The Logic Off Topic list

Your points are very valid, especially to me (as you might have read
regarding my upgrading "problems").

I ordered Logic 5, but when there\ufffds the (to me) major long-known bug still
alive (tempochange/waveform bug), I\ufffdll definitely consider sending it back.

emagic told us about a "total rewrite" from Logic 3 to Logic 4, but many
bugs were taken over.
I hope this is not the case with 4 -> 5 (but I\ufffdm not holding my breath,
because at least one bug - cycle - reportedly made it into 5...).

Peter
---
http://www.merlinsound.de


----- Original Message -----
From: "monsdrum" <monsdrum@...>
To: <logic-ot@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2002 10:11 PM
Subject: [L-OT] To upgrade or not to... (was: something about Ohmforce not
working in 481)

> > Whilst on the subject, is it presumed that everyone will be
> upgrading to V5
> > to fix these probs ? Or is there a plan to actually get version 4
> working
> > properly (ever?)
>
> I've been asking the same question here, and got the reply from one
> of the emagic guys, that v4 will not be developed or upgraded any
> point beyond 4.8.1. I think this is definately worth a debate,
> although it is probably too OT for this list. I will crosspost to the
> OTlist. I actually tried to start the debate when I got that reply,
> with this post:

>
>
>Your points are very valid, especially to me (as you might have read
>regarding my upgrading "problems").
>
I'll check with Emagic.

>I ordered Logic 5, but when there´s the (to me) major long-known bug still
>alive (tempochange/waveform bug), I´ll definitely consider sending it back.
>
Uh oh....

>emagic told us about a "total rewrite" from Logic 3 to Logic 4, but many
>bugs were taken over.
>I hope this is not the case with 4 -> 5 (but I´m not holding my breath,
>because at least one bug - cycle - reportedly made it into 5...).
>
Some old bugs are still in there... some others have been fixed.

Bye,
J

-- 
Joeri Vankeirsbilck
joeri@...

Belway Productions      -     http://www.belway.com
List-admin   Logic-users/SoundD*ver-users/Logic-TDM

Joeri,

>>I ordered Logic 5, but when there\ufffds the (to me) major long-known bug still
>>alive (tempochange/waveform bug), I\ufffdll definitely consider sending it
back.
>>
>Uh oh....

Well, I mostly do audio in Logic, mostly rock-pop productions.
There are quite a few bands that don\ufffdt want to play to click (and to me
that\ufffds ok, it\ufffds Rock \ufffdn\ufffd Roll...).
For editing I do tempo maps, but after that editing is almost impossible
because of this bug.

BTW: As Logic 5\ufffds automation claims to be sample accurate, is sample
accurate editing on the arrange page possible, too? It should be IMO...

Peter
---
http://www.merlinsound.de

----- Original Message -----
From: "Joeri Vankeirsbilck" <joeri@...>
To: <logic-ot@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2002 11:09 PM
Subject: Re: [L-OT] To upgrade or not to... (was: something about Ohmforce
not working in 481)


>
>
>Your points are very valid, especially to me (as you might have read
>regarding my upgrading "problems").
>
I'll check with Emagic.

>emagic told us about a "total rewrite" from Logic 3 to Logic 4, but many
>bugs were taken over.
>I hope this is not the case with 4 -> 5 (but I\ufffdm not holding my breath,
>because at least one bug - cycle - reportedly made it into 5...).
>
Some old bugs are still in there... some others have been fixed.

"Peter Duemmler" wrote:
> BTW: As Logic 5´s automation claims to be sample accurate, is sample
> accurate editing on the arrange page possible, too? It should be IMO...
> 

I don't know about this, but is this some kinda marketing blurb? MIDI has a=
 bandwidth of less then 44.1kHz( to my knowledge it is something like 32kb/s=
), so how can automation be sample acurate, if you can't send more than 32kb=
 in 1 second, while you have 44.1 bytes(if not more) in 1 second. Am I missi=
ng something here? Or is the internal MIDI engine so much more faster? Doesn=
't make sense to me.
Please educate me on this.
TIA,
Yoonchi.

Does Logic 5\ufffds automation work midi-based at all?
(I\ufffdm talking audio automation here.)

Peter
---
http://www.merlinsound.de

----- Original Message -----
From: "yoonchinet" <yoonchinet@...>
To: <logic-ot@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2002 11:29 PM
Subject: Re: [L-OT] To upgrade or not to... (was: something about Ohmforce
not working in 481)


"Peter Duemmler" wrote:
> BTW: As Logic 5\ufffds automation claims to be sample accurate, is sample
> accurate editing on the arrange page possible, too? It should be IMO...
>

I don't know about this, but is this some kinda marketing blurb? MIDI has a=
 bandwidth of less then 44.1kHz( to my knowledge it is something like
32kb/s=
), so how can automation be sample acurate, if you can't send more than
32kb=
 in 1 second, while you have 44.1 bytes(if not more) in 1 second. Am I
missi=
ng something here? Or is the internal MIDI engine so much more faster?
Doesn=
't make sense to me.
Please educate me on this.
TIA,
Yoonchi.

>
>
>BTW: As Logic 5´s automation claims to be sample accurate, is sample
>accurate editing on the arrange page possible, too? It should be IMO...
>
Depends on how you look at it... sample accurate zoom for waveforms is 
not in there yet. :-(
But yes, automation is sample accurate. Don't forget to set the right 
setting (somewhere in the options) because you can choose it to be 
sample accurate or not etc.


-- 
Joeri Vankeirsbilck
joeri@belway.com

Belway Productions      -     http://www.belway.com
List-admin   Logic-users/SoundD*ver-users/Logic-TDM

>
>
>I don't know about this, but is this some kinda marketing blurb? MIDI has a=
>bandwidth of less then 44.1kHz( to my knowledge it is something like 32kb/s=
>), so how can automation be sample acurate, if you can't send more than 32kb=
>in 1 second, while you have 44.1 bytes(if not more) in 1 second. Am I missi=
>ng something here? Or is the internal MIDI engine so much more faster?
>
I don't think the new automation is midi based.
Believe me, it really makes a difference. E.g. when you want perfect 
volume automation or filter cutoff stuff, you'll want sample accurate 
automation.

By the way, aren't we getting very ON topic now? ;-)))))


-- 
Joeri Vankeirsbilck
joeri@...

Belway Productions      -     http://www.belway.com
List-admin   Logic-users/SoundD*ver-users/Logic-TDM

>"Peter Duemmler" wrote:
>>  BTW: As Logic 5´s automation claims to be sample accurate, is sample
>>  accurate editing on the arrange page possible, too? It should be IMO...
>>
>
>I don't know about this, but is this some kinda marketing blurb? MIDI has a=
>
>  bandwidth of less then 44.1kHz( to my knowledge it is something like 32kb/s=
>
>), so how can automation be sample acurate, if you can't send more than 32kb=
>
>  in 1 second, while you have 44.1 bytes(if not more) in 1 second. Am I missi=
>
>ng something here? Or is the internal MIDI engine so much more faster? Doesn=

Apparently the internal process is not MIDI based so the MIDI 
limitations you speak of do not apply.