Why is Logic Pro only on macs

[Kingston]

maybe it's time for an other cubase vs logic thread

so mr. Franck did it again.

[Sascha Franck]

derek, I couldn't say your points are invalid at all, in fact, some are very interesting and admittedly, I didn't think about some before. So thanks for these tips.

Yet, there's certain options coming with Cubase (such as always on top windows and workspaces), so I just sort of expect them to work properly (well, sort of, I don't expect all that much from Steinberg... ).
Yes, there might be other ways (no, there even are) to open a key editor than using a dedicated workspace, but I found a dedicated workspace to be a nice thing to work with. FWIW, I have a very small project window on that workspace and the key editor stays opened, my preferences are set to "link" it to whatever part I select (why oh why is that a global preference, btw? In this case it's unarguably better to make that a per editor preference). That way I just use the project window to select parts, not for any actual arranging tasks. For the latter, I'm switching back to my main workspace. To me, that'd be a really nice way of working and it can't be done with just one main workspace. At least not without constant window resizing.
So, I *do* indeed think there's valid reasons for me to use that approach rather than anything else. I mean, the functionality is even provided by Steinberg. Just that - as long as things such as the solo function goes - it doesn't work as it could/should. And I can't see a problem in asking for a fix of it.
Meanwhile, whenever I have to work in Cubase, I *am* using other ways. It's not that I'm trying to force the program to do anything that I just know it won't be doing properly.

well sorry but if you cant even get solo to work properly, then maybe you didnt think enough. or too much. i dont know

Sorry but no. There's a few unarguable points for the solo functionality not working as one would expect, at least given that you're using some other provided features (that you may or may not need/like).

with the "open windows on top of homepage" approach, its very easy. just make an alternative homepage with all relevant windows positioned yet hidden where you want them. that sort of becomes the "switch" you press from multi monitor to single monitor, then its back to opening and closing windows on top of it, just with the desired positions.

That's what I'm doing. And I'm even doing it sort of similar under Logic.

FWIW, my biggest grief with dual monitor support under SX is that you can't open editors as float windows.
My second most used dual monitor screen arrangement in Logic is one with a full size arrange on one monitor and a full size matrix editor on the other.
Now, I'm using differently sized monitors (which isn't my fault as I can't exactly replace my laptops 15.4" monitor with a 19" one), so resizing the main program window (which is what SX requires to have an editor on the second screen) is a true drawback. As a result of resizing the main program window I'll either end up with a lot of wasted space on my 19" or a very funnily looking laptop screen.

see above. youre not making a difference between your goals and you actions to reach them etc.

I think I am. All I'm doing is asking for some more or less small improvements (some of them unarguably being bugs).

then it would be all the more helpful if you started to see the difference. right now, i as a long time steinberg user would say that youre teaching your students to use cubase as if it were logic, with all the negative yet absolutely unneccessary consequences. with all due respect, that doesnt make you a very good cubase teacher from where i stand

FWIW, I'm not exactly teaching them Cubase, I'm teaching sequencing and other stuff, and it just happens to be that there's only PCs with Cubase installed in the university's media lab.

aha, so you DO know that you dont have to manually click away all the plugins to get directly back to your arrange window, yet you still choose to do it???

Yes. For a number of reasons, I prefer to deal with "always on top" GUIs (and that functionality is even provided by Cubase). I can't see what's so bad about adding an (additional!) feature to have them "linked". All it'd require is a small switch in the plugin title bar. I mean, not all, but a lot of people would profit from that, not only stupid Logic advocates like me.

and anyway, youre still wrong. recalling a locked screenset closes all plugin windows, it doesnt hide them, theyre closed, no lit edit buttons, nothing.

But I don't want to lock my workspace. I change some small things all the time. Don't want to save it every time.

among all these possibilities to get from window A to window B, theres more than one approach that does what you want without screwing up half the programs functionality. believe me. its the truth

I'm not saying there's no other ways. All I'm saying is that a) the provided functionalities should work properly and b) there could be some small little additions that wouldn't even affect the current "workflow" at all, just add to it.

maximizing the arranger window is a bad idea for LOTs of reasons.

Why?

see, i hate it the other way with the plugins not going away. is that a switchable option in logic too? id like to turn it off, and it would be great to hear if it can be turned off.

Different strokes... but no, there's no way to do that in Logic. Which may as well be a drawback for some people. Fortunately, for me it isn't.

yet you brush of entire categories of the DAW world away as if they were small details...small details like audio editing...to hell with it...see the "logic light"

I never said I'd mind better audio editing in Logic. I'm the first to admit that it just sucks, regarding that.
On the other hand, what about Cubase's inefficiency? We haven't even touched that yet.
Personally, I can get away better with the lack of certain audio editing functionality than I can get away with an inefficient audio engine such as that in SX.
As I am depending on mobile work, I just can't use the most powerful machine there is. So I need to squeeze out every last bit of efficiency. And Logic, under low latencies at least, is offering around 20-50(!)% more juice.

i call that a bias. im heavily biased too. but i usually try to at least openly admit it and have fun celebrating it to hell with logic

I never even tried to hide my Logic bias either.

how cool that many effect plugins in cubase can operate as VST instruments that receive midi, huh?

Sure. Just that some of them don't provide any reasonable MIDI implementation. In Logic, even those can record parameter movements as MIDI data. The same goes for, say, FX sends. Those can only be automated via host automation in Cubase. In Logic there's both options, host and MIDI automation. Now, which is better? Having an additional option or having just one option?

Cheers again.

[derek]

derek, I couldn't say your points are invalid at all, in fact, some are very interesting and admittedly, I didn't think about some before. So thanks for these tips.
Yet, there's certain options coming with Cubase (such as always on top windows and workspaces), so I just sort of expect them to work properly (well, sort of, I don't expect all that much from Steinberg... ;)).

sure. but let me come back to the comparison with non working crossfades on edited objects again (much more important in my book, since this isnt a question of "how much luxury can i have with screensets" but its about potential audible clicks in the mix).

most programs are so stupid to not include any "flesh" before and after a selected portion of the audio file you choose to use DSP on. most programs also have the easy workaround that you simply have to do the crossfade first, then the DSP edit. logic goes one step further and still produces clicks even then, so as in the good old times, the way to do it is to manually add a little flesh before and after the segment so you have space to crossfade the edited with the nonedited file.

now, of course thats poor functionality or even a bug. sure, that can and should be improved. but since there are known ways around it, theres no reason to go out and tell everybody "logic cant to crossfades". see what i mean?

sure, floating windows could be improved in nuendo. its something very alien to steinbergs traditional program layout, so its not wonder. i also wouldnt be too surprised if it were very low on steinys priority list, since its quite obviously something that their major userbase coming from cubase usually doesnt even notice (i never even *heard* of these solo problems before, and i dont know anyone who ever had a problem with that, and trust me i do know a LOT of steinberg users ;-), plus the problems you described is clearly linked to your dual monitor setup using different resolutions. so my personal recommendation would be, dont hold your breath and just try a different approach. all ways lead to rome etc :-)

oh and yes, the lack of dynamic plugin management is the number one grief i have with nuendo. i wouldnt want to have it as it is in logic though - logic tries to somehow "intelligently" switch plugins on and off in the back, resulting in fun stuff like delay plugins sometimes being cut off at the end of objects and sometimes not on the one hand, and a generally highly unpredictable program behaviour on the other hand. as in so many cases, samplitude shows how its done right: switchable, and customizable with pre and postroll settings. and you get object based mixing on top of that. damn, i want that in my nuendo too, soo badly :-)

Now, which is better? Having an additional option or having just one option?

i know this was meant as a rhetorical question, but i personally do NOT believe that having 8765365486534 options for absolutely every &/%(/&%%& is any good. want my personal opinion? i liked nuendo better when it did NOT have any workspaces at all but only the much simpler classic cubase approach that more or less naturally lead you to work the way i do (which is the way that, judging from this thread at least, fits better with the general program layout). steiny added a ton of new user settings in nuendo 3 again. at this point, its ok with me - basically, SX and nuendo are still pretty "clean" because steiny started from scratch again with nuendo/SX, programs that actually started out with LESS features in many regards compared to the previous cubase generation. so nuendo at this point can take it because its not overblown out of proportion. logic on the other hand, in my personal opinion, is long due for a *complete* overwork. in so many regards it feels like a program thats held together with duck tape, i wouldnt know where to start. its got such a windows ME vibe to it, very funny for a mac only program ;-) and its just *drowning* in options. the ability to automate an aux send either as midi data or automation data? oooh...i couldnt ever live without that ;-)

im not trying to diss logic here (ok - i am, because its fun, but thats not the point ;-), but im trying to make a point that it actually often is a GOOD thing to "clean" the program. i remember how steinberg took the piss from a lot of its users during the transition from VST to SX, which had only about half the midi functionality of VST at first. but take a look at it today - step by step, the truly important stuff came back, yet a lot of the absolutely ridiculous "make every 13th note 7 velocity steps louder, but only on wednesdays" functionality is gone because noone missed it. the overall result is a program thats much cleaner, even though todays SX/nuendo is a hundred times more powerful than VST ever was (and yes, also logic, due to its lack of progress in the audio department).

of course, its a question of finding a good balance. the opposite extreme would be protools, where you have ONE way of editing, where youre forced to use the dreaded marquee approach for absolutely everything regardless of whether it makes sense or not, you cannot set your own keycommands, most layout stuff is completely set in stone because its all subwindows that open inside the arranger, and where other programs give you freeze, offline and realtime bounce in different modes, protools more or less still mimics a dat recorder ;-)

in many regards this makes sense, protools is dead easy to understand and get an ok working speed in no time, but thats it and getting "wizard" speed in editing simply isnt an option. and in many situations its just stupid. to me, thats the opposite of logic, also too extreme. now guess what i find to be a nice compromise in the middle ;-)

[kuniklo]

I don't think there's really any question that Cubase/Nuendo is *way* ahead of Logic in handling audio. Logic has a lot of advantages for midi/VI intensive work though.

I think Logic 8 will be a critical release. It will either shore up those areas where Logic has lost ground to other hosts and put it clearly back on top of the heap or it will cause people to finally stop waiting for Apple to deliver on a lot of early Logic promises and move on.

[beej]

You leave my Logic alone, with all this "cleaning" business! You're giving me anxiety attacks...!



(And I agree with the above poster about Logic 8, and have posted as such before. It will be a very important release. I hope they get it right - although, no matter what they do, people will always find things to moan about...)

[bugs]

I agree with Putte that Logic is dated. The real problem with it is that it needs the largest dongle in the industry--a Mac computer.

"Optimized for Mac"--how would one know?

I'll stick with SX3.

[pavvel]

Buy a Mac Mini to run the host, then use Wormhole or something to use all your PC plugs on your PC.

I'm getting sorely tempted to go the other way: get a Mac Mini to run Windows for the Win-only plugs. But still running Logic as host on my Mac, of course.

Victor.

Could you really do that? would it be effective and work well I would like to do that

[beej]

I never had success getting Wormhole to work between my Mac and Pc, direct ethernet connection, no firewalls etc. I could endup sending audio "reliably" one way, but couldn't get it back at all, even thought communication was happening, thus making it useless for me. The developer couldn't really help, and I spent *a lot* of time trying to get it to work. Shame, it would've been great otherwise...

[TeeLangSun]

Well, that was a great discussion with people who are obviously very knowledgeable about Logic, and also Cubase. A lot of people hate when it becomes a debate, but for others it's an opportunity to learn a thing or two. Lots of good perspectives and ideas floating around in this thread. I'm gonna save parts of this thread for later reference. Too much to take in all at once.

[Sascha Franck]

I never had success getting Wormhole to work between my Mac and Pc, direct ethernet connection, no firewalls etc. I could endup sending audio "reliably" one way, but couldn't get it back at all, even thought communication was happening, thus making it useless for me. The developer couldn't really help, and I spent *a lot* of time trying to get it to work. Shame, it would've been great otherwise...

Instead of dealing with all such weird things, I could only recommend getting a sort of modular host for your Windows machine. Something such as Forte's Brainspawn or Energy XT. Or maybe even Bidule.
Yes, there's a few drawbacks. Connections and data transfers have to be done the "oldfashioned" way, via MIDI and audio cables that is. So, in the end you'd just use your PC as a super-flexible synth or FX device. And of course, latency might become an issue as well. Oh, and probably double saved files, shouldn't you be able to get away with one single setup for your slaved PC.
Yet, a low latency card and some clever MIDI assignments could lead to some quite satisfying results.
At least that's what I will do once I got a Mac.

What's missing here is some great slaving option. I'm sure you all know how the Virus TI is doing things. It's hardware controlled by a VST/AU plugin.
This could be *the* solution for using further machines of whatever company as well.
On your master you'd just have a plugin which would then control a host on the slaved machine. Sure, you wouldn't be able to actually open, say, a Windows plugin GUI on a Mac in such a scenario. You probably wouldn't be able to load any plugin GUI at all. But then, NIs KORE is sort of demonstrating that you don't neccessarily need dedicated plugin GUIs - at least not once you've routed some parameters.

Actually, KORE would be THE top candidate for such a procedure. Program some sounds and performances on your slave machine, save them in KORE's internal format, then use the "master" plugin to just call them up on your main machine and tweak them with either the hardware controller or the master machine's KORE plugin GUI.
In an ideal world this would work via some ethernet connection. And in this case it'd be easier than with other solutions, because both machines would only have to communicate through the same program. In addition, with a master/slave plugin scenario, things such as PDC could still be done, even between computers.
Seriously, to me this would be a kickass solution - just start your slaved PC and leave it alone. Sure, some work would be required to actually set up the sounds/patches on the slaved machine... but then, that's what we're all doing anyways, just that in this case it might have to be done on a different than our main working OS. Not a biggie. At least not for me. Once the sounds are set up, there'd be no need to double save files, call them up or whatever.

And, to derek: Thanks for the interesting discussion. All (fun) host bashing aside, I probably learned quite a few things. Or I may rethink a few things.

[beej]

Yes, there's a few drawbacks. Connections and data transfers have to be done the "oldfashioned" way, via MIDI and audio cables that is

Yeah I know, but unfortunately my utility in that configuration is not very high, which is why I've been looking at other (networking) solutions.

The *main* over-riding reason to want to use a PC as FX inserts is to use my UAD-1 card in the mix from Logic on my laptop. If I go via the soundcard, I'm limited to its ins and outs, which would only support one stereo channel - whereas wormhole on 100meg Ethernet supports up to 32 or so mono channels, much more on gigabit ethernet - and certainly enough to nicely max out a single UAD-1.

Sure, I could buy yet another multi-i/o soundcard, but when the networking solution supposedly exists, and is nice and neat (one cable, no sync problems etc), I hate to spend the money (not that I have it anyway!)

As it is, I have to go back to Logic 5.5 to mix, and lose some nice Logic 6+ features and song compatibility. Again, not ideal, but I can live with it until such time as I can get a desktop Mac, or live without the UAD-1 *gets the shakes just thinking about it*.

So I keep looking. And every once in a while dig out Wormhole and spend another few fruitless evenings trying to get the damn thing to work in vain...

[derek]

Thanks for the interesting discussion. All (fun) host bashing aside

oooh, already? *sniff*

seriously though, have work to do anyway (speaking of work - PUTTE!!!! WANT TO HEAR REMIXES!!!! MUST - HEAR - THEM - NOW!!!)