2008/9/5 Sean McCoy <osr@jeffnet.org>: > In a recent thread that I can no longer locate, I remember somebody > mentioning that it was possible to set note display ranges in the > Score Editor, which would provide a solution to the problem of > keyswitching notes showing up. But I've dug through every option and > setup of the Score Editor and can't find any place to do this. Was > somebody dreaming, or am I just repeatedly overlooking it? It's one of the (new in v.8?) parameters in the "Staff styles" window. Score window > Layout > Staff styles... Or double-click the "style" in the parameter box... ummm.... inspector thingie.... whatever. You could also hide keyswitching notes by putting 'em on a different channel and adjusting the score style accordingly. You could even use the environment to put the notes back on the correct channel if necessary. Cheers, Bill ------------------------------------

On Sep 7, 2008, at 3:27 AM, my name wrote: > > i notice that with logic pro 8, the processor use is much better > with a > 4-core macintosh when the buffers are set to e.g. 32 rather than at > higher > settings. it seems kind of strange, does anyone else see that? > > useroflogic Yes, 32 or 64 or 128, much worse at 256. Best, Another Logic User :-) ------------------------------------

On Sep 7, 2008, at 3:27 AM, my name wrote: > Message posted by my name <address@internet.com>: > > hello, > > i notice that with logic pro 8, the processor use is much better > with a > 4-core macintosh when the buffers are set to e.g. 32 rather than at > higher > settings. it seems kind of strange, does anyone else see that? > > useroflogic I assume by "better" you mean that it is more evenly distributed across the cores? This makes sense because (presumably) the granularity of calculation is a buffer. Each chunk of calculation gets assigned to the next free core and runs to completion on that core. So the smaller the buffer, the more often this happens, and the more even it appears. That this is actually "better" in a real sense (other than lower latency) is unlikely, however. The scheduling overhead is amortized over a smaller amount of data, so the whole thing is less efficient, and the real-time demands go up worse than linearly with the reduction in buffer size. But as long as it works, it looks better, so it's cool. ;-) --Dave ------------------------------------

I ended up buying a 2.8 dual quad with 10g ram to replace my G5 with 2.5 g ram. Activity on the CPU is at 3% vs 85% with the G5 and ram used in a typical project is around 5 gigs. For my needs, the G5 had no where near the power I needed.

Dave Katz <dkatz@dkatz.org> wrote: > I assume by "better" you mean that it is more evenly distributed > across the cores? > This makes sense because (presumably) the granularity of calculation > is a buffer. Each chunk of calculation gets assigned to the next free > core and runs to completion on that core. So the smaller the buffer, > the more often this happens, and the more even it appears. > That this is actually "better" in a real sense (other than lower > latency) is unlikely, however. The scheduling overhead is amortized > over a smaller amount of data, so the whole thing is less efficient, > and the real-time demands go up worse than linearly with the reduction > in buffer size. > But as long as it works, it looks better, so it's cool. ;-) > --Dave hello, actually, i mean it is better than that. with higher buffer sizes the program hangs with overloads and spikes, and the cores are generally showing higher on the graph. with lower buffer sizes the whole thing calms down a lot. from what i have been reading, people are having a lot of issues with logic. lots of people reporting that they cannot even get one or two tracks to play without the computer crapping out. there is apparently some sort of script someone came up with that works for some. logicuser

--- In logic-users@yahoogroups.com, MusicGearfanatic@... wrote: > > Hey folks, > > Trying to get the regions in arrange to show notes like it used to in Logic7.? Anyone know how? > Hi Jason, From what I think you're asking about in L8. When you're in the arrange window and you select a region, you always get the "Piano Roll" as a default. However, at the bottom right next to the "Piano Roll" tab is the "Score Tab", click that. That should get you what you're looking for. Also, the parameters window on the side will change into all the scoring stuff you need. It will stay like that as default for that song until you click the Piano Roll again. I think that's what you're looking to do. Peace, Alexis ------------------------------------

> > In a recent thread that I can no longer locate, I remember somebody > > mentioning that it was possible to set note display ranges in the > > Score Editor, which would provide a solution to the problem of > > keyswitching notes showing up. But I've dug through every option and > > setup of the Score Editor and can't find any place to do this. Was > > somebody dreaming, or am I just repeatedly overlooking it? > >It's one of the (new in v.8?) parameters in the "Staff styles" window. >Score window > Layout > Staff styles... > >Or double-click the "style" in the parameter box... ummm.... inspector >thingie.... whatever. > >You could also hide keyswitching notes by putting 'em on a different >channel and adjusting the score style accordingly. You could even use >the environment to put the notes back on the correct channel if >necessary. Ah, it must be a new feature in L8. Surprising that they would have made any changes to the Score Editor after so long. Oh well, just another reason for me to install my version 8 that has been sitting here in its box for about...a year! ------------------------------------

> Hi Dave, > > Dave Katz <dkatz@dkatz.org> wrote: > >> That this is actually "better" in a real sense (other than lower >> latency) is unlikely, however. The scheduling overhead is amortized >> over a smaller amount of data, so the whole thing is less efficient, >> and the real-time demands go up worse than linearly with the >> reduction >> in buffer size. > Point well taken, in fact I was expecting my system to behave exactly like you describe when I switched to Mac Pro quad, however... > On Sep 7, 2008, at 11:12 AM, Logic User Incognito wrote: > > actually, i mean it is better than that. with higher buffer > sizes the program hangs with overloads and spikes, and the cores are > generally showing higher on the graph. with lower buffer sizes the > whole thing calms down a lot. I have experienced this quite often with my system -- moderately large sessions play fine with small buffers, OTOH I see numerous system overload messages when switching to a larger buffer when mixing. Just trying to understand the logic behind this... Best, Andy ------------------------------------

the "alt key" method doesn't seem to work at all...the "lock SMPTE" method worked, however. In the meanwhile I was able to do it by slowing the loop down part of the way and saving under a different name, then opening that one and bringing it back into Logic.

Ive lost my logic pro 7 dongle and was wandering if there was anything i could do about it. I have the box+order number etc so i was wandering if apple might provide me with another one. cheers.

Hi all, I'm new here. Just wondering how do you select all automation points So I can drag them all together. I tried apple A, but that stills elects all the parts. Is there a command for this? Many thanks Leon

--- In logic-users@yahoogroups.com, Gregory Windrum-Scoggin <gregscoggin@...> wrote: > I know that my MOTU Ultralite Mk3 allows me to send as many monitor > feeds to musicians as necessary and this essentially 'bypasses' the > latency issue. No it doesn't. You're still going through ADC, CueMix processing, and DAC. Same with my RME Fireface. Less monitoring latency than going through Logic, but still a little, even if it's not noticeable. And this will result in a mis-placement of recorded audio as I describe. John Pitcairn ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - LC Xmu Logic/Mackie Control emulation & management, LC Xview software LC/MC display, Logic environments & stuff... Opus Locus - http://www.opuslocus.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ------------------------------------

On Sep 7, 2008, at 11:58 AM, Andy Hardwake wrote: >> Dave Katz <dkatz@dkatz.org> wrote: >> >>> That this is actually "better" in a real sense (other than lower >>> latency) is unlikely, however. The scheduling overhead is amortized >>> over a smaller amount of data, so the whole thing is less efficient, >>> and the real-time demands go up worse than linearly with the >>> reduction >>> in buffer size. >> > Point well taken, in fact I was expecting my system to behave exactly > like you describe when I switched to Mac Pro quad, however... > >> On Sep 7, 2008, at 11:12 AM, Logic User Incognito wrote: >> >> actually, i mean it is better than that. with higher buffer >> sizes the program hangs with overloads and spikes, and the cores are >> generally showing higher on the graph. with lower buffer sizes the >> whole thing calms down a lot. > > I have experienced this quite often with my system -- moderately large > sessions play fine with small buffers, OTOH I see numerous system > overload messages when switching to a larger buffer when mixing. Just > trying to understand the logic behind this... No logic (well, all software is pure logic, but some of it is accidental.) Sounds like a bug, pure and simple. There's no way larger buffers should cause CPU overloads and the like. Trying to read too much into the CPU meters is easy to do, however, both due to inaccuracies in the sampling and representation (after all, on a roughly 1 msec basis each core is either at 100% or 0%) and because of vagaries in the scheduling algorithm. For example, one could in theory schedule threads such that a single core becomes saturated before using the next one (so long as the realtime requirements are met) and still behave perfectly well. In fact, keeping at least one core free for very high priority processes may make the system behave better than trying to keep things "even." I've never looked into the Darwin/Mach scheduler in detail, and it's been about 30 years since I studied this stuff, but much of it was counterintuitive, at least to me. Trying to reverse-engineer bugs is fraught with peril, but I could imagine a scenario in which the scheduled time of the first output samples didn't take the latency of the larger buffer into account and ending up with the paradoxical behavior. When I got my MP/Symphony I set it at 32 the first time and never looked back, and have never had a problem. --Dave ------------------------------------

On 07 Sep 2008, at 13:55, glen Simister wrote: > Message posted by glen Simister <glen_simister@yahoo.co.uk>: > > Ive lost my logic pro 7 dongle and was wandering if there was > anything i > could do about it. I have the box+order number etc so i was > wandering if > apple might provide me with another one. > > cheers. > > > I can give you mine, I'm not using it any more..... Cheers! JMD jeanmicheldanton@mac.com www.jmdanton.com www.metropolisconcert.com www.myspace.com/jeanmicheldanton ------------------------------------

On 08/09/2008, at 7:02 AM, Leon Kane wrote: > Message posted by Leon Kane <avalonwild@gmail.com>: > > Hi all, > > I'm new here. Just wondering how do you select all automation points > So I > can drag them all together. I tried apple A, but that stills elects > all the > parts. Is there a command for this? > > > Many thanks > > > Leon > Hi Leon Open up the particular Automation Parameter you want to adjust, then hold down Option and click to the left of all or any of the points you want to adjust. This will turn the affected points grey and you can them move them accordingly, as long as you continue to hold down Option. Cheers Clive Young ------------------------------------

--- In logic-users@yahoogroups.com, Andy Hardwake wrote: > > whole thing calms down a lot. > >I have experienced this quite often with my system -- moderately >large sessions play fine with small buffers, OTOH I see numerous >system overload messages when switching to a larger buffer when >mixing. Just trying to understand the logic behind this... > > Best, From reading Dave's post, this makes sense as larger buffers will end up taxing a single core because the system never gets the chance to spread the load as it can with smaller buffers. At least that's how I read it. howard ------------------------------------

Den 07/09/2008 kl. 23.02 skrev Leon Kane: > Message posted by Leon Kane <avalonwild@gmail.com>: > > Hi all, > > I'm new here. Just wondering how do you select all automation points > So I > can drag them all together. I tried apple A, but that stills elects > all the > parts. Is there a command for this? > > Many thanks > > Leon > > you use Logic 8, there is a tool for that. Hit ESC to launch the tool box and select - I think - the 3. tool! Venlig Hilsen Stig Christensen stigc56@mac.com ------------------------------------

2008/9/8 Sean McCoy <osr@jeffnet.org>: > Ah, it must be a new feature in L8. Yeah, I think so. I'd certainly never noticed it before. > Surprising that they would have made any changes to the Score Editor after so long. :-) Yep, I was pretty surprised too! > Oh well, just another > reason for me to install my version 8 that has been sitting > here in its box for about...a year! A year?! You certainly out-luddited me! :-) I installed L8 on my new MacBook, then got so ####ed off about not being able to find anything (and, even when I did find things, not being able to work comfortably on a 13" screen now that we're kinda forced to do most things in a gigantic arrange window that has fewer customization options) that I retreated back to 7.1 on a G4/733. Until the new 24" screen arrived, that is. L8 NEEDS a big screen, I reckon. Actually, the big screen was probably a better investment than the MacBook. It certainly makes scoring easier! Cheers, Bill ------------------------------------

On Sep 7, 2008, at 2:08 PM, pancenter wrote: >> From reading Dave's post, this makes sense as larger buffers will end > up taxing a single core because the system never gets the chance to > spread the load as it can with smaller buffers. Not really. The thing to keep in mind is that the total processing time to produce the same number of output samples will always be at least a little bit *less* for larger buffers than for small (due to reduced overhead.) If the same number of simultaneous threads is scheduled regardless of the buffer size (this *ought* to be the case) then the net result should be pretty much the same or better with larger buffers. The one difference is that, for larger buffer sizes, the bit of code that schedules samples sent to the DAC has to allow for more time for the first samples to be processed before starting to clock them out. If it is started too early, it could eat up much of the "elasticity" that the larger buffer is meant to provide. I probably wasn't clear about what I was saying in my first post. What I was attempting to say was that if the sample size were smaller but the number of simultaneous threads were the same, the load could *appear* to be more spread out because the threads would be more rapidly scheduled, and that could interact with the sampling/averaging algorithm used for the CPU display. But in any case, this is all conjecture (other than the existence of a bug) as none of us know how Logic actually divides its work into simultaneous threads. DAWs are fabulously easy to multithread (compared to most applications) because of the essentially parallel and independent nature of each audio channel. The bus/sidechain/ output structure pretty much defines the dependency graph. Of course, achieving this nirvana starting from a code base that wasn't multithreaded is not a simple trick, and getting it wrong gets really ugly in a big hurry. This is presumably why Logic's use of multiple cores has been relatively slow in coming. --Dave ------------------------------------

I got some requests to post a link to the Arpeggiator tutorial. It's an rtf file, if you can't open it, I'll repost as a word doc. I usually have some screenshots within the tutorials, but this is just text. Written for Logic 7, don't think 8 would be any different. I think there's also a good how-to on the sound on site site. http://people.brandeis.edu/~wilson/Logic%20Tutorials/ Any problems with the link or the file, let me know. David Wilson Brandeis Theater Company Brandeis University Waltham, MA http://people.brandeis.edu/~wilson/DW-Design/Home.html ------------------------------------

Hi, Guys! I'm having trouble backing up my Logic Project to other disks. I keep getting a message saying that the action cannot be completed because an item named .DS_Store already exists. It starts to back it up and then it stops the second it hits that item and gives me that message every time. What gives? Any ideas? fm

On Sep 7, 2008, at 3:40 PM, foxymoron wrote: > Message posted by foxymoron <napoleontrio@comcast.net>: > > Hi, Guys! I'm having trouble backing up my Logic Project to other > disks. I > keep getting a message saying that the action cannot be completed > because an > item named .DS_Store already exists. It starts to back it up and > then it > stops the second it hits that item and gives me that message every > time. > What gives? Any ideas? I think the missing bit of info we need to give you useful ideas is: what are you using to back up the project? Is it a backup program of some kind or just a Finder copy? Most backup programs can be told to ignore the Finder-specific files (.DS_Store being the folder view settings for the folder window, amongst other things, and generally unnecessary in the grand scheme of things) in their backups. Try doing that. Otherwise, if using the Finder, fixing permissions on the folder (and including all sub-contents) to allow you write permissions to the folder should prevent any permissions-based hangups. Mibrilane mibrilane@cox.net ------------------------------------

> On 07 Sep 2008, at 13:55, glen Simister wrote: > > > Message posted by glen Simister <glen_simister@...>: > > > > Ive lost my logic pro 7 dongle and was wandering if there was > > anything i > > could do about it. I have the box+order number etc so i was > > wandering if > > apple might provide me with another one. That would be a question for Apple care - you should contact them. --- In logic-users@yahoogroups.com, Jean-Michel danton <jeanmicheldanton@...> wrote: > I can give you mine, I'm not using it any more..... > Cheers! Just bear in mind that, if you are using the upgrade from L7 to L8, any future reinstall will still require your XSKey. Also, accessing logic songs older than Logic 5 is impossible with L8 - they have to be opened and saved in L 5, 6 or 7 first. kind regards Mark Cahill ------------------------------------

On Sep 7, 2008, at 5:23 PM, Dave Katz wrote: > > Not really. The thing to keep in mind is that the total processing > time to produce the same number of output samples will always be at > least a little bit *less* for larger buffers than for small (due to > reduced overhead.) If the same number of simultaneous threads is > scheduled regardless of the buffer size (this *ought* to be the case) > then the net result should be pretty much the same or better with > larger buffers. The one difference is that, for larger buffer sizes, > the bit of code that schedules samples sent to the DAC has to allow > for more time for the first samples to be processed before starting to > clock them out. If it is started too early, it could eat up much of > the "elasticity" that the larger buffer is meant to provide. > > I probably wasn't clear about what I was saying in my first post. > What I was attempting to say was that if the sample size were smaller > but the number of simultaneous threads were the same, the load could > *appear* to be more spread out because the threads would be more > rapidly scheduled, and that could interact with the sampling/averaging > algorithm used for the CPU display. Thanks for taking the time to explain all this theory, Dave. Really appreciate it. Best, Andy ------------------------------------

is it 4/4? peter ------------------------------------