Thinking of migrating from Cubase 7.x to Live 9

[ghettosynth]

If users can't see the advantage of FL over Cubase they won't see the advantage of Live either. Stick with Cubase. Simplicity is advantage for some but the others need functionality over simplicity.

One clear and distinctive advantage of Live is the Session view. Combine that with Push 2 and its fantastic integration and that is something other DAW's do not have. (including FL Studio)

Really, this is, IMNSHO, one of primary advantages of Live. I use both Live and Reaper every day. I used to use Cubase and I still like certain aspects of Cubase but Reaper has replaced it, not because Reaper does everything that Cubase does, it doesn't in fact, but it does have the things that I need frequently and a lot of subtle advantages that just make the workflow smoother for me.

If Reaper didn't exist, I would still be using Cubase for mixing and mastering. These tasks are just less pleasant in Live and they are enough so that I prefer to use something else. I would also still be using Cubase for any kind of non-electronic production as that is also not as pleasant in Live, as the aforementioned videos on comping show.

The point that I'm trying to make here, which is relevant to the OP, is that as powerful as Live is, I don't feel that it's a complete replacement for Cubase/Reaper/Logic/etc. This is especially so if you are doing more traditional production and even more so if you are doing scoring/rely on traditional notation.

I'm not saying that you couldn't do everything in Live, sure you could, but some things would be decidedly more painful. I think that it's worthwhile to add Live to any more traditional DAW as it is meaningfully better in several ways for certain kinds of composition and performance. However, unless you start there or haven't been using more traditional DAWs for very long, you probably will find some of its limitations annoying enough to want to maintain two environments.

[el-bo (formerly ebow)]

'Live' is not so suited to certain tasks, and might seem "clunky" to those used to more established paradigms. However, I think that it suffers from these long-held, limiting beliefs

Here, for your viewing pleasure, is some 'reasonable doubt':

Have you used Cubase? At any rate, here you go, comping, it sucks in Ableton. I do this regularly (never in Live) and I can tell you that copying and pasting a bunch of stuff manually is not clean a clean way to do comping. Cubase, Reaper, and even Reason, make it easy to audition which parts that you want. This is a good example of what people mean when they say live is "not so suited to certain tasks and seems clunky." Comping, among other things, is clunky in Live.

Well, like I said, I acknowledge that there are things it is not really going to do so well.

I think the op clearly has issues with Steinberg that go beyond the workflow of the software. And without knowing what music he wants to make, it is impossible to tell whether he might not actually be totally fine with 'just' Live.

If he ends up needing a more traditional environment to pair with it, then Reaper is likely a good choice, especially given the price-point (Having to keep current with Steinberg and Ableton is gonna tax the wallet)

[SODDI]

If users can't see the advantage of FL over Cubase they won't see the advantage of Live either. Stick with Cubase. Simplicity is advantage for some but the others need functionality over simplicity.

One clear and distinctive advantage of Live is the Session view. Combine that with Push 2 and its fantastic integration and that is something other DAW's do not have. (including FL Studio)

OP here. One of the things I would like is the ability to mix "in" in a more fluid manner (and on the fly) than I can in Cubase and that "Session View" interface looks like the thing.

However, I don't know if I could let loose of my lanes... 30+ years on them lanes.

[ghettosynth]

I think the op clearly has issues with Steinberg that go beyond the workflow of the software. And without knowing what music he wants to make, it is impossible to tell whether he might not actually be totally fine with 'just' Live.

Possibly, but, I want to make clear, that I do ALL of my final mixing and mastering in Reaper. I find that the advantages of live for performance actually hinder my mixing process. Specifically, navigating between plugins in long chains isn't as fast in Live as it is in Reaper. What's great for live performance slows me down in mixing. I don't need to see all of the effects at the same time, I just need to switch between them quickly. Reaper's mixer/fx view is just better than Live's in this respect. Cubase is better yet, but, like I said, I'm kind of done with Cubase.

If he ends up needing a more traditional environment to pair with it, then Reaper is likely a good choice, especially given the price-point (Having to keep current with Steinberg and Ableton is gonna tax the wallet)

Agreed, but it does mean learning something new. I got into Reaper during the Cubase 5/5.5 days where it was crashing non-stop. Had Cubase been more stable back then, I might never have invested time into Reaper. While I agree that keeping up with both can get expensive. It probably isn't that bad if you're already keeping up with Cubase. Just skip the Cubase upgrade in years that a Live paid upgrade comes out. The cost will be about the same and you'll actually get on a slightly better Cubase upgrade path, namely, just skip the x.0 versions.

[SODDI]

(snip)
I think the op clearly has issues with Steinberg that go beyond the workflow of the software. )

Absolutely, I will never do business with Steinberg again - but also no. I really miss working in Audiomulch which had a unique workflow and I seriously miss those contraptions - but right now it is not feasible. Last PC rev was 2013.

And without knowing what music he wants to make, it is impossible to tell whether he might not actually be totally fine with 'just' Live. )

All studio stuff. Little 3 minute surrealistic sonic watercolors. Dark landscapes. Imagine Ernst's "Europe After The Rains" as a pop song. I'm not really very good, but I do what I do.

As I said in an earlier post, I want to take more control over the mix, make that mix and effects part of the electronic music composition process, pull those into the synthesis process.

Maybe I'm not thinking clearly.

[ghettosynth]

All studio stuff. Little 3 minute surrealistic sonic watercolors. Dark landscapes. Imagine Ernst's "Europe After The Rains" as a pop song. I'm not really very good, but I do what I do.

As I said in an earlier post, I want to take more control over the mix, make that mix and effects part of the electronic music composition process, pull those into the synthesis process.

Maybe I'm not thinking clearly.

Um, your friend is right, get live. If I didn't quite care so much about kind of staying on the DL here, I'd share my "music." Live is not audiomulch, but, a lot of what you want from audiomulch, and I recall this from a conversation with you about Reaktor vs audiomulch, is there in Live, especially with MFL.

If you're done with Steinberg, and I get that, download Reaper and try to see it as a swiss army knife of audio production.

Once you have live, start thinking in terms of putting your plugins inside of audio effects racks and mapping the controls to the live knobs. I find it helpful to turn off the default setting of having the plugins appear when you select the enclosing live instrument/effect. Once you try this you'll know what I mean. It also loads faster this way.

One of the other advantages of live is how it manages audio cleanly while you drag and drop new effects into various parts of the chains. This is something like how audiomulch works/feels while you're using it.

Seriously mate, you want Live. Then, if you're annoyed by some aspects of it, consider Reaper as an inexpensive add on to make life a little easier.

[thecontrolcentre]

All studio stuff. Little 3 minute surrealistic sonic watercolors. Dark landscapes. Imagine Ernst's "Europe After The Rains" as a pop song. I'm not really very good, but I do what I do.

As I said in an earlier post, I want to take more control over the mix, make that mix and effects part of the electronic music composition process, pull those into the synthesis process.

Maybe I'm not thinking clearly.

Get Live for sure. Its the only DAW I use since Cubase on the Atari. Its great for quickly getting little sound sculptures together. Routing is excellent. Its a super sampler that hosts plugins.

[tooneba]

There you go. That's what I said. Some people think the Live's simplicity is advantage for them over Cubase's functionality. Same goes for DAW XXX (are we currently chatting about FL? then insert FL.).

It's just about if you comprehend the logic behind it and how you define the advantage. You should read carefully that I wrote see not feel. Our comprehension is nothing to do with our feeling. (Some fanboys began to overreact as I expected though )

No, that isn't what you said, and, I'm not a purist about anything. If you don't want people to overreact then don't make false statements.

I write what I want and you aren't mod so I don't have to follow your order And what I said is written in this thread. So that's what I said lol. When did I said I don't want people to overreact? Don't judge things.

I didn't imagine specific user as fanboy but you felt offended and overreacted. But that is that.

[el-bo (formerly ebow)]

Possibly, but, I want to make clear, that I do ALL of my final mixing and mastering in Reaper

Though I only have 'intro', and have yet to make much headway I imagine I could get away with doing it all in Live. I have more of a mix-as-I-go workflow, so rarely end up with final mixing being much more than levelling up, and small adjustments. As for comping: Never used it. I still just tend to re-record complete passes till I'm happy

[el-bo (formerly ebow)]

And without knowing what music he wants to make, it is impossible to tell whether he might not actually be totally fine with 'just' Live. )

All studio stuff. Little 3 minute surrealistic sonic watercolors. Dark landscapes. Imagine Ernst's "Europe After The Rains" as a pop song. I'm not really very good, but I do what I do.

As I said in an earlier post, I want to take more control over the mix, make that mix and effects part of the electronic music composition process, pull those into the synthesis process.

Maybe I'm not thinking clearly.

Sounds like Live would seem much more suitable.

However, have you looked at Usine's 'Hollyhock II? (Soon to be 'III', apparently). I'd imagine that it is much more akin to the 'Audiomulch' flow that you are used to. Even if you weren't to use it as your main daw, it certainly seems like a great sound-design playground

[ghettosynth]

Possibly, but, I want to make clear, that I do ALL of my final mixing and mastering in Reaper

Though I only have 'intro', and have yet to make much headway I imagine I could get away with doing it all in Live. I have more of a mix-as-I-go workflow, so rarely end up with final mixing being much more than levelling up, and small adjustments. As for comping: Never used it. I still just tend to re-record complete passes till I'm happy

Well, then you are kind of contradicting yourself. You were saying that the differences come down to bias, I'm saying that the differences are real and I gave an example. Comping was just one example, there are others. With all due respect, if you are just using intro then you cannot possibly be getting the most out of live, intro is just too limited. It doesn't sound like you really have the experience to judge whether or not live is clunky compared to cubase. If you never comp and your mixing is just adjusting levels in a rather limited product, then really almost any DAW will be able to do that.

I mean seriously, how can you take issue with someone else saying that Live is clunky for some tasks when you don't use enough of the product to really understand what they're talking about? To be clear, cubase has its own clunk factor as well, it's just not the same as live's.