Will LOGIC Replace PRO TOOLS?

[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?

 

[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?

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.

 

[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 )

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..

 

[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.