*sold*

[arke]

Personally, i think if you have got as far as writing a whole song and adding FX and automation etc, and then you decide to change the synth, you need to check your head. You should know a lot earlier on if that sound fits or not.

I'd like to disagree - I do it all the time. Say I start out with some sort of nice high synth, using ... lets say Vanguard. Much later, I decide to add something arpeggiator-ish, to fill some space. Now, I don't like an arp in such relatively lower registers, so I'll turn down the octaves a bit. Now, it turns out that I find Vanguard is not that good at synths in the lower registers, so I'll rightclick->Replace->NEOkILLER.

Another example, if I've got something that I'm happy with except that something using, say, the old 3xOsc, doesn't use enough space ... I'll replace it with Vanguard.

In addition, as you may have seen from the window boundaries allready, the mixer is no "normal" window, but a "float" one (aka "allways on top). As a result of that, you can drag it anywhere - great for dual monitor setups, especially when resizing your main program window would be uncomfortable (because you may work with differently sized monitors).
You can also resize the window to your likings
Btw, again the same is true for editors and the likes. You can make any window "floating". Really really neat.

A mixer that is always on top? That would absolutely kill my workflow.

[Sascha Franck]

I don't mean to be confrontational but that logic interface looks awful.

As I said: It's not about the looks at all, it's about the functionality.

I am from the "old school" and
I like the way cubase is setup. Cubase is the closet thing to a hardware studio you going to get.

And that's at the same time where it miserably fails.
I mean, you can't roll along Cubase's mixer with your studio chair.
Apart from that, using hardware paradigms for software IMO is the worst thing you can do.
Clockwise movements just don't feel well with a mouse - I know you can change that in Cubase, it's just an example.

If you go
to a hardware studio you are going to see a rack of synths. Even though cubase automatically adds the vst outputs to the mixer it still feels like a "real studio".

I seriously wonder what studios you've been working in. I can route output 2 of my 16 track to whatever mixer channel.
And in case I'd be routing another synth into an existing channel, the channel's settings won't be lost at all.

I always thought pluging in the vst's directly into the mixer was backwards.

Maybe it's not "hardware compatible", but rightly so. This is software we're dealing with.
Replacing a synth in Logic takes *less* time than in Cubase. And that's no speculation but a sheer matter of facts.
And it's taking even less time in case I want to, say, just try out another bass while keeping the rest of my channel settings intact.
As said, this has nothing to do with being a fanboy or not, it's got to do with ergonomics, nothing else. If some action is requiring less clicks and mousemovements, it's unarguably better from an ergonomic point of view.
Maybe you just like excessive mouseclicking - I don't.

My friend has logic and I try my best to get into it but it doesn't feel like a hardware
studio to me. Yeah it works good but that interface is
horrible. Now if only cubase would bring back the effects rack.

Oh my god. The FX rack has been the most un-flexible piece of crap there ever was.
At least now there's FX tracks, which is pretty much the same what you'd been doing in a hardware studio: Routing FX to a mixer channel (all bigger studios I've been in are doing it that way instead of just using an aux return without any options to, say, EQ a reverb).

And then: Of course Logic (or any other host for that matter) doesn't feel like a hardware studio. If it would, I'd think it'd be programmed by morons.
One of the advances of software over hardware is that you've got everything nicely in place - in some hosts at least, Cubase probably not being one of them.

But anyways: Anything I suggested wouldn't harm any Cubase user either.
I mean, you won't tell me that losing your mixer settings when exchanging a VST is a good thing, no?
You also won't tell me that pressing F11 to bring up the dreaded VSTi box, select something in there, then re-assigning the outputs of all tracks using it (which can be a lot, in case it's a drum instrument) is a good thing, no? This is a one-click-and-scroll operation in Logic and some other hosts.
Also, you won't tell me that *not* knowing which VSTi is used on which track from looking at the VSTi selection box is a good thing, no? In case you're using one plugin twice, there's no way to tell which one it is that has been used on certain tracks. So you gotta look at *each* track to see which one it is that you want to replace.
And finally, you won't tell me that not being able to re-order the way your plugins are chained in a channel is a good thing, no?

These are all things where software majorly excels hardware. Unless the software is named Cubase that is.
And I haven't even been talking about the various bugs going along with the bloated implementation - but no worries, I won't. Not in this thread at least.

[Sascha Franck]

A mixer that is always on top? That would absolutely kill my workflow.

You should learn to read properly.
I explicitely stated that this was an *option*, not a *must* (as is everything I described). You can just keep your permanently hiding mixers in Logic as well, if that's your desire. But nobody I know would ever do such a thing...

[diverdee]

I've worked with logic, my bro & best mate whom I collab with sometimes both use it.
I'm totally in agreement with Sascha, the mixer, routing & all that workflow stuff is exceptional.
It threw me the first time JK left me alone with it & I couldn't even work out how to instantiate a vsti, but it is so configurable - one can just set it up how one likes.

[nohd]

Sacha
Im not quoting all the stuff you wrote but I will respond to some of it. I have been to major studios here in the east coast and I never saw anyone hook up
a synth into a effect insert. Yeah I no it
can be done but why? I like my software to feel like hardware because thats what I am used to. Its all about the work flow.
I no people who use logic and most of them barely use all those "advance features". Also what might be quick for you might not be so easy for someone else.
Plus what I experience with logic is that
it is unnecessarily complicated, and believe me I not a cubase fanboy. I been trying to get rid of that dongle for some time now but can't find anything that is as feature rich but simple to use like cubase. If stienberg is reading this thread "DON'T CHANGE THE WORKFLOW" and give us our VST effects rack back.

[Sascha Franck]

and I never saw anyone hook up
a synth into a effect insert.

There's no synths in inserts in Logic. You instanciate them in the I/O section of a channel.
Just where you'd expect things to be.

I no people who use logic and most of them barely use all those "advance features".

I haven't been talking about any advanced feature at all. This is bread and butter stuff. Everybody loads VSTis and VSTs. A lot of people want to change FX orders. A lot of people want to try out their parts with another instrument. Many people are using dual monitors (which is what float windows are good for). At the same time many people use laptops (which is again what float windows are good for, as you can design a channel strip).
There's nothing advanced to anything I wrote at all.

And it's not what my post was about at all either. It's been *all* about ergonomics. Something everybody benefits from (as said: It's not about the looks).

Also what might be quick for you might not be so easy for someone else.

Sorry, but one mouseclick is faster than two or three for *everybody*. There's no exceptions.
I don't even give a damn whether something is done Logic-style or not. But give me *less* mouseclicks and several options to actually have the program work in a personalized way.
This is what my post was about. Logic only served as a "role model" because it's one of the most "personiezable" hosts there is.
Like the way the Cubase mixer is set up? Fine, you can have that almost identical in Logics Track Mixer. Don't like the way? Configure your own. Again possible with Logic. In Cubase you're forced to use what they think should suit people. But their developers don't seem to actually work with the program, otherwise a few things would be tough to explain.

Plus what I experience with logic is that
it is unnecessarily complicated,

It might take you half a day longer to get started, and that's all. After that almost *each* step is faster. And hell yes, that's proveable.
I do know about Logics shortcomings very well (being a longtime betatester until they f**ked their Windows users), but can as well tell you that it's not complicated. I had people recording, editing and mixing multitrack audio and MIDI stuff in half a day.
Also, you don't need to use the "complicated" things. They don't even show up. You don't even need to use float windows (even if that would be almost stupid).
But, *if* you need some features, they're there (apart from those that Emapple missed out on so far).

[Jason Brian Merrill]

... i see some similarities to samplitude in logic.

[arke]

A mixer that is always on top? That would absolutely kill my workflow.

You should learn to read properly.
I explicitely stated that this was an *option*, not a *must* (as is everything I described). You can just keep your permanently hiding mixers in Logic as well, if that's your desire. But nobody I know would ever do such a thing...

I'm glad the FL Mixer isn't always on top. I would not be using FL if it was.

I just want to see the mixer when I need it, thats all ... And when I do need it, I'm gonna need it large. I have an average of about 20 mixer tracks in a song (I always route to an explicit premaster, 1 channel guitar input, separate channel for each individual drum hit (yes, i do this by choice), and the usual stuff...)

[Sascha Franck]

I'm glad the FL Mixer isn't always on top. I would not be using FL if it was.

I just want to see the mixer when I need it, thats all ... And when I do need it, I'm gonna need it large. I have an average of about 20 mixer tracks in a song (I always route to an explicit premaster, 1 channel guitar input, separate channel for each individual drum hit (yes, i do this by choice), and the usual stuff...)

Thats all completely beyond the point.
I'm talkin about options.
I can have a large mixer as well. I can hide it as well. I can do everything you usually can.
But I can as well have it floating. Others can't.

[arke]

What I'd like the most is a 24 track mixer control surface, with motorized faders and all that ... and a start stop button, and all that

I'd love to see a mixer control surface made explicitly for FL ... I'd, uh, save up for it

[Sascha Franck]

Doesn't FL support the standard protocols, such as the Mackie one?
In that case, the Tascam thingie won't be all that bad.

[crimsonwarlock]

Doesn't FL support the standard protocols, such as the Mackie one?
In that case, the Tascam thingie won't be all that bad.

I'm not sure that FL supports a Macky Control as the program needs to deliver feedback to the control surface to steer the motorised faders.

Having said that, Tascam has lowered the price off the US-2400 significantly. I have one now, connected to SONAR (the US-2400 has specific support for Macky emulation in SONAR).

[Kriminal]

I'd love to see a mixer control surface made explicitly for FL ... I'd, uh, save up for it

im sure there was talk about this a few years back, even some pix too, dont know what happened to it tho...

[jmh]

Doesn't FL support the standard protocols, such as the Mackie one?
In that case, the Tascam thingie won't be all that bad.

That's just one of the things the small "virtual studio" apps fall short of, compared to the big boys.

Unless of course one can cope without two directional communication and all the benefits that go along with it.

That, coupled with the usual "you don't need proper configuration, you just map things on the fly" is a major issue with the smaller hosts and (especially the cheaper) controllers. Lots of wasted potential for fluent, efficient workflow.

Of course, this will not be clear to anyone lacking experience with one of the bigger hosts and one of the bigger controllers (for argument's sake, let's say Mackie Control Universal and Cubase). Only then it might get clear... so prepare for angry replies about how controller x works with FL/Orion/younameit oh so greatly with that realtime assignment stuff.

JMH

[Sascha Franck]

I know exactly what you're talking about, JMH. The lack of interaction on "generic" controllers just doesn't float my boat.

Yet, I once had a Logic Control and gave it back, didn't like the non-userdefineable parameter assignments. In plugin mode you would find, say, resonance on another page than cutoff. Pretty much defeating the purpose of using such a thing as an efficient synth controller.
And as far as mixing goes, I allways wished for more channels, so 24 would've been a must (too expensive back then).
I also don't understand the lousy implementation of groupings (at least it's been lousy back then with Logic). Very often I'd just like to put, say, all my drumtracks onto one single fader instead of wasting 10 channels or so for them (sure, you can group them, but I just don't need 10 faders to move around when the drummix is perfect and I only need to adjust the master drum bus).

Peter, how much did you pay for the Tascam?