Logic and Digital Performer

sdfalk · Post by **sdfalk** » Sun Nov 20, 2005 11:21 am

I'm going to preface this with
I use DP and will likely continue to do so, but:

I've found myself working on a ssession with a friend of mine
recently in Logic Express.
He wanted to try 24bit/88khz sample rates.
To make a long story short, I was able to easily work with a
24 channel session in stereo at that sample rate at 256 buffer
size with an extra instrument with no trouble.
I was actually able to bring the buffer down to 64.
The meter went up considerably, but I was (with no trouble)
able to keep right on working.
For kicks I layed out a similar session in DP.
Forget it.
At 1024 DP crapped out never mind 64.
I realize that DP has alot going for it (pitch automation etc)
but What the hell?
Is there a way to optimize the audio engine in DP to get
similar performance, or are we going to be waiting for Motu
to REALLY optimize the program a bit more.
Yes I sent this to Motu.

PJ · Post by PJ » Sun Nov 20, 2005 11:29 am

At 1024 DP crapped out never mind 64.

As much as I love DP, I also have found Logic much better optimized than DP.

giles117 · Post by **giles117** » Sun Nov 20, 2005 11:33 am

Totally why this latest album of my wifes is being sequenced in Logic. Her last album was done completly in DP 3, but 4 is nowhere near as optimized as we all think is Should be.

Clean up the CODE MOTU!!!!!!!

sdfalk · Post by **sdfalk** » Sun Nov 20, 2005 12:47 pm

It's incredible it's that much worse.
In the Logic version previous to this (I'm running 7.1.1)
The differences appeared far less pronounced.
Apples REALLY optimized the program.
Now if only Motu can get off there ass.
I really wouldn't want to move to Logic Pro full time
because the audio editing is really awful.
I may have to re-consider that position unless Motu
gets off their ass.
I'd rather not have to..
Come one Motu..let's get it together.

giles117 · Post by **giles117** » Sun Nov 20, 2005 12:50 pm

That is why I use both, I seq in Logic and freeze tracks (I am sure you have read this a million time) then bounce into DP for the REAL audio work, if I need more I BTD and send into logic for additional seq. work.

sdfalk · Post by **sdfalk** » Sun Nov 20, 2005 1:29 pm

giles117 wrote:That is why I use both, I seq in Logic and freeze tracks (I am sure you have read this a million time) then bounce into DP for the REAL audio work, if I need more I BTD and send into logic for additional seq. work.

Which I understand (and have just started doing recently myself)
I have a ways to go before I really know the program though.
I just wish it wasn't (as) necessary.
If Apple ever decides to improve the Audio editing functionality in
Logic, Motu will be in big trouble.
oh well

giles117 · Post by **giles117** » Sun Nov 20, 2005 1:40 pm

If Logic gets to pro tools level editing, I might completely jump ship... Then again NOT,, cuz I will not spend a grand just to have access to all 72 of my MOTU audio inputs....

Frodo · Post by **Frodo** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 10:50 am

Glad to hear others are bouncing between DP and Logic to take advantage of both. I'm not a fan of Logic's workflow at all, but there's no argument that many things simply work better in Logic-- except for me! I really prefer DP's GUI.

sdfalk · Post by **sdfalk** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:09 pm

I certainly prefer DPs GUI as well.
That doesn't change the fact that its underlying engine
needs serious work.

amerecordingstudio · Post by **amerecordingstudio** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:14 pm

I'd just like to point out that i've started a petition thread for just that purpose... to get MOTU to optimize MAS.

http://www.unicornation.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=8281

dougieb · Post by **dougieb** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:23 pm

First off, Kudos to SD for being very objective on this... I rarely see a MOTU/Negative post from him, so when he does do one, I know it is the real deal...

Second... I posted months ago about some PC DAW that was getting insane #'s of tracks and plugs on a PIII-500! Then noted that Reason on my Pentium M 1.2ghz was barely lighting the 1st bar with 20 instruments.

Yeah, something definitely smells in the code at MOTU. It would behoove them to get a hotshot assembly optimizer guru like John Carmack or someone to come in and clean it up no matter the cost.

stickwolf · Post by **stickwolf** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 2:00 pm

Just a quick thought on the petition:

I don't exactly get the point. If you want to compile a list of people who are having issues or have compared DP side by side with more optimized programs, that's one thing.

Would any DP user actually say "no, I don't think the code should be optimized" ?

What is the petition saying? That we want MOTU to make optimization top priority such that they hold off on any other changes? If the petition just says, "please work on optimizing the code" then that seems like a pretty pointless petition to me.

Sure, I want the code optimized but it is all relative. I got a newer computer, and switched to OSX and now things are better than my old system. There is nothing to be gained from asking me if I would vote for having more improvement still. Of course I would. If I had to choose outright between optimization and some other feature or change, I guess I'd want to know how much difference the optimizing would make and how useful the new feature(s) would be before I could decide.

Maybe instead of a "petition" I would suggest compiling a list of people who feel that their work is currently being affected by the lack of optimization. That would be useful. Otherwise, of course you'll have 100% agreement to just saying "MOTU should optimize the code." And that won't prove squat.

iMAS · Post by **iMAS** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 2:15 pm

stickwolf wrote:Maybe instead of a "petition" I would suggest compiling a list of people who feel that their work is currently being affected by the lack of optimization. That would be useful. Otherwise, of course you'll have 100% agreement to just saying "MOTU should optimize the code." And that won't prove squat.

Well, if every other app can go 80 mph and DP can only go 50 mph...I would assume everyone is affected by it, regardless of the computer used....the problem is, they probably don't even know they're being limited by dp's engine...that's what bothers me.

sdfalk · Post by **sdfalk** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 2:21 pm

stickwolf wrote:Just a quick thought on the petition:

I don't exactly get the point. If you want to compile a list of people who are having issues or have compared DP side by side with more optimized programs, that's one thing.

Would any DP user actually say "no, I don't think the code should be optimized" ?

What is the petition saying? That we want MOTU to make optimization top priority such that they hold off on any other changes? If the petition just says, "please work on optimizing the code" then that seems like a pretty pointless petition to me.

Sure, I want the code optimized but it is all relative. I got a newer computer, and switched to OSX and now things are better than my old system. There is nothing to be gained from asking me if I would vote for having more improvement still. Of course I would. If I had to choose outright between optimization and some other feature or change, I guess I'd want to know how much difference the optimizing would make and how useful the new feature(s) would be before I could decide.

Maybe instead of a "petition" I would suggest compiling a list of people who feel that their work is currently being affected by the lack of optimization. That would be useful. Otherwise, of course you'll have 100% agreement to just saying "MOTU should optimize the code." And that won't prove squat.

So let's make this process as convoluted as possible by discussing the
potential value of "other features" not even in existence yet over
something as fairly straightforward (a request) as optimizing the code?
Not to say that programming is straightforward or anything.
It doesn't prove squat because everybody wants it?
I'm not sure if any DP user would actually say "no the code shouldn't
be optimized", but there have been many DP users living in a
comfortable haze (myself included) thinking that DP (as a whole)
was fine the way it was.
That's obviously not the case.
The whole point of a petition is to get together as "one voice" to affect
some kind of change.
If you think this is pointless, you're free to examine the issue yourself
in greater detail rather then just pop in and say this is bullsh••.
Better yet, you can write motu a letter (if you haven't already) and
request features/changes/ideas yourself.
I work on small to medium size sound design projects in film and video.
On a G4/400 I was (easily) able to turn out 40-50 channels of 24 bit
audio in DP 2.7-3.11.
Now that becomes a strain on a G5.
That's inexcusable.
I used to believe (Perhaps) OSX itself (with its' pre-emptive multitasking)
was partially to blame.
Nope.
Logic seems to be working fine.
Dp needs work, it doesn't need new features (if anything older features
need to be tweaked and re-worked.)
DP's audio engine/underlying code needs to be put on a diet.
It's the fat guy at the pastry table.
Instead of stuffing more crap down its throat, why not clean up and
optimize what's already there?
A software enema if you will.

iMAS · Post by **iMAS** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 2:31 pm

stickwolf wrote: I got a newer computer, and switched to OSX and now things are better than my old system.

Getting a quad to run DP is like driving a ferrari that's dragging a trailer.