Anyone moved from Live to Maschine?

[DrGonzo]

Just curious on your transition and what made you take the jump.

/C

[antic604]

Just curious on your transition and what made you take the jump.

/C

I don't think ANYONE uses Maschine as a only DAW, especially coming from Live. Do you?

[DrGonzo]

I don't think ANYONE uses Maschine as a only DAW, especially coming from Live. Do you?

Of course I can see that happening, why wouldn't it?

/C

[antic604]

I don't think ANYONE uses Maschine as a only DAW, especially coming from Live. Do you?

Of course I can see that happening, why wouldn't it?

Because it's so much more limiting. I tried Maschine software that came with M32 recently because of my interest in the M+ and it was terrible. Basic note editing features are not there, I don't even want to think about audio. There's no way to build complex instrument or FX chains which is trivial in Live, etc.

I can see someone (myself included) using M+ standalone to draft stuff on there to then elaborate on it in a proper DAW, but to use Maschine on a computer instead of Live - no.

[DJ Warmonger]

I'd like to try Maschine if it worked seemlessly with Live

[MLR]

I did, though I'm hosting it sometimes in Live Intro just for simple automation purposes.

Why I switched? In Live I could not create a track from hardware directly.
I also do not have to stare at screen and have nice NKS maps for all my favourite plug-ins not to mention parameter controls are not limited to 127 MIDI resolution steps.

I also choose Maschine for live sets. In this scenario I create each of my tracks as one Group only, with all patterns, macros assigned and so on. This way I can load it during live set and mix with other groups easily.
Similar approach to this one:

In my case, instead of loading everything to one project file, I can select whatever I want to play similar to DJ set. I can also run multiple instances in Live Intro and control everything from one controller.

There are limitations of Maschine software of course, but I choose to embrace them not fight with them. Imagine what was done in the past on less capable hardware or software.

Last thing to mention is cost.
For the money you get nice hardware controller and audio interface in one, great set of NI plug-ins (Komplete Select) and GB of samples. What's not to like

[DrGonzo]

Because it's so much more limiting. I tried Maschine software that came with M32 recently because of my interest in the M+ and it was terrible. Basic note editing features are not there, I don't even want to think about audio. There's no way to build complex instrument or FX chains which is trivial in Live, etc.

I can see someone (myself included) using M+ standalone to draft stuff on there to then elaborate on it in a proper DAW, but to use Maschine on a computer instead of Live - no.

I agree. Maschine is definitely more limiting. And as you said, its audio capabilities are dreadful compared with Live. But that all depends on your personal workflow, music style and requirements. What if long audio stems aren't important to you? What if you don't need creating complex instrument chains? Obviously Maschine isn't for you antic604, and that's fine. But my question wasn't about that. I'm curious about the people who made the jump from Live to Maschine and hear their story.

/C

[DrGonzo]

I did, though I'm hosting it sometimes in Live Intro just for simple automation purposes.

Why I switched? In Live I could not create a track from hardware directly.

You ever tried Push 2? I tried it out a couple of months ago and I was quite impressed with it actually. It kind of brought out Live into hardware 80-90% of the way.

There are limitations of Maschine software of course, but I choose to embrace them not fight with them.

What limitations did you find to be the biggest in your case?

Imagine what was done in the past on less capable hardware or software.

Indeed. There are people making brilliant music with just an OP1, old-school MPC, Elektrons or modern grooveboxes like Deluge and the Roland MC707.

I always felt that it all boils down to a balance between the functionality you absolutely need and workflow.

/Carl

[tooneba]

Btw it would be great video if it were produced with modular system but it is coming from just pre-sequenced software synthesizer..... What is the point of showing him pressing buttons?

Regarding limited feature set of Maschine I can see the point of it. Forcing yourself to limited tool often stimulate the creativity.

[antic604]

Because it's so much more limiting. I tried Maschine software that came with M32 recently because of my interest in the M+ and it was terrible. Basic note editing features are not there, I don't even want to think about audio. There's no way to build complex instrument or FX chains which is trivial in Live, etc.

I can see someone (myself included) using M+ standalone to draft stuff on there to then elaborate on it in a proper DAW, but to use Maschine on a computer instead of Live - no.

I agree. Maschine is definitely more limiting. And as you said, its audio capabilities are dreadful compared with Live. But that all depends on your personal workflow, music style and requirements. What if long audio stems aren't important to you? What if you don't need creating complex instrument chains? Obviously Maschine isn't for you antic604, and that's fine. But my question wasn't about that. I'm curious about the people who made the jump from Live to Maschine and hear their story.

/C

Yes, sorry - you're right

And it's not really that it isn't for me. I recognize that I've 'option paralysis' when working in DAWs, because I can do anything, so I try to do everything. I'm slowly trying to incorporate hardware in my workflow, to limit my options and focus. Therefore I recently got MPC One, I'm looking at M+ with interest, etc. But - as I said - I was very surprised how crude and basic Maschine software was on PC. Hopefully it's - much - better with an actual controller or on M+

[DrGonzo]

Yes, sorry - you're right

And it's not really that it isn't for me. I recognize that I've 'option paralysis' when working in DAWs, because I can do anything, so I try to do everything. I'm slowly trying to incorporate hardware in my workflow, to limit my options and focus. Therefore I recently got MPC One, I'm looking at M+ with interest, etc. But - as I said - I was very surprised how crude and basic Maschine software was on PC. Hopefully it's - much - better with an actual controller or on M+

I'm in the same boat as you. Trying not to get too much off the topic, but for example if I am using a toy-like thing like the Volca Sample, I come up with way more ideas than I do with a regular full-powered DAW like Live. And it's not just better productivity - the quality is way better as well.

Most of my working life I have worked as a writer in one way or another, mainly as a journalist but also as a copywriter. I never liked to write anything in word processors like Word, but always preferred to use simple tools like Notepad or Textedit. When the text is done I gladly move over to Pages/Word or whatever for formatting and to make it look good, but creative work in Word have always been hard for me.

When it comes to Maschine, I am really a beginner and I understand you perfectly when you say you weren't impressed with the Maschine software. But I'm damn impressed by the Mk3 controller. Making stuff is incredibly fluid.

I was also eyeing the M+ but I really don't know if that would add anything to my setup. When working on the Mk3 controller, it doesn't feel like you are working on the computer one bit.

/Carl

[quincy]

I'm curious about Maschine again too (not for the first time). I haven't been working for many months due to Covid situation so I've had lots of time to use Bitwig etc and that's great. I'm now working again which means that I'm using my computer for 8-9 hours a day and I've got the same problem I had in the past - I don't want to spend my entire life in front of the computer.

A fully-integrated system like Machine might not be so flexible but I believe that I could jam, have fun and make pretty full-featured tracks without even looking at the screen. Or, at the the very least, make some fun noise. The other option for me is a hardware groovebox like Roland MC-707 or probably a smaller one like the new TR-6S. Yes, they're very limited compared to a DAW but they look like a lot of fun and I'd be nowhere near a laptop or a screen.

I get "option paralysis" as well. Big time!

[MLR]

You ever tried Push 2? I tried it out a couple of months ago and I was quite impressed with it actually. It kind of brought out Live into hardware 80-90% of the way.

Yes I did, but it did not fit my workflow.
I also feel that Maschine is made with hardware control in mind. Push looks like extension of Live where you still need to use your computer.
With Maschine I feel focused on hardware.

What limitations did you find to be the biggest in your case?

I will just compare with Live as I found some factors which needed readjustment of workflow and mindset from my end.
Please keep in mind that I switched completely around 2014 and some features changed and were introduced in time.

1. Clip matrix - I was used to work with Clips in Live - this was fixed with introduction of Ideas view in Maschine, still I would love to have quantised Pattern launching and not only Scenes.

2. Audio loops - Maschine have it now but not as advanced as in Live.

3. Macros - I was used to create device chains and then map different parameters to one Macro knob. This is not possible in Maschine but I'm not using this approach anymore. Instead I create device chains, automate and use Lock states which is more fun for me.

What is the point of showing him pressing buttons?

It just to show one possible workflow to live sets using Maschine as there are many. Modulars are fun, I get it. Unfortunately I can't afford being addicted to eurocrack

[Jolaff]

A fully-integrated system like Machine might not be so flexible but I believe that I could jam, have fun and make pretty full-featured tracks without even looking at the screen.

What's funny about this is that they sells us the hardware as a way to make music without looking at the screen but they make a bigger and nicer screen on the hardware at each new MK.

[Jed]

Hi all,

I'm a long time Live/Push 2 user that has had Maschine Mk3 for about 3 years. I've had about 3 attempts at using it standalone, and have always ended up trying to integrate it into Ableton with various levels of complexity. Inevitably I would end up putting the MK3 back in its box and carry on using Live/Push.

However seeing as NI just released Arrange View 'Clips' functionality I thought I'd dust off the box and upgrade the software for another crack.

So at present I am using it in Ideas View just as I would use Session View in Ableton, and then appending the scenes to it's Arranger view to create a linear project for arranging/editing. Once at this stage the new 'Clips' can be applied around the place in the Arrange View to augment the patterns. They can be applied across pattern boundaries and can contain midi or/and audio in the one clip. They can even contain takes of audio loops if you are so inclined.

Yes the software is very different from Ableton (and in many cases not as full featured), but man I'm getting some work done and also venturing into different creative places. The hardware integration with the Ideas View is really amazing workflow wise (up there with Session View in my opinion), so I feel like I've finally broken through Maschine previous barriers in my head.

Look up Jeff Gibbons on Youtube as his Maschine videos are great.

All in all its a less is more creative environment for me - will I finish tunes only in Maschine? Prob not, but that doesn't mean it isn't a highly streamlined creative environment that currently adds hugely to my productivity.

Cheers
Jed