-- On 15/10/2008, at 05:31, Per Boysen wrote: > Hi Marcio, > > Open the Audio Units Manager from inside Logic ("Logic Pro / > Preferences / Audio Units Manager...") and manually tic the box to > enable it. > > This works fine here with the Jimi Hendrix version but not with the > Metal version. I called IK Multimedias rep here in Sweden about that > bug (?) and he assured me they are working on a fix for the Metal > version to work in L8. Maybe it's out now, I haven't checked. > > -- > Greetings from Sweden Hi Per, I've tried that wioth no luck at all. Jimi Hendrix was the only one that passed the validation test. The rest of Aaplitube and Ampeg series are just ignored when a check the boxes. If only I could enable X-Gear all problems would be solverd. best Marcio Marcio Nigro marcio@marcionigro.com.br ------------------------------------

<Quotes repositioned and trimmed by admin> On Oct 14, 2008, at 2:16 PM, Maurits van de Kamp wrote: > On quick mixes and little projects that only require simple mastering > to get levels up and eq's matched, I often don't even create a single > mix file first. I just finish the mix in the Logic song and then the > next day, when my ears are 'fresh', I insert the desired plugins into > the output channel and bounce the whole thing in one go. > > Someone said "we can all agree Logic is not mastering software", but > no I cannot agree. With the right plugins, it certainly is. > > Maurits. > What kind of monitors do you have? I hear that more and more people are using a subwoofer now, is this really accurate for the real world and you sure need to eq your romm in this case? My monitirs (KRK) are over 10 years old now and I use to love them but the music have change so much that it is time to change for something more accurate I think. Cheers! JMD Jean-Michel Danton jeanmicheldanton@mac.com ------------------------------------

On Oct 15, 2008, at 9:24 AM, Sascha Franck wrote: > Reducing the number of FW slots on the MBPs isn't a good idea either. > In the end, Apple laptops are getting less interesting for anybody > involved in audio production. There are 2 USB 2.0 ports on the New Mac Books, making it fine for an *entry level* audio machine. I do agree that abandoning FW400 completely is rather 'progressive' even for Apple- but abandoning old standards is something that does happen from time to time in computing... The new MBP (with it's 1066 FSB) is huge for audio. It was so interesting I ordered one. I'll let you know how it goes... I'm positive I will be fine : ) Eddie Sullivan esullivan@imsproav.com ------------------------------------

> markdvc2002 wrote: > > the new Mac Book no longer has Firewire: > Sascha Franck <S.Franck@...> wrote: > > This is completely beyond me. While I do agree that the new Macbooks are > looking great and while I also agree that the aluminium case might be a > certain advance, in all other aspects it seems to be somewhat > downgraded. It has a newer, apparently much faster Graphic card, and the 1066 MHz FSB. Presumably these would both make a noticeable performance difference. I also note that there is still a white Mac Book on offer, which (thankfully) still has FW 400, and now has a superdrive: http://www.apple.com/macbook/white/specs.html kind regards Mark Cahill ------------------------------------

markdvc2002 wrote: > It has a newer, apparently much faster Graphic card, and the 1066 MHz > FSB. Presumably these would both make a noticeable performance > difference. So what? I've never had much problems with the graphic performance. Almost the same goes for RAM speeds. But I almost *always* ran into troubles connecting my audio devices. And Apple just decided to make that an even more troublesome experience on their MBs. - Sascha ------------------------------------

Eddie Sullivan schrieb: > There are 2 USB 2.0 ports on the New Mac Books, making it fine for an > *entry level* audio machine. Sorry, but these days, 2 USB ports are almost nothing. It's something you'd expect from "sub-notebook" machines. Seriously, this move of Apple is astounding (in a negative way), to say the least. If anything, I'd expected *more* connectivity options, but what we get is less than what was there before. Not good by any "standards". Personally, I almost always have a mouse and whatever MIDI keyboard connected to my MB. Even those won't run on a single USB port (due to Apple just delivering the minimum specs for a USB 2 port), now how would I add a USB audio interface, without needing an active USB hub and/or an actice USB device? Really, this recent decision is ridiculous. I for one won't be able to recommend any Macbook as an entry level audio workstation anymore. Because it simply doesn't even meet the lowest criteria for such a thing (it's been tough already, but with that latest move it's almost heading into "no-go" land). - Sascha ------------------------------------

From: Marcio Nigro The rest of Aaplitube and Ampeg series are just ignored when a check the boxes. I recently downloaded the Ampeg demo from IK and it was the same thing. ------------------------------------

On Oct 15, 2008, at 11:49 AM, Sascha Franck wrote: > Eddie Sullivan schrieb: > > There are 2 USB 2.0 ports on the New Mac Books, making it fine for > an > > *entry level* audio machine. > > Sorry, but these days, 2 USB ports are almost nothing. It's something > you'd expect from "sub-notebook" machines. > > Seriously, this move of Apple is astounding (in a negative way), to > say > the least. > > If anything, I'd expected *more* connectivity options, but what we get > is less than what was there before. Not good by any "standards". > > Personally, I almost always have a mouse and whatever MIDI keyboard > connected to my MB. Even those won't run on a single USB port (due to > Apple just delivering the minimum specs for a USB 2 port), now how > would > I add a USB audio interface, without needing an active USB hub and/ > or an > actice USB device? > > Really, this recent decision is ridiculous. > I for one won't be able to recommend any Macbook as an entry level > audio > workstation anymore. Because it simply doesn't even meet the lowest > criteria for such a thing (it's been tough already, but with that > latest > move it's almost heading into "no-go" land). > > - Sascha Okay my desktop now has 2 USB 1.0 Ports on it and is fine, I have a controller (Novation ReMote,) a Hub for many dongles and a Logitech headset (for Ventrillo- I'm hopelessly addicted to WoW) and the Apple Keyboard and Kensington Trackball all living happily. Every once in a while I have to unplug something to print something off my HP printer... If your MacBook is not supporting a mouse and a MIDI keyboard there is something else going on unfortunately. I think USB 1.0 had two different implementations- USB 2.0 insists on a single EHCI so I find it curious about your claim regarding 'minimum specs' for Apple's implementation... in any event Apple claims full-on 480 Mbps on the new Mac Book's. I think that I/O in the new Mac Books is sufficient for entry level audio devices- which are mostly USB now anyway. The Mac Book Pro with it's 1066 mhz system bus is killer, especially for Virtual Instrument- heavy composition and editing : ) I think our difference is what we consider 'entry-level' - to me 'entry-level' does not mean a cheaper solution for someone who wants the functionality of a more expensive solution. Entry-level means a computer that will allow a certain amount of function for the price. If people are thinking they would like to replace legacy Mac Book Pro's with new Mac Book's to save money- they will be giving up something. But I could see folks using new Mac Books easily for performance (running VI's) or DJ-ing- or light editing or composition. My brother is a rock singer and uses a USB mic and Garage Band to write songs. *That* is entry-level, and the Mac Book is stellar for that at a good price. As a main studio workstation- I agree with you that a Mac Book is not as practical or functional... I'll report to the group when I get my new Mac Book Pro in - I'm sure I will be fine : ) Eddie Sullivan esullivan@imsproav.com ------------------------------------

--- In logic-users@yahoogroups.com, "Scooter Pietsch" <forums@...> wrote: > > Message posted by Scooter Pietsch <scooter@...>: > > wow am I crazy getting into this discussion but I'm between cues and burnt out! :) IMHO mastering is hugely important to the record making process. I use Brian Big Bass Gardner at Bernie Grundman Mastering here in LA. I've tried to duplicate what Brian does at my studio. I can't. (Please keep trying to emulate what they do though - you will learn a lot!) They have custom built boards, rooms, specialized gear and these guys sit there all day long every day - mastering! I love what Brian does - I'm sure Sterling in NY is great too but I love going to the sessions and I live here in LA. So by going to a high end mastering studio and dropping about $2k for a CD, you get one of the super pro guys who does the biggest records in the business. Worth every penny. BTW - a lot of these guys use Steinbergs WaveLab for mastering software. > One last tip - don't go in with masters you've already squeezed the piss out of - leave the guy some room to work his magic. > > Cheers. > WOW!!! Brian is one of the best out there man! I envy you being able to visit Bernie Grundman and work with him!! That is so awesome, I had to read your post a couple times!!! You said you gave hime 2k for a CD. How much does he charge a song? I am in ATL but I would definitely want to FTP him or FED EX our stuff if the prices are reasonable and if the company I work with approves it. Do you have any information you can give me on his prices per CD and Song and for ancillary mixes (i.e. performance versions of a track and instrumental versions of the same track). Many Thanks, I would LOVE to have my mixes mastered by him! ~Ivan ------------------------------------

On 15 Oct 2008, at 16:53, Sascha Franck wrote: > markdvc2002 wrote: > > It has a newer, apparently much faster Graphic card, and the 1066 > MHz > > FSB. Presumably these would both make a noticeable performance > > difference. > > So what? I've never had much problems with the graphic performance. > Almost the same goes for RAM speeds. But I almost *always* ran into I'm not sure if its as true with Macs, but PCs with high graphics performance run much smoother for audio applications and use less system memory. It's something I come across in my day job a lot. Steve ------------------------------------

In case anyone wants to let Apple know their feelings about the Firewire removal on the new MacBooks, here is the feedback link: http://www.apple.com/feedback/macbook.html kind regards Mark Cahill ------------------------------------

Greetings, Here's my conundrum: I'm currently using Logic 7 on a G5 Dual 2.7 PPC with OS 10.4.10 and 5 gigs of ram. It works fine except that with a recent CD project, I've pushed this computer to it's limits. It got to the point where Freezing a few tracks wasn't enough; at times I had to bounce almost all the tracks to audio in order to squeeze a couple more AU instruments in. (Any libraries that use Kontakt 2 or especially Guitar Rig tend to be serious cpu hogs.) :( So I've got Logic 8 sitting here collecting dust. I had originally intended to switch to Logic 8 after this project was completed, but now I'm having second thoughts. Opinions seem to point in the direction of NOT switching to Leopard on this machine, and just stick with 10.4.10 and install Logic 8. But my question is: If I stick with this computer, OS 10.4.10 and install Logic 8, will I get less efficiency=less plug ins and libraries? Being a keyboardist, almost all of my productions use a lot of soft synths and sample libraries. On the one hand, I'd like to benefit from Logic 8's improved sound engine and workflow, but on the other hand, I don't want to be forced to max out my computer using even fewer plug ins and libs than I am now. And given the current state of my wallet, I'd rather not have to spend thousands on a new computer just yet. What would you suggest? Your constructive thoughts would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, -Mark ------------------------------------

On Oct 15, 2008, at 1:51 AM, marzzz@aol.com wrote: > >> Hmmm... I thought it used FW 800 port - not ethernet port? > > FW 800 port on the MacBook Pro, no FW port at all on the MacBook or > the Air. > > -M > > Did I understand right from the ads that the screens ALL will be glossy and there is no option for matte screens? maxim ------------------------------------

Eddie Sullivan wrote: > I think our difference is what we consider 'entry-level' - to me > 'entry-level' does not mean a cheaper solution for someone who wants > the functionality of a more expensive solution. Entry-level means a > computer that will allow a certain amount of function for the price. > If people are thinking they would like to replace legacy Mac Book > Pro's with new Mac Book's to save money- they will be giving up > something. Nonsense. People will even have to give up something when switching from one of the last version Macbooks to a recent one. The FW port that is. Which can become quite a crucial thing. There's absolutely no need to defend Apple in this case. It's just a very bad decision, no matter how you put it. - Sascha ------------------------------------

On Oct 15, 2008, at 12:17 PM, "Sascha Franck" S.Franck@gmx.de wrote: > This is completely beyond me. Clearly, you never worked in market research. ;) > it also seems as if you > couldn't swap harddrives yourself anymore without voiding the warranty Actually, one of the selling points of the new MacBook/MBP design is that you can access the harddrive far more easily from underneath (the battery and HD can be accessed through the rear panel). > This is pretty much ridiculous in my book. Its not ridiculous, it's marketing. Apple wants you and me to buy MacBook Pros. That's why the picture of the MBP on Apple's site has Final Cut Pro running on it. They want the girl doing her homework in a cafe to buy a MacBook, that's why it has iPhoto on the picture. They obviously did a lot of market research into what the majority of the millions of people who buy MacBooks find important, and FW wasn't one of those things. For those of us that do, they want to get as much money out of us as they can to buy the FW-equipped MacBook Pro. > Time to see what the Windows PC world will have on offer during the > next > months. For people who use Mac OS X only software, not enough. Orren ------------------------------------

--- In logic-users@yahoogroups.com, Mark Falchook wrote: > What would you suggest? Your constructive thoughts would be greatly > appreciated. Mark, I had a bit less performance moving to version 8 on a PPC dual 1.8 using Tiger versions 10.4.9, .10 & .11, Logic 8 is also slower at redrawing graphics which makes it feel a bit kludgey. Opinion... if you're going to run L8 you will need to upgrade to at least, Leopard 10.5.3 (which also causes a slight CPU hit). Logic 8 on early versions of Leopard were somewhat of a disaster, starting at version 10.5.3 Logic 8 starts performing up to speed but it's still not at the efficiency level of L7 on Tiger. On the plus side, the audio engine, compressor, channel EQ and other basics definitely sound better. Work flow improved... maybe, after you get used to it, depends on how your work. The internal audio editor is still terrible, like something from 1988. Do you have an option to back up your current system? If I'm going to experiment with a new install I do a complete backup (disk image using CopyCatX). Also, you can do a minimal install of Logic 8 installing only the program and not the other 40GB of loops and secondary programs. The Logic 7 install will not be affected, at least it wasn't here. HW ------------------------------------

On Oct 15, 2008, at 3:07 PM, Sascha Franck wrote: > Nonsense. People will even have to give up something when switching > from > one of the last version Macbooks to a recent one. The FW port that is. > Which can become quite a crucial thing. > There's absolutely no need to defend Apple in this case. > It's just a very bad decision, no matter how you put it. > > - Sascha Not defending Apple per se. I'm merely pointing out the situations where the utility of the new machines may outweigh the absent features people are used to. Apple does not need me to defend them. The new Mac Book Pro is exactly the machine I have been waiting for and I ordered one. My primary needs were processor speed, and FSB speed. I'm pumped. Sorry that this release is not attractive to you- your points are well- taken. Perhaps the landscape of Apple Computers will change in the future to suit you. Also does glass screens = glossy? Eddie Sullivan esullivan@imsproav.com ------------------------------------

Mark, Also, see this thread..... http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID36612&tstart There's some useful stuff there, as well as the usual cr@p. HW ------------------------------------

On Oct 15, 2008, at 3:56 PM, Orren Merton wrote: > Its not ridiculous, it's marketing. Apple wants you and me to buy > MacBook Pros. That's why the picture of the MBP on Apple's site has > Final Cut Pro running on it. They want the girl doing her homework in > a cafe to buy a MacBook, that's why it has iPhoto on the picture. > > They obviously did a lot of market research into what the majority of > the millions of people who buy MacBooks find important, and FW wasn't > one of those things. For those of us that do, they want to get as > much money out of us as they can to buy the FW-equipped MacBook Pro. > Even for audio applications (GB- Logic Express) there are so many USB options out there for input into software, keyboard controllers, USB Audio interfaces, Microphones, etc... and USB 2.0 is even fast enough to perform some basic tracking. Can you run a Pro Studio with a Mac Book? I doubt anyone would try... doesn't mean that a motivated end user couldn't do some spectacular work on one. Even for entry-level imaging, many camcorders and cameras are USB 2.0 and it seems to be fine for most folks. I just can't wait to get mine!!!! Eddie Sullivan esullivan@imsproav.com ------------------------------------

Currently working on a DVD score. I've converted the DVD video to DV format to use in Logic via the DVC110 I have. The DV video displays fine in either quicktime player or MPEG Streamclip as a 16:9 aspect ratio. When I load the DV movie into Logic it displays on my TV monitor as 3:4 aspect ratio. I've looked in the manual but nothing. Has anyone done this? Can Logic handle 16:9 video? It seems a strange oversight if it can't. Kind regards ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Paul Najar Jaminajar Music Production www.jaminajar.com ------------------------------------

Orren Merton wrote: > Actually, one of the selling points of the new MacBook/MBP design is > that you can access the harddrive far more easily from underneath (the > battery and HD can be accessed through the rear panel). Ok, didn't get that by now. > Its not ridiculous, it's marketing. Apple wants you and me to buy > MacBook Pros. That's why the picture of the MBP on Apple's site has > Final Cut Pro running on it. They want the girl doing her homework in > a cafe to buy a MacBook, that's why it has iPhoto on the picture. > They obviously did a lot of market research into what the majority of > the millions of people who buy MacBooks find important, and FW wasn't > one of those things. For those of us that do, they want to get as > much money out of us as they can to buy the FW-equipped MacBook Pro. Alright then. I won't buy into their tactics. > For people who use Mac OS X only software, not enough. Fortunately, there's not much OSX only software for me. In fact, it's Logic only. And as this doesn't get updated anymore anyways, it'll become just easier and easier for me to simply leave Apple alone with their strange business decisions. - Sascha ------------------------------------

On 15/10/2008, at 13:11, HKC wrote: > The rest of Aaplitube and Ampeg series are just ignored when a check > the boxes. > > I recently downloaded the Ampeg demo from IK and it was the same > thing. The (not so) funny thing is that they were working on my Mac Pro Oct. But I used Onyx to clean system caches and I enable the Audio Units Cache option. A big regret! When Logiuc re-scaned AU amplitubes were gone. If were using Time Machine probably a could go back in time... Marcio Nigro marcio@marcionigro.com.br ------------------------------------

On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 2:21 PM, Eddie Sullivan <esullivan@imsproav.com>wrote: > On Oct 15, 2008, at 3:56 PM, Orren Merton wrote: > > > Its not ridiculous, it's marketing. Apple wants you and me to buy > > MacBook Pros. That's why the picture of the MBP on Apple's site has > > Final Cut Pro running on it. They want the girl doing her homework in > > a cafe to buy a MacBook, that's why it has iPhoto on the picture. > > > > They obviously did a lot of market research into what the majority of > > the millions of people who buy MacBooks find important, and FW wasn't > > one of those things. For those of us that do, they want to get as > > much money out of us as they can to buy the FW-equipped MacBook Pro. > > > > Even for audio applications (GB- Logic Express) there are so many USB > options out there for input into software, keyboard controllers, USB > Audio interfaces, Microphones, etc... and USB 2.0 is even fast enough > to perform some basic tracking. Can you run a Pro Studio with a Mac > Book? I doubt anyone would try... doesn't mean that a motivated end > user couldn't do some spectacular work on one. > > Even for entry-level imaging, many camcorders and cameras are USB 2.0 > and it seems to be fine for most folks. > > I just can't wait to get mine!!!! > > Eddie Sullivan > esullivan@imsproav.com <esullivan%40imsproav.com> > > Why did the previous Macbooks have a Firewire port? Why was it okay then? -j ------------------------------------

At 11:59 AM 10/15/2008, you wrote: >Greetings, > >Here's my conundrum: I'm currently using Logic 7 on a G5 Dual 2.7 PPC with >OS 10.4.10 and 5 gigs of ram. It works fine except that with a recent CD >project, I've pushed this computer to it's limits. It got to the point where >Freezing a few tracks wasn't enough; at times I had to bounce almost all the >tracks to audio in order to squeeze a couple more AU instruments in. (Any >libraries that use Kontakt 2 or especially Guitar Rig tend to be serious cpu >hogs.) :( > >So I've got Logic 8 sitting here collecting dust. I had originally intended >to switch to Logic 8 after this project was completed, but now I'm having >second thoughts. Opinions seem to point in the direction of NOT switching to >Leopard on this machine, and just stick with 10.4.10 and install Logic 8. > >But my question is: If I stick with this computer, OS 10.4.10 and install >Logic 8, will I get less efficiency=less plug ins and libraries? Being a >keyboardist, almost all of my productions use a lot of soft synths and >sample libraries. On the one hand, I'd like to benefit from Logic 8's >improved sound engine and workflow, but on the other hand, I don't want to >be forced to max out my computer using even fewer plug ins and libs than I >am now. And given the current state of my wallet, I'd rather not have to >spend thousands on a new computer just yet. > >What would you suggest? Your constructive thoughts would be greatly >appreciated. > >Thanks, >-Mark I'm in a similar boat, and just recently had to install Logic 8 (after owning it for a year!) because I'm working with some clients using Logic Express 8 and I couldn't import their files (quite embarassing really). The changeover has been smoother than I had expected, though not without hiccups. I'm on a G5 dual 2.0 running Tiger 10.4.11 with 8 GB of RAM. I have taken a little bit of a performance hit, as some songs heavy with VI's and samples that were running at about 75% with Logic 7 are now red-lining. One thing to watch out for is if you're using any of the many new instrument channel strips in the library, a lot of them include CPU hogging insert plugins, such as individual Space Designers, that are easy to miss and will bog down the system further. Overall though, in spite of that and the slower Screenset switching and other graphics slowdowns, the program feels more efficient and stable to me. I wish I had installed it sooner as I'm learning to really like the layout and workflow better. But it has caused me to move that screamin' PowerMac to the top of my wish list. ------------------------------------

I believe its the DVC110 that is restricting the picture. You say "it displays on my TV monitor" so you are playing back through the DVC110. Have you tried playing it actually in Logic - on your monitor? Roger Jackson Film Music Oxford UK