Hi Sascha, >Oh, and the velocity tool in the Matrix (err, sorry, piano roll by >now). I use both these things so often that missing them is >permanently driving me mad when I switch to, >say, Cubase (which I own as well). My substitute is mouse on the info line (with mouse option/drag+- set) and scrolling note to note with the L/R arrow key. Not quite as elegant but pretty efficient for most things. As I remember, there's an Emagic (now Apple) copyright on the velocity tool. howard ------------------------------------

Hi Alan, On Apr 29, 2008, at 12:13 PM, House of Hayes wrote: > > How do you go about searching out old PPC that maybe leftover from a > PPC? > Is there a quick way of doing this? Dunno -- never copied anything except for projects and samples from my G4 in the first place. I always install everything from scratch and before that I make sure I have the latest UB version of the app or plug-in. Best, Andy ------------------------------------

On Apr 29, 2008, at 11:50 AM, Zip Boterbloem wrote: > Having a pro division with pro users is like having a Formula 1 > racing team. It increases the feeling of status/belonging to a elite > group for John Doe with his Mac. Guess I must be a white crow then... The feeling of status... What the heck is that :-) ?.. Couldn't care less about it... I had worked with PCs for quite someyears and hated them, then switched to Mac in 1997 and to my great surprise I loved it from the very first day... That's it... Nothing like "belonging to the elite" or any crap like that, cause those are just tools... But that's me, and I'm not saying this is not true about some people, though I've never seen this kind of attitude among professionals... Best, Andy ------------------------------------

Anyone successfully networked together an AMT8 (USB) and Midi Timepiece II (Serial)? I had the Motu piece collecting dust, so thought I'd connect it to the AMT8 422 serial bus. I am able to receive MIDI on the MOTU piece within Logic 6.4.3 under OS 9 without OMS, but can't hear anything connected to the MOTU piece on playback. Unitor Control won't recognize the MOTU and neither will OS X Audio MIDI Setup. I can't find any info from Emagic or MOTU that you can mix the interfaces in this way. Of course, If I had a serial port on my G4 I could connect the Motu to that- but I don't. Anyone? I know this is reaching back a ways. . . ------------------------------------

--- In logic-users@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <forums@...> wrote: > > Message posted by Ozan Yarman <oyarman@...>: > > Hello Dennis, > > Thank you for the reply. Let me rephrase my question: In Logic Pro 8, when I add a channel strip and select an instrument in the media library amidst bin, loops and browser, I can pick any sample from a huge collection. Now, I would like to add to this collection my GPO and Sibelius instruments. How do I do that? > > Cordially, > Oz. > You can't. Finale's GPO and Sibelius's stuff only run and work in those programs. My Finale GPO does not show up in Logic or DP5. I think Maybe Finale 2005's GPO did show up, but the latest versions do not. ------------------------------------

Anyone had this problem? I just opened a song not worked on since LP7 and the Garageband plug-in Hybrid Bas has gone missing. Anyone know what could have happened here? Did it get renamed or something? This was a fresh install of LP8 on my MBP but I think even when I had upgraded LP7 to LP8 on my Mac Mini the same thing happened. Frustrating. ------------------------------------

Hi luggsters. Can anyone help me out there with a decision? Normally I have on my Mac Pro all of my songs and of course the Logic Pro App. I have a drive (system drive) for the system and a RAIDED drive for the songs/projects. I'm running out of hard drive space on the Mac Pro so I decided to try to work differently. I'm creating project drives using external FW drives and moving projects to those drives to free up space. So my question is this: Once I've moved a project (Lets say Project 'A') to an external FW 400 drive and then later in the week I go to open that project/songs will I be able to work and edit like that or am I compromising anything working that way as opposed to keeping everything on the Mac Pro RAID set-up? Thanks! Jason Hefler ------------------------------------

On Apr 29, 2008, at 10:27 PM, leonhorrocks wrote: > Anyone had this problem? I just opened a song not worked on since > LP7 and the Garageband > plug-in Hybrid Bas has gone missing. Anyone know what could have > happened here? Did it > get renamed or something? This was discussed back in October or November here on the LUG... Don't remember what it was off the top of my head, so you'd better check the archives. Sorry I can't help you more with this one... Best, Andy ------------------------------------

Hi Jason, On Apr 29, 2008, at 10:07 PM, MusicGearfanatic@aol.com wrote: > > Once I've moved a project (Lets say Project 'A') to an external FW > 400 > drive and then later in the week I go to open that project/songs > will I be able > to work and edit like that Yes unless you use custom loops/instruments/settings, which you then have to save with the project. I burn them to DVD-R, move them back and forth from drive to drive and from one machine to another and open them with no problem. Best, Andy ------------------------------------

--- In logic-users@yahoogroups.com, Andy Hardwake <andyhardwake@...> wrote: > > > On Apr 29, 2008, at 10:27 PM, leonhorrocks wrote: > > > Anyone had this problem? I just opened a song not worked on since > > LP7 and the Garageband > > plug-in Hybrid Bas has gone missing. Anyone know what could have > > happened here? Did it > > get renamed or something? > > This was discussed back in October or November here on the LUG... > Don't remember what it was off the top of my head, so you'd better > check the archives. Sorry I can't help you more with this one... Is this the one where some of the Garageband plugins are moved to an "unused" folder or is this the one where the Logic 8 install deletes some Garageband instruments? As I remember the instruments are still there but they've been moved to out of the path Garageband searches for instruments in. Try a spotlight search and see if the instruments are on the drive. Or.. install Garageband again. HW ------------------------------------

Found it: <http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/logic-users/message/230424>; As Howard said, reinstalling GB will fix it. Best, Andy ------------------------------------

Den 29/04/2008 kl. 16.18 skrev Chaz: > Hi: > > I was wondering if you could recommend a Symphonic Orchestra package > for Logic 8 on a Mac Pro. > > What I know right now is EWQLSO Gold Bundle and the 2-4-1 special > they have going on. This package is 16 bit. I am wondering if there > is anything else that might be 24bit for a hundred or two more, and > if I will really hear a difference. I am currently NOT doing > professional work, but hope to do Film/TV > > Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. > Thanks > > Chaz Take a look at Vienna Instruments http://vsl.co.at/en/65/71/84/275.vsl Very good, very expensive! Venlig Hilsen Stig Christensen stigc56@mac.com ------------------------------------

You should be Ok as long as your file names are not longer than 31 characters. I have several drum loops with long file names and moving projects to my work machine for a lunchtime edit invariably ends up me having to relink the files because the names in Logic get truncated with gobbledegook characters. It's a complete PITA and it's about time Apple fixed it. Cheers, Rog ------------------------------------

First of all "Hi everyone, I'm new here. Nice to make your acquaintance etc." Anyway... My goal is to use the Hyper Editor to automate lots and lots of parameters in strict timing ie. pitch, cutoff and gate of each drum in UltraBeat or multiple parameters of a Reaktor ensemble. If possible I'd like to do it without spending 40 minutes manually labelling every parameter (though this is probably inevitable with Reaktor). Has anyone had much success with this? Hyper Editor (and Hyper Draw) never give anything sensible names and I can't even get them to display parameters automated with track based automation (even after transferring to region). This has been bugging me for ages, any help would be greatly appreciated.

Ok, just stressed my system a bit more, to know what it might be capable of. System: Macbook 2.4, 4GB RAM, 250GB Samsung 5400RPM internal drive, OSX.5.2, Logic Studio, all updates installed. Audio interface used was an M-Audio FW-410. No OSX or Logic tweaks others than switching off backgrounds, screensavers and Bluetooth. And I'm using 128 samples buffersize. Airport permanently switched on and connected to my router. I used a 16 bar cycle at 120BPM. For these tests, all files were starting straight at the same position. To actually survive the test, at least 2-3 cycles should play through without any overload messages, plus I wanted to be able to jump to whatever locator point while Logic was playing back. First thing I tested was the internal drive, using stereo tracks at 44.1kHz, 24bit. Now, prepare yourself to pick up your jaws back up after they dropped to the floor! I managed to play back 137 tracks! Yes, that's right: One-f***ing-hundredthirtyseven! I couldn't even remotely believe this myself, so I double- and triple-checked whether I was doing something wrong (using multiple instances of the same audio object, using copies rather than originals, using objects that weren't actually routed to an output, etc etc.). I wasn't. Really, I have NEVER seen a laptop playing back even remotely as much tracks from the internal drive only. I have been pretty much pleased with both my old Windows laptop and the old Macbook already - those managed to play back around 50 tracks. I still think there's something wrong or some magic going on. But all too apparently there isn't (I'm not exactly new to stresstesting whatever computers). The next thing I did was running the same project from the external 2.5" buspowered USB drive. That one "only" managed to play back 128 tracks. Still amazing, though. I proceeded playing the project from an external PSU powered 3.5" USB drive, carrying a 500GB 7200RPM IDE Seagate disk. I could play back "only" 122 tracks. This might be related to several factors, no idea what it actually is: - The drive used is an IDE one. - The case used is from Trekstor, my bus powered USB cases are from ICY (which are wellknown to do pretty fine external drives). - The drive has 2 additional partitions on it, one NTFS, one Fat32 (so I can move files back and fourth between OSX and Windows). - The drive is made by Seagate whereas all my 2.5" drives come from Samsung. - A combination of all that. Anyways, pretty much stunning results so far, so I proceeded to some 96kHz, 24bit tests. From the internal drive, I managed to play back 51 tracks. Just about as much as I could use on the old Macbook - at 44.1. The external 2.5" drive allowed for 44 tracks. And the external 3.5" drive only allowed for 40 tracks. These are still mighty fine results, if you ask me. And along with the other results, it's really even more amazing, especially considering that OSX and Logic have been wellknown for their notoriously bad disk performance for quite a while (basically in the "G5 era", using Logic 6.x), at least compared to most Windows PCs. Right now, it seems to be more like the exact opposite. Ah well, finally I did a last test. Still at 96kHz, using the internal drive, I started adding Platinum Reverbs to the track inserts. I thought something like "now let's force that little bugger to create some swap files to finally bring it down to it's knees". No way. I could add a PlatVerb to each of those 51 tracks without any noticeable performance leaks. I could've probably even added two of them to each track, but well - enough is enough. Really, to me, these are all mindblowing results. And mind you, unless the disk load was really at maximum, I haven't even seen a single overload error. On my system, those "unforced errors" seem to be stuff from the past indeed, at least so far. Great! I am really wondering whether using FW would probably increase performance again (at least for the external drives), but so far I don't have a single FW disk case. But well, for my personal stuff, I probably won't even need one, apart from a little extra convenience sometimes. And I'd guess that at least FW400 won't show much improvements over USB 2 anymore. Regards Sascha ------------------------------------

Roger Pearson wrote: > You should be Ok as long as your file names are not longer than 31 > characters. I have several drum loops with long file names and moving > projects to my work machine for a lunchtime edit invariably ends up me > having to relink the files because the names in Logic get truncated > with gobbledegook characters. It's a complete PITA and it's about time > Apple fixed it. Hear, hear. Really, that 31 character limit is beyond belief. I mean, as if Apple would care about ANY sort of backwards compatibility. They just don't, not even remotely. But with that character limit they're resorting to "standards" that are at least 10 years old. Ridiculous, if you ask me. And fwiw, this also applies once you try to import whatever files using more characters into Logic. Those will be truncated as well. I don't think there's any excuses for not fixing this. Regards Sascha ------------------------------------

--- In logic-users@yahoogroups.com, "Sascha Franck" <S.Franck@...> wrote: > > I managed to play back 137 tracks! Yes, that's right: > One-f***ing-hundredthirtyseven! > I couldn't even remotely believe this myself, so I double- and > triple-checked whether I was doing something wrong (using multiple instances > of the same audio object, using copies rather than originals, using objects > that weren't actually routed to an output, etc etc.). I wasn't. > Really, I have NEVER seen a laptop playing back even remotely as much tracks > from the internal drive only. I have been pretty much pleased with both my > old Windows laptop and the old Macbook already - those managed to play back > around 50 tracks. > I still think there's something wrong or some magic going on. But all too > apparently there isn't (I'm not exactly new to stresstesting whatever > computers). Well, it is one of the less noticed features of logic 8, but track count has been dramatically improved over previous OSX versions of Logic. Not many people have noticed, or at least, mentioned it so far. Have you tried this with Logic 7? > And along with the other results, it's really even more amazing, especially > considering that OSX and Logic have been wellknown for their notoriously bad > disk performance for quite a while (basically in the "G5 era", using Logic > 6.x), at least compared to most Windows PCs. Disk performance in Logic 6 and 7 in OSX were much worse than for example Nuendo running in OSX. Logic 8 certainly has fixed that. kind regards Mark Cahill ------------------------------------

2008/4/30 Sascha Franck <S.Franck@gmx.de>: > > Ok, just stressed my system a bit more, to know what it might be capable of. > > System: Macbook 2.4, 4GB RAM, 250GB Samsung 5400RPM internal drive, > OSX.5.2, Wow! This is a Macbook, not a Macbook Pro! Quite inspiring. I guess that will be my next computer... -- with best wishes, John http://abram.ca ------------------------------------

Thanks again, Sascha! You rock! ------------------------------------

markdvc2002 wrote: > Well, it is one of the less noticed features of logic 8, but track count > has been dramatically > improved over previous OSX versions of Logic. Not many people have > noticed, or at least, > mentioned it so far. Have you tried this with Logic 7? Yes. But that was on the old Macbook and under OSX.4.11. And most likely I won't install 7 on this one as there seem to be some slight chances of messing up my wonderfully stable 8 install (probably not, but well, no need to try that for now...). I think disk performance increased gradually with each computer and Logic revision. With the old Macbook, I could already play back almost as much tracks as a friend on his G5 2x2, so the intel move has certainly helped things a bit. Anyways, I'm still amazed that it's such a staggering difference between two machines not too far away from each other by raw numbers and an OSX update. > Disk performance in Logic 6 and 7 in OSX were much worse than for example > Nuendo > running in OSX. Yeah, I did the tests myself when I configured 2 G5s for the local music university (comparing Logic 6 and Cubase SX 2 back then). Have been quite dissapointed by Logic's poor track performance. > Logic 8 certainly has fixed that. Defenitely. And finally. And well, this time, they really seem to have it done excellently. Regards Sascha ------------------------------------

John Abram wrote: > Wow! This is a Macbook, not a Macbook Pro! > Quite inspiring. I guess that will be my next computer... To be honest, I sometimes wish I had a MB Pro. Screen estate on the MB is getting really small when using Logic 8 (has been way better with version 7, I really hope Apple is doing something to re-allow for more user configurable window options) and I certainly wouldn't mind a CardBus slot, so I could run whatever audio interface at lowest latencies (I'm getting around 11ms in a total system run-through via FW). And of course, having two FW and three USB ports isn't a bad thing either. But in the end, I couldn't justify the cost. Well, at least the Macbook has a great form factor, slips in and out of my backpack like nothing else,.battery life seems to be quite a bit better than on MBPs as well and with Logic not requiring the dongle anymore, USB port issues arise a bit later. So, for the time being, it's a nice machine for my purposes. Regards Sascha ------------------------------------

Message posted by Simon Lambros <simon@hellfiremusic.co.uk>: > > I've got the Canopus ADVC110 (specifically to work with my new Mac > Pro) - I also have a 12 frame sync problem when viewing QT movies > with Logic Pro 8. I've just upgraded to OS 10.4.11 so will see if > it holds sync any better; if not, I'll have to get another graphics > card ! Are you sure this isn't just the standard offset you get when FW video is parked (but not when it's running)? If so there's a setting somewhere to compensate for it. I have an ADVC 100 and it's 18 frames on my rig. Nick Batzdorf, editor/publisher Virtual Instruments Magazine www.Virtualinstrumentsmag.com 1-877 VImagzn (846-2496) +1818/905-9101, cell 590-9101, fax 905-5434 ------------------------------------

> > On Apr 29, 2008, at 2:45 AM, Paul Najar wrote: >> >> Maybe that's why so many dance oriented recordings offer such poor >> engineering fundamentals (sounds like s%&t). Abelton's technical >> audio >> quality is poor at best - even the "improved" version 7. > > Amen to that! I tried it long long time ago, wiped it out of my > machine right away and forgot about its very existance, cause the > sound just turns me off... > > Best, > > Andy > > Ditto Here, The whole time stretching idea is cool, but it sounds like crap. I rather use Logic's time stretch engine then. Ciao Gio ------------------------------------

<<Nothing like "belonging to the elite" or any crap like that, cause those are just tools... But that's me, and I'm not saying this is not true about some people, though I've never seen this kind of attitude among professionals. ..>> The 'Elitist air' of Apple is not (usually) something touted by the pros using their products, (-thank god! Cause that would make us unbearable to be around! LOL) -But it IS part of Apple's 'brand'. Just look at the new iMac product line...: clean lines, stainless steel, all-in-one design. And of course the iPhone. Who cares if it drops every other call, look how you can make things bigger & smaller on the screen with two fingers! (just for the record, I do not have an iPhone.) And then the TV ads; Apple is represented by the confident hipster who looks like he could be Anthony Keidis' younger brother and the PC is a slightly overweight, annoying & insecure character. Apple sells their style, their brand and it is for THE MASSES. It all points back to where Apple "is" and where they are going. I am sure the Logic development team is a frustrated lot dealing with rationed resources and fuzzy goals from the corporate HQ. It is clear to me that they are on a backburner of sorts in the Apple hierarchy. For some professionals, Logic is where it needs to be. For others, Logic has fallen behind against other pieces of software for the type of music they make (I am on that band-wagon.) -And I have seen a shift over the last year with artists & producers who once used Logic solely to using new DAW's and keeping Logic for "certain tasks." Look, take some of that with a grain of salt. I know that some pro's might change DAW's for this reason or that. But I see it happening across the board. You just never know where you stand with Apple. It is frustrating being a customer who is always in the dark. I am not giving up on Logic, but I will be trying out some demos of the competition in the next few months and make my mind up from there. If Apple changed their attitude just a bit towards their core pro-user base, it would be better for us all. Period. Charlie Eisenhardt ------------------------------------

On Apr 30, 2008, at 6:06 AM, Sascha Franck wrote: > markdvc2002 wrote: >> Well, it is one of the less noticed features of logic 8, but track >> count >> has been dramatically >> improved over previous OSX versions of Logic. Not many people have >> noticed, or at least, >> mentioned it so far. Have you tried this with Logic 7? > > Yes. But that was on the old Macbook and under OSX.4.11. And most > likely I > won't install 7 on this one as there seem to be some slight chances of > messing up my wonderfully stable 8 install (probably not, but well, > no need > to try that for now...). > > I think disk performance increased gradually with each computer and > Logic > revision. > With the old Macbook, I could already play back almost as much > tracks as a > friend on his G5 2x2, so the intel move has certainly helped things > a bit. > > Anyways, I'm still amazed that it's such a staggering difference > between two > machines not too far away from each other by raw numbers and an OSX > update. This is almost certainly an artifact of the much more effective disk buffering strategy in LP8 and not the machine. I've mentioned on this list previously about doing significant (30 or so at 24/96) track counts off of a FW400 pocket drive that wouldn't run *at all* under LP7 on the same machine. Lots of folks get caught up in wanting really fast disk drives, but that's not the issue--even the 137 tracks of 24/44.1 is "only" a smidge over 18MB/sec (or 137Mbps) which is going to be hard on a FW400 drive but isn't going to bother an internal SATA drive in the least. The bottleneck has always been head seek time and rotational latency; super-fast drives improve on these specs somewhat accidentally while upping their transfer rates. The faster data rates on such drives is inconsequential in this application. Basically, in LP8 they've finally taken into account the fact that memory is no longer a constrained resource, at least in the levels we're talking about for disk buffering. There is *no* downside to having gigantic disk buffers other than RAM usage (in particular it does *not* impact latency). So my guess is that they've simply thrown buffer space at the problem and increased the read size on each file, thus taking better advantage of the streaming speeds on the drives and reducing the number of seeks by at least an order of magnitude. My pocket drive with 30 tracks at 24/96 only gets read about once every two seconds, which if math serves means that it is pulling in somewhere between 15 and 20 MB in a pass. Double-buffer that and we're talking 30-40MB dedicated for disk buffers, which used to be a lot, but is in the noise in multiple-GB systems. In LP7 the drive was hit many times per second and couldn't keep up with the seek load. Something that's not obvious is that the impact of disk buffers being too small is far worse than linear with the buffer size (because the performance margin is based on the reciprocal of the amount of time *left over* between how much time it takes for the DAW to drain a chunk of data and how quickly the next blocks of data can be pulled off the disks, which goes to infinity as the two times become the same.) Since the head seek time is nominally fixed, performance goes rapidly into the toilet as the disk buffer size shrinks, until it simply can't function at all. So throwing a modest amount of RAM at it in order to keep that time margin large means that disk performance simply stops being an issue. There's really no need to spend lots of money on high-performance drives now, as performance becomes much more about average throughput rather than peak demand, and even the slowest disk drives out there are vastly faster than the total data demands of even significant track counts. The happy truth is that current systems are not operating anywhere near the edges of performance for most people using this stuff, which means that the statistical nature of the native system (as opposed to, say TDM) stops being an issue. It might be inelegant to simply throw performance at the problem, but it is also pragmatic and cheap. --Dave ------------------------------------