Apple Logic Pro /LogicExpress Discussion

Since plenty of people will advise you to get a second monitor to make workflow in Logic go easier, let me make a point. I'm running a Mac Pro, which I got last year and two 19" monitors. I have no problems running Logic 9 with just a single 19" monitor. I can toggle between the arrange and mixer view without a hassle.

The only time that I think I could use a wider screen is if I'm editing MIDI data in the piano roll, but it's no big deal enlarging things there. My second monitor is really just a luxury. I just put a long cable on it, plugged it in and let it mirror the first.  If I'm standing up playing, I use it to see things, but I don't really need it. 

As far as hardware goes, I spent less than $150 on a JL Cooper Fader Port. It's just a simple device, which has tape machine style transport buttons and a single fader with a pan knob. Before shelling out more cash for a second monitor, that might be the thing to get to make life go smoother verses buying another monitor. When I'm recording, since I use the arrange window for tracking, I don't have to go into the mixer view at all, because I can just grab the fader on the Fader Port if I want whatever I'm recording quieter or louder.

--- In Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com, Irfon-Kim Ahmad <irfon@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks for all the input, everyone.
> 
> On the monitors issue, because there seemed to be some debate, you can 
> actually run up to three monitors (the built-in one plus two others) on 
> the 2011 iMac.  Each of the Thunderbolt connectors can support an 
> additional monitor.  To be honest, though, until we move to a new house, 
> I don't have room for that many monitors in my studio anyway.  But in 
> case anybody else is following the discussion with the thought of 
> monitors, that's the scoop with it.
> 
> In terms of benchmarks, which was suggested, the only benchmark that 
> covers both that I've found thus far was the geekbench scores at 
> everymac.com.  Unfortunately, you do have to sift them by hand, because 
> when you click through you discover that a lot of the scores going in to 
> the average are actually from the wrong machine or different 
> configurations.  But after sifting through them, I found that the iMac 
> 27" quad-core 3.4GHz i7 configuration gets about 12,000 on the geekbench 
> test in Mac OS X 64-bit mode, whereas the Mac Pro eight-core 2.8GHz 
> Nehalem Xeon gets about 8,000 on that same geekbench test.  So on that 
> test, the iMac is about 50% faster.  Unfortunately, there's not a lot of 
> information about exactly what the geekbench benchmark tests and how 
> well it maps onto real-world performance for a given application.  :/
> 
> I have to admit that I'm still waffling.  It does seem like the iMac 
> will be the faster machine.  I think what's mostly under my skin about 
> it still is that it's $3500 (after taxes) vs. $2000 (after monitor and 
> taxes), and that's enough of a difference that I could take that money 
> and put it toward getting everything up to the current version (I'm 
> still on Logic 8, Peak 5, Komplete 6, etc.).  But there seems to be a 
> strong feeling here that the iMac is more likely to not become 
> disappointing in a very short time down the line, which is certainly 
> something to consider.
> 
> On 11-05-29 9:07 PM, GAmoore@... wrote:
> > Some of the imacs did not allow a 2nd monitor at all except in mirror
> > mode. They really hobble the performance of the imacs in various subtle
> > ways. With a mac pro you can use multiple monitors. You can install
> > four internal disks which are high speed and in a RAID configuration
> > and get a lot more track count. You can install more ram. My 2006 Imac
> > is limited to 2gb max ram, and only mirrors monitors, and only allows
> > one hard disk.
> >
> > If I were you, I would get a refurbished mac pro.
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Brian<brianmc7@...>
> > To: Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Sun, May 29, 2011 5:42 pm
> > Subject: [Logic_Cafe] Re: Mac Pro 2008 vs. iMac 2011
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Since you've gotten into the habit of using a lot of plugins per track,
> > I wouldn't go with a Mac Pro that old, because you're already behind
> > the mark as far as processing speed goes. After all, you really don't
> > know what impact that might have with future software.
> >
> > I'll run compression and EQ on individual tracks, but when it comes to
> > delay or reverb, I'll run those effects on a dedicated buss.
> >
> > Although you can avoid taxing your CPU speed by freezing tracks, if you
> > call up a song file with a lot of frozen tracks, since the CPU can get
> > overloaded, because it freezes all of the data at once, you can
> > sometimes wind up with a lot of problem loading a song file. One way
> > around that is to call up a song file and freeze each track on an
> > individual basis by hitting play before freezing another track.
> >
> > --- In Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com, Shawn Thorpe<shawnogordo@>  wrote:
> >> I have no experience running Logic on either of those types of
> > machines.
> >> Though, I'd imagine they'd both handle it just fine. Regardless, I'd
> > be
> >> hesitant to invest that kinda money in 3-year old hardware. If it
> > were me,
> >> I'd go with the iMac.
> >>
> >> On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Irfon-Kim Ahmad<irfon@>wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> I'm currently running Logic Pro (8, but will be upgrading to 9 with
> > the
> >>> new system) on a 2006 MacBook Pro with 2GB of RAM and a 350GB hybrid
> >>> disk. I run into the dreaded system overload with some regularity. I
> >>> don't run very high track counts and do very little recording, but I
> >>> tend to use a lot of softsynths (mostly from the NI Komplete suite)
> > and
> >>> use a very large array of effect plugins per track.
> >>>
> >>> I've been saving up to replace this machine, and was targeting the
> >>> newly-released 2011 iMac 27" with the 3.4GHz quad-core i7 Sandy
> > Bridge
> >>> processor, 4GB of RAM (that I was going to upgrade to 12GB after the
> >>> fact -- the system maxes out at 16GB), the 256GB SSD + 1TB HD disk
> >>> configuration and the 2GB GDDR5 Radeon HD 6970M. With the AppleCare,
> >>> this clocks in at $3098 + tax.
> >>>
> >>> However, it's recently come to my attention that a local shop is
> > selling
> >>> a gently used 2008 Mac Pro. It has two 2.8GHz quad-core Nehalem Xeon
> >>> processors (8 cores total), 4GB of RAM (maxes at 32GB), a 320GB hard
> >>> disk, and an NVidia 8800GT with 512GB RAM. They'll warranty it for
> > 90
> >>> days and you can pay extra to extend the warranty if you like,
> > although
> >>> it'll be their warranty rather than AppleCare. They want $1699 +
> > tax.
> >>> Among my geekier-than-me friends, there's been a big debate about
> > the
> >>> CPUs in these two machines. The iMac's Sandy Bridge architecture
> >>> supports SVX instead of SSE, which apparently will, once apps are
> >>> updated to support it, allow it to process eight instructions per
> > cycle
> >>> rather than four, according to them. Given that it's already clocked
> >>> faster than the Xeons in the Mac Pro, that would make it noticeably
> >>> faster CPU-wise. The rest of the Mac Pro's architecture is slower as
> >>> well -- the memory bus isn't as fast, the 8800GT is about half the
> >>> performance of the 6970M, etc. However, the Mac Pro offers more
> >>> expandability -- I could add a RAID card, I could have several
> > internal
> >>> disks, I can upgrade the video card, etc. And if Logic Pro doesn't
> >>> support SVX, then I expect that having twice as many cores at a
> > slightly
> >>> slower speed might be a CPU win.
> >>>
> >>> But the difference in price is also a big factor -- with that much
> > less
> >>> money I could perform a lot of ugprades (note that I'd have to eat
> > away
> >>> some of that buying a monitor, but you can get a 27" LCD of good
> > enough
> >>> quality for me for $300, and getting a disk system comparable to
> > the one
> >>> I was speccing for the iMac would take away more of that, but I
> > could do
> >>> this flexibly over time). I mean, at $1699, I wouldn't be
> > particularly
> >>> upset if I had to upgrade it after only say three years, whereas at
> >>> $3100, I'd want the iMac to last me a good five years, much as my
> >>> MacBook Pro did.
> >>>
> >>> My only real bottleneck is Logic Pro, though. This is going to be my
> >>> studio machine. I mostly game on the Playstation 3, and I have an
> > iPad
> >>> that is fine for my needs for travel and surfing. So I'm wondering
> > if
> >>> any of you have any thoughts or real-world experience between these
> > two
> >>> machines as they specifically pertain to Logic Pro, and if anyone
> > knows
> >>> what the status of this SVX issue is with Logic Pro -- if it's
> > something
> >>> that I should expect to see coming down or that's even already
> > there, or
> >>> if it's even relevant to Logic Pro's architecture, or if having
> > twice as
> >>> many cores will still be better when running a ton of plugins.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> -Shawn Thorpe
> >> http://shawn.mx/
> >> http://geminidragon.tv/
> >>
> >>
> >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>