SX 3 vs. Logic 7

[machinesworking]

Jeesus. Honestly, what is the friggen point,trying to convince each other that 'your' sequencer is better than theirs, when ALL the top sequencers now are extremely powerful, just with very different interfaces.

And thank god they are different, because you know what that means, that means we have CHOICE!. Because WE, the PRODUCERS are all different and work differently. Thus we CHOOSE which works best for us.

We choose what works best for us based on the differences between the programs. Yes they all are similar, but it just so happens that they threads was started by somebody that felt they might like to have a different set of choices. So they asked about the differences? Duh?

So far I learned a lot of new things about both SX and Logic, I don't find that to be a bad thing at all.

[Sascha Franck]

I'm not proud of my sequencer at all, actually I couldn't care less.
Still, it makes sense pointing out certain differences or pros/cons.

Btw, in case Mr. stag won't believe, here's a screenshot of my Autoload mixer:
http://home.arcor.de/s.franck/LogicMixer.jpg
It's actually even 21 mixer channels fitting in one row.
Beat that with any sort of SX mixer.

[Arksun]

True, I should have directed my post more at all the lame ass posts, than the thread starter.

In response to the initial question, try demo's. That's what they're there for!, all available and online within easy reach. You never used a mac before, go to a shop, go to a friend who uses a mac!.

All this pathetic bashing each other isn't gonna help him one bit as its totally biased and rather sad. Not to mention half of it is utter bullshit because one clearly doesn't know what the other is capabable of! (usually basing their idea of what one sequencer does on some version that was made 5 years back)

Arksun

[snooky]

Logic roxorz...SX sux...And I have a lot of posts so I am correct and the rest of you are wrong!

[Arksun]

"Still, it makes sense pointing out certain differences or pros/cons."

Sascha, you've done anything but portray equal pro's and cons.

A balanced view, yup, with comments such as:

"what an enormous amount of clueless bullshit (let alone the fact that the SX mixer isn't configurable at all)."

Completely incorrect statment, ergo sad posessiveness with logic and wanting the world to believe its 'teh best and pwns all'.

"The mixer isn't configurable"

Please actually try using Cubase SX or perhaps even reading its manual as you clearly haven't ever tried it, if you had, you wouldn't write such rubbish.

"A) Read my other post and you'll clearly see how much "un-configurable" the SX mixer is. "

Reading your other posts comments misleads people who haven't tried either into thinking Cubase's mixer isn't configurable at all. If you want to feed people bullshit that's fine, but its still sad.

"As said before: Proveable shite."

Again, actually take some take to double check your facts before making dumb ass statements please k thanks

"It's actually even 21 mixer channels fitting in one row.
Beat that with any sort of SX mixer."

http://www.luminary.dsl.pipex.com/cubasesx_mixer.jpg

I'm posting up this image for balance, so people who've used neither can see how full of shite your statments are. I make that 27 channels in total, including outlines of all inserts sends and eq per channel (that part of the mixer window is fully configurable to jump between different modes, showing various levels of detail)

Does this make cubase 'better' hell no!. Cubase and Logic both rock, just look different and interface differently. Deal with it.

I love Cubase, and I think Logic is awesome too. So please, leave bullshit uninformed posts off the boards. Thank you

Arksun

[machinesworking]

I'm posting up this image for balance, so people who've used neither can see how full of shite your statments are. I make that 27 channels in total, including outlines of all inserts sends and eq per channel (that part of the mixer window is fully configurable to jump between different modes, showing various levels of detail)

I don't see any sends on there? If you take out the sends and FX rows of the logic mixer.... well you would get around 60+ tracks in that set up Sasha posted.
Once again, it's just advantages and disadvantages of different DAWs, not anything to get upset about.
I've played with the SX mixer and it is a bit lamer than Logic's, but both IMO aren't as useful in daily use as what Digital Performer does. any loaded track is offered as viewable in a menu running down the left hand side of the mixer window, an instantly configurable mixer basically.
All instruments and FX can be changed from the same GUI window, the menu in the plug in window itself allows you to change the instrument, track, and effect your looking at! Neither Logic or SX are that efficient. The GUI is definitely the easiest to look at as well.
I like Logic for other reasons though, and this is interesting to me. What's Sonar's concept like?

[Arksun]

I've played with the SX mixer and it is a bit lamer than Logic's, but both IMO aren't as useful in daily use as what Digital Performer does. any loaded track is offered as viewable in a menu running down the left hand side of the mixer window, an instantly configurable mixer basically

Again, exactly what Cubase SX already offers in the inspector window when you click on any track in the arrangement window!. Logic probably has the same option as well implemented in its own way. Like I say, these differences everyones pointing out are based on ignorance of what the others are capable of (yes you can set the upper part of that mixer in SX to sends with available controls showing, its your choice)

I think everyone needs to realise just how capable and adaptable all the top sequencers are, its just a question of actually using them to find that out

Arksun

[scandipandy]

[...] Neither Logic or SX are that efficient. The GUI is definitely the easiest to look at as well [...]

ok, if you want a gui efficient DAW-host look here (.wmv file) or webpage

[stag]

I'm not proud of my sequencer at all, actually I couldn't care less.
Still, it makes sense pointing out certain differences or pros/cons.

Btw, in case Mr. stag won't believe, here's a screenshot of my Autoload mixer:
http://home.arcor.de/s.franck/LogicMixer.jpg
It's actually even 21 mixer channels fitting in one row.
Beat that with any sort of SX mixer.

i´m wondering of a better use to your mixer.


the mixer layout on cubase it´s an emmulation of an hardware one.
problaby they didn´t invest as much as they have done on the track view ,prior to any other app, because it´s a diferent concept .
As Shania use to say "it don´t impress me much"...your logic´s mixer photo BTW(It seems from 5.51 they are short of ideas at logic) .

what i didn´t like on Logic was being dependable on the mixer ,all starts there on logic .
on cubase it all starts on the track view i like it more that way , do you have a problem with that???

what i miss on Logic was background rendering, offline processing ,full PDC ,decent drum maps ,goodies that IMO i don´t think a audio app who hasn´t them qualifies to the pro user.

[snooky]

[...] Neither Logic or SX are that efficient. The GUI is definitely the easiest to look at as well [...]

ok, if you want a gui efficient DAW-host look here (.wmv file) or webpage

I always wondered why SAW was so expensive...for just the work of one man it seems to an incredible piece of software!!

[jon9091]

"It's actually even 21 mixer channels fitting in one row.
Beat that with any sort of SX mixer."

http://www.luminary.dsl.pipex.com/cubasesx_mixer.jpg

I'm posting up this image for balance, so people who've used neither can see how full of shite your statments are. I make that 27 channels in total, including outlines of all inserts sends and eq per channel (that part of the mixer window is fully configurable to jump between different modes, showing various levels of detail)
Arksun

Here's some more balance. Digital Performer show more than both. 31 1/2 channels. All inserts, sends eetc.

http://homepage.mac.com/jonny.c/PhotoAlbum10.html

[ObsoleteAcc99]

[DELETED]

[ObsoleteAcc99]

[DELETED]

[Guckli]

Here's some more balance. Digital Performer show more than both. 31 1/2 channels. All inserts, sends eetc.

http://homepage.mac.com/jonny.c/PhotoAlbum10.html

Kewl. Showing 31½ channels from DP all at default settings - leaving no doubt that the DP session is totally blank and not doing anything productive - ALSO shows how utterly OT and pointless this thread has become...

Btw, got Tracktion on my lappy now; I'm afraid it hit rock bottom in the channel strip contest. It's great for making music though.

Teh Gück

[popsych]

Come on ttoz i think you've beem outside the logic world too long. Logic's preset system is far superior that SX in all but one respect.

are you serious? since when can logic's next and previous preset key commands work on anything other than the inbuilt logic plugins?

as far as sx, you see the patch in the midi view, in the vsti view, and can scroll presets on ANY instrument or effect simply with the up/down arrow keys.

1st . They work with any .pst saved patches. Have it working with Vanguard,z3ta and imposcar so that proves just how much you cared for logic.
2nd . I would rather have the organized folder structure that is present all the time at the click of a button, namely the logic way of presets, than having to browse load fxp files. I mean just imagine trying to handle presets in numbers like those in ES2 in cubase. The plugins that do (e.g albino 2) use inbuilt preset managers to handle it gracefully.

good for you. i had no intention of spending hours and hours saving THOUSANDS of patches over various synths as pst files. btw, cubase remembers the folder of that plugin's presets. I hae everything installed in c:/presets/xxxxx where x is the name of the particular vst. once you have navigated to xxxx's folder, for each individual plug cubase remembers and always goes back there

I suppose now that logic apple and au are one and the same that the standard format is compatible so no need to convert. As for the folders it is still more complicated and does not provide you with a descent menu hierarchy to preview presets. Anyway this is only one small point. Try to contradict me when it comes to it being more efficient when getting notes into the matrix. I DARE ya. Really i admire the spec of SX but it's the implementation that fails. It fails to provdie me with musically minded tools i can use, so much that i'm thinking of producing in LAP 5.5 and merely mixing in SX, or get an mbox to do that and throw SX completely out of the equation