Logic Pro X and MainStage Updated With Alchemy Integration From Recent Acquisition

[Flight Plan]

So here's my problem with Logic:
It's only available on Mac.

And here's my problem with Mac:
1. I cannot put scads of hard drives or SSDs inside of any Mac

I want to buy an MBP, really, I do. But it is no longer the upper-crust of available hardware.

You see, I want a big screen and I have almost 3 TB of music plugin libraries.
Oh, hell; just read my signature. For several years now, the MBP has been less suitable for creative endeavors than any competent Windows gaming machine from Asus or Alienware.

So there. Flame away if you must. But you know I'm right.

 

[Flight Plan]

Perfectly said. I remember spending $300 on just EXS24 alone when I was on Logic Pro 6! That was before Apple stepped in of course. Now it's just included, along with every other ES software synth that used to cost $200-$300 each.

The price of Logic now is = $200 + Mac computer + extra hard drives (to support all the plugin libraries you have)
The computer + extra hard drives is required.
The computer + extra hard drives is the dongle.

 

[esaruoho]

Not, it's not about Camel Alchemy, it's about supporting and displaying EDM and Hip-Hop as the two target genre to be produced and featuring the presentation page with horrible false trap, dubstep and tech-house sound.
Except EDM these genre are an absolute disgrace, for any DAW, brand, or platform to condone, and here we're talking about Apple??
I could to a whole anti-Apple Music campaign just out of this screenshot if I was a concurrent company! It'd be effective as **** if people saw Apple associate itself with EDM, Trap, Tech-House, Dubstep and all those disgusting genre for a minority of american couch potato teens...

Hang on what the? You're saying that "Hip Hop is an absolute disgrace for any DAW brand or platform to condone?"

Dude, speak for yourself. Jay Dilla was an utter genius with his MPC. Same with Flying Lotus, etc.

The rest of your statements ("tech-House, Dubstep" "disgusting genres" "for minority of american couch potato teens...") is just simply beyond ridiculous.

I am glad that Logic Pro X has cool new features. I won't be using the Drummer feature, but I appreciate that it's there. It's probably a real lifesaver for a guitar- or a bass-player to practice with.

And they haven't done away with the Environment either, which is really important to have, for legacy purposes and for, well, other purposes.

I thought this thread was about LPX improvements, not about genre-hating.

Full disclosure: I've been making instrumental electronic listening music with Logic since 2001, and releasing music on CD + vinyl since 1999.

Regards your hatred of Trap, Dubstep, Tech-House, EDM, all I gotta say is this: if you don't like a genre, go make music that you like to hear.

 

[dysamoria]

So here's my problem with Logic:
It's only available on Mac.

And here's my problem with Mac:
1. I cannot put scads of hard drives or SSDs inside of any Mac

I want to buy an MBP, really, I do. But it is no longer the upper-crust of available hardware.

You see, I want a big screen and I have almost 3 TB of music plugin libraries.
Oh, hell; just read my signature. For several years now, the MBP has been less suitable for creative endeavors than any competent Windows gaming machine from Asus or Alienware.

So there. Flame away if you must. But you know I'm right.

You can't put "scads of drives" into any laptop.

My PC (formerly my DAW, before migrating to Mac) recently suffered a drive failure. Second time my data drive died. I hate opening the computer to replace drives (or fiddle with internals at all). I don't see the value in having internal drives.

 

[Edgar Spayce]

Hang on what the? You're saying that "Hip Hop is an absolute disgrace for any DAW brand or platform to condone?"

Dude, speak for yourself. Jay Dilla was an utter genius with his MPC. Same with Flying Lotus, etc.

The rest of your statements ("tech-House, Dubstep" "disgusting genres" "for minority of american couch potato teens...") is just simply beyond ridiculous.

I am glad that Logic Pro X has cool new features. I won't be using the Drummer feature, but I appreciate that it's there. It's probably a real lifesaver for a guitar- or a bass-player to practice with.

And they haven't done away with the Environment either, which is really important to have, for legacy purposes and for, well, other purposes.

I thought this thread was about LPX improvements, not about genre-hating.

Full disclosure: I've been making instrumental electronic listening music with Logic since 2001, and releasing music on CD + vinyl since 1999.

Regards your hatred of Trap, Dubstep, Tech-House, EDM, all I gotta say is this: if you don't like a genre, go make music that you like to hear.

I've never said that Hip-Hop is a disgrace, I'm saying some of today's Trap is a disgrace to the like of J Dee or Flying Lotus, that wobble Dubstep is a disgrace to original Dubstep, and that all EDM is disgrace to any music.

 

[MattBP]

I've never said that Hip-Hop is a disgrace, I'm saying some of today's Trap is a disgrace to the like of J Dee or Flying Lotus, that wobble Dubstep is a disgrace to original Dubstep, and that all EDM is disgrace to any music.

Mate... I never comment on threads but you need to shut your Trap before you look any more ignorant.

If you don't like it, don't listen to it. I can almost guarantee I don't like the music you like (nor do i like much EDM/Dance/Hip Hop).

Shock horror, the music industry changes as time goes on.

 

[ErikGrim]

Lol. Are you serious. Here is a list of the top 10 EDM artists of 2015 and their countries of origin (no particular order)

Alesso - Stockholm, Sweden
Martin Garrix - Amstelveen, Netherlands
Daft Punk - Paris, France
Calvin Harris - Dumfries, United Kingdom
Tiesto - Breda, Netherlands
Zedd - Kaiserslautern, Germany
Avicii - Stockholm Sweden
Deadmau5 - Toronto, Canada
Skrillex - Los Angeles, US
Swedish House Mafia - Stockholm, Sweden

Very US Centric with 1 out of 10 artists actually from the U.S... Just because you don't like a particular genre of music doesn't mean you can make **** up and pass it off as fact. Awesome generalizations about the EDM culture though, real classy.

Please do not lump Daft Punk in with those EDM artists.

 

[Ploki]

So here's my problem with Logic:
It's only available on Mac.

And here's my problem with Mac:
1. I cannot put scads of hard drives or SSDs inside of any Mac

I want to buy an MBP, really, I do. But it is no longer the upper-crust of available hardware.

You see, I want a big screen and I have almost 3 TB of music plugin libraries.
Oh, hell; just read my signature. For several years now, the MBP has been less suitable for creative endeavors than any competent Windows gaming machine from Asus or Alienware.

So there. Flame away if you must. But you know I'm right.

so, you want a desktop?
because I remember 17" laptops. they weren't portable. its not much of a difference if you carry a Mac Pro and a screen with you. And, retina can work @1920*1200, what resolution of 17" was...

3TB of plugin libraries?
What on earth do you do/which libraries do you have? And why do you need 3Tb of them?
64GB of RAM? For what, if you have 4TB SSD you can pretty much stream ANYTHING from disk. hell, even with my RAID0 USB3.0 HDD I can have Kontakt buffers as low as 12 or 24kB...

not to mention the overwhelming quality of physically modeled instruments as of lately.

 

[ErikGrim]

See R3k's post

CHAMPION!

 

[Ploki]

The price of Logic now is = $200 + Mac computer + extra hard drives (to support all the plugin libraries you have)
The computer + extra hard drives is required.
The computer + extra hard drives is the dongle.

That's just wrong on so many levels.
Computer is not a dongle. In that case, that holds true for every piece of software in existence, and it holds true for every cross platform application as well...

Extra hard-drives are not necessary. Or else, that holds true for every other piece of software in existence too.
Price of cubase by your logic is 500$ + computer + extra drives
Oh and speakers.
And audio interface.
And microphones.
And cables!
And chair, and desk.
And headphones.
And musicians!
All that is the price of Logic. But not cubase and pro tools, because you get all those things for free if you use windows. You also get OS for free and computer for free.

Price of logic is 200$ + computer + musicians + hot pockets once every while when you have to pull off an all-nighter.

As far as your library usage goes, you must have spent *WAY* beyond the price of an average macbook to collect 3TB of libraries.

 

[polaris20]

The price of Logic now is = $200 + Mac computer + extra hard drives (to support all the plugin libraries you have)
The computer + extra hard drives is required.
The computer + extra hard drives is the dongle.

The computer is required, regardless of what platform you use. Extra hard drives are not required. If you play real instruments, as I do, the sound libraries I do have and use fit just fine on a 512GB SSD, with tons of room to spare.

As for computing power, my Air gets over 40 tracks in Logic, my rMBP 15 over 70. If you can't get the job done with that, I'm not sure what the hell you're doing, but it's excessive, IMO.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

The price of Logic now is = $200 + Mac computer + extra hard drives (to support all the plugin libraries you have)
The computer + extra hard drives is required.
The computer + extra hard drives is the dongle.

I don't know about you mate, but my regular every day computer IS a Mac already, so it's no extra or dongle here. Try using something other than Windoze for once in your life and you'll find it's not so great t here as people seem to think. Frankly, other than gaming, I see no reason on earth I'd want to use a Windows computer. The malware is about 100,000x more common with most malware authors and hackers targeting that platform. I feel much safer doing shopping, banking, etc. on a Mac. Windows 10 is a virtual spyware festival in and of itself (Even with all sharing settings turned off, it's STILL sending data back to Microsoft and what that data is, we still don't know. See: http://www.zdnet.com/article/windows-10-sends-data-to-microsoft-despite-privacy-settings/ )

so, you want a desktop?
because I remember 17" laptops. they weren't portable. its not much of a difference if you carry a Mac Pro and a screen with you.

I'm sorry, but that statement is complete and utter horse poo and that's being kind. The 17" MBP was a whopping 2 INCHES larger than the 15" MBP diagonally and slightly heavier but still the shape of a very thin briefcase (you're not going to tell me that briefcases aren't portable now are you?) and if you think that somehow made it "not portable" to the point where you think carrying a Mac Pro (odd cylinder shape) PLUS a separate monitor and cables is "not much different"....well all I want to know is where can I get some of that stuff you're smoking?

And, retina can work @1920*1200, what resolution of 17" was...

WTF difference does THAT make? The point of a larger screen in many cases is not absolute resolution, but usable screen space and more importantly the ability to see what you're looking at better (since it's larger). The Retina Macs are somewhat disingenuous in the sense that they spend MOST of their time just doubling the size of text and other graphics. In a very real sense, they spend most of their time pretending they are HALF the resolution they actually are (try Windows at that resolution and see how TINY everything is and how damn hard it is to use it at all). Only specialized apps that take advantage of the extra resolution make any real use of it and WHEN it does, it's back to cramming ultra-high resolutions onto relatively small screens, which in the real world means when you watch 4k movies on a 40" screen, you better be sitting 2-4 feet away at most ( http://www.rtings.com/images/optimal-viewing-distance-television-graph-size.png ), otherwise you've wasted your money.

 

[Ploki]

I'm sorry, but that statement is complete and utter horse poo and that's being kind. The 17" MBP was a whopping 2 INCHES larger than the 15" MBP diagonally and slightly heavier but still the shape of a very thin briefcase (you're not going to tell me that briefcases aren't portable now are you?) and if you think that somehow made it "not portable" to the point where you think carrying a Mac Pro (odd cylinder shape) PLUS a separate monitor and cables is "not much different"....well all I want to know is where can I get some of that stuff you're smoking?



WTF difference does THAT make? The point of a larger screen in many cases is not absolute resolution, but usable screen space and more importantly the ability to see what you're looking at better (since it's larger). The Retina Macs are somewhat disingenuous in the sense that they spend MOST of their time just doubling the size of text and other graphics. In a very real sense, they spend most of their time pretending they are HALF the resolution they actually are (try Windows at that resolution and see how TINY everything is and how damn hard it is to use it at all). Only specialized apps that take advantage of the extra resolution make any real use of it and WHEN it does, it's back to cramming ultra-high resolutions onto relatively small screens, which in the real world means when you watch 4k movies on a 40" screen, you better be sitting 2-4 feet away at most ( http://www.rtings.com/images/optimal-viewing-distance-television-graph-size.png ), otherwise you've wasted your money.

17" macbook pro makes 15" retina look like a dwarf. It was large heavy and cumbersome.
Maybe i was going overboard with Mac Pro comparison but still, compared to 15" retina, its a behemoth.
Given the relative affordability of decent screens, 17" is a niche apple decided to ditch. Didn't know many who had one.

"WTF difference does THAT make? The point of a larger screen in many cases is not absolute resolution, but usable screen space"
Ugh. Usable screen space is very much linked to absolute resolution.
Point is, 15" retina is @1920*1200 as readable (or better even) as 17" old screen (which is currently the only viable comparison since there were no retina 17")

Frankly I use Logic X almost exclusively running it @1920*1200.

I know what HiDPI means... The "old" resolution is actually really relevant just for reference. With retina screens, it would make *much more sense* to use points instead of pixels; since the whole point of retina was, well, not being able to discern pixels, and points are actually referenced to DPI.
So, instead of upscaling WHOLE OS just to get more screen real-estate, programmers could start being smart and allow dynamic UI scaling instead...

 

[campyguy]

17" macbook pro makes 15" retina look like a dwarf. It was large heavy and cumbersome.
Maybe i was going overboard with Mac Pro comparison but still, compared to 15" retina, its a behemoth.
Given the relative affordability of decent screens, 17" is a niche apple decided to ditch. Didn't know many who had one.

I'm not going to beat you up over this post, you make a couple of valid points in your post.

I do, however, miss that "behemoth" as I resemble that remark - I owned a 2009 and 2011 17" MBP and would buy an updated new unit from Apple in a heartbeat, and so would my GF. She's 6'2", 140# and I'm 6'7", 250# - we both own 15" rMBPs and they're, well, a bit on the small side for both of us - mine is almost always in clamshell mode and attached to 2 27" displays, and I never take it out like I did with my 17" MBP.

Besides, when did you ever see a thief try to run out of a coffee shop with a 17" MBP - they'd get a hernia for the effort.

 

[Ploki]

I'm not going to beat you up over this post, you make a couple of valid points in your post.

I do, however, miss that "behemoth" as I resemble that remark - I owned a 2009 and 2011 17" MBP and would buy an updated new unit from Apple in a heartbeat, and so would my GF. She's 6'2", 140# and I'm 6'7", 250# - we both own 15" rMBPs and they're, well, a bit on the small side for both of us - mine is almost always in clamshell mode and attached to 2 27" displays, and I never take it out like I did with my 17" MBP.

Besides, when did you ever see a thief try to run out of a coffee shop with a 17" MBP - they'd get a hernia for the effort.

Yeah, I get that many miss it. And if it was retina, running it in at larger resolution would mean a lot of workspace.
2304*1440 or 2560*1600.

holy **** your GF is taller than me.

 

[nt5672]

17" macbook pro makes 15" retina look like a dwarf. It was large heavy and cumbersome.
Maybe i was going overboard with Mac Pro comparison but still, compared to 15" retina, its a behemoth.
Given the relative affordability of decent screens, 17" is a niche apple decided to ditch. Didn't know many who had one.

. . .

"behemoth", that depends, if all you do is check email, tweet, and scan reddit, then yes it is not worth it. If you use your computer commuting on the train or bus, then 17 inch is probably too big. Due to the confidential nature of the work I do, I cannot work on a plane or bus, but I do need to be productive at the client site.

Every time I have I have to lug the extra 2 pounds through the airport, I say, what the heck I should dump it. Then I go to the Apple store and pull up similar work and say no way I can be as productive with the smaller screen and smaller type. Some of the graphics work I do ends up being produced at 6 to 8 feet wide by 4 feet high. So for some of us, there is value in larger portable screens.

Like campyguy, I have several 17 inch MacBooks Pros all the way back to the original and in the past replaced them every 3 years (as soon as Applecare ran out.) Not any more, as someone said, Apple has abandoned me.