> We all know you hate anyone who isn't running ProTools on a Mac, but this is > a bit petty of you F-erenc To be fair to f-erenc, not that I have any real interest in being fair to f-erenc, I believe that he once provided the same kind of snotty answer to a question I had about future Mac support. Hilsen Tony

I'm a LAW user and I totally agree with the sentiment that Emagic is failing to direct resources at the Windows version. This seems crazy given that PC audio use is growing far faster than Mac, especially after all the Emagic hype about complete equality between platforms. DirectX utilisation is still awful, ASIO is shaky, CPU too slow has not been fixed and is driving users gradually round the bend, PIII optimisation should have been top of the list when they recoded the PC version but didn't happen at all, multiprocessor support was "imminent" when I asked 9 months ago - still nothing, and and and .... I'd complain to Emagic directly but all I ever get is an automated response promising a proper answer within days and then nothing else - there was a time when Emagic's reputation for support was excellent; clearly no longer a priority for them. Even getting a response on whether issues like this are being worked on is practically impossible, leaving users feeling completely isolated. Who knows, maybe it's all lined up for LAW 4.5 and just around the corner, I doubt it though. Jules ----- Original Message ----- From: Mat Jarvis <mat@...> To: <yavuz@...> Cc: Logic@Onelist <logic-users@onelist.com> Sent: Sunday, November 21, 1999 2:56 PM Subject: [LUG] Re: Wish list: NTFS, Rewire, PIII Optimization,Multi processor support, Multi DS2416 support. > From: "Mat Jarvis" <mat@...> > > From: Yavuz <yavuz@...> > > I have a few wishes from emagic and I would like other people to back-me > > up on this subject if they agree, since LAW is falling back compared to > LAM > > for a while now. First of all the most significant competitor of LAW > > I agree with Yanuz, these are more than minor details. > > It's clear that Emagic supports the Mac more than they do PC, which is ok as > long as LAW gets the Mac features eventually, but sooner rather than later. > I've already heard of a few people going back to Cubase from Logic, Mark > Tinely included, bacause of LAW dragging it's heals. > > It would be interesting to see the amount of LAMers against LAWers. My > guess is it's about equal. I would expect a lot of new LAWers now that 4 > has been released. > > >1 * Cubase already works under Win2000, Win NT, Win98. > > This is a definite. Support for W2000 as soon as poss. > Any seq that doesn't support W2000 will not be 'seen' as professional > Logic will support it, it's just a question of when > > > >4 * Cubase Supports VST Plugins > > Another definite. You could say that Cubase comes with hundreds of free > plugins and softsynths (PC at least), whilst Logic comes with about 30 > > > >5 * Cubase uses SSE instructions of PIII Processors. > > Emagic anounced Altivec support for LAM before it was even released. We are > still waiting for MMX support let alone PIII support. Cubase is already > almost TWICE as efficient as Logic, I don't think Enagic should drag it's > heals too long about getting a 'free' performance boost. > To be honest I was a little disapointed with the 'increase' in performance > with LAW4 over LAW3.x. After a total rewrite and 100% 32 bit code I was > expecting a little more. > > > >6 * Cubase will support multi processors very soon. Nuendo already does. > > I'm sure Logic will support multi processors with W2000 support, it's just a > question of how efficient the multi threaded code is. Hopefully it will > boost performance by about 80%? > > > >Now LAM has some of these features like the newest altivec support, VST > >support, OS9 support??( I am not sure about that). However LAW sdoes not. > > >I mean THESE ARE NOT REALLY MINOR DETAILS. Don't you think? Anyone? > > >(I know Emagic will not respond to this so please anyone with similar wish > , > >respond) > > >Thank You > > >Yavuz >

Autolink with my Proteus 2 don't work. When i'm trying to use "update use autolink" from Logic I get a message, that Sounddiver can't find a matching channel and port, allthough all the names are shown in Sounddiver! I have tried allmost everything! Can anyone help me? Best Regards Stig Christensen visit www.sc-musik.dk

Hi everyone, I have been getting this HTML code written inside the email from this list. It just started. I am using Eudora. Does anyone know how to fix this. The messages are not readable. I have to copy them to clipboard ant to notepad and save it as *.htm file and open it with a browser which has been really a pain. Please help Yavuz

Hi every one, First of all I would like to thenk everyone for responding. >I personally enjoy software which works and gives me, at least, a chance of not >crashing continuously. I totally agree. However, I can not say that for Emagic like a lot of people on this list. The good old " CPU too slow " keeps popping up on me every 5 minutes or it does not for 2 hours and then it does again. I stopped complaining about that because I simply gave up. I did all the tweakings that were posted on the list. However this keeps happenning when i add MIDI to audio. >I finally gave up with version 3.5 on a Mac & went to Logic. Oh, I understand now. You are a mac user. I am pretty sure now that you have not read my message throughly. This was one of the issues that I was trying to point out. Mac versions are ahead of Windows versions. I believe if Logic was optimized for PIII, I would have a better chance for not getting " CPU too slow" messages. >I finally gave up with version 3.5 on a Mac & went to Logic. I am about to do the same. However if our directons are different I am sure you understand. >"features" are completely meaningless unless they are both genuinely useful and they >work in practice. I totally agree. Need I say more? Thank you Yavuz

>but doesn't anyone find the inability >to do a "send selected fader values" for snapshot mixing (while in pause >record) to be a major shortcoming?? Yes ;). But, if it did record the snapshots you would have potential channel conflicts when there are several mixer modules (different devices/ports) for the same channel. You actually can record snapshots by cabling (temporarily) the output of the corresponding instruments back into the physical input object. (E.g. if you want all the mixer settings for a particular multi-instrument, cable that multi's output into the physical input, record the snapshot & remove the cable.) Admittedly, not very elegant... Len

I'm glad to see this thread build a little momentum (though I'm sure the Mac-heads aren't.. ;-) ). I hope Emagic is listening and allocating some serious resources to LAW (not the first time I've said that on this list.) Related to Emagic's shaky Windows implementation (relative to Mac): someone on this list (F-erenc, I think) once wrote that Logic is not written in an object oriented langauge like C, C++, etc. If so that might explain a lot of the difficulty Emagic has coping with the wacky world of Wintel (and why inert bits of code like the instrument icons are supposedly too far enmeshed with the more 'dynamic' bits of code to change them easily). Does anyone know if that's true, and if so, what language is Logic coded in? (Just curious.) ~T ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- > >Now LAM has some of these features like the newest altivec support, VST > >support, OS9 support??( I am not sure about that). However LAW sdoes not. > > >I mean THESE ARE NOT REALLY MINOR DETAILS. Don't you think? Anyone? > > >(I know Emagic will not respond to this so please anyone with similar wish, respond) > > >Thank You > > >Yavuz >

>Cubase does "everything", however it does it quite badly. I agree completely. >To sum up: "features" are completely meaningless unless they are both >genuinely useful and they work in practice. Again, I agree. And if you want all the features, wait or trade your Wintel box in for a Mac. VM

Mike Connelly wrote: > > From: Mike Connelly <mpc@...> > >Emagic anounced Altivec support for LAM before it was even released. We are > >still waiting for MMX support let alone PIII support. > > One factor may be that altivec may be easier to implement - PIII > optimization requires rewriting by the programmers, where altivec > optimization can be achived (at least to some extent) by just recompiling > with a compiler that supports altivec optimizations. > > Mike maybe they have problems because windows itself is 386 code only

I'm going to do myself a well deserved Xmas present in the next few days: I'm willing to upgrade my video card. The point is this: my present system works flawlessly (yes, I'm one of those lucky guys...), and I'd hate to spoil the harmonic relationships between LAWP 4.04, my Creative Banshee AGP Card and my Supermicro P6SBA motherboard... I'd like a Matrox Millennium G400, for one, but I seem to remember that someone on this list had some problems with it. So if any of you Luggers out there could suggest me any last-generation video card which is proved to work reliably with LAWP, I'd be veeeerrrryyy grateful! Maybe you might as well mail me privately, but I believe that this subject could be interesting for others Luggers.... TIA Ciao, Stefano Dall'Ora

Well, I feel I should comment on a couple points (everybody else has!). First let me qualify one important thing; I use only the MIDI functionality, I use PARIS for recording audio. I have just gone from Cubase 3.65 to LAWP 3.5 - so far LAWP is as solid as a rock and what it does it does much better than Cubase. Specifically the menu system is much better *for me* and environments work 10x better than Cubase's constantly crashing and unstable system drivers, even though system drivers do have more capability (which I can never use because they crash half the time). > It's clear that Emagic supports the Mac more than they do PC, which is ok as > long as LAW gets the Mac features eventually Cubase is FAR worse at supporting the Mac more than the PC - the Mac functionality even for just MIDI alone is much better than for PC. For example, the PC MIDI resolution is worse than Cakewalk or Logic on the PC but just fine on the Mac. > >6 * Cubase will support multi processors very soon. Nuendo already does. From a design perspective, if I were a software sequencer (even with audio) provider, I'd not worry about supporting multi processors as the hardware is rapidly increasing and very soon the OSes will do that for the software IMHO. Besides, even if they don't, the single processors will get very powerful for host-based processing (which I hate anyway, which is one reason why I use PARIS, that avoids the whole scenario). Anyway, just my own comments. Actually my personal wish is just that the major sequencer manufacturers would make MIDI-only versions of their software and sell those a lot cheaper. The few parties that do make MIDI-only versions lack many of the features of the larger manufacturers and are all worse at sync (at least on the PC side, Vision being only Mac I never tried their last MIDI-only version and that's a moot point anyway these days).

Anyone using LAMP on a G3/G4 Mac with DV-Video (I guess QT 4.0 Pro can play DV codec)? Floe

Consider a simple example of four beats in a 4/4 bar. The displacement of each quarter-note from the beginning of the bar is 0, 1, 2, 3 If you're counting in eighth-notes in 4/4, the displacement of each quarter-note is 0, 2, 4, 6 * If you consider the same four beats in 12/8, counting in eighth-notes, their displacements are 0, 3, 6, 9 * Comparing these last two examples, you see that in order to transform the 4/4 Beat Three, say, (which has the displacement of four eighth-notes in the 4/4 bar) into the 12/8 Beat Three (which has the displacement of 6 eighth-notes in the 12/8 bar), you multiply the 4/4 displacement by one-and-a-half. Getting Logic to do it is simple: In the Transform window, set the Position field to multiply all Note positions by 1.5000. Also, set the Note Lengths to be multiplied by 1.5000. Transform. Now, go back to the Score Editor, change the time sig to 12/8 and set a suitable display quantise. Hope this helps, Roger

Firstly, Thanks Gareth, for giving me hope that i'll be able to use LAMG with my Lombard with the VXPocket! Also, thanks Yooshi for the "there are no rules" phrase, one which I believe with my whole heart. Thanks Mat for defending 'bad' sound, which I often use myself (I like to record the SCSI bus noise that shows up on the outputs of my external CDRW and use that in music, I also like the noise left on the drive when you don't zero the audio file before recording in it, etc.) ... Another Q: As a way of re-aquainting myself with LAM, I want to use it today to record some vocals. I've got a SDII interleaved stereo mix file from Deck that I want to play as a ref, so Jennifer can, like, hear the song as she's doing her magic :-), I brought that into LAM by adding it to the Audio window thingy. Unlike 2.6.6, it didn't insist on splitting the mix into .L and .R files, which I just thought was the coolest. However, after dragging the audio to a CBX track and playing, it only plays in mono, though the arrange window shows the little vu-thingies bouncing for left _and_ right. Mr. CBX only shows lights on the unit for left, though. After looking in the manual, I tried a few things, none of which seemed to work. So, do I need to turn the "Always Split Funky Interleaved Files to Funky L and Funky R" preference on? If I don't need to i'd rather not (16G of disk still isn't enough), but if I do, I will. Info: LAM G 4.0 with CBX-D5, on a 6100/60, 72M RAM, Sonnet 225MHz G3, running System 7.6.1 (hey, it uses _so_ much less RAM than 8.6, and it still works) ... Regards, John Falling You http://www.mp3.com/fallingyou

I'm needing to send large audio files (20mb to 40mb) over the internet and wanted to know what the consensus was on audio compression apps. Specifically, what can Zap do that Sutffit Deluxe cannot? Is there something about Stuffit that compromises the audio file? Is there anything else better out there (or better method) for transmitting audio that I'm not aware of. I also need to split the files into smaller segments so as not to overload recipient's (or my own) mail boxes. Any advise would be appreciated. Thanks, Charlie de la Rosa Dallas, Texas

>From: "Plinio" <plinioprofeta@...> > > > >---------- >You can save the plug-in settings and organize them in folders .For example >reverbs for vocals etc... Sure, I'm doing that already, but what if I have 3-4 plugs in one audio object. I don't have the brains to remember what plugs I put in the channel....not to mention the order of the plugs. The only way would be writing it down somewhere (not perfect) or having a standard setup (not musical). C'mon, we have a computer to work with, let's use it! Marcus musician http://www.synchron.de/bos

cry, cry cry...some of the post made on this recent thread are very valid, but, i have another perspective. In march of this year, I, a newbie to DAW systems, purchased the almighty Cubase VST/24. according to legend, it would supposedly turn my computer into a studio. All I needed was a P 233 w/32MB RAM (yeah, right...) but in my Newbie-ness, I purchased it and a gina card. When I got it home and loaded it, I thought it was beautiful. And since it was beatiful, it must be REALLY good, right? I read all the accompanying info and proceeded to try to record. lo and behold, the screen wouldn't redraw. a not-so-quick call (45 minutes on hold) revealed that I need more memory (i had an AMD k6-2 366 w/64MB RAM). I had been lied to. so rather than flip out, I went to the store and upgraded to 160MB ram. Once installed, I embarked on a 6 month journey of audio buffer to track number settings, horrible midi syncronization, noisy audio tracks, etc. I even went thru the Cubase windows users site list of system optimizations. this system was as stable as it was going to get. The reason i kept Cubase for so long was beacause (a)it was really pretty (yes, i admit it), (b)it has all of those cool "theoretical(at least on PC) features, (c) the other viable alternative(Logic) had a reputation for being hard to learn. I even purchased a p300 laptop w/ 128MB RAM specifically to use with it live. the result: worse than the desktop. Over the course of the year up to late september, I had managed to waste an entire year and had not been able to write ONE song for the entirety of that time. then in lat September, I had a few hundred extra dollars and decided to at least try Logic. I installed the software, skimed the manual, and attempted to record some audio into my laptop with it . "CPU too slow". I figured I had made another purchase mistake, but I came to this mailing list and searched for a cure, which i found. After reseting my virtual audio drivers in the registry, Logic worked like a dream. It screams on my laptop. I am able to play back about 26 audio tracks with no sync problems, and a few effects thrown in. the waveplayer is a godsend because it WORKS!! no latency, no crackling. yeah it could use some work, but it works...NOW! Midi is rock solid. I don't have to setup audio buffers every time I want to record. it is customizable to an extreme. All I'm trying to say is that Logic is software that works with a minimum of fuss. I think that a some people on this list are suffering from "feature-itis". Would you rather trust your creations and livelihood to a 10th generation beta with a feature list that will be real cool "someday", or a DAW that works well NOW. Since september, I've written a new album (on my laptop) and am completing a Christmas collection. to me, that says it all. Onyx Ashanti ----- Original Message ----- From: Wolfe Bowers To: logic-users@onelist.com Sent: Sunday, November 21, 1999 7:26 AM Subject: Re: [LUG] Wish list: NTFS, Rewire, PIII Optimization,Multi processor support From: "Wolfe Bowers" <wolfe@...> > 1 * Cubase already works under Win2000, Win NT, Win98. > 3 * Cubase supports Rewire, > 4 * Cubase Supports VST Plugins > 5 * Cubase uses SSE instructions of PIII Processors. > 6 * Cubase will support multi processors very soon. Nuendo already does. > 7 * Cubase has a very nice support for soundfonts (Which I believe is a very > importamt standard for next gen. soft synths and samplers) oh, i agree.. logic is the only sequencer (out of cubase, cakewalk) that handles my video needs without crashing, so I'm forced to use it at the studio, otherwise I'd probably use CubaseVST24. C'mon Emagic!

Hi all, I'm really new to logic, and now that I've pretty much gotten logic to stop crashing (pcav device too slow...) I want to mixdown the five audio tracks I have to one stereo wave file... This should be easy, but doesnt seem to be. I've been able to convert each one to stereo files, and then import that into Sonic Foundry Acid, but that isn't really what I'm trying to do. So, can someone please tell me how I mixdown (I can't even seem to find it in the manual!!) to a stereo file? thanks a lot david

>Cubase already supports W2000 >Release date is only a few months away, which means >shipping version will be finalised in the next few weeks, and >year 2000 is even ?sooner. Welllllllllll...(trying not to fall asleep), Cubase may well mysteriously work on Windows 2000, actually, there is no real reason why it shouldn't to be honest, but you won't get any decent drivers for any half decent sound cards yet (DSP2416, or even a Creative 256 Live) There isn't really any point to start on about software support yet untill the final release and all the drivers are out and stable. I have Release Candidate 2 which is to all intents and purposes the final release which looks good, but driver support is still very limited and slow coming. We'll all have to be patient, we haven't even got our version 4 manual yet! Now, where's my Linux CD...I wonder if........ Phil Keyboard not found... Please hit the 'any' key to continue

Hi All & Sundry, I'm thinking about getting Platinum (Already have Gold), does anyone know if the Platinum Plugins work under Gold, such as PlatinumVerb etc? or is that just plain naughty!? Phil With Alcohol he falls over

>From: "David Lavin" <lavind@...> >So, can someone please tell me how I mixdown (I can't even seem to find it >in the manual!!) to a stereo file? >thanks a lot Use the bounce button at the bottom of your master audio object in the audio mixer. Sascha

Hi people, Maybe some of you still remember the Logic NETWorks project? It was to be a compilation CD with music from fellow list members (then at mcc.ac.uk), and I was working hard on it. Due to a way too busy schedule, I haven't found time for the CD in a long time, but finally it is ready to be shipped to the reproduction plant! Because I'd like to have an idea how many to order, I would ask you to order the CD's now, and have a little patience on delivery. Pre-financing all of them, and ending up with 800 unsold CD's is not what I am looking forward to. Because of space problems alone! :-) There are also several copies of Volume 1 available, now for a really low price when ordered together with Volume 2. Check out my website for details! You can listen to short samples (about 1 minute) of most tracks, too! Go to http://www.soundnet.demon.nl All the best, Fokke de Boer

It didn't really bother me until you mentioned the problem with more than one monitor. As I'm about to add another monitor I can see that this would be very annoying with the menu on a different screen to the window. Cheers Mat From: "Rui Gouveia" <rmpgouveia@...> >I have a very big list of all things that are still better on the Mac >version, the one that really depresses me most is that we've lost Local >Menus while the Mac version kept those. Now, on a 3 monitor configuration >like mine, I have to run like a madman from one screen to another to find >the menu relevant to the window I'm working on, and then back again. Why, >oh, why was there any need to change something that was ok in the first >place ? Is there anyone else out there who would really like to see the >Local Menus being brought back into LAW ?

From: Eric Moon <temiqui@...> >Good grief, I've been on and off this list for five years, and I never heard >about the muted sequence problem until this month..... I strikes me that as >soon as a number of people complained, they scheduled it for the next >subrelease. I've been on this list for less than a year, and I must have seen this mentioned over a hundred times. It's one of those subjects that keeps coming up every so often. Cheers Mat

After seeing a screenshot of the new muted objects in 4.0.6 (thanks Richard), I must say I agree with f-erenc and Richard, the green hilight does draw your attention to muted objects, which is kind of the opposite of what you want. It is however a definite improvement over the asterix. As is the large dot on LAM. I think the diagonal line is perhaps half way there. How about highly visible cross hatching plus greying out of the note or waveform display and the border? In fact I think I prefer just plain greying out like when effects are bypassed in the mixer (so it's not impossible then). But maybe grey out all colour, grey out the note or waveform display and remove the black line surrounding the object. As the green hilight removes the use of green for colouring any of your seqs, I think grey is a better colour to not use, if that makes sense (I'm just typing aloud now :- ) Or even make the colour transparent so it looks like you have the background texture on the object, as someone else suggested. Mat