Digital Performer Vs Logic Pro X

[Michael Canavan]

I'd have to say, though, Apple has done of good job of making Logic an easier (and less expensive) step for those who started with Garageband and want to do more. Still pretty buggy though.

Absolutely. The purpose of GarageBand / Logic and all the other Apple apps is to sell Apple computers. Easy and inexpensive for the average user is the point.

I suppose, but I think it's been one of those oddball accusations leveled at Logic, as if it wasn't making Apple money. It's simple really, Logic is sold at the typical upgrade price of any major DAW, so the only sale Apple makes of Logic that's bellow market value is the first sale.

Look at the top selling Apps in the App store. Logic is always in there, and besides Final Cut Pro is the most expensive app in the top ten. I think Apple realized with Logic and their branding that the fear that most companies have with lowering the price of software could be compensated for by the assumption made by people that since Apple owns Logic it will 'just work' on Apple computers.

If you look at the price of DAWs from around 2000 or so VS now they've all gone down a bit in price, (at that time Logic and DP were about $800 ) but MOTU, Steinberg etc. have to worry about one glaring problem if they decided tomorrow to drop their price to $199 intro to compete with Logic, they do not have the added bonus of people buying their DAW based on who owns it. They can't at all guarantee any doubling of migration towards their DAW based on a price drop, because that can be perceived as an act of desperation.

Basically Logic isn't sold as a loss leader they're making a ton of money off of the App itself, and it's branding allowed Apple to undersell DP, Cubase etc. That's the thing about software VS hardware, if you could guarantee an explosion of sales you can cut the price in half without any margin loss.

[bayswater]

I suppose, but I think it's been one of those oddball accusations leveled at Logic, as if it wasn't making Apple money. It's simple really, Logic is sold at the typical upgrade price of any major DAW, so the only sale Apple makes of Logic that's bellow market value is the first sale.

Well I didn't mean it as a criticism. Logic X.1 is the best and most usable version yet, bugs notwithstanding. And, as you say, the first sale is a deal, and it is what matters if you want to grow the user base.

[Michael Canavan]

I suppose, but I think it's been one of those oddball accusations leveled at Logic, as if it wasn't making Apple money. It's simple really, Logic is sold at the typical upgrade price of any major DAW, so the only sale Apple makes of Logic that's bellow market value is the first sale.

Well I didn't mean it as a criticism. Logic X.1 is the best and most usable version yet, bugs notwithstanding. And, as you say, the first sale is a deal, and it is what matters if you want to grow the user base.

Of course, I just think the criticisms leveled should be accurate or at least reflect a full perspective on the issue.

Mostly I get why Logic is looked down upon here, DP was for a while the only Mac only DAW that mattered, Apple buys Emagic, cuts Logic down to $199 while adding roughly what was sold separately at about $2,000 worth of instruments and FX in a pretty much flagrant attempt to corner the market on OSX DAWs. You can't think that wouldn't affect the bottom line of other Mac only DAWs like DP. Especially since MOTU had a longer time than Steinberg and Apple of course, getting a good OSX port together.

What this did in my area of the world was create a monolithic drone of young musicians parroting this idea that since Apple owned Logic it was going to be the 'rock solid' DAW on OSX....

Fortunately (depending on how you look at it of course) what has happened is the Logic team has tended to release the product with bugs, then 6 months pass, an update comes out etc. but anyone with experience on stable DAWs like DP, Reason, Pro Tools etc. realizes this idea that top to bottom control guarantees stability is eroding. The buggiest DAW I ever used was Logic 7.0, and sadly enough the most solid was Emagic Logic 4.7 pre Apple buyout.

What I'm trying to say is where the heck is DP9??

[iGirl]

Logic down to $199 while adding roughly what was sold separately at about $2,000 worth of instruments and FX

What I'm trying to say is where the heck is DP9??

I'm still sitting in the wings without any DAW waiting on DP9, (I would have bought it) but not sure how long that's going to be. Meanwhile, despite past experience with DP, Logic Pro X is extremely tempting as I'm going to have a learning curve no matter which way I go as I move forward - Logic's included EXS24 sampler, Drummer/designer/ loops, huge FX and instrument libraries are calling to me to just go with LPX. Even though IMO using Logic isn't as logical as DP.

So let me ask - if I bought LPX and it's not fully doing it for me - is there problems patching all those instruments through into DP9 tracks? This implies it's possible - but any negatives doing this? http://www.motu.com/techsupport/technot ... 6218004846

[bayswater]

So let me ask - if I bought LPX and it's not fully doing it for me - is there problems patching all those instruments through into DP9 tracks? This implies it's possible - but any negatives doing this? http://www.motu.com/techsupport/technot ... 6218004846

You can do it, but it's not easy. Quite tedious in fact. You have to export everything to audio or MIDI, then import it all into DP and recreate the arrangement. You can do the automation too by saving it as MIDI in Logic and then linking it up with the corresponding tracks in DP (you get all the automation in one file, so you need to take screenshots of it in Logic so you can see where it goes in DP. I posted details a few years back on how to get Garageband songs into DP via Logic with everything intact. This includes porting the GB instruments to EXS24, saving them as patches and importing them into MachFive.

Why not just buy DP 8? You'll get DP 9 for free when it comes out.

[iGirl]

So let me ask - if I bought LPX and it's not fully doing it for me - is there problems patching all those instruments through into DP9 tracks? This implies it's possible - but any negatives doing this? http://www.motu.com/techsupport/technot ... 6218004846

You can do it, but it's not easy. Quite tedious in fact. You have to export everything to audio or MIDI, then import it all into DP and recreate the arrangement. You can do the automation too by saving it as MIDI in Logic and then linking it up with the corresponding tracks in DP (you get all the automation in one file, so you need to take screenshots of it in Logic so you can see where it goes in DP. I posted details a few years back on how to get Garageband songs into DP via Logic with everything intact. This includes porting the GB instruments to EXS24, saving them as patches and importing them into MachFive.

Why not just buy DP 8? You'll get DP 9 for free when it comes out.

Thanks - wow that sounds a lot more complicated than the How do I use my GarageBand instruments with DP? FAQ.

Of course writing tracks to individual audio and MIDI tracks and then exporting would be the simple way. What I was conceptualizing was direct patching - to play through to the instrument sounds directly via Soundflower... then record the MIDI notes in DP - and also record the (Logic/GB VI) audio to tracks in DP.

[James Steele]

And this is exactly why I hate this forum, hadn't posted in about a couple of years. Why do the moderators allow these kinds of hostile posts by a few individuals here is beyond me.

There are not moderators (plural) but really just ONE main one and that's me. You may "hate this forum" and if you choose not to post that's your business. Let me make it clear that I don't run this board as any sort of profession. It's a user-run forum. I'm busy. I can't be on eveything all the time. Maybe Shooshie shouldn't have been so "hostile" as you describe it, but you're a grown up, as are most of us here, and you should be able to have a conversation. I shouldn't, as moderator, have to be dragged into this to settle squabbles.

However... Shooshie's obvious irritation (which I think is a more accurate way to describe it rather than "hostility") is not without some justification. It bothers me a great deal that you go on to bash this forum and assume a victim role, when I feel you bear partial responsibility for Shooshie's reaction. I think someone said later that you "twisted" Shooshie's words. I don't know if that's the right way to describe it, but as I looked back at older posts to find the quote by Shooshie that you presented as one contiguous quote, I couldn't find it quickly. Eventually I realized why. Here's what you presented as a singular quote by Shooshie:



It turns out that you spliced together three separate fragments, culled from two separate posts to make the ONE quote that you presented as made by Shooshie, as shown here:



------------------------------------------------------------------

You didn't make use of ellipses in the two sections taken from the first post, nor did you begin a new quote from the section taken from the second post. You omitted a good deal of the context surrounding what you chose to quote. To tie in with the main topic, shuffling around and rearranging blocks of musical content in a DAW to create an impression may be a valid way to work... but doing the same thing with Shooshie's words by reassembling three fragments from two different posts into one continuous quote/thought, removes the context and nuance of his remarks and gives a somewhat misleading impression of what he was saying. I know that would irritate me as well. Not saying it was your intention to be deceptive. I don't know you, and therefore I should strive to give you the benefit of the doubt. I bet you probably don't know Shooshie, either. Or me. So before assigning ill intent to others, as well as bashing this forum, let's just try to get along.

[bayswater]

Of course writing tracks to individual audio and MIDI tracks and then exporting would be the simple way. What I was conceptualizing was direct patching - to play through to the instrument sounds directly via Soundflower... then record the MIDI notes in DP - and also record the (Logic/GB VI) audio to tracks in DP.

Yes, that works too. I have templates to connect DP and Logic so I can use Logic VIs in DP. Once you correct for the latency that happens when you send MIDI to Logic and audio back to DP, it works well. One of the problems is that Logic VI are not multitimbral and all MIDI plays all Logic VI channels when it comes in through the Logic Physical Input object. So you have to set up channel splitters in the Logic Environment to be able to address specific Logic Instrument channels with specific DP MIDI channels. Again, tedious to set up, but once it's done and saved in a template, it works well.

[Shooshie]

James, thank you for taking the time to figure out that post. I had no idea where he got that, and was having trouble reading my own words; they didn't say what I remember saying. The spin is wrong. Not wanting to give the guy my time, I basically called him nuts. But you went in and figured it out. I really appreciate your doing that. This guy's "quote" of me will probably make rounds in other forums, or at least will be available in search engines for a long time, and it bothers me to be so misquoted. With a little luck, some folks will find your explanation, too, and realize that things aren't always what they seem.

I'm still a little peeved at the dude who did that, so I'll just sign off here...

Shoosh

[James Steele]

This guy's "quote" of me will probably make rounds in other forums, or at least will be available in search engines for a long time, and it bothers me to be so misquoted.

I'll fix the quote by breaking it into three quotes for accuracy. My representation of it in my own post is a graphic, so it shouldn't get crawled by Google.

[monkey man]

Amazing.

Your dedication to the truth and fairness is, for want of a better description, awe-inspiring, James.

Bravo, bud!

[mikehalloran]

I'd have to say, though, Apple has done of good job of making Logic an easier (and less expensive) step for those who started with Garageband and want to do more. Still pretty buggy though.

Absolutely. The purpose of GarageBand / Logic and all the other Apple apps is to sell Apple computers. Easy and inexpensive for the average user is the point.

I suppose, but I think it's been one of those oddball accusations leveled at Logic, as if it wasn't making Apple money. ...

You completely missed my point.

If Logic and Final Cut, along with Pages, Aperture et all were still meant to be pro apps, then the latest versions would be deeper and have more features than their predecessors. This is not the case. All have been dumbed down with simpler interfaces and fewer features.

Logic Studio was designed to take a user from tracking to mastering. Logic Pro X is not. Many of the modules in LS9 no longer work and are no longer offered for sale. Pages can no longer be used for in depth editing. Photos does not take the place of Aperture. The list goes on.

I am not accusing Apple of anything. I am stating the simple fact that the purpose of Apple applications is to sell Apple hardware. The easier those apps are to use, the more Apple will sell. It's a straight forward business decision.

Plenty of companies are developing pro apps for the users who require them.

[Robert Randolph]

If Logic and Final Cut, along with Pages, Aperture et all were still meant to be pro apps, then the latest versions would be deeper and have more features than their predecessors. This is not the case. All have been dumbed down with simpler interfaces and fewer features.

I think the simpler interfaces is a huge positive. I absolutely despised LP9 and earlier's UI.

As for fewer features, I've heard this quite a few times and I've yet to come across any sort of list. I do know of a lot of features added. Can you give some examples of missing features from LP9->LPX? (I have googled, and not found much).

[bayswater]

If Logic and Final Cut, along with Pages, Aperture et all were still meant to be pro apps, then the latest versions would be deeper and have more features than their predecessors. This is not the case. All have been dumbed down with simpler interfaces and fewer features.

I think the simpler interfaces is a huge positive. I absolutely despised LP9 and earlier's UI.

As for fewer features, I've heard this quite a few times and I've yet to come across any sort of list. I do know of a lot of features added. Can you give some examples of missing features from LP9->LPX? (I have googled, and not found much).

Right. I don't think any significant features were dropped going from L9 to LX. There IS a simple mode for new users.

[mikehalloran]

I didn't say LP9 to LPX. I said LS9, the successor to LS8 and 7. LP9 was a stripped down version.

I'm on my iPad. When I get to my Mac I can compile just such a list. Do I have to?