Will LOGIC Replace PRO TOOLS?

[TommyLee]

Pro Tools is the industry standard DAW but do you think that reign will last? why?

[zimv20]

i'll make no predictions, but imho people like PT because it does what it does very well. it would certainly take a lot to make me switch.

regarding 'reign', do you have any data on marketshare now? i'm interested in knowing what constitutes a 'reign' and when you'd consider such a thing to be ended.

[gotzero]

I use and love Logic, but in many ways it is not a mainstream program.

I will admit that the new system (and the new pricepoint) is a lot more normal (so much so that I am still having trouble with 8), but I think the lock-in to ProTools is significant.

When you get into the HD systems, the computer is not very important (but it does need a lot of ports that are only on MacPros in the Apple line). This means that you can get by with a much cheaper PC tower. Logic will rise or fall with the Mac market share.

I think ProTools will always dominate Hip Hop, Country, and Pop music. Logic seems to make its headway in electronic music and other less traditional genres.

[Joe Bannon]

ProTools includes hardware... Logic Pro can't compete on it's level without hardware.

[kaeckisthename]

I am running Logic 8 with a Mackie Onyx Satellite (http://www.mackie.com/products/satellite/index.html), I'm a novice, so my opinion isn't as sound as some of you guys......but......I love it!!!:p

[Tarkovsky]

Zero Heroes - do you have any experience with the high end PT hardware? I say this because in terms of the LE line at least it's generally conceived that PT's hardware lets it down. Likewise it's considered an advantage that LOGIC supports a vast array of interfaces.

[Joe Bannon]

Zero Heroes - do you have any experience with the high end PT hardware? I say this because in terms of the LE line at least it's generally conceived that PT's hardware lets it down. Likewise it's considered an advantage that LOGIC supports a vast array of interfaces.


Yes, and PT does support others like Apogee.

[zimv20]

Yes, and PT does support others like Apogee.

what point are you making? i'm confused.

[Joe Bannon]

what point are you making? i'm confused.

I was replying to Tarkovsky.

[bartelby]

I still think of them as 2 different types of audio app. PT is a direct to disk* digital recording app. And Logic is a sequencing app.

I guess I'm old.




* how 90s is that phrase?! :o

[andy5000]

i have a digidesign digi 002 rack so have pro tools le. like people say there two different applications. I have recently bought logic studio 8 for its midi capabilities and the fact i dont have to have my digi 002 r connected to open logic.
i dont think it will replace pro tools, too many people have the hardware and will just use it because it comes with the hardware

[Joe Bannon]

i have a digidesign digi 002 rack so have pro tools le.

If you ever get the chance, take a look at PT HD and one of the big consoles. It's a work of art.

[andy5000]

yeh i saw a pro tools hd system a few years ago, would be a dream but only a 19 year old student, one day!

[Tarkovsky]

Pro Tools 'compatible' with apogee? What do you mean you can use external apogee A/D? That's not the point. Any interface with an SPDIF of AES port will be 'compatible'. The point is that this has made the original A/D in the interface you forked out for pointless. At LE level at least the hardware is substandard which presents an issue for the small-time engineer and as the music business is decentralizing it's also a problem for digi.

[zimv20]

I was replying to Tarkovsky.

<sarcasm> yes, everything is clear now </sarcasm>

so what are you, a student doing audio courses?

[Joe Bannon]

Pro Tools 'compatible' with apogee? What do you mean you can use external apogee A/D? That's not the point. Any interface with an SPDIF of AES port will be 'compatible'. The point is that this has made the original A/D in the interface you forked out for pointless. At LE level at least the hardware is substandard which presents an issue for the small-time engineer and as the music business is decentralizing it's also a problem for digi.


I'm not trying to make a point and I'm not referring to LE. No studio I know of uses LE. I'm telling you that PT HD can use other interfaces, not all, but some good ones like Apogee. IMO, PT sounds better with Apogee.

[Joe Bannon]

<sarcasm> yes, everything is clear now </sarcasm>

so what are you, a student doing audio courses?

LOL, no. But even if I was, it wouldn't change anything.

[Joe Bannon]

Here is the Kitchen here in Dallas that uses PT HD with Apogee...

http://www.thekitchenstudios.net/equipment.htm

Their SSL console.... :D

[Drumjim85]

I don't think PT will lose their top spot anytime soon, mainly due to the DSP cards. Sure you can buy external things that can kind of do the same thing, but then there's also the issue of delay compensation (unless the other programs have taken care of that, up not %100 up on other programs)

If anything does take its place, its going to be nuendo, not logic. Pretty much everyone I know that doesnt use protools uses nuendo.

[Joe Bannon]

Sure you can buy external things that can kind of do the same thing...


IMO, the rosetta 800 does better. But that's me.

[Drumjim85]

IMO, the rosetta 800 does better. But that's me.

I'm not talking about converters .... (which IMO Mytek > Apogee > Digidesign)
I'm talking about the DSP cards .. (HD or Accel). These cards handle most of the processing power of your plugins and other audio bits ... and no other company has made anything that compares to it... and you have to have at least one of these cards to run Protools HD

But if you want to argue converters ... no, the rosetta series (either the 200 or 800) are not better than digidesign's converters... But the AD-16x / DA-16x are...

[Joe Bannon]

I'm not talking about converters .... (which IMO Mytek > Apogee > Digidesign)
I'm talking about the DSP cards .. (HD or Accel). These cards handle most of the processing power of your plugins and other audio bits ... and no other company has made anything that compares to it... and you have to have at least one of these cards to run Protools HD

But if you want to argue converters ... no, the rosetta series (either the 200 or 800) are not better than digidesign's converters... But the AD-16x / DA-16x are...


Ah, you said external things without anything specific, so I guessed. My mistake.

And I'm not going to change my opinion on the converts, so you can argue with someone else ;).

Have a good one, I said what I needed to here.

[Drumjim85]

... mainly due to the DSP cards. Sure you can buy external things that can kind of do the same thing...

Ah, you said external things without anything specific, so I guessed. My mistake.

And I'm not going to change my opinion on the converts, so you can argue with someone else ;).

Have a good one, I said what I needed to here.

clearly talking about DSP... and i was refering to this kinda of product (http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/UAD1eExtreme/)

[Joe Bannon]

clearly talking about DSP... and i was refering to this kinda of product (http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/UAD1eExtreme/)



Well, "external" to me means outside the computer, as in outside the case. Just end it at that. I'm not going to argue to you about the dictionary.

[motulist]

The music biz likes unofficial technical standards in as many instances as possible, and rightfully so. Just like how NS-10s were an unofficial standard so that people could go from one studio to another and still be familiar with the monitors, people don't want to have to learn 3 different DAW packages just to work in different studios across the street from one another.

However, there's one thing the music biz likes even more than unofficial technical standards, and that's money. Protools can still justify its existence because it is a de facto unofficial standard and people don't want to learn a major new piece of software just for kicks, and there's no clear DAW software that's heir apparent.

Also, at the real high end, such as in hollywood movie scoring, I believe there are still tasks that a totally computer based DAW still can't offer. So if the major industry guys have to use protools on their major projects then they aren't going to learn another piece of software. And as long as the major industry people have to use protools then there'll be a trickle down effects that makes all other people keep wanting to use protools too.

So as much as I am not a fan of digi or their products, protools isn't going anywhere any time soon.

[pkoch1]

Pro Tools includes hardware... Logic Pro can't compete on it's level without hardware.

Eh, I see what you are saying, but I disagree. I think of it more like the hardware comes with Pro Tools. You can get some pretty incredible hardware for Logic too. I find the exclusivity of Pro Tools software and hardware unappealing. It's one of the reasons I use Logic.

[pkoch1]

I still think of them as 2 different types of audio app. PT is a direct to disk* digital recording app. And Logic is a sequencing app.


I don't know if this was at all sarcastic or anything, but if you haven't used Logic in a while, check it out. Audio has gotten a lot better in the more recent versions. I think that if both programs came out for the first time today (so Pro Tools wouldn't have the marketshare, use and familiarity that it does) Logic would become standard. Granted, this is just my opinion, but I think Logic's interface is much more appealing and straightforward than Pro Tools'. Give it a shot. You might have some fun!

[motulist]

I think Logic's interface is much more appealing and straightforward than Pro Tools'.

Hah, wow, that's the first time I've ever heard anyone extol the virtues of Logic's user interface! Even the die hard fans of Logic that I know admit that logic has a very difficult user interface.

[zimv20]

Audio has gotten a lot better in the more recent versions.

how so?

granted, it's been a couple years since i've seen it, but i saw a disturbing thing with audio: after recording an instrument, and hitting stop, it would take a long time for the waveform to render on the screen so it could be manipulated. in some cases, over a minute. to me, that's unuseable.

PT is and has been instantaneous. has Logic got that sorted now?

[fernmeister]

Depends what you mean by "the industry."

In terms of big studios the answer is no, not anytime soon. PT has a big and established foothold here and those places are reluctant to change quickly or invest in new systems unless there is a really compelling reason to do so.

But, the big question is really about the future of those kinds of studios and their role in the industry. For musicians with home studios, project studios and mutilmedia houses, the equations are really different and there is a lot of competition between PT, Logic, Nuendo and DP. Certainly for film, Logic and Soundtrack Pro have made real inroads, same for a lot of producer/DJ/beatmakers.

[WinterMute]

Protools HD is a very good pro system that works across specialisms in audio, Digi are owned by AVID, and as such is effectively AVID Audio Post solution, it excells in that role, it's sync options are very well configured and it deals with nasty stuff like frame-rate pull-up/down easily.

The fact that it's also become a platform of choice for many music producer/engineers is fortuitous but not surprising. I wouldn't consider going into a big project with anything else these days.

However LE is a disregarded slow cousin, even with the 003 interfaces, it lacks essential features (5.1 mixing FFS!!!) that are removed simply to protect HD's market, and it requires stupid amounts or DSP from the main processor. LE and Logic head to head is very hard to argue from a PT POV.

I use LE because I'm lucky enough to have 10 HD systems at my disposal, and feeding slave sessions from the MBP back to an HD system is easy and very productive.

I can't see Logic surpassing PT in pro studio applications, but it p0wns PT in composition/production in project situations.

[pulsewidth947]

Logic 8 will definitely win fans who consider midi support important. Theres a couple of tutors where I work who have always used Pro Tools who are now switching to Logic for its superior midi editing tools.

I can't see Digi ever putting in decent editing tools, but I guess for the majority of users it's not that big an issue.

I don't like Pro Tools but I can't get on with Logics GUI. So I don't use either :)

[SRSound]

Having used both extensively, I will NEVER buy a logic system over a pro tools system. End of story.


...Then again, I work primarily with REAL audio. If I ever switch over to predominantly midi and sequencing (shudder), it may need to be considered.

[MacInbowl]

has Logic got that sorted now?

Yes, this frustrating behavior is gone in Logic 8!

[Dronomophone]

Here is the Kitchen here in Dallas that uses PT HD with Apogee...

http://www.thekitchenstudios.net/equipment.htm

Their SSL console.... :D

I use the same SSL E/G console at NYU (i like to call it the F series). Yes, with PT HD as well as two inch tape.

[pkoch1]

Hah, wow, that's the first time I've ever heard anyone extol the virtues of Logic's user interface! Even the die hard fans of Logic that I know admit that logic has a very difficult user interface.

Haha, I really like it. The environment is a crazy place, but other than that, I think the user interface is great!

PT is and has been instantaneous. has Logic got that sorted now?

I don't think it has. But it never takes that long for me. Maybe up to twenty seconds for twelve 4-minute tracks or so?

[zimv20]

Maybe up to twenty seconds for twelve 4-minute tracks or so?

!!!!!!

i could not live with that. in PT, it's instantaneous, and (afaik) always has been.

[pkoch1]

!!!!!!

i could not live with that. in PT, it's instantaneous, and (afaik) always has been.

I guess I never thought about it being such an issue for me. I am a Logic man, but I know I'm still going to have to give some time to PT and really learn it to be any kind of successful producer. With Digital Performer, I didn't like it at first, and some things had complicated setups that just worked in Logic, but I've really grown to see the strengths of it now. I'm sure it will be similar with Pro Tools.

[zimv20]

I'm sure it will be similar with Pro Tools.

it's fairly geared towards those who learned on tape and desks (like me). but you're right in that each DAW has its own learning curve.

[3rdpath]

COULD logic replace protools...sure.

WILL logic replace protools..probably not anytime soon.

having worked for the last few years in a studio with a blown out HD3 system and seperate rooms running digital performer and logic...i'd say the main difference was that PT required much more tech support and suffered much more down time than the other systems combined.

PT is, for the moment, the industry standard but quite frankly...there's a lot of people who would/will switch when the time is right.

the differences in the feature sets of the major programs are becoming negligible...and the edge that PT had because of the limits incurred by native processing are pretty much history.

[superleccy]

Logic Pro 8 fanboy here. Use it mainly for 'real' audio and don't understand why people think it's mainly a midi sequencer (historical reasons I guess). Never used PT, and I'm not going to take the time, money and trouble to bother with now. However, I should think its inertia in the big studios will make it hard to topple if nothing else will.

But, punks & amateurs like me with home studios in their boxrooms... that's a different story! Industry Standard? There'll always be a role for the big quality studios, but the industry is creeping away from there, towards the garage and the bedroom.

I was put off PT by stories of hardware compatibility issues, and confusion about what was the best version was to get. LP8 with it's new price point just seemed like a no-brainer.

Hah, wow, that's the first time I've ever heard anyone extol the virtues of Logic's user interface! Even the die hard fans of Logic that I know admit that logic has a very difficult user interface.
In my experience, very steep learning curve, but great once you get the hang of it. When trying to learn Logic, I expected it to be like GarageBand on steroids - but it was the first time I ever had to go and buy a 3rd party book (Martin Sitter's).

Now my remaining issues are pretty niggling and mainly with bugs rather than user interface issues.
PT is and has been instantaneous. has Logic got that sorted now?
It would appear so.

SL

[zimv20]

It would appear so.


hm, not according to post 36.

[pkoch1]

hm, not according to post 36.

nah don't listen to me I could have been mistaken

[superleccy]

hm, not according to post 36.
Just did a quick experiment - actually it's not instantaneous, but It's fast enough for me. Hadn't noticed before.

I guess that Logic only builds the overview after you've finished recording to save processing power whilst it is recording. Makes sense, in a way.

SL

[zimv20]

Just did a quick experiment - actually it's not instantaneous, but It's fast enough for me. Hadn't noticed before.

thanks for checking. if you hadn't noticed it before, perhaps it is a solved issue.

save processing power whilst it is recording. Makes sense, in a way.


not sure i agree: writing bits to disc takes surprisingly little processing power.

[Ryox]

Well, I use Logic. Some people like it, some people don't. I think its just personal preference.
Most engineers i work with are blown away by how fast i work in logic but they can blow me away in Pro Tools. As for industry standard, Its hard to say. Just go with the one your most familiar with.

[superleccy]

not sure i agree: writing bits to disc takes surprisingly little processing power.
If you're recording several tracks at the same time (eg, a drumkit plus some other stuff), and have some real-time effects & software instruments in there too, then recording does eat a lot of processing power. Okay so I don't know anyone who'd actually records like that :rolleyes: but the point is you don't want anything to risk your recording.

There's also an option in Logic that says "Faster Overviews (may affect performance)". I haven't experimented with it tho.

Sorry I'm being a picky Logic fanboi. :)

SL

[zimv20]

If you're recording several tracks at the same time (eg, a drumkit plus some other stuff), and have some real-time effects & software instruments in there too, then recording does eat a lot of processing power.

effects and instruments, yeah, but grabbing bits from the a/d converter and putting them to a hard drive, even for a good number of tracks, didn't really tax machines even from the mid-80's.

[WinterMute]

effects and instruments, yeah, but grabbing bits from the a/d converter and putting them to a hard drive, even for a good number of tracks, didn't really tax machines even from the mid-80's.

I track bands on a PT HD3 rig with 32 i/o, and I use real-time effects and soft instruments as I do it. PT eats it up and the only thing I really have to worry about is HD i/o bandwidth.

A FW800 disc at 7200/10000 rpm works a treat.

FWIW, Elastic Audio is addictive and fast becoming essential.

This argument is a little null tbh, it's like arguing about a car or a football, chose the one you want to use and get on with making great music.

[TommyLee]

I track bands on a PT HD3 rig with 32 i/o, and I use real-time effects and soft instruments as I do it. PT eats it up and the only thing I really have to worry about is HD i/o bandwidth.

A FW800 disc at 7200/10000 rpm works a treat.

FWIW, Elastic Audio is addictive and fast becoming essential.

This argument is a little null tbh, it's like arguing about a car or a football, chose the one you want to use and get on with making great music.

How is elastic time essential?
Engineers have done without it for years.

[RedRedBlockhead]

How can it be essential? Is that a serious question or a bit of sarcastic banter? The beatles used 8 track recorders. Depends what you're trying to achieve and if new technology has pushed the artistic envelope, then pushing it further in that direction has made that technology essential.

BTW if the industry is reshaping then there there is a strong chance that Logic will become our bread and butter.

[dLight]

Pro Tools is the industry standard DAW but do you think that reign will last? why?

I can't really say if Logic will replace Pro Tools... for composing/producing Logic already is the standard for most professional users I know, and all Pro Tools based studios I'm aware of also have Logic. To some degree Logic already has replaced Pro Tools (especially for those who didn't have any choice but PT earlier, if they wanted low latency and lots of DSP power).

Another question is: Will Pro Tools ever threaten Logic's leading position as a combined composing/arranging/score tool?

Of course things will change. Logic already offers lower latency and more DSP power than what you can get from using a HD3 system, but people have different preferences. It's more and more about software and workflow.

Hah, wow, that's the first time I've ever heard anyone extol the virtues of Logic's user interface! Even the die hard fans of Logic that I know admit that logic has a very difficult user interface.
Maybe you haven't been in touch with someone using Logic after Logic 8 came out?

I have owned both Logic and Pro Tools since both programs were released, and always preferred Logic - and with Logic 8, many diehard PT fans have started to use it. On the other hand, if Logic never will get anything Beat Detective / Elastic Audio like, Pro Tools LE may recruit many of Logic's current users - some Logic users already have started to look at PT for that reason.

Time will tell.

[WinterMute]

How is elastic time essential?
Engineers have done without it for years.

Yes we have, but we also did without 16 track then 24 track, in-line consoles, digital reverb, then we did without non-linear recording and editing and the ability to record 24-bit 192Khz audio on affordable sytems....

I could go on.

Are you seriously suggesting that the only "proper" recordings are those achieved without any intervention by the engineer?

For the record, I'm a long time user and advocate of 2" 16 and 24 track analog recording, I still think it adds something. However, I'm not going to lob wooden shoes into the machinery of my Protools rig when it allows me to create professional artifacts to the clients specification in a 10th the time and cost of "traditional" recording systems.

Logic is essential, Protools is essential...

In the words or a wiser man than I: "****** art, lets dance".

[TommyLee]

Are you seriously suggesting that the only "proper" recordings are those achieved without any intervention by the engineer?you're putting words in my mouth. apple and oranges.

[WinterMute]

you're putting words in my mouth. apple and oranges.

Nope, I was asking you to clarify your position, I know professionals who will not use PT or Logic as they claim these apps adulterate the music making process, and to be honest, they do.

The commercial reality is that we all have to work faster and cheaper, and the general public doesn't give a toss about recording quality (hence the popularity of 128Kbps Mp3 files).

I'd love to have the time, money and opportunity to track and mix everything off a couple of 16-track 2" Studers, but it ain't gonna happen. I have deadlines and budgets, and frankly both PT and Logic do the job well enough, hence they become operationally essential.

[junior]

Just did a quick experiment - actually it's not instantaneous, but It's fast enough for me. Hadn't noticed before.

I guess that Logic only builds the overview after you've finished recording to save processing power whilst it is recording. Makes sense, in a way.

SL

For composers, that isn't a problem at all. But in a studio environment with clients sitting anxiously on the sofa behind you, every second counts.
Aside from compatibility issues, for me the major reason why PT has remained, and will continue to remain the industry standard, is it's absolute speed and simplicity in the audio recording/mixing environment.
Logic may well get there eventually. Not just yet though.

[dLight]

granted, it's been a couple years since i've seen it, but i saw a disturbing thing with audio: after recording an instrument, and hitting stop, it would take a long time for the waveform to render on the screen so it could be manipulated. in some cases, over a minute. to me, that's unuseable.

PT is and has been instantaneous. has Logic got that sorted now?

If I remember right, Logic had this way before Pro Tools got it (it was on of the many things Logic Audio could do with the TDM hardware that Pro Tools couldn't do), but it seems that in Logic this behavior is dependent on the speed of your CPU. If your computer is slow, Logic may just disable real time overviews in order to put more priority on audio.

In earlier version of Logic (pre Logic 8) there was a user setting that let the users define if they wanted the waveform to be made after the recording had found place or not, but that seems to be gone in Logic 8.

I know for sure that one of the reasons some users wanted to use Logic as a front end for Pro Tools in the early days was that in PT, one had to stop playback in order to do basic stuff that could be done in real time in Logic. Today PT is a lot better, and Logic also have disabled some real time stuff that could influence stability and performance.

[Killyp]

how so?

granted, it's been a couple years since i've seen it, but i saw a disturbing thing with audio: after recording an instrument, and hitting stop, it would take a long time for the waveform to render on the screen so it could be manipulated. in some cases, over a minute. to me, that's unuseable.

PT is and has been instantaneous. has Logic got that sorted now?

To an extent. There is an option to do overviews 'faster', which just renders them in lower (but far more than good enough) quality. On a 2.2 GHz MacBook Pro, it takes under 3 seconds to render a 3:09 long 24 bit 96KHz stereo PCM audio file.

[junior]

To an extent. There is an option to do overviews 'faster', which just renders them in lower (but far more than good enough) quality. On a 2.2 GHz MacBook Pro, it takes under 3 seconds to render a 3:09 long 24 bit 96KHz stereo PCM audio file.

Not bad I guess. Makes me wonder, with all the power in processors and the amount of RAM available compared to say, 5 years ago, why Logic can't simply allow the rendering of simple visual audio waves to go on during the recording.
Isn't that the advantage of multi-core processors?

[dLight]

Not bad I guess. Makes me wonder, with all the power in processors and the amount of RAM available compared to say, 5 years ago, why Logic can't simply allow the rendering of simple visual audio waves to go on during the recording.
Isn't that the advantage of multi-core processors?

On my Mac, Logic does that all the time. See my earlier post...

[junior]

On my Mac, Logic does that all the time. See my earlier post...

I thought you said it didn't do it anymore? Or are you not using 8?

[junior]

BTW who the hell chose "other" in the poll?
DP? Reason? Garageband? Virtual DJ?

[dLight]

BTW who the hell chose "other" in the poll?
DP? Reason? Garageband? Virtual DJ?

I chose 'other', because the question in the title of the thread ("Will Logic replace Pro Tools?") IMO can't be answered by voting for either Logic or Pro Tools - as I explained earlier in an earlier post.

[junior]

I chose 'other', because the question in the title of the thread ("Will Logic replace Pro Tools?") IMO can't be answered by voting for either Logic or Pro Tools - as I explained earlier in an earlier post.

Hmm. You have a point, though I think (without doing any research) it's widely accepted that Logic is the industry standard for composers and arrangers (cubase on the windows side aren't doing bad), while Pro Tools is the standard for studios (as well as Nuendo's doing these days, they're a big minority).

So I would imagine the question implies whether Logic would replace Pro Tools in it's strongest environment any time soon. Thus the answer is a big No.
If the question asked whether PT would replace Logic, I'd imagine the question would be pointing towards the arrangers.

So my point still kinda stands that 'other' is one weird answer.

[dLight]

I agree - kind of, but the question of the thread suggest that Pro Tools is 'the' industry standard, which is only partially true (as you say, it is still the industry standard for high end studios - an endangered species).

I know of several studios/engineers who actually prefer Pro Tools who now feel that they have to learn/use Logic (in native or DAE mode), since clients are coming in with Logic projects (with plugins, softsynth etc) they don't want to convert to Pro Tools format in the mixing process. They want to finish the project in Logic, so the engineers have to learn Logic. This was less common only 5 years ago. Also - 5 years ago you couldn't get the same amount of DSP power (or more) from a native system that you always could from a PT HD system. The latency situation has also changed. Hey - even the financial situation has changed, in that less people are willing to / capable of paying for a new PT HD system (or upgrade their old). Many PT users I know stick to their G5s, because they aren't ready to put down cash only to upgrade their current PT systems to a new slot format, which they would have to if they would go Intel. And: these people want to get a new Mac, it's the extra expense in changing the PCI format type that feels like an expense they don't need.

Everything depends on Digidesign and Apple's next move(s). If Logic 8 will be upgraded on the audio/beat editing side, and if Digidesign is making a uncrippled native version of Pro Tools, they would threaten each other's position a lot more than they do to day.

[junior]

I agree - kind of, but the question of the thread suggest that Pro Tools is 'the' industry standard, which is only partially true (as you say, it is still the industry standard for high end studios - and endangered species).

I know of several studios/engineers who actually prefer Pro Tools who now feel that they have to learn/use Logic (in native or DAE mode), since clients are coming in with Logic projects (with plugins, softsynth etc) they don't want to convert to Pro Tools format in the mixing process. They want to finish the project in Logic, so the engineers have to learn Logic. This was less common only 5 years ago. Also - 5 years ago you couldn't get DSP power from a native system that you always could from a PT HD system - this has changed. The latency situation has also changed. Hey - even the financial situation has changed, in that less people are willing to / capable of paying for a new PT HD system (or upgrade their old). Many PT users I know stick to their G5s, because they aren't ready for put down cash only to upgrade their current PT systems to a new slot format, which they would have to if they would go Intel. And: these people want to get a new Mac, it's the extra expense in changing the PCI format type that feels like an expense they don't need.

Everything depends on Digidesign and Apple's next move(s). If Logic 8 will be upgraded on the audio/beat editing side, and if Digidesign is making a uncrippled native version of Pro Tools, they would threaten each other's position a lot more than they do to day.

All good points. I keep wondering whether Apple will either create a totally audio orientated app with top hardware or buy a company like MOTU and both simplify and expand on performer and capitalize on their hardware development.
I'd certainly think about it.

[dLight]

I thought you said it didn't do it anymore? Or are you not using 8?

Yes, I'm using Logic 8, and the waveforms are created on the fly/instantaneously.

[superleccy]

For composers, that isn't a problem at all. But in a studio environment with clients sitting anxiously on the sofa behind you, every second counts.

Personally at the mixing stage I tell my clients to get the f'off my sofa and stop breathing down my neck, but I guess I can only get away with this because they only come to me because they can't afford anyone else. :)

You'd annoy the clients even more if your recording screwed up because your processor was worrying too much about rendering the waveform preview on the fly and not capturing audio.

Makes me wonder, with all the power in processors and the amount of RAM available compared to say, 5 years ago, why Logic can't simply allow the rendering of simple visual audio waves to go on during the recording.
Isn't that the advantage of multi-core processors?

Okay, so it's not that much of an extra load on the CPU... unless you're recording (say) a big drumkit with 12+ mics (or maybe an orchestra? a choir?) in 24bit 96kHz on an older machine you can't quite afford to replace yet... then you wouldn't want to waste a single clock cycle.

LP8 gives you the option to do it either way. And heck, even post-recording rendering isn't THAT slow.

Aside from compatibility issues, for me the major reason why PT has remained, and will continue to remain the industry standard, is it's absolute speed and simplicity in the audio recording/mixing environment.
Logic may well get there eventually. Not just yet though.

I found LP8 an absolute dog to learn, but now I can whizz round it and do stuff lightning fast. But of course I've never used PT so WTF do I know? I'd love to give it a go but the price and hardware limitations are a major obstacle for me.

SL

[ZiggyPastorius]

how so?

granted, it's been a couple years since i've seen it, but i saw a disturbing thing with audio: after recording an instrument, and hitting stop, it would take a long time for the waveform to render on the screen so it could be manipulated. in some cases, over a minute. to me, that's unuseable.

PT is and has been instantaneous. has Logic got that sorted now?

See, this is why I love professionals...I have no idea what everyone's even talking about, but it's so interesting to read about...Hopefully one day I'll be able to talk like I know what I'm doing, technically.

Something like, "You're the first person I've ever heard who likes Logic's user interface..."

I love Logic's interface...I just did an opinion article for the school newspaper (albeit not a very good one) on different music software, including Garageband, Fruity Loops, Cubase, Reason, Logic, Pro Tools, and Finale...I gave Logic the best description in terms of UI look ("beautiful"). I use Logic personally, so I'm a bit biased (I can't afford a Pro Tools rig anyways), and I absolutely love its interface. Ableton, I couldn't stand...I sat there and was like "wtf is this?" Pro tools I've never experienced first-hand, but it didn't look that friendly, though certainly not ugly like Ableton...In college, I'm going to be getting a ******** of music software that comes with the laptop program which includes Pro Tools LE, Logic Express, Kontakt, Garritan, Finale, and all sorts of good shiz...So college will be when I really learn which I like better, Pro Tools or Logic. Until then, I'm stuck being an ignorant high schooler who has no idea what he's doing...

[TommyLee]

All Apple has to do is give Logic away free for 1 year and Pro Tools would die

[zimv20]

All Apple has to do is give Logic away free for 1 year and Pro Tools would die

that doesn't ring true for me. i paid a lot of $$ for Logic 4 and some soft synths, plus upgrades, but i *still* use PTLE.

it remains that PT is *extremely* good at what it does best, which is track and mix. i know that's not important for everyone, but it is to many. to peel those people away from PT and towards Logic, apple will have to make those functions compellingly better than PT's. it's a matter of functionality and workflow, not cost.

[junior]

that doesn't ring true for me. i paid a lot of $$ for Logic 4 and some soft synths, plus upgrades, but i *still* use PTLE.

it remains that PT is *extremely* good at what it does best, which is track and mix. i know that's not important for everyone, but it is to many. to peel those people away from PT and towards Logic, apple will have to make those functions compellingly better than PT's. it's a matter of functionality and workflow, not cost.

Yup, plus the fact that most PT users (especially HD, obv) wouldn't have any problem parting with $600 (I think that's Logic's price these days) if they felt an alternative offered far greater functionality and speed for their particular day-to-day operations.
Money really isn't the issue, unless we're talking about teens or students. Which obviously only represents a tiny portion of 'the industry'.

[dLight]

it remains that PT is *extremely* good at what it does best, which is track and mix.

[...]

it's a matter of functionality and workflow, not cost.

WIth the current versions of Logic and Pro Tools, I think it's commonly thought that PT is better than logic in beat editing/Beat Detective/Elastic Time-kind of tweaking, but exactly how is PT better at mixing? And - if cost isn't an issue here, you must be referring to PT LE - how can an application that's so limited be better at tracking? It definitely can't be the number of available tracks (Logic don't have these limitations, and can play back 256 stereo audio tracks and 256 stereo audio instruments), so it must be tracking functionality. Which functions are you thinking of? What about a little Top 5 list for tracking and a similar list for mixing? I know much more about Logic than Pro Tools, so I'm really curious! :)

[junior]

WIth the current versions of Logic and Pro Tools, I think it's commonly thought that PT is better than logic in beat editing/Beat Detective/Elastic Time-kind of tweaking, but exactly how is PT better at mixing? And - if cost isn't an issue here, you must be referring to PT LE - how can an application that's so limited be better at tracking? It definitely can't be the number of available tracks (Logic don't have these limitations, and can play back 256 stereo audio tracks and 256 stereo audio instruments), so it must be tracking functionality. Which functions are you thinking of? What about a little Top 5 list for tracking and a similar list for mixing? I know much more about Logic than Pro Tools, so I'm really curious! :)

What's the top 5 in Logic? I know much more about Pro Tools so I'm also genuinely interested!

[WinterMute]

Logic can't compete with Protools in the professional Post Production and Commercial audio fields mainly because of the hardware options and integration, Logic is already kicking PT LE's arse in composition, programming and editing, and in the project studio field.

Apples aggressive educational pricing helps a lot here, my students are all picking up Logic as they arrive at the Uni, however, those that are going into Post Pro or high end commercial recording are all reporting that Protools HD is still the weapon of choice and shows no sign of changing.

[zimv20]

exactly how is PT better at mixing?

to be fair, i haven't played w/ Logic since Logic 5, but i found it confusing as hell. PT is very straightforward, especially for those who came from an analog background.

i include in mixing tasks like writing/changing automation and comping tracks. PT has some useful tools for doing this stuff (though i'm always game for better comping). it may be that Logic has come a long way, and i do intend to have another look someday, but it's learning curve better be close to zero if it has any chance of winning me over.

PT LE - how can an application that's so limited be better at tracking? It definitely can't be the number of available tracks

it's not the number of tracks, i rarely track more than 2-3 at a time, anyway.

functionally, it's just straightforward. i can get signal into PT in no time. i have to think Logic has come a long way since 4, which is when i was scratching my head wondering how to get in a signal.

PT is just quick. when you hit record or stop, it just happens. the waveform draws immediately. the cursor goes back to the beginning of your section, so if you need to re-record you can do so right away. these may seem like minor bits, but they all add up to making the workflow very easy and the tool just staying out of my way when working w/ talent.

in that regard, it's rock solid. i never have to *worry* about it, and its default behavior is to do something reasonable and expected.

i reckon Logic fans will say the same about their product, and that's great for them. and it's why i say one should try both and pick the one that fits their workflow better. i don't think that a feature-by-feature comparison should be the sole determiner when buying, because what if you don't like what you've bought, or it's confusing?

and that's also why i don't think one will *kill* the other. the only way that Logic would kill PT, for me, is to work exactly like PT. dunno if that will ever happen.

[dLight]

what if you don't like what you've bought, or it's confusing?
Then don't use it!

Logic can do all the things you mentioned, but if what you want is Pro Tools - or if Logic suddenly did everything the same way PT does, I still can't see that would make you want to change.

I don't think one of them will 'kill' the other either.

[Killyp]

From what I can tell having been in some top studios in Unis over the last few weeks, the only advantage ProTools has over Logic is reliability. People I speak to have said they've never had ProTools crash for 'no reason' (ie, just crashing mid-recording). Everyone seems to prefer Logic for anything other than just clicking record and leaving it going.

[Mashiach]

I don't think I can vote on this because i still think they are just too different in the way they work. Logic is just amazing when it comes to composing and using AU/ midi. but pro tools audio editing capabilites are the best especially when doing drums. Logic is making leaps and bounds with its audio editing capabilities though but i think Pro Tools is still the desired choice for me. Pro Tools though lacks when it comes to midi i find. where Logic excells. I think using them together which I have done for the past 4 years is the best way to work.

[WinterMute]

From what I can tell having been in some top studios in Unis over the last few weeks, the only advantage ProTools has over Logic is reliability. People I speak to have said they've never had ProTools crash for 'no reason' (ie, just crashing mid-recording). Everyone seems to prefer Logic for anything other than just clicking record and leaving it going.

Protools is a better audio editing and mixing environment in my book as well, it handles the workflow of commercial recording much better than Logic, and as you say is very reliable.

I wouldn't contemplate an album project in Logic, but that's just me, I have friends who have completed major projects on Logic.

Which Uni were you at?

[offshoresa65s]

Hi

It's all about marketing really. I've used PTLE since 2001, it really blew me away back then. I was multitrack recording for the first time in my life on the budget of, as we say here in OZ, "the smell of an oilly rag".

Over the years I've developed in skills and depth of project. Protools at the LE end of the market has not kept pace, yet I can't justify the enormous expense of PT TDM system.

I was doing post production work with PTLE v 6.4 and refused to spend the extra $AU700 for Digitranslator or $AU1500 for DvToolkit.

I've since bought Logic and comfortably do Post for the grand price of $AU650, ie that's the cost of the whole bloody program.

I think Digi are arrogant and perceive that their top end gear's reputation will carry them forward. Their website braggs about them selling 1500 Icon's, I think that it just becomes tech wank for a lot of people. As a Digi customer for 7 years I felt locked in.

Now, I've discovered that at my price point, There is a whole lot more scope to create with different products.

I also hasten to add that my new RME FF 800 craps out my PTLE system completely.

However, the upside is that I now have skills in Logic and PT and that can't be a bad thing.

But lastly, I can't tell you how un-sufficating it feels not to be locked into Protools gear anymore.

Cheers

Ofshore

[neverownedapc]

not to laugh out loud, but seriously, do you have any clue about recording industry?

now take a deep breath, sit down, and look at this link: http://www.usedvideogear.com/catalog/digidesign-pro-tools-hd-1-99001854400-p-2282.html, and then tell me how much you spent on what you use. you have no idea what the standard is, or what the programs your using actually do. sorry to be a dick, but KNOW what your talking about before you post it.

[junior]

not to laugh out loud, but seriously, do you have any clue about recording industry?

now take a deep breath, sit down, and look at this link: http://www.usedvideogear.com/catalog/digidesign-pro-tools-hd-1-99001854400-p-2282.html, and then tell me how much you spent on what you use. you have no idea what the standard is, or what the programs your using actually do. sorry to be a dick, but KNOW what your talking about before you post it.


I don't quite understand the point you're making, nor do I understand the point of the link you provided.
Care to expand on it?

EDIT
Or are you talking about the previous poster buying cheap gear and comparing that to the cheap Digi equivalent, all the while ignoring the fact that the 'standard' in the industry is in a completely different league the world of cheap gear he's used to?

[dLight]

I don't quite understand the point you're making, nor do I understand the point of the link you provided.

Me neither...

The link shows that a system so short in DSP power still lists for that ridiculous price (without an I/O) - which definitely is part of the reason that some of the people I know went from using Pro Tools HD to Logic natively. I'm not sure if that's the point neverownedapc is trying to make, or if he suggests that more expensive always means 'better', and never 'outdated'.

I'm an ex Pro Tools user myself, and if it's true that you always get what you pay for, the hard drives I considered buying circa when I first started to use Pro Tools (circa $10,000 for 500 mb) must have been truly brilliant. :)

[neverownedapc]

i was just trying to make a point that the "standard" equipment used by real pros is really expensive and most people don't even know it exists and think that the pro tools that they bought at guitar center is what you would find in a multi million dollar studio. they may have pro tools, but it's not the digi 003. i don't even think apple has something that intense, at least i've never seen or heard of it. does that clear things up?

and you do get what you paid for, seriously. with that in question, what do you own? a mac or a pc?

[WinterMute]

The 003 range is still LE, the main issue with LE is the native processor limitation.

The HD TDM systems use proprietary hardware that includes heavyweight DSP and is expandable, it also features multiple analogue and digital IO solutions, sync solutions and very good archiving and backup solutions, none of which are available to Logic. Clock sync alone is much easier to achieve.

Most of the pros I know who use Logic (and there are many) will lay Logic over HD TDM hardware.

The logic/protools argument is easy to make at the bedroom studio level, Logic wins hands down, however, get to a higher level and Logic has nothing to answer the C24 or Icon, and simply cannot support pro connections without significant hardware support.

In the end you use what you choose, get on with making some decent music.

[dLight]

they may have pro tools, but it's not the digi 003. i don't even think apple has something that intense, at least i've never seen or heard of it.
Apple aren't making their own I/Os or controllers, but work closely with Apogee and Euphonix, both known for making high end audio/DAW related gear. Logic has supported the EuCon protocol since long before Logic 8. And - like WinterMute wrote: Digi 003 isn't the version of PT that traditionally has been used in most high end studios anyway - that's Pro Tools HD, which costs many times as much. The higher prices have been possible both due the fact that people have been willing to pay more to get access to this power, and because the chips used in a pro Tools TDM system were considered 'heavyweight DSP' (if you had enough cards) when these products were designed (and the prices were set).

More about the Apogee Symphony I/O system here:
http://www.apogeedigital.com/products/symphony.php
More about the performance in an 'old' natively based Apogee system here (http://www.apogeedigital.com/products/symphony_performance.php). This comparison was made on much less CPU efficient version of OSX and Logic - and I'm sure it's made one a single card Pro Tools HD system as well, maybe even a (non-Accel card?), so the comparison isn't fair for any of the parts, especially since the current 8-core Macs run in circles around the Dual Core 2.66 Mac used in that test. Still, even in this 'vintage' test, the native Logic system can run 200 instances of the same plugin that the DSP card based Pro Tools system can run 35 of. Logic costs $500, PTHD starts at $8000.


and you do get what you paid for, seriously.
That's almost always wrong in terms of computing power, because both prices as such and the "DSP power per dollar"-rate jumps in more or less 'quantum' leaps regularly, and most people who have spent ten thousands on Macs and Pro Tools HD (and PT HD hardware updates) - or even bought a regular PC just before a new model was introduced - know that there isn't a constant ratio between price and performance in anything based on computer chips.

We simply don't know when something cheaper, better and more future oriented will be launched. The most common thing we see nowadays is rather "same or lower price, but much more power" every 18 months or so.


with that in question, what do you own? a mac or a pc? A Mac.

The 003 range is still LE, the main issue with LE is the native processor limitation.That may be an issue with Pro Tools LE. PT LE is made by Digidesign/Avid, which historically have made lots of their money on selling DSP cards. They may not even want people to know how efficient (other) native systems have become lately, which again may explain why the native versions of Pro Tools haven't seen the same degree of optimizations as the latest versions of Logic and OSX.

Most people will agree that if you can run 150 stereo 24 bit tracks on Apple's least expensive Mac Pro model - using the 32 buffer and 600+ plugins, and still have more than 30% of your available computing power available, it doesn't make much sense to pay a lot extra for Digidesign DSP chips, which were designed and priced so many years ago that they are considered 'old' in any relevant context today.

5-6 years is considered a lot of time in the computing industry, and Digidesign's TDM concept - which still is a smart solution, at least if you have a 1998 computer or are dependent on using 300 mHz chips in your DSP cards - was designed more than 10 years ago. There's no reason to believe that Digidesgn or any other company would have designed something as awkward (by today's standards) today. Due to the hardware limitations in these systems, simple things like offline bouncing, support for interleaved stereo files or dynamic DSP allocation isn't even possible.


No computer manufacturer would put ca 300 mHz chips in computers nowadays either (not even many of them), when Apple and others deliver 8-core 3.2 gHz computers for less than what one of Digidesign's cards lists for.

The HD TDM systems use proprietary hardware That's part of Digidesign's problem: they rely on 'old' chips that....
1) can't just be replaced by other newer chips with more power per chip. However, the PT HD systems were replaced by PT HD Accel systems - with more power and a steep upgrade price - but that was apparently due to supply problems from Motorola.
2) they may be in serious trouble if they design a new set of DSP cards with other, newer proprietary DSP chips as well, because they need to know that even if these chips won't come in faster versions every X months, at least they will have to be manufactured in 2-3 years from now. How many DSP chip manufacturers can promise to produce the same kind of chip for three years??

If the same thing happens with audio as we have seen with video, where 'native' has been taking over large parts of the market already, Digidesign may simply encounter that their current or future systems rely on 3rd part chips that aren't being produced anymore, which is why I think they will start to rely on 'mainstream', multicore chips from Intel or AMD in the not too distant future.


that includes heavyweight DSP
See above. What Digidesign offer isn't considered 'heavyweight' by today's standards - especially not for the prices they are asking.

....and is expandable, it also features multiple analogue and digital IO solutions, sync solutions and very good archiving and backup solutions, none of which are available to Logic.
All of this is available to Logic, and since Logic natively is based on CoreAudio, and not a standard which is "Logic-proprietary", one can use Logic with all interfaces that support Apple's CoreAudio standard, which literally means all I/Os out there - except Digidesign's. If you need to (I doubt that you do), you can even "expand" Logic to work with Digidesign's non-CoreAudio based systems, which Logic has been supporting since back when these systems were needed if you wanted to make any serious work at all.



Clock sync alone is much easier to achieve.
Clock sync is based on the hardware capabilities of the interfaces and other sync relevant gear you use, and in spite of having used both Pro Tools high end hardware and Logic since version 1 of both Logic and Pro Tools (before I went all Logic/native a couple of years ago), I haven't heard that there are sync problems with non-TDM hardware, and I can't understand why sync should be technically difficult to achieve either.

The logic/protools argument is easy to make at the bedroom studio level, Logic wins hands down, however, get to a higher level and Logic has nothing to answer the C24 or Icon Have you had a look at the high end EuCon based Euphonix controllers?


and simply cannot support pro connections without significant hardware support.
I'm not sure which 'pro connections' you are thinking of here, but just like with the most 'pro' Pro Tools systems, native systems also need hardware in order to have 'significant' hardware support. Digidesign's top model is the 192 I/O, but with Logic you can use a multitude of solutions from Apogee, Lynx, RME and many others. As a matter of fact, many Pro Tools TDM users choose eg. Apogee interfaces over Digidesign's own hardware anyway - because of it's reputation for sounding better. This is possible because - in spite of the fact that Digidesign's protocols are proprietary - others have been able to 'reverse engineer' their I/O protocols.


Whatever Digidesign or Avid may want people to believe, there's nothing 'bedroom' over Logic or Final Cut Pro, and frankly - if it was, why would "most of the pros" you know use Logic - either natively or as a front end for their TDM hardware? Why would eg. Rolling Stones or Joss Stone use a 'bedroom' solution when recording their live shows? Some people may not always get what they want, but with all the successful artists who use Logic, it's pretty clear to me that they use Logic because they want it, and not because they prefer a bedroom solution or can't afford systems that costs a few thousand dollars more.

I started to use Pro Tools hardware in 1991, and like most others I know, I've been spending thousands of dollars upgrading my PT hardware: from the original 4 voice system in 1991 to Pro Tools III in 1994, Pro Tools 24 in 1997 and Pro Tools HD in 2002. It feels like I had to buy a new recording system every 3rd year, really - and with upgrade prices that are closer to what a new system should cost than what people normally consider an "upgrade price", it hasn't been cheap.

The great thing about native systems is that the DSP power is dynamically allocated, and that you won't only get a lot more DAW power automatically if you buy a new and faster Mac, OSX is regularly being optimized for audio as well. There are major performance benefits for native audio applications only between 10.5.2 and 10.5.3, and between 10.5.3 and 10.5.4. OSX 10.6 apparently will be even more optimized for multi-core Macs then Leopard is, and we'll probably see 12- or even 16-core Macs very soon (and quad core portables within a few months). If I would have owned any Avid/Digidesign stock, I would have sold it before 2005, when desktop computers started to get really powerful.

Having written all this, Digidesign may come up with a high end, non-crippled native version of Pro Tools one day, fully supporting Apple's standard formats (Core Audio, AudioUnits...). The problem is that if they wait too log, the OSX/Logic developer team may have optimized Logic and OSX even more for audio work than they already have...

I admit that it's a somewhat 'unfair' situation: Digi is dependent on continuously adjusting to Apple's OS tweaks before they release new PT versions, while Apple owns and controls the development of both the OS, Logic and the computer hardware. If Digidesign waits too long with making a high end, native version of Pro Tools, too many people may have found out that they don't need PT in order to do professional audio work, and go for an all Apple solution (plus CoreAudio compatible hardware from the two companies Apple wisely have decided to team up with). In case you don't know, Apogee and Euphonix hardware has been used in many of the best studios on the planet long before Apple started to work with them, which is why I think it's better for Apple to rely on these two (and other companies) for pro audio hardware than to tell their engineers to start to make something better.

[neverownedapc]

this guy is good. now if i'd stop being a broke ass and get over my $100 version of cubase.

[A Pittarelli]

probably not, it can supplement it - but wont replace it in the near future. as a logic and pro tools users I can sure footedly say this. Personally I like Pro Tools significantly more than logic, and it uses rtas plug-ings.

most pro tools user will not use logic because it isnt really like pro tools at all.

[Vaphoron]

There is absolutely no chance of Pro Tools being dethroned within the next few years. If they start to lose sales, all they will have to do is lower prices in order to bring customers back. The fact that they have such a huge install base and offer a complete DAW solution with audio I/O, control surfaces and software means they aren't gonna go away. I love PT and have been using it for 10 years now but I really do wish they had some better competition. The software isn't as stable as it used to be and there are still performance issues that seriously need to be addressed.

[WinterMute]

loads of good intelligent comment.

I think the main issue with the Bedroom/pro analogy is the deliberate blurring of the marketing from Apple regarding the Pro status of Logic, out of the box and on the most powerful of Mac Pros it doesn't offer the kind of interfacing you and I would expect to use in a "pro" situation. Of course your correct that adding 3rd party interfaces offer pro connections, but it's extra expense in a project environment, and the average user, having just shelled out for a Mac and Logic Studio won't be too keen to discover the cost of adding multiple inputs to a logic system.

Digi's biggest problem has been the quality of their AD/DA offer, the 192's were a step up a few years ago and improved on the unacceptable 888 interface, but they were quickly surpassed. Digi's policy of locking in with hardware is the least attractive part of their business model. Yes their processors are old, but I think a high card count HD system is still worth looking at if you have the wherewithall, still the OP wasn't concerned with HD, and I still maintain that Logic (and DP5, Live and a few others) blow PT LE out of the water in any serious comparison except for productivity and workflow is certain key situations.

I still use PT LE as a tracking and editing feeder for HD because it makes more sense to me as a recording studio analogue, I find the convolution inherent in the more complex platforms to be counter-productive. I can work much faster on PT than I can on Logic.

I was at Euphonix last month, looking at their controller systems for Logic and Protools, they are excellent solutions, but are still only controller surfaces, however clever they may be. I haven't had the chance to use the IO module, but from my experiences with the 3000 4000 and 5000 consoles, I'd bet they are pretty damn good. The "baby" controller (Artist?) is a neat piece of work indeed, the use of IP networked comms is an excellent idea. The Hybrid 5000 console is an expensive, but very well designed audio solution, and if I had the money I'd buy one.

Euphonix may have climbed into bed with Apple, but they still play very nicely with Digidesign's kit. Euphonix systems are expensive and very good, and they have the intelligence to allow them to work with whatever platform is connected, I saw the System 5-MC switch between controlling Logic on a Mac to PT HD on a PC in the time it took to boot the Mac, lovely stuff. They are definitely in our plans for future studios. The ancillary sync and IO modules look good too and they aren't limiting the users choice

Ideally Digi will drop the hardware lockin and let the software speak for itself, I think PT for audio tracking, editing and mixing is still a superior environment to Logic. I think you're on the right track with the non limited native PT offer, but I doubt we will ever see it.

For the record, I still prefer 2" 16 or 24 track analogue tape for tracking, and a stack of great pre's with a good console (one without the letters SSL, unless followed by a J...!). I've been persuaded by Protools, and use it in most situations. Once you have the requisite IO in place the software GUI becomes the most important feature.

However, at the level that most of the users here work at, the argument is done I think, but I'm not sure it's as clear-cut as you make out for high end solutions. Not having access to an 8-core Mac Pro (can't get near the ones at the Uni, students need them for some reason...) I can't comment authoritatively on the number of tracks or plug-ins useable on a native system, but your numbers sound high to me, I wonder how it would fare with Altiverb or Space Designer, not the channel EQ band Apple usually quantify these things with...

The bedroom comments were aimed at the casual user, Logic is a very competent system but requires additional support to rise above it's project roots, Protools LE is crippled and less flexible (no 5.1 still...) but has the same GUI and workflow. My comments were aimed at the OP and responders, I didn't expect them to be addressed by the pro element.

Many people see through Digi's claims to be the "standard" for pro-audio, yet they still choose to use Protools for the workflow and productivity. I think it more likely that the death of the large scale audio studio will cost Digi dear, and the rise of the computer based integrated environment will force them to reconsider their approach.

[Chairman Plow]

Many people see through Digi's claims to be the "standard" for pro-audio, yet they still choose to use Protools for the workflow and productivity.

I agree.

I think it more likely that the death of the large scale audio studio will cost Digi dear, and the rise of the computer based integrated environment will force them to reconsider their approach.

I also agree here, but this will be a much slower process. All large scale studios won't just go belly-up at once.

[dLight]

out of the box and on the most powerful of Mac Pros it doesn't offer the kind of interfacing you and I would expect to use in a "pro" situation.
Your comments about '3rd part' and 'out of the box' are interesting...

Let's look at a Logic/Symphony system vs. a Pro Tools HD (+ Mac) system. Both systems require interfaces, a PCI(e) card, an OS, DAW software and a Mac.

On the Apple/Symphony system, the OS, Mac, the DAW software and the drivers aren't '3rd part' - the actual interface (and it's PCIe card) are from a '3rd part' manufacturer - Apogee.

On the Apple/PTHD system, one could say exactly the same, because a 3rd part (Digi) is making the DAW software, the I/O (if people choose Digi's I/O, but as we know, many don't), the PCI(e) card, and the drivers (DAE). Or - if you want, you could say that Pro Tools system is the actual main hardware, and that they (from a Digidesign point of view) use a '3rd part' manufacturer to deliver the actual OS and computer - Apple.

Logic is designed from scratch to work with hardware produced by non-Apple owned companies like Apogee, RME etc, just like Pro Tools is designed to work with a non-Digidesign owned computer.

Apple has recently also bought a chip manufacturer (Semi PA), and have announced a major product transition coming up within a few months. I doubt this will mean using own chips for the high end Macs in the near future, but this could change.

I think one reason we see these dramatic performance boosts on the native platform, is that Apple is (at least currently) using Intel for producing their DSP hardware. While Digi is 'stuck' with their oldish chips, Apple's developers are focusing on optimizing the OS and Logic for Intel's rapid flow of new and more powerful processors, and I have personally done tests that confirm that we are actually seeing real, dramatic dramatic power increases in Logic setups - several times, actually, over the last few months. But for some reason Apple don't mention much - if anything - about this. Some people criticize Apple for not adding a lot of new features these days, but they seem to stubbornly focus on performance and stability - which is what we all know is in high demand in recording studios.



Of course your correct that adding 3rd party interfaces offer pro connections, but it's extra expense in a project environment Since both PTLE, PTHD, Logic native and Logic + TDM require both a computer, a DAW and interfaces, I don't agree that Logic requires more extra expenses than eg. a PT LE setup (if that's what you're suggesting). The difference is mainly - as we a agree in - that with non-PT systems, you have a wider choice of interfaces to choose from.

I guess we both are old enough to remember all the studio owners claiming that tape would never disappear, or that analogue mixers will always be used. Some even claimed that Adats and Tascams had come to stay. Or vinyl. Or VHS. Standards simply change, and whether Digi/Avid likes it or not, 'native' is the next big thing... wait, it's not even 'next' - it's here already.

Now the real competition is about having the best user interface, stability and features, not about which platform ("native" vs. "DSP based") you use. Apple is quite good at developing easy-to-use software, Digi has improved a lot, they have bought Sibelius - and while Apple is loaded with cash, Digidesign has had better PT support than Apple has had Logic support (since the Apple takeover). Digidesign has dominated the high end, pro audio market for some time, but Apple is damned good at redefining what's considered 'standard'. It's not a black and white situation at all.

I can work much faster on PT than I can on Logic.

I'm sure you and all experienced PT users can work faster in PT than in Logic, but it's the other way round as well. Up to Logic 8, I agree that PT 'appeared' more professional; Logic looked more like 'musician's software' while PT looked like a pro audio app. This changed when Logic 8 came out. PT also was more professional back then, due to the lack of available, native DSP processing power, stability and high price (read: demanding customers).

PT is currently better at dealing with beat editing (Elastic Time, Beat Detective) and file handling (PT have had unique file ID system for all recorded files for a while), and is even better at monitoring (due to the existence of DAE, you never need to deal with a 3rd part mixer). Apple/Logic doesn't have similar solutions - yet. However, all this can be changed by updating the software and OS, and Apple's/Logic's most important plus is that they own both the DAW, the OS and the computer hardware. Digi could produce a new DAW with an integrated PC, but they aren't even in their childhood when it comes to producing computers or operating systems...


I think PT for audio tracking, editing and mixing is still a superior environment to Logic.
Well - this is the interesting part! If people prefer PT they should of course use PT. In my experience, most PT (and Logic) users haven't used competing products enough to know why they prefer one of them, and speaking for myself, I used Logic as a front end for my PT hardware even if I had PT installed on my Mac, so I'd be very interested in a list of what exactly it is that you think PT does better than Logic 8 - in terms of editing, mixing and tracking.

I'm sure this would make the thread more interesting to read for people with less DAW experience than ourselves as well, because in the near future, all it boils down to are software differences (including performance and stability). Awaiting a Top 10-list from you or anyone else with some time to waste now... :)


I can't comment authoritatively on the number of tracks or plug-ins useable on a native system, but your numbers sound high to me, I wonder how it would fare with Altiverb or Space Designer, not the channel EQ band Apple usually quantify these things with... These are my own tests, using both a Channel EQ and a Linear Phase EQ (and more) on every single of the 150 tracks AND having ten (!) Space Designers active at the same time. The Mac was yawning. The numbers seemed high to me too, because... they are high. I was truly surprised myself.

Even if 150 stereo 24-bit tracks and 600+ plugins is more than most people need for mixing (no analog studio I've seen have hundreds of rack units in use in during a session anyway), I'm sure they still work hard on optimizing the OS/Logic/drivers, for three reasons:

1) Current and future soft-synths (will) eat a lot of CPU
2) Recording sessions need a lot more DSP than mixing sessions (important if software monitoring/low buffer settings are being used).
3) They want to offer a package that lets you take normal-sized sessions over to a laptop for further recording/editing


My tests were done using the 32 buffer - which, by the way, I don't think matter much since I wasn't recording when I was testing the power of my system. If I would have been using a higher buffer, I'm sure it wouldn't be a problem at all to have 1000+ plugins and much more tracks - even on my "low end" (2.8 ghz) Mac Pro with "only" 8 gb RAM.


Both PT and Logic have their pluses and minuses. The two most significant pluses with a Logic system is that Apple owns both the OS/hardware/drivers and the DAW, and that if/when someone eg. replaces their 8-core with a 16-core, they'll automatically get much more powerful DAW. No need to pay Digi ridiculous amounts of cash just to get a differently shaped PCI card or a tad more power.

Digi's biggest force is probably that they are working hard to keep up with the native competition, and that their pro user base won't accept that essential functions like eg. automation doesn't work reliably every time. The threads over at the DUC still show that PT has bugs and issues like all other software.

In spite of AVID's 'pro' profile, they have already lost a lot of the pro video market to Final Cut Pro. The kind of strange thing is that they have lost more of it's video market than their audio market, even if pro video requires a lot more horsepower than the pro audio market. Pro Tools is/was probably "betterer" (more better?) than the competition - from a 'pro' perspective than AVIDs video solutions were better than it's competition. The explanation is probably that the video market has been used to freeze/render tracks for a long time, but audio people want everything to happen in real time.

Software is software, and unless the main Logic coders have been set to write iPhone apps or left the audio dept. for working on the next version of OSX instead, the future, IMO, looks brighter for Apple/Logic than it currently does for Avid/Pro Tools. The existence of this poll confirms this, because 5-6 years ago, one wouldn't even discuss if a native application like Logic would replace Pro Tools systems costing $12,000 without an audio interface. (HD3 was a minimum requirement for serious work back then).

[WinterMute]

dLight, you have some serious free time there my man!

I'll get back to you a little later, I have stuff to do today.

A couple of points:

I'm surprised as to how efficient the Mac/Logic synergy has become, a function of the ram power of the processors then I expect, still being able to code for 8 cores (or 16, 32...) undeniably gives Apple the edge.

I have to spec systems for students entering HE in London, they have very limited budgets and often simply can't afford to go down the 3rd party interface route plus buying the Mac and Logic, many use MBP's or even MB's, iMacs are very common.

Digidesign offer a 40% discount if a student takes their 101 entry level certificate, this is cleaerly designed to bring PT into line with Logics aggressive Edu pricing. They get the interface (m-box or m-audio) and the software, and many will pick up Logic too. The students are then left to choose what to use when. Most use Logic for musical composition and programming, no surprise, but the majority switch to PT for Audio Post work, (my teaching area) and are reporting a better experience, often because of specific Post plug-ins like VocAlign.

It's a shame the bog standard M-box is such a crap unit, I had to ge the M-box Pro in order to be remotely happy with my mobile system, and I still rack a 003 for remote location recordings, only taking the Pro out for locations without power.

Anyway, gotta run I'l come back to this later.

[dLight]

dLight, you have some serious free time there my man!
I only do this to stay away from the real work I need to do. :D

I know the lack of VocAlign has been a bottleneck for many, but... alas! here it is for Logic as well (soon):

BETA Testers wanted for VocALign AU (http://www.gearslutz.com/board/new-product-alert/240172-beta-testers-wanted-vocalign-au.html)

I'll get back to you a little later, I have stuff to do today.
So, are you saying that you actually do the work you're supped to do? You're simply a better man than me then. :)

[neverownedapc]

since logic 8 was pre-installed on my mbp when i got it, i guess i'll play with it for a while and see how i like it. then i'll come back and vote.

[WinterMute]

I only do this to stay away from the real work I need to do. :D

I know the lack of VocAlign has been a bottleneck for many, but... alas! here it is for Logic as well (soon):

BETA Testers wanted for VocALign AU (http://www.gearslutz.com/board/new-product-alert/240172-beta-testers-wanted-vocalign-au.html)

Aha! VocAlign for Logic, that will solve some problems, although the TDM version is a much better product that the LE (or project) version, I wonder which Logic will get...

So, are you saying that you actually do the work you're supped to do? You're simply a better man than me then. :)

Only when I have to clear a backlog before I take a 5 week vacation, academia has it's advantages!

I'm clearing up end of semester problems, trying to get a couple of colleagues onto the Logic Trainer course and fielding last minute requests for kit from the techs. From 5pm tonight, I'm a free man.

[dLight]

The HD TDM systems [...] is expandable
I forgot to mention that both Logic (using it's so called 'node' system), Final Cut Pro and Apple's OS as such are 'expandable' as well. For a rather extreme example of how you can connect Apple computers to another to get more power, look here (http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2008/07/24/virginia-tech-building-supercomputer-out-of-324-mac-pros)!

From 5pm tonight, I'm a free man.
That sounds great (of course, as long as you won't be so free that you won't tell us what tracking/editing/mixing features you think PT does better!)

:D

[WinterMute]

Well, lets see...

Digi have been clever in designing PT to essentially emulate the signal paths found in traditional studios, so all us old school engineers understood it at a fundamental level pretty quickly, at the time Logic was in it's infancy and was still a development of C-labs Notator with an audio recording section, it didn't make any sense (although I freely admit that it does now).

You mentioned the major reason tracking is better in PT, the monitoring issue, PT is designed to emulate the Input/monitor switching of the Sync head on a 2" machine, so that switching between input monitor and playback for punching in and out is seamless, the hardware interfacing yields no latency at all when used with a console or as a stand alone system. Now I know that Logic offers the same features when used with 3rd party interfaces, but I have never been able to get Logic to operate as a "tape machine analog", a simple tracking machine.

Routing of signals within PT also seems more appropriate to my style of work, which uses no MIDI or soft-machines at all and only needs the platform to act as recorder/editor/mixer for audio.

Editing on the timeline has been a longtime feature of PT that has been superior to Logic, having to open a separate widow always struck me as counterproductive, again I'm aware Apple have fixed this in 8 pro, but it was a long time coming, and left me with a deep preference for editing in the PT environment. PT also handles beat quantisation and mass MT replacement much better than Logic. Elastic audio is a lovely unit for fixing timing errors in performances and for spotting FX in Post. I'm sure Logic will feature this soon.

Mixing is less to do with the platform, more to do with personal technique, I tend to use a stem-mixing technique learned from Post even in music mixing, so that routing the instruments to individual channels on a console allows the best of both areas to be utilised, I can insert hardware at the desk without penalty, but still retain the flexibility of automating at component level in the computer. Sure I could do this is Logic, but Logic's has come later to the party, and I choose not to.

I have mixed directly from Logic, and frankly the implementation of plug-in delay compensation doesn't work very well, neither does inserting real outboard over routed IO, now I aware that these issues pertain to PT LE as much if not more, but I'm using HD habitually and so must comment from that perspective. I prefer Altiverb to Space designer is Post applications, but it's 50/50 in musical work, I don't particularly like software plug-ins in replacement for (or emulation of) hardware and will strap a 1176 onto an insert before reaching for the Bomb factory version any day of the week. That said, the Sony Oxford suite, the Joe Meek units, Digi's Eleven and a couple more plugs are very useful in the mix. I find Logics FX units pale and uninteresting sonically, although BitCrusher is godlike for Sound Design...!

Plug-in automation is also an issue, having been a long time Control 24 user, I'm used to having parameter control and automation in front of me, Logic's multi-stranded automation displays are simply too much for my poor old brain to deal with, and I find the PT solution, whilst less impressive, to be much more effective. Logic under the Euphonic MC-5 controller is a different matter, and I have high hopes for that combination, we assessed the capability at Euphonix with a view to offering Logic/MC-5 combos in our production studios if and when the system matures. Currently the Icon is too expensive and too fragile, but we are getting good results from the C-24 surface.

In conclusion PT was first to market with a host of innovations, which has spawned a group of older engineer/producers who are loath to switch without very good reason, Logic has done an excellent job of catching up and it's clear that Digi will have to do some serious work to stay ahead of the game. I'm lucky in some respects in that I have the option to choose my platform, and I don't have to choose because of financial restraints, but I do choose PT for speed and simplicity of operation in music sessions.

I haven't addressed the Post situation much, because Logic simply doesn't feature in Audio Post that much professionally, the industry is still re-adjusting to PT from AMS Audiofile (or the like). However, as with music recording facilities, Post guys are realising the power of Logic native on a Mac pro for remote and location work, and I can see that situation increasing. Final Cut may be making headway is a similar way, but all of the top editors are still using Avid, however long this may continue is another matter, and Logic may well surf into Post on FCS coat-tails. My students complete Audio Post assignments for me using Logic, Protools, occasionally Abelton Live and very occasionally Soundtrack Pro, I make no demands about platform, we supply the systems and they make the choice. We do ask them to justify that choice, and the majority who are interested in Post as a career respond that PT is the defacto standard and it's a career choice. This situation may change, but is true at the time of writing.

It's a much more open field now, but I'm sure Avid and Digi want to stay at the top of the pile for as long as they can, we'll just have to see if they do.

[junior]

One fine post WinterMute. You should make that a sticky.
Yourself and dLight have made this thread a very interesting read. Good stuff.

[junior]

BTW, as ever, there's the same kind of discussion going on in gearslutz.
I thought this post was interesting. Maybe dLight could shed some light on this:


i definitely agree, no matter what we do in the digital world we dont approach the cost of large format analog desks.

im running 100+ tracks of 88.2/24 at 256 buffer with zero disk usage and 15% processor usage in nuendo as we speak

and of course adding outboard dsp will have more processing power than a cpu alone -- but similary, 2 cpus will then eclipse the power of that. and for a fraction of the cost and much more performance. but who really needs that much processing power for any normal session anyway. i very rarely push my system anywhere near its limits on most projects.

160 channels of I/O is rather excessive for any system, analog or digital

Yea, this is mostly likely due to you Mixing mostly OTB. Am I right? I mean are you really doing this kind of work totally ITB, if so, how does overdubbing work with a buffer of 256?

Can you run 100 + tracks, 3-4 plugs per track, ton's of routing buss' going on, no latency happening for overdubs with plugins, ton's of different headphone feeds?

I'm like you, I don't run counts that large, but that's not the point. You mentioned what you could do this with your Neundo system, I'm curious, what do you have to give and take to make that happen?

For grins I created a song with 125 tracks in Logic, put 4 plugs on each track, tried a buffer of 32, had 25 buss' going, 10 hardware Inserts. I was attempting to match what another poster at the time was doing to prove that my Logic/Symphony system at the time could match his Protools HD system (HD7 FWIW). Well, Logic choked at a 32 buffer, choked again at a 64 buffer, was very sluggish at 128 buffer, slow at 512, and ran the file at 1028.

Now, this was with no edits at all. So now go back and try to do an overdub while monitoring through plugs and forget it, latency was unbearable. Yes I could use a mixer, or Maestro, but that was not the point.

My Logic/Symphony system failed this very specific test.

Yes, just about any DAW can do massive tracks with a high buffer on a mainly OTB setup.

[zimv20]

BTW, as ever, there's the same kind of discussion going on in gearslutz.

do you have a link to that thread?

[junior]

do you have a link to that thread?

As is usually the case the thread starts off with a completely different subject/question (about Pro Tools) and it becomes a 'this is better than that' kind of thread.
Here you go:

Any Digidesign Rumors? (http://www.gearslutz.com/board/music-computers/223731-any-digidesign-rumors.html)

[zimv20]

As is usually the case the thread starts off with a completely different subject/question (about Pro Tools) and it becomes a 'this is better than that' kind of thread.
Here you go:

Any Digidesign Rumors? (http://www.gearslutz.com/board/music-computers/223731-any-digidesign-rumors.html)

no surprise there, eh? thanks for the link.

[Chairman Plow]

Why am I not surprised that the thread over there degenerated into a Pro Tools vs. Logic meets Mac vs. PC shouting match?

[WinterMute]

Why am I not surprised that the thread over there degenerated into a Pro Tools vs. Logic meets Mac vs. PC shouting match?

Because they haven't figured out that Mac's work best for this stuff like we have....;)

Honestly, this argument has been over for a while, both systems are perfectly capable of delivering good performance in audio applications, it becomes a matter of personal taste as to which OS and hardware you use.

Same is true here to an extent, but there are specifics that mean some configurations are better than others.

As ever, well informed people choose the systems to do the job.

[dLight]

Digi have been clever in designing PT to essentially emulate the signal paths found in traditional studios, so all us old school engineers understood it at a fundamental level pretty quickly, at the time Logic was in it's infancy and was still a development of C-labs Notator with an audio recording section, it didn't make any sense (although I freely admit that it does now).

Hi WinterMute,

I think you're right about Logic being late to the game compared with Pro Tools HD in terms of some essential audio issues. The difference I see in what you write and what some other PT users say is that you acknowledge that important things have changed. Some of the most eager PT defenders out there seem to have a problem accepting this!

In my opinion, native setups are closer to how old tape decks worked - which isn't a good thing, because old tape decks had a problem with latency unless you monitored the signal before the latency occurred - using a hardware mixer. As a matter of fact, I think a main reason behinds Pro Tools' early success was that a TDM system offered something old tape decks didn't! You needed a tape deck and a hardware mixer to get what Pro Tools could offer, and if you had Logic and a hardware mixer, the latency argument would vanish.

Except that Logic 8 now can use a bus as an input source for another track, the structure in Logic has pretty much been the same for many years. The problem, however, is that this has historically meant too much latency. Not because of the structure, but because of the lack of power in earlier Macs and PCs. One couldn't use the lowest available buffer settings without getting pops and clicks and overload messages. It was the high buffer settings that caused higher latency, and not the signal path structure as such.

switching between input monitor and playback for punching in and out is seamless
Punch-in/out is seamless in Logic 8.02 as well - as long as you enable Punch On The Fly - but this wasn't always the case - there used to be a tiny gap after the punch out point.

the hardware interfacing yields no latency at all when used with a console or as a stand alone system. Now I know that Logic offers the same features when used with 3rd party interfaces
Digidesign's HD hardware yields a latency which is almost identical to the latency found in a PCIe based, native Logic setup - the difference is less than a millisecond.

It's less than a millisecond lower in a native system if you disable software monitoring, and it's less than a ms higher if you use software monitoring. Remembering how people complained about latencies around 12-20 ms or more in native systems, I don't think that sub-millisecond latency matters much - in either direction. What matters is that IF people want or need to disable software monitoring (which becomes less and less of an issue with the fast Macs we have now), Logic doesn't have an elegant solution or user interface for handling this. PTHD doesn't have a solution/UI for this at all, but that doesn't matter much since the latency is around 2-3 ms anyway. Buffers setting in PTHD and Logic are two different things.


Routing of signals within PT also seems more appropriate to my style of work, which uses no MIDI or soft-machines at all and only needs the platform to act as recorder/editor/mixer for audio.
I know this is how people used to look at the difference between PTHD and Logic (and many still do). The ironic thing is that today, it's mainly the use of CPU intensive soft-machines that may trigger the need for increasing Logic's buffer setting. If you can keep it at 32, you can use Logic just like PTHD with similar latency (+/- less than a ms) and equal signal path setup.

From what I know, the plug-in delay compensation in Logic is pretty similar to the one in PTHD - but Logic doesn't have a way to ping outboard gear and compensate the outboard gear generated latency based on this measurement - unlike some native and non-native DAWs. However, I don't have much detailed info about how PTs plugin delay compensation works with external gear, but I know that PT users (eg. in the thread referred to over at gearslutz.com) sometimes complain that PT can't properly time compensate when using a hardware output as an aux send.

It's interesting that you often prefer AltiVerb (AltiVerb used to be a native only reverb which was ported over to the TDM platform). I'm sure most good plugins will be ported from native to PTHD and the other way around (most plugins have been ported already). This probably won't happen for the plug-ins Digidesign own (or those inside Logic). This affects the Joe Meek plugins since Digidesign decided to buy Bomb Factory - which surprised some users after all the public complaining about Digidesign from Bomb Factory's president...

Regarding the Sony (now Sonnox) plugins, they are already available as Audio Units, but I think a comparison between plugins developed by Digidesign AND 3rd part plugin developers on one side and Logic's internal plugins (not including 3rd part AU plugins) on the other side is 'unfair', since plugin companies normally want to make money and therefore port a plugin over to another platform if it's good and popular enough.


Final Cut may be making headway is a similar way, but all of the top editors are still using Avid I have an old friend who has been directing and producing a lot of movies, and according to what his company use in their facilities - and according to what I have learned from other sources - the move from Avid to FCP is already happening in all segments of the editing market. I guess FCP was suffering from the same situation we see between Logic and PT: it took some time before a native solution was accepted as professional enough to be used for major projects.

This thread is about Logic replacing PT, and I'm sure that even if PT was just as good for composing as Logic, and Logic was just as good as PT eg. for post, it would still take time before one standard actually was replaced by another, and sometimes an application or standard doesn't even replace another even if it is clearly better. I think both Logic and PT will survive, and what we see in this poll (36.99% of the voters currently think that Logic will replace PT) could possibly reflect to which degree Logic will replace PT in environments where PT actually is considered a standard.

It would be a pretty dramatic change in the market if 36.99% of all PTHD users would switch to Logic. A large percent has already switched from Avid to Final Cut Pro, so I guess you're totally right about Avid/Digidesign working hard to stay at the top of the pile as long as they can. The good news for me as a Logic user is that many people already are switching from Pro Tools to Logic, so the Logic developers have to keep working hard as well, in order to keep up with enhancement requests from users coming from other platforms... :)


Regarding post - I can't comment much personally, since I only work with music, so I trust that you're right.

[junior]

dLight, when you've got some spare time and have nothing to do, could you try the example provided on the quote on my post?
I can't because my Mac in my studio is only a dual 2 Ghz G5.
Be really interested to know. I think the guy who posted that example said later on that he tested it on Logic 7 and 8.0, so he never did it with the latest Mac Pro, Leopard, or the .02 release.
Thanks.

[dLight]

dLight, when you've got some spare time and have nothing to do, could you try the example provided on the quote on my post?
I can't because my Mac in my studio is only a dual 2 Ghz G5.
Be really interested to know. I think the guy who posted that example said later on that he tested it on Logic 7 and 8.0, so he never did it with the latest Mac Pro, Leopard, or the .02 release.
Thanks.
Hi - that test has already been done (check the other thread again), but I can always check the other mentioned test if you are interested ("100+ tracks of 88.2/24 at 256 buffer with zero disk usage and 15% processor usage in nuendo as we speak")...?

[Freis968]

I used Pro Tools for about one year and then replaced it with Logic. To my ears, and I am not trying to cause some big debate here, my musical output sounds better coming out of Logic. Pro Tools output a very bassy, muddy sound which I did not care for. This is comparing similar recordings witout any effects whatsoever.

I think they are both great programs and no doubt Pro Tools is more or less the "big dog" in terms of industry standard. I think it all comes down to a Coke vs Pepsi argument...which tastes better or in this case which sounds better to the individual.

I am a Pepsi drinking Logic user myself...:)

[junior]

Hi - that test has already been done (check the other thread again), but I can always check the other mentioned test if you are interested ("100+ tracks of 88.2/24 at 256 buffer with zero disk usage and 15% processor usage in nuendo as we speak")...?

I was thinking more about mixing OTB, along with many plugins ITB and getting towards the end of a mix. Then doing overdubs without the issues of latency.
Could you perhaps try this with 70 tracks (I think that's a little more realistic) and see whether you can do this in Logic with low buffer settings?

Thanks.

[junior]

I used Pro Tools for about one year and then replaced it with Logic. To my ears, and I am not trying to cause some big debate here, my musical output sounds better coming out of Logic. Pro Tools output a very bassy, muddy sound which I did not care for. This is comparing similar recordings witout any effects whatsoever.

I think they are both great programs and no doubt Pro Tools is more or less the "big dog" in terms of industry standard. I think it all comes down to a Coke vs Pepsi argument...which tastes better or in this case which sounds better to the individual.

I am a Pepsi drinking Logic user myself...:)

That's the stuff of fantasies. Did you use the same converter for both applications? What was it that you used?

[motulist]

That's the stuff of fantasies. Did you use the same converter for both applications? What was it that you used?

Don't be so quick to be so sure that he's imagining things. Even if there were no mathematical difference between the audio engines and converters of both systems, that doesn't mean each system would lead to him creating the same sounding output. For instance, if system A has a more easily accessible FX insert panel than system B, then users will naturally wind up using more FX in system A just because it's more visible while they're working so it will occur to them more often that an effect insert might be useful. So even if system A and system B have the exact same audio engine and audio hardware, the sound you'll wind up with from system A will be significantly different than what you'd wind up with in system B.

Many variable would fit this same scenario. If system A has much more easily editable volume curves then a user will naturally do all the volume curve editing they want in system A, whereas if system B has much more difficult volume curve editing features then you will naturally not kill yourself trying to get it perfectly how you want it. The same applies to all the millions of tiny variables that go into the software. For instance, if system A displays its input level monitoring graphics in a different way than system B displays the input levels, then it will naturally lead to minor differences in how hot you set your levels. All of these little differences add up to a significant difference in the final sound you get.

You're argument is that all else being equal in hardware and software processing, then the sound output should be exactly the same. I'm saying that you're absolutely correct, but all else isn't equal and never can be. So in the real world it can't be argued that system A and system B should have the same sounding output. For any even slightly involved recording mix in the real world, system A and system B will always necessarily by human nature result in different sounding output.

[junior]

Don't be so quick to be so sure that he's imagining things. Even if there were no mathematical difference between the audio engines and converters of both systems, that doesn't mean each system would lead to him creating the same sounding output. For instance, if system A has a more easily accessible FX insert panel than system B, then users will naturally wind up using more FX in system A just because it's more visible while they're working so it will occur to them more often that an effect insert might be useful. So even if system A and system B have the exact same audio engine and audio hardware, the sound you'll wind up with from system A will be significantly different than what you'd wind up with in system B.

Many variable would fit this same scenario. If system A has much more easily editable volume curves then a user will naturally do all the volume curve editing they want in system A, whereas if system B has much more difficult volume curve editing features then you will naturally not kill yourself trying to get it perfectly how you want it. The same applies to all the millions of tiny variables that go into the software. For instance, if system A displays its input level monitoring graphics in a different way than system B displays the input levels, then it will naturally lead to minor differences in how hot you set your levels. All of these little differences add up to a significant difference in the final sound you get.

You're argument is that all else being equal in hardware and software processing, then the sound output should be exactly the same. I'm saying that you're absolutely correct, but all else isn't equal and never can be. So in the real world it can't be argued that system A and system B should have the same sounding output. For any even slightly involved recording mix in the real world, system A and system B will always necessarily by human nature result in different sounding output.

You're talking about mixing, he's talking about playing back the same material (probably stereo) with no fx. Two very different arguments.
If we're talking about your scenarios, then yes, I agree.

[dLight]

I was thinking more about mixing OTB, along with many plugins ITB...
Hi,
I only mix ITB... can you please specify what you mean?


Then doing overdubs without the issues of latency.
Could you perhaps try this with 70 tracks (I think that's a little more realistic) and see whether you can do this in Logic with low buffer settings?

Sorry - I'm still confused... that other test showed that one could make overdubs with 125 tracks and still be able to record using the 32 buffer. Latency amounts are controlled by buffer sizes, and 32 is currently the lowest available buffer setting (the one that gives the lowest latency).

I'd be happy to make a test for you, but I'm not sure what you mean with OTB/ITB and the latency test. Do you want to test if Logic adds a latency at the 32 buffer which is higher when having 70 tracks active than when having eg. 2 tracks in the song - in other words, that latency is affected by both buffer sizes and track amounts?

Here's how it seems that things are supposed to work:
Latency is controlled by buffers and sizes, AD/DA latency, possibly FireWire latency + an unknown amount of samples caused by 'the system"/drivers.

I haven't seen anyone suggest that latency will increase with the amount if tracks that are active in the song. The thing with amount if tracks/plugins and latency is that the more tracks/plugins you have, the more likely it is that you need to increase the buffer size on a slow computer, and if you have to increase the buffer size from eg. 32 to 128 samples, the roundtrip latency will be increased - by the difference between 32 and 128 times two (if we assume that the Safety I/O buffer isn't being used in this example, which seems like a good idea most of the time anyway).

Increasing the buffer size will increase the latency (by 4-5 ms in the above example).

I was suspicious at some point if latency would increase - when using the Safety I/O buffer - in parallel with how many tracks you recorded, but I haven't hear anyone mention this (I never use the 'safety' buffer anyway).

There could of course be bugs/issues related to latency I'm not aware of - I've almost exclusively been mixing, editing and working with score since Logic 8 came out, and have hardly recorded any audio using Software Monitoring, but I'll gladly make tests for you... just be a little more specific about what you want be to check out for you. :)

[McBeats]

i loooves me logic, logic 5 and 8 :)

[bob2131]

emagic logic 5.5 on windows xp = MINT

mmm

i see no reason to get logic pro or logic studio.

[junior]

emagic logic 5.5 on windows xp = MINT

mmm

i see no reason to get logic pro or logic studio.

Good for you.:rolleyes:

[Metuas]

i have a digidesign digi 002 rack so have pro tools le. like people say there two different applications. I have recently bought logic studio 8 for its midi capabilities and the fact i dont have to have my digi 002 r connected to open logic.
i dont think it will replace pro tools, too many people have the hardware and will just use it because it comes with the hardware

Agreed. I have the Digi 002 as well, and I upgraded from LE 6.7/Panther to LE 7.4/Leopard because the hardware worked. It's expensive to completely revamp a setup, so many will stick with what they already have. I've even heard of some pro audio/video people still in OS 9/Windows 2000 because they invested so much in the hardware/software.

[Chairman Plow]

I've even heard of some pro audio/video people still in OS 9/Windows 2000 because they invested so much in the hardware/software.

Good point. A good friend of mine (producer and engineer) is still running Pro Tools 5.2.1 in OS 9.2 (and a Digi001 :eek:)

He tells me it's mainly because he knows his system and his plugins inside and out. However, I'm bringing my portable setup to his studio so he can play around in 7.4 in Leopard. He wants to see if it's worth the upgrade.

[bob2131]

emagic logic 5.5 on the pc..........beautiful..........

the only reason companies keep upgrading is to make money from us. i hate it. constant changes etc.....

you spend years learning a package/system......and then they employ a couple of smart asses who redesign the whole thing.......and its not always better.....

companies need to chill out.......

[dLight]

emagic logic 5.5 on the pc..........beautiful.........


[...]

companies need to chill out.......



Beautiful....? Isn't the beauty of it that since you can still use Logic 5.5 on PC if you want to, there's no real need for these companies to chill out? ;)

[TommyLee]

that doesn't ring true for me. i paid a lot of $$ for Logic 4 and some soft synths, plus upgrades, but i *still* use PTLE.
yes, "for you" and me too. But if Apple gave away Logic for free (an investment they can afford) for just a few months, it could gain enough market share to become the industry standard. All they have to do is get it into teenage hands and they'll grow up with it, create all their sessions in Logic and Pro Tools would fade away with Trent Reznor and those other guys.

I run a Pro Tools studio- but people are calling asking for Logic. I remember calling studios 10 years ago asking for Pro Tools.

[bob2131]

im new to pro tools but on the midi side, it looks like a disgrace.

i hear pro tools started out as audio app and added midi later.
logic started out as midi app and added audio later.

logic and midi are out of this world.

for band recording, live music, little software synths/midi = use pro tools
for midi music and modern pop = use logic


do people out there use pro tools AND logic???
you can probably rewire one of them into each other..:D

[junior]

yes, "for you" and me too. But if Apple gave away Logic for free (an investment they can afford) for just a few months, it could gain enough market share to become the industry standard. All they have to do is get it into teenage hands and they'll grow up with it, create all their sessions in Logic and Pro Tools would fade away with Trent Reznor and those other guys.

I run a Pro Tools studio- but people are calling asking for Logic. I remember calling studios 10 years ago asking for Pro Tools.

What kind of 'studio' do you run?
Because I've NEVER had anyone call me and ask for Logic, apart from times when making changes during a session to their arrangements are necessary. They'd usually bring in their laptop anyway.
It doesn't matter if Apple gave away Logic to teenagers (I'd hazard a guess that a lot of the teenagers get cracked copies anyway), because once they manage to get into studios as intern, the software they'll have to learn will be Pro Tools 95% of the time anyway.
Cost of Pro Tools HD is nothing for a well run studio or production. So unless Apple come up with a very well integrated system (Apogee?) and re-do their user interface in Logic to resemble a more analog feel like in Pro Tools so the important engineers can easily get into it, I can't see it happening.

[dLight]

So unless Apple come up with a very well integrated system (Apogee?)...
It's called Symphony. Unless you have to use a 3rd part mixer for Direct Monitoring, or use a slow Mac, it's as integrated as it gets.

Some features that one of those apps is obviously missing in the other, eg. Logic lacks proper delay compensation when used with external effects - and still doesn't have any equivalent to Beat Detective / Elastic Time.

...and re-do their user interface in Logic to resemble a more analog feel
That's Logic 8, isn't it?

as intern, the software they'll have to learn will be Pro Tools 95% of the time anyway

That's true. On the other hand, are there any studios at all that doesn't also have Logic installed nowadays?

[MowingDevil]

The studio we recorded our album in is fairly high end, it has a history with Metallica, Aerosmith, Motley Crue, The Cult and bands like that....and is the studio Nickelback recorded their Silver Side Up album in. They've now pretty much moved to Logic throughout although they're still running it through a full on ProTools system and I'm sure if the engineer wanted they could use the PT software.

I've nothing against PT, I love the software myself...but Logic has really taken a step forward. I recently had a decision to make for my home studio & opted for Logic 8 Sudio. For the money that package just can't be beat. Steinberg & Digidesign must have had kittens when it was released.

[WinterMute]

Most large studios (or small ones with big ideas) who have invested in Protools HD have a significant amount of money invested in the rig, running Logic on top of that hardware simply makes financial sense.

No point in letting perfectly acceptable hardware collect dust when you simply have to replace it to run Logic at decent audio quality levels.

Newer rooms that are logic based will not use HD hardware, and Digi really have to get their act together in order to sustain their market place.

I was speaking to people from Focusrite last month, and we discussed this very subject at some length, they are of the opinion that Digi will have to release a de-hardwared version of not only LE but HD too, and then they will be hampered by Apple's incredibe level of integration.

PT is going to have to change, and soon.

It is still, however, a better interface for multitracking and editing in my opinion, but I'd like to see them try to compete with Apple in the functionality stakes, give LE 5.1 outputs ferchristsakes!!

[MowingDevil]

Newer rooms that are logic based will not use HD hardware, and Digi really have to get their act together in order to sustain their market place.

What will they use instead?

I can see the large studios still going w/ fullblown ProTools rigs even if they have no intention on using the software. Those rigs can carry a big load when recording and playing back large numbers of tracks. Just wondering what you think would be a better solution for a newer studio?

[junior]

What will they use instead?

I can see the large studios still going w/ fullblown ProTools rigs even if they have no intention on using the software. Those rigs can carry a big load when recording and playing back large numbers of tracks. Just wondering what you think would be a better solution for a newer studio?

Pro Tools is the only software that can fully utilize the DSP with its proprietary hardware when it comes to input and output. Unless things have changed, I'm pretty sure that when Logic or DP use the TDM mode, only 8 I/O can be used, unless something's changed. Could someone correct me if I'm wrong?

dLight, although L8's user interface has been greatly simplified, it still doesn't quite match the simple analogue-style interface of Pro Tools, in my opinion anyway.
When I said 'integrated' I didn't really explain myself too well. I was thinking about adc implementation as good as Digidesign's software and interface for studios that use a lot of outboard gear, and the overdub sessions with hardware plus tons of plugins inserted (perhaps you said earlier that this was actually pretty good in Logic now?).
Once Apple and Logic sort this out, I can see Digidesign in a lot of trouble.

[dLight]

Pro Tools is the only software that can fully utilize the DSP with its proprietary hardware when it comes to input and output. Unless things have changed, I'm pretty sure that when Logic or DP use the TDM mode, only 8 I/O can be used, unless something's changed. Could someone correct me if I'm wrong?
I can: you are wrong! :)

I've used Logic with TDM hardware for many years, and I had access to all the inputs and outputs in the system. The limitation is if you use Digidesign's CoreAudio drivers to access the 192 interface; unlike other CoreAudio drivers from other manufacturers like RME or Apogeee, Digi hasn't implemented support for all the physical I/Os in their drivers. They have also limited the max number of tracks in their LE systems, and put a limit on how low buffer setting you can use with their native systems. Hence, they have often been criticized for ' rippling' their native solutions.

Those rigs can carry a big load when recording and playing back large numbers of tracks.
They can, if you have enough DSP cards, and you can also combine 'native' and DSP 'tracks'. However, I don't think track count or 'big loads' is much of an issue anymore. 100-150 stereo tracks and 1000-2000 plugins is more than enough for pretty much everyone.


No point in letting perfectly acceptable hardware collect dust when you simply have to replace it to run Logic at decent audio quality levels.
Maybe not, but more and more people who start to explore the enhanced power of fast computers are letting their TDM hardware 'collecting dust'.


I don't think the reason is the things non-TDM systems technically can't do that native systems can (offline bouncing, dynamic DSP allocation etc), but that many current studios are built from the ground by people who started with Logic - they aren't 'old school' engineers. Many of them are songwriters/producers who happen to want to run their own studio instead of renting one.

When I get phone calls from frustrated PT engineers who have to use Logic (in a studio that are producing their material in a combined Logic/TDM environment), it isn't because these studios are run by PT-bashers; they simply bought TDM hardware at some point because they had too (native wasn't good enough), and now they don't have to anymore. Like most DAW users, they happened to start with a non-TDM system, added TDM at some point, and in a lot of cases, don't need TDM anymore.

I have probably been wrong in my criticism about Logic reducing their prices - I thought they did it to increase their market share, and imagined that a lower price would generate less cash that could put into R&D. But - maybe they just did it because the initial developing costs had been covered a long time ago - or to generate more money. Unlike a few years ago, everybody has Logic now, including people who have bought only to check it out, and sometimes lower prices means more profit.

[WinterMute]

Maybe not, but more and more people who start to explore the enhanced power of fast computers are letting their TDM hardware 'collecting dust'.



It's just laziness in a lot of cases, that and the fact that a good TDM hardware rig provides a lot of I/O, and it simply means you have to replace the physical systems otherwise, which is money and time.

The newer studios that were founded on Logic tend to be more in the line of writers studios, certainly the 3 or 4 I've been in don't offer the kind of facilities I would need to use them as tracking and mixing rooms. Whereas those that were HD based initially are much more flexible in tracking terms.

Increased market share and lower prices simply put more powerful kit in the hands of people who have little idea what to do with it, and no reason to learn.... "old school" engineering is still correct, even if you only have 1 mic and a pre into Logic, and the quality of what is accepted as current "pro" recordings has never been lower.

Technological advance is not a good thing for music, sure it put tools in the hands of many more people, but look what they are doing with them. Logic and garageband make it too easy to create the simulacrum of a song, but essentially it's the same as everyone else's song, the need for talent, application, practice and tenacity is still there.

Meh, I think I need tea and biscuits...:D

[MowingDevil]

Technological advance is not a good thing for music, sure it put tools in the hands of many more people, but look what they are doing with them. Logic and garageband make it too easy to create the simulacrum of a song, but essentially it's the same as everyone else's song, the need for talent, application, practice and tenacity is still there.

Couldn't have said it better myself - cheeers!
For my take on this, check out my rant in this thread:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=548625&page=2

[Per Lichtman]

Increased market share and lower prices simply put more powerful kit in the hands of people who have little idea what to do with it, and no reason to learn.... "old school" engineering is still correct, even if you only have 1 mic and a pre into Logic, and the quality of what is accepted as current "pro" recordings has never been lower.

Technological advance is not a good thing for music, sure it put tools in the hands of many more people, but look what they are doing with them. Logic and garageband make it too easy to create the simulacrum of a song, but essentially it's the same as everyone else's song, the need for talent, application, practice and tenacity is still there.

Meh, I think I need tea and biscuits...:D

While there have been some low quality recordings coming out of this and there may be a lot of highly successful commercial mixes that are not well produced, I'd be hard pressed to say to agree with you overall. That's partially because of what I see each day in my work.

I spend half my week working on PCs, half my week on Macs and have to have a relative fluency with a minimum of 3 software hosts in a week. I grew up with the opportunity to learn and experiment with audio at a young age because of the democratization of music technology. That did not prevent me from appreciating that I would learn more in a short time from interning with an experienced composer and engineer than I would in years on my own and I can't thank Rob Woo enough for his mentoring during my summers at college. During my brief chances to speak with George Massenburg and to Mitch Marcoulier (one of the original Synclavier engineers) about music technology I was a very happy sponge, and the same could be said of my seminars with composers such as John Adams.

My primary current projects give me a chance to collaborate with artists ranging in background from internationally renowned Juliard grads to singer-songwriters with a background in touring and with film experience on to other musicians they bring onto the project that I may never even meet in person because we collaborate internationally via the Internet. My projects range from open ended personal projects to a deadline sensitive demo for a major label. In all cases, the projects have been done in project studios rather than higher end facilities but the equipment used has been of a high quality (e.g. Avalon 737s, UA6176, Neumann TLM 103s, U87, KM 184 D, Telefunken Elam 251 E, Royer R-122V, etc.)

I have taken the time to not only learn the differences in the optimal use for the various equipment on site for my own edification but have helped the artists to gain a better sense of why a given sound will come out the way they like and how they can vary the signal chain to achieve a certain effect in a way that will help them to get the sound they want whether they work with me or anybody else in the future. I've spent a lot of time helping my other friends, including classically trained musicians from college, to learn how to translate their creativity into recordings and they have demonstrated to me time and again that with a little education they can, and will, take their creativity and capitalize on even the most basic of tools to create things that had been very difficult for them to do without a computer.

Would I have been able to get into the position I am in right now if it hadn't been for access to low cost software, such as "Logic Fun/Micrologic" at young age? It would have been a lot harder to hit the ground running. Did I think that I knew more than I actually did at various points when I was first starting out? Of course: I think that was true for most of us, right? :)

The time that people spent assisting me and that I've spent assisting others has resulted in the creation of beautiful music that wouldn't have been economically feasible prior to the democratization of low priced music technology. It's not the availability of tools that is creating poor music, but simply the fact that many of the people using them have never had a chance to (or need to) develop the sort of ears or skills to create solid productions that may once have been more difficult to avoid. At the same time, it has empowered people to take chances and explore their creativity in a way that they didn't have the luxury to before. I feel like it's a fair trade-off.

Good music hasn't gone away. Sometimes we just have to look a little harder to find it than we would have liked to. :)

[WinterMute]

Welcome aboard to begin with.:)

For everyone like yourself, the advent of low cost, powerful music software is a great boon, and there are always going to be those who benefit from the advances, and we in turn benefit from their creative efforts.

However, the quality of composition and production on released tracks has plummeted since the release of the looping technology in Garageband and Logic (and others), as the musically talentless get to pour their undiluted widdlings into the public ear.

I'm not for one minute suggesting it's a global issue, and there is some truly great music to be had from the unschooled producer, it's just that the signal to noise ratio is climbing in favour of the noise, and it's much harder to find the good stuff.

I see 3 or 400 applicants a year for the degree courses at the Uni, the majority have some decent background in recording, programming or production, but a good 20% think that a few tracks in Fruityloops is going to win them a Grammy....

For every Goldy or Beck there are a million no-hopers who can now inflict their inane productions on us because of this software, and I for one don't have the patience or the self-control to be nice about another generic 5 minute garageband loop-out...!

There will always be those who stretch the limits of music and production, and some of them will not be "trained" in either. This is a Good Thing...

[Per Lichtman]

I think that for me the most frustrating thing about the emphasis on loop based compositions is when it stops people from taking a chance on writing their own notes. You probably have a lot more experience with that than I do given your position, but as for myself the main thing I've tried to do is to show them the real benefits of going beyond that and how much more personal it can get.

As far as the signal to noise ratio, there's a lot of music out there that doesn't engage me personally unless I am listening to try and give constructive feedback, so I can understand. I just think that the difference is less the quality of the music they are making and more, as you said, the frequency with which we are exposed to the work of that quality. But I can just easily avoid listening to most of it as I can avoid turning on my radio, so it doesn't tend to bother me most of the time.

One of the things that has been encouraging me a lot recently is the fact that so many people have noticed the difference between MySpace re-compressed files (with their arbitrary high frequency cutoff ca. 11 or 12 khz) vs. single compressed 128 kbps MP3s from SoundClick, not to mention the recent outcry over Metallica's poor production on their newest album. People may not be demanding audiophile mixes, but it does seem like they may finally starting to say that the standards have gotten to low, even for mass consumption.

We shall see how it all turns out, and thanks for the welcome!

Oh, and out of curiousity, what part of London are you in? I grew up spending two weeks a month just a few blocks away from Kennsington Garden (and being bratty at Harod's) for the first few years of my life, so I have fond memories. :)

[WinterMute]

I teach in Ealing, West London, but I live is South East London, near Greenwich.

[TommyLee]

Does anybody have the exact market share numbers?

[TommyLee]

What kind of 'studio' do you run?
Because I've NEVER had anyone call me and ask for Logic, apart from times when making changes during a session to their arrangements are necessary. They'd usually bring in their laptop anyway.A bedroom studio. Which, might I ad- is the future. So while Justin Timbaland won't walk into my studio anytime soon, in the future there won't be commercial studios. Only production companies with recording gear.

[zimv20]

in the future there won't be commercial studios.

yes there will be. you can't do *everything* on location or in someone's basement/garage/spare-bedroom.

i suppose we could also discuss what "commercial" means. if you charge someone to record in your bedroom studio, is that commercial?

[dLight]

It's really new to me that all these people made all their recordings in their bedrooms....:

http://logicprohelp.com/vip_users.php


:)

[junior]

A bedroom studio. Which, might I ad- is the future. So while Justin Timbaland won't walk into my studio anytime soon, in the future there won't be commercial studios. Only production companies with recording gear.

You sound awfully sure for a guy who's only real experience is in his own bedroom.
I think I'll stick to mine and my clients' judgement and keep hold of my 'commercial studio' for now.

[junior]

It's really new to me that all these people made all their recordings in their bedrooms....:

http://logicprohelp.com/vip_users.php


:)

Come on now dLight. These guys are credited for making music with logic. Not recording or mastering.
I'd hazard a guess to say that their 'bedrooms', or their production space, is worth more money than a lot of full-blown studios.

Although I'm sure it was a light hearted comment from you in the first place.

[UgLy KoeRner]

I just recently recorded in a professional studio and we were mainly useing pro tools, however he was bouncing back and fourth between pro tools and Logic, I was not sure why but it seemed maybe to use some of the effects, or some traxXx were easier to effect with in logic.

My personal opinion is that Pro tools is the ShXt because U mention it to a musician they get alittle bit more wet.

But I guess in the end for a true artist maybe one program aint enough, I dont want to clutter my comp with a million programs but who knows.

http://www.myspace.com/Sosicksocialclub

[Dejoblue]

Sorry for the thread necro.

I was wondering where people stand on this a year later.

This was my thinking:

Basically Logic is taking Pro Tools business model and making their software virtually free, while maintaining the huge interface interoperability. This puts them in the same venue of selling hardware, just like Pro Tools requires, only NOW the hardware is a Mac computer rather than I/O boxes.

Logic has also lowered its price point, by HALF!, for legitimate users, which was already vastly less expensive than Pro Tools, and with no dongle now a lot more people will be bringing in their own starting mixes or demos made on Logic simply because they can download Logic with torrents and get codes etc. The appeal, legitimate user or not, is that Logic supports a huge array of interfaces, there are even some new apogee ones designed with Logic in mind, that Pro Tools makes a pain to use going through their own interfaces which are extremely expensive and useless especially if you DO get an "industry standard" apogee converter.

Most clients and small studios don't have the thousands of dollars to get a basic Pro Tools rig. So, starting with Logic and a decent I/O like MOTU 2408 or 828 is a no brainer. It lets you build your rig over time without a huge initial investment. And at 500 bucks I think most Pro Tools Studios will have Logic now anyways especially considering that they can use their Pro Tools hardware with Logic.

That's what my thought process was. What is the feeling now from everyone? I am of course wanting to justify using what I have chosen and what I have consulted others to use.

Thanks for your time :)

[junior]

Sorry for the thread necro.

I was wondering where people stand on this a year later.

This was my thinking:

Basically Logic is taking Pro Tools business model and making their software virtually free, while maintaining the huge interface interoperability. This puts them in the same venue of selling hardware, just like Pro Tools requires, only NOW the hardware is a Mac computer rather than I/O boxes.

Logic has also lowered its price point, by HALF!, for legitimate users, which was already vastly less expensive than Pro Tools, and with no dongle now a lot more people will be bringing in their own starting mixes or demos made on Logic simply because they can download Logic with torrents and get codes etc. The appeal, legitimate user or not, is that Logic supports a huge array of interfaces, there are even some new apogee ones designed with Logic in mind, that Pro Tools makes a pain to use going through their own interfaces which are extremely expensive and useless especially if you DO get an "industry standard" apogee converter.

Most clients and small studios don't have the thousands of dollars to get a basic Pro Tools rig. So, starting with Logic and a decent I/O like MOTU 2408 or 828 is a no brainer. It lets you build your rig over time without a huge initial investment. And at 500 bucks I think most Pro Tools Studios will have Logic now anyways especially considering that they can use their Pro Tools hardware with Logic.

That's what my thought process was. What is the feeling now from everyone? I am of course wanting to justify using what I have chosen and what I have consulted others to use.

Thanks for your time :)

I don't think anything's changed. Opinion's still split amongst people.
I have Pro Tools HD and Logic. I like them both but for critical recording, editing and/or mixing in front of clients I still can't feel comfortable with Logic. I can't start announcing that my studio is Logic only either because no engineer, management, record company will bother renting the place out. It's a tough one. I still think that for the majority of users, Logic will continue to dominate the composition/arrangement market while studios will continue with Digidesign for the foreseeable future (there's been no sign to suggest otherwise).


Another thought...
Apple's a scary company in a sense. They drop technology or development whenever they feel like it, it seems. Sometimes it's for the sake of embracing something better (Floppy<USB), sometimes for no apparent reason (FW400<nothing).
That's specifically hardware, yes, but what about Filemaker? They bought the company, made one release (I think) and then dropped it.

There have only been 3 point updates for Logic 8 I think since its release, while their other pro apps have had numerous updates within the same time frame. Did they fix every single bug imaginable in the .0.3 update? Certainly not.
Have they lost interest in the pro audio field? Is that why they decided that dropping firewire for the macbooks, which I'd imagine a big percentage of customers who use the DUET (there's supposed to be a partnership with Apogee) had been buying, was no big deal?

I'm probably totally off on this. But the one thing that I don't have to worry about is Digidesign ever loosing interest in my field of profession, since that is the only field in which they can earn their bread.

We should open this thread in 10 years time. It'll be fun.

[zimv20]

We should open this thread in 10 years time. It'll be fun.

my bets are on "ProTools 15 vs Apple HomeStudio Pro 5".

[junior]

my bets are on "ProTools 15 vs Apple HomeStudio Pro 5".

:D

Nice bit of irony with Apple's product title http://www.gearslutz.com/board/images/smilies/thumb.gif

[dLight]

Come on now dLight. These guys are credited for making music with logic. Not recording or mastering.
I'd hazard a guess to say that their 'bedrooms', or their production space, is worth more money than a lot of full-blown studios.

I don't think anyone have insisted that Logic based studios are "worth more money than a lot of full-blown studios", and I'm not going to follow up on the bedroom/basement/garage thing, I know of several full blown studios that are Logic based, and will leave it at that.







I was wondering where people stand on this a year later.

I think the main change over the last 12 months is that Digidesign has released Pro Tools 8, which seems like a very 'Logic inspired' release, while Apple haven't released Logic 8.* or Logic 9 (and probably won't until Snow Leopard with OpenCL etc. is out?).

Some people who stayed with Logic for it's score editor and included synth/sound libraries mave moved over to PT, and some people who used PT for low latency and because they needed the DSP cards have moved over to Logic.


I can't start announcing that my studio is Logic only either because no engineer, management, record company will bother renting the place out. The tendency around here seem to be that since so many projects now start out in Logic, artists/labels who want to rent a studio for finishing an album want a Logic compatible studio. This may of course change if more people start to use PTLE and a new version of Logic which competes with DP/Cubase/PT/Live features 'everybody' want (elastic time) never will be released.


Apple's a scary company in a sense. They drop technology or development whenever they feel like it, it seems. Sometimes it's for the sake of embracing something better (Floppy<USB), sometimes for no apparent reason (FW400<nothing).
Too bad they removed FW from that Mac Book - it has USB 2.0, which at least for parts of the video camera market has replaced FW.

That's specifically hardware, yes, but what about Filemaker? They bought the company, made one release (I think) and then dropped it.


FileMaker (http://www.filemaker.com/company/) begun as "NutShell" in the early 80s. Apple formed Claris (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claris) (now FileMaker Inc. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FileMaker_Inc.)) and purchased the NutShell developers (Nashoba), and - looking at the last 10 years - have released new versions in 1999 (5.0), 2001 (5.5) , 2002 (6.0), 2004 (7.0), 2005 (8.0), 2006 (8.5), 2007 (9.0). FileMaker 10 (http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/19580/) is due on Monday.


But the one thing that I don't have to worry about is Digidesign ever loosing interest in my field of profession, since that is the only field in which they can earn their bread. Like everyone else, Digidesign has to look at where the money is, which is probably why they aren't any longer a company that exclusively manufactures chips from drum machines. From a user's perspective, the good thing about Digi is that that aren't any longer in the safe position they used to be. Lot's of people (like myself) had to use TDM systems for low latency and enough DSP, and now they have to compete with functions and features normally only found in native DAWs in order to not lose too much money. I spoke with a dealer not long ago, and he had sold 10 times as many Logic packages as PT packages that month. PTHD sales are diminishing rather dramatically (world wide, according to his sources), so releasing PT8 at the end of 2008 was a smart move, because now, all the PT users that claimed that they didn't like Logic 8's user interface much loves the same kind of user interface when it's implemented in PT8, and are happy to pay for it... :D

Looking at Apple's general upgrade policy, we'll probably see a major Logic upgrade in 2009, since Logic 8 was released in 2007, and maybe even a bugfix version before that.

Did they fix every single bug imaginable in the .0.3 update? Certainly not.
1) Check your version numbers... ;-) There's no such thing as Logic 8.03
2) When did any company release a version which fixed every single bug imaginable?
3) Yes, I want a new Logic version too.

:)

[junior]

The tendency around here seem to be that since so many projects now start out in Logic, artists/labels who want to rent a studio for finishing an album want a Logic compatible studio.

I wish that was how it is around here, but the tendency is that clients (the ones that want to rent the room out with their own engineers) will often ask me first whether I have Pro Tools or not and then feel reassured once I confirm. If I were to say no, they'd instantly look down at the studio as second rate. I wish it were different, especially as I've only got HD2 and a ton of sessions come in 96k and a ton of tracks, but it's just a trend that won't seem to go away at the moment.


Too bad they removed FW from that Mac Book - it has USB 2.0, which at least for parts of the video camera market has replaced FW.

I don't think it'll ever be a replacement in the audio field though...


Like everyone else, Digidesign has to look at where the money is, which is probably why they aren't any longer a company that exclusively manufactures chips from drum machines. From a user's perspective, the good thing about Digi is that that aren't any longer in the safe position they used to be. Lot's of people (like myself) had to use TDM systems for low latency and enough DSP, and now they have to compete with functions and features normally only found in native DAWs in order to not lose too much money. I spoke with a dealer not long ago, and he had sold 10 times as many Logic packages as PT packages that month. PTHD sales are diminishing rather dramatically (world wide, according to his sources), so releasing PT8 at the end of 2008 was a smart move, because now, all the PT users that claimed that they didn't like Logic 8's user interface much loves the same kind of user interface when it's implemented in PT8, and are happy to pay for it... :D


I'm in agreement with some of your earlier points here. They need to work like they've never worked before to keep the high & low end customers, as well as the need to pull in the other DAW users to PT in order to survive. Who knows, if they get enough things right they may even get you back on board:)

Regarding sales, I'm not going to speculate on Digidesign's worldwide sales figure based on the words of one dealer.

User interface. It's got the looks of Logic but the user interface itself is still very much Pro Tools, which is what users like myself prefer over other DAWs.

Looking at Apple's general upgrade policy, we'll probably see a major Logic upgrade in 2009, since Logic 8 was released in 2007, and maybe even a bugfix version before that.


Hopefully!

1) Check your version numbers... ;-) There's no such thing as Logic 8.03

Ha. You're right. So am I right in saying there's only been 2 updates since the release of Logic 8 in 2007?

2) When did any company release a version which fixed every single bug imaginable?


As you're already aware I'm sure, that was not the point. Digidesign have always released constant patches through both their internal research as well as user reports. This has especially been the case over the last 3 or 4 years.


3) Yes, I want a new Logic version too.

If they are working on it, I'm sure it'll be great. Hopefully both companies will continue to push each other for the foreseeable future.

[dLight]

...will often ask me first whether I have Pro Tools or not and then feel reassured once I confirm. If I were to say no, they'd instantly look down at the studio as second rate.
That used to be the case here as well, bit since so many high end users now do their whole production in Logic, and they know it, times are changing. These people maybe even knew that the latency and DSP issues weren't real issues back when high end studios relied on hardware mixers for low latency and analog/external effects instead of plugins.


I don't think it'll ever be a replacement in the audio field though...
USB 2.0 and FW 400/800 will be replaced by USB 3.0 and FW 3200...



Who knows, if they get enough things right they may even get you back on board:)


Well... I never used the Pro Tools application, I only needed the hardware - and whatever happens, I won't need it anymore.

Regarding sales, I'm not going to speculate on Digidesign's worldwide sales figure based on the words of one dealer. The source wasn't one dealer, it was 'his sources'. I also know from several other Digi dealers that new HD sales have been diminishing dramatically.



Ha. You're right. So am I right in saying there's only been 2 updates since the release of Logic 8 in 2007? Yes - a total of three updates (8.0, 8.01 and 8.02) in one year, three months and three weeks. I want updates at least every month... :) I am surprised 8.03 hasn't been released (8.02 was released in May/June last year).



Digidesign have always released constant patches through both their internal research as well as user reports. This has especially been the case over the last 3 or 4 years.
They have improved a lot, and are posting a lot more updates than they used to do (and than Apple does for Logic)... but are - for various reasons - rather slow at announcing support for new OS versions.

If I remember right, Logic was the first DAW to support PPC chips, to support OSX, and to support Intel, and will probably also be the first DAW to support Snow Leopard, which could explain why I don't get a new Logic update every month...



If they are working on it, I'm sure it'll be great.
Of course they are.

Apple's main interest isn't that people shouldn't buy Digidesign stuff. What they want, is to make a good hardware platform, a good OS, and good apps. If TDM based studios also buy Logic (for compatibility with all the Logic users out there), they also need a Mac. Now, almost all high end studios are Mac based anyway, and if these studios also buy Logic, the result is that it doesn't matter that much (for Apple) if Logic will replace Pro Tools or not.

The real 'winner' is the one with the best features/UI/performance/stability.

WHen 16 core Macs are out, when people use 240 core graphic boards for audio (GPGPU/OpenCL (http://www.gearslutz.com/board/high-end/343340-symphony-nvidia-fx-5800-logic-snow-leopard.html)) etc., the need for TDM systems will diminish even more, and high end users will keep having reasons for buying new Macs.

Apple's motivation isn't to 'kill' PT - but to make products they can be proud of and that people like. Apple is loaded with money, but I don't think Jobs or Logic's their developers/designers want to end up in a situation where Logic users migrate to other DAWs because Logic lacks features, stability or ease of use compared with eg. Pro Tools or Performer.

If Apple ever would discontinue Logic in the future, it would be because they have some other, better DAW to offer.

[WinterMute]

I think Digi need to respond to the raw power/price ratio that Mac/logic can bring to the problems of modern audio production, the workflow issue becomes secondary against the sheer amount of grunt an octacore Logic system has.

Inside info suggests that Digi are rebranding LE into M-audio, and Protools HD will be the only version actually available from them directly...

However, other intel (and the suspiciously Logic like look of PT8) also suggest that Digi may have been dealing with Apple for access to the code that allows the use of all 8 (and eventually 16) cores in the current Mac Pros, and that the new version of Protools will be a Mac only platform, which is in-line with dLight's thoughts on Apples position.

I've predicted a Protools version that is native, less hardware tied, Mac-only and multi-core capable, with a legacy PCI card to talk to the older TDM hardware. New interfaces will be FW800 and will not feature DSP chips as heavily.

I also predict a sub £2000 price point including multi-IO hardware and lots of plug-ins.

This effectively puts the choice back in the realms of creativity and which platform works best for your particular production style, not for your bank account.

I'm dreaming obviously, and being a MacRumors veteran has taught me that what we wish for is rarely what we get, but that often what we get is better than what we thought we wanted.

[dLight]

Digi may have been dealing with Apple for access to the code that allows the use of all 8 (and eventually 16) cores in the current Mac Pros
Interesting.... To "deal with" Apple to get access to that code shouldn't be necessary... and in OSX 10.6, due in a few months, one of the main changes we'll see is the implementation of "Grand Central", which "is designed to make it easier for application developers to take advantage of multiple CPU cores now being offered in computers. The technology works by splitting tasks into blocks and routing them to available processing cores efficiently. It attempts to let individual developers take advantage of a wide variety of different hardware that users might have at their disposal, without needing to become experts in multithreading themselves".

Anyway, all native audio apps need proper multi-core support, and the only 'bad' thing about Logic possibly getting it before the other DAWS, is that the wish/need to be 'cutting edge' in terms of supporting new Apple technology may mean that the implementation of new features may have to wait (just guessing here...)


New interfaces will be FW800 and will not feature DSP chips as heavily.
Isn't it more likely that high end systems should be based on Ethernet or Express cards (or USB3 / FW3200)?

Apple’s Grand Central threat to Microsoft
(http://blogs.zdnet.com/storage/?p=334)


Does anybody have the exact market share numbers?

I don't think any public market share numbers for Logic or Pro Tools exist.

The closest you get are probably polls like the one in this thread, and this:

The ultimate Logic / native / Pro Tools poll (http://www.gearslutz.com/board/music-computers/285702-ultimate-logic-native-pro-tools-poll.html)

[dLight]

The closest you get are probably polls like the one in this thread, and this:

The ultimate Logic / native / Pro Tools poll (http://www.gearslutz.com/board/music-computers/285702-ultimate-logic-native-pro-tools-poll.html)

..and this poll (http://www.gearslutz.com/board/high-end/329784-what-plugin-format-you-using-lets-get-numbers-3.html), which suggests that the TDM format is used by only 17% of all DAW users.

[dLight]

Inside info suggests that Digi are rebranding LE into M-audio, and Protools HD will be the only version actually available from them directly...


It seems that according to the new plans there will be no separate companies any more - they're all (including Digidesign) going to be called Avid:

New Avid Brand Identity, Product Announcements and an updated Avid.com (http://duc.digidesign.com/showthread.php?t=244428)

[motulist]

It seems that according to the new plans there will be no separate companies any more - they're all (including Digidesign) going to be called Avid:

New Avid Brand Identity, Product Announcements and an updated Avid.com (http://duc.digidesign.com/showthread.php?t=244428)

Interesting, I wasn't even aware that some of those brand names were part of the same parent company.

[seisend]

well, I don't think Logic will be the new standart in the next few years.. But I personally think logic is a much greater programm. I love working with logic.
also there is much hardware around which performs great with logic. I personally use the Apogee Ensemble interface and it is one of the best buy decisions i've ever made cause it works so great with mac and logic and the sound is just incredible !