange - I'm sure that whenever people ask on the Tracktion forum how to use Multi-out instruments, other users (including you ) tell them to use racks for that... do you have another way?

They're a modular routing envirtonment, period.

I think I mentioned that... did you read my post very carefully?

The fact that they can be used for multi-out instruments is simply one out of many (and for some, the least important) of their functions.

Just out of interest, what do you use them for?

[original flipper]

HI

I sold my Live4 a few weeks ago, the reason being I work with LARGE midi clips that can require intricate manipulation - one example was a 10 minute track that had 5 lead guitar sections @170bpm, each lasting from 20 seconds to 1 minute of in your face riffs, pitch bends and notes played up and down the scale - in Logic this was a piece of cake but in Live I just looked at the midi implementation and concluded that I was on a hiding to nothing.

Tbh the only current PC host I have used that was to my liking for this type of work was SX, I do like T2 although even here the Piano-roll is less than satisfactory - I do believe that only by giving you a FULL screen to edit Midi in can this type of editing not end up giving you a headache!

Flipper.

[jegha]

i'm using live for a while und i have to say that it is an amazing sequenzer for loop audio productions, because you can try different variations very quick and the automations are quite easy as well.
one point i dislike in live is the stability and the cpu usage which are not "perfect" but also very good.in the beginning i had problems with the automation because in the clips above the automation is always there, related to the instrument, and in the arrange view it will "really" change the parameters... all in all it is a very fantastic and extremely usefull sequenzer for what you can pay that money for sure guys,
its opens lots of possibilities for me.

[headquest]

Tbh the only current PC host I have used that was to my liking for this type of work was SX, I do like T2 although even here the Piano-roll is less than satisfactory - I do believe that only by giving you a FULL screen to edit Midi in can this type of editing not end up giving you a headache!

I agree there - neither Tracktion nor Live are good for you if you really want to edit 10-minute long MIDI clips using the piano roll view.

I must admit I've been wondering who would work that way and why? You've partly answered that! If I was trying to do what you are in Live I would have the guitar solos as seperate clips, for example. And then I would have applied clip-based automation and experimented with moving the guitar solos around in the arrengement... On the one hand I think you may have slightly missed the point of Ableton Live, but on the other hand I can appreciate that you simply work a different way, and that Cubase or Sonar are better tools for that.

(I produce some very long tracks, but I tend to do lengthy MIDI sequencing in Sibelius notation - just the way I work).

[Lunch Money]

However, it should be mentioned that racks are in no way a workaround for multi-out instruments whatsoever, headquest.

Strange - I'm sure that whenever people ask on the Tracktion forum how to use Multi-out instruments, other users (including you ) tell them to use racks for that... do you have another way?

No. That doesn't make it a workaround. That's just HOW it's done. Before racks were a part of Tracktion, it simply couldn't properly handle multi-out instruments (as some hosts still can't), but with the addition of racks, the functionality was added. I don't see how that makes it a workaround. The word "workaround" is highly abused in Tracktion-land.

For the record, you won't find any threads in which I describe using racks for multi-out instruments. I've never used them for that, and multi-out instruments aren't something I really care to or need to use.

They're a modular routing envirtonment, period.

I think I mentioned that... did you read my post very carefully?

Er... not VERY carefully, no. Still haven't.

The fact that they can be used for multi-out instruments is simply one out of many (and for some, the least important) of their functions.

Just out of interest, what do you use them for?

I don't use them that often in the first place, but here's an example of what I might use it for:

(a picture says a thousand words)

[original flipper]

HI

'headquest', just to confirm I am not totally 'gone', in the example I would have 5 seperate midi clips - they simply cant be any smaller as they are solo leads, they would have been plyed over a completed rythem track and they would need to be kept (within reason) in the position that they were recorded/played - whereas the rythem track was made up of lots of 2-8 bar clips that Could be shifted around.

My point being that I probably work in a way that is not really catered for by ANY sequencer but rather I have to find a compromise, probably like everyone else .

Flipper.

[headquest]

No. That doesn't make it a workaround. That's just HOW it's done. Before racks were a part of Tracktion, it simply couldn't properly handle multi-out instruments

I would call it a workaround because it came about as a consequence of Tracktion's "no-mixer" track based paradigm. There's nothing wrong with that, either - I rather like it. But because Tracktion works that (nice and easy) way, some things (such as multi-out instruments, and aux send/return functionality) have had to be implemented in a way which "works around" that architecture.

In terms of how I used Tracktion, I was beginning to find that some of these things which "work around" the basic Tracktion paradigm ended up making the initial ease of use something of a mirage. In other words, Tracktion started out being quicker, but ended up being more complex and slower the deeper you went.

In so far as a comparisson is being drawn here, I have not found the same thing when using Live. So far at least, I am finding it very quick and easy.

They're a modular routing envirtonment, period.

I think I mentioned that... did you read my post very carefully?

Er... not VERY carefully, no. Still haven't.

That explains it, then

I don't use them that often in the first place, but here's an example of what I might use it for:

(a picture says a thousand words)

Nice picture. What is it?

As I mentioned though, Live 4 users often use Audiomulch, eXT and (in PhZ's case) Tracktion via rewire for this sort of modular functionality. Also, of course, a lot of Live 4 users enjoy working in the modular heaven that is Reason 3.0

[headquest]

My point being that I probably work in a way that is not really catered for by ANY sequencer but rather I have to find a compromise, probably like everyone else .

Flipper.

Indeed. Compromises...

Thanks for the clarification

[pHz]

As I mentioned though, Live 4 users often use Audiomulch, eXT and (in PhZ's case) Tracktion via rewire for this sort of modular functionality

just a point of clarity (and emphasis) ... i DONT rewire T2 into live ... i rewire live4 INTO T2 ... using live4 to give me something T2 doesnt have ... not the other way round ...

(again ... its all a question of viewpoint isnt it ??? )

slainte rob

[headquest]

Thanks Rob. I realised what you meant and I wasn't so clear

For the sake of anyone considering these two apps, and to clarify in full...

...Live 4 can be used as a ReWire host or as a ReWire slave
...while Tracktion can only be used as a ReWire host.

So if you plan on using both together, Tracktion has to function as the host. The only drawback here is that in ReWire slave mode, Live 4 will not itself host VSTs, which is an annoying limitation. But if you want to do timestratch/looping/etc in Live this all functions fine in ReWire slave mode.