Why is Logic Pro only on macs

[kkkkkkkkk]

Mojkarma, sorry buddy, but your comment about rearranging things in the mixer is totally false. I can create any mix, in any order, of outputs, audio tracks, instrument tracks, busses, etc in any way I want. You've really messed up on this one, wow. This is like the first KVR discussion I've taken part in, and its astonishing.

Oh, and the environment is not a "mixer", and using it as such provides no benefits at all. The enviornment is for routing things, setting up objects, etc. The track mixer is suited for mixing purposes.

It's obvious you are hardly a pro at logic and you really should not step into discussions about software you don't know much about.

And your comment about midi channel strips in the environment....again, the environment is not a mixer! Use the track mixer. But even if for some reason you do want a midi channel strip in the enivornment, it is possible to create a GM midi mixer.

I can't believe you would even talk about these subjects, lol.

[kkkkkkkkk]

its just that core duo is leaps ahead of everything, the ppc chip was always on par with the pentiums, that is fact, not some inferioriity-complex bullshi*#

oh, the core duo is not "leaps ahead of everything" and the mentioned 1,66 core duo would probably end up being comparably fast or a little slower than i.e. a 2,x ghz single core dothan which has been on the market since...3 years or so? that still makes it a lot faster than any mobile G4 solution you could ever buy. which leads to the conclusion, that maybe the G4 was indeed not THAT fast...(even mac magazines realize that its ok to admit it now that its out of the way )

its all good. but a little sarcasm must be allowed, thinking of all the marketing BS during apple presentations, or how they removed the site with the fake speed comparisons from apple.com and all that stuff. that was very funny, thats all i wanted to say

G4's are a very old processor. To compare them to the newest processors of today is not a very accurate comparison. When they were introduced, they were on par with pentiums of that time, that is a FACT!

G5's were not good for mobile use, so apple didn't even try and adopted the blazing fast core duo's. That is a good company

[janfree1]

nope. I realize it doesnt make sense, but I only get latency when using software monitoring an outisde sound source, but the virtual instruments work great with the 1024 buffer

YEAH it doesn't make sense mathematically
one thousand twenty-four samples takes some time to get thru
there is no way round it
if by 'NO latency' U mean 'less than 13 ms' or some kinda deal like that.
may be.
I stand by my little j'accuse there sweety
a drummer will feel those one thousand and twenty-four samples no matter what
If you could promise me NO LATENCY @ 1024
I love U LONG TIME, TEN DOLLA

[kkkkkkkkk]

well yeah, not 0, but it feels like the 128 buffer setting. I find, as a professional music producer, it is definitely useable for keyboard and quantized parts.

[.jon]

Far from usable.

[fabi]

its just that core duo is leaps ahead of everything, the ppc chip was always on par with the pentiums, that is fact, not some inferioriity-complex bullshi*#

oh, the core duo is not "leaps ahead of everything" and the mentioned 1,66 core duo would probably end up being comparably fast or a little slower than i.e. a 2,x ghz single core dothan which has been on the market since...3 years or so? that still makes it a lot faster than any mobile G4 solution you could ever buy. which leads to the conclusion, that maybe the G4 was indeed not THAT fast...(even mac magazines realize that its ok to admit it now that its out of the way )

G4's are a very old processor. To compare them to the newest processors of today is not a very accurate comparison. When they were introduced, they were on par with pentiums of that time, that is a FACT!

G5's were not good for mobile use, so apple didn't even try and adopted the blazing fast core duo's. That is a good company

idiot. he compared a processor that's three years old with the current 1,66 core duo, which doesn't show much performance difference. i.e. the g4 must have really sucked... really easy to follow... wonder why you couldn't do it. idiot.

now if the facts are right is a different question... but at least try to follow his argument...

[derek]

G4's are a very old processor. To compare them to the newest processors of today is not a very accurate comparison. When they were introduced, they were on par with pentiums of that time, that is a FACT!

G5's were not good for mobile use, so apple didn't even try and adopted the blazing fast core duo's. That is a good company

youre missing the point, the dothan *is* an old CPU as well and was the direct competition. its not helping if you call anything intel since 60 mhz a "pentium", but if that helps, the dothan is not some shiny new intel development but a CPU most people knew as "mobile pentium" or "centrino" (both terms that were used for several generations of CPUs). you are right, the G4 was as fast as comparable intels when it was released back in the day. but during its run and the loooong wait for the G5, it fell behind, more and more and more. in the late days of the G4, you had overclocked dual G4 workstations that were as loud as an airplane yet still couldnt hold a candle even to middle class intel or amd, and you had laptops where you basically had to live with the fact that they were a lot slower than the competition because buying a laptop with the outdated G4 CPU was the only option avaiable to mac users. so the reason why even hardcore mac magazines confirm that a core duo is up to 5 times as fast is not so much due to the amazing speed of the core duo (which is more or less the same as with comparable dual systems that have been on the market for quite a while, such as the AMD stuff or the G5s) as you state, but because the G4s development basically came to a halt years ago, yet apple sold it until just recently (and maybe still does). and that apple "didnt even try" to get a G5 laptop to work is putting quite a spin on things, dont you think?

anyway, thats all old news. again, i just was in the mood for a cynical comment about the fake benchmarks and how they were basically forced to admit that they were stretching the truth there quite a bit. if i may

[beej]

First, you cannot move and rearrange the tracks in logics mixer at all. End of discussion. You can move/rearrange objects in the environment which looks like mixer channels.

Logic effectively has two mixers, the track and environment ones. The first is intended *exactly* for the purpose of not having to manually do anything - like most other DAW's, channels will be displayed here automatically depending on what you are using in the arrange. Incidentally, I never (well, very seldom) use the track mixer.

The environment mixer let's you create your own mixer to suit your own purposes (this is the one I always use). I also don't have to manually add channels because I set it up exactly how I wanted, which everything accessible and laid out to my preferences - and this is vastly more preferable to me than how many other DAW's do it.

Calling the track mixer "real" and the audio layer somehow inferior is confusing the issue. They are two different but similar ways of mixing, and can be used together or in isolation depending on your preferences. The track mixer is no more or less "real" the the environment mixer, but they do have different advantages and disadvantages.

My environment audio layer is a perfectly functional mixer, thanks very much.

But the environment mixer is not a real mixer and logic 7 forces you to use the intended mixer view instead of the environment.

Logic doesn't force anything. Like I say, I've been mixing in Logic for many years without using the track mixer. The environment mixer is a *real* mixer, whatever you are defining that as.

In the environment you will see all activated audio objects and it can be quite a mess to work with there because logic shows you all possible audioobjects, aux's, instruments, busses etc.

In there, Logic shows me *exactly* what I want to see, nothing more or nothing less. Nothing messy about mine. Don't forget you can put stuff on other layers too, if you need it available but not visible on your current layer.

More important: you cannot copy/move effects from one slot to another. This is only possible in the "real" mixer (Logic 7).

And in the arrange channelstrips. I agree, that feature is missed from the audio layer, and would be nice to have.

I think it is far better to use and configurate multiple mixer screens, which shows you only the kind of tracks you want instead of fiddling arround with rearranging some channelstrips in the environment. Not to mention that you cannot see midichannelstrips at all in the environment mixer.

Whatever works for you is cool. I find it *far* more ergonomic to have my mixer set up as it is, with audio chanels along the top and audio instrument channels, busses, auxes and masters along the bottom, all on one screen. I don't want to have to flip between several screens to compare levels, I want an overview of everything at once.

Oh, and I never have to fiddle with rearranging channelstrips. The beauty of Logic being so customisable is that you can create your own workflow that best suits you, and people's workflows and preferences are all different. However, I do see a *lot* of Logic users who've never really configured Logic to their workflow and consequently they are making life a lot harder for them than it could be - and they often incorrectly blame those workflow failings on Logic, rather than taking the responsibility to learn their tools effectively.. A couple of hours teaching them effective screenset use, setting up keycommmands for important functions, demonstrating linked windows and setting up their autoloads almost always hugely benefits their workflows.

[Sascha Franck]

mojkarma, fortunately I don't have to reply to the utter nonsense you posted anymore, because others have already proven you wrong in all aspects.
What you don't seem to understand is that in Logic I *can* have it exactly like in Cubase (just that I won't be limited to 3 mixers) and I *can* configure things by my own as much as I want.
Try to drag, say, a Kontakt channel 4 instrument's mixer channel (featuring, say, a bass) next to your Battery drum channels in Cubase. Now, just try and tell me about Cubase's mixer superiority again.
I know about the advances of Cubase. But if there's one thing being MILES behind Logic, it's gotta be the pisspoor mixer.

[mojkarma]

There are more then one replay to my post, so I'll try to give a summary answer.
First Jeffason, I never said that I'm a pro, but I think that I now more than enough about logic and what can be where done in it.

Once again. If my Logic is setup with 128 audiotracks and 64 busses and 32 audioinstruments and 32 aux channels, I will see them all in the environment on the audiolevel.
Simply, the audiolevel in the arrange shows you every possible and activated audioobject. Those can be moved, rearranged and whatever you want. IMHO, not the most ergonomic place to mix a song. Ok, I can move unnecessary audioobjects onto another layer, so what. Should I bring some of them back everytime I need them.

"Oh, and the environment is not a "mixer", and using it as such provides no benefits at all. The enviornment is for routing things, setting up objects, etc. The track mixer is suited for mixing purposes."

That's what I said with other words, what is your problem? You are calling me a non-pro (not that I care about your opinion), but you miss the whole intention of my post, so a third time for you: I was replaying to Sascha about some great features of Logic's mixer.
I wanted to make clear that in Logics mixer YOU CANNOT MOVE NEITHER REARRANGE THE CHANNELSTRIPS. Actually, Logic has two mixers: A Trackmixer and an Audiomixer which is not even selectable under the windows menu in Logic. The Audiomixer is actually the audio level from the environment, and no thank you I don't need a gm midi channelstrip. I need some specific ones for my outboard gear and they are not shown in the audiolevel of the environment, and I don't want to spend my precious time on creating something there, just to be able to see all channels (regardless if midi or audio) on that level.

The trackmixer (command+2) is the mixer which shows you all channels which are used in your song. Those channelstrips reflect the trackorder of your arrange and they cannot be moved.

"It's obvious you are hardly a pro at logic and you really should not step into discussions about software you don't know much about."

Now, go and read my first and this post again. And, BTW, don't forget to tell beej that he is also not a pro and doesn't know very much about logic because he is also using the environment mixer as a mixer, instead "for routing things, setting up objects, etc."

[derek]

Try to drag, say, a Kontakt channel 4 instrument's mixer channel (featuring, say, a bass) next to your Battery drum channels in Cubase. Now, just try and tell me about Cubase's mixer superiority again.
I know about the advances of Cubase. But if there's one thing being MILES behind Logic, it's gotta be the pisspoor mixer.

NP, you use group channels, big deal
ill take truly sample precise latency compensation in all mixer areas over the environment mess any day and i personally find 4 separate mixers much more useful than arranging everything in one. with the all in one approach as most people do it with the environment, you end up scrolling a lot more as if you would simply recall different mixers for VSTIs, audio or group channels. thats not really ment as a negative comment towards logic (if i wanted to whine about why i dont like logic, i would definetly start with the arrange and editing aspects) but as a recommendation, since you could setup logic in a similar way. i can only recommend to any logic user to try the approach. admittedly, having separate mixer windows sounds more complex on paper, but in real life, its faster, simply because its faster to press a key than to scroll through a big window. not to mention that its a cleaner approach when you work with extreme 200+ track projects...

of course, the most efficient way in most situations is to not use the classic mixing window at all but use channel strip views inside the arranger, something that both programs can do nicely. most people i know (including myself) tend to use the traditional mixing window only because theyre so used to it - if you think about it, in most cases theres really no need to go to the mixing window in the first place...

[mojkarma]

mojkarma, fortunately I don't have to reply to the utter nonsense you posted anymore, because others have already proven you wrong in all aspects.
What you don't seem to understand is that in Logic I *can* have it exactly like in Cubase (just that I won't be limited to 3 mixers) and I *can* configure things by my own as much as I want.
Try to drag, say, a Kontakt channel 4 instrument's mixer channel (featuring, say, a bass) next to your Battery drum channels in Cubase. Now, just try and tell me about Cubase's mixer superiority again.
I know about the advances of Cubase. But if there's one thing being MILES behind Logic, it's gotta be the pisspoor mixer.

Now, please help a stupid guy who is talking nonsense and explain him how to put the midichannel 8 (playing the bass from his MotifES) next to his Battery drum channels in the mixer.

[Sascha Franck]

i personally find 4 separate mixers much more useful than arranging everything in one. with the all in one approach as most people do it with the environment, you end up scrolling a lot more as if you would simply recall different mixers for VSTIs,

You can do EXACTLY the same in Logic.

And I won't even reply to mojkarma's clueless "you can't rearrange mixer channels" blurb anymore. You can't, in the trackmixer, true. But you can, in the environment, easily.
Nothing less than in Cubase, but MORE functionality.

[Sascha Franck]

Now, please help a stupid guy who is talking nonsense and explain him how to put the midichannel 8 (playing the bass from his MotifES) next to his Battery drum channels in the mixer.

Create a fader object, set the output, move it next to your Battery channel.

[derek]

i personally find 4 separate mixers much more useful than arranging everything in one. with the all in one approach as most people do it with the environment, you end up scrolling a lot more as if you would simply recall different mixers for VSTIs,

You can do EXACTLY the same in Logic.

i pointed that out in my post too, didnt i? let me check...yes, i did. please read the entire post before posting caps lock comments, thx