Why is Logic Pro only on macs

[derek]

As a sidebar, I used to get so frustrated about using multitimbral plugins in Logic, until I learned that there was a super-easy way to do it. Simply put the plug in Inst 1, Change Inst 2's channel assignment (in the parameters box - on the arrange page) to point to Inst 1, then change the MIDI channel on Inst 2 to channel 2. So now the channelstrip labelled Inst 2 actually plays Inst 1, MIDI channel 2. Simple as pie. And if you look at the Track Mixer, it appears as if Inst 2 has a second instance of the same plugin loaded, when, in fact, there is only one instance loaded. Now, if only Logic could automatically divide the audio stream generated by the plugin in such an arrangement...

still sounds kinda frustrating to me...no big deal, but in a thread where the titanic sinks because you may want to hide unneeded VSTI outputs and a missing feature like dragging plugins makes logic MILES ahead because the feature NOT EVEN REMOTELY exists in cubase, it might be worth pointing that out

What I find in Logic is that there is usually a simple (or simpler) way to do what you're doing, but it may take you years to discover and incorporate it. And then you go "doh!"...

its what i like to call "optionitis". every program has some of that. except maybe "we are so the standard that you dont need personalized key shortcuts" protools, that one would be the other side of the medal

[stilaktive]

Why wont it come to pc.

apple dont want some pc freak to be able to rape their latest machine with a custom job at a fraction of the price?

[TeeLangSun]

also using the environment mixer as a mixer, instead "for routing things, setting up objects, etc."

LOL. Me too, but I have an excuse. I've only been using Logic for 3 weeks. I don't understand though. If I want an audio track that isn't already allowed in the environment, I can indeed go into the environment and create it there at which point it will be available in the arrange/mixer. I of course don't want to have to do this, but it works. But from what I'm reading here, it seems that it's better to use the track mixer to do this. What's the difference? This is part of the reason I said that Logic's environments shouldn't be for these simple things like rewire and audio more audio tracks. A total newbie should be able to jump in and add audio tracks with total confidence that the tracks will do what they expect. But I felt that without learning about environments, I wouldn't be able to do exactly what I needed to do.

One more question. If you create an environment with all possibilities enabled and at the ready, that is, 100 audio tracks, a multitude of auxilliary channels for multi-out instruments, multiple rewire objects for up to two rewire hosts and all of their possible outputs and so on, you will have a "template" that's capable of doing everything without your going back into the environment to create anything new. My question is this. Is there a penalty for doing this. If I open up this setup and use only a fraction of everything that's enabled in it, is there any penalty for the rest of that stuff being there? If not, then why all the different templates and the set up assistants. If there were just this one all encompassing template, that would be all that's needed, I'm thinking.

[DHR53]

That's what customization is all about... You can do any weird combination you like! Is there a basic setup that would work for most people? Yep... But, if they just made a couple setups, everyone would complain that they didn't have enough choices! I use 36 audio tracks, 36 instrument tracks, 8 aux, and 8 busses. ...I can't fill up that anyway...

[TeeLangSun]

DHR53, were you answering my question above? The question essentially was, is there a penalty for an all encompassing template? By penalty I mean, something like wasted CPU or memory, dimished performance?

[beej]

No real performance hit, but each audio track will use some memory (exactly how much depends on buffer sizes etc) - so if you have 128 audio tracks active, you'll be using a larger RAM footprint.

I generally have 32 audio tracks, which is plenty. If I ever need more for a song, it's literally a 3 second job to select 16 audio channels, copy them and reassign to higher track numbers (Logic has automatic increments for handling this, see the manual).

If you want to compare memory sizes, run AM monitor and check your ram footprint, then double your track count and check the RAM now.

[Sascha Franck]

I think that with modern machines the additional RAM footprint coming from, say, another (existant but unused) 64 audio channels should be pretty much neglectable.
I rememeber doing some tests a few years ago (and I even switched the max. number of tracks around in the audio driver menu), and even back then I didn't notice much of a RAM or CPU issue, so I just kept as many tracks as I'd usually use.
And, as beej said, adding a few more really isn't all that much of a big deal. The same goes for aux channels and busses, btw. I just keep enough of them around, somewhat hidden right from my used channels. Dragging them closer to the "used" area in my mixer takes a few seconds at best. As a result of those few seconds of work, you end up with a mixer *exactly* suiting your taste.

And fwiw, to me it seems that the main reason for people not to get the hang of Logic (I'm not talking about anybody in this thread) or calling it "complicated" is the object oriented paradigm.
Admittedly, coming from Cubase with it's "dynamic" track creating, I had some slight troubles at first as well. But once I fooled around with things a bit, I quickly realized that this is the more flexible approach - which (IMO at least) is a good thing.

There's a bunch of things you can do because of that which, say, Cubase won't allow for.
For instance, I can just duplicate an audio object in my arrange and record alternate takes on it. Yes, with Cubase you get those "mini arrangements inside parts" (sorry, I'm lacking of the correct term), but still, for quick and dirty compings of, say, a vocal track I just prefer it having 3 (or whatever amount of) "real" tracks, all using the same object. This is just impossible in Cubase, whereas you could sort of mimick Cubase's behaviour in Logic, using folders.

And fwiw #2: People will know me as one of the biggest Logic afficionados around here, and it's quite true that I'm sometimes bashing Cubase as well (even if mostly this is happening for good reasons).
Yet, I am *very* aware of the shortcomings of Logic. Just to name a few:

- The audio editing functionalities are a joke compared to other programs. Whether you need them or not is another matter (personally, I can usually get away with them fine), but *if* you are into detailed audio editing, it's laughable. Cubase, Nuendo, Sonar and Samplitude (and I'd guess PT as well) beat it by miles.

- While the internal preset system is ok-ish, it's a joke that a standard existing for 2 decades isn't supported at all. MIDI program changes that is. It becomes even more of a joke that FXBs created in other programs, loaded into 3rd party plugins WILL work fine with program changes, whereas Logics internal plugins don't. And of course Logic won't allow you to save FXBs either. I mean, yeah, it's the all so evil b0rg standard. Just that each and every other sequencer supports them fine.

- While it can be sort of utilized by the global MIDI learning implementation by now, it's a joke that NONE of the internal plugins support any sort of MIDI learn. That's a freaking standard for any reasonable plugin by now.

- MIDI FX. I mean, wtf? The environment is cool, yes, but by nowadays standards the MIDI FX you can achieve with it are laughable. And from what I know, things such as the arpeggiator are still only working once Logic is playing. A joke, really. Something where things such as Energy XT or even Cubase kick Logic's butt big time.

- FX requiring MIDI input, say, a vocoder. Again, what a silly thing. You can't just insert them on an audio track, no, you need to open them as instruments (= another track blurring up your arrange) and then assign some input to them. Even worse should you be dealing with virtual instrument tracks that you want to run through that effect. In that case you gotta end up with some additional bus routing (has this been adressed in L7?).

One can only hope that the majority of these things will be adressed in V8 (because, by then, I will in any case own a Mac myself).

[metamorphosis]

Like I always say:
"There's a reason why it's called 'Logic Audio', and not 'Intuitive Audio'." ...
M@

[andrew71]

I've switched back to Logic from Cubase. It still does a few things that irritate the life out of me.

- Whenever I import an audio file it plays back at the wrong pitch. I'm never sure if it's a sample rate problem or the information held in the file itself (i.e. like an Acid loop) that is causing it.

- Multi channel instruments are a bit of a pig to use.

But other than those points, I infinitely prefer it to Cubase.

[warp x]

It was a joke, chap!

So was mine. Some PC user had to flame him back, and I thought it might as well be me.

Glad you didn't take it too seriously
For the record, I'm using both macs and pc's. (typing this on my linuxmachine)

[derek]

And, as beej said, adding a few more really isn't all that much of a big deal. The same goes for aux channels and busses, btw. I just keep enough of them around, somewhat hidden right from my used channels. Dragging them closer to the "used" area in my mixer takes a few seconds at best. As a result of those few seconds of work, you end up with a mixer *exactly* suiting your taste.

sounds like about the same amount of "work" as hiding or unhiding channels

There's a bunch of things you can do because of that which, say, Cubase won't allow for.
For instance, I can just duplicate an audio object in my arrange and record alternate takes on it. Yes, with Cubase you get those "mini arrangements inside parts" (sorry, I'm lacking of the correct term), but still, for quick and dirty compings of, say, a vocal track I just prefer it having 3 (or whatever amount of) "real" tracks, all using the same object. This is just impossible in Cubase, whereas you could sort of mimick Cubase's behaviour in Logic, using folders.

thats your own way of reasoning turned upside down. the lanes mode in cubase and nuendo is a feature logic doesnt have, OTOH its no problem to do it the way you described - copying simply creates 3 identical tracks. whats the big deal whether they use "the same object" or simply have the same settings. or, again, you could just as well use a group track. these days, where group tracks are mostly used for submix processing and stuff, the many other things group channels are good for often are easily forgotten. whether three tracks use the same "object" or the same group channel seems like a not soooo interesting difference to me - OTOH, the lanes feature sometimes comes in very handy...err, i mean, this makes cubase and nuendo MILES ahead of logic, which doesnt EVEN REMOTELY have such a feature...er...sorry

And fwiw #2: People will know me as one of the biggest Logic afficionados around here, and it's quite true that I'm sometimes bashing Cubase as well (even if mostly this is happening for good reasons).
Yet, I am *very* aware of the shortcomings of Logic. Just to name a few:

all of the listed points seem awfully more relevant to me personally...

[DHR53]

The main point to me is (and the reason I got rid of SX) ...on a Mac, I can run a LOT more VIs and plugs in Logic than I could in SX. No comparison... And I have a Dual G5 2.0. SX on a PC is a lot more eficient (and stable) so it's not a good comparison Mac versus PC. Feature wise, well whatever you like... They both will do the same thing, and I certainly didn't dislike the SX interface, I just got used to the Logic way... and I had this G5 sitting here anyway!

[Sascha Franck]

sounds like about the same amount of "work" as hiding or unhiding channels

Well, add to this that you can freely arrange mixer channels in Logic and you'll see another advance of it (of course, it might not apply to your way of working).
In general, Logic offers customizing your mixer. And for my way of working, that's a massive plus.

thats your own way of reasoning turned upside down. the lanes mode in cubase and nuendo is a feature logic doesnt have, OTOH its no problem to do it the way you described - copying simply creates 3 identical tracks. whats the big deal whether they use "the same object" or simply have the same settings.

The lanes in Cubase are, without any doubt, a nice feature. Yet, I can do the same with folders in Logic.
And using multiple tracks in Cubase requires multiple audio channels to be present in the mixer. Not exactly slick.

or, again, you could just as well use a group track.

... and waste even more space in the mixer.
Oh yeah, I forgot, I can hide the audio channels in favour of a group channel...
And another disadvantage: Once you've got anything routed to a group channel, you will only be able to route it to further group channels in case they're numbered higher. Which, in certain situations, can get into the way. That's why I prefer not to deal with group channels in the first place.

OTOH, the lanes feature sometimes comes in very handy...err, i mean, this makes cubase and nuendo MILES ahead of logic, which doesnt EVEN REMOTELY have such a feature...er...sorry

I can't see that much need for the lane feature in case folder tracks are used properly.
I agree it's nice to have, but not more.

all of the listed points seem awfully more relevant to me personally...

Different strokes for different folks.

To me, a logical layout of whatever things makes more sense. Now, you may find other things logical than me, but I need a proper mute/solo functionality. And I also just love a customizeable mixer. And I just hate the fact that you have to close each and every plugin window manually in Cubase. Oh, and I also like to have proper dual monitor support, something not existing in Cubase.
And of course, most of all: I just DIG the visual control over my quantize settings.
There's gazillions of other things, but I won't go into them for now. I just know what I like, other people have other preferences, fine with me.

[derek]

Well, add to this that you can freely arrange mixer channels in Logic and you'll see another advance of it (of course, it might not apply to your way of working).
In general, Logic offers customizing your mixer. And for my way of working, that's a massive plus.

to each his own. i never understood what the big deal is about "customizing" a mixer (that ends up looking as always anyway). you want to order the tracks in a certain way? the audio tracks follow the arranger (where you most probably ordered the tracks in the way you want them to be anyway). not good enough and you need a different mixer order, and you want to mix instrument and audio tracks? use groups, or move the VSTI channels in the arranger (which you can indeed drag around if your life depends on it). in logic, you need to assign tracks anyway, so having to assign a track to a group in cubase is basically the same amount of "work", only that you have the option to not do any assigning at all.

The lanes in Cubase are, without any doubt, a nice feature. Yet, I can do the same with folders in Logic.
And using multiple tracks in Cubase requires multiple audio channels to be present in the mixer. Not exactly slick.

but using a workaround via folder tracks for such a simple thing is "slick"? to both i say: no big deal. 3 more audio tracks in the mixer windows? i can live with that. especially because in general, i prefer not having to assign audio tracks - i like the fact that i never have to worry about the routing. that an audio track automatically becomes and audio track in the mixer leads to a nice "what you see is what you get" thing. as long as the "disadvantage" of this is that you may end up with many audio channels in the mixer...especially when in this thread people are suggesting to use 100 track templates...so that you dont have to do all the manual assigning all the time, right? ooh how slick

... and waste even more space in the mixer.

you seriously want to tell me that your point is that it "wastes space in the mixer"? well then, whatever

And another disadvantage: Once you've got anything routed to a group channel, you will only be able to route it to further group channels in case they're numbered higher. Which, in certain situations, can get into the way. That's why I prefer not to deal with group channels in the first place.

a price to pay for having complete and actually working latency compensation *cough* - and of course, the easy solution is actually the same as what you do in logic - have a template with lots of groups activated. i start with 32 hidden groups which i can always go back to in case i need to route "from right to left". and once more, i find the difference between unhiding a channel or dragging it from a "unused tracks pool" in the holy user customized environment academic at best...

I can't see that much need for the lane feature in case folder tracks are used properly.
I agree it's nice to have, but not more.

all of the stuff we discussed is really unimportant in my book. the truly important stuff, to me, is to be found in your list of logic disadvantages...absolutely everything concerning audio and editing for example...but dont get me started

To me, a logical layout of whatever things makes more sense. Now, you may find other things logical than me

yes. i find it logical that an audio track in the arranger is an audio track in the mixer. i find it logical that i automatically hear it once its created because it defaults to the master bus. i find it logical to not worry about "why dont i hear this...oh wait, i also used that channel somewhere else". i find this more important than worrying about too many channels "wasting space in the mixer". i have 4 mixer windows. and as i mentioned before, most of the time, you dont even need to go to the mixing window at all, in both programs.

, but I need a proper mute/solo functionality.

and what exactly is so extra-proper about the mute solo functionality in logic?

And I just hate the fact that you have to close each and every plugin window manually in Cubase.

careful, youre outing your limited cubase knowledge here...

And of course, most of all: I just DIG the visual control over my quantize settings.
There's gazillions of other things, but I won't go into them for now. I just know what I like, other people have other preferences, fine with me.

you can mimic the logicish quantization concept via midi plugins - as you say, other people have other preferences. i never used it.

my wishlist for logic at the moment would be:

- complete renewal of everything concerning audio editing. logics audio editing is the worst of all current sequencers i can think of, by far.
- stability *cough*, especially in hybrid logic/protools setups
- sample precision everywhere. oh, and always sample precise PDC please, and make it work for external routings too.
- complete rework of the offline algorithms. all the programs out there are competing on a high level, samplitude recently introduced a sort-of-melodyne-mode, cubase basically implemented acid/live type elastic audio and the latest prosoniq algorithms, logic still has the same old pitch/time machine thingy (thats also based on prosoniq algorithms afaik, only its older ones from the late 90s) and...apple loops (aka recycle, which was the latest hip shit in the glory days of cubase VST, some 5 years ago )
- import/export functionality. track archives, non-buggy OMF support, proper preset support for midi and fx etc
- a closer look at the audio engine. ive had it several times that logic had random offsets of +/- a few samples for each track, changing every time you press play. in certain situations, that may not make a huge difference, but when working with multitrack recordings (such as multimic guitar recordings or of course drums), this is a real showstopper.
- fix the messy multichannel virtual instrument support. emagic back in the day placed a bet on virtual instruments never being multitimbral and multichannel. emagic, you lost. deal with it
- while we talk about mixers - i want real mixer functionality. real meters with real individual headroom displays for every channel. different pan modes for every channel. phase switches, pre-fader gain knobs, all the nice and useful stuff. im even ok if it wastes some space. cause, you know, logic currently is king in saving mixer space as we all know

[jupiter8]

So the consensus of this whole thread is that Cubase works one way and Logic another? Some people prefer the Cubase way and some don't?

That is really surpising!