What is the real quality of live´s audio engine related to pro software (Logic, Protools, Cubase, ...)?
And what about live´s bounce algorythm?
It´s good enough?
Audio engine question
Re: Audio engine question
Question 1) answer: same as those mentioned providing warping is off.Rayko wrote:What is the real quality of live´s audio engine related to pro software (Logic, Protools, Cubase, ...)?
And what about live´s bounce algorythm?
It´s good enough?
Question 2) answer: Yes
OS X.5 MacBook Core 2Duo 2.2ghz, 2Gig RAM Mackie Onyx 400F m-audio BX8's, Oxygen 8, Zoom H-4, Alesis Masterlink, Bitstream 3x
http://www.udpmusic.com
http://www.udpmusic.com
Re: Audio engine question
Just 1 point here... if warping is enabled, but there's only 1 warp marker (1.1.1) and the warp tempo is set to the same value as master tempo, that clip WILL phase out completely against the unwarped clip...udp wrote:Question 1) answer: same as those mentioned providing warping is off.Rayko wrote:What is the real quality of live´s audio engine related to pro software (Logic, Protools, Cubase, ...)?
And what about live´s bounce algorythm?
It´s good enough?
Re: Audio engine question
Do YOU mean that Live isn't pro software?Rayko wrote:What is the real quality of live´s audio engine related to pro software (Logic, Protools, Cubase, ...)?
Re: Audio engine question
(but not in complex mode)Vance wrote:Just 1 point here... if warping is enabled, but there's only 1 warp marker (1.1.1) and the warp tempo is set to the same value as master tempo, that clip WILL phase out completely against the unwarped clip...udp wrote:Question 1) answer: same as those mentioned providing warping is off.Rayko wrote:What is the real quality of live´s audio engine related to pro software (Logic, Protools, Cubase, ...)?
And what about live´s bounce algorythm?
It´s good enough?
Keep thinking like that, and you won't even scratch the surface. Let us know when you've broken past the "standard" thinking, and we'll let you know how much better this is than any "pro" software.Rayko wrote:Live has maybe 10 % of the functions of a bigger secquencer. I love live. It offer us a lot of things others can´t. It´s unique. But i think it´s not pro software.
-
muthafunka
- Posts: 2247
- Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2003 5:28 pm
- Location: Tokyo
If it's good enough for Hawtin, most of the European electronic (not-so)underground, Prodigy etc and a whole slew more, then 'tis good enough for me.
You say Live only has 10% of the functions of other sequencers but damn I love that 10% more than the 90% it doesn't have! One of the reasons I love that 10% is BECAUSE it doesn't have that other clunky 90% trying to do what Live does with it's uber-smart 10%. Try setting up some of the complex audio/midi routing that you can do in Live in a matter of seconds, in something like Logic. Want to record the wet output of a send effect straight to audio? Do mixer dub by routing an fx return back into itself?....good luck
Who cares if it's 'pro'?? People listen to your ideas not what software you use, and if you learn the tool you'll learn how to make it do what you want.
I'm no Live fanboy, of course it can be improved, but if it's floating your boat why not go with it and forget the meaningless marketing blag?
You say Live only has 10% of the functions of other sequencers but damn I love that 10% more than the 90% it doesn't have! One of the reasons I love that 10% is BECAUSE it doesn't have that other clunky 90% trying to do what Live does with it's uber-smart 10%. Try setting up some of the complex audio/midi routing that you can do in Live in a matter of seconds, in something like Logic. Want to record the wet output of a send effect straight to audio? Do mixer dub by routing an fx return back into itself?....good luck
Who cares if it's 'pro'?? People listen to your ideas not what software you use, and if you learn the tool you'll learn how to make it do what you want.
I'm no Live fanboy, of course it can be improved, but if it's floating your boat why not go with it and forget the meaningless marketing blag?
MF, excellent post. And even if you are a fanboy, who cares. The bottom line is that Live can do more with its features than most other appz. On top of that, there's the unquantifiable element of experimentation and inspiration, where you can't even put a number to how much better Live shines over the traditional DAWs.
I echo MF's response - get past the marketing, and get into making some music.
I echo MF's response - get past the marketing, and get into making some music.
-
muthafunka
- Posts: 2247
- Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2003 5:28 pm
- Location: Tokyo
Anybody has ever seen live as master secquencer in a serious studio (not homestudio)? I guess the answer is no. When a professional productor face a session, he will want to have all that boring and for a lot of us useless functions because maybe he will need it.
Live is enought for me (i love it), and for a lot of recognized artist, but that not make it the correct tool for use in a full pro environment.
Anyway, the meaning of this post was not to discuss about this.
I think cubase don´t sound as logic, neither protools or digital performer. Each one has it own audio engine and his own bounce algorythm that make each one to sound different (in session and when mixdown).
Live is enought for me (i love it), and for a lot of recognized artist, but that not make it the correct tool for use in a full pro environment.
Anyway, the meaning of this post was not to discuss about this.
I think cubase don´t sound as logic, neither protools or digital performer. Each one has it own audio engine and his own bounce algorythm that make each one to sound different (in session and when mixdown).