Apple Logic Pro /LogicExpress Discussion

Was thread on LUG: Re: [LUG] doom and gloom

This thread was killed on LUG - but I just wanted to state:


On 1/19/05 3:08 PM, "Nate Robinson" <nrobinson@...> wrote:

> Sorry for all the venting, guys... The forum (even the negative stuff)
> is definitely helpful to me so I hope nobody kicks me out or changes
> this to a "what Logic did RIGHT" forum exclusively!


Personally, I agree with Nate.  Although endless Global generalizations of
negativity are obviously not productive, I felt that after reading the "
doom and gloom " thread ( Re: [LUG] Re: logic 7.0.1 is out!) that most of
the negative comments - seem  focused - clear and concise and  totally
justified. And personally, I learned a lot from reading all this " negative
" info and gave me more of a balance of knowledge about using Logic.

--
Thanks - RevDave
CoolCat@...
[db-lists]

At 5:46 Uhr -0800 21.01.2005, revDAVE wrote:
>Personally, I agree with Nate.  Although endless Global generalizations of
>negativity are obviously not productive, I felt that after reading the "
>doom and gloom " thread ( Re: [LUG] Re: logic 7.0.1 is out!) that most of
>the negative comments - seem  focused - clear and concise and  totally
>justified. And personally, I learned a lot from reading all this " negative
>" info and gave me more of a balance of knowledge about using Logic.

The bad thing is, the threads over there always get killed when 
things become really specific.

I had this issue with Dennis where he would insist that Logic worked 
fine and I kept telling him I'm not making things up...

unfortunately it was killed before everything was said and done.

But I still like the moderation going on over there... just in this 
particular case (probably because I was involved so directly) I felt 
I was being very down to the detail and Dennis was just generally 
saying, no things work fine.

Whatever.

No hard feelings and a nice bug tracking list has emerged that will 
be handed to Apple.

Hans

On Jan 21, 2005, at 11:01 PM, Hans Hafner wrote:

> At 5:46 Uhr -0800 21.01.2005, revDAVE wrote:
>  >Personally, I agree with Nate.  Although endless Global 
> generalizations of
>  >negativity are obviously not productive, I felt that after reading 
> the "
>  >doom and gloom " thread ( Re: [LUG] Re: logic 7.0.1 is out!) that 
> most of
>  >the negative comments - seem  focused - clear and concise and  
> totally
>  >justified. And personally, I learned a lot from reading all this " 
> negative
>  >" info and gave me more of a balance of knowledge about using Logic.
>
>  The bad thing is, the threads over there always get killed when
>  things become really specific.

This is the absolute opposite of the truth.  The thread got killed 
*because* it contained a bunch of whimpering instead of specific 
details.

>  I had this issue with Dennis where he would insist that Logic worked
>  fine and I kept telling him I'm not making things up...

I am not going to let this go without comment this is simply nothing 
like the truth.  I have never suggested you are "making things up".  
What I asked for was specifics.  As far as I can see 7 was the best 
version ever when it came out and 7.0.1 is a substantial improvement on 
that.  I am open to reasoned disagreement but that is not what I am 
seeing in your posts.

>  unfortunately it was killed before everything was said and done.
>
>  But I still like the moderation going on over there... just in this
>  particular case (probably because I was involved so directly) I felt
>  I was being very down to the detail and Dennis was just generally
>  saying, no things work fine.

When asked to provide details you say "go read up", when you get 
suggestions about solving issues you get huffy that someone might be 
telling you something you already know.

You mention a whole bunch of bugs that "everybody" knows about but when 
I press you for details there was only something like one that you 
would give adequate steps to reproduce that I actually could reproduce.

Nobody who has known me for any length of time has ever accused me of 
being reluctant to complain.  I never said everything works fine, but I 
will say that most things work better than ever.

There are a couple of things that I thing SUCK big time with logic and 
OSX, for example you do not want to get me started on latency.  I am 
particularly irked by the fact that Logic OSX remains to this day a 
step backwards in *some* areas latency being one of them, redraws being 
another, compared to the OS 9 versions.  Am I irked enough to go back 
to OS 9.  Well, no.  I want to use my G5.  I want protected memory.  I 
do the math and add up the pluses and minuses and on the basis of that 
find it makes more sense for me to go forward.

The thing I dislike is the whiny drone.  If something is wrong describe 
what it is, when you see it, what you were expecting to see.

If somebody asks for details and you don't want to give them, the clear 
message is that you don't care so much about seeing the problem 
resolved.

On 21 Jan 2005, at 15:14, dennis gunn wrote:

> This is the absolute opposite of the truth.  The thread got killed 
> *because* it contained a bunch of whimpering instead of specific 
> details.

Denis,
could you please reduce the size of your fonts?

regards

beya

OK, I also have to come in here and defend myself:

>On Jan 20, 2005, at 10:35 PM, Hans Hafner wrote:
>  > My complaint is, that it is almost unusable due to
>  >
>>  - it being too slow in reacting to my clicks

Dennis:
>Not here.

Well, that didn't help then either, now did it? I 
know lots of people who have reported this 
sluggish behaviour on the slow machines we are 
using. So this is an issue and it can be done 
better because it was better in 6.

Me:
>  > - text boxes not accepting text

Dennis:
>I have seen this under some circumstances, works OK in 7.0.1 so far if
>you can tell me a situation in which it does not that might help.

Me again:
Group assignment, save dialog box, the EXS preferences. (see below)

Well, what can I say, to this day I'm getting it 
with Logics own windows and with those of other 
plug-ins (mainly Filterscape in this case) but it 
happened with all sorts of save dialogs (song, 
channel strip, preset)

What am I supposed to write? How I opened the box?

Me:
>  > - I had to fix the catch function by trashing all prefs, going back
>>  to 6 setting it right, and then going back to 7 (yes there was a fix
>>  but it cost me 2 hours yesterday and half an hour today and I
>>  consider this an issue that I shouldn't have to deal with)

Dennis:
>What parameter exactly are you talking about?

In Logic 6 there is a catch setting named 
"enabled catch when sequencer starts" that is not 
present any longer in 7 and after trashing prefs 
you can _not_ go back to the catch function _not_ 
being enabled. I thought I was making myself 
clear, but obviously I wasn't. I'm sorry. I hope 
this is clearer. Also, this was confirmed by 
someone else.

Me:
>  > - tremolo plug-in not working correctly in sync

Dennis:
>Oh well, you don't like logic plugins anyway so I am sure one of the
>superior third party plugs you mention is doing this OK for you.

I should add to this that I should have said: not 
_always_ working in sync. Most of the time it 
does but I've had instances where it doesn't.

Me:
>  > - today I've had pop-up menus jump all the way accross the screen a
>>  couple of times (this is of course only a minor annoyance but it
>>  leaves me with a strange feeling of distrust)

Dennis:
>I have never seen this.


Me:
>  > - the dreaded cycle and catch bug that will show the beginning of the
>  > cycle on right edge of the window and then jump to the left edge
>>  while cutting off the beginning of the cycle even though the whole
>>  cycle would fit into the window (this has been around since at least
>>  version 4!)

Dennis:
>I hate this too, but going back to 6.xx is not going to help now is it?

Sorry, but how can I be more specific and how was this comment helpful?

Me:
>  > - pop-up menu speed of the instrument selector in the EXS getting
>>  slower and slower and slooooower

Dennis:
>This is something you can do something about either by refreshing the
>paths using the project manager or if you want to do it faster by using
>Redmatica's excellent EXS manager.

When read closely one will see, that I was 
talking about the pop-up menu not the loading of 
an instruments.

And then there is some more stuff but frankly I find I'm getting childish.

Look. I know Dennis has helped out a lot and I 
also appreciate the help, however, I will not let 
the "whiner" just stand in the air when it is 
just not so. Unless what I was doing with those 
quotes is "whining", Then in fact I have to 
readjust my view and someone please tell me.

Other than that, nix für ungut!
Hans

And I think (and this is last I'm gonna have to say on this and then 
let it rest)

My main gripe is, that I paid for the software, several thousand 
bucks and then _I_ have to do the testing myself, jump through hoops 
to recreate everything.

That is what testers are for, that's why you get the software for 
free and when you think that that's not enough compensation (which I 
totally agree with!!!) then you have to also stop doing it since 
you're not providing the service at the  expected level.

Alright, enough now of this.

Cheers
Hans

On Jan 22, 2005, at 12:49 AM, Hans Hafner wrote:

> OK,
>  I also have to come in here and defend myself:
>
>  >On Jan 20, 2005, at 10:35 PM, Hans Hafner wrote:
>  >  > My complaint is, that it is almost unusable due to
>  >  >
>  >>  - it being too slow in reacting to my clicks
>
>  Dennis:
>  >Not here.
>
>  Well, that didn't help then either, now did it? I
>  know lots of people who have reported this
>  sluggish behaviour on the slow machines we are
>  using. So this is an issue and it can be done
>  better because it was better in 6.

And conversely I have seen lots of people who say redraws are faster in 
7.0.1 on their slow machines.  But to respond to your question it 
should help you to know that your "response too slow" problem is not 
generic to those using L7 and is probably a problem at your end.

Apple could probably do better to make logic work on bronze age wind up 
Macs but personally I have not encountered the problem perhaps because 
I prefer using a fast machine and a newer version.  So personally I 
don't particularly care about that specific complaint personally I am 
more ticked off that they still are not making much use of those 
expensive GPUs they put in high end Macs.

>  Me:
>  >  > - text boxes not accepting text
>
>  Dennis:
>  >I have seen this under some circumstances, works OK in 7.0.1 so far 
> if
>  >you can tell me a situation in which it does not that might help.
>
>  Me again:
>  Group assignment, save dialog box, the EXS preferences. (see below)
>
>  Well, what can I say, to this day I'm getting it
>  with Logics own windows

You can say exactly which ones.

> and
>  with those of other
>  plug-ins (mainly Filterscape in this case) but it
>  happened with all sorts of save dialogs (song,
>  channel strip, preset)

You are going to have to be more specific than "all sorts"  It works 
fine for the song, and channel strips, over here, I don't own 
filterscape.

>  What am I supposed to write? How I opened the box?

I don't know, because I did take the time to check group assignments 
and channel strips and I could enter text fine so I am wondering if you 
mean some other group assignments that I don't know about.

filterscape issues and logic issues are not the same and should not be 
lumped together.

I did find that like you say there was something funky with the text 
entry in the in the three text entry fields of the EXS preference box. 
FYI over here at least you can get them to enter by putting in the text 
in a field then closing the window and reopening it to put the text in 
the next field.

So there is one bug of the three logic specific things you mention 
there that I can actually verify.  The other two I cannot.  So

  Filterscape is 3rd party and they should probably be the ones to deal 
with it.

>  Me:
>  >  > - I had to fix the catch function by trashing all prefs, going 
> back
>  >>  to 6 setting it right, and then going back to 7 (yes there was a 
> fix
>  >>  but it cost me 2 hours yesterday and half an hour today and I
>  >>  consider this an issue that I shouldn't have to deal with)
>
>  Dennis:
>  >What parameter exactly are you talking about?
>
>  In Logic 6 there is a catch setting named
>  "enabled catch when sequencer starts" that is not
>  present any longer in 7 and after trashing prefs
>  you can _not_ go back to the catch function _not_
>  being enabled. I thought I was making myself
>  clear, but obviously I wasn't. I'm sorry. I hope
>  this is clearer. Also, this was confirmed by
>  someone else.

Yes, this appears to be true, enable catch should be there and if it is 
I can't find it.  Looks like they removed one too many preferences.


>  Me:
>  >  > - tremolo plug-in not working correctly in sync
>
>  Dennis:
>  >Oh well, you don't like logic plugins anyway so I am sure one of the
>  >superior third party plugs you mention is doing this OK for you.
>
>  I should add to this that I should have said: not
>  _always_ working in sync. Most of the time it
>  does but I've had instances where it doesn't.

Well I checked it and it is working fine here, and yes, you must 
certainly understand that when a problem appears only under a certain 
set of circumstances or is intermittent you have to specify that is the 
case if you are hoping anything will get done about it.  And if you can 
specify the conditions that cause the problem it will go a long way 
toward getting it fixed because it gives the developers something to go 
on.


>  Me:
>  >  > - today I've had pop-up menus jump all the way accross the 
> screen a
>  >>  couple of times (this is of course only a minor annoyance but it
>  >>  leaves me with a strange feeling of distrust)
>
>  Dennis:
>  >I have never seen this.
>

And I still haven't.

The point being that it seems to you that it is just "self evident" 
that L7 sucks.  How can anyone think otherwise when you can see all of 
these "terrible" problems.  Well perhaps the problem is I lack the 
benefit of having the universe revolve around me and cannot properly 
see things from your perspective.  I haven't seen the problem you 
describe.  I don't "just know" what you are talking about.

>  Me:
>  >  > - the dreaded cycle and catch bug that will show the beginning 
> of the
>  >  > cycle on right edge of the window and then jump to the left edge
>  >>  while cutting off the beginning of the cycle even though the whole
>  >>  cycle would fit into the window (this has been around since at 
> least
>  >>  version 4!)
>
>  Dennis:
>  >I hate this too, but going back to 6.xx is not going to help now is 
> it?
>
>  Sorry, but how can I be more specific and how was this comment 
> helpful?

I did not say you weren't being specific in this case I was just 
pointing out that your proposed solution to the problem is obviously 
irrational.  If you want to go back to version 3 because you think the 
arrange view does not jump around in cycle mode (actually it did back 
then too) be my guest, if you think suffering is the key better display 
behavior during cycling I suppose you could also try skewering your 
penis with an ice pick and see if that helps.

>  >  > - pop-up menu speed of the instrument selector in the EXS getting
>  >>  slower and slower and slooooower
>
>  Dennis:
>  >This is something you can do something about either by refreshing the
>  >paths using the project manager or if you want to do it faster by 
> using
>  >Redmatica's excellent EXS manager.
>
>  When read closely one will see, that I was
>  talking about the pop-up menu not the loading of
>  an instruments.

Oh goodness fucking gracious!   I suggested something that *might have 
not helped* the shame the shame.  Such is my remorse that without 
further ado I am going to remove my shoes and stockings, scamper to the 
nearest throw rug and hurl myself off of it onto the cold waxed floor!  
Woe is me, woe is me....

But anyway the thing is you did not specify the circumstances under 
which you were seeing the problem until down the line.

If I recall after much tooth extraction procedure you finally stated 
that the actual condition that produced the problem for you was to have 
tens of thousands of patches in the menu.

If 7.0 deals with that condition less gracefully than 6.xx that is 
indeed unfortunate.  I am however not seeing the problem here, but then 
I think I have only about 5.000 patches in my library.

BTW I don't know *why* 7 would be slower for but it may actually still 
help to use the redmatica EXS manager.

>  And then there is some more stuff but frankly I find I'm getting 
> childish.

no comment.



Again I have never suggested 7.0 or 7.0.1 are completely bug free, I 
know of no one who has.   But I will stand by the statement that 7.0 
and especially 7.0.1 are as near as I can tell more debugged as any 
logic version I have ever encountered, and I have been with the program 
since notator/logic 1.7.  The assertion that programs this expensive 
should be expected to be bug free is a nice thought though in the cases 
of programs this complex is pretty much completely out of touch with 
reality.  There are exceptions to this rule like for example I would 
say adobe Photoshop is an exception but it is vastly more popular 
program and has been being developed longer by a much larger 
development team.

For just one example of about the worst bug I can imagine in prior 
versions of Logic I had horrible problems in every version right up to 
the last one before 7.0 with not being able to open certain songs at 
all.  In 7.0 it has not happened to me yet except for once when a beta 
of a 3rd party plugin was corrupting songs, but that was not Logic's 
fault.

Is 7.0 perfect? No.  Better?   Definitely.

If you want to whine about something real here is one that you can 
dependably verify and the steps to do it:

Install a UAD-1 Demo plugin, open a song with one of the audio files 
missing, so that the UAD-1 demo dialog and the search for missing file 
dialog appear at the same time.  Now you can click OK until doomsday 
and you will not get any further, and the only way you will ever be 
able to open that song is by taking the UAD - 1 component out of the 
components folder first.  Is it apple's fault, probably I am told it 
has something to do with poor cocoa implementation.

Do I like this.  No.  Does it stop me from using 7.xx.  No.

Or a few days ago for reasons that I never was able to figure out Logic 
started crashing in the middle of a session with a singer that happened 
to be very important for me.

I never was able to figure out what happened.  Do I like that?  No?   
Will it make me go back to 6.xx or whine about the sky falling?  No.  
Why not?  Various reasons, for one thing I have not been able to 
reproduce the bug for another thing because the onset of Altzheimer's 
is still a few more years off my memory is intact enough that I can 
easily recall that I had more and worse problems back in "the day" when 
I was using 6.xx.

On Jan 23, 2005, at 3:09 AM, GAmoore@... wrote:

> In a message dated 1/22/05 4:30:36 AM, dennis@... 
> writes:
>
> >  I know lots of people who have reported this
>  >  sluggish behaviour on the slow machines we are
>  >  using. ...
>  And conversely I have seen lots of people who say redraws are faster 
> in
>  7.0.1 on their slow machines. ...your "response too slow" problem is 
> not
>  generic to those using L7 and is probably a problem at your end.
>  Apple could probably do better to make logic work on bronze age wind 
> up
>  Macs but personally I have not encountered the problem perhaps because
>
>
>  If LP7 will only work properly on a G5 then they should put a 
> disclaimer to warn people on the box and on any net ads for it - much 
> like most software have minimum system requirements clearly listed.

Sort of.  Sort of not.  The fact of the matter is there is a bit of a 
problem with where to draw the "work properly" line.

Don't take the following to mean I don't think Hans's machine should 
respond properly to his double clicks, I do but:

Everybody goes out and buys the cheapest, or the smallest, or the 
cheapest smallest computer they can afford and then through the magic 
of selective memory the minute they plug the thing in the fact that 
they were making a compromise when they purchased their system in the 
first place s;ips  is instantly replaced with the expectation that 
their new super computer will enable them to leap tall buildings and 
screw Hillary Duff.

Personally I think there should be a high end no compromises "this is 
as good as we know how to make it" Apple system that a pro can purchase 
even if it has a serious pro price tag, and then they can say this is 
the recommended Pro system for logic, it will run on everything else we 
make but in one way or another the other systems will be a compromise.  
This will both give the top end users a system that they can expect to 
work and will give Apple a retort when people with lesser systems bitch 
at them.

I have a feeling that the problem is there is a "marketing dickhead" 
contingent at apple that looks at their demographic and says "our 
figures show us that 0.5% of the people who actually buy logic are 
making their livings with it, therefore the big bucks are in focusing 
on pleasing the amateurs.

What the Dickhead Contingent forgets is that

#1. While it may be true that the 99.5% majority out there do not make 
their livings with logic they also are probably getting their opinions 
about logic from the 0.5% minority who is so in fact even though the 
only account for a miniscule fraction of the purchasers that small 
minority at the top are still the ones to please if they want Logic to 
stay in the Biz.

#2.  Even if Apple have given up on making Logic a serious contender 
against Pro Tools for the high end of the market, Steinberg have not 
given up on it and Logic's competition for the mid level and high end 
users bucks is not Garage Band on an iMac it is competing against 
Nuendo on a fast PC with vastly more hardware and plugin alternatives.


>
> I prefer using a fast machine and a newer version. 
>
>
>  Thats unusual. Whatz up with you dude? Most of us prefer older slower 
> machines which don't work with the software. ;-)

I don't know.  I just love the treadmill I guess...


> So personally I  don't particularly care about that specific complaint 
> personally I am
>  more ticked off that they still are not making much use of those
>  expensive GPUs they put in high end Macs.
>
>
>
>  What is a "GPU"? Is that Graphics Processing Unit?

yes.

> I used to get 3 second screen blackouts when changing screensets 
> before (using a cinema display and a second monitor). But after 
> putting a Radeon 9000 in, that stopped and the screen redraws are 
> pretty good.

Yes they are pretty good but even with the best G5 you can buy they are 
still not where they aught to be and they are just now starting to get 
back to where they were 3 years ago on the fastest OS9 systems.

I have had a lot of the same problems Hans has had and I can sympathize 
with him and can say that from my experience with Logic since Creator 
on an ATARI,  this has been the most unstable, bug ridden version to 
date. I have spent days upon weeks trying to get it back to the working 
stable condition I previously experienced,  I don't care to go into any 
details because I'm sick of hearing this shit from the LUG and now here 
! PLEASE LAY IT TO REST!!!!
It is obvious to me that some folks have had encountered no problems at 
all and others like myself and Hans have had more than their share. If 
there is no help to be had, don't comment on the fact you haven't 
encountered the problem, that to me is the same as useless whining or 
even worse gloating or calling someone a liar , and we should all be 
here to help one another.
Silence is Golden!

On Jan 23, 2005, at 1:55 PM, K. Alan Hayes wrote:

>
> I have had a lot of the same problems Hans has had and I can 
> sympathize with him and can say that from my experience with Logic 
> since Creator on an ATARI,  this has been the most unstable, bug 
> ridden version to  date. I have spent days upon weeks trying to get it 
> back to the working stable condition I previously experienced, 

In other words you have had a different experience.

What are the steps you have taken to "get it back".  Have you tried 
removing all 3rd party plugins and adding them back a few at a time.  
Have you tried adding some RAM?

> I don't care to go into any details because I'm sick of hearing this 
> shit from the LUG and now here ! PLEASE LAY IT TO REST!!!!

In other words.  You have now had your say so everyone else should shut 
up?

> It is obvious to me that some folks have had encountered no problems at
> all and others like myself and Hans have had more than their share. If 
> there is no help to be had, don't comment on the fact you haven't 
> encountered the problem, that to me is the same as useless whining or 
> even worse gloating

If that is what you think then it would appear you do not understand 
the debugging process or the troubleshooting process.   If a bug can be 
reproduced on every single system that runs the SW then that is 
important information for the developers as well as the users.   Once 
the bug is confirmed as a bug and it is confirmed that everyone is 
seeing it the user does not really have to think about it any more 
since it is a sure thing that there is not a damn thing he can do about 
it but to look for a workaround.  OTOH if some people are seeing the 
bug and others are not there is work to be done to determine what the 
system details are that are producing the bug and again that is 
valuable information to both the developers and the users as it 
suggests both causes and remedies.

>  or calling someone a liar,

Who has called anyone a liar?

> and we should all be here to help one another. Silence is Golden!

So If you have a problem that I don't have but the roots of which I do 
happen to understand should I sit in golden silence?

Alan,

GAmoore had success in solving the majority of his problems by removing his scsi card. You might want to try removing that first. It just might be an OS9 vs OSX problem with the firmware in the scsi card, or driver issues.
talk to you later

H-

----- Original Message ----- 
From: K. Alan Hayes 
To: Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 1/22/2005 8:55:27 PM 
Subject: [Logic_Cafe] Re: Re: The Good and the Bad



I have had a lot of the same problems Hans has had and I can sympathize 
with him and can say that from my experience with Logic since Creator 
on an ATARI,  this has been the most unstable, bug ridden version to 
date. I have spent days upon weeks trying to get it back to the working 
stable condition I previously experienced,  I don't care to go into any 
details because I'm sick of hearing this shit from the LUG and now here 
! PLEASE LAY IT TO REST!!!!
It is obvious to me that some folks have had encountered no problems at 
all and others like myself and Hans have had more than their share. If 
there is no help to be had, don't comment on the fact you haven't 
encountered the problem, that to me is the same as useless whining or 
even worse gloating or calling someone a liar , and we should all be 
here to help one another.
Silence is Golden!




Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Logic_Cafe/
  
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Logic_Cafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
  
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

>> Everybody goes out and buys the cheapest, or the smallest, or the 
>> cheapest smallest computer they can afford and then through the magic 
>> of selective memory the minute they plug the thing in the fact that 
>> they were making a compromise when they purchased their system in the 
>> first place s;ips  is instantly replaced with the expectation that 
>> their new super computer will enable them to leap tall buildings and 
>> screw Hillary Duff.
>>
>
>
>  I think most of us buy good macs - which become more and more out of 
> date as time goes on. If you bought a $2500 mid level mac every two 
> years and sold it used and bought a new one, I guess it would cost 
> about a grand a year to keep up with the jobs (when you consider 
> upgrading ram and maybe other stuff too).

I don't.  I think a lot of people buy used or low end stuff and try to 
get by as cheap as they can, but yes for the ones who don't it is a sad 
simple fact of life that computers have the approximate working life 
spans of laboratory rats before they become obsolete and the industry 
passes them by.

It has been that way for 20 years.

Maybe after 50 more years that wont be the case but by that time 
musical hallmark cards will have the equivalent of a 5ghz G5 on them 
playing the Vienna Waltz though Garritan personal orchestra.

>> Personally I think there should be a high end no compromises "this is 
>> as good as we know how to make it" Apple system that a pro can 
>> purchase even if it has a serious pro price tag, and then they can 
>> say this is the recommended Pro system for logic, it will run on 
>> everything else we make but in one way or another the other systems 
>> will be a compromise.  This will both give the top end users a system 
>> that they can expect to work and will give Apple a retort when people 
>> with lesser systems bitch at them.
>
>
>
>  Interesting. But I think a better strategy would be to get rid of the 
> bugs for all.

Yes, thats true they should, and while they are at it they should 
develop a pill that makes all women beautiful, stops their aging at the 
age of 27 and gives them the libidos of asian porn stars.

That does not mean that I think that either one of those things is more 
feasible than the other.

Systems change, hardware changes, hardware has bugs, firmware has bugs, 
GPUs get updated, OSs change, Competitors add breakthrough 
technologies, shit conflict with other shit.  Meanwhile time marches 
on, and does not stand still while opcode perfects the ultimate bug 
free version of Studio Vision for the Mac plus.

>>  I have a feeling that the problem is there is a "marketing dickhead" 
>> contingent at apple that looks at their demographic and says "our 
>> figures show us that 0.5% of the people who actually buy logic are 
>> making their livings with it, therefore the big bucks are in focusing 
>> on pleasing the amateurs.  What the Dickhead Contingent forgets is 
>> that #1. While it may be true that the 99.5% majority out there do 
>> not make their livings with logic they also are probably getting 
>> their opinion  about logic from the 0.5% minority who is so in fact 
>> even though the only account for a miniscule fraction of the 
>> purchasers that small minority at the top are still the ones to 
>> please if they want Logic to stay in the Biz.
>
>
>  Evidently there is a group of beeta testers whom are able to demand 
> specialized features.

Having participated in several beta programs I can assure you this is 
an utterly bizarre contention.

The idea that beta testers are calling the shots is just so far from 
the reality of any of 9 or 10 beta programs I have had the privilege of 
participating it would make me laugh till my abs swelled up and popped 
if it weren't for the crying.

If you know of some beta program where the testers get to wag the dog 
do tell, I want to sign up right away.


> I don't think the ease of use for beginning to moderate level users is 
> much addressed at all.

Again this is 180 degrees from the reality of what beta testers in any 
group I have participated in always shout for, they want things to be 
easy just like everybody else.

It is also a nonsensical notion that by "professional" people mean 
"hard to figure out" that is again exactly the opposite of what 
professionals want out of hardware or software.  They have less 
patience for confusing interfaces and clumsy implementations than 
anyone.  Hi end stuff is almost always extremely simple bullet proof 
and to the point.  And that is true in any business not just music.  It 
is when you go *down* the hierarchy and get into mid level stuff that 
things start getting ugly and complicated.  If that were not the case, 
and the low end stuff was just as easy to use as the high end stuff, 
the pros would not buy the high end stuff.  But that is not the way it 
works, what you pay for when you pay for the best is simplification not 
complication.

At 21:49 Uhr +0900 23.01.2005, dennis gunn wrote:
>I don't.  I think a lot of people buy used or low end stuff and try 
>to get by as cheap as they can, but yes for the ones who don't it is 
>a sad simple fact of life that computers have the approximate 
>working life spans of laboratory rats before they become obsolete 
>and the industry passes them by.

And your assumptions are of course right and give you the right to 
discredit people on that assumption right away.

Thank you very much.

Cheers
Hans

> Evidently there is a group of beta testers whom are able to 
> demand specialized features. I don't think the ease of use 
> for beginning to moderate level users is much addressed at 
> all.

Amen to that. A lot of what I consider very basic things in Logic are very
far behind the competition as far as ease of use. Of course, to those who've
been using Logic for many years, everything seems easy, but not to someone
who is new to the program - like me. I've been trying Cubase in addition to
Logic and have used Sonar for years. Both are much easier to learn. Setting
up all the patch names for external midi gear is one area. In fact Logic's
multi instrument only handles 15 banks of named patches, my MU128 has
something like 75 to 100 banks. So exactly how do I add them all? It is easy
in both Sonar and Cubase. Cubase being the easiest of the two.

Another example... I wanted to delete the volume track automation for one of
my midi tracks last night. Checked the Track menu - nope. Checked the Edit
menu - nope. Checked all of the other menus in the Arrange window - nope.
Started randomly checking the main menus that seemed to be even remotely
applicable. Nope again. Finally, I pulled up the PDF (oh yea did I mention
Logic doesn't have a help file???) It turns out that you have to go to the
Options menu. Okay, first, the simple fact that there are two sets of menus
is a problem. Which set do you use? It seemed to me that the Track menu
would fit the bill, but OPTIONS??? Doesn't that imply configuration? What
does deleting track automation even remotely have to do with options?

Adding new tracks is easier to learn on the other programs too. In Cubase
you simply right click and choose Add New Audio Track or Add New Midi Track
and so on. Similar in Sonar. Adding Audio objects in Logic is not intuitive
in the least. Again, once you've finally figured it out, it isn't horribly
difficult, but learning it to start with is not an easily discovered thing
in Logic and not *as* easy even after you've learned it. In fact, I don't
think you could *discover* how to add new audio tracks in Logic at all. I
think a manual would be needed. There is no doubt that you can discover how
to add them in Cubase and Sonar.

Kamm

--- In Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com, "Kamm Schreiner" <kamm@s...> wrote:
> > Evidently there is a group of beta testers whom are able to 
> > demand specialized features. I don't think the ease of use 
> > for beginning to moderate level users is much addressed at 
> > all.
> 
> Amen to that. A lot of what I consider very basic things in Logic
are very
> far behind the competition as far as ease of use. Of course, to
those who've
> been using Logic for many years, everything seems easy, but not to
someone
> who is new to the program - like me. I've been trying Cubase in
addition to
> Logic and have used Sonar for years. Both are much easier to learn.
Setting
> up all the patch names for external midi gear is one area. In fact
Logic's
> multi instrument only handles 15 banks of named patches, my MU128 has
> something like 75 to 100 banks. So exactly how do I add them all? It
is easy
> in both Sonar and Cubase. Cubase being the easiest of the two.

<snip>

I am a former beta tester for Emagic. I never demanded anything. As a
teacher of Music Technology I was always aware that it would be best
for Logic to be useful for beginners and as a professional
producer/composer I also wanted features useful for pro use. The
former were easier to suggest (as beta testers we never "demanded")

I think the problem is expecting logic to behave like other programs.
Why should it? If you had started with Logic then tried Cubase or
Sonar you would probably be complaining about those.

If you need 75 to 100 banks of an MU128, perhaps Logic isn't the best
DAW for you.  You have already spent your money on Cubase and Sonar,
you think they are better than Logic, which for your purposes they
are. So I can't quite understand why you have spent a lot of money on
Logic, a program that you don't like and doesn't do what you want,
then complain about it.

-- 
Pete Thomas
www.petethomas.co.uk
- Free Logic Icons, Environments and EXS Instruments

On Jan 23, 2005, at 10:43 PM, Hans Hafner wrote:

> At 21:49 Uhr +0900 23.01.2005, dennis gunn wrote:
>  >I don't.  I think a lot of people buy used or low end stuff and try
>  >to get by as cheap as they can, but yes for the ones who don't it is
>  >a sad simple fact of life that computers have the approximate
>  >working life spans of laboratory rats before they become obsolete
>  >and the industry passes them by.
>
>  And your assumptions are of course right and give you the right to
>  discredit people on that assumption right away.

That which one has witnessed is not an assumption, it is an observation.


>  Thank you very much.

You are very welcome.

On Jan 24, 2005, at 5:29 AM, GAmoore@... wrote:
>
>> It is also a nonsensical notion that by "professional" people mean 
>> "hard to figure out" that is again exactly the opposite of what 
>> professionals want out of hardware or software.  They have less 
>> patience for confusing interfaces and clumsy implementations than 
>> anyone. 
>
>
>
>  No, this is opposite of what I have heard for years on the LUG.

Then you have been hearing wrong or misinterpreting what you read.

I have been working with top end pro engineers for 20 years and I can 
tell you that the thing they hate the most is stuff that is flaky and 
complex.

Why would they like stuff like that?

Successful people are the ones that focus on getting the job done and 
do everything they can to remove pointless distractions.

I know and know of lots of very successful techno guys who were still 
using MC 500s for sequencing well into the 90s after many most of the 
amateurs had moved on to computer sequencing.

Why?  Because the MC 500s were simple dependable and let them do what 
they wanted to do quickiy.

I still know of several professionals doing film scores in Studio 
Vision on OS 9 to this day because the MIDI is simpler to edit.

> I've heard plenty of the emagic elite making comments to the affect 
> "If you complain about Logic being too complicated, obtuse, or 
> difficult to use then you are forgetting this is a 'pro' application" 
> - as if 'pro' is an excuse to not make it simple and straight forward.

I don't know who you mean by the "emagic elite".  If you mean the 
developers then I actually agree with your assessment but they are not 
professional musicians they are professional software developers.  They 
are stubborn guys with their own vision that in the past has often been 
at odds with what professional musicians actually want, but you may 
have noticed that there has been a pretty big shift away from that 
attitude over the past few years.  Personally I think the traditional 
impulse in emagic developers to make it possible to do the most obscure 
obtuse operation imaginable at the expense of having the obvious and 
most common operations become complex and confusing is the most 
unprofessional approach imaginable.

Though there may be some out there I personally I know of no 
professionals that have the time or inclination to sit messing around 
with the logic environment MIDI tinker toy widgets.

To the people I picture enjoying that stuff are the remnants of some 
English nobility siting around trying to indulge in their computer 
hobby and their music hobbies at the same time.

But as you will see if you look there has been a *very* visible shift 
away from that attitude in logic.  Take for example the new Pitch 
Corrector plugin.

That is the simplest easiest most stripped down interface of any of the 
products in that genre that I know of.

In fact if you ask me they have taken the idea of simplifying the 
interface too far with that because unlike melodyne and autotune you 
cannot drag specific notes to specific pitches, they will always just 
snap to the nearest defined pitch.

Still that is a great tool and I have already used it on an album with 
what I thought were excellent results.

The fact of the matter is the emagic developers are very aware that 
their perspective is skewed and I know for a fact that they surround 
themselves with very harsh critics and are incredibly tolerant of very 
withering critiques.

>  I've had the impression for years, that some of the non-moderated 
> elite have mastered the program and become accustomed to its quirks, 
> and then can't see past those limitations. For example, I argued for 
> "multiple undo's" about three times, and each time, the beta testers 
> would argue that its not necessary even though every other modern 
> program has that.

This just points to the irrationality of your assertions.  First you 
claim that the beta testers are calling the shots.

Then you claim that some beta testers were opposed to multiple undoes.

And then you fail to note that logic has a very robust undo history 
function.

If the beta testers were opposed to that feature *and* they were the 
ones calling the shots then it would not be there, now would it?

BTW I do know a beta tester or two and I have no idea whom you would be 
referring to because I know of none that oppose that feature AFAIK 
everyone loves it.

>  And I disagree with your whole premise that people somehow know they 
> need the most expensive $3k mac to run the $1k program although there 
> is no notifacation of that -

You can disagree with that premise all you want but please do not 
attribute it to me.

You can run logic just fine on the latest $500 CPU.  The nonsensical 
part is to expect it to run as well on that thing as it will on a CPU 
that costs 6 times more.

> and then they cheat the system by being penny-pinching and buy a cheap 
> mac. Well, as we have seen on this list, there are no cheap macs. 
> There are only apple macs and they are expensive. And if there is any 
> message from apple, its the message that anyone can produce music, 
> movies, photos, desktop publishing, etc from any mac - even an imac.

That is the message from apple and I think apple's advertising is 
deceptive (as if that should be news to anyone) in that they seem to be 
very good at diverting people's attention from the fact that though you 
*can* do that on any Mac, it is *much* easier to do it on the more 
expensive ones than on the cheaper ones.

>  I don't think many people can afford to blow $2k-$3k a year on the 
> newest mac - except very succesful pros. Anyone else would be wasting 
> money if they can't get more use out of their premium computers.

That is just the way the computer industry works.  And that is the only 
way it *can* work.  The CPUs get faster and the software gets deeper as 
it gets faster CPUs to run on and once the shift has been made there is 
not much of a practical way of going back.

How many Space Designer instances do you think I would be able to run 
on my mothers 233mhz G3 iMac?  Do you think that they should stop 
making Space designer and just freeze development of the software at a 
level that every function in it will work on outmoded equipment?

The thing to do if you want to run old or low end hardware is to stick 
with old software, and as I said I know people composing film scores on 
old CPUs with studio vision to this day.  Of course the problem will be 
that you will need to have a bunch of external synth modules and MIDI 
interfaces and stuff....

> And what about all those software authorizations? In addition to being 
> a hassle, I wonder if the various companies will tire of supplying new 
> numbers continually.

Sorry I don't quite understand what you are talking about here.

> In a message dated 1/23/05 7:02:00 AM, kamm@... writes:
>
>> A lot of what I consider very basic things in Logic are very far 
>> behind the competition as far as ease of use.
>
On Jan 24, 2005, at 5:36 AM, GAmoore@... wrote:
> Yeah, there are a lot of things which come up over and over again on 
> the lists - how do you bounce (go to mixer page scroll 10 miles over 
> until you find the master object and hit bounce...oops nothing 
> happens...hmmm?.....ok, I have to go back to the arrange page, and 
> then set up a loop instead of just playing the song start to 
> finish,...now to back to the mixer...scroll over...hit 
> bounce....wonder what PCM is or whatever the new unexplained acronym 
> is....).

I agree.

The place where you guys err is to think that it some how the beta 
testers fault that that is the way things are or that anyone calling 
for more professional polish in the application wants it to be that 
way.

BTW If you are talking about the Track Mixer you can make things easier 
on yourself Mr Moore if you click the output option on the left 
whereupon you will see only the outputs in the mixer.

On Jan 24, 2005, at 11:34 AM, GAmoore@... wrote:

> In a message dated 1/23/05 5:57:18 PM, dennis@... 
> writes:
>
>> I have been working with top end pro engineers for 20 years and I can 
>> tell you that the thing they hate the most is stuff that is flaky and 
>> complex.
>
> Thats good to know. But the debate is not what the top pro's are 
> doing, its what kind of product Apple/Emagic put out.

As far as I know we all more or less know what kind of product they 
*have* put out, and the debate is about what kind of product people 
think they *should* put out.

> If what you say is correct, then Apple/Emagic are producing all sorts 
> of complicated products for a non-existent clientele that are looking 
> for complicated things, meanwhile all the other users - pro, semi-pro, 
> amateur, weekend music warrior - are not being considered.

That is almost exactly what I believe.

The only thing I would disagree with here is the tense and the names of 
the protagonists.  In the past tense that description fit many aspects 
of Emagic's Logic to a T.

In the present tense Apple's products are an entirely different can of 
worms Apple has their marketing thrust and much of the attitude in 
Logic design has changed a lot since it got the new brand name.

> I don't mean to be too sarcastic,

I didn't know you were being sarcastic.  I think it is a valid point.  
But as I keep saying the attitude behind logic is clearly changing.

> as you said, there are marketing people who want new features to 
> advertise.

I did not actually say that.  Whether new features do or don't make 
their way into the program is peripheral to the issue I am referring to 
and as long as new features don't interfere with stability or core 
functionalities I don't have much of an opinion either way about that.  
What concerns me is the elegance and professionalism of the 
implementation of the professional features that are there.

On Jan 24, 2005, at 5:52 AM, GAmoore@... wrote:
>  "Demand" is to strong of a word. But I think it goes like this. A guy 
> like f-erenc, for example, has a mixing business or something, and he 
> wants some new feature. He has all his environments set up, and in 
> some ways, an "easier way" of doing things would be a headache to have 
> to re-work his existing things. Making it more user friendly is at the 
> bottom of his list because he already mastered it. In fact, he might 
> be making some good money consulting and setting up other people with 
> Logic systems. There are a lot of people who buy logic and are stuck 
> and pay to have people set them up or tutor them. Or there are other 
> guys who sell books, like Orren, and are making their living from 
> explaining how to use logic to desparate users on a global scale.

You are maligning people I consider to be friends.

Ferenc has very much the attitude, "I am going to look what is here and 
see what I can do with it, wow, that is pretty cool, could be better in 
this, this, and this area but I can work with it".  I have been reading 
Ferenc's suggestions for improving logic for years and years and they 
are almost always about making things simpler for the user.  Like me he 
is an old Vision user and is always advocating copying the nicer 
aspects of Vision and ditching the clunky environment equivalents.

Orren and I are also very good friends and I have to say he is about 
the same he is 100% about making things simpler and easier, to make him 
out as some guy cynically wanting things to complicated so he can sell 
books is downright comical if since it is so antithetical to every 
single thing I have ever seen him say in *any* forum.

>> I think the problem is expecting logic to behave like other programs. 
>>  Why should it?
>
>
> Because there are industry norms and overall software norms. It also 
> makes it easier for people to learn the program or switch back and 
> forth between several programs. I'll give you a non-musical example - 
> the delete key deletes things on most programs - but in Excel if you 
> select multiple cells and want to delete, you have to hit "control B". 
> Well, thats confusing because you have to learn a non-standard thing.

I agree with this *in as much as it is possible*.  In practice OTOH 
there is the fact that all these programs have been around for nearly 
the same number of years so it becomes a matter of who should be the 
one to set the standard and who should be the one to follow it.

You have to give emagic credit though for having taken steps from the 
beginning to accommodate this exact request.  You can set up the KCs 
any old way you want, you can even find guys selling sets of 
preferences in which they have mapped all the logic KCs to match the 
corresponding ones in Pro Tools.

There is one nagging issue I have with Logic. Initializing my hardware for
each song. Maybe someone on the list can help me streamline the process.

The problem...

All of the music in my songs comes from external sound module or synths.
When I work on one song and change settings like Reverb, Attack, modulation,
and so on, and then close that song and open another, those settings remain
in the external sound modules. The only way I've found to ensure that I
start with all the correct settings in a song is to perform the following
procedure:

1) Manually perform a reset (either through a menu option in Logic or
physically by pressing buttons on the hardware)

2) Use Logic to Send Used Song Settings to the sound modules (sorry, don't
remember the exact menu item verbiage)

3) Load the Mixer

4) With my mouse (there is no key command for it) "send all mixer settings"

Is there a way to get Logic to do all of the above automatically when the
song loads? Or maybe as a single keystroke? It isn't the end of the world,
but Sonar did this stuff for me automatically. I know that there is a
preference to automatically do the "Send Used Song Settings" when the song
is loaded, but that is useless, because I need to perform the Reset first
and that doesn't happen. The "Send Used Song Settings doesn't send all
settings either. It only sends volume and pan and patch settings. Reverb and
Chorus don't get sent unless you open the Mixer window and use the Send all
mixer settings menu item.

Any suggestions?

Kamm

On Jan 24, 2005, at 8:26 PM, GAmoore@... wrote:
>  I have no idea what those guys actually do or think. I was just 
> trying throw out a hypothetical scenario to explain to you in a 
> different way the issue with beta testers and logic - since there was 
> some confusion over the world "demand". For all I know they are both 
> great guys.

They are.

> I can only base my opinion on 8 years of interaction on the LUG seeing 
> some of these people argue with people asking for new features (like 
> multiple undo) many times, and rarely admit to any shortcoming with 
> Logic, and be a bit condescending toward people at times.

Look, I see people talking as if all apple has to do is walk down to 
the radio shack and buy that code and stick it in.  And if there are 
bugs in there all ya have to do is just spray in a can of raid they 
will be gone "So dammit what the hell are they waiting for why haven't 
they just done it already!?!?

How many times does it have to be said that just knowing of the 
existence of a bug does not mean you know it's cause, and even when you 
know the cause that does not mean that there is an easy fix, when you 
do fix it that does not mean that the fix didn't cause five other bugs 
and when you do finally have the fix fixed and all the bugs the fix 
caused fixed the you add the next feature and find it causes 30 
bugs....

> Personally, I didn't really get the impression that they were on the 
> side of the users trying to make the program more intuitive, but I 
> don't really know or care.

Whose side would they be on?

I mean lets consider your hypothesis that Orren has an ulterior motive 
to make logic more complex so that he can sell more books about it.

If logic becomes harder to use it will be less popular won't it?  And 
if it becomes less popular less people will even consider reading a 
book about it they will probably just move on to what ever people tell 
them is easier to use.  So if you are selling a peripheral product like 
a "how to book" it stands to reason that the smart money is going to be 
in seeing to it that the subject of your book is as popular as it can 
possibly be.

Also consider the fact that he wrote a book about Garage band too and 
garage band is *all* about being brain dead easy to use in the first 
place, I mean that is its beginning middle and end objective as a 
product, so if complexity of the subject is what is going to sell books 
what would even be the point of writing one about Garage Band?

Isn't it more likely that one who would write a book would hope that 
people were successfully using the program and pleased with it and 
found that they wanted to go deeper into it.

I am reminded of the first English School where I worked in Tokyo 19 
years ago, the owner was all over my case for teaching the students 
English "too fast" she said if I was too good at teaching them then 
soon they would all know English and they wouldn't need us any more.  
Nothing I could say could convince her that a) the students would not 
be able to learn at superhuman speed regardless of what I did as a 
teacher and b) she knew perfectly well that I was a young inexperienced 
kid with no teaching credentials and her school was a sham and we were 
not on the fast track to a revolution in the impartation of English as 
a second language anyway but even if by some magical coincidence we 
were wouldn't the word spread about the phenomenal success of the 
Buggerum language academy in Shithole southern Tokyo?  Maybe the reason 
I could not get that across to her was because her English sucked....

> By way of comparison, people like Nick, George, and many others give 
> me the impression of being genuinely interested in giving down to 
> earth advice and calling things as they see them - even when the 
> answer might not be favorable to apple.
>
>  But going back to my original idea which you didn't respond to - if 
> you are right that both professional and amateurs want simple and 
> stable - why does Apple/Emagic keep ignoring 100% of their users and 
> make a prodcut that one is happy with?
>

#1 I *have* responded even cited examples of why I think more than ever 
the Logic development staff are doing their damnedest to make logic 
more accessible all the time.  For example compare the preference 
arrangement of 6.x and 7.xx and tell me you don't think they have give 
the matter some thought.  Or just look at a million little details that 
they improve on all the time.  Did you notice that in 7 strip silence 
is available from the arrange page (actually that might have been there 
from late 6.xx I forget)?  Did you notice that in 7 changing audio 
tracks in the arrange page no longer interrupts recording?  Did you 
notice in 7.0.1 that when regions overlap what you see is exactly what 
you hear except if you highlight a region then the highlighted region 
is topped until it is deselected?  Have you noticed how thoughtfully 
the project folders are arranged and that they pretty perfectly manage 
all of your song data and associated samples *and* IRs.  Have you 
noticed that sample rate convert in 7.0 rivals the best conversion 
utilities you can buy?  Have you noticed that if you drag an file with 
wrong sample rate into your song it logic will automatically generate a 
file with the right sample rate and put it into the project folder?  
Have you noticed that you can drag and drop mp3s into the arrange page 
and logic will again automatically generate a new aiff of the 
appropriate sample rate?  Have you noticed...... the list of little 
courtesy features goes on and on and on.... Then there are the not so 
little ones like have you noticed you can use apple loops right in the 
arrange window, have you checked out pitch corrector.  There are 
literally and pages of features that have been added to L7 and we have 
not even touched on the bug fixes that go on for pages and pages the 
idea that apple ignore 100% of their users wishes is just patently 
absurd.  But then you are talking specifically about the complex 
twiddly bits right, I can think of lots of examples where it gets less 
twiddly all the time, how many can you name where it gets *more* 
twiddly?

#2 Nobody wants logic to be stable more that Apple and the former 
emagic team.  There is simply no remotely plausible reason why that 
would not be the case.  That means that they are trying but only pull 
it off with varying degrees of success because they have to not only 
keep up with but keep ahead of cubase right?  Which means that they 
have to keep adding features which mean that more bugs will come too 
right?

#3.  This brings us to simple vs complicated.

Since my name appeared in the credits of version 5 or 6 or so (I forget 
exactly which) I cannot deny that I have been a beta tester for emagic 
and at some time I may do it again.

I have been corresponding on and off with Gerhard for about 12 years I 
have even had the pleasure of meeting him.  My impression that he is a 
super intelligent bubbling energetic warm friendly guy and he is just 
in love with logic, it is his opus.  He is thrilled to death that he 
can go on working on it and when I talked to him in person Apple had 
just bought emagic and he was thrilled that he was going to be able to 
concentrate more deeply than ever on developing logic under apples 
umbrella and would not have to worry as much about his business sinking 
or swimming in the big scary world.  My point here is that Gerhard 
*loves* logic the way any artist loves his work in progress and logic 
is very much *his* work that is why many of the concepts in it reflect 
his personality as they are things that he came up with from beginning 
to end, and intelligent methodical imaginative individual that he is I 
have the feeling that he thought that other people would see the same 
potential and have the same enthusiasm for his inventions that he did.

Alas not all of us did.

But the amazing cool thing about him is that he would just sit there 
patiently while us beta testers tore into his babies and would if not 
always change things the way we wanted them to be at the very least 
would listen to what we had to say.

But anyway what I mean to say is he is and always has been a guy with a 
vision and he does not just want to make whatever it is everybody else 
wants him to make he wants to express his vision through his work, and 
sometimes what he wants to make and what the world actually is in the 
market for are not exactly the same thing.  In that the way I see it he 
is just like any other artist.

Anyway I can tell you that I have never seen a beta tester ask to have 
any feature made more convoluted, quite the opposite was true, I can 
also tell you that the beta team are not "yes men" they fight the 
developers and each other like cats and dogs, and the truly amazing 
thing is that the development team put up with it.  But the thing 
everybody fights about is to get what they believe to be the simplest 
most intuitive implementation of features into the release.

#4  Does everybody hate Logic?  I don't know but somehow I think not.  
If it is so then I must not be one of "everybody" because I don't hate 
it.  I get really mad at it sometimes but I definitely don't hate it.

It has been years since I have used another sequencer I sometimes think 
about giving cubase a try but I never have done it.  The reason I 
switched to logic from vision was not that I thought that Logic was 
better but rather that there were horrible bugs with Vision that would 
randomly destroy the audio portion of your song and there came a time 
when I just decided I was losing too much data and I had to switch to 
something that worked.  At that time I tried digital performer for a 
while but it turned out to be even worse than Vision and MOTU actually 
even gave me my money back, I then tried logic.  Was it perfect?  No.  
Was it the best of a bad lot?  Yes.  Is it perfect now?  No.  Is it the 
best of a bad lot?  No.  Audio sequencers are no longer a bad lot they 
are a quite good lot IMO.  So is Logic IMO the best of a good lot?  I 
have no idea, I just do not have anything to base an opinion on.

> I think the problem is expecting logic to behave like other programs.
> Why should it? If you had started with Logic then tried 
> Cubase or Sonar you would probably be complaining about those.

Actually, that's not true. I did try Cubase after Logic and it is way easier
to setup and use. I've used Sonar for years and don't recall having all that
much difficulty getting up to speed as compared with Logic. There are lots
and lots of things in Logic that simply aren't learnable without a manual.
Here is one very simple example:

If you want to add a new SysEx message to an event list, how do you add it?
Look under the Edit menu and there is only cut/copy/paste/clear. No Insert.
There is no menu anywhere for inserting new events of any type in Logic.
What you have to do is Command Click the little button that is for toggling
the display of SysEx events on and off. How in the world does someone new to
the program know to do that? It is easy, but you can't possibly figure out
how to do it without a manual. This is only one example of many, many, user
hostile attributes of Logic. It simply is not an easy program to learn. It
is powerful, efficient and flexible once learned, but not easy to learn.

> If you need 75 to 100 banks of an MU128, perhaps Logic isn't 
> the best DAW for you.  You have already spent your money on 
> Cubase and Sonar, you think they are better than Logic, which 
> for your purposes they are. So I can't quite understand why 
> you have spent a lot of money on Logic, a program that you 
> don't like and doesn't do what you want, then complain about it.

I have to agree. If Logic doesn't work for you, then use Cubase or Sonar.
They are both excellent programs. I'm sticking with Logic because now that
I've learned it, I find it a more productive environment overall for me.
Everyone is different in this respect. No one shoe fits all.

Kamm

On Sunday, January 23, 2005, at 07:49 AM, dennis gunn wrote:

>>  Interesting. But I think a better strategy would be to get rid of 
>> the bugs for all.
>
> Yes, thats true they should, and while they are at it they should 
> develop a pill that makes all women beautiful, stops their aging at 
> the age of 27 and gives them the libidos of asian porn stars.

Shouldn't that pill be available to men too? I mean I would like to 
have the libido of an Asian Porn Star...

Eddie
IMS

>
> That does not mean that I think that either one of those things is 
> more feasible than the other.
>
> Systems change, hardware changes, hardware has bugs, firmware has 
> bugs, GPUs get updated, OSs change, Competitors add breakthrough 
> technologies, shit conflict with other shit.  Meanwhile time marches 
> on, and does not stand still while opcode perfects the ultimate bug 
> free version of Studio Vision for the Mac plus.

To whom it may concern,

I'm really regretting joining this group.
Remove me from this list. I don't have the time to sift through the BS here. For the people I have had 1 to 1 contact with you know where to reach me if you need help or have some wisdom to share.
This list has become 10-30 emails a day without virtually a shred of what a users group is about. 
I can't remember the last time someone had a question about a problem or offered a solution to that problem. Most every thread I have read lately is either ranting or insulting to someone. Maybe this should be the logic anger management cafe. In any case I'm out.

Howard

----- Original Message ----- 
From: 
To: Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 1/24/2005 3:26:25 AM 
Subject: Re: [Logic_Cafe] Re: The Good and the Bad


In a message dated 1/23/05 9:11:10 PM, dennis@... writes:


You are maligning people I consider to be friends.


I have no idea what those guys actually do or think. I was just trying throw out a hypothetical scenario to explain to you in a different way the issue with beta testers and logic - since there was some confusion over the world "demand". For all I know they are both great guys. I can only base my opinion on 8 years of interaction on the LUG seeing some of these people argue with people asking for new features (like multiple undo) many times, and rarely admit to any shortcoming with Logic, and be a bit condescending toward people at times. Personally, I didn't really get the impression that they were on the side of the users trying to make the program more intuitive, but I don't really know or care. By way of comparison, people like Nick, George, and many others give me the impression of being genuinely interested in giving down to earth advice and calling things as they see them - even when the answer might not be favorable to apple.

But going back to my original idea which you didn't respond to - if you are right that both professional and amateurs want simple and stable - why does Apple/Emagic keep ignoring 100% of their users and make a prodcut that one is happy with? 


Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Logic_Cafe/
  
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Logic_Cafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
  
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

On Jan 24, 2005, at 8:26 PM, GAmoore@... wrote:

> But going back to my original idea which you didn't respond to - if 
> you are right that both professional and amateurs want simple and 
> stable - why does Apple/Emagic keep ignoring 100% of their users and 
> make a prodcut that one is happy with?

It occurs to me that this is perfect opportunity to give a specific 
example of how the pursuit of the computer for the masses concept can 
get all screwed up and end up being what nobody wants.

This is long and complex so if you don't like that don't read it.

It is also information I have gathered through direct correspondences 
with the developers so if you do like that do read it.

Ever since OSX we using native systems have been given the alternative 
of using core audio, core audio, or core audio.

The more limited third party flaky ASIO has been eliminated from OSX 
and apple have decided in the interests of "the people" they would 
establish one generic universal format i.e. core audio.

Core audio is robust and feature laden, it does all kinds of really 
fantastic things, it is multi client, it even allows SR conversion on 
the fly of un-synced digital inputs so that an application running at 
44.1k can for instance accept an input from a device running at 48k.  
With core audio playing quicktime movie audio out the same interface as 
you are playing your DAW as easy as scratching your balls while 
brushing your teeth.

Thus Joe Average is pretty hard pressed to throw something at core 
audio it can't handle.

ASIO can't do anything like that stuff and it is third party and kind 
of flaky to boot, so Core Audio is obviously a leap ahead for "the 
people" right?

Well.....

Something about the architecture of core audio means the IO device 
drivers that the IO manufacturers have to write for it have to have 
something called a safety offset buffer.  This safety offset buffer may 
be anywhere from 12 samples (the lowest I know of) up to 64 samples 
(very worst case).

A 64 sample offset buffer means that 64 samples of latency get added 
each direction in and out so it ends up meaning 128 samples of latency 
get added to the signal path if you are software monitoring say an 
instance of guitar amp in garage band.  Add to that the fact that 
instead of one input and one output buffer like Mac "Classic" and 
Windows versions of Logic had the new improved logic and Garage band 
have an input an output, and a third (mystery) buffer in their data 
path.

So a buffer setting of 64 samples in Logic or Garage band actually 
means that Logic is adding a total of 192 (64X3) samples to the 
monitoring path on top of which a Core Audio hardware driver may 
potentially be adding as much as 128 samples of latency, and those are 
in addition to the 40 or so samples of latency the ADDA will add each 
way for a total of up to 80 samples of latency caused by the ADDA.

So that is

128 safety offset
192 logic IO and "mystery" buffer and
80 samples of ADDA latency for a grand total of:

About 400 samples latency minimum for a guy trying to monitor his 
guitar through Guitar Amp in garage band from his iBook (but in reality 
probably he is not going to get away with setting his buffer that low 
on an iBook and definitely won't if he is using a pluggo or any other 
intersting 3rd party plug).

The same 64 sample setting through the same IO in "Classic"  or LAW 
would give the same guy

128 Logic IO buffer samples and
80 ADDA samples latency for a total of

about 208 samples latency.

What is more the guy will be able to up the buffer on the windows 
machine to 128 and still end up about 334 samples or in other words he 
will still have 46 less samples of monitoring latency than the guy 
running at 64 sample IO buffer setting in OSX.  And since his sequencer 
will not be struggling to work at the low setting he will have much 
more power available for his plugins.

So how does this sucking situation come about.

It is because OSX is considered by the people who made it and are 
continuing to develop it to be a "general purpose" OS.  The reason for 
this is that buy enforcing the principle a general purpose OS they can 
create an OS that is useful to the broadest possible range of customers 
and by selling to a broader market can keep the cost per customer down. 
  They do not want the system to in any way be a special use or 
dedicated purpose OS.  Therefore OSX developers will tell you that 
while they could allow third parties to write a direct access driver 
along the lines of ASIO that would mean relinquishing control over some 
design of some low level code to some outside parties which could 
potentially lead to destabilizing the OS for the rest of the General 
use customers.

So the bottom line is the populist desire to provide the best OS 
possible to the broadest range of customers turns out in this instance 
to be *the exact* reason why OSX is not performing as good in the 
latency dept. for Joe Average DAW user as OS9 did or as windows did.

And monitoring latency is if anything more important to low end DAW 
users than it is to high end users since high end users are more likely 
to have dedicated mixing boards and outboard effects and are less 
likely to be depending on software effects during the tracking stage 
whereas low end guys are more likely to be running mixerless since that 
is the cheaper way to go..

On Jan 25, 2005, at 12:45 AM, dennis gunn wrote:

> And monitoring latency is if anything more important to low end DAW 
> users than it is to high end users since high end users are more 
> likely to have dedicated mixing boards and outboard effects and are 
> less likely to be depending on software effects during the tracking 
> stage whereas low end guys are more likely to be running mixerless 
> since that is the cheaper way to go..
>
>

Dennis - you are exactly correct in that respect.  I have never tracked 
a
production using logic - I use dedicated hardware - so latency at that 
level
is a non-issue.

Dave Shirk
Pamlico Sounds

> I guess I got more than my fill of it on the LUG

I second that. There are as many ways to write music
as there are people. We could all learn new ideas and
workflows from each other, or we can sit and pout
about how bad Logic is.  


=====

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

An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propogation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it... Mahatma Gandhi



		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
All your favorites on one personal page \ufffd Try My Yahoo!
http://my.yahoo.com

--- In Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com, "Howard Lipp" <digitalwizzard@m...>
wrote:
> To whom it may concern,
> 
> I'm really regretting joining this group.
> Remove me from this list. I don't have the time to sift through the
BS here. For the people I have had 1 to 1 contact with you know where
to reach me if you need help or have some wisdom to share.
> This list has become 10-30 emails a day without virtually a shred of
what a users group is about. 
> I can't remember the last time someone had a question about a
problem or offered a solution to that problem. Most every thread I
have read lately is either ranting or insulting to someone. Maybe this
should be the logic anger management cafe. In any case I'm out.

Yes, me too.

i originally liked the idea of a cafe but it didn't work alas. The
last thing you want in a cafe is too much whinging.

-- 
Pete Thomas
www.petethomas.co.uk
- Free Logic Icons, Environments and EXS Instruments

Well, it seems that we've had a lot of bitching and moaning about Logic in
the past. Even though a lot of it is valid, we are all Logic users for a
reason. Because we like Logic.

I did this once before and thought I'd do it again. List some things I like
about Logic. I hope that others will chime in too because simply stating a
few of your likes could teach some of the less experienced Logic users some
things they didn't know.

1. Drawing Track Automation is easy - click to add a node, click to erase.
Dragging a line up or down move the two surrounding nodes up and down in
unison.

2. Drawing curves in track automation is easy.

3. I like being able to easily set and restore two different zoom settings
for the Arrange window. I've got '1' and '2' setup to recall the settings
and Shift+1 and Shift+2 to save them. I use this constantly.

4. I like being able to setup and use an "AutoLoad" song so that all new
songs will have defaults that make sense for my particular studio setup and
with default instruments that I frequently use in my songs.

5. I like that when you save a plug-in setting (for instance a reverb
setting) that that setting becomes listed in what I guess is a "most
frequently used" list of settings so that I don't have to actually use the
Load Settings command very often.

6. I like being able to, after opening one particular insert, toggle through
all other inserts through a list.

7. I like being able to force Legato on selected notes with Shift+Tab.

8. I like that Logic can be set to ask to move automation data when moving a
region.

9. I love the Channel EQ plug-in. Making changes with the mouse is easy and
intuitive. At least it was for me. You have several ways to do it too.

That's enough for starters. Anyone else have some to add?

Kamm

1. It's easy to see if a file has been clipped by opening the Wave 
Editor and look for a
flat top or bottom to the general wave form.

And while I'm there,

2. I can click, drag (highlight) and save any portion of that file and 
save it to use with your sampler (save it as a sample)

3. Instead of Normalizing, I like to use the increase volume window in 
the wave editor
  to find the highest peaks, I will then lower these peaks by 1-2 or 3 
db until I get a more uniform output for the file, It's easy then to 
raise the overall volume by 1-2 or 3 db. Useful if
you want to keep the fader around 0 db.

A quicker solution is to use a compressor but sometimes you may not 
want to increase
the volume of quieter instruments.

4. Offline bouncing is great for productivity when with clients who 
need a quick mix
and now with the ability to bounce and burn, it cuts at least a half 
hour out of the
process.

5. Also love the fact you can create a track from beginning to end just 
with the
included instruments and effects.

6. Logic has always had great depth when editing files, whether you 
need to fade,
cross fade or simply find the exact millisecond you need to cut.... the 
arrange zoom
feature will get you there.

7. The environment has always seemed a bit daunting to me and so now 
it's great
you don't need to fuss in there to get what you want happening, you can 
throw in a template
and create your own unique auto load.

Thats for starters
Cheers
Paul

> By the way, did you grab a G5 
> on ebay? I have seen some G5 single processors for $1300 or 
> so refurbished on the apple site - no auction and they come 
> with a guarantee. I just picked up a dual 1.8 for $1699 + tax 
> (but no shipping).

Congratulations on your purchase. Have you had time to set it up and give it
a test drive yet? I hope it cures the problems that you've been having.

I have not purchased a new computer yet. Currently my plan is to buy a Motu
828mkII first to replace my TASCAM US-122 and then, after the next release
of OS X comes out, buy a new computer. I found the Motu brand new with free
FedEx shipping on eBay for $719. Seems like a good price. Do you agree?


> I wouldn't say "easy". There are all sorts of key 
> combinations to do different things... e.g. drag a section of 
> the automation with multiple notes up and down. I use graphic 
> programs a lot too, and find it just so-so for drawing curves 
> - I guess it always seems to take a long time to get it right.

I don't use graphics programs much so I guess I don't have much to compare
it to. Just found it easy to learn and use for me. Not dead simple, but not
difficult by any means.

> Actually there are three of these. This saved a ton of time 
> when editing 500 drum hits. I had 1 for whole view, 2 for 
> semi-zoomed and 3 for extreme zoom. The thing is that these 
> are not saved so you need to reset them each time you open the song.

Really? Three? I'll have to look at the key commands dialog again. I would
have thought I would have noticed the third. The third one will be very
welcome.

> Were you able to save your autoload easily? I had to go and 
> change all the permissions on the folder for autoload ... 
> which is now in the app support folder. It was less than 
> intuitive. but finally got it running. I just wish they would 
> save the screen sets globally so they were a global 
> preference rather than something to set uniquely on each song.

Well, yes and no. I didn't have any problem creating it. But, even though
I'm confident I put it in the right directory, it doesn't actually autoload.
I have to choose it as a template when I create a new project and when Logic
starts up, it comes up with a totally different setup which I'm not sure
where it is coming from. Do you have any suggestions?

> Often I use the poor man's method... drag all the notes to be 
> too long, then hit a key command to correct overlaps. I guess 
> your way is better. But I use the overlap correction in other 
> cases too.

Yea, I think Shift+Tab is less effort.

> I always reach for Equium or Firium.

I've never used either. Why do you prefer them?

> 10. I really like the new marker track. I put things like 
> "intro", "verse", "build", "chorus" "bridge" etc. So if want 
> to add another verse, I can select a big bunch of sequences 
> AND the related markers and move them all at once - so the 
> markers for the song parts move with the sequences.

Yep. Very nice feature. I didn't realize you could select a verse using
markers. I'm glad you mentioned it. I'll have to do some more reading on
Markers.

> By the way, a year or two ago on the LUG I suggested an 
> integrated window with user defined objects withint the 
> window - as an upgrade to logic's way ... where you piece 
> together a crazy quilt of transports and windows and still 
> have some gaps. Well I read that Digital Performer now has 
> that feature and is getting good reviews about it. 

I think I recall that thread. If it was the one I'm thinking of, I
participated in it too. I'll have to take a look at DPs website to see what
you're talking about.

Kamm

> By the way, a year or two ago on the LUG I suggested an 
> integrated window with user defined objects withint the 
> window - as an upgrade to logic's way ... where you piece 
> together a crazy quilt of transports and windows and still 
> have some gaps. Well I read that Digital Performer now has 
> that feature and is getting good reviews about it. 

I just took a look. Very nice. I have to say that DP has a very polished
look to it. Maybe I should have tried DP in addition to Logic, Sonar, and
Cubase...

Kamm

> 3. Instead of Normalizing, I like to use the increase volume 
> window in the wave editor
>   to find the highest peaks, I will then lower these peaks by 
> 1-2 or 3 db until I get a more uniform output for the file, 
> It's easy then to raise the overall volume by 1-2 or 3 db. 
> Useful if you want to keep the fader around 0 db.

Interesting. How about normalizing and then reducing the volume by 3db?
Normalizing is non-destructive (as far as I know). In addition, an increase
of a multiple of 3db is also non-destructive as long as you are increasing
volume. That's because a 3db increase is exactly twice the power as 0 db so
you are multiplying by a whole integer rather than by a fraction. Decreasing
by a multiple of 3db will only affect what you normally could not hear
anyway and is still an integer math operation.

> 4. Offline bouncing is great for productivity when with 
> clients who need a quick mix and now with the ability to 
> bounce and burn, it cuts at least a half hour out of the process.

Yes. I agree. But I've run into a bug where I get 30 seconds of silence at
the beginning of my bounced file and 30 seconds of the tail of the bounce is
clipped. Anyone else had this problem and know of a workaround?

> 6. Logic has always had great depth when editing files, 
> whether you need to fade, cross fade or simply find the exact 
> millisecond you need to cut.... the arrange zoom feature will 
> get you there.

I love Logics editing abilities in general. That's really why I'm using
Logic instead of Cubase.

Kamm

Kamm Schreiner wrote:

>>4. Offline bouncing is great for productivity when with 
>>clients who need a quick mix and now with the ability to 
>>bounce and burn, it cuts at least a half hour out of the process.
> 
> 
> Yes. I agree. But I've run into a bug where I get 30 seconds of silence at
> the beginning of my bounced file and 30 seconds of the tail of the bounce is
> clipped. Anyone else had this problem and know of a workaround?
> 

Are you using 6 or 7 Pro Kamm? I just finished up a song for a couple 
friends a week or so ago and ran into something similar to this with 
Logic 6.4.3 when bouncing offline. I would have say measures 1-119 
selected for the bounce. All appeared fine, but when I listened to my 
resulting file, it was as if the markers moved back like 10 measures, so 
I got about 20 seconds of silence at the beginning before the song 
started and the end got cut off about 20 seconds before it should have..
It didnt happen everytime, but often enough that I probably wont use 
offline bouncing anymore.. Never noticed it before but usually I just 
bounce in realtime. This particular job was too much work and by the 
time I was done I was so sick of the song I had to use offline to keep 
from going crazy hehehe.

-- 
Chris

http://www.descentrecords.com

> Are you using 6 or 7 Pro Kamm?

I'm using 7 Pro.

> I just finished up a song for 
> a couple friends a week or so ago and ran into something 
> similar to this with Logic 6.4.3 when bouncing offline. I 
> would have say measures 1-119 selected for the bounce. All 
> appeared fine, but when I listened to my resulting file, it 
> was as if the markers moved back like 10 measures, so I got 
> about 20 seconds of silence at the beginning before the song 
> started and the end got cut off about 20 seconds before it 
> should have..
> It didnt happen everytime ...

*Exactly* what I'm experiencing.

I guess we're SOL unless someone else has figured out a workaround.

Kamm