Eric Giddings wrote: > > Hey, > > I'm new to all of this so bare with me. I'm liberal but I'm not that liberal. Bob Vandiver

> > Is the way we are doing this the way YOU do it when your client > hands you a > rough cut on DVD only and no .mov file? > > Cheers, I think "DVDxDVpro" might do this in one easy step... check it out. Take care, George Leger III" I use Cinematize. You just choose which sequence you want to export and to which format. http://www.miraizon.com/products/products.html All the best /E _____________________ Erik Häusler +46 708 650 550 erikhausler@mac.com

thanks for the advice. i have a 1.83GHz Core duo with 1.5 GB of RAM on loan right now..... when i monitor the CPU on system performance, i get very low readings in comparison to what i used to get. however when i have 6 tracks running i still get a coreaudio overload message.... even though from the CPU monitor it appears that all is well. maybe transferring over the RAM from my old powerbook and giving the new Macbook 2 GB of RAM would help ? i'm running 3 Ultrabeat tracks, 2 EVB3 tracks, and one ES2 track. is it possible to upgrade the processor on a macbook ? or i should just give up and finance a G5 desktop.....

Erik wrote: > "> AFAIK the general buffer size idea is: keep it small during creative >> work when tracking and recording to get low latency, keep it larger >> when mixing and when cpu load is getting heavy." I responded: > "Are we talking about the same thing :-) ? We were discussing processor > buffer, not that of an audio driver :-) . Agree with all the points > otherwise :-) ." Then on May 31, 2007, at 1:15 AM, Erik Häusler asked: > Not sure Andy, I´m talking about the audio preferences settings in > Logic. Judging by your post I may have misunderstood what the > processor buffer does. > Care to shed some light on the matter? I am afraid I don't fully understand it myself :-) , and the manual is rather sketchy on this... Both settings are located on the Audio:Drivers page. The I/O buffer, set as 32, 64, ... 1024 samples, is probably the one you were talking about. It is used by audio hardware (p. 378 of the manual). The processor buffer set as small, medium or large (p. 380) is "the native buffer used to compute mixes and effects", and to my surprise it also affects the latency, especially with processor heavy plugs. It's the I/O buffer that we increase when mixing, that's why I posted the comment above... My personal understanding is you don't mess with the processor buffer once you found the optimal setting... I would really appreciate it if someone could explain it in greater detail. Best, Andy

--- In logic-users@yahoogroups.com, Andy Hardwake <andyhardwake@...> wrote: > Then on May 31, 2007, at 1:15 AM, Erik Häusler asked: > >>Not sure Andy, I´m talking about the audio preferences settings in >>Logic. Judging by your post I may have misunderstood what the >>processor buffer does. >>Care to shed some light on the matter? > >I am afraid I don't fully understand it myself :-) , and the >manual is rather sketchy on this... >The processor buffer set as small, medium or large (p. 380) >is "the native buffer used to compute mixes and effects", and >to my surprise it also affects the latency, especially with >processor heavy plugs. >I would really appreciate it if someone could explain it in greater >detail. This is my take on the processor buffer. The kind of "latency" the processor buffer affects is the responsiveness of the audio engine itself. If moving a volume fader using the large processor buffer, a small amount of lag can be noticed between the move and actual volume change. Theoretically one should see less CPU overloads with the processor buffer set to large, at the expense of the sequencer feeling slightly less responsive. HW

On 31-May-07, at 1:41 AM, George Leger III wrote: > I think "DVDxDVpro" might do this in one easy step... check it out. > > Take care, George Leger III > > ________________________________________________________ > > http://www.myspace.com/georgelegeriii > > http://www.utopiaparkwaymusic.com > > Music is the best (FZ)... Mac AND PC: The only way to fly 8-} Just got it too - works great. Very easy. Very affordable. e

On May 28, 2007, at 3:21 AM, logicalmeltedbutter wrote: > Sometime, probably mid-November of this year, I'm going to buy all new > gear. I'm looking at the Mac Pro (quad core probably) with 4GB RAM, 3 > hard drives (software, samples, recording), Logic Pro, Kontakt, and > the M-Audio Project Mix I/O. I'm largely behind on computer technology > (I bought my last PC over 3 years ago, and my last Mac was a > 6100/60...yeah). Anyway, I have a few questions to ensure I make wise > choices. If you're thinking of doing this mid-November you might want to wait a bit to really start thinking about what to get. Leopard is due out, there may also by then be significant changes to the landscape of some other software/hardware by then... this industry moves fast... > > 1) Hard drive space preinstalled from Apple seems to run similar > prices if I buy smaller drives or if I buy one large drive. Is it > worth the performance gain to have 3 smaller drives and having less > room to grow, vs. having a large drive with more room to grow later? > Is it better to get 250GB for os/apps, 250GB for samples, 250GB for > recording vs. 500GB for os/apps/samples and 250 for recording? I think this depends on the nature of your recording... > > 2) I notice all the talk about the upcoming Mac OS. What have people's > experiences been with Logic Pro running on the bleeding edge versions > of Mac OS? Would I be safe trying to buy the machine with the old OS? > Do the people in the Apple store know anything other than iPods > (that's all I've bought so far from the Apple store)? Apple and Apple Developers *overall* have a pretty good track record when it comes to responding to new versions of the OS with application and driver updates. There are a few glaring exceptions... > > 3) Price-wise, the 8-core is going to be a tough sell to my wife. Does > anyone have opinions on the benefits of the 8-core for someone using > Logic Pro to record folk or pop/rock music? I'd like to dabble down > the road with some the crazy massive sample libraries like the EWQL > Symphonic Orchestra as well. More computer processing will get you more. Wives never understand this. If you want to dabble in those massive sound libraries you are going to want plenty of hard drive space and RAM... but more processing is always great... > > 4) I'd always been using a regular home stereo with halfway decent > home theater type "reference monitor" speakers. I'm planning on > getting regular monitors you'd find in a home recording setup. I'm > going to be recording mostly folk and basic pop/rock type things, > maybe tickering with orchestral type stuff down the road. Room wise, > I'd probably be on the small end. My gut instinct has me looking > between the lines of the M-Audio Studiophile BX5a or Mackie HR824. > What price range should I be looking at for monitors? > Your monitors are pretty important. Do you know anyone doing similar recording to you that uses monitors you are comfortable listening to? I wouldn't pick monitors on price alone, and certainly not on gut instinct- my gut is pretty large lately, I might end up with monitors that are too big for my studio ; ) > 5) I'm hoping to get a Furman-type "power thing" to protect this stuff > and a few other pieces of gear. I see power conditioners, voltage > regulators, and even a Furman UPS. How much better are these compared > to a traditional APC computer UPS? Furman makes good stuff. I use some APC and Tripplite Surges. I hear SurgeX is the best, but mostly I hear that from SurgeX... > > Any comments on anything would be greatly appreciated. I'm excited to > be returning to Logic and Mac after a long break! Hopefully I can be > an asset to this community someday. :) > > -Ken "Hat" Crouch Eddie IMS ProA/V

At 12:42 AM 5/31/2007, you wrote: >I've been thinking about buying Camel Space for a bit now. I'd love >some opinions from owners out there including thoughts on weather >it's the best of it's kind and if there's competitors. And while on >the Camel subject I may be tempted to buying the bundle of Space/ >Phat/ Cameleon so opinions on those others would also be much >appreciated. I only have Camel Phat, but it's an absolutely essential part of every contemporary mix I do. In addition to its cool mangling ability, it has a sound that I would call "modern." Popping it onto a vocal track with moderate settings is the easiest way to get that in-your-face effect we're now so accustomed to.

At 12:42 AM 5/31/2007, you wrote: I've been thinking about buying Camel Space for a bit now. I'd love >some opinions from owners out there including thoughts on weather >it's the best of it's kind and if there's competitors. I have the Space and Phat and I like them a lot (wasn't it a groupbuy). It's impossible to say whether they are better than PSP Nitro or Ohmforce Quadfromage but they are good. It's the kind of plugin that you add when something sounds a bit boring, add one of the Camels and strange things happen.

> wrote: > >> I've been thinking about buying Camel Space for a bit now. I'd love >> some opinions from owners out there including thoughts on weather >> it's the best of it's kind and if there's competitors. And while on >> the Camel subject I may be tempted to buying the bundle of Space/ >> Phat/ Cameleon so opinions on those others would also be much >> appreciated. > > I only have Camel Phat, but it's an absolutely essential part of > every contemporary mix I do. In addition to its cool mangling > ability, it has a sound that I would call "modern." Popping it onto a > vocal track with moderate settings is the easiest way to get that > in-your-face effect we're now so accustomed to. > > > I use Chameleon 5000 a bunch, Its awesome for Sound Design. What I mean is that its great overall, but awesome for weird textures. In some aspects its way ahead of Sculpture, and its close contender in my arsenal is Absynth. Easy to program and control, killer fidelity. Good Luck Ciao Gio

Does any of you guys who multitrack have the problem that Logic (or maybe it's the OS) takes some time before being able to playback after multitrack-recording (many tracks like 16 or so). It's not a long time but maybe 10-15 seconds. I realize that most users rarely record that many track at one time but I also know that there are a lot who do and since I don't remember anybody else mentioning this I wonder if there's something that I should do differently, like maybe a setting that I should change. My setup is a G5 PCI-X 2.3, UAD1, Powercore mrkII and an old 9652. In all other matters it works very, very well but this is annoying. Not least because I tend to forget all about it until next time (I have had it for a long time, maybe years). It's like when I hit stop the computer takes some time to put the files down.

--- In logic-users@yahoogroups.com, forums@... wrote: > > Message posted by Tiger Koehn <tigerk@...> > ______________________________________________________________________ > > Hi > > Perhaps someone has a work-around or solution. Since I switched to "Tiger" > from "Panther" -everytime I try to open my metronome settings from the > Transport or from the Song Settings my whole program crashes. This is the > only problem I'm having-so far. Can anyone give me a suggestion? I've > trashed my pref's-nothing. Anybody?? > > I have a Power Mac G4-Dual, 1.25Ghz w/ 2G SDRAM-using a MOTU 828mkII and 2 > LaCie Firewire drives. This is my mobile system. Not complicated at all-till > I installed OS 10.4.6.... My main studio runs Logic 7.2 on a G5 > > > Tiger K > Hi, I've got the same problem. Can anyone at least suggest a work-around not to hear the metronome everytime I record? I need to record with no metronome. Paolo

On May 31, 2007, at 11:36 AM, HKC wrote: > Does any of you guys who multitrack have the problem that Logic (or maybe it's the OS) takes some time before being able to playback after multitrack-recording (many tracks like 16 or so). It's not a long time but maybe 10-15 seconds. Me thinks it just needs some extra time to draw all 16 waveforms... Just a wild guess... Best, Andy

--- In logic-users@yahoogroups.com, "HKC" <hkc@...> wrote: > > Does any of you guys who multitrack have the problem that Logic (or maybe it's the OS) takes some time before being able to playback after multitrack-recording (many tracks like 16 or so). It's not a long time but maybe 10-15 seconds. Do you have journaling turned off on your audio drive? (Since I back up often I have journaling turned off on all drives, makes for a much smoother ride) Under Prefereces/Audio/General... deselect draw wavform. Howard

phile73it wrote: > > Hi, I've got the same problem. Can anyone at least suggest a work-around not to hear the > metronome everytime I record? I need to record with no metronome. > > Paolo > So hit record, turn off the metronome on the Transport bar, stop, rewind, save your song. -- Chris http://www.monotrematamusic.com http://www.myspace.com/monotremata http://www.descentrecords.com

--- In logic-users@yahoogroups.com, Andy Hardwake <andyhardwake@...> wrote: > > > On May 31, 2007, at 11:36 AM, HKC wrote: > > > Does any of you guys who multitrack have the problem that Logic (or maybe it's the OS) takes some time before being able to playback after multitrack-recording (many tracks like 16 or so). It's not a long time but maybe 10-15 seconds. > > Me thinks it just needs some extra time to draw all 16 waveforms... Just > a wild guess... > > Best, > > Andy > I not the original poster, but i also have this niggle. Its not punch in of the fly (at least in my case) and it isn't graphic redraws, as its before the draw waveforms progress bar. In my case i'm recording 8 tracks through my 2882 I/O to a 2x2.5 Ghz G5 w 4.5Gb RAM LP 7.2.3 and OSX 10.4.9. If i record for under 10 seconds its fine, anything longer and it takes a good 10-15 seconds to even get to the draw waveforms bit. Not a killer fault but it does slow down creative flow. Typical dialogue... "darn, messed it up, quick hit record i've got it this time," my response, "sorry hold up a sec while the computer regroups." not good... Mike

<<I've been thinking about buying Camel Space for a bit now. I'd love some opinions from owners >> Wow- like I said once before: every now and then a product comes along that just blows me away. I can count all of them on one hand. Camel products are one of them. We just programmed that hell out of Camel Space today for a sci-fi flick. Space brings so much inspiration to our work I dont know what we'd do without it. Cameleon 5000 is simply amazing. I've used it to create some really amazing grooves and layered the hell of it to get some really cool beds. Visited them at NAMM this year and wow - there are going to be some really nice things coming from the camel group soon. ;) Cheers, -Terry Michael Huud _www.Music4TheMovies.com_ (http://www.Music4TheMovies.com) _www.MySpace.com/terryhuud_ (http://www.MySpace.com/terryhuud) _http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0404698/_ (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0404698/) ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

On May 31, 2007, at 12:36 PM, HKC wrote: > Does any of you guys who multitrack have the problem that Logic (or > maybe it's the OS) takes some time before being able to playback > after multitrack-recording (many tracks like 16 or so). It's not a > long time but maybe 10-15 seconds. In the olden days we used to have to wait for the tape to rewind. Having a little quiet time to collect yourself is a feature, methinks. ;-)

Hi. I've experienced the same problem and the same message re Markers. This happens for us when moving songs that have Markers between Intel iMacs and a non-Intel Core Duo machine. When all markers are removed the problem seems to go.

Whichever way you get to MP4 or .mov, I use QTPro to export to DV 720 x 480 ready for canopus. Are you missing that option? Roger Jackson Film Music OXFORD UK

Is it at all possible to have Logic playback 2 QT movies, one after the other within the same song file? I'm having to ask this, on a client's behalf, thanks all. Tom

Hello, I'm trying to do a midi gate which was previously possible in version 5 with a 3rd party plugin. I know that it is possible to do via a noise gate sidechain or environment hack but would prefer the more elegant solution of using an AU plugin. If anyone knows of the existence of such a thing, please point me in the right direction. thanks!

At 03:40 PM 5/31/2007, you wrote: >Is it at all possible to have Logic playback 2 QT movies, one after >the other within the same >song file? > >I'm having to ask this, on a client's behalf, thanks all. No. (as far as I know)

On 5/31/07 6:40 PM, "tombsp12" <tombsp12@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > Is it at all possible to have Logic playback 2 QT movies, one after the other > within the same > song file? > > I'm having to ask this, on a client's behalf, thanks all. > > Tom > > > I don¹t think so, but you can link them together with QuickTime Pro. You don¹t even have to create a huge file. QTP allows you to create a small movie file that just references the two movies wherever you have them stored, rather than create one big movie. James

> Is it at all possible to have Logic playback 2 QT movies, one after > the other within the same > song file? > > I'm having to ask this, on a client's behalf, thanks all. > > Tom > Just open both movies in Quicktime player. Select all of on movie, then move the locater in the first movie to the end and paste. now you have both movies in one movie file. bd