Logic Pro X(apple.com)
apple.com
Logic Pro X
http://www.apple.com/logic-pro/whats-new/
239 comments
Your comment is a bit like free jazz: it's all very impressive on the surface, but it doesn't really mean anything and ultimately one feels like it was just an exercise in ego massage.
Logic has long had a home in the 'pro' world at the songwriting and demo production stage. You'll be hard-pressed to find an engineer in a commercial studio doing tracking or mixing in anything other than Pro Tools (though they certainly exist), but Logic has a healthy following with artists themselves. When viewed through that lens, the changes made in this version are a pretty natural progression for the software: for the most part, they're aimed at the writing and tracking process.
With that in mind, the 'Drummer' feature is less 'Garageband-y' than it might look: it's a considerably more flexible alternative to the giant pool of pre-recorded beats (Apple Loops) that Logic has had for a long time. Such a tool is pretty useful to the songwriter putting a demo together, to the music-for-picture composer, to the ever-growing army of artists who ship off near-completed songs to musician-for-hire studios on the web. I'm sure I'm not the only one who's heard those loops in commercial recordings (often in TV music, which is composed under deadlines to tighter budgets). I'm looking forward to being able to have my temporary backing rhythm follow the sections of a song: far better than trying to find a matching loop or building a beat from scratch when all you want is to lay down a guitar part and focus on developing your idea.
Your argument about the bypass button is just silly. If you have a bunch of plugins open on screen at once, it's obviously better to be able to see, at a glance, which ones are on or off. The old way made that harder. Clearly you have never sat for half an hour tweaking a compressor, certain of the improvement it was making, only to realize the damn thing was in bypass the entire time.
I can see more Pro-oriented things in there than you: a redesigned channel strip that reorients itself according to signal flow. Meters that work. A scriptable MIDI processor. Flex pitch, or whatever they called it. I also see a crisper UI and a clever way to facilitate interaction with complex instruments and plugins (the Smart Control macro thingies).
Of course, I'm just an amateur, so I suppose my opinion doesn't count. I suspect that you are too, but perhaps I'm just more comfortable with it.
-----
EDIT: I guess my long-winded point is this: why does it matter whether you think the program is becoming 'easier to use' (the horror); all that should matter is whether the new features are meaningful to you, and whether it breaks anything you need at present.
I work in enterprise software by day, and our UX team is constantly looking to consumer software and devices for usability ideas. There is absolutely nothing inherently bad about making something difficult become easy to use. It cuts down on errors, makes people happier, decreases stress, and makes them more productive. All of these things are just as valuable in the studio as they are in the accounts receivable office. There is nothing 'pro' about making life difficult for yourself.
Logic has long had a home in the 'pro' world at the songwriting and demo production stage. You'll be hard-pressed to find an engineer in a commercial studio doing tracking or mixing in anything other than Pro Tools (though they certainly exist), but Logic has a healthy following with artists themselves. When viewed through that lens, the changes made in this version are a pretty natural progression for the software: for the most part, they're aimed at the writing and tracking process.
With that in mind, the 'Drummer' feature is less 'Garageband-y' than it might look: it's a considerably more flexible alternative to the giant pool of pre-recorded beats (Apple Loops) that Logic has had for a long time. Such a tool is pretty useful to the songwriter putting a demo together, to the music-for-picture composer, to the ever-growing army of artists who ship off near-completed songs to musician-for-hire studios on the web. I'm sure I'm not the only one who's heard those loops in commercial recordings (often in TV music, which is composed under deadlines to tighter budgets). I'm looking forward to being able to have my temporary backing rhythm follow the sections of a song: far better than trying to find a matching loop or building a beat from scratch when all you want is to lay down a guitar part and focus on developing your idea.
Your argument about the bypass button is just silly. If you have a bunch of plugins open on screen at once, it's obviously better to be able to see, at a glance, which ones are on or off. The old way made that harder. Clearly you have never sat for half an hour tweaking a compressor, certain of the improvement it was making, only to realize the damn thing was in bypass the entire time.
I can see more Pro-oriented things in there than you: a redesigned channel strip that reorients itself according to signal flow. Meters that work. A scriptable MIDI processor. Flex pitch, or whatever they called it. I also see a crisper UI and a clever way to facilitate interaction with complex instruments and plugins (the Smart Control macro thingies).
Of course, I'm just an amateur, so I suppose my opinion doesn't count. I suspect that you are too, but perhaps I'm just more comfortable with it.
-----
EDIT: I guess my long-winded point is this: why does it matter whether you think the program is becoming 'easier to use' (the horror); all that should matter is whether the new features are meaningful to you, and whether it breaks anything you need at present.
I work in enterprise software by day, and our UX team is constantly looking to consumer software and devices for usability ideas. There is absolutely nothing inherently bad about making something difficult become easy to use. It cuts down on errors, makes people happier, decreases stress, and makes them more productive. All of these things are just as valuable in the studio as they are in the accounts receivable office. There is nothing 'pro' about making life difficult for yourself.
I think the comment you're replying to rests on the assumption that it's not possible to optimize your interface for all levels of competency, i.e., changes that make an interface more beginner-friendly will necessarily limit the scope of possibilities available to power users or just make those possibilities more difficult to achieve. Not everyone agrees, of course, but it's not an unreasonable position. That said, although the Drummer feature looks a little bit silly, I agree with you in that I'm not seeing anything in this overview that indicates that the core functionality is being re-oriented in favor of beginner-friendliness.
(On a side note, the dig against free jazz seems unnecessary. It rarely makes sense to dismiss an entire genre of music as meaningless. Occam's Razor is a heuristic, not a law, but consider which of these hypotheses seems like the more reasonable choice to explain the datum "I don't hear anything meaningful in free jazz":
1. I am not concerned with or attuned to the musical priorities and structures that inform free jazz.
2. Everyone who derives meaning from free jazz, a group that includes some very skilled musicians, is wrong about it being meaningful.
The choice seems evident.)
(On a side note, the dig against free jazz seems unnecessary. It rarely makes sense to dismiss an entire genre of music as meaningless. Occam's Razor is a heuristic, not a law, but consider which of these hypotheses seems like the more reasonable choice to explain the datum "I don't hear anything meaningful in free jazz":
1. I am not concerned with or attuned to the musical priorities and structures that inform free jazz.
2. Everyone who derives meaning from free jazz, a group that includes some very skilled musicians, is wrong about it being meaningful.
The choice seems evident.)
As one of the other replies to your comment touched on, I am of the belief that it is very difficult to optimise a complex interface for all skill levels (while maintaining the same level of productivity for users at the high end).
You seem to be taking the term 'amateur' as dismissive or even insulting. I absolutely do not mean any offence by it, simply that it represents a shifting of focus of the application to a different group of users with a different set of needs. However, I see this group as already being served by something such as Garageband (perhaps with just a few additions of functionality).
I lament a truly great tool for high end users becoming watered down and less efficient for its established base, who know what they're doing and just need the interface to get out of the way as much as possible.
Regardless, I was attempting to express my genuine sadness and disappointment in one of my favourite tools becoming a bit less useful to users such as myself, I certainly didn't intend it to come across as an 'ego massage'.
You seem to be taking the term 'amateur' as dismissive or even insulting. I absolutely do not mean any offence by it, simply that it represents a shifting of focus of the application to a different group of users with a different set of needs. However, I see this group as already being served by something such as Garageband (perhaps with just a few additions of functionality).
I lament a truly great tool for high end users becoming watered down and less efficient for its established base, who know what they're doing and just need the interface to get out of the way as much as possible.
Regardless, I was attempting to express my genuine sadness and disappointment in one of my favourite tools becoming a bit less useful to users such as myself, I certainly didn't intend it to come across as an 'ego massage'.
I would encourage you to spend a bit of time with the new user manual for LPX. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised by what they've done: there's really nothing missing, concealed, or watered down; even the environment is still there. There are just some new ways to access that power.
Arguing about this stuff is all fun, but ultimately we're all musicians (among other things). Snarkiness doesn't help anyone, so I apologize if I caused any offense to you personally. I do stand by what I said about your comment though.
Arguing about this stuff is all fun, but ultimately we're all musicians (among other things). Snarkiness doesn't help anyone, so I apologize if I caused any offense to you personally. I do stand by what I said about your comment though.
Couldn't agree more - there are far more pro-oriented features in this release than the few flashy garageband-y one demoed with the marketing material of the release. I haven't had a chance to dive in yet, but as someone who works in Logic day-to-day (albeit part-time), i'm ecstatic about many of the upgrades they've detailed on http://www.apple.com/logic-pro/in-depth/.
I'm time-pressed in a very different way to you: I get just a few hours a week in when my family is asleep and my chores are complete. That's why I'm excited about this new stuff: it looks like it will increase the percentage of my limited studio time I can spend actually playing and singing.
The thing I'm most looking forward to? The iPad app. TouchOSC is great, but this looks like I'll be able to load new instruments and create new tracks! Perfect: I can sit on my big comfy chair far from my screen, guitar in my hands, ipad on the arm, and muck about like I used to with a Portastudio. I might even break my iron-clad "No Apple dot-zero version" rule.
The thing I'm most looking forward to? The iPad app. TouchOSC is great, but this looks like I'll be able to load new instruments and create new tracks! Perfect: I can sit on my big comfy chair far from my screen, guitar in my hands, ipad on the arm, and muck about like I used to with a Portastudio. I might even break my iron-clad "No Apple dot-zero version" rule.
If you want a Portastudio feel with Logic, ditch the iPad and use a Frontier AlphaTrack: http://www.frontierdesign.com/Products/AlphaTrack
Your comment is a bit like free jazz: it's all very impressive on the surface, but it doesn't really mean anything and ultimately one feels like it was just an exercise in ego massage.
all that should matter is whether the new features are meaningful to you, and whether it breaks anything you need at present.
It's all too rare that a person's conclusion directly contradicts their own thesis.
all that should matter is whether the new features are meaningful to you, and whether it breaks anything you need at present.
It's all too rare that a person's conclusion directly contradicts their own thesis.
I don't see any contradiction.
Checking if the new features matter to you, and your workflow is not "ego massage".
It's simply being honest about your needs and pragmatic.
The "ego massage" which the parent complaints about is a different thing, namely the: "I'm so pro, but Apple made it easier for amateurs, not 1337 like me, this sucks" kind of drivel.
Notice there was nothing about how it hampers HIS workflow, only high level, zero-content, judgements about it being easier for amateurs, the Drummer feature being toy like, the Garageband-pro meme, etc.
Not to mention that from the whole comment, one can easily deduce he hasn't even tried the software in person.
Checking if the new features matter to you, and your workflow is not "ego massage".
It's simply being honest about your needs and pragmatic.
The "ego massage" which the parent complaints about is a different thing, namely the: "I'm so pro, but Apple made it easier for amateurs, not 1337 like me, this sucks" kind of drivel.
Notice there was nothing about how it hampers HIS workflow, only high level, zero-content, judgements about it being easier for amateurs, the Drummer feature being toy like, the Garageband-pro meme, etc.
Not to mention that from the whole comment, one can easily deduce he hasn't even tried the software in person.
The contradiction is in promoting personal "meaning" (I'm guessing he actually means preference, though) in the composition of software features in an application, yet not allowing for the same to be a feature in the composition and practice of free jazz, a style he baldy denigrates as "meaningless." The only way this contradiction can be resolved positively for free jazz is if the style included pandering to his taste.
Well no, not really. My comment wasn't about free jazz, nor was it about meaning. I simply used a stereotype about free jazz as a tool with which to beat up the original comment.
Your interpretation is yours, and your choice to make a linkage between two usages of the word 'meaning' that weren't intended is also valid. I can't very well attack the original comment based on my reading of it and then ask you not to do the same to mine. That being said, my comment was structured like this:
1. Attention grabber: you're full of hot air. 2. This is why. 3. Here's a more mature way to think about pros, amateurs, and software.
I don't believe that the passing reference to a style of music has any real effect on the thrust of my argument.
I am slightly regretting picking on free jazz: its fans are, predictably, articulate. Perhaps I should have used Markov chain poetry instead of free jazz, then only the algorithms would be upset.
Your interpretation is yours, and your choice to make a linkage between two usages of the word 'meaning' that weren't intended is also valid. I can't very well attack the original comment based on my reading of it and then ask you not to do the same to mine. That being said, my comment was structured like this:
1. Attention grabber: you're full of hot air. 2. This is why. 3. Here's a more mature way to think about pros, amateurs, and software.
I don't believe that the passing reference to a style of music has any real effect on the thrust of my argument.
I am slightly regretting picking on free jazz: its fans are, predictably, articulate. Perhaps I should have used Markov chain poetry instead of free jazz, then only the algorithms would be upset.
These kind of insightful/thougful comments are one of the reasons I (still) love hackernews.
>You'll be hard-pressed to find an engineer in a commercial studio doing tracking or mixing in anything other than Pro Tools (though they certainly exist)
In the US, maybe. In Europe Cubase and Logic are very prominent in studios.
And even in the US studios, Logic is used a lot alonside Pro Tools, for it's MIDI editing.
In the US, maybe. In Europe Cubase and Logic are very prominent in studios.
And even in the US studios, Logic is used a lot alonside Pro Tools, for it's MIDI editing.
>I've been a long time Logic Pro user. Since the updates to Logic slowed to a trickle I've also been using Ableton Live a fair bit.
They never slowed. Logic had like 9 point updates, some with impressive new features (64-bit, OSC, etc).
>Unfortunately it seems Apple has gone in the direction of Garageband-ifiyng Logic; pushing it towards amateurs who want to easily piece together their musical ideas from other people's sounds. The interface is dominated by the flashy new features such as the 'Drummer' and 'Drum Kit Designer' which effectively let you combine a limited set of preset drum sounds with a limited set of preset drumming styles. The result is a similar 'toy' feel to that of Garageband.
No, it's not at all. Actually you never even get to see the "Drummer" and the "Drum Kit Designer" unless you need them. The Drummer is basically nothing more than a kick ass intelligent drum plugin, like Strike (by Digidesign), Studio Drummer (NI), etc.
Logic has all the power of Logic 9 AND tons of new stuff besides. In fact, for recording, playing and adjusting your own ideas, it has more power than ever, with new instruments, new editing functions (the melodyne like thing for one), MIDI mangling, Bass amps, etc.
The "using other people sounds" is such a small part of Logic that what you write doesn't even make sense. A meager few GB library of loops, that were there always.
In fact, if anything, it's the opposite: Live was from the start touted as an easy to use app to mange loops and beats, sampled or bought. It's very core is about mangling loops and keeping them in sync. And it's mostly geared towards electronic music, where "using other people's sounds" is a very big thing. Of course it has since added MIDI and other stuff, but Logic was an is an all around DAW -- and it's the one you see in most professional studios with the exception of Pro Tools (or, sometimes, alongside PT).
They never slowed. Logic had like 9 point updates, some with impressive new features (64-bit, OSC, etc).
>Unfortunately it seems Apple has gone in the direction of Garageband-ifiyng Logic; pushing it towards amateurs who want to easily piece together their musical ideas from other people's sounds. The interface is dominated by the flashy new features such as the 'Drummer' and 'Drum Kit Designer' which effectively let you combine a limited set of preset drum sounds with a limited set of preset drumming styles. The result is a similar 'toy' feel to that of Garageband.
No, it's not at all. Actually you never even get to see the "Drummer" and the "Drum Kit Designer" unless you need them. The Drummer is basically nothing more than a kick ass intelligent drum plugin, like Strike (by Digidesign), Studio Drummer (NI), etc.
Logic has all the power of Logic 9 AND tons of new stuff besides. In fact, for recording, playing and adjusting your own ideas, it has more power than ever, with new instruments, new editing functions (the melodyne like thing for one), MIDI mangling, Bass amps, etc.
The "using other people sounds" is such a small part of Logic that what you write doesn't even make sense. A meager few GB library of loops, that were there always.
In fact, if anything, it's the opposite: Live was from the start touted as an easy to use app to mange loops and beats, sampled or bought. It's very core is about mangling loops and keeping them in sync. And it's mostly geared towards electronic music, where "using other people's sounds" is a very big thing. Of course it has since added MIDI and other stuff, but Logic was an is an all around DAW -- and it's the one you see in most professional studios with the exception of Pro Tools (or, sometimes, alongside PT).
> pushing it towards amateurs who want to easily piece together their musical ideas from other people's sounds
Ableton Live is even more centered around building music around loops and samples. Obviously you can track and mix recorded instruments in it just as well, but the live composition view (as opposed to the more traditional, linear arrangement view) that gives Ableton 50% of its name cannot be understated.
Ableton Live is even more centered around building music around loops and samples. Obviously you can track and mix recorded instruments in it just as well, but the live composition view (as opposed to the more traditional, linear arrangement view) that gives Ableton 50% of its name cannot be understated.
What kind of music do you make? I've been wanting to try Ableton out but it kind of looks geared toward working with samples and MIDI. I mostly record guitars and all my instruments live with a mic. Is Ableton appropriate for recording and mixing recorded music? Would you say it is as powerful as Logic Pro 9 (my primary DAW)?
I've recorded all kinds of music in Ableton. The main thing you have to cope with is Ableton expects you to work with a constant tempo on a grid, although it doesn't force you to in any way. It's very easy to just record straight into it like any other multitrack DAW and turn off all the grids and quantization.
I'm still a fan of Logic Pro and will most likely buy the upgrade. My workflow gravitates towards Ableton for grid-based compositions (I do a lot of electronic music) and Logic for anything where I'm recording "real" instruments like guitar and vocals, because of Logic's great comping workflow.
I'm still a fan of Logic Pro and will most likely buy the upgrade. My workflow gravitates towards Ableton for grid-based compositions (I do a lot of electronic music) and Logic for anything where I'm recording "real" instruments like guitar and vocals, because of Logic's great comping workflow.
I make mainly hiphop beats and some experimental stuff, as well as recording and mixing hiphop artists. I've also recorded acoustic stuff. I would generally say that Logic would be a better choice for recording (though Ableton does have that capability). It's mixing and routing capabilities are fairly easy to use in simple cases, but it's more difficult to create complex setups than in Logic.
Where Ableton really excels (other than for live performance) is in productivity of compositing and production when working entirely within the application. It could be compared to using digital painting applications to create a work of visual art entirely in software.
Where Ableton really excels (other than for live performance) is in productivity of compositing and production when working entirely within the application. It could be compared to using digital painting applications to create a work of visual art entirely in software.
A friend of mine did the music & soundfx for FarCry 1 and the latest Hitman game. He's used bot protools and logic but used Ableton for Hitman.
So yes you can do the same with ableton.
So yes you can do the same with ableton.
Has anyone tried using Github to manage and share a Logic Pro project?
I work on music with someone 300 miles away and I'd love to have the power of git. Right now were both using different DAWs and export audio to dropbox. This release of Logic looks great and my partner is already using Logic so if I switch over and implemented git we could ideally be working off the same files all the time with version tracking, backups and branches.
I could see it potentially being very large though and merging audio files probably wouldn't be possible so maybe this is something that still needs to be built?
I work on music with someone 300 miles away and I'd love to have the power of git. Right now were both using different DAWs and export audio to dropbox. This release of Logic looks great and my partner is already using Logic so if I switch over and implemented git we could ideally be working off the same files all the time with version tracking, backups and branches.
I could see it potentially being very large though and merging audio files probably wouldn't be possible so maybe this is something that still needs to be built?
I've actually been storing my Logic projects on GitHub for a while. It works pretty well for the most part, but I do run into some issues when dealing with the size of the files. Perhaps Logic X shrinks them down in size a bit in comparison to Logic 9, but I doubt it.
Here's the repo if you are interested: https://github.com/jpsullivan/LogicProjects
One day I'd really like to make an open source album that people could fork to remix entirely new sounds. It'd also be nice to get some people talking about best practices when mixing. Perhaps a Logic Bootstrap if you will.
Here's the repo if you are interested: https://github.com/jpsullivan/LogicProjects
One day I'd really like to make an open source album that people could fork to remix entirely new sounds. It'd also be nice to get some people talking about best practices when mixing. Perhaps a Logic Bootstrap if you will.
I was also thinking about how cool open source albums would be! Your 'band' could now be 100 different people all spread out around the world. Then perhaps instead of an album being 'done' we'll just release v1.0.
I wonder if it would have the same issues as the "open source" collaborative cookie:
http://log.scifihifi.com/post/344372246/it-may-have-been-a-f...
>[Y]ou’ll probably recognize the "Dream Team" of expert bakers convened by Gundrum as his "open source" group falling into the same sorts of traps (a lack of coherent vision, a reluctance to discount any idea, an obsession with novel and exotic techniques, a mounting frustration as individual contributors struggle to be heard). In the end, they turn in a passable but uninspiring product, while the traditional R&D team wins the competition by acting on a bit of clever insight from its leader.
http://log.scifihifi.com/post/344372246/it-may-have-been-a-f...
>[Y]ou’ll probably recognize the "Dream Team" of expert bakers convened by Gundrum as his "open source" group falling into the same sorts of traps (a lack of coherent vision, a reluctance to discount any idea, an obsession with novel and exotic techniques, a mounting frustration as individual contributors struggle to be heard). In the end, they turn in a passable but uninspiring product, while the traditional R&D team wins the competition by acting on a bit of clever insight from its leader.
That's a really interesting point. IIRC in the Cathedral and The Bazaar[1] the author points out that a big part of the reason Linux was so successful is because Linus was such a master at running the project. Perhaps thats what these cookies were missing and perhaps an open source album would also need a 'Conductor' picking and choosing the best pull requests otherwise I could definitely see it resulting in lowest-common denominator blandness.
1. http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/homesteading/cathedral-baza...
1. http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/homesteading/cathedral-baza...
And then if you had an idea on how to improve the music, it would just be a nice fork-edit-pull request away from improving the album. Truly collaborative music could be really cool.
>And then if you had an idea on how to improve the music, it would just be a nice fork-edit-pull request away from improving the album. Truly collaborative music could be really cool.
Only artists don't usually like it when somebody else "improves" their music -- that's a recipy for havoc. They have what is called a "vision" for their piece, so that any improvement would have to play within that vision.
Not to mention that what's an "improvement" to one, is an abomination for another.
Only artists don't usually like it when somebody else "improves" their music -- that's a recipy for havoc. They have what is called a "vision" for their piece, so that any improvement would have to play within that vision.
Not to mention that what's an "improvement" to one, is an abomination for another.
> Truly collaborative music could be really cool.
Oh, the irony...
Oh, the irony...
This is what my partner and I are trying to do with instajams.com. We've just soft launched and are in the process of getting feedback from some friends, but the jamming portion of it is rock solid.
I'm sure this has been done a number of times before, but this group is comprised of two people who have never met in person: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bike_for_Three!
Yeah The Postal Service are another famous example: "The band's name was chosen due to the way in which it produced its songs. Tamborello wrote and performed instrumental tracks and then sent the DATs to Gibbard, who edited the song as he saw fit (adding his vocals along the way) and sent them back to Tamborello through the United States Postal Service."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Postal_Service
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Postal_Service
Git will always freak when you have large WAV files in there. Use git-media to offload that to an external file server: https://github.com/schacon/git-media
>It works pretty well for the most part, but I do run into some issues when dealing with the size of the files. Perhaps Logic X shrinks them down in size a bit in comparison to Logic 9, but I doubt it.
How would it "shrink" them? You record uncompressed audio in high resolution and bitrate. At the very best it could half them if it could use some loseless algorithm, but DAWs record and use AIFF and WAV.
How would it "shrink" them? You record uncompressed audio in high resolution and bitrate. At the very best it could half them if it could use some loseless algorithm, but DAWs record and use AIFF and WAV.
I've been toying with the idea of recording an open-source album, or at least recording the entire album the way I want and source-controlling it on Github at first. After the initial launch, I'd open-source it and start a whole remix side adventure with the album to see what happens. My only problem is lack of serious recording software, as all I have is a USB Blue Yeti mic and Garageband.
Yes. It works.
documentData is your project file. It includes the "code" needed to make your project go. This can be diffed, merged and branched with almost no effort. You will see the effects in Logic. You have to save & close Logic before doing the Git stuff, then reopen it to see your changes.
Everything else is pretty much binary WAV files. Logic is nice about creating new WAVs for every change you make, so while all the files do take up a bit of space it makes diffing a bit easier (manually, you can't `git diff` audio files).
BTW some friends and I are working on an service that does this, using Git and everything, and allowing you to use any DAW you wish: http://notepunch.com
documentData is your project file. It includes the "code" needed to make your project go. This can be diffed, merged and branched with almost no effort. You will see the effects in Logic. You have to save & close Logic before doing the Git stuff, then reopen it to see your changes.
Everything else is pretty much binary WAV files. Logic is nice about creating new WAVs for every change you make, so while all the files do take up a bit of space it makes diffing a bit easier (manually, you can't `git diff` audio files).
BTW some friends and I are working on an service that does this, using Git and everything, and allowing you to use any DAW you wish: http://notepunch.com
blend.io is trying to do that.
You just have to make sure to include all your samples in your project, in ableton you do that with the "Collect and save all" option, Logic has one but I don't remember how it is called.
You just have to make sure to include all your samples in your project, in ableton you do that with the "Collect and save all" option, Logic has one but I don't remember how it is called.
Do you happen to have an invite?
These guys do it.
https://www.gobbler.com/
https://www.gobbler.com/
I've been looking for something like that too, but the problem with this is the fact that everyone that wants to participate has to be on the same page and that includes third party plugins and instruments. Of course you can't assume that the guy you're working with has the same plugins. How could that be handled?
A bounced audio track won't allow a lot of deeper editing. Midi only doesn't tell the recipient anything about the instrument you used in your original version.
Of course I'm describing the issues from a perspective of someone who tends to rather work with synthesized material than recorded audio, which doesn't apply to every artist, yet it remains a very difficult problem, a dropbox folder or simple file exchange won't make it work in my opinion.
A bounced audio track won't allow a lot of deeper editing. Midi only doesn't tell the recipient anything about the instrument you used in your original version.
Of course I'm describing the issues from a perspective of someone who tends to rather work with synthesized material than recorded audio, which doesn't apply to every artist, yet it remains a very difficult problem, a dropbox folder or simple file exchange won't make it work in my opinion.
We currently work by mixing down everything and exporting the files to dropbox. And what you're describing is one of the main pain points I'd like to fix by using the same software and sharing the same project files.
Although idea of sharing music across the web sounds appealing in theory, as a musician, I personally wouldn't love the idea of working hard on something and 'web-collaborating' with a stranger and have them possibly add things to a song that I wouldn't like hearing in person.
On the other hand, the github idea is interesting. You "open-source" your music and allow others to fork it while still having some form of version control and rolling back if you don't like the changes or just want to revert to a different stage in the mix.
On the other hand, the github idea is interesting. You "open-source" your music and allow others to fork it while still having some form of version control and rolling back if you don't like the changes or just want to revert to a different stage in the mix.
I don't know what genres you're into but web-collaboration between strangers is standard in electronic music. Even among the professionals.
[deleted]
It seems Apple could in part address this by including iCloud support in Logic.
I'm surprised this hasn't been addressed yet, given:
1) How many professionals use Logic 2) How common it is for said professionals to pass tracks back and forth over email, im, Dropbox and other filesharing services
Maybe advertising such as service gives artists an unwarranted assumption of privacy and security vs. using something like email where there is less expectation and more assumed risk.
1) How many professionals use Logic 2) How common it is for said professionals to pass tracks back and forth over email, im, Dropbox and other filesharing services
Maybe advertising such as service gives artists an unwarranted assumption of privacy and security vs. using something like email where there is less expectation and more assumed risk.
Uploading/Downloading project files of a few GB, where a 300-400 MB can be added in just one additional session, doesn't work very well with iCloud and current BS connections.
So for a lot of people the experience would be subpar (with their 2-20MBps assymetric DSL etc). Not, Apple could only enabled for speedy connections (symmetric, fiber etc), but then tons of users would cry for being excluded.
That's not how Apple usually rolls.
I'd say than when the speeds are mature enough, in 4-5 years, there would be a version of Logic with iCloud support.
For now, they can leave it to third party providers, like Dropbox, so they get all the blame (and/or praise, for those that are content with that).
So for a lot of people the experience would be subpar (with their 2-20MBps assymetric DSL etc). Not, Apple could only enabled for speedy connections (symmetric, fiber etc), but then tons of users would cry for being excluded.
That's not how Apple usually rolls.
I'd say than when the speeds are mature enough, in 4-5 years, there would be a version of Logic with iCloud support.
For now, they can leave it to third party providers, like Dropbox, so they get all the blame (and/or praise, for those that are content with that).
Also surprised, perhaps they are issues with the content rights sharing audio/video on their servers? Thats the only thing I can think of. Getting into this market it would be a huge and important move for them to make.
As far as I can tell iCloud still has no sharing feature. I was really bummed as I'd love to be able to use that instead of Dropbox for managing Pages documents (mostly book manuscripts), but it just doesn't seem to be there yet.
we are working on a new app to make it easy to do music together over the internet. working hard to release a beta soon, but here is some prototype/early alpha info/demo: http://getbandhub.com
would love to hear from people that are interested in this - you can reach out directly to me [email protected]
would love to hear from people that are interested in this - you can reach out directly to me [email protected]
Looks like a neat project but I would like something that uses Logic.
why? would love to understand. what type of music do you do?
It doesn't matter what kind of music he does if Logic is what he uses for arrangement and play.
[deleted]
For a company that just threw out skeuomorphism as a design principle, the amount of drumkit, pedal, amp and mixing deck images this thing has is surprising.
The pitch correction stuff is cool - I dreamed of that sort of stuff a while ago, but never made any attempt to try to work out how it'd work. I wonder how it works with voices and the like, as opposed to string instruments.
The pitch correction stuff is cool - I dreamed of that sort of stuff a while ago, but never made any attempt to try to work out how it'd work. I wonder how it works with voices and the like, as opposed to string instruments.
It shouldn't be surprising. The real instruments aren't going anywhere and are found side by side with installations of Logic Pro. These images aren't archaic reminders of objects no longer used in daily life.
It's not like the iOS Phone app icon, which depicts the outline of a style of phone handset many people below a certain age have never seen or laid hands on.
It's not like the iOS Phone app icon, which depicts the outline of a style of phone handset many people below a certain age have never seen or laid hands on.
The fact that I've had an iPhone for 4 years now and didn't realize that that icon looked the way you described it is more a testament to muscle memory as a design principle over anything aesthetic.
At this point, the phone handset icon is barely even an icon – it's essentially become a pictogram or a hieroglyph. I don't see this as something to lament or resist, though. While it's beneficial to know the visual etymology of the symbol, it's no more critical to understanding it than knowing the etymology of any of the words you use in normal conversation.
Just like how the 3.5 inch floppy disk has become the iconographic symbol for 'save'...
I swear I recall (probably on the excellent createdigitalmusic.com) a quote from an Apple engineer around the release of Logic 9 saying that musicians consistently rate skeutomorphic plugins as sounding better than flatter counterparts.
Pro Audio software has always been ground zero for skeuomorphism.
Look no further than Propellerhead's Reason for a striking example. The software models everything, from the dials and switches of audio equipment all the way to the back of the rack, where audio cables are connected as desired (complete with hanging cable physics). Of course, it can be argued how much of this is truly skeumorphic, because most of it retains the actual functionality of the original real-life audio components.
It's unlikely the Logic Pro team were disclosed on the iOS 7 design direction before WWDC. Even if there was a push to "flatten" Logic, it would have been too late in the cycle to do it for this release.
Well Pro Apps are kind of an exception as you usually are trying to emulate the exact properties of very specific hardware. Amp and synthesizer simulators seem more real if you have an accurate UI analog to the real hardware.
Not exactly. Sadly this is one of those instances where a concise point isn't an accurate one.
Sequencers (Logic Pro, Cubase, etc) were originally built to work along side classic studio hardware. And while more and more studios these days go all software, the sequencer paradigm has stuck because it largely works. You're also right that many soft-synths / virtual instruments are there to emulate real hardware, but there's also plugins like tone generators which are quite a departure from the classic studio paradigm.
Aside sequencers, you can get other types of DAWs like trackers which, trigger digital audio projects like one would with a sequencer; except trackers have a completely digital approach (watching a tracker play is more akin to watching a hex dump scroll down a terminal emulator than watching waveforms scroll horizontally across a sequencer). Then there's DAWs based around programming which are as far removed from skeuomorphism as you can get. But those are very much a niche product.
Also let's not forget that the old studios wouldn't have had anything akin to modern audio editors (Soundforge, Audacity, etc). That's a very modern concept. However because we have adopted the old play/stop symbols that have existed on audio hardware for decades, and because oscilloscopes have made us very aware of waveforms, audio editors often look skeuomorphic even when they're really not (or perhaps it makes more sense to say that they are skeuomorphic, but not out of design - out of necessity due to sound being a wave).
Sequencers (Logic Pro, Cubase, etc) were originally built to work along side classic studio hardware. And while more and more studios these days go all software, the sequencer paradigm has stuck because it largely works. You're also right that many soft-synths / virtual instruments are there to emulate real hardware, but there's also plugins like tone generators which are quite a departure from the classic studio paradigm.
Aside sequencers, you can get other types of DAWs like trackers which, trigger digital audio projects like one would with a sequencer; except trackers have a completely digital approach (watching a tracker play is more akin to watching a hex dump scroll down a terminal emulator than watching waveforms scroll horizontally across a sequencer). Then there's DAWs based around programming which are as far removed from skeuomorphism as you can get. But those are very much a niche product.
Also let's not forget that the old studios wouldn't have had anything akin to modern audio editors (Soundforge, Audacity, etc). That's a very modern concept. However because we have adopted the old play/stop symbols that have existed on audio hardware for decades, and because oscilloscopes have made us very aware of waveforms, audio editors often look skeuomorphic even when they're really not (or perhaps it makes more sense to say that they are skeuomorphic, but not out of design - out of necessity due to sound being a wave).
I'm not sure what you mean when you mention DAWs based around programming. Are you referring to things like Reaktor, Max, and PD?
I was thinking more text based ones like Overtone[1], but I'd completely forgotten about DAWs like the ones you've mentioned. Nice spot :)
[1] http://vimeo.com/22798433
[1] http://vimeo.com/22798433
There's the argument that the quirkiness of the original hardware control methods translated into unique sounds and programming.
If you look at something like a 303 which was originally designed to be a bass guitar support for guitarists, and ended up being the sound of Acid House; you'd be less likely to produce that method of programming if it were set up like a standard synth.
If you look at something like a 303 which was originally designed to be a bass guitar support for guitarists, and ended up being the sound of Acid House; you'd be less likely to produce that method of programming if it were set up like a standard synth.
I still can't believe they actually thought that thing was going to sound like a real bass guitar.
Right!
If you want flat use Ableton Live. They've been flat since before flat was cool, and it's a much better DAW IMO.
Ableton's not just about flat/cool/design. It's about providing proper UI controls. Why waste half your screen with gigantic knobs that make input a pain? Instead, a label and a value is all you need. Why have a long selector switch if a dropdown suffices? If you want hardware, then buy a hardware controller with little displays so you can get all hands-on.
When setting up really complex sounds and devices, I can't imagine any other approach. How do you represent a device that contains, say, 10 sub-devices? Ableton makes it super clear to setup and inspect.
Unfortunately, it seems like few other companies agree with this approach and spend lots of effort drawing backgrounds and rendering knobs and switches.
I think it's a hold over from the days when to experiment with sounds, you actually did have to go plugging various cables in and playing with knobs.
When setting up really complex sounds and devices, I can't imagine any other approach. How do you represent a device that contains, say, 10 sub-devices? Ableton makes it super clear to setup and inspect.
Unfortunately, it seems like few other companies agree with this approach and spend lots of effort drawing backgrounds and rendering knobs and switches.
I think it's a hold over from the days when to experiment with sounds, you actually did have to go plugging various cables in and playing with knobs.
I think "much better DAW" is sort of glossing over the differences between the two. I wouldn't want to stare at Ableton all day when composing (but I have) because their interface is kind of a mess; I don't really dig the clip metaphor for that. On the other hand, the clip metaphor is great for screwing around, seeing what meshes well, and (obviously) playing live.
Both are very good at only somewhat related tasks. But fanboyism always sucks.
Both are very good at only somewhat related tasks. But fanboyism always sucks.
> For a company that just threw out skeuomorphism as a design principle
No, only the iOS team did. And bets are still up to whether it was a good decision or a catastrophe for the iOS platform.
No, only the iOS team did. And bets are still up to whether it was a good decision or a catastrophe for the iOS platform.
I don't know about catastrophe but it's sad that Apple put that much manpower into pleasing a small but vocal minority of bloggers.
Normal users really don't prioritize the faux leather vs flat issue that much - for them features count more.
Normal users really don't prioritize the faux leather vs flat issue that much - for them features count more.
No one seriously believed they are trying to appease bloggers. They obviously agree with the bloggers!
Nah, OSX Mavericks shows the same direction. That said, it's no secret that both operating systems are moving towards unity (as in being together, not ubuntu).
Since most of the skeumorphic audio units are trying to emulate real life instruments and effects, having a similar interface actually makes them easier to use. It's great that I can pull up a fender amp in amp designer and it has the same controls and behavior I'm used to.
The pitch corrections stuff works by using Fourier Transforms to determine what frequencies of a sound have the most energy at any given moment, which can be used to determine pitch. Then, to transform the pitch, they (most likely) use an algorithm/process called Granular Resynthesis (not to be confused with Granular Synthesis, which is related but used for a very different purpose).
DAWs and VSTs have always had an incredible amount of skeumorphism, sometimes to the detriment of the user experience. Nearly every VST I've used will try to recreate the feel of analog knobs and buttons rather than more sensible design choices.
[deleted]
The price tag really reflects that the music industry is the poorest of all creative industries (aka video, photo, 3D and web). When i think about all the genius algorithms and technologies that products like Ableton or logic Pro ship it really saddens me.
As with many of Apple's recent price drops (OSX, iWork, etc. etc.) I think it's a highly strategic and intentional move, not reflective of the greater market, but showing that Apple is enabling the larger success of their brand by enabling more people to purchase and use these pro apps at a lower price point. Plus, it will sell Macs, both laptops and Mac Pros. Smart.
Plus, it will sell Macs, both laptops and Mac Pros. Smart.
Plus? No, _first_. Apple is a hardware company. They sell computers. Their software, while excellent and profitable, IMO exists only to sell more hardware.
All companies have a core competency & purpose. Everything else must feed that core; a product may be excellent on its own, but must still support the core. Deviate from that core, badness happens. Logic Pro is awesome on its own, but was created to give a niche a reason to buy into the Apple ecosystem, buy hardware, and buy more hardware.
Plus? No, _first_. Apple is a hardware company. They sell computers. Their software, while excellent and profitable, IMO exists only to sell more hardware.
All companies have a core competency & purpose. Everything else must feed that core; a product may be excellent on its own, but must still support the core. Deviate from that core, badness happens. Logic Pro is awesome on its own, but was created to give a niche a reason to buy into the Apple ecosystem, buy hardware, and buy more hardware.
This strategy benefits Apple, but screws over independent software developers/vendors.
Look at the top 10 apps in the Mac App Store. That list is always dominated by Apple's applications like Logic and iWork because of this pricing strategy. Nobody else can afford to sell a DAW for $200 and make money. IMHO it's some kind of anti-competitiveness but I don't know if there's a term for it. Maybe it's just a fact of life when Apple owns and controls the entire software/hardware ecosystem.
Look at the top 10 apps in the Mac App Store. That list is always dominated by Apple's applications like Logic and iWork because of this pricing strategy. Nobody else can afford to sell a DAW for $200 and make money. IMHO it's some kind of anti-competitiveness but I don't know if there's a term for it. Maybe it's just a fact of life when Apple owns and controls the entire software/hardware ecosystem.
Of course others can afford it. Whether they want to is another matter, but other companies like Propellerheads make lots of money selling software in the same price range.
Also, don't forget that most of the Apple Pro Apps came about because pretty much none of the creative market vendors were initially on board with OSX, that only happened later when they saw OSX grow.
Also, don't forget that most of the Apple Pro Apps came about because pretty much none of the creative market vendors were initially on board with OSX, that only happened later when they saw OSX grow.
Are the existing DAWs really hurting since Apple dropped their price? Live, Pro Tools, Reason, etc. seem to be doing well.
Are many independent developers really in the business of creating DAWs anyway? There seem to be far more developing instrument/effect plugins. The more people that use DAWs, the larger the market for plugins becomes. The net effect for independent developers could be positive.
Besides, if independent developers cannot find a way to compete, perhaps they should reconsider their business. It's not like they're competing with Microsoft's monopoly in the 80s and 90s. There are many other platforms (some much more popular than Apple desktop) on which they can develop, and Apple won't compete with them there. That's still a huge potential market share.
Are many independent developers really in the business of creating DAWs anyway? There seem to be far more developing instrument/effect plugins. The more people that use DAWs, the larger the market for plugins becomes. The net effect for independent developers could be positive.
Besides, if independent developers cannot find a way to compete, perhaps they should reconsider their business. It's not like they're competing with Microsoft's monopoly in the 80s and 90s. There are many other platforms (some much more popular than Apple desktop) on which they can develop, and Apple won't compete with them there. That's still a huge potential market share.
I would argue that having the type of professional software that only companies like Apple can develop, available at an affordable price, is a great win for consumers.
Companies will find ways to compete. Just look at the $30-$50 apps that emulate stripped down versions of Photoshop (Acorn, Pixelmator) - yeah, they aren't near the full feature set of PS, but they get 90% of us what we need and for way less money. I'm sure audio apps already have some of this going on in the market.
Companies will find ways to compete. Just look at the $30-$50 apps that emulate stripped down versions of Photoshop (Acorn, Pixelmator) - yeah, they aren't near the full feature set of PS, but they get 90% of us what we need and for way less money. I'm sure audio apps already have some of this going on in the market.
Both Ableton and Reason are over $400 and tons of musicians still choose those over Logic. For many, price is not the only consideration when picking a DAW and there are plenty of developers selling mere VSTs, not even DAWs, at $200/pop.
That's not totally true. I've heard from several professional musicians who use Reaper ( http://www.reaper.fm/ ) and it sells for $225.
Reaper also has the excellent discounted license for $60 which covers a lot of musicians who would otherwise be forced by the singular license of Reason / Logic Pro / Ableton Live.
> That list is always dominated by Apple's applications
I haven't looked, but I bet the Microsoft equivalent is (will be?) dominated by their apps, like the Office suite. It's not unfair, it's just the reality of such markets.
A supermarket's home brand would probably also be the most successful brand in their stores, too.
I haven't looked, but I bet the Microsoft equivalent is (will be?) dominated by their apps, like the Office suite. It's not unfair, it's just the reality of such markets.
A supermarket's home brand would probably also be the most successful brand in their stores, too.
Requires: OS X v10.8.4 or later
Lots of people will need a new mac for this. I know I can't run it on my Mac Pro 1,1
Lots of people will need a new mac for this. I know I can't run it on my Mac Pro 1,1
There is a way to get Mountain Lion on your MP, which is I think the only reason you can't have LPX. It looks a tad tricky (and it's not recommended if your 1,1 is in any way connected to your ability to earn money) but you can do it by mucking about with hard drives and the installer images.
Kicks off here: http://9to5mac.com/2012/07/23/mountain-lion-installed-on-a-m...
Kicks off here: http://9to5mac.com/2012/07/23/mountain-lion-installed-on-a-m...
Thanks, I'll check that out.
Logic has been $200 for a while. Even though Logic uses Audio Unit plugins, I don't think there is really any substitute for physical hardware. You can get this to run a project on the cheap, but it's still going to cost you $1000+ for a good mic and +600+ hardware like compressors, limiters, equalizers, monitors, and mixing boards. Plus you have to get cabling, power conditioners and cases to hold and connect everything. My last "Home Studio" ran me nearly $10,000; Logic was the cheapest thing I had to buy and that's when it was around $700.
>Logic has been $200 for a while. Even though Logic uses Audio Unit plugins, I don't think there is really any substitute for physical hardware.
You may not, but most of the productions, from the Billboard top-100 to independent stuff, are choke full of plugins. And a lot of "physical hardware" can't be told apart when A/B with quality plugins (Waves, UAD etc).
>You can get this to run a project on the cheap, but it's still going to cost you $1000+ for a good mic and +600+ hardware like compressors, limiters, equalizers, monitors, and mixing boards. Plus you have to get cabling, power conditioners and cases to hold and connect everything. My last "Home Studio" ran me nearly $10,000; Logic was the cheapest thing I had to buy and that's when it was around $700.
If you want to record Led Zeppelin, maybe.
For a 4-piece rock band, Logic, a mixing board, a audio interface, a pair of monitors, a few mikes, stands, rack unit etc, will do it for around $3000-$4000.
And for electronic music (including hip-hop), you can just make do with Logic, an audio interface, headphones, monitors, a MIDI keyboard and one-two mikes, for around $1500 total.
You may not, but most of the productions, from the Billboard top-100 to independent stuff, are choke full of plugins. And a lot of "physical hardware" can't be told apart when A/B with quality plugins (Waves, UAD etc).
>You can get this to run a project on the cheap, but it's still going to cost you $1000+ for a good mic and +600+ hardware like compressors, limiters, equalizers, monitors, and mixing boards. Plus you have to get cabling, power conditioners and cases to hold and connect everything. My last "Home Studio" ran me nearly $10,000; Logic was the cheapest thing I had to buy and that's when it was around $700.
If you want to record Led Zeppelin, maybe.
For a 4-piece rock band, Logic, a mixing board, a audio interface, a pair of monitors, a few mikes, stands, rack unit etc, will do it for around $3000-$4000.
And for electronic music (including hip-hop), you can just make do with Logic, an audio interface, headphones, monitors, a MIDI keyboard and one-two mikes, for around $1500 total.
Unless you plan on making your own vocal or acoustic instrument samples, most of that equipment isn't necessary.
Samples? Some of us record audio tracks, we don't use MIDI for everything.
For example, if you want to record your band at home, you might have six microphones just to get started (vocals, guitar, bass, snare, kick, and drum overhead). Outboard limiters and microphone preamps are not out of the question.
On the other hand, if you do everything with software samplers and synthesizers, then you just need a computer, Logic, and some headphones.
For example, if you want to record your band at home, you might have six microphones just to get started (vocals, guitar, bass, snare, kick, and drum overhead). Outboard limiters and microphone preamps are not out of the question.
On the other hand, if you do everything with software samplers and synthesizers, then you just need a computer, Logic, and some headphones.
You missed how much it costs... perhaps $500 for pro grade audio per channel. So he's talking about $3K so far.
Now you'll argue that a bottom of the barrel high end amateur grade mic might be only $50. But you'll still need cables, probably a preamp, some kind of (expensive) interface box to input 6 audio channels in phase (can't just plug in 3 stereo usb sound adapters... well, usually...). A decent stand or boom is probably $75 for a hunk of metal. Suddenly paying $50 for a cheap mic is false economy if the support infrastructure is setting you back $300... may as well buy a decent $200 class mic... to go with your $200 software.
Unless you're solely a vocal group you'll probably need to mic and input instruments.
My sister used to play the viola (more or less a big violin). A pro grade mic costs $400. Not a viola with a mic installed. Not a package deal of mic and cable and preamp and all that. No, just the custom designed weirdly mounted mic. Before permanent professional installation of course. This is probably an extreme, obviously its hard to mic a stringed instrument without screwing up the resonance sounds while the musicians face is inches away from the mic. I bet you could mic a brass instrument for a quarter the cost.
Now you'll argue that a bottom of the barrel high end amateur grade mic might be only $50. But you'll still need cables, probably a preamp, some kind of (expensive) interface box to input 6 audio channels in phase (can't just plug in 3 stereo usb sound adapters... well, usually...). A decent stand or boom is probably $75 for a hunk of metal. Suddenly paying $50 for a cheap mic is false economy if the support infrastructure is setting you back $300... may as well buy a decent $200 class mic... to go with your $200 software.
Unless you're solely a vocal group you'll probably need to mic and input instruments.
My sister used to play the viola (more or less a big violin). A pro grade mic costs $400. Not a viola with a mic installed. Not a package deal of mic and cable and preamp and all that. No, just the custom designed weirdly mounted mic. Before permanent professional installation of course. This is probably an extreme, obviously its hard to mic a stringed instrument without screwing up the resonance sounds while the musicians face is inches away from the mic. I bet you could mic a brass instrument for a quarter the cost.
That was exactly my point. If you pay $500 per channel, and maybe $1k for monitors, $1k for the computer, $1k for a MIDI controller, that's already $6k. Another $4k could easily get eaten up by room treatments, misc hardware like mic stands and cables, control interfaces, patch bays, etc. So $10k is reasonable, and if that's reasonable, then the difference between $200 Logic and $60 is not all that great.
Never mind the fact that if you actually earn a living doing this, the Reaper license is $225 anyway.
P.S. I think the $50 for a cheap mic is too low, and $100 is the lowest you should pay (probably for an SM57).
P.P.S. There are lots of ways to mic a Viola, no need to get a special Viola mic.
Never mind the fact that if you actually earn a living doing this, the Reaper license is $225 anyway.
P.S. I think the $50 for a cheap mic is too low, and $100 is the lowest you should pay (probably for an SM57).
P.P.S. There are lots of ways to mic a Viola, no need to get a special Viola mic.
Yeah then you need real instruments which aren't cheap either. Along with that you need a way to record your instruments to a digital or analog format. Unless your a street performer that's playing drums on old buckets and trash cans and not recording anything, it's going to cost more than the $200 for a DAW. My point is that making music is not as cheap as people think it is.
I think it's all about demand, that's why prices are lower, these days demand is a lot more than before, and everything is really accessible.
With that being said, it's not cheap if you add other things you have to buy, studio monitors, a fast computer, and good midi keyboard (and that's the minimum for a full in-the-box musician).
With that being said, it's not cheap if you add other things you have to buy, studio monitors, a fast computer, and good midi keyboard (and that's the minimum for a full in-the-box musician).
I reckon you're looking at $1000 including software but excluding the laptop, basically; say $100-150 for decent headphones, $200-250 for monitors, $100 for a workable MIDI controller, $150 for an audio interface (something from M-Audio or Focusrite, say). That leaves around $350-400 for software, a cheap mic, stands, cables etc.
(And you'll probably want at least one more controller, whether a Launchpad-style thing, a fader box, or Akai pads.)
(And you'll probably want at least one more controller, whether a Launchpad-style thing, a fader box, or Akai pads.)
Apple sells Logic at cut rate prices to help sell their hardware. Other comparable packages cost much more. The music software business is pretty tough, but not as tough as this alone would suggest.
Apple stuff is expensive = Bad
Apple stuff is cheap = Bad
LOGIC!!!
LOGIC!!!
Logic is one of the cheapest (if not the cheapest) of the higher end DAWs out there. Combine that with the amount of plugins and sounds it ships with at that price tag and I think its one of the best options out there.
I'm not disagreeing with that, but with people that complains Apple stuff is expensive, except when it's not and they still complain for the opposite reason...
There's a bit of truth in there. But my remark was more general than just apple's product. The audio software industry is extremely poor compared to the difficulty of the algorithmic it has to deal with. It's the only computer tools i know that needs sub 50ms latency all the time, with extremely complex mathematic computations, along with an extremely and intuitive GUI.
A proof of that is that android still doesn't have descent audio performance. Yet it is able to do everything else.
A proof of that is that android still doesn't have descent audio performance. Yet it is able to do everything else.
Well, with Photoshop you don't really have competition. There are a lot of players in the music editing business. Competition = lower prices.
As someone that doesn't own any apple products, do you recommend any decent alternatives?
[ADDED]
Thanks for adding those, I was looking at them after I wrote my question. Its kind of hard to know which is a solid option from the reviews and what I'm seeing online.
[ADDED]
Thanks for adding those, I was looking at them after I wrote my question. Its kind of hard to know which is a solid option from the reviews and what I'm seeing online.
GIMP isn't bad.
It isn't bad.
It also isn't Photoshop.
It also isn't Photoshop.
I love FOSS but GIMP is ridiculously bad.
What makes it worse is that I can't find an alternative choice.
I wouldn't jump to that conclusion, Mac software is priced as bait for Apple hardware. Professional recording equipment is very expensive, and high-end producers have no qualms spending a few grand on Pro Tools plugins. Logic isn't the Photoshop of recording, it's more like Sketch.
People use Pro Tools because PT has been the industry standard for years. For tracking and mixing PT11 is pretty good. Some people master using PT, others prefer something like Sequoia.
For MIDI work PT is several years behind Cubase, Logic and Ableton. Everybody has their own favorite. I've found Logic to fit my workflow very well and is not any less of a professional tool than the other DAWs I mentioned.
For MIDI work PT is several years behind Cubase, Logic and Ableton. Everybody has their own favorite. I've found Logic to fit my workflow very well and is not any less of a professional tool than the other DAWs I mentioned.
All of these are lightyears behind Mark of the Unicorn Digital Performer for midi work.
Logic btw is horrible for external midi or was at least up till version 9. I've lost count the times it mess's up with my virus ti.
Logic btw is horrible for external midi or was at least up till version 9. I've lost count the times it mess's up with my virus ti.
Photoshop could never inspire me to do anything artistic.
[deleted]
Exciting addition, almost missed it:
Scripter
Extensible plug-in that can process or generate MIDI data using standard JavaScript.
Scripter
Extensible plug-in that can process or generate MIDI data using standard JavaScript.
This caught me by surprise too while looking through the midi fx drop down. Got it to repeat the note I play in a nice (not quite musical yet) pattern. Pretty excitig! I'd love to hear ideas for creative uses of this thing apart from making clever arps.
I know this is a niche feature but I think it's an important differentiator (and something that I love After Effects for).
I'm probably the only person who's excited to code up my own Arpeggiators and Rhythm pattern generators...
I'm probably the only person who's excited to code up my own Arpeggiators and Rhythm pattern generators...
I don't even know what an Arpeggiator is, sounds cool though.
If you play a chord into an arpeggiator, it... well, it arpeggiates it. In other words, it plays each note of the chord individually in a particular rhythm (e.g. 16th notes) in a particular pattern (e.g. up/down, up, random). Very, very common in electronic music.
One of the drummer demos is very reminiscent of "A Sorta Fairytale" by Tori Amos:
http://cl.ly/163g410m402w
Just a tad faster and the kick is more busy, but very much the same feel.
http://cl.ly/163g410m402w
Just a tad faster and the kick is more busy, but very much the same feel.
I think this is going to push me fully over the edge to record my non-EDM music on the Mac. I had been teetering between FL Studio & Sonar on Windows and various OSX-based DAWs for this purpose and am ready to settle on something permanent. Logic adoption has been growing substantially and I feel 100% safe jumping head-first into the Logic ecosystem.
In general, I've been a Mac user for everything but production for over a decade and am so sick of keeping a Windows machine running for sake of production. I don't think I could switch over for EDM/hip-hop though, as my workflow is so engrained in FL Studio and I use so many advanced controls and features.
In general, I've been a Mac user for everything but production for over a decade and am so sick of keeping a Windows machine running for sake of production. I don't think I could switch over for EDM/hip-hop though, as my workflow is so engrained in FL Studio and I use so many advanced controls and features.
Curious, have you ever considered Reaper? I'm considering making the jump over the course of the next year or so (switching DAWs is such a pain).
I've never heard of Reaper -- I'll have to look into it!
Switching is a serious pain, especially when music is a free-time hobby and you want to spend that time actually creating and not learning new tools and workflows.
Switching is a serious pain, especially when music is a free-time hobby and you want to spend that time actually creating and not learning new tools and workflows.
I moved from PCs to recording non-EDM music on Logic in 2009. It's perfect.
Can any musicians in the know about music software comment on how this compares to say, Ableton Live?
I've used a lot of DAWs. Namely Logic, Sonar, Nuendo, Protools, Reason, Ableton, FLStudio and Reaper. And my conclusion is that Reaper is by far the best. Your opinion may be different, but give it a try. It has a free trial period and the full version is very cost effective. Add in the SWS extensions and the scripting support (I'm using python) and it becomes very powerful. Put the House of White Tie skin on it, add in some reamote slaves and combine with the fact that it is rock solid and never crashes... and you have, IMHO, what is currently the worlds best DAW.
As a Cubase user who generally likes Cubase, but is considering switching to Ableton for the primary purpose of using Macro controls... would Reaper be likely to meet me needs?
Specifically, I'm talking about having one "knob" or control that controls multiple parameters across multiple VSTs, with varying ranges. Can Reaper do that? The fact that Ableton can, and Cubase can't, is pretty much the only reason I'm thinking of switching.
Specifically, I'm talking about having one "knob" or control that controls multiple parameters across multiple VSTs, with varying ranges. Can Reaper do that? The fact that Ableton can, and Cubase can't, is pretty much the only reason I'm thinking of switching.
And for those wondering about Reaper, it's from Winamp creator Justin Frankel. Dude makes some awesome software.
Could you elaborate a bit on what you can do with scripting in Reaper? That sounds very interesting.
You can use it for all kinds of things. I use it for automating repetitive UI tasks. Say, taking a high-hat track, finding a high-hat transient, splitting all the drum tracks on that point, grouping those drums takes into a group for editing and moving onto the next transient. That's a bit derived, but anywhere where you find yourself manually repeating UI actions over and over again, you can save yourself hours by scripting it. You can save your scripts as actions and then even bind them to a key.
Yes. I've used both extensively.
They share some qualities, but as the name suggests, Ableton Live is really geared towards live performance use. Logic is more for straight-up production. I mean, people use Ableton Live for production, but I think Logic is more flexible overall. (Because it's simpler, though, Live may be friendlier for people just getting into digital audio production.)
Also, just check out the interfaces: Logic is more for precision work, Ableton is all about getting to your actions quickly, as would be super-necessary when performing live and every millisecond counts.
They share some qualities, but as the name suggests, Ableton Live is really geared towards live performance use. Logic is more for straight-up production. I mean, people use Ableton Live for production, but I think Logic is more flexible overall. (Because it's simpler, though, Live may be friendlier for people just getting into digital audio production.)
Also, just check out the interfaces: Logic is more for precision work, Ableton is all about getting to your actions quickly, as would be super-necessary when performing live and every millisecond counts.
I disagree. Live started as performance and it is often presented as such, but its studio workflow is not a second class citizen at all. In fact the general workflow is one of Live's strong points. I spent a lot of time with both Live and Logic and I rarely used complex software that is as intuitive as Live. In my opinion everything in Live is where you'd expect it to be. Devices are plain and straight forward, no brushed steel backgrounds or cluttered "science fiction interfaces".
This accessibility made switch to Live (again) after several years of Logic usage. You'll get great results with both, but after all I realized I value Ableton's straight forward workflow.
And then there's also Max 4 Live, which enables a whole other world of extensibility and tweaking.
The only thing I miss is Logic's low latency mode which is useful if your project becomes big and you need to record another track late in the production progress.
This accessibility made switch to Live (again) after several years of Logic usage. You'll get great results with both, but after all I realized I value Ableton's straight forward workflow.
And then there's also Max 4 Live, which enables a whole other world of extensibility and tweaking.
The only thing I miss is Logic's low latency mode which is useful if your project becomes big and you need to record another track late in the production progress.
|The only thing I miss is Logic's low latency mode which is useful if your project becomes big and you need to record another track late in the production progress.|
To do this you can "freeze" a collection of tracks in Live. It essentially locks every action you've applied to a track (and perhaps even quietly renders them to temp WAVs) in order to free up computing power.
To do this you can "freeze" a collection of tracks in Live. It essentially locks every action you've applied to a track (and perhaps even quietly renders them to temp WAVs) in order to free up computing power.
Of course I know about freezing, but low latency mode just bypassed several resource heavy effects/instruments with the click of a button - no rendering time, or (un)freezing required. It worked very well.
I spend about 8 hours a day in Logic Pro 9, and while I haven't used Ableton a ton, I get the impression that Ableton Live is more geared toward synthetic/electronic and live performance applications, whereas Logic is a more generally focused DAW that competes more directly with things like Pro Tools.
The one thing that has always kept me from Live (and this probably applies to .001% of DAW users) is last I checked it doesn't support score based composition. To me the easiest way to visualize my music is good old-fashioned 350 year old notation. My process is to compose by dropping notes on a staff, then either tweak the MIDI (to sound less mechanical) or re-record tracks live, after the composition phase has completed. In the past I have found three apps that handle this well: older versions of Cakewalk on windows, Opcode's Studio Vision Pro (tragically murdered by Gibson--something I'll never forgive them for) and Logic. I tried Digital Performer, and could never get the hang of their score view. I've also tried composing in Finale, which has great note entry, but lack anything further. I'm hoping that LPX doesn't munge the note entry too bad.
Indeed - I've been considering getting a DAW to hobby shop with, and have been on the fence between Logic, Ableton Live and Reason.
My (perhaps naive) impression is that Logic seems to be more geared towards recording live music, while Ableton and Reason seem to be more geared towards creating music in the program. They can all do both (recording live and create), but that's just my impression watching their demo videos etc (perhaps describing it as "core strength" vs "geared towards" is more accurate?). I'd love to hear from someone who's actually used one/more of them.
My (perhaps naive) impression is that Logic seems to be more geared towards recording live music, while Ableton and Reason seem to be more geared towards creating music in the program. They can all do both (recording live and create), but that's just my impression watching their demo videos etc (perhaps describing it as "core strength" vs "geared towards" is more accurate?). I'd love to hear from someone who's actually used one/more of them.
I use all of them daily.
First things first. What I quickly discovered was that Logic _sounds_ better. Just dragging in a sample from you desktop seemed to reveal that logic was processing it in a higher quality. A weird thing, and maybe it's placebo, but everytime I go back to ableton I notice this. Furthermore, the bottom line is, my productions just sounds better in Logic. Maybe it's the workflow it encourages, I'm not sure. All I know is that no serious audio engineer would use anything else than Pro Tools or Logic for a serious recording, and I agree. At least that's my experience.
Regarding Reason: In my opinion, it has some of the best synths in the business. Which is why i rewire into Logic. A couple of youtube tutorials on Thor and you'll be going strong.
Ableton, well, I don't care much for it. The only thing i really miss is how easy it is to manipulate audio in it. A lot of people talk about how fast it is, but the design always seemed to get in my way. Personal preference i guess...
First things first. What I quickly discovered was that Logic _sounds_ better. Just dragging in a sample from you desktop seemed to reveal that logic was processing it in a higher quality. A weird thing, and maybe it's placebo, but everytime I go back to ableton I notice this. Furthermore, the bottom line is, my productions just sounds better in Logic. Maybe it's the workflow it encourages, I'm not sure. All I know is that no serious audio engineer would use anything else than Pro Tools or Logic for a serious recording, and I agree. At least that's my experience.
Regarding Reason: In my opinion, it has some of the best synths in the business. Which is why i rewire into Logic. A couple of youtube tutorials on Thor and you'll be going strong.
Ableton, well, I don't care much for it. The only thing i really miss is how easy it is to manipulate audio in it. A lot of people talk about how fast it is, but the design always seemed to get in my way. Personal preference i guess...
This is totally placebo. Ableton is completely transparent for audio as long as no audio stretching is involved. You have to be careful though because if you don't configure audio clips the right way and do route them through the time stretching algorithms you will definitely lose some sound quality.
Probably Live's biggest problem in this regard is that it doesn't make it as clear as it could that this kind of stretching is going on.
Probably Live's biggest problem in this regard is that it doesn't make it as clear as it could that this kind of stretching is going on.
Check the parameters of your default Simpler or clip in ableton before comparing the sound of a clip alone, I think you're missing something.
The Normalize on export function in Logic is works weirdly well too, especially considering you have almost no control over it. I almost always leave it on and in 5 years of professional composition work, have only chosen to switch it off once or twice-- and only because it was pushing some audio artifacts to the forefront that I had previously corrected.
I spent a lot of time as a hobbyist using Reason. I found it super fun to play with, but I ran into two problems:
1. I almost never actually finished anything in it. That's a problem for me in general, but Reason exacerbates it. There are so many knobs to tweak, that I often ended up mired in the minutia of tweaking sounds. I found it hard to stay high level and focus on the music.
2. Compared to, say whaling on a real guitar or keyboard, I found Reason sounded very "dry" out of the box. To get something that didn't sound cheap or reedy, I had to do a lot of set-up: make a synth or two, wire them through a few effects and EQ, tweak everything, add some reverb, tweak some more. I felt like I wanted to decorate a cake, but Reason forced me to go out and thresh some wheat first. This level of control is really powerful if you're into sound design, but made it hard for me to make songs and music.
Of course, your mileage may vary. As far as fun toy to play with, though, Reason is a blast. I spent many a happy hour tweaking and playing with little loops.
1. I almost never actually finished anything in it. That's a problem for me in general, but Reason exacerbates it. There are so many knobs to tweak, that I often ended up mired in the minutia of tweaking sounds. I found it hard to stay high level and focus on the music.
2. Compared to, say whaling on a real guitar or keyboard, I found Reason sounded very "dry" out of the box. To get something that didn't sound cheap or reedy, I had to do a lot of set-up: make a synth or two, wire them through a few effects and EQ, tweak everything, add some reverb, tweak some more. I felt like I wanted to decorate a cake, but Reason forced me to go out and thresh some wheat first. This level of control is really powerful if you're into sound design, but made it hard for me to make songs and music.
Of course, your mileage may vary. As far as fun toy to play with, though, Reason is a blast. I spent many a happy hour tweaking and playing with little loops.
For me #2 is a feature :)
It does take a bit longer but you have more control of how things fit in the mix.
It does take a bit longer but you have more control of how things fit in the mix.
I used to use Reason (way back in version 3), and now am a full-time Logic user for all my music production. I'd say this is a pretty fair characterization, although I actually use Logic with VST/AU instruments to do essentially the same thing I used to do in Reason.
I've always thought the Ableton sound engine was pretty average compared to Logic. Ableton has always felt a bit muddy in its summing (IMHO!).
Ableton's summing is completely transparent, as numerous tests have demonstrated. It's really just basic float math. Ableton's reputation for muddy sound has a lot more to do with somewhat mediocre stock effects plugins and the audio stretching algorithms.
No 32-bit plugins is an interesting choice. Logic 9 can be launched in 64-bit mode with a 32-bit bridge that opens/closes based on whether or not you have any 32-bit VST/AU plugins trying to run. I've got a couple of Sonnox plugins that aren't available in 64-bit which is going to keep me off Logic X until they [Sonnox] get their act together.
Edit: Clarifying a poor use of a pronoun.
Edit: Clarifying a poor use of a pronoun.
Really, at this point the developer of those plugins is to blame.
Ableton recently decided not to work on bridging 32 Bit plugins too and I really prefer them and Apple to spend their resources on other issues.
Ableton recently decided not to work on bridging 32 Bit plugins too and I really prefer them and Apple to spend their resources on other issues.
Very happy about this, although probably means I'm going to redo all the tracks I've been making in the last few months while getting to grips with Logic Pro 9...
The $199.99 price tag is a surprise. Could anyone speculate as to why they'd be pitching it this low, given the price of competitors products?
Since they put it on the app store Logic has been $199, because there isn't an upgrade price from previous versions that used to cost $500-$1000. I think it's another halo effect -- Apple wants to sell hardware and is willing to use cheaper software like Logic and Final Cut to draw pros and prosumers to the platform. Most other DAW vendors don't have hardware sales to fall back on.
I'm pretty sure Logic has been $199 since 2011, when it went from retail box to app store download.
Leaves you more money to buy that shiny new Mac Pro to run it on. :)
This, or something close to it, is surely the reason. Everything Apple does can be traced to a motivation to sell more hardware. (e.g. iTunes, App Store, iWork, Apple Maps, etc...)
Hardware and the OS are their secret sauce, commoditizing everything else (applications, services, content) is in their best interest.
Hardware and the OS are their secret sauce, commoditizing everything else (applications, services, content) is in their best interest.
Reaper is $60 and a much better DAW (IMHO). See my other post in this thread.
Probably as a hedge against people who already own Logic 9 getting annoyed that there's no upgrade price...
I'm sort of pissed, as I bought Logic (a personal copy, used to use ones at school when I attended) about six months ago. Spending another $200 now, despite really liking the new features, sucks--I'm an amateur, that double-dip hurts my hobby funds.
Yep, it seems like this is Apple's "solution" to the Mac App Store not providing any discounts to previous purchasers. They did the same on several other products, reducing their prices dramatically when they went to the MAS.
I'm one of them. I started with Logic 5 (from Emagic), and keep throwing money at upgrades every time a new version comes out. Where's the reward for my loyalty? Oh, and thanks for dropping 32-bit plug-in support.
Perhaps, though as someone who bought Logic 9 less than a month ago (there being no hint at all that a new version was anywhere on the horizon), it still burns.
It's not a surprise, they've done this to other pro products as well. The money Apple makes through these applications is a drop in the lake for them, by moving the price down so much they give competitors a hard time and appease consumers (and it's probably still at a net win).
I think Logic Pro has been at that price point for a year or two? But yeah definitely a lot cheaper than some of the competitors.
For me, the most interesting part is the iPad remote. Looks like Apple is getting into distributed interfaces.
As mentioned in another comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6052122) I've been considering getting a DAW to hobby shop around with. I've lightly dabbled with several over the years, and am very comfortable on my actual instrument, but am a bit overwhelmed when I look at some of these for doing anything other than just recording and basic mixing/editing (would be nice to build some background/accompanying tracks from some of the synths etc). I think I just need to pick one and dive in to figure out how it all works - are there any resources anyone here can recommend for doing just that? Are the provided tutorials from the DAW vendors sufficient?
If you're looking to get into it, but reluctant to spend $200 off the bat, I'd recommend taking a look at REAPER (www.reaper.fm) - it's significantly cheaper ($60) and the only area it's really lacking compared to Logic and the like is the bundled samples/synths.
I was about to say that, Reaper is great, it's only $60 and the guys that make it seem great too ;)
Do you have a Mac or an iPad? If so I'd recommend Garageband as an easy place to start, and there are plenty of tutorials available for it.
If you're on a Mac, why not give Ardour a spin? It won't do MIDI sequencing inside of the program (you will need Ardour 3, which AFAIK only runs on Linux), but it's highly usable for everything else. And it's open source :)
I can recommend Studio One: http://studioone.presonus.com/
It have fully functional trial and kinda flexible pricing model.
I've switched to it from Cubase year ago and I don't look back.
A more simple version would be Garage Band. Would that suffice for your needs?
Yeah, Garage Band is probably the one I've played with the most. I envision myself as a "power user" for most things though (perhaps falsely so!) so I'd like to try something more advanced.
For the price i would say this is a pretty ok deal. the other Digital Audio workstations(DAWs) offer a lot of the same features. I was a protools engineer for a while and some of the things they are touting are far from new and protools usually lagged behind sonar and cubase in raw feature set. I have been punting on upgrading from protools 7.4(5+ years) and m-audio delta 1010lt and 44 for a very long time (10 years). What I want to see is hardware that takes advantage of the huge throughput of thunderbolt or usb3, that allows for higher quality audio and many ins and outs. as far as software Reaper - i havent used it in a year or so - for the price is the best DAW on the market no question.
Good thing I bought Logic 9 four weeks ago...
So what's the upgrade policy? I suppose since the Mac App Store doesn't support paid upgrades, everybody gets the new version for free?
Nope. Everybody has to pay $200.
Interesting.
As far as I remember, for the past 3 years, every app put into those stores by Apple themselves received unlimited upgrades.
Everybody wanted to do paid upgrade, pressuring Apple into adding some paid upgrade feature into the store. Apple always declined, saying "do as we do, support unlimited upgrades, you'll earn enough because the market is growing".
Some devs did paid upgrades by creating a new app with a new name, creating some issues along the way (people that just bought the old version a day ago have no upgrade path etc.) Not idea.
People guessed that Apple would add some "paid upgrade" feature once they needed it themselves.
Now Apple decided for the first time to create a paid upgrade, and apparently they - just created a new app...
Apple could have done better here.
As far as I remember, for the past 3 years, every app put into those stores by Apple themselves received unlimited upgrades.
Everybody wanted to do paid upgrade, pressuring Apple into adding some paid upgrade feature into the store. Apple always declined, saying "do as we do, support unlimited upgrades, you'll earn enough because the market is growing".
Some devs did paid upgrades by creating a new app with a new name, creating some issues along the way (people that just bought the old version a day ago have no upgrade path etc.) Not idea.
People guessed that Apple would add some "paid upgrade" feature once they needed it themselves.
Now Apple decided for the first time to create a paid upgrade, and apparently they - just created a new app...
Apple could have done better here.
For many people, a DAWs are used on real "workstations" in music studios. In that environment, the software and hardware are all bought once at the start, and don't get upgraded until the computer is obsolete. (It's mission critical... you wouldn't update AutoCAD or even MS Office if there was a risk something would change. You also have to retrain everyone in your studio.)
I believe that this is a new item though. For example, usually you can see the reviews for the previous versions in the app store but there are no reviews for Logic X.
Absolutely, as I said, "new app" (= new item).
AppShopper also automatically started tracking them as 2 items:
- http://appshopper.com/mac/music/logic-pro
- http://appshopper.com/mac/music/logic-pro-x
AppShopper also automatically started tracking them as 2 items:
- http://appshopper.com/mac/music/logic-pro
- http://appshopper.com/mac/music/logic-pro-x
Same here. I'm kind of pissed. I wonder whether I should try contacting Apple but I'm pretty sure that they won't give a shit.
[deleted]
Check out Blend.io. Its a betaworks-studio product for open-source, cross-geo music collaboration. It currently supports Ableton Live and Maschine but support for other DAWs (including Logic) is coming soon.
Btw, Blend is still in private beta but you can use the invite code: EARLYACCESS to sign up now.
"Retro Synth. Far-out sounds. Not so far away."
hopefully this means they got rid of the ridiculously over-complicated extraterrestrial-looking synth interfaces in favor of something that actually makes sense.
hopefully this means they got rid of the ridiculously over-complicated extraterrestrial-looking synth interfaces in favor of something that actually makes sense.
Yeah. Considering how much Apple prides itself on good UI design, I have no clue how ES2 happened.
It's by Emagic, not Apple. It used to be available as a separate product: http://www.zzounds.com/item--EMAESC
It's a part of an Apple product. Apple does not make their laptops either yet you consider elements of the computer design to be from Apple.
I was referring to the fact that ES2 was designed before Apple acquired Emagic.
Do the pitch bend and modulation wheel controls (via MIDI) actually do anything with most of the synth sounds?
I've only just started tinkering with the "little brother" Garage Band program, but I was disappointed how bad support was for the pitch bend wheel from my keyboard into the supplied patches. (using pitch bend would cause secondary "note on" events which never got a "note off")
I've only just started tinkering with the "little brother" Garage Band program, but I was disappointed how bad support was for the pitch bend wheel from my keyboard into the supplied patches. (using pitch bend would cause secondary "note on" events which never got a "note off")
Yes, they almost always control something important. In VST/AU instruments they're often assigned to crossfade volume so that you get a natural tone colour change across the dynamic range.
They do, and they're also fully assignable to whatever params you want to adjust.
This took forever... I'm impressed by the many updates but think I might just stick to Pro Tools. Switching DAWs is a bit like switching programming languages, in a sense, huge time cost.
The built-in iPad remote control is cool though. Neyrinck makes a good one for Pro Tools, however: http://www.neyrinck.com/v-control-pro
The built-in iPad remote control is cool though. Neyrinck makes a good one for Pro Tools, however: http://www.neyrinck.com/v-control-pro
'Modern' interface a little extra Melodyne-like functionality with flex pitch, everything else just seems like it was already there but is now easier to access (ie arpeggiator without having to use the environment window)... Am I missing anything major?
The drum stuff seems new, but at first glance looks quite gimmicky. As a professional composer, the last thing I want to see is a picture of a drumkit and various performers in the middle of my DAW interface.
Yeah, that's what I mean - we already have the ability to easily create drum kits in Ultrabeat, that just seems like a simple interface for new users. Not sure if it's worth upgrading, personally.
You can write MIDI processing plugins using Javascript, that's pretty big. And most everything is now pushed to the iPad for touch editing.
The Javascript thing is pretty cool, I missed that!
And it looks like the finally removed the Environment completely!
[EDIT] Nope, the Environment is still there, my bad!
[EDIT] Nope, the Environment is still there, my bad!
For all the talk about how Apple hates skeuomorphism, when I got to this part I started wondering if I was looking at an April Fools' joke: http://imagebin.org/264732
It would be very poignant of you to point that out if the interface was not trying to emulate famous and well-known real-world objects.
Music people eat that up. It's entirely the right choice, and the rest of the interface is clean. There are no problems here, just good design overall it seems.
Music people eat that up. It's entirely the right choice, and the rest of the interface is clean. There are no problems here, just good design overall it seems.
> There are no problems here
Speaking as a longtime user of both physical audio gear and audio software (not to mention one of the "music people"), I think there is a big problem: knobs.
Knobs don't translate well to the screen. It's hard to do a twisting motion with the mouse or a finger on a touch screen. So a lot of programs just make them a kind of compact slider/fader -- you move the mouse up and down, and the knob turns. This is an interaction that can have some problematic interactions with scrolling and/or screen real-estate availability even after you've figured out how this works. And it's not exactly intuitive.
And there's often just better ways to do things. For example, I'd be happy if I never saw another EQ knob again in software -- being able to visualize/tweak a spectrum envelope is a clear winner over having to twiddle knobs. Or heck, I'd rather have MAX or pd's box-value compact faders that I can enter values into (along with sliding the mouse up and down) than knobs.
I know the familiar is often fun and feels accessible, I even know there are sometimes where the compact-fader thing is helpful. I just think knobs are way over used in software and it is a problem.
Speaking as a longtime user of both physical audio gear and audio software (not to mention one of the "music people"), I think there is a big problem: knobs.
Knobs don't translate well to the screen. It's hard to do a twisting motion with the mouse or a finger on a touch screen. So a lot of programs just make them a kind of compact slider/fader -- you move the mouse up and down, and the knob turns. This is an interaction that can have some problematic interactions with scrolling and/or screen real-estate availability even after you've figured out how this works. And it's not exactly intuitive.
And there's often just better ways to do things. For example, I'd be happy if I never saw another EQ knob again in software -- being able to visualize/tweak a spectrum envelope is a clear winner over having to twiddle knobs. Or heck, I'd rather have MAX or pd's box-value compact faders that I can enter values into (along with sliding the mouse up and down) than knobs.
I know the familiar is often fun and feels accessible, I even know there are sometimes where the compact-fader thing is helpful. I just think knobs are way over used in software and it is a problem.
Yeah, I'm sure there actually are lots of UI problems, and you could generally design a UI that is better for controlling the effects and levels than the physical analogy used here.
But it's hard to beat a UI that not only feels accessible, but is accessible if you've used the (often famous) hardware in real life, and not only that, teaches you how to use it so that if you ever encounter that specific pedal or this effects unit in reality, you have some clue of how it works. Maybe it's not a concern and I'm making this shit up, but it is at least a cool advantage.
But it's hard to beat a UI that not only feels accessible, but is accessible if you've used the (often famous) hardware in real life, and not only that, teaches you how to use it so that if you ever encounter that specific pedal or this effects unit in reality, you have some clue of how it works. Maybe it's not a concern and I'm making this shit up, but it is at least a cool advantage.
[deleted]
Is the ipad "pairing" a new feature or an old one?
"The Logic Remote app lets you wirelessly pair your Mac and your iPad — giving you the freedom to control Logic Pro from anywhere in the room."
Having audio buttons I push with the mouse always seemed silly, but when I get to use my fingers it seems at least not as bad.
"The Logic Remote app lets you wirelessly pair your Mac and your iPad — giving you the freedom to control Logic Pro from anywhere in the room."
Having audio buttons I push with the mouse always seemed silly, but when I get to use my fingers it seems at least not as bad.
There's some reason behind this. Amps for example aren't named after the real world models (I don't think they have the license for that). But through the design in the app it's easy to tell what it's modelled after. It also helps make the app more accessible to musicians who use the real world objects everyday. The only real problem with the design is knobs which can be tricky to use but I've found by placing the mouse over it and using the trackpad scroll they work well enough.
It will be interesting how they will redesign GarageBand for iPad when iOS 7 comes out.
This looks great. The pitch correction tools are gonna make it a lot easier for that pop singers to sound great even if they aren't. I also REALLY like the iPad remote feature.
Aside from all of issues (good and bad) surrounding design, features, pricing, etc, I'm just glad to see that Apple is still paying attention to the pro users.
Holy crap... my upgrade from Live 8 to Live 9 costs 250 euro. And this is 200 bucks. I wish I was not so deeply in love with Ableton so I could move to Logic.
I hope this doesn't result in another Final Cut Pro X, in that case, everyone back to Pro Tools or whatever alternatives are available.
The most important feature for me is Retina support, no other DAW has been updated for Retina displays yet.
Is this fully cocoafied like FCPX?
they should just call it Garage Band Pro now. this used to be pro software but they've really killed off their professional users.
I have never used any version of Logic, but the reviews I have read are all saying that none of the power features have been removed. The Macworld review is titled "Logic Pro X loses none of its power, gains great new features" [0]. The Loop even explicitly says "Rumors have circulated for a long time that Logic Pro was going to be discontinued or that it was going to be reincarnated as some sort of 'GarageBand Pro.' ... this is far from a GarageBand knockoff. This is the same professional digital audio workstation software that we’ve used for years, only better" [1]. And again, macProVideo says "many people feared Logic would be 'Dumbed-down' into a 'LogicBand / GarageBand Pro,' ... I'm pleased to report, it's the same Logic you know and love, but with a fantastic facelift and some brilliant new features." [2]
[0] http://www.macworld.com/article/2044283/logic-pro-x-loses-no...
[1] http://www.loopinsight.com/2013/07/16/review-logic-pro-x/
[2] http://www.macprovideo.com/hub/review-2/logic-pro-x-review-t...
[0] http://www.macworld.com/article/2044283/logic-pro-x-loses-no...
[1] http://www.loopinsight.com/2013/07/16/review-logic-pro-x/
[2] http://www.macprovideo.com/hub/review-2/logic-pro-x-review-t...
I've used logic extensively since 1991 on the Atari. I spoke with two other professional users last night and they agreed. Reviews not withstanding, those of us who were power users feel cheated. There were strong rumors that this version was never even going to come out and that the dev team had been reduced.
Finally! :)
Unfortunately it seems Apple has gone in the direction of Garageband-ifiyng Logic; pushing it towards amateurs who want to easily piece together their musical ideas from other people's sounds. The interface is dominated by the flashy new features such as the 'Drummer' and 'Drum Kit Designer' which effectively let you combine a limited set of preset drum sounds with a limited set of preset drumming styles. The result is a similar 'toy' feel to that of Garageband.
Professional tools for creativity afford the user the ability to manipulate, combine and repurpose them in as much depth and complexity as user can manage, so that they may seek out new forms, rather than just creating pastiche rehashes of existing ideas. It is apparent from the direction Logic has taken that it is no longer aimed at the professional market, but rather more to the 'Prosumer' category, who aspire to be 'Pro', but who still need a lot of hand-holding.
The most displeasing change I've noticed so far is that the 'bypass' button on each instrument and effect, which neatly fitted in with Logic's formerly clean and understated visual style, has now been replaced with a large glowing on/off 'light'. It is succinctly represents all of the changes across the application which discard neat and elegant design for absolute naive ease of use.
I have a feeling I'll be using Ableton more from now on.