Ableton Live 4 versus Cubase

[kuniklo]

I tried every Live demo with every new version and I really don't see what others seem to see in it.
In my eyes it' a very one way directional concept.

May I humbly suggest then that you're still not really getting it?

I can imagine choosing Cubase over Live for various reasons but if you don't see anything interesting in Live you're not looking hard enough.

[kagemusha]

I tried every Live demo with every new version and I really don't see what others seem to see in it.
In my eyes it' a very one way directional concept.

May I humbly suggest then that you're still not really getting it?

I can imagine choosing Cubase over Live for various reasons but if you don't see anything interesting in Live you're not looking hard enough.

I'm getting it very well. I'm just not intrested in playing arround with loops, shrinking and strechting them etc. the whole Live paradigm is focused on that (even in arrange view)
I know it has midi now but it isn't sufficient for me.

I think there is notting much to understand in live and it's popular for that reason. And for the opposite reason Cubase is less popular.

[pHz]

I'm getting it very well. I'm just not intrested in playing arround with loops, shrinking and strechting them etc. the whole Live paradigm is focused on that (even in arrange view)

once you get your head around the fact that the 'loops' youre manipulating can be any length there really isnt ANY practical difference between the live4 concept and other linear sequencers (other than the great implementation of an alternative approach to sequencing and speed of composing)

I know it has midi now but it isn't sufficient for me.

then that IS a valid reason for not using live4 rather than basing your dislike on a mistaken interpretation of an apps raison d'etre

I think there is notting much to understand in live and it's popular for that reason. And for the opposite reason Cubase is less popular.

hmmmnnn ... is that the whiff of elitism i can smell ... perhaps live is popular because it does what it does REALLY well ... besides to say cubase is less popular than live is a bit of a mistaken view surely (despite what ableton might like to be the case) ???

slainte rob

[mike.0]

I think you might have missed the main unique feature of Live. The "clip launch" modes. You can create some complex compositional structures with this. Check the "launching clips" section in the PDF manual

[kuniklo]

I'm getting it very well. I'm just not intrested in playing arround with loops, shrinking and strechting them etc. the whole Live paradigm is focused on that (even in arrange view)
I know it has midi now but it isn't sufficient for me.

I think there is notting much to understand in live and it's popular for that reason. And for the opposite reason Cubase is less popular.

Sorry dude but you're making it pretty clear you haven't spent enough time in Live to judge it. I can understand feeling that the midi editing is inadequate but if you think it's just about stretching loops you're missing the boat.

[Kraku]

I suggest everyone who's trying out the Live to go through the seven short tutorials that are in the Help menu. When you're done with them, you know most important stuff about Live to get you really going. It also shows you some very neat things which you might not have though by yourself

When I first tried Live 4 I wasn't impressed, until I tried the tutorials. I ordered mine two days after that

[paradiddle]

I'm for live 4 for practically for all the reasons above (especially phz's remarks). It's much more than a looping software and it offers you different ways to produce music in general, be it live playing/recording, sound designing, arranging by hand, remixing, ect. IMHO live 4 puts the fun back in producing music.

But if you are looking a for a full featured traditional DAW, go with cubase/logic/sonar,ect.

[Goa Head]

As a long time Cubase user, this thread has got me interested in seeing what I'm 'missing'. I tried the Live demo, bout a year ago and I can't really comment much since I was completely lost. Now, I just tried the latest demo, and ran through some of the tutorials. I can't really see what the big deal is though? I've read through all your comments, and still... I HAVE to be missing something. I don't want this to sound cocky or rude, but what is the big deal...?

Is it because I'm not a loop based artist? Is it because the workflow looks really lousy (I need a right click menu option!), and the windows are very cluttered? Or is it because I've been using Cubase for too long and EVERYTHING seems ass backwards?

Enlighten me... Please.

[original flipper]

HI

The one thing I would say 'Goa head' having recently been using SXV3 is that perhaps it is the opposite - SX is too spread out with parts of the interface like the mixer, toolbars and inspector (to name a few) seemingly taking up lots of screen real estate.

I know you can get loose of most of them but Live does fit a lot into a small area - I think both platforms cry out for a BIG or dual monitor set-up.

Flipper.

[drez]

...Or is it because I've been using Cubase for too long and EVERYTHING seems ass backwards?

I think that the paradigm shift is probably the biggest issue for cubase/sonar/etc users. I never liked cubase much because I didn't like the workflow. I write in "thoughts", so clips were perfect for me. I can slap a bunch of thoughts together in Live and then arrange as I like.

For writing, it is amazing. It has totally changed the way I do things because I used to NOT be able to work how I work best. Live allows me to do that. Then when I'm ready to "collect my thoughts", I can put them together in the arrangment view and I can do linear just like any other sequencer.

[EnzymeX]

Every time I open Live 4 to learn more about it's capabilities, I end up writing a new song.

Every time I open up Sonar 3 to write a song, I end up learning more about it's technical "features".

FWIW, I put Sonar and Cubase in the same category - deep, but to the point of drowning. IMO, tracking workflow is much faster and more spontaneous in Live.

[Goa Head]

HI

The one thing I would say 'Goa head' having recently been using SXV3 is that perhaps it is the opposite - SX is too spread out with parts of the interface like the mixer, toolbars and inspector (to name a few) seemingly taking up lots of screen real estate.

I know you can get loose of most of them but Live does fit a lot into a small area - I think both platforms cry out for a BIG or dual monitor set-up.

Flipper.

Window Layouts are your friend. Having my project window maxed on a 19' monitor, while quickly jumping to my Mixer / VST(i) with the press of a quick key command is lovely. Folder tracks are nice too.

[Goa Head]

...Or is it because I've been using Cubase for too long and EVERYTHING seems ass backwards?

I think that the paradigm shift is probably the biggest issue for cubase/sonar/etc users. I never liked cubase much because I didn't like the workflow. I write in "thoughts", so clips were perfect for me. I can slap a bunch of thoughts together in Live and then arrange as I like.

For writing, it is amazing. It has totally changed the way I do things because I used to NOT be able to work how I work best. Live allows me to do that. Then when I'm ready to "collect my thoughts", I can put them together in the arrangment view and I can do linear just like any other sequencer.

Can I ask you drez... What style of music do you ussually write? Maybe Live just doesn't really fit my 'genre', whatever that is. From the tutorials it seems that you create 'sections' and arrange them in a more formatic way. Is that correct? I can't see the ease of using this system in complex arrangements, and ever changing sequences.

Please correct me if I'm wrong... And I'll dive back into this demo to see if I can pull back a few more layers.

[quincy]

...Or is it because I've been using Cubase for too long and EVERYTHING seems ass backwards?

I think that the paradigm shift is probably the biggest issue for cubase/sonar/etc users. I never liked cubase much because I didn't like the workflow. I write in "thoughts", so clips were perfect for me. I can slap a bunch of thoughts together in Live and then arrange as I like.

For writing, it is amazing. It has totally changed the way I do things because I used to NOT be able to work how I work best. Live allows me to do that. Then when I'm ready to "collect my thoughts", I can put them together in the arrangment view and I can do linear just like any other sequencer.

Can I ask you drez... What style of music do you ussually write? Maybe Live just doesn't really fit my 'genre', whatever that is. From the tutorials it seems that you create 'sections' and arrange them in a more formatic way. Is that correct? I can't see the ease of using this system in complex arrangements, and ever changing sequences.

Please correct me if I'm wrong... And I'll dive back into this demo to see if I can pull back a few more layers.

The thing is, if you have a long sequence that has many changes, this can be a single clip, played over a long period. Other clips can be triggered and played in whatever order/timing you require.

The point is that a clip doen't need to be a short loop, it can be as long as you want.

Another point is that you can basically use arrangement view as a traditional sequencer and recorder if you wish, recording your playing directly into the arrangement window. This can then be diced, parts edited using warp markers in session view, dragged back over and re-arranged etc.

I think people may under-estimate the capabilities of live with regard to ease of recording, bouncing to audio and the general flexibility of arragenment view.

[kuniklo]

As a long time Cubase user, this thread has got me interested in seeing what I'm 'missing'. I tried the Live demo, bout a year ago and I can't really comment much since I was completely lost. Now, I just tried the latest demo, and ran through some of the tutorials. I can't really see what the big deal is though?

The big difference between Live and all the other hosts is that all the other hosts are essentially linear. Live lets you bring elements in and out independently and lets you jump back and forth among them at whatever quantise resolution you want. This gives it an improvisational, spontaneous feel and makes it more like an instrument and less like a glorified multi-track recorder.

Virtually *everything* in the interface can be bound to a key command or midi event. Live does have some unique and powerful tools for dealing with loops but you don't have to loop anything.

The three major downsides for me for Live right now are:
1. You can only see one automation curve at a time. This isn't a show-stopper but it is a hassle. You also have to select each curve from a huge dropdown menu of cryptic names.

2. If you fiddle with controls on a vst while you're recording Live doesn't record this as automation. You have to explicitly midi map everything and then it all gets recorded as cc data instead of parameter automation.

3. You can't make aliased copies of clips in the session view. If you make a change to a bassline you're using in 10 scenes, for instance, you have to copy it over all 9 other instances.

Even with these limitations I've produced a lot more actual *music* with Live 4 in a few months than in a year with Sonar and Cubase. This is all kinds of stuff too, ambient, electro, house-y stuff. I can imagine Live might not be so great for more traditional rock etc. stuff but for electronic stuff it's brilliant.