Digital Performer Vs Logic Pro X

[bayswater]

I use mainly DP but often Logic, and sometimes other DAWs.

I've kept an eye on DP for a while now, and I'm interested in a number of aspects, video being high on the list. When y'all gonna get VCAs, though?

The so-called VCAs recently added to Logic don't seem to do anything you can't do with Aux routing or grouping. Not sure what all the fuss was about. VCA faders were announced for DP, but didn't appear in 9.0. Maybe MOTU looked at what Apple did and decided to go back and do it properly. Could be in the next update.

If I go this route I'm going to have to drink a mind-eraser as I can't fathom working without MIDI regions, but such is life

I think DP ought to add MIDI regions for those who really want them, but that said, I don't ever come across situations where it actually matters. If you really want them, look closely at Cubase. It does a better job in this area than Logic.

One last afterthought: Logic has some amazing VIs and EFX Plugins, and I believe DP does too. What are you all doing for a sampler these days? I'm guessing Machfive, even though not included with the platform, is sorta kinda dead.

For VIs in general, it's a wash. But Logic's big advantage is EXS24 along with a lot of very useful sounds. MachFive appears to be on the way out, but the equivalent and improved VI from UVI is available. And when you have to have something from Logic, it is not that difficult to access the EXS24 stuff in DP by linking it up to Mainstage or Logic via Interapp MIDI and Soundflower/JackOS.

How are your eFX in particular?

The effects are fine in both applications. DP's sound a bit more "real" to me. But if you need a variety of third party effects, DP's support for VST gives you a little more flexibility.

[dewdman42]

Any candid responses are appreciated!

I own and use both DP and Logic and go back and forth. they both have their strengths and weaknesses....as do some others which I am not as familiar with such as Cubase. No matter which DAW you use, it will be missing something that is done so well in another DAW. Every single one of them misses the boat on something. Every single one of them has a few cool unique features that you wish they all had.

You have keyed into a few areas that DP is still missing the boat on...and se la vie...it is what it is...DP has a bunch of other unique features that it truly excels at, which you didn't mention at all. If you are interested in DP, focus on those things and how they might help you.

Regarding the things you did mention, Logic has better VI's then DP..period..its not even close. DP has a long ways to go to ever even remotely catch up to Logic in that way. It does have few instruments, but they are of not much use to me, I own so many third party VI's by now, its a moot point.

DP does, however, have excellent FX.

The promised performance improvements you asked about have not been released yet, but is due any day now, so we shall see.

VCA's are interesting, I don't know...for live work I can see that being really important or perhaps if you're working with bands a lot in the studio or something. I don't agree with the other poster that its the same as using AUX's. I personally don't have any need for them, but if you do, then as of now, DP does not provide.

Regarding MIDI regions, I agree with you 110%, DP doesn't have them and it truly needs them. In fact I don't like DP's notion of an audio region at all, they are not really musically related. it always feels to me like arbitrary boundaries around clumps of activity that have no musical relevance.

I feel that Logic is more geared towards musicians making music, and DP is more geared towards engineers mixing sound. You can do both things with either platform of course, but I feel Logic has a number of features that intuitively facilitate the creation of music, while DP has numerous features that make engineering easier. I frequently am frustrated by some aspect of Logic that is just smoother to do in DP, regarding routing of audio and MIDI around. Conversely I am frequently frustrated by music making procedures in DP which are more intuitive in Logic. It is what it is. Each of them has some cool stuff and misses the boat on others.

I'm pretty sure I would love the chord track features in Cubase too, but I can't bring myself to add a 3rd DAW or spend the bucks for it.

[Robert Randolph]

I use mainly DP but often Logic, and sometimes other DAWs.

I've kept an eye on DP for a while now, and I'm interested in a number of aspects, video being high on the list. When y'all gonna get VCAs, though?

The so-called VCAs recently added to Logic don't seem to do anything you can't do with Aux routing or grouping. Not sure what all the fuss was about. VCA faders were announced for DP, but didn't appear in 9.0. Maybe MOTU looked at what Apple did and decided to go back and do it properly. Could be in the next update.

Maybe you don't understand the benefit of VCAs then?

VCAs allow you to change volume levels while also affecting post-fader effects/sends equally. Aux routing/busses do not do that.

Fader groups do allow post-fader levels to change, however the benefit they have over groups is that it's another independent layer of automation. You can have all your automation you want on your tracks, then have (nested!) VCAs that have automation that automates on top of that. This automation can be merged if you want, and VCAs can be nested to basically give you modular automation. You can have detailed automation on the tracks and never have to mess with trimming or editing it ever again. Undoing macro-changes to them requires just clearing VCA automation or muting the VCA.

VCAs also tend to have different scaling behaviour than groups do. This is especially important when a group would 'hit bottom' or 'max out'. A VCA is independent of the fader, despite controlling it, so you still maintain the relative levels.

With groups usually if you have 2 faders that are 6db apart, then max them out, and bring them back down... they will now be the same value. VCAs will always maintain the relative values among what they control. Of course you can also nest VCAs, thereby maintaining multiple levels of control over overlapping elements!

Edit: I also don't recall Motu ever saying anything about adding VCAs to DP. I can't find anything via Google either.

[musiklover]

Any candid responses are appreciated!

I own and use both DP and Logic and go back and forth. they both have their strengths and weaknesses....as do some others which I am not as familiar with such as Cubase. No matter which DAW you use, it will be missing something that is done so well in another DAW. Every single one of them misses the boat on something. Every single one of them has a few cool unique features that you wish they all had.

You have keyed into a few areas that DP is still missing the boat on...and se la vie...it is what it is...DP has a bunch of other unique features that it truly excels at, which you didn't mention at all. If you are interested in DP, focus on those things and how they might help you.

Regarding the things you did mention, Logic has better VI's then DP..period..its not even close. DP has a long ways to go to ever even remotely catch up to Logic in that way. It does have few instruments, but they are of not much use to me, I own so many third party VI's by now, its a moot point.

DP does, however, have excellent FX.

The promised performance improvements you asked about have not been released yet, but is due any day now, so we shall see.

VCA's are interesting, I don't know...for live work I can see that being really important or perhaps if you're working with bands a lot in the studio or something. I don't agree with the other poster that its the same as using AUX's. I personally don't have any need for them, but if you do, then as of now, DP does not provide.

Regarding MIDI regions, I agree with you 110%, DP doesn't have them and it truly needs them. In fact I don't like DP's notion of an audio region at all, they are not really musically related. it always feels to me like arbitrary boundaries around clumps of activity that have no musical relevance.

I feel that Logic is more geared towards musicians making music, and DP is more geared towards engineers mixing sound. You can do both things with either platform of course, but I feel Logic has a number of features that intuitively facilitate the creation of music, while DP has numerous features that make engineering easier. I frequently am frustrated by some aspect of Logic that is just smoother to do in DP, regarding routing of audio and MIDI around. Conversely I am frequently frustrated by music making procedures in DP which are more intuitive in Logic. It is what it is. Each of them has some cool stuff and misses the boat on others.

I'm pretty sure I would love the chord track features in Cubase too, but I can't bring myself to add a 3rd DAW or spend the bucks for it.

Thanks, dewdman! I am somewhat aware of many of the benefits of DP implicitly, and I know you all are too, so I did not list them out though I tried to talk up the EFX I've read about This MusicTech article in particular really speaks of DP9 quite well, and enumerates many of the benefits:

http://www.musictech.net/2015/10/motu-d ... -9-review/

I am curious still about your Opto Comp, but I shall find out in September.

However, I listed my number one reason for contemplating the addition -- video production, though the fact DP works both on Mac & WIN is huge and a close #2! CPU Utilization could quickly jump to #1, however, if all pans out as planned.

[bayswater]

I use mainly DP but often Logic, and sometimes other DAWs.

I've kept an eye on DP for a while now, and I'm interested in a number of aspects, video being high on the list. When y'all gonna get VCAs, though?

The so-called VCAs recently added to Logic don't seem to do anything you can't do with Aux routing or grouping. Not sure what all the fuss was about. VCA faders were announced for DP, but didn't appear in 9.0. Maybe MOTU looked at what Apple did and decided to go back and do it properly. Could be in the next update.

Maybe you don't understand the benefit of VCAs then?

VCAs allow you to change volume levels while also affecting post-fader effects/sends equally. Aux routing/busses do not do that.

Fader groups do allow post-fader levels to change, however the benefit they have over groups is that it's another independent layer of automation. You can have all your automation you want on your tracks, then have (nested!) VCAs that have automation that automates on top of that. This automation can be merged if you want, and VCAs can be nested to basically give you modular automation. You can have detailed automation on the tracks and never have to mess with trimming or editing it ever again. Undoing macro-changes to them requires just clearing VCA automation or muting the VCA.

VCAs also tend to have different scaling behaviour than groups do. This is especially important when a group would 'hit bottom' or 'max out'. A VCA is independent of the fader, despite controlling it, so you still maintain the relative levels.

With groups usually if you have 2 faders that are 6db apart, then max them out, and bring them back down... they will now be the same value. VCAs will always maintain the relative values among what they control. Of course you can also nest VCAs, thereby maintaining multiple levels of control over overlapping elements!

Edit: I also don't recall Motu ever saying anything about adding VCAs to DP. I can't find anything via Google either.

Yes, I understood the thing about post fader effects, but wasn't really thinking about the automation options. But this is more simplicity and options than new capability if groups can do it, other than the automation.

I don't know where the DP info on this went, but I recall it being one of the 6 or 7 things mentioned in a brief communication about highlights of the next update. There was some additional mention in a recent thread about when the update might appear.

[musiklover]

More from one of my personal favorite sites, this time on Logic's VCAs, endorsed by Point Blank: Note, too, you can use both AUX Channels / Track Stacks and VCAs simultaneously, i.e. they are not mutually exclusive. Furthermore, the Groups Parameter adds yet another lever, separate & distinct.

The Stacks / AUX Channels allow for EFX in the signal flow, whereas the VCAs (Voltage Control) do not, though as Robert pointed out, they most certainly can affect the levels, and you can have VCAs that only apply to AUX Sends.

http://www.musictech.net/2016/07/logic- ... -channels/

Edit on previous post: it looks like you most recently got an 1176 emulation marketing the limiter version, capable of all-buttons mode, though the LA2A is in there too.

The EQ looks excellent and covers many bases including the Neve / SSL G!

[nk_e]

Any candid responses are appreciated!

I own and use both DP and Logic and go back and forth. they both have their strengths and weaknesses....as do some others which I am not as familiar with such as Cubase. No matter which DAW you use, it will be missing something that is done so well in another DAW. Every single one of them misses the boat on something. Every single one of them has a few cool unique features that you wish they all had.

You have keyed into a few areas that DP is still missing the boat on...and se la vie...it is what it is...DP has a bunch of other unique features that it truly excels at, which you didn't mention at all. If you are interested in DP, focus on those things and how they might help you.

Regarding the things you did mention, Logic has better VI's then DP..period..its not even close. DP has a long ways to go to ever even remotely catch up to Logic in that way. It does have few instruments, but they are of not much use to me, I own so many third party VI's by now, its a moot point.

DP does, however, have excellent FX.

The promised performance improvements you asked about have not been released yet, but is due any day now, so we shall see.

VCA's are interesting, I don't know...for live work I can see that being really important or perhaps if you're working with bands a lot in the studio or something. I don't agree with the other poster that its the same as using AUX's. I personally don't have any need for them, but if you do, then as of now, DP does not provide.

Regarding MIDI regions, I agree with you 110%, DP doesn't have them and it truly needs them. In fact I don't like DP's notion of an audio region at all, they are not really musically related. it always feels to me like arbitrary boundaries around clumps of activity that have no musical relevance.

I feel that Logic is more geared towards musicians making music, and DP is more geared towards engineers mixing sound. You can do both things with either platform of course, but I feel Logic has a number of features that intuitively facilitate the creation of music, while DP has numerous features that make engineering easier. I frequently am frustrated by some aspect of Logic that is just smoother to do in DP, regarding routing of audio and MIDI around. Conversely I am frequently frustrated by music making procedures in DP which are more intuitive in Logic. It is what it is. Each of them has some cool stuff and misses the boat on others.

I'm pretty sure I would love the chord track features in Cubase too, but I can't bring myself to add a 3rd DAW or spend the bucks for it.

This is one of the most fair minded comparisons I've read on Motunation. Bravo sir.

[dewdman42]

Thanks, dewdman! I am somewhat aware of many of the benefits of DP implicitly,

However, I listed my number one reason for contemplating the addition -- video production, though the fact DP works both on Mac & WIN is huge and a close #2! CPU Utilization could quickly jump to #1, however, if all pans out as planned.

The performance improvements that are imminent are exciting for sure, but it could also be argued that DP has been behind the curve performance-wise for a while and is finally catching up. Its going to be a welcome change, and they are implying it will out perform Logic and others....so we shall see. I personally also like the idea of automatic behind-the-scenes freezing of instrument tracks, personally think all DAW's should work that way....I think it will be nice.

Being both Mac and windows is definitely a big plus. I switched to mac once upon a time just so I could run DP for film scoring work. Now I have the option to go back..

Regarding video production...I just want to say that if you are working with live musicians, as in small and large ensembles, full orchestras, etc.. None of the DAWs come even close to DP in terms of having the tools you need to nail the click track to hit points, setup streamers and such and do the click tracks in a way that musicians will be able to play to it, etc... and all the rest.

That being said, regarding hit points and click tracks, you can get the job done with a spreadsheet and just about any DAW out there, it just requires more know-how and manual labor to get it done. If you are doing more run of the mill video production where its just you in your basement making some music in the box to fit a video...you can get that done with many different DAW's, DP doesn't stand out as clearly as the obvious winner. Certainly the ability to use v-racks and chunks in DP can be extremely handy for working with different cues in a single video that need to have the same or similar instrumentation as separate cues, all within one project file. This lets you have all the cues in one project file, with consistent instrumentation and mixer settings, and each cue can start at bar 1 beat 1, etc..its actually extremely helpful for that kind of thing, kind of a pain in the others.

That is definitely an advantage for sure that DP has for that kind of work, but nailing hit points and such becomes a lot easier when you don't have to use real musicians...there are a lot of tricks to make it happen in an entirely electronic domain which many DAW's can handle just fine...including Logic. Logic even has a few tricks up its own sleeve for making the music fit the video...so long as you don't have to worry about click tracks and real musicians having to record to a tricky click track. When I did some film work like that in the past, I actually used Sonar to lay out the click track and eventually found bugs in sonar where it got confused by lots of meter and tempo changes. I ended up having to borrow my friend's cubase to get it done and eventually I got a mac and DP instead because my mentor, an experienced orchestrator from Hollywood, swore up and down and sideways that DP is the one to use. So here I am.

[bayswater]

The performance improvements that are imminent are exciting for sure, but it could also be argued that DP has been behind the curve performance-wise for a while and is finally catching up.

Your experience might be different from mine, but I find Logic to be maybe 15% faster -- more efficient, etc. For a CPU load of 15% in DP, I might see 12% in Logic. Perhaps DP could make up the difference with simplified graphics a la Logic or Live. If DP really does double CPU efficiency, it will set a new benchmark.

[dewdman42]

What MOTU claims is that they have cut latency in half for any given buffer size. This is totally seperate from next gen pre gen. Cutting latency in half is not doubling performance efficiency. We don't actually know what the CPU impact will be for how they have cut the latency in half for any given buffer setting and it's not clear to me that their existing latencies match the latencies of other DAW's at similar buffer settings. What we do know is that they have identified apparently some flaw in their existing buffer handling and they are able to cut in half the latency for any given buffer. We shall see what impact that has on CPU. We will all be able to run lower latencies then in the past providing this new improvement doesn't tax the CPU more somehow. Or we may use larger buffers then in the past but retain a usable latency. presuming this change doesn't add CPU overhead then we will gain some CPU headroom but I would not expect "double".

The next gen pre gen will make it possible to play back a lot more tracks of instruments by essentially freezing the tracks on the fly. That is not really doubling performance either but if you tend to use a lot of instrument tracks then I guess it will make it possible to squeeze more tracks out without having to bounce them to audio in order to do it. This will be a tremendous benefit and will sorta SEEM like a great performance boost but really it will just be a convenience, a pretty substantial one though!

[Michael Canavan]

More from one of my personal favorite sites, this time on Logic's VCAs, endorsed by Point Blank: Note, too, you can use both AUX Channels / Track Stacks and VCAs simultaneously, i.e. they are not mutually exclusive. Furthermore, the Groups Parameter adds yet another lever, separate & distinct.

The Stacks / AUX Channels allow for EFX in the signal flow, whereas the VCAs (Voltage Control) do not, though as Robert pointed out, they most certainly can affect the levels, and you can have VCAs that only apply to AUX Sends.

http://www.musictech.net/2016/07/logic- ... -channels/

Edit on previous post: it looks like you most recently got an 1176 emulation marketing the limiter version, capable of all-buttons mode, though the LA2A is in there too.

The EQ looks excellent and covers many bases including the Neve / SSL G!

Curious? Not in front of DP at the moment, but this article on Logics VCA faders makes me think you could do 90% of what VCA faders in Logic do with Master output tracks. I'll edit this post shortly with the manual information, but from what I recall master faders in DP can be used to lower sections of tracks to it's left, though this isn't as elegant as VCA faders, ( every master fader will have an effect on tracks to it's left from what I recall ) it's a solution. <-- It also points to DP being already set up more or less to hopefully easily implement true VCA faders.

[Robert Randolph]

More from one of my personal favorite sites, this time on Logic's VCAs, endorsed by Point Blank: Note, too, you can use both AUX Channels / Track Stacks and VCAs simultaneously, i.e. they are not mutually exclusive. Furthermore, the Groups Parameter adds yet another lever, separate & distinct.

The Stacks / AUX Channels allow for EFX in the signal flow, whereas the VCAs (Voltage Control) do not, though as Robert pointed out, they most certainly can affect the levels, and you can have VCAs that only apply to AUX Sends.

http://www.musictech.net/2016/07/logic- ... -channels/

Edit on previous post: it looks like you most recently got an 1176 emulation marketing the limiter version, capable of all-buttons mode, though the LA2A is in there too.

The EQ looks excellent and covers many bases including the Neve / SSL G!

Curious? Not in front of DP at the moment, but this article on Logics VCA faders makes me think you could do 90% of what VCA faders in Logic do with Master output tracks. I'll edit this post shortly with the manual information, but from what I recall master faders in DP can be used to lower sections of tracks to it's left, though this isn't as elegant as VCA faders, ( every master fader will have an effect on tracks to it's left from what I recall ) it's a solution. <-- It also points to DP being already set up more or less to hopefully easily implement true VCA faders.

Master tracks don't come close to emulating VCAs.

---

When you lower a VCA, the fader's value itself is changed internally. That means that post-fader sends are also affected. e.g. You lower the VCA and your reverb send is also lowered. Your post fader affects are also lowered the same as if you changed the track's fader itself. If you use any sort of post-fader analog emulation plugins or whatnot, this is a big deal.

With a master channel, if you lower the master then the post-fader routing is not affected. If you lower your master volume the reverb is not affected unless that send is also sent to that master channel... which means that you must have multiple sends for each fader, and they can't be shared between 'master groups'. Your guitar group and drum group couldn't share sends, since those sends have to go to their own master groups to be affected.

It's important to note that it's the post-send value that would be affected too. With a master group configuration, the audio going TO the send is the same. This affects anything that has any sort of non-linear characteristics. Those things will remain at the same level no matter how much you change the master channel.

Post-fader effects are not affected with the master channel configuration. Your post-fader saturator (console emulation maybe) will still be pounding at the same level no matter how much you turn down the master.

---

The other downside to master groups is that automation is not mergeable. It may not sound like a big deal, but when you really start to work with VCA's the ability to separate different contexts of automation is amazing. Being able to 'commit' a change is also fantastic.

Imagine you have a vocal track with really detailed automation.

Now you realize that as the song goes, the singer becomes slightly winded and loses some power. In DP you can do a line-automation scaling, which is great, but with a VCA you can simply automate the VCA itself.

Now your automation is separated in to contexts. You have the detailed vocal-specific automation, and 'song-specific' automation. They can be independently changed without causing the other to be lost. The VCA automation affects the track's fader identically to the track fader automation. This is important for the reasons mentioned above!

If you suddenly realize that you need the detailed vocal automation, the singer-needs-to-stop-smoking automation and the chorus needs to be louder, then you can add another VCA on top of all that. OR you can merge the whole-song automation and detailed automation and put your new chorus automation on the VCA.

You can also use VCAs as sort of a 'trim preview' for trimming automation, then merging it. You can also use them to allow you to 'mix normally' after putting detailed part-specific automation in. No need to mess with trimming automation, just move the VCA where you want. It's immune to what's happening on what it controls and it behaves just like the track faders.

[mikehalloran]

I know Logic well enough so that, If I ever had to automate a track with AutoTune, I could do it. Although the plugin has some functionality in DP, full automation is not possible. Alright, counting the number of times I have had to do that leaves me with fingers on my hand but, if I need, it's there

Otherwise, I keep Logic so that I can open GB and Logic projects, export the audio and MID so that I can drop them into DP and get the work done. $200 a couple of years ago—I'm ok with that.

Having the ESX24 instruments available for MachFive 3 is a plus but $29.99 for Main Stage 3 gets you that, also.

[mhschmieder]

I bought Logic not too long ago, for two solid reasons:

Camel Audio's Alchemy got discontinued and absorbed into Logic, so I needed future-proofing

MIDI editing in Logic is more advanced than any other DAW, with scripting for super-important stuff like being able to convert monopressure (which is WIDELY available on quality synths like Minimoog Voyager and Arturia's MIDI controllers) to MIDI CC's.

I can't overemphasize the important of monopressure conversion, which is HARD TO FIND on Macs but not so on Windows. I wasted time trying to make some hacked solution work and decided it was worth spending a bit to get a true pro solution from Apple along with the recent Alchemy add-in.

Monopressure to me is the most tactile and fine-tuned way of adding realism to keyboard-played parts, compared to foot-driven expression pedals (fairly coarse, and no tactile feedback) or mod wheels (or even ribbon controllers) which are also very coarse and lacking that special pressure-sensitivity of well-executed monopressure. I can't speak to polypressure, unfortunately.

Digital Performer has excellent MIDI tools that I prefer over all others, but the actual set of functionality is limited compared to Logic's. So I dip into Logic for what DP doesn't offer.

As for EXS24, I got so in the habit of deleting my EXS24 libraries when disc space was expensive and scarce, that I continue to this day for the sake of consistency and "no regrets". Even though I now own Logic. Some speculated that Alchemy would eventually replace EXS24.

At any rate, several vendors have told me confidentially that EXS24 is inferior to UVI/Falcon, Kontakt, and even Yellow Tools Engine, in audio quality, tweakability, and overall features and scripting. Only Structure from Avid gets consistently good reviews, of the built-in samplers in DAW's.

[Shooshie]

When did DP quit doing Monopressure?

Am I thinking of Poly pressure? I haven't used that expressively in a long, long time, so maybe my memory is foggy, but I'm 99.99% sure that I've used it.

As for EXS24, it's definitely a good library and interface, and I'm sure the scripting is the best, but is it noticeably better than Kontakt? I've never felt limited in Kontakt, other than by its crashy nature, which used to be a problem, but doesn't seem to be now. And by NI's lack of punctuality in updating it at times, but that's not a criticism of the instrument.

I've never been one for selecting DAWs for the instruments, because simply don't find what I want in most DAW based instruments, and for those things that it doesn't matter that I have specific things, I find MOTU's instruments to be fine. No, not comparing to EXS24! Just saying when I need a quick and dirty sound, I can get very close to what's in my mind in just about 60 seconds in one of MOTU's instruments.

But I get what you're saying, and there is nothing wrong with using any DAW or multiple DAWs when others have got what you want. But Monopressure? DP doesn't do that? I'm pretty sure it does, but I'm 200 miles from my studio, so I can't check on that. I've used Monopressure, and I can't think of anywhere else I'd have used it.

Shooshie