Digital Performer Vs Logic Pro X

The forum for petitions, theoretical discussion, gripes, or other off topic discussion.

Moderator: James Steele

Forum rules
The forum for petitions, theoretical discussion, gripes, or other matters outside deemed outside the scope of helping users make optimal use of MOTU hardware and software. Posts in other forums may be moved here at the moderators discretion. No politics or religion!!
User avatar
Shooshie
Posts: 19820
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:01 pm
Primary DAW OS: MacOS
Location: Dallas
Contact:

Re: Digital Performer Vs Logic Pro X

Post by Shooshie »

artfarm1 wrote:Not to open the whole can of worms again, but...

I thinks DP puts out better sound, and many others thinks so as well.

I know, I know.... very subjective, etc......lots of arguments about nulling this and that and making sure that panning is the same, etc. etc.

Some very careful tests have been done, and DP has come out on top.

Anyways, I did my own tests, and to my ears, DP wins out.

For that reason, along with every else that MOTU does right, I'll always speak up for DP in my own humble way.

You're by no means alone in thinking that. A number of us have experienced DAW shootouts, sometimes even double-blind, and DP has a tendency to win those, often unanimously. I was involved in one in Las Vegas back in 2001, and we had a panel of about 8 very prominent music, recording, and audio guys, all working there, including myself. I was very surprised that DP won unanimously. You really COULD hear the difference. Plus, each time we recorded something, it was obvious that the DP engineer (me) was having a very easy time of it. I'd finish my tasks in seconds, and it was clear that DP had far fewer dialogs, windows, and "busy work" in order to get things done.

Shooshie
|l| OS X 10.12.6 |l| DP 10.0 |l| 2.4 GHz 12-Core MacPro Mid-2012 |l| 40GB RAM |l| Mach5.3 |l| Waves 9.x |l| Altiverb |l| Ivory 2 New York Steinway |l| Wallander WIVI 2.30 Winds, Brass, Saxes |l| Garritan Aria |l| VSL 5.3.1 and VSL Pro 2.3.1 |l| Yamaha WX-5 MIDI Wind Controller |l| Roland FC-300 |l|
Cameronyousef092
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2015 7:26 pm
Primary DAW OS: MacOS

Re: Digital Performer Vs Logic Pro X

Post by Cameronyousef092 »

Could anybody describe how difficult it is to learn DP if you already work with Logic? I've been working with logic for a little while now but I want to learn DP in order to intern for a composer. Any info or insight is greatly appreciated
User avatar
MIDI Life Crisis
Posts: 26254
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 10:01 pm
Primary DAW OS: MacOS
Contact:

Re: Digital Performer Vs Logic Pro X

Post by MIDI Life Crisis »

Tough question with so many factors to take into consideration. I'd be more concerned with features and reliability than the learning curve. I don't know that your question is really answerable.
2013 Mac Pro 32GB RAM

OSX 10.14.6; DP 10; Track 16; Finale 26, iPad Pro, et al

MIDI LIFE CRISIS
User avatar
mikehalloran
Posts: 15134
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 5:08 pm
Primary DAW OS: MacOS
Location: Sillie Con Valley

Re: Digital Performer Vs Logic Pro X

Post by mikehalloran »

Cameronyousef092 wrote:Could anybody describe how difficult it is to learn DP if you already work with Logic? I've been working with logic for a little while now but I want to learn DP in order to intern for a composer. Any info or insight is greatly appreciated
It really depends on what you are trying to do. Fortunately, you can download DP 8 and demo it. There are help files and a searchable user manual in pdf form.
DP 11.31; 828mkII FW, micro lite, M4, MTP/AV USB Firmware 2.0.1
2023 Mac Studio M2 8TB, 192GB RAM, OS Sonoma 14.4, USB4 8TB external, M-Audio AIR 192|14, Mackie ProFxv3 6/10/12; 2012 MBPs Catalina, Mojave
IK-NI-Izotope-PSP-Garritan-Antares, LogicPro X, Finale 27.4, Dorico 5.2, Notion 6, Overture 5, TwistedWave, DSP-Q 5, SmartScore64 Pro, Toast 20 Pro
User avatar
bayswater
Posts: 11925
Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2007 9:06 pm
Primary DAW OS: MacOS
Location: Vancouver

Re: Digital Performer Vs Logic Pro X

Post by bayswater »

The basics of any DAW will be easy once you've learned any other, but I don't think that extends to the more detailed and deeper features. But I'll say that however long it takes to become effective with Logic, DP will take less time.

A book that might help you with the question: Creative Sequencing Techniques for Music Production: A Practical Guide to Pro Tools, Logic, Digital Performer, and Cubase by Andrea Pejrolo. He goes through sequencing tasks and shows how to do it with these four applications.

http://www.amazon.ca/Creative-Sequencin ... 0240522168
2018 Mini i7 32G 10.14.6, DP 11.3, Mixbus 9, Logic 10.5, Scarlett 18i8
User avatar
Michael Canavan
Posts: 3538
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 10:01 pm
Primary DAW OS: MacOS
Location: seattle

Re: Digital Performer Vs Logic Pro X

Post by Michael Canavan »

Cameronyousef092 wrote:Could anybody describe how difficult it is to learn DP if you already work with Logic? I've been working with logic for a little while now but I want to learn DP in order to intern for a composer. Any info or insight is greatly appreciated
Ex Logic devotee here, I love DP but I think about X and all the great features they put in since I last used it even now. :)

The main difference between Logic and DP is Chunks, and you simply don't have to work with Chunks to use DP. I've written whole songs without using that feature once.

To explain this, in any other Sequencer/audio track DAW you have basically one linear timeline to deal with. In Logic it's the Arrange page, it's where the entirety of the open project resides. In DP you can actually have as many 'arrange' pages as you want. What this allows is for you to work on a project and have the 3 1/2 minute radio version, the prog rock ten minute version and various rearrangements of the song all existing in the same open Project. Chunks can also be the bridge, break, chorus etc. of a song, you can drag and drop Chunks into each other, so it's helpful for things like variations on a break etc.
Another oddity of DP is the lack of MIDI on instrument tracks, this is because of Chunks. With Chunks you can also have a virtual 'rack' of instruments you're using in your song variations, so that you save CPU and the Chunks open quickly being just audio and MIDI.

At first when learning DP I would just work in a single Chunk, then start using it gradually, that way the concept doesn't overwhelm you. The main thing is to not get bogged down in the possibilities of DP, since even the way you work in DP can be heavily modified by you, unlike the straight linear workflow of Logic.

Fair warning though, DP is addictive once you get over the oddity of it. :)
M2 Studio Ultra, RME Babyface FS, Slate Raven Mti2, NI SL88 MKII, Linnstrument, MPC Live II, Launchpad MK3. Hundreds of plug ins.
User avatar
Shooshie
Posts: 19820
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:01 pm
Primary DAW OS: MacOS
Location: Dallas
Contact:

Re: Digital Performer Vs Logic Pro X

Post by Shooshie »

DP? Odd? Logic is odd. DP works the way studios used to work. It was never odd at all. Very easy to figure out. Logic made everything seem non-linear and weird. It was designed by computer programmers for computer programmers, and it does not work in a way that seems natural to most musicians I've talked to about it.

But Logic, a niche player in the DAW market, became huge after Apple bought it. Therefore, everyone learns it first, now, facilitated by Garageband, or Logic Jr. Then, when they go to a very natural, musical DAW, they think IT is the one that's odd. The irony is too much.

DP is based on tape machines and mixing boards. The virtual instruments are kept in V-Racks, which is a means of making them feel, operate, and seem like actual MIDI rack gear, where you have the instruments over here in this rack, and you have a MIDI track that plays them, and you have an audio track that receives their output. THAT is the way the analog world worked for 6 or 8 decades, and is not odd. What's odd is a single track that is an instrument, a MIDI track, and an audio track all rolled into one, with a little picture of the instrument on it. That seems more like some kind of PlaySkool toy. Pull the string and hear the MIDI loop!

No, DP is not odd. It works perfectly naturally in a way that was always intuitively grasped with ease by anyone who has ever worked in an analog/digital studio with real microphones, instruments, and even MIDI sequencers. It is set up on that model, and it operates that way. Very simple to pick up.

The sad thing is that Logic has taken that natural world away from people, and they often do not know what is even going on under the hood. Therefore, they get to PT or DP and they have no idea what they're supposed to do. Just think: "how would this work in a studio?" You route your I/O, set up your sequencers and route them to a synth/sampler, plug those boxes into an audio input. Run your mics/preamps to your interface box and plug them into the mixing board. Set up any auxiliary tracks you might need for submasters (stems), masters, parallel compression, and the like. Plug in your effects boxes through the FX inserts. Record enable the track(s).

Hit record. You're making music, man.

Predicted stumbling block: DP does't use regions the same way Logic does. It uses selections. You learn to maintain your selections while you perform operations on them, growing and shrinking them (SHIFT, OPTION-SHIFT) as you drag over MIDI events to add or exclude. Hold on to your selection until you are done. If you need to let go of it and come back later, drag it into a scratch track set up like the track from which it came, also play-enabled. You can drag it back later. (Tracks Overview Window) Performer and Digital Performer pretty much pioneered everything we use today, along with Vision, Cubase, and Cakewalk. Logic was on a whole different path, so I don't consider it so much a pioneer as a programmer's experiment. DP is the oldest surviving commercial DAW, and gets better all the time, so it's got some clout in this business, and a lot of bad-ass users in very high-profile parts of the industry. So, trust me when I say you can do it. It's easier than Logic, but because you are indoctrinated with the "Logic way," you'll have to let go of your expectations and learn where DP sets the bar on various types of operations. When you "get it," you'll be glad you came this way. DP is a great set of tools for great purposes. There's little you can't do with it, but learn the ways it allows. There are almost always multiple paths to the same goal in DP. We're here to help.

Shooshie
|l| OS X 10.12.6 |l| DP 10.0 |l| 2.4 GHz 12-Core MacPro Mid-2012 |l| 40GB RAM |l| Mach5.3 |l| Waves 9.x |l| Altiverb |l| Ivory 2 New York Steinway |l| Wallander WIVI 2.30 Winds, Brass, Saxes |l| Garritan Aria |l| VSL 5.3.1 and VSL Pro 2.3.1 |l| Yamaha WX-5 MIDI Wind Controller |l| Roland FC-300 |l|
User avatar
Michael Canavan
Posts: 3538
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 10:01 pm
Primary DAW OS: MacOS
Location: seattle

Re: Digital Performer Vs Logic Pro X

Post by Michael Canavan »

Sorry Shooshie but DP is odd. That doesn't mean that it's 'bad' for being that way, but with it's Chunks, V-Racks, Song Window, and non object oriented MIDI, it most definitely is the odd DAW when you compare them side by side. Sonar, Cubase and Logic are all very similar in this respect.
[edit] The Tracks Overview and Sequence Editor fulfilling the same functions as single window arrangement pages in all the other DAWs, will also throw some people, [/edit]

There's no doubt at all in my mind that for someone coming from Cubase, Logic is easier to grasp and make more "sense" than DP, ( in fact I've heard that comment dozens of times from friends and other musicians ), It's not because it actually does, but because Cubase and Logic are similar enough to where you're basic workflow doesn't change much. <--[ That's I think where you get unnecessarily offended/defensive, in thinking I or others mean something we don't by saying this, that the average person using Cubase or Sonar etc. finds DP odd.] It isn't a sign that DP is somehow inferior or flawed, just very different. That difference is it's super power though, and it isn't something to be ignored or down played in my opinion. In fact it can be argued that these differences are what make DP superior etc. but if you're comparing the powerful MIDI DAWs like Sonar, Cubase, Studio One, Logic, DP, etc. DP is the odd man out, much more so than Logic.

[edit] "Modern" MIDI DAWs like Live, ReNoise, and Bigwig are a different category, and are very arguably the real odd ducks, but we're talking do everything workstations with notation and serious audio editing as well as MIDI here.
M2 Studio Ultra, RME Babyface FS, Slate Raven Mti2, NI SL88 MKII, Linnstrument, MPC Live II, Launchpad MK3. Hundreds of plug ins.
User avatar
bayswater
Posts: 11925
Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2007 9:06 pm
Primary DAW OS: MacOS
Location: Vancouver

Re: Digital Performer Vs Logic Pro X

Post by bayswater »

Michael Canavan wrote:There's no doubt at all in my mind that for someone coming from Cubase, Logic is easier to grasp and make more "sense" than DP
I have to disagree.

When I gave up on Cubase for Mac V4 (sluggishness, bugs never fixed), I worked on Logic 5, DP 4.5, and looked at a few others. I found Logic very frustrating because so many things made no sense. Too much Object Oriented programming approach, along with the old IBM utility approach where it is never all that clear why an object exists and why you would want to use it.

And there was so much you had to do in the Environment that should have just been handled by defaults. Logic might have been designed for infinite flexibility, but I'd say it never achieved more flexibility than other DAWs and just created infinite hours of farting about to get basics working. The need to actually tell the Logic Environment that you actually want MIDI data to go into the sequencer has to be most ridiculous option of any application ever written. I suppose it would be cool to a programmer who is more interested in understanding the program at the wireframe level.

DP was not exactly simple, but once I got past a few basics on how to set it up, I could generally figure out the rest. I never got there with Logic. Learning the basics, a la Garageband, or the new Logic X without Advanced Options turned on, tells you little or nothing about how to deal with the deeper stuff.

Logic is better now. The Environment is largely irrelevant, and there is enough support in various communities to work out some of the more opaque arbitrary stuff. But still, whenever I start up something in Logic, I have to keep stopping and asking myself, how did that work?
2018 Mini i7 32G 10.14.6, DP 11.3, Mixbus 9, Logic 10.5, Scarlett 18i8
User avatar
Shooshie
Posts: 19820
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:01 pm
Primary DAW OS: MacOS
Location: Dallas
Contact:

Re: Digital Performer Vs Logic Pro X

Post by Shooshie »

Michael Canavan wrote:Sorry Shooshie but DP is odd.

You and I have always disagreed on that, Michael, but after spending a year in Logic, partly because of conversations with you and others who raised my expectations beyond what I actually found there, I had to conclude that we're just not wired up the same. I know many feel the same as you, but I assure you that many are like me, and I'll go out on a limb and suggest that the majority of multi-DAW users would agree with me that Logic is the odd one. But birds of a feather tend to hang out together, so my observations could be skewed by our tendency to flock with like-minded souls.

In the pre-Apple days, I observed Logic every time I had the chance. When I'd ask people to explain it to me, they'd start, then invariably they'd say (and this is an amalgam of all their comments) "you know? Unless you just buy it and commit to it, you'll never understand this thing. But when you finally do understand it, Logic can be pretty amazing." Of course, they were saying that to someone who wanted the 15 minute tour. There was no 15 minute tour in Logic.

Every Logic user I knew in the pre-Apple days made songs with sample loops, still kind of new then. Most didn't care what I thought about that, but at least one tried to hide the fact that he knew little about music, and yet wrote jingles for one of the biggest production studios in Dallas. They were average late-night TV jingles, but wouldn't win any awards. He didn't like talking music, because that would get into things like chords, structure, voicings, and keys – things he didn't know. Suffice to say that my opinion of Logic and its users at the time was not on par with DP's users. To some extent that has changed. Stereotyping only goes so far before it breaks.

Not that any of this matters. Just that to me Logic is the odd one. Chunking doesn't make DP odd. It just gives it more capabilities which you may or may not choose to use. Once you figure out how to configure the basic app the rest of DP is familiar to anyone who has used a studio and a sequencer before. I can't say the same about Logic. Oh, I learned it. I used it. I completed some projects on it. But the hoops it made me jump through to do what was easy in DP finally made me set it aside for good.

Shooshie
|l| OS X 10.12.6 |l| DP 10.0 |l| 2.4 GHz 12-Core MacPro Mid-2012 |l| 40GB RAM |l| Mach5.3 |l| Waves 9.x |l| Altiverb |l| Ivory 2 New York Steinway |l| Wallander WIVI 2.30 Winds, Brass, Saxes |l| Garritan Aria |l| VSL 5.3.1 and VSL Pro 2.3.1 |l| Yamaha WX-5 MIDI Wind Controller |l| Roland FC-300 |l|
User avatar
mikehalloran
Posts: 15134
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 5:08 pm
Primary DAW OS: MacOS
Location: Sillie Con Valley

Re: Digital Performer Vs Logic Pro X

Post by mikehalloran »

I keep the latest version of Logic on my Mac so that I can export files from others' projects into DP where I can get something done. No one has ever asked me to import my results back into Logic-ever.

I've looked at it over the years but have never found anything I needed to do that wasn't already there in DP, the devil I know, so to speak.
DP 11.31; 828mkII FW, micro lite, M4, MTP/AV USB Firmware 2.0.1
2023 Mac Studio M2 8TB, 192GB RAM, OS Sonoma 14.4, USB4 8TB external, M-Audio AIR 192|14, Mackie ProFxv3 6/10/12; 2012 MBPs Catalina, Mojave
IK-NI-Izotope-PSP-Garritan-Antares, LogicPro X, Finale 27.4, Dorico 5.2, Notion 6, Overture 5, TwistedWave, DSP-Q 5, SmartScore64 Pro, Toast 20 Pro
User avatar
Michael Canavan
Posts: 3538
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 10:01 pm
Primary DAW OS: MacOS
Location: seattle

Re: Digital Performer Vs Logic Pro X

Post by Michael Canavan »

Shooshie wrote: I know many feel the same as you, but I assure you that many are like me, and I'll go out on a limb and suggest that the majority of multi-DAW users would agree with me that Logic is the odd one. But birds of a feather tend to hang out together, so my observations could be skewed by our tendency to flock with like-minded souls.
Well observed, and to your credit, the two DAWs I hear the most people saying they had a hard time with, found odd, thought might be too deep, geared towards tech/music minded people whatever excuse for not liking or clicking with it are DP and Logic, my two favorite full featured DAWs, not sure what that says about me? :lol:

Though I would be willing to bet if a poll was done on which DAW people found the hardest to grasp at a place like Gearsluts or KVR <-- large contingent of multi DAW users at both places, it would be DP first followed by Logic. It actually doesn't say anything at all bad about either DAW that this is the case, IMO it's a testimony to the fact that they're deep, with plenty to learn even after using them for years.
Live, Studio One, Bigwig, the DAW that cannot be named, and Cubase really, are all set up to get you up and running with the way they make you work, DP and to a degree Logic, require you to set up your workflow yourself, offer you the possibility to modify it to your needs, and offer keyboard shortcuts as ways to an end, not just a 'feature'. Plenty of times when you've mentioned something that you found missing in Logic, I thought to myself, "Hmm? I did that all the time in Logic?", but because I couldn't remember the dammed key commands to tell you, (it's been at least 6 years since I've used Logic for any real projects), and I don't really care that much being a DP fan like you, I didn't bother with it. Logic is a great package, I'm also like the rest of you somewhat disappointed in Apple for bringing it in so cheaply with so much bundled in, I doubt MOTU would have bothered with the Windows port if Apple hadn't done that. I'm happy that Windows users get to play with DP, but if they don't ramp up sales then it's redundant coding for compatibility that MOTU has to do because Apple decided to compete directly with one of it's oldest pro applications. :roll:

Anyway, our original poster is a Logic user, and is getting DP because it's part of an internship. My point was never to ruffle DP users feathers with my post, but to point out the glaring differences that DP and Logic have with each other, that's about it.
M2 Studio Ultra, RME Babyface FS, Slate Raven Mti2, NI SL88 MKII, Linnstrument, MPC Live II, Launchpad MK3. Hundreds of plug ins.
User avatar
Guitar Gaz
Posts: 1381
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2005 6:36 am
Primary DAW OS: MacOS
Location: LONDON

Re: Digital Performer Vs Logic Pro X

Post by Guitar Gaz »

Back in the day when DAW's were called Sequencers, people used to work with lots of smaller sequences (say Verse, Chorus etc.) and then bring them together in a larger sequence or Song once they were happy with the arrangement of the material. Opcode Vision was the way I learned that method which seems logical (no pun) and an easier way of working than a linear tape record method of one big song. That's why it became popular as songwriters could work together on separate parts easily and then assemble it all together much more easily than making edits on multi track tapes and joining them together with each other. Wasn't that why Pro Tools became so popular over analogue recording when musicians discovered they could easily move bits of songs around or edit in other sections?

I cannot understand why anyone would want to record on one long linear sequence unless they have completely composed and arranged all sections of a song or piece beforehand - I ain't no Mozart so I need to break things down - into Chunks if you like.

So Vision was superb at sequences and subsequences, DP has Chunks which are a bit clunkier (you have to select a chunk to work on it with a few seconds delay, in Vision you kept them all open and just clicked onto the one you wanted for instant editing). However DP can be used this way - and interestingly the one feature Reason brought in a few years ago was Blocks - which gives you the ability to have lots of - gulp! - separate sequences you can work on and eventually join in a larger Song type sequence.

I am now hearing that Logic X which I was looking at trying (the price is so cheap really) doesn't do separate sequences, chunks, or blocks - one of the reasons I abandoned Garageband as even a basic scratchpad for quick ideas was this single project prison. Why would anyone want to record that way unless they were just used to it? To me it makes recording and composing just more difficult - might as well go back to multi-track tape like the studio I used to work in during the 1970's.

I don't care what anyone says - its natural to work in separate sequences or chunks - songwriters come up with a verse maybe or a chorus first, and then put a song together bit by bit. You can do that in a linear fashion but its much easier breaking it down. I suppose classical pieces would prefer a linear approach in developing - although I would still have separate chunks for 1st Movement etc. To me, and my father who was an old school type of musical arranger with the Bee Gees and others, the technological breakthrough of sequencers freed up composition and recording. I am looking now at his original Roland MSQ-700 sequencer, the Linn Drum, and his DX7 with which he embraced the new way of doing things. And me too having worked in a 1970's studio with 16 track tape.

Don't think I'll bother then with Logic......
Gary Shepherd
____________
iMac 27" 3.3 GHz Intel Core i5, 32 GB Ram, Monterey 12.7.4, 64 bit, Digital Performer 11.2, Studio One 6.5 Professional, Reason 11, Melodyne 5 Editor, Korg Legacy Wavestation and M1, Arturia minimoog V, Helix Native 3.72, Bias FX 2 Elite, Superior Drummer 3, EZkeys, EZbass, Nektar Panorama T4, Motu M4, Faderport 2018, Gibson Les Paul Standard, James Tyler Variax JTV-59 and other gear.
User avatar
James Steele
Site Administrator
Posts: 21068
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:01 pm
Primary DAW OS: MacOS
Location: San Diego, CA - U.S.A.
Contact:

Re: Digital Performer Vs Logic Pro X

Post by James Steele »

Michael Canavan wrote:There's no doubt at all in my mind that for someone coming from Cubase, Logic is easier to grasp and make more "sense" than DP...
*If* you come from that, as in you have absolutely no grounding in the traditional multitrack recording paradigm, then it makes sense. I'm not one of those, either.
JamesSteeleProject.com | Facebook | Instagram | Twitter

Mac Studio M1 Max, 64GB/2TB, MacOS 14.4.1 Sonoma, DP 11.31, MOTU 828es, MOTU 24Ai, MOTU MIDI Express XT, UAD-2 TB3 Satellite OCTO, Console 1 Mk2, Avid S3, NI Komplete Kontrol S88 Mk2, Red Type B, Millennia HV-3C, Warm Audio WA-2A, AudioScape 76F, Dean guitars, Marshall amps, etc., etc.!
User avatar
Michael Canavan
Posts: 3538
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 10:01 pm
Primary DAW OS: MacOS
Location: seattle

Re: Digital Performer Vs Logic Pro X

Post by Michael Canavan »

James Steele wrote:
Michael Canavan wrote:There's no doubt at all in my mind that for someone coming from Cubase, Logic is easier to grasp and make more "sense" than DP...
*If* you come from that, as in you have absolutely no grounding in the traditional multitrack recording paradigm, then it makes sense. I'm not one of those, either.
Sure, but it's not a cut and dried thing. An example, a lot of Live users came from composing on MPCs, these people have no problem with Live's workflow because of the similarities. Plenty of these people had worked with tape for recording, but their MPC background gave them the Live concept for the composing part of Live.
I came from using Performer and multitrack recording and had no real difficulties using Logic, except in area where Logic is difficult for everyone, the Transform window for anything beyond what's in the preset selections is a great example. Mostly I think that the case with DAWs is you're going to be most comfortable on what you first click with, every time I use Cubase on a friends machine everything is in the 'wrong' place. :twisted:
M2 Studio Ultra, RME Babyface FS, Slate Raven Mti2, NI SL88 MKII, Linnstrument, MPC Live II, Launchpad MK3. Hundreds of plug ins.
Post Reply