pros and cons of maschine

I think this would depend very much on how you like to work and what control options you'd be using for Live. In my opinion, as decent as the Launchpad and APC controllers are for Live, from what I've seen/read/heard about Maschine, it seems infinitely better integrated with the software. For obvious reasons.
The things you mention would give you all the sounds (though not necessarily the actual same sounds) and functionality of Maschine and possibly a lot more but with the handicap of it not all being under one roof. And again, that word, "workflow".
I'm very much looking forward to getting and trying Maschine because I think it will suit me. I obviously can't make judgements like that about you or anyone else though.


And from what else I've read about the polyrhythmic stuff, it seems to me (though hopefully a real user will confirm or deny) that if you have different patterns of different lengths then they will stay at those lengths and therefore give the option of polyrhythms.

 

For pretty extensive polyrhythmic stuff involving multiple patterns of different lengths, it's much better to run something like Numerology inside Maschine.

There's also a way to have different length patterns in Maschine with the help of virtual midi routing:
http://modulations.noisepages.com/2011/01/sound-to-sound-midi-routing-in-maschine/

 

Changing computer with Maschine

Slightly off topic here, but couldn't find a open thread that related.

I have a Maschine Educational copy that i use and love on my Laptop, but i have just bought a new computer. Will i be able to uninstall from the laptop and then use on my new computer?

Please say yes.
Im a great supporter of NI and have spent a small fortune on your pension funds in the last year or so!

 

I don't know, I don't own Maschine yet. I went to two local stores today, but none of them had it in stock. A colleague up in Stockholm says it's no problem, but still I find the following thread in the feature suggestions forum a bit confusing:

http://www.native-instruments.com/forum/showthread.php?t=129807

I hope someone who owns Maschine can clarify the issue a little? I can't beleive it should be a problem running scenes with patterns in different lenghts?

 

It does get reset by the longest pattern by default but like I said, there are ways to do polyrhythms without having this issue. And if you're on OS X, you can use the virtual MIDI routing method right away without having to install anything because it's already built in to the OS.

 

So, if you have a 8 beat pattern in group A and a 7 beat pattern in group B, the 7 beat pattern will get reset every time the 8 beat pattern turns around? That way the 7 beat pattern would technically turn into a 8 beat pattern, like this:

A: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ...
B: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ...

If this is true, then it is a very odd behaviour of a modern sequencer.
I must be missing something here? I hope I am misunderstanding.

(Or are we talking tuplets here, where you want 7 beats in the exact same timespace as the 8 beats? That might be quite hard to do, I guess, in any sequencer.)

 

Yup.

 

Oh dear. :/

This is certainly a big con. Though I don't necessarily mean NI has tried to trick anyone.

 

Oh ****, my dream of the Maschine just popped. Everything about it sounds like the most perfect thing ever, except for this.

 

What? You do realize you can still make polyrhythms by having multiple patterns with different lengths without the resetting after the longest pattern issue, right? All you have to do is route the MIDI virtually.

 

Now I'm all confused again.

I guess the only thing for me is to try it out on the real thing, if I have the chance to. I've read your link, but it seems to adress having different groups playing the same Vst instrument, or something. I'm just talking about having the different groups going on in their own cycles without resetting each other at any point.

 

The virtual MIDI routing method is not just for plugins, it just allows you have multiple patterns of different lengths without resetting each other.

 

This is a major con! The article noiserot was refering to uses MidiYoke for windows: http://www.midiox.com/index.htm?http://www.midiox.com/myoke.htm. The latest update is 2007 and the driver is only up to win XP.... as yet Maschine still seems cripled in win7. Waiting for further information...

PS. Is the ability to turn of the default reset by longest pattern mentioned in some wishlist for future updates (if not, could someone with expertice create that for us)? You really shouldn't need any external software to do this, it's such a basic functionality.
---

When one adds recorded audio tracks to the production, it still is worthwile to do the beat production in Maschine, in terms of workflow? Isn't that really more like doing it under more roofs than doing it all in a DAW/sequencer that can do it all?

I mean, if you look at the big picture, is Maschine really an improvement in the workflow? Wouldn't you want an all in one solution for the whole production to make it as straightforward and simple as possible? And what exactly is the much hyped Mashcine workflow enhancement, could someone elaborate on that?

 

For Windows users, you don't need to use MIDI Yoke for this. You can use LoopBe which is "a native Windows 2k/XP/Vista/7 WDM kernel mode driver, so expect the lowest possible latency" and is free.

As for the workflow question, if you really have to ask, you ought to try it out for yourself and/or watch more videos because Maschine is all about the workflow.

 

Many of the videos don't go to big picture of adding vocals etc. I think that this is still a valid question, because -in terms of workflow- in an ideal world (which this is not) you would do everything in one place. I'm also interested in hearing you all to explicitly elaborate on what exactly is the Mashine workflow advantage, so it would get beyond being a mere buzzword.

Again, you shouldn't need LoopBe or any of that sort, although it's good to know it's tweakable. These kinds of workarounds harm the much valued workflow.

 

Surely workflow is more about the individual actions and more specifically the ones you do at the same time. So doing beat creation in one, tracking in another, mixing in another, and then mastering in another (for example) is not really cutting into your "workflow" because you generally don't do those simultaneously.
Like noiserot said, watch more videos or, better still, buy it and trial it for a week in the grace period (some places offer longer - shop around).

As for adding vocals, although I'm sure you can, Maschine is not yet (nor may ever be) a DAW in its general sense and so it's unfair to judge it on things it's not designed to do. But adding vocals should work as well as recording any external source. The capability is certainly there (as far as I know).

A common problem with all-in-one solutions is that they are just that and not necessarily optimized (another buzzword) for any one task, but "everything" is doable under that one roof.

I think if you're talking about ideals, it would be best to use different softwares/hardwares that are optimized for the different tasks you want to do, getting the best end result. But this is not preferable to many for various reasons.

The bottom line is that Maschine's workflow may or may not be for you, and you are the only one that can find out.

 

I guess one could look at the process more like a one big system, where beat creation and recorded vocals and instruments etc. could change dynamicaly with feedback from each others.

This is exactly the guestion: what do you think, is it better to have it all in one place (say Live) or no?

Videos are great, I will see some more of them. But again, could you articulate verbally the workflow advantage.

 

As I've said elsewhere (though perhaps not in this thread), I do not own Maschine yet, so I can't give you first hand opinions on it.

However, from what I gather from videos and users' feedback and comments, it seems that the workflow advantage could be (I stress again that it will be subjective) is centred on the hardware being the method of doing pretty much everything and to do most things it only takes a button push or two. The beauty of having the software developer develop the hardware simultaneously. Best method for integration really.
Maybe someone else can give specifics though and perhaps some examples. But then, it seems that it's something that needs to be experienced first hand (which is why I can't give a better explanation).

And yes, one big system is a good way to look at it but each component or part can be separable. Like Lego.

I certainly see the advantages of all-in-one but also the advantages of using different products for the things they're best at. I do the latter to an extent. I will be trying Maschine soon to do all the things it does. I will use Ableton to arrange the Maschine clips more easily and to do the few things I do that Maschine does not (yet) do and Reaper to use to track and record portions of audio from live sources and instruments. And then probably use one of the latter to mix with.

But it all depends on what you want to to and you like to do things. Using just Live can be done and many people do do that but for certain things it either can't do them or "workarounds" are required, which I don't really like, as I like things to be clean. Probably my OCD showing through.

 

One thing i can say for sure, having used the machine now for about 6 months,

This is a real Beast.....

BUT the manual is soooooo f***ing badly written its unreal.
Sure they have put loads of video's up which is good for general learning purposes.

But when it comes to a specific problem, the manuals are so badly written that your "workflow" don't flow no more.

On numerous occasions i have spent hours trawling through manuals (and the subsequently videos to try and find the answer to my problems).

But don't let that put you off, cos this thing is a great invention, and that is coming from someone who has programmed with drum machines starting with a Roland CR-78 /oberheim DX7 all the way to MPC 60-2500.

 

the hardware doesn't do the software justice.