Apple Logic Pro /LogicExpress Discussion

> 	I can say that my
> 	iMac, which was top of the line at the time I bought 
> it, paled in comparison
> 	to my older and less expensive PC.
> 	
> I think Macs seem less snappy because of the more massive 
> GUI. Mac OS 9 is must more responsive than X still. I think 
> thats why PC's seem more responsive. To test you need to run 
> the same kind of file - like sort a big Excel file, run a 
> blur filter on a photoshop file or something.

I was referring strictly to hardware specs, not perceived speed (which was
significantly worse on the iMac). But yes, I agree that even with identical
hardware specs (as far as that can be done with two different types of CPUs)
Windows XP is snappier in general compared to OS X.


> By the way, I did find a comparison of the imac 20", the G5 
> tower 1.8 single, and 1.8 dual. The dual is about 20% faster 
> than 1.8 single tower, and the single G5 tower is about 1% 
> faster than the imac in their tests. 
> 
> And the single 1.8s were about 60% faster than a 1 gig G4 
> emac, and the dual 1.8 was over 90% faster than the same 1 
> gig emac G4 reference.
> 
> There was one of the individual tests where the dual 
> processor was twice as fast as the single - in ripping an 
> MP3. But most of the other thigns were not a big difference. 

Can you give me a URL or is it in a printed magazine? I'd love to see the
comparison.

Kamm

Hi,

I have been RTFM and can't find a procedure for doing Sysex dumps from 
my outboard equipment.  With EditTrack on the Atari, I just hit SEND on 
the module as EditTrack was always in RECORD.  I could save the file 
and play it back into the synth-Piece of cake!

On another subject:  Are there any tutorials out there of any value for 
LE7?  This is slow sledding trying to learn through experiments and the 
HELP file.

Thanks.
Charlie

Guess I'm answering my own question. <g>

I deleted all tracks except one selected, in LIST, I clicked RECORD, 
punched the RECORD button in transport, hit SEND on my Oberheim Xpndr 
and viola!.

I made a few changes on the Xpndr, played the recorded track back in 
and it reverted to pre-changes.

Any suggestions are appreciated.

Charlie
On Feb 3, 2005, at 2:27 AM, Charles Massey wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I have been RTFM and can't find a procedure for doing Sysex dumps from 
> my outboard equipment.  With EditTrack on the Atari, I just hit SEND 
> on the module as EditTrack was always in RECORD.  I could save the 
> file and play it back into the synth-Piece of cake!
>
> On another subject:  Are there any tutorials out there of any value 
> for LE7?  This is slow sledding trying to learn through experiments 
> and the HELP file.
>
> Thanks.
Charlie
>

> Can you give me a URL or is it in a printed magazine? 
> I'd love to see the comparison.
> 
> http://www.macworld.com/2004/11/reviews/singlecpupowermac/index.php 

Thanks! I didn't realize until I saw that article that the previous single
CPU 1.8 Gig PowerMac had a faster system bus than the new one does. It
allows you to make a better comparison between the single and dual CPU
configurations. It really surprised me that the iMac was faster (although
only by a very small amount) than the PowerMac and was faster than the dual
CPU at iMovie rendering. Very interesting.

This should be very helpful for me to eventually decide on the iMac or Dual
CPU 1.8 PowerMac.

Thanks again,

Kamm

> I find that hard to believe. And I wonder if they just ran 
> one test on each machine and if some background processes 
> might have been going on (there are a lot of those in X), or 
> if they ran the same test multiple times

I was wondering the same thing.

> It would have been more interesting for us if they ran logic 
> - with a lot of tracks and a lot of virtual instruments.

Yep.

> I seem to recall something from a few years ago when the dual 
> processors came out - that the midi timing is far superior on 
> the dual processor since one was dedicated to audio only.

MIDI timing hasn't been a problem with my 800MHz iMac so I don't think that
will be a factor for me.

I'm starting to consider getting a KVM and sharing my PC's keyboard and CRT
with a Dual CPU PowerMac. That would make the cost only slightly higher for
the PowerMac - basically just the cost of the KVM - and might even be a
superior system all the way around because then I'd still have access to
Sonar on my PC. I still have a lot of my older songs on that PC and
importing them into Logic isn't trivial. It is easily 4 hours per song.
That's because of Logics poor multi instrument implementation. I'm sure I'll
get faster at it as time goes on, but it is currently a painful process.
Anyway, I would even have to bother with this setup. I'd just use Logic for
new songs and Sonar if I wanted to work on one of my existing songs.

Could be sweet.

Kamm

Is anyone on this list using a KVM to share a PC and a Mac? The monitor I
would be sharing would be an LCD with digital input and the mouse and
keyboard would be USB.

If anyone has some experience with something like this, I'd like to know how
it has worked out for you.

Kamm

Get a dual. Hands down faster.
Maybe not as indicated by the benchmark tests,
but personal experience with logic and music apps as my
only apps running on my dual g4 1000MHz w 1.5Gb of memory, the way logic uses the dual
processors makes for really astounding results. I am running
Logic 6 pro ver 6.4.1 on OSX ver 10.2.8 with no problems of any kind
can do lots of tracks and audioinstruments without problems
never have to restart as a matter of fact I have mine on a UPS
and never shut it off I just put it to sleep.
I run as many as 4-5 plugins on 40+ tracks to 8 stereo buses
with 2-4 plugs on each bus as well. I won't upgrade to Logic 7 for several basic reasons.
EMagic did not write ver 7 Apple did. Without any track record of
releasing bulletproof software I won't risk my livelihood and that of my employees
or the creative genius of any of my clients or our in house creative staff
on at the very best a novice attempt at professional recording software.
Companies like Apple and Microsoft and many others in the software business
for that matter have demonstrated an inability to
release "mission critical" software. They rely on an attitude of "who cares we'll fix
that bug in the next release". The results of which is what I have been reading here.
Many on this list are completely furious and bewildered by version 7 and it's 
obviously flaky operation. Remember that apple may have no real motivation
to make ver 7 work correctly on a G4 anyway. They made the G5 and if 
Logic 7 only runs well on that....well their solution would be "buy a G5".

Howard

----- Original Message ----- 
From: 
To: Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 2/3/2005 12:19:54 PM 
Subject: Re: [Logic_Cafe] imac comparison




It really surprised me that the iMac was faster


I find that hard to believe. And I wonder if they just ran one test on each machine and if some background processes might have been going on (there are a lot of those in X), or if they ran the same test multiple times, or different tests then took an average. I think a single test can always give screwy results. Just look at itunes when its ripping a CD to MP3... it can vary from 5 to 14x on the same CPU.

>This should be very helpful for me to eventually decide on the iMac or Dual

CPU 1.8 PowerMac.



It would have been more interesting for us if they ran logic - with a lot of tracks and a lot of virtual instruments.

I seem to recall something from a few years ago when the dual processors came out - that the midi timing is far superior on the dual processor since one was dedicated to audio only. I hope that the other processor is not just doing mundane tasks. If so, Apple could offer a dual G5 & G4 for less money where the G5 does the heavy lifting and the the G4 does the screen redraws and midi.



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.

Kamm Schreiner wrote:
> Is anyone on this list using a KVM to share a PC and a Mac?

[Raises hand.]

> The monitor I
> would be sharing would be an LCD with digital input and the mouse and
> keyboard would be USB.

Here: VGA monitor, Apple keyboard (USB), Logitech MX700 cordless mouse 
(USB).

The KVM switch is a cheap (well, AU$125 for a 4-way switch is cheap 
here, especially with cables included) no-name brand recommended by a 
friend who'd unsuccessfully tried the more expensive (approx. AU$300+) 
Apple-recommended "solutions".

At the front it has 4 buttons and PS2 inputs for keyboard and mouse. At 
the back: Outputs: 4X VGA, 4X USB (type B), 1X audio; Inputs: 1X VGA, 3X 
USB (type A), optional DC power. Cables (x4): VGA and type B USB at 
switch end, VGA, type A USB and audio at 'puter end. BTW, a PS2 mouse 
and keyboard *does* work with the Mac.

> If anyone has some experience with something like this, I'd like to know
> how it has worked out for you.

I've only had this setup for a few weeks, but mostly it works very well. 
It gets screwy, though, in certain conditions that I haven't sussed 
properly yet - turning 'puters off or putting 'em to sleep while the KVM 
is switched to an (apparently) inappropriate position sometimes stops it 
from working. Only solution I've found so far: unplug the power from one 
or both computers, plug 'em back in and start again.


Cheers,   Bill

From: "Kamm Schreiner" <kamm@...>

>Is anyone on this list using a KVM to share a PC and a Mac? The monitor I
>would be sharing would be an LCD with digital input and the mouse and
>keyboard would be USB.
>
>If anyone has some experience with something like this, I'd like to know how
>it has worked out for you.

I've been using an IOgear 4-point MiniView USB KVM switch with three 
Windows machines and one Mac, and it works great. The only problem is 
that sometimes you have to toggle its power of and back on when you 
first boot up a Windows machine (something to do with XP and USB). 
But it doesn't have a DVI connection, only VGA. The ones with digital 
monitor connections are prohibitively expensive.

(I have one monitor permanently connected to my Mac's DVI port and 
the other one connected to the KVM switch.)
-- 

Nick Batzdorf
818/905-9101, cell 590-9101, fax 905-5434

Kamm Schreiner <kamm@...> wrote:
: 
: I'm starting to consider getting a KVM and sharing my PC's keyboard and CRT
: with a Dual CPU PowerMac. That would make the cost only slightly higher for
: the PowerMac - basically just the cost of the KVM - and might even be a

I picked up a simple little Compucable VGA/USB switcher for less than $30
and it works perfectly. It's just a two device box with one big knob.

-- 
 agreenbu @ nyx . net                             andrew michael greenburg

On Feb 4, 2005, at 6:34 AM, Howard Lipp wrote:

> Get a dual. Hands down faster.

Agreed benchmarks are often deceptive.  Logic's developers worked very 
hard to make it get the most out of dual CPUs


>  I won't upgrade to Logic 7 for several basic reasons. EMagic did not 
> write ver 7 Apple did.

False.  Apple bought emagic the company the exact same group of emagic 
developers  are writing logic as always have and most of them are still 
working in Germany at the old emagic office.


> Many on this list are completely furious and bewildered by version 7 
> and it's  obviously flaky operation.

I would take that stuff with a hill of salt.  I am currently 
collaborating with a guy who like you got put off by the moaning and 
did not upgrade until a few days ago just before he got elbow deep into 
the album we are working on together in our separate studios.  He just 
called me not 20 minutes ago and was raving about all the cool new 
stuff he could do and had no complaints whatsoever.


> Remember that apple may have no real motivation to make ver 7 work 
> correctly on a G4 anyway.

The person I am referring to above is running on a G4 dual.

> They made the G5 and if  Logic 7 only runs well on that....well their 
> solution would be "buy a G5".

All of apple's lap top line and the new mini's are G4.  They are still 
selling plenty of products they want logic to be capable of running on.

Thanks to Bill, Nick, and Michael.

It sounds like basically good experiences from all of you. I'm probably
going to wait for Tiger to be released before I purchase my new Mac (why not
save $129), so that gives me time to investigate some more while I wait.

Kamm

> It sounds like basically good experiences from all of you. I'm probably
> going to wait for Tiger to be released before I purchase my new Mac (why not
> save $129), so that gives me time to investigate some more while I wait.
> 

According to three Apple "experts"... a 3.0 g5 will come out   in spring, 
summer, or fall. The current lineup was announced in June - about 7-8 months ago, 
so I am thinking to wait until the next speed boost to get a newer machine or 
get a current one at clearance price.

> so I am thinking to wait 
> until the next speed boost to get a newer machine or get a 
> current one at clearance price. 

Clearance price would be my avenue. Let's face it. For a hobbyist, any G5 is
probably adequate as long as there is enough memory.

Kamm

Hmm. That has me thinking...

Kamm

> All depends on how intense the hobby is. There are some 
> G5/1.6's on ebay for about $775

>  > It sounds like basically good experiences from all of you. I'm probably
>>  going to wait for Tiger to be released before I purchase my new Mac (why not
>  > save $129), so that gives me time to investigate some more while I wait.

The things to keep in mind are 1) make sure you get USB if you want 
USB and PS2 if you want PS2 (the IOgear model I recommended is USB, 
plus it can also switch USB peripherals like printers between the 
machines), and 2) buy more ports than you think you'll need. I'll be 
out of ports when I get a G5.

From: GAmoore@...

>According to three Apple "experts"... a 3.0 g5 will come out   in spring,
>summer, or fall.

On a website or people who really know?

>The current lineup was announced in June - about 7-8 months ago,

And other than the liquid cooling in the dual 2.5, it's all two years old.

>so I am thinking to wait until the next speed boost to get a newer machine or
>get a current one at clearance price.

I'm waiting too, but it's not so much for the clearance prices (those 
never really come; they just replace the lowest model with the 
previous midrange one), it's for the inevitable tweaks - better 
Firewire, maybe another HD slot, or perhaps even greater memory 
capacity.
-- 

Nick Batzdorf
818/905-9101, cell 590-9101, fax 905-5434

> All depends on how intense the hobby is. There are some 
> G5/1.6's on ebay for about $775 

I took a look at eBay and all I found was memory for the 1.6/G5's at that
price. Are you certain you saw the whole computer for that price?

Kamm

> Personally I don't like ebay. there a bunch of people buying dual mac 1.8s
> for $1800 or more... but you can just go to www.pricegrabber.com and get
> one delivered to your door brand new for $1880 or so - with full warranty.

That's actually not just Ebay.. Mac prices have fallen so rapidly in the last 
few years that second hand prices for G4 iBooks and G5 towers are equal to 
new prices (when the sellers just estimate the value of their own stuff and 
don't bother to check current shop pricing).

Maurits.

>There are some
>  > G5/1.6's on ebay for about $775

Those are the current bids. Items never sell on ebay for way less 
than they're worth.
-- 

Nick Batzdorf
818/905-9101, cell 590-9101, fax 905-5434

Thanks Gregory,

I was away for the weekend and that's why I haven't replied sooner. I'm not
sure why those didn't show up in my search. I tried several searches.

I'm willing to go with an older G5 if I can get a good deal. I need to make
sure I know what they are worth before I start bidding though.

Kamm

--- In Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com, Nick Batzdorf <recording@e...> wrote:
> I'm waiting too, but it's not so much for the clearance prices (those 
> never really come; they just replace the lowest model with the 
> previous midrange one), it's for the inevitable tweaks - better 
> Firewire, maybe another HD slot, or perhaps even greater memory 
> capacity.

Ah.. the memory capacity.  It strikes me as odd that the max memory capacity of the G5 
top end is 8 GB.  Unless I'm completely misunderstanding, 64 bit addressing would imply 
2^61 or so memory capacity (taking into account 2^3 bits per Byte if one needs to), not 
just an incremental improvement of the G4 32-bit memory limitations.  I'm sure it's more 
complex than this, and some other limitation applies, but there seems to be the possibility 
of way more memory than a mere 4x improvement over the previous generation.

Does anyone else understand this better than I do?

Cheers, Larry

> Ah.. the memory capacity.  It strikes me as odd that the max 
> memory capacity of the G5 top end is 8 GB.  Unless I'm 
> completely misunderstanding, 64 bit addressing would imply
> 2^61 or so memory capacity (taking into account 2^3 bits per 
> Byte if one needs to), not just an incremental improvement of 
> the G4 32-bit memory limitations.  I'm sure it's more complex 
> than this, and some other limitation applies, but there seems 
> to be the possibility of way more memory than a mere 4x 
> improvement over the previous generation.
> 
> Does anyone else understand this better than I do?

I suspect that the 8 GB maximum that Apple decided to offer has more to do
with physical space limitations on the motherboard than anything else. The
more memory that is supported, the more space that must be set aside for it
on the motherboard.

Kamm

From: "Kamm Schreiner" <kamm@...>

>I suspect that the 8 GB maximum that Apple decided to offer has more to do
>with physical space limitations on the motherboard than anything else. The
>more memory that is supported, the more space that must be set aside for it
>on the motherboard.

I don't know the maths, but 64-bit processors can access terrabytes 
of memory - way more than you need. Or at least that's how it looks 
today. :)

So yes, I'm sure the eight memory slots has to do with practical 
realities more than anything else. Another factor is that 8GB of 1GB 
RAMs is going to cost a little over $1400 at today's prices (and 
$3050 + 256 megs at the Apple store) - and prices are a little lower 
than they were a couple of years ago when the first G5s came out.

Also, for our purposes - loading sample starts so you can have lots 
of articulations cued up - I'd guess that it wouldn't do all that 
much good to be able to load a whole lot more than that. You don't 
use every program in your template usually, but hard drives and 
processors crap out at a finite point; based on the percentage of 
loaded programs you're likely to use, I'm guessing wildly that 8GB is 
a reasonable amount.

And that's not going to be an issue until the 64-bit OS comes out. In 
Panther you can load about 3GB of samples into a 4-4.5GB G5.
-- 

Nick Batzdorf
818/905-9101, cell 590-9101, fax 905-5434

In a message dated 2/7/05 5:32:21 PM, recording@... writes:

>So yes, I'm sure the eight memory slots has to do with practical 
>realities more than anything else. Another factor is that 8GB of 1GB 
>RAMs is going to cost a little over $1400 at today's prices (and 
>$3050 + 256 megs at the Apple store) - and prices are a little lower 
>than they were a couple of years ago when the first G5s came out.

The british Macworld had an article I read last night which details the costs 
of the imac g5 ... pretty interesting. the ram and hard drive are pretty 
minor actually. apple is known to hobble computers on the low end so that people 
buy higher end stuff - i would only cost a few bucks more to add more slots for 
ram but they do it to make you jump up to the more expensive model.

Ram always comes down in price. We all have our stories of fortunes spent for 
tiny amounts of ram a few years ago. I am thinking to get 1 gig when I get a 
new mac. I think thats a usable size (what do you think?)... and then as 
prices drop, add a pair of gigs to get 3 gig.

I am not that concerned about 8 gig of ram.... when 8 gig of ram get cheap 
enough for my budget, it will be time to sell the G5 and get a G6.

steinway03 <dr_l_music@...> wrote:
: 
: --- In Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com, Nick Batzdorf <recording@e...> wrote:
: > I'm waiting too, but it's not so much for the clearance prices (those 
: > never really come; they just replace the lowest model with the 
: > previous midrange one), it's for the inevitable tweaks - better 
: > Firewire, maybe another HD slot, or perhaps even greater memory 
: > capacity.
: 
: Ah.. the memory capacity.  It strikes me as odd that the max memory capacity of the G5 
: top end is 8 GB.  Unless I'm completely misunderstanding, 64 bit addressing would imply 
: 2^61 or so memory capacity (taking into account 2^3 bits per Byte if one needs to), not 
: just an incremental improvement of the G4 32-bit memory limitations.  I'm sure it's more 
: complex than this, and some other limitation applies, but there seems to be the possibility 
: of way more memory than a mere 4x improvement over the previous generation.
: 
: Does anyone else understand this better than I do?

Apple always publishes max memory specs based on the largest compatible
modules currently available at the time of release. The G5 has 4 slots;
the largest currently available DIMMs are 2GB each, so if you fill the G5
with 2GB DIMMs, you've got 8GB. I suspect that when larger DIMMs come out
they will work just fine.

-- 
 agreenbu @ nyx . net                             andrew michael greenburg

amgmamgma <agreenbu@...> wrote:
: 
: steinway03 <dr_l_music@...> wrote:
: : 
: : --- In Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com, Nick Batzdorf <recording@e...> wrote:
: : > I'm waiting too, but it's not so much for the clearance prices (those 
: : > never really come; they just replace the lowest model with the 
: : > previous midrange one), it's for the inevitable tweaks - better 
: : > Firewire, maybe another HD slot, or perhaps even greater memory 
: : > capacity.
: : 
: : Ah.. the memory capacity.  It strikes me as odd that the max memory capacity of the G5 
: : top end is 8 GB.  Unless I'm completely misunderstanding, 64 bit addressing would imply 
: : 2^61 or so memory capacity (taking into account 2^3 bits per Byte if one needs to), not 
: : just an incremental improvement of the G4 32-bit memory limitations.  I'm sure it's more 
: : complex than this, and some other limitation applies, but there seems to be the possibility 
: : of way more memory than a mere 4x improvement over the previous generation.
: : 
: : Does anyone else understand this better than I do?
: 
: Apple always publishes max memory specs based on the largest compatible
: modules currently available at the time of release. The G5 has 4 slots;
: the largest currently available DIMMs are 2GB each, so if you fill the G5
: with 2GB DIMMs, you've got 8GB. I suspect that when larger DIMMs come out
: they will work just fine.

Errr, that should read 8 slots, and 1GB DIMMs. I'm not sure if the new 2GB
DIMMs work in the G5, but I suspect that they do.

-- 
 agreenbu @ nyx . net                             andrew michael greenburg

> Errr, that should read 8 slots, and 1GB DIMMs. I'm not sure 
> if the new 2GB DIMMs work in the G5, but I suspect that they do.

They might, but not unless Apple designed the motherboard with the future in
mind. They have to have a trace for the extra address line on the
motherboard or it won't work. The 2 GB DIMM would appear as a 1GB DIMM
without that extra address line. There may also be an issue with other
motherboard support chips. I'm not an expert on motherboards, but know at
least enough about digital electronics to have a feel for what goes on. DMA
(Direct Memory Access) would mean that other devices would also need to have
access to the extra address line. Not just the CPU.

Kamm

Kamm Schreiner <kamm@...> wrote:
: 
: > Errr, that should read 8 slots, and 1GB DIMMs. I'm not sure 
: > if the new 2GB DIMMs work in the G5, but I suspect that they do.
: 
: They might, but not unless Apple designed the motherboard with the future in
: mind. They have to have a trace for the extra address line on the
: motherboard or it won't work. The 2 GB DIMM would appear as a 1GB DIMM
: without that extra address line. There may also be an issue with other
: motherboard support chips. I'm not an expert on motherboards, but know at
: least enough about digital electronics to have a feel for what goes on. DMA
: (Direct Memory Access) would mean that other devices would also need to have
: access to the extra address line. Not just the CPU.

Historically, Macs have pretty much *always* been able to take the bigger
chips when they come out, and Apple *always* specs them at current market
limits. It's possible that this is an exception, but I'd put my money on
the support being there. Besides, there are normal DDR (not DDR2) 2GB DIMMs
now, so those don't require a newer architecture, just support in the
chipset. There are a couple of vendors selling 2GB DIMMs labeled for the
Xserve out on the web, and The Xserve is also speced by Apple as having a
max of 8GB of RAM, so I'd bet that 16GB is possible today.

-- 
 agreenbu @ nyx . net                             andrew michael greenburg

> Historically, Macs have pretty much *always* been able to 
> take the bigger chips when they come out, and Apple *always* 
> specs them at current market limits.

I hope you're right. I guess we'll find out soon. ;)

Kamm

From: amgmamgma <agreenbu@...>

>Historically, Macs have pretty much *always* been able to take the bigger
>chips when they come out, and Apple *always* specs them at current market
>limits.

Well, my Quicksilver dual gig can not go past 1.5GB. Would that it could.
-- 

Nick Batzdorf
818/905-9101, cell 590-9101, fax 905-5434