MOTUnation.com

Dwetmaster wrote:I would just make three track all on separate inputs, then use either your controller send channel to change or assign two to the "switch record-enabled track" in the command window. Then you have real keyswitch without looking at the computer.

Yes, but what if I have (and I really have) the whole MIDI score from, say, Sibelius?

After switching to the Mac in 2001 for all my audio work, I started with Logic version 5.

The problem for me was that I never got comfortable with the MIDI workflow in Logic. I tried very hard to truly learn the ins/outs of Logic [environment/transformers, etc].
And as the years went by, I started doing more and more MIDI vi work, Logic just kept driving me crazy.

While Apple continues to advance the audio side of Logic, I feel like the MIDI side has just been left to rot.

For me the MIDI handling/editing in DP is so much better.
That's the huge benefit for me since switching to DP.

I also like the consolidated window very much. I always felt in Logic like I needed a second monitor, but one monitor seems to display so much more information for me in DP. [But using Spaces in DP, or any program, is very slick!]

I think you will find that all of the DAWs have their pluses and minuses.
They are all completely miraculous programs, when you stop and think about it.

James Steele wrote:Well, here I am justifying a decision I made to you again. This feels awfully familiar. So here... I'll try and explain it as best I can. This is NOT about using DP per say. This is a "convince-me-to-use-DP" thread which really doesn't fit in the DP Forum since this is crossing over in to generaly "comparative DAW" blather that wastes space and really goes in the "theoretical discussions" and off-topic area.

Easy there, James, I wasn't asking for justification (and you'll have to cite where I've asked you for justification on anything in this forum previously), just seemed weird that we were discussing DP in a positive light and it got moved to a different section (and one marked "Gripes"). While it makes sense, since we're comparing DP to other DAWS, we are listing all the positive attributes of the software, so it threw me for a loop. Anyhoo ...

Does anyone know why programs like Logic have to make their internal routing schematic so overly complicated? Cubase is the same way, so are a few other DAWS. DP makes sense in that it all happens "under the hood"; you just assume when you set up sends or bus an output to a certain auxiliary channel, that's where it goes. I don't even think ProTools gets that complicated!

charlesparente wrote:After switching to the Mac in 2001 for all my audio work, I started with Logic version 5.

The problem for me was that I never got comfortable with the MIDI workflow in Logic. I tried very hard to truly learn the ins/outs of Logic [environment/transformers, etc].
And as the years went by, I started doing more and more MIDI vi work, Logic just kept driving me crazy.

While Apple continues to advance the audio side of Logic, I feel like the MIDI side has just been left to rot.

For me the MIDI handling/editing in DP is so much better.
That's the huge benefit for me since switching to DP.

I also like the consolidated window very much. I always felt in Logic like I needed a second monitor, but one monitor seems to display so much more information for me in DP. [But using Spaces in DP, or any program, is very slick!]

I think you will find that all of the DAWs have their pluses and minuses.
They are all completely miraculous programs, when you stop and think about it.

Digital Performer started out as a MIDI-only sequencer, ProTools started out as an audio-only program, Cubase started out as Steinberg's showcase for its proprietary VST algorithm and Logic started out as eMagic's incredibly complicated, expensive and elitist ... well, I'm not even sure what kind of program it was originally intended to be. DP evolved somewhat naturally into a full-featured DAW, and by all accounts, so did ProTools (though, like all DAWs of this ilk, they seem incapable of putting together a comprehensive standard of MIDI tools, like DP has, that would make it useful), Cubase merged its tools with its more expensive brother, Nuendo, thus ensuring that most of its subsequent updates would be as buggy as possible and Logic got bought by Apple, who seems to think that the best way to keep its customer base happy is to continue keeping it illogically complex (sort of like Windoze) and adding as many extras as possible to keep everyone from realizing its shortcomings. I'm not even sure you can use the argument that Logic is intended to be professional-caliber DAW software, since Final Cut Pro, Apple's pro-level editing software, comes with Soundtrack Pro, which is intended to be used as multi-track post audio software (though, if memory serves, they've since folded that up into Logic).

I think the variety of DAWs available means everyone can find one to suit their own workflow, and that's really the thing: you have to find the one that corresponds best to your own workflow. Download demos, get on forums, go to music stores with DAW demos already set up and running and tool around with them.

James Steele wrote:

michkhol wrote:But it cannot go where Logic (even if in not so simple and elegant way) can.

The question really boils down to: "Do most users want or need to go there?"

James,

"most users" is a very vague category but I believe you have DP users in mind. If not, I'm sorry.

At that time I had DP5 and Logic 8. I didn't have VSL yet, but I had Reason and Miroslav Philharmonic refill. I worked on a score and I needed at least some way to switch articulations. DP had the solution: a track per articulation. But I would have had first to triple or quadruple the number of MIDI tracks and then somehow distribute the notes to proper articulation tracks. And DP does not mute notes, so the whole idea was a nightmare. Logic didn't have anything for that out of the box either but it allowed me to build an Environment template to do exactly what I wanted and how I wanted. I spent some time to work it out of course but it cannot compare to the time I would have spent with DP. And I stayed with a single track per instrument. I couldn't afford VSL of any kind at that time, so it was the need that drove me there. Granted very few users will ever have that kind of problem, but if you ever find yourself in a situation without the appropriate sampler, you will have almost no choice.

michkhol wrote:But I would have had first to triple or quadruple the number of MIDI tracks and then somehow distribute the notes to proper articulation tracks. And DP does not mute notes, so the whole idea was a nightmare. Logic didn't have anything for that out of the box either but it allowed me to build an Environment template to do exactly what I wanted and how I wanted.

That makes sense to me. I was on the verge of building the same sort of environment in Logic until DP introduced track folders. I know that doesn't work for everyone, but I tried several different ways of nesting and organizing my folders. Gladly, it worked well enough for what I needed to do, but I also understand that my needs may be simpler than those of others.

michkhol wrote: so it was the need that drove me there. Granted very few users will ever have that kind of problem, but if you ever find yourself in a situation without the appropriate sampler, you will have almost no choice.

That's a fair statement... needs dictate much. It's also a good reminder that not everyone is doing large orchestral scores-- we're still sort of a growing minority in DAW world. I suppose one question which wasn't asked of the OP was whether this particular feature was important enough to sway his decision.

michkhol wrote:

James Steele wrote:

michkhol wrote:But it cannot go where Logic (even if in not so simple and elegant way) can.

The question really boils down to: "Do most users want or need to go there?"

James,

"most users" is a very vague category but I believe you have DP users in mind. If not, I'm sorry.

Nothing vague about it. Let me rephrase: "51% or greater DAW users." That's what I meant. It's my contention that a majority (aka "most"; aka "51% or more") of the people who buy DAW software will not have a need for that.

michkhol wrote:Granted very few users will ever have that kind of problem...

I thought that's what I was saying?

I think Logic's environment is incredibly powerful. Reminds me a bit of DPs consoles, which are in their own way very powerful, also a bit arcane, but if and when you need them they're invaluable.

But I do think that a few choice tasks that currently require using the environment should not require to get under the hood to such an extent (the most prominent I can think of is the use of multi-timbral VIs. I think that's where the animosity to the environment stems from.) The need to use the environment should be reserved to cases like the one Michkol was describing. Now for those cases I think it's a great tool to have.

Back in the day I built tons of custom consoles in DP - to spit out SysEx live to a TX802, to automate my entire Roland VS1680/VS880 setup etc. And I was glad I was able to do it. But I haven't opened consoles since DP4 and I'm even more glad that I didn't need to, because everything I needed was by now built in in more accessible ways. However, I don't want DP to ever get rid of consoles, for that time when I decide on a whim I need to spit out live SysEx again...

Yep... I like Custom Consoles myself. Believe it or not, I still have an old EPS 16+ rack unit and I created a custom console that allowed me to navigate the front panel remotely from DP. Amazingly enough it STILL works in DP7 and Leopard so many years later!

James Steele wrote:Yep... I like Custom Consoles myself. Believe it or not, I still have an old EPS 16+ rack unit and I created a custom console that allowed me to navigate the front panel remotely from DP. Amazingly enough it STILL works in DP7 and Leopard so many years later!

Now that's AWESOME!

James Steele wrote:
The question really boils down to: "Do most users want or need to go there?"

James Steele wrote: Nothing vague about it. Let me rephrase: "51% or greater DAW users." That's what I meant. It's my contention that a majority (aka "most"; aka "51% or more") of the people who buy DAW software will not have a need for that.

James Steele wrote:

michkhol wrote:Granted very few users will ever have that kind of problem...

I thought that's what I was saying?

I was not arguing with what you said, I was (and am) trying to answer your question The needs are unpredictable even for the most of users and it is always good to have something that will help you to get the job done no matter what.

Babz wrote:Because Logic SUCKS!

Seriously, though... Why not tell us something about how you work, what your set up is like, etc. What is your budget? Are you recording a band or doing film scoring at a desk? Do you do mostly audio? Mostly MIDI? Do you use virtual instruments? Do you own any third party plugins or virtual instrument? Outboard gear? Do you use hardware MIDI devices? You say you've "outgrown"... What does that mean? What are you looking for that you can't do now? Where do you want to go in the future with your music projects? Do you work mostly in a linear way, like live performance with tape rolling, or do you work in little building blocks, with loops, etc.? And so on....

Babz

Thanks for your response Babz, and to everyone else for their input.
To kick off I'd like to say by outgrowing Garageband I really mean the low sample rate is not going to cut it for what i need to do. That's a shame because it is easy to use and the program probably covers 90% of what I'll ever require, aside from the poor quality fx etc that come with it. Garage band currently allows me to put down ideas very quickly which helps the creative process. I don't want to use software that restricts this.
I don't own any extra software, reverbs eq etc, so no loss there.
I don't use MIDI (might use it in future); most of what i do is playing external instruments, mainly keys with onboard sounds and recording those parts onto separate tracks. Also recording vocals. I rarely loop recordings, rather play the parts from start to finish. The main loops I use are for drums, to get the song going, and then record over it in some cases using external electronic drums.
What I'd like in a DAW is something where it is simple to program/sequence drums(merge loops), good quality reverbs, delays, eq and a few FX ie phaser, bit crushers, echoes, and the ability to master a final stereo track.
It's unlikely I need any more than 24 tracks for most projects.
Currently I need to record high quality demo's for an 80's cover band I'm in, but my main project is an original electro pop duo. Those recordings need to be of professional quality for myspace and for use as backing in a live situation.

="Frodo"]Why should I use Digital Performer?

Here's why:




That's a Logic Window, btw.


====[/quote]

you don't have to do it this way thoguh. Because tracks are objects you can create multiple instrument tracks that reference the same VI in the arrange window using the command from the tracks menu. Each instance (track) gets it's MIDI channel set 1-8 (in the case of RMX) instead of all or omni.

Just throwing it out there. Of cource them you need to setup the biases and auxes, which while there is no bundles equivalent in logic anymore, isn't that hard to do.

I'd post a screenshot but I'm on my way to Hawaii.

buddhabelly wrote: you don't have to do it this way thoguh. Because tracks are objects you can create multiple instrument tracks that reference the same VI in the arrange window using the command from the tracks menu. Each instance (track) gets it's MIDI channel set 1-8 (in the case of RMX) instead of all or omni.

Just throwing it out there. Of cource them you need to setup the biases and auxes, which while there is no bundles equivalent in logic anymore, isn't that hard to do.

I'd post a screenshot but I'm on my way to Hawaii.

I understand there are options, but in DP each track publishes MIDI channels 1-16 without setting anything up at all.

There are, of course, other things for which Logic's Environment are needed, such as the case which mickhol described earlier.

Sometimes, one would simply rather not look at stuff like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogKv3MpzWos

As an old tape and desk guy, I've always created music in a linear fashion, and have enjoyed DP because it allows me to work in an environment (no not THAT Environment!) that feels like a traditional studio, and yet offers so much more.

I think one can use any modern DAW and make great music. DP just seems the most.. er... logical to me, and I am so pleased MOTU has continued to develop and refine this amazing tool.