LOGIC STUDIO AND LOGIC 8 JUST OUT!!

[jlaudon]

This is only my personal opinion and is not based with any scientific evidence but i came from logic 4.5 and also have logic 7 and i noticed at the time when i 'upgraded' to DP that there is a difference in sound to my ears and i know in a sound shoot between DAWS out a few years ago DP came 2nd. I've always thought (wrongly or rightly) that the buss architecture and the internal way that DP processes wave (SD11) files is 'maybe' more complex and hence the difference in sound.

I'm not discounting in any way that Logic has been optimized deeply within its code but this would make a difference in efficiency and CPU loads.

My 5 cents

5 cents is better than 2 cents

You might have a valid point - so, if a few people that have both apps (or maybe daveporter with Cubase) does a sound comparison, this could be a big reason for cpu usage.

Frodo, have you noticed any difference with L7 and DP, soundwise?

[kassonica]

One more thing though MY clients noticed the mixes sounded better. also L 7 us better than 4.7 and five cents cause we got rid of 1's and 2's down under years ago

[monkey man]

I'm mad now. I wanna spend $500. It's burning a hole in my pocket.
Shooshie

Must... resist... urge to... make... suggestion...

There's a DP upgrade and more RAM in that there $500, Shoosh.
Shouldn't be long now, methinks.
I've renewed optimism for DP, the hype of L8's arrival is already wearing off, and I smell an update on the way.
Hopesville, here I come!

[Monkey resumes prayers that he be let off reamping by a DP simulation plug and buying Altiverb, Vintage Warmer, a denoiser, MSI, Ethno and possibly even MachFive.]
MachOne, anyone?
Future DP updates could increment this to MachTwo, Three and so on...

This is only my personal opinion and is not based with any scientific evidence but i came from logic 4.5 and also have logic 7 and i noticed at the time when i 'upgraded' to DP that there is a difference in sound to my ears and i know in a sound shoot between DAWS out a few years ago DP came 2nd. I've always thought (wrongly or rightly) that the buss architecture and the internal way that DP processes wave (SD11) files is 'maybe' more complex and hence the difference in sound.
I'm not discounting in any way that Logic has been optimized deeply within its code but this would make a difference in efficiency and CPU loads.
My 5 cents

Mark, I've always assumed the MAS engine would allow MOTU the scope to freely introduce additional complexity and features to audio processing/mixing, and so have been all for it.
Further, if MOTU's ever going to introduce optional DSP expansion, the engine will already be in place (subject to additional tweaks, no doubt).
Then there are the hardware interfaces - it would seem to me that a discreet audio engine that MOTU themselves created would offer both the benefits of self-contained/constrained processing as well as intimate knowledge of the inner workings of the beast.

[grimepoch]

I definitely do not believe there is some sort of conspiracy going on, or that apple is holding back anything. I think the issue here is that CoreAudio is written in a way to work better with Logic and vice-versus. It follows what they believe to be the best architecture, and so of course, they follow that architecture.

I also think the mixing engine of DP is way more powerful on the get-go. For Logic, I am noticing a lot of things I took for granted are either not there, or not easy accessible.

The problem is, programs like Cubase and DP require a complete rewrite of the audio processing system that gets closer to CoreAudio, not have a layer (MAS) of code inbetween. In addition, the system needs to be enhanced that it is multi-buffer size aware.

So far L8 is working nice for me, however, I have crashed it, I have found bugs, and I have caused CPU performance to spike through the roof. That said, I do not understand L8 like I do DP, so I am not sure what I am breaking I appreciate DP a lot more now, but I can see myself doing a lot in Logic AND DP.

[monkey man]

... I appreciate DP a lot more now, but I can see myself doing a lot in Logic AND DP.

Thank you for coughing up the dough and spillin' the beans, Grimey!

I intend to experience your renewed appreciation of DP, but sans any outlay.
Keeping a close eye on all our beloved guinea pigs.

I anticipate much bean spillin', and have boiling water at the ready.

[daveporter]

After seeing a news item about Microsoft having to pay up in Europe, they also mentioned that other companies (including Apple) might be next.

I can't help but think that after daveporter's post on the CPU usage of L8 and Cubase 4, that Apple is holdng back something from developers that enables L8 to run sooo much more efficient. Even when I used Logic 7, I couldn't believe the difference between DP and Logic CPU usage. I wonder if any of these companies like MOTU, Steinberg, and Digidesign might join ranks to push for something - after all, all these apps (PT LE, HD) run so much less efficient than Logic. What gives?

I don't think that there is any conspiracy to hold back "secrete" information from rival DAW software companies. I would be willing to bet that in reality, that this is a case of Apple's programmers better understanding the Mac OS underpinnings and that they are better able to optimize their code better than the competition. After all, the Logic programmers are concerned with writing code that will "only" run on one platform AND that just happens to be the platform that their company sells the equipment and OS for.

The other DAW software companies that are cross platform have to split their resources and (as far as I know) prepare their code so that it can be used on both platforms (with the necessary modifications of course). The point is, that they don't optimize the code just for the Mac OS.

Just because the programmers at one company can "out optimize" the programmers at another company does not necessarily mean that the first company has some "secret" information that is held back from the other programmers; it might just be that the first guys were just better programmers and took the time to determine how to write the best code.

Dave

[daveporter]

Since I don't have a copy of DP, can anyone tell me if you have seen high CPU demands with the transport at stop with a project with only one audio track when the latency is set to very low levels (such as 64 samples)?

As you can see from my earlier post, that is a real problem for me with my system when I am using Cubase 4.0.3.

Thanks,

Dave

[Timeline]

I don't know about the intel macs but on my G5 in stop the meter is much lower. Hit play and it bounces relative to usage and data pulls from the HD.

This is as it's always been but say from an empty project file to a loaded one at rest there is a slight rise depending on the size of the project.

This is normal

[Frodo]

CPU is still pretty hefty on my G5, but my MacPro's CPU readouts have been pretty darn low, usually around 5-10%. I did have one project where the CPU hovered in the 50% area whether idle or playing back on the MacPro, but that was a huge project and a rare situation.

Considering other issues I've had with the MacPro, I'm grateful that CPU load is not among them.

[duncan]

I don't think that there is any conspiracy to hold back "secrete" information from rival DAW software companies.

According to a recent post, Apple is holding back the spec on Apple Loops, so that no other DAW can play them without converting them to audio files. PT is holding back the spec on ProTools files, so that no other DAW can code a conversion program.

All these companies take capitalism to the point where they feel compelled to protect their own bottom line, at the expense of the community they're supposed to be servicing. I see it as being short sighted and greedy, but it's the American way.

[Matcher]

This is only my personal opinion and is not based with any scientific evidence but i came from logic 4.5 and also have logic 7 and i noticed at the time when i 'upgraded' to DP that there is a difference in sound to my ears and i know in a sound shoot between DAWS out a few years ago DP came 2nd.

Is there any info available about this comparison?

[daveporter]

I don't think that there is any conspiracy to hold back "secrete" information from rival DAW software companies.

According to a recent post, Apple is holding back the spec on Apple Loops, so that no other DAW can play them without converting them to audio files. PT is holding back the spec on ProTools files, so that no other DAW can code a conversion program.

All these companies take capitalism to the point where they feel compelled to protect their own bottom line, at the expense of the community they're supposed to be servicing. I see it as being short sighted and greedy, but it's the American way.

Holding back proprietary file format information is not the same as a company that develops the operating system holding back key interface and low level software/hardware interaction information to prevent its competition's products from achieving equal performance to its own.

In the case of proprietary file formats, I think that there is nothing unfair about holding that information as secret. However, holding back key operating system interaction information would be unfair and should not be allowed. I don't believe that Apple is doing the later, however, I'm sure they are doing the former and since I'm a proud capitalist, I agree with them.

Duncan, a for-profit corporation MUST keep its trade secrets to itself for it to stay in business; thats is the bottom line. Lamenting that "Companies take capitalism to the point where they feel compelled to protect their own bottom line" makes little sense; if a company is a for-profit company, then by its very nature that is what it exists for and it should not be a surprise when it acts that way. What is the alternative? Socialism or communism? Don't even get me started on my feelings on those financial models. A for-profit company does not exist to enrich its customers financially...it exists to provide products and services that its customers demand and sell them at a profit.

Dave

[grimepoch]

Exactly, just as MOTU keeps their file format specs private as well. Just as they keep their plugins that come with DP only working with DP. No difference.

[daveporter]

I have now installed LP8 on my MacBook Pro 15" (2.33 GHz Cor2Duo Intel Processor, 2 GB RAM, stock hard drive, stock built in audio set at 96 sample core audio buffer).

I loaded up my performance test project (which was described in the thread earlier. Hit play and, as you would expect, it would not play due to CPU overload. So I started to removed MasterVerbs until it would play without any audio glitches. I was amazed to find that it would play fine with 96 Masterverbs inserted 4 in series on each of the 24 audio tracks!!!!

At this point the Logic CPU meter and the Mac activity monitor both showed very even CPU demands on each of the two cores (at about 90% each) for a total of 181% (just short of full CPU capacity).

What was amazing to me was that the UI was totally fluid with no visual problems or slow-down of any kind and the audio was perfect with no audio artifacts or any indication of overload.

Keep in mind that this was with the on-board audio and the on-board hard disk drive.

All I can say is WOW!

Dave

[PeterMcCStrat]

L8, is a million times less CPU intensive on my Mac Pro than DP was,...

no,.. make that 500,000 times,. and even at lower settings --64 samples!

why is the MAS engine so much more demanding,...

(notice I didn't say less optimized),..


PM