If you cut/copy/paste objects around it asks you if you want to cut/copy the automation data with the object or just leave it... I still don't see how that "breaks" anything. It would be nice if there was a setting to always/never move automation when moving the objects, but that's nothing worthy of calling it broken... Can you be any more specific? Thanks, Jeremy > From: uswitalski@... [mailto:uswitalski@...] > > > FWIW I think the new automation is excellent. I work alot with > > softsyths - now you just pick a parameter - by name - draw in a nice > > curve and bingo - it's done. It's so easy to tweak to things that > > Yes, but you could have gotten all this without leaving the "object > based" nature that logic had in the first place. And that¹s where the > new automation breaks (and sucks as an other thread reads). > > Regards, > > Uli.

MartJe@... writes: >If you cut/copy/paste objects around it asks you if you >want to cut/copy the automation data with the object >or just leave it... I still don't see how that "breaks" >anything. It would be nice if there was a setting to >always/never move automation when moving the >objects, but that's nothing worthy of calling it broken... Actually, there is such a setting: Options -> Track Automation -> Track Automation Settings. You can choose "Always", "Never" or "Ask". f-erenc szabo, smarty pants Z+E+R+O+B+E+A+T "NOW POWERED BY THE MIRACLE OF THE TRANSISTOR!"

> If you cut/copy/paste objects around it asks you if you want to cut/copy the > automation data with the object or just leave it... I still don't see how > that "breaks" anything. It would be nice if there was a setting to > always/never move automation when moving the objects, but that's nothing > worthy of calling it broken... Can you be any more specific? I was more refering to logics "object based" nature. And thinking "objects" does not call for tracks. So tba from the idea is kind of old (working, and ok, ok). I personally was just hoping for some kind of different approach. I.e. I don¹t see a reason why there is no way to simply set level (relative or absolute) for an audio region (which is an object). Instead I have to think of the track that I place the audio region on an change the level of that track. that, "breaks" the idea of object based. I can understand that this is difficult to understand (!?) _ but for someone just starting with digital audio there is no reason to have tracks at all!. And if ... They should be handeld as objects them self ( :) , hu? ). I didn¹t mean any offence. I just never liked protools for example for its track based nature. The concept of logic is just not completely logic anymore (never was actually and that¹s too bad). But I loved tha "object" attempt. Cheers, Uli. (sorry if my engilsh _does_ suck) ;)

Here is something.: http://www.arboretum.com/S20_products/S29a_montage/S29aPRODINFO.html Now, I don¹t say at all: this is the way! ... But its an object orientated aproach and interesting, and w/out tracks. ;) But its also not here yet. :( And no alternative to logic. Oh well, nuff said. Back to music! Cheers, Uli. _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

Andy Voelkel 310 399 2289 andy@... >I was more refering to logics "object based" nature. And thinking "objects" >does not call for tracks. So tba from the idea is kind of old (working, and >ok, ok). I personally was just hoping for some kind of different approach. >I.e. I don¹t see a reason why there is no way to simply set level (relative >or absolute) for an audio region (which is an object). Instead I have to >think of the track that I place the audio region on an change the level of >that track. that, "breaks" the idea of object based. I can understand that >this is difficult to understand (!?) _ but for someone just starting with >digital audio there is no reason to have tracks at all!. And if ... They >should be handeld as objects them self ( :) , hu? ). At last someone else has spotted this oversight! This feature was available in StudioVision (although it was limited in resolution because it used a MIDI "event velocity" for the region). You could do most of what you need automation to do by simply manipulating these "region volume" commands. You could move the regions around from track to track and instrument to instrument and maintain these relative volume adjustments. As a result, you could minimize the amount of traditional automation needed, along with the complexity that any traditional automation scheme entails. And you could still do traditional automation. The automation would be combined with the "region volumes" to get a final track. It worked well. I miss it. And it would be SO EASY for the folks at Emagic to implement.

>> I.e. I don¹t see a reason why there is no way to simply set level (relative >> or absolute) for an audio region (which is an object). > At last someone else has spotted this oversight! This feature was available in > StudioVision (although it was limited in resolution because it used a MIDI > "event velocity" for the region). Jap! StudioVision is still on me drive and absolutely essential for live arrangements (oh how I was hoping for touchtracks to get an update). > It worked well. I miss it. And it would be SO EASY for the folks at Emagic > to implement. Yes, please! Cheers, Uli _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

I have to admit that I have little idea what most people are talking about in the automation thread because I never use the automation in Logic, it's just a composition tool for my purposes. Everything is recorded and mixed (well, rough mixed) within protools. So could anyone who has already tried the new automation AND knows pro tools tell me how the two are alike/disalike? Thanks! Colin Miller

snoopy@... writes: >could anyone who has already tried the new automation >AND knows pro tools tell me how the two are alike/disalike? Both are track based and have the standard Read, Write, Touch and Latch modes. In both cases, the recording of automation is independent from the recording of audio/MIDI, although Logic still allows the old style way (which has some uses). If you compare "version 1.0" of what we now know as PT's automation (around PT3 seven years ago) with "version 1.0" of what we now know of Logic's new automation (Logic5 today), Logic is pretty advanced. There are definitely some things missing (like individual parameter muting and snapshots), but you have to realize that it's merely 1.0 of the new automation. However, there are indeed some features that PT doesn't have (like being able to graphically invert automation that establishes "zero" in the centre like PAN, or being able to logarithmically [like PT does only] and linearly trim automation, or the ability to establish curves between two nodes, or the ability to explode a track into subtracks to view/edit multiple automation simultaneously). Some people wondered why we couldn't have gotten incremental upgrades to the automation over the years like PT got. Well, the answer is partly because Logic needed a partial rewrite to conceptually allow for this kind of advanced automation in the first place. And while that was being done, why not throw in 10,000 levels of multiple undo/redo (wait for a free future subrelease) among many other things? Sometimes you can do light renovations to your house while you are living in it. Sometimes you gut the place and move out for a while. Sometimes you might even tear it down and rebuild. f-erenc szabo, smarty pants Z+E+R+O+B+E+A+T "NOW POWERED BY THE MIRACLE OF THE TRANSISTOR!"

In Pro Tools when you copy/paste a region or move a region, the automation for it follows. Would this be considered object based? One of the essential PT automation features is how well the automation is edited graphically in the arrange window. I never use the actual faders for automation. If a word needs tocome up, I highlight the word (something in general not acheivable in logic due to how it's set up) , select the trim tool and adjust the automation for that word. In Logic 4.0 with Hyper draw, this requires an extensive amount of mouse clicking. Click before and after the section, move the node up/down before the section, move the node up/down after the section, keep adjusting both until the volume is correct. I'm wondering how the new automation handles this? Colin Miller > > In both cases, the recording of automation is independent from > the recording of audio/MIDI, although Logic still allows the old > style way (which has some uses). >

Ok, I give up, after scouring Emagic's web site, I am unable to find any information on how to upgrade. Who takes my money? I expected to find a big link on the front of the web site that said "Click here to order your upgrade!". It was hard just finding information about LA 5 which was under the Logic "control" section, a link not mentioning or suggesting Logic 5 information. Do I call someone? Do I e-mail someone, can I order over the web? Why is this info not on the site, er maybe I should ask why is it not very easy to find (defined as being accessable from the home page). I am sure this has probably been covered before so please forgive me. But, I just feel that if I want to sell something to someone, I should make it easy enough for even moron's like myself to find (waiting for someone to point out something obvious i missed so I can say "d'oh!"). :-) Colin Miller PS - I run Linux, so maybe my web browser isn't displaying some fancy flash links or something.

Ok, nevermind, I finally found it under the XSKey news section (had to use a macintosh). Is this a logical place to put the upgrade procedure? ah well, sorry for the wasted bandwidth! :-) Colin Miller

snoopy@... writes: >In Pro Tools when you copy/paste a region or move >a region, the automation for it follows. Would this be >considered object based? "Object Based" means something different than moving automation with regions. Previous to PT5, PT was only time based. Logic has always been object based. now with PT5, you can choose between time and object based editing. But as far as automation goes, PT's has always been track based, like the new automation in Logic5. >One of the essential PT automation features is how well the >automation is edited graphically in the arrange window. I never >use the actual faders for automation. If a word needs tocome >up, I highlight the word (something in general not acheivable >in logic due to how it's set up) , select the trim tool and adjust >the automation for that word. In Logic 4.0 with Hyper draw, >this requires an extensive amount of mouse clicking. Click >before and after the section, move the node up/down before >the section, move the node up/down after the section, keep >adjusting both until the volume is correct. >I'm wondering how the new automation handles this? Logic5 actually has *more* tricks to graphically edit the automation than ProTools. It's called "HyperDraw", and it's way better in Logic5 than it used to be. But if you use PT you are probably taking advantage of the TIME BASED editing to select a portion of a region and then edit the automation surrounding it. Of course, Logic isn't time based, but there is a new automation tool that specifically allows you to do this (and more). In a manner of speaking, the new automation is "time based". Even folks who use ProTools Free (and actually know how to use it) will understand what "time based editing" is (PT Free doesn't offer the "object based editing" that PT TDM does). f-erenc szabo, smarty pants Z+E+R+O+B+E+A+T "NOW POWERED BY THE MIRACLE OF THE TRANSISTOR!"

--- In logic-users@y..., Colin Miller <snoopy@m...> wrote: > Ok, I give up, after scouring Emagic's web site, I am unable to find any > information on how to upgrade. Who takes my money? For upgrades contact the Emagic distributer in YOUR country.

What I was referring to was finding THAT information. It just turned out that the emgic web site uses shockwave and my browser doesn't support it well so I always had to skip the intro page (www.emagic.de) which has the shop button. ON IE on a mac it was pretty simple. > For upgrades contact the Emagic distributer in YOUR country. > > >

> > "Object Based" means something different than moving > automation with regions. Previous to PT5, PT was only > time based. Logic has always been object based. now > with PT5, you can choose between time and object based > editing. > > But as far as automation goes, PT's has always been > track based, like the new automation in Logic5. > Could you define object based auotmation for me then? In PT, the automation follows the regions around when you moved them, which makes me think in terms of 'object', but maybe a different definition than the offical one you guys are referring to. > > Logic5 actually has *more* tricks to graphically edit the > automation than ProTools. It's called "HyperDraw", and it's > way better in Logic5 than it used to be. I'm well familliar with hyper draw which is like the equiv of PT's graphical auomtion editing, but in v4.0 it can be very tedious. > > But if you use PT you are probably taking advantage of the > TIME BASED editing to select a portion of a region and then > edit the automation surrounding it. Of course, Logic isn't > time based, but there is a new automation tool that specifically > allows you to do this (and more). In a manner of speaking, > the new automation is "time based". Great to hear! Think I'm still a little confused about the actual definition of timebased/object based automation. I will try reading through the threads to get a better understanding (don't get me wrong, I know well about using automation, just unsure of the terminology being used) > > Even folks who use ProTools Free (and actually know how to > use it) will understand what "time based editing" is (PT Free > doesn't offer the "object based editing" that PT TDM does). Maybe it would make more sense to me if I tried PT Free :-) I would like to eventually be able to do everything in Logic so I can continually be writting the song throughout the recording process (I use mostly the MIDI side, very little audio). But right now switching from PT, and then trying to do the same thing in Logic gets very frustrating. Not because I can't or don't know how to, but because of how much easier it is for me in PT. This new update should hopefully close the gap enough that maybe I can do more audio in Logic. Rex 2.0 support alone (in arrange window) is enough reason for me to upgrade. Just for referrence, I am mainly a PT user and somewhat new to Logic, so be patient with me :-) Colin Miller

on 2/3/02 10:51 PM, Colin Miller at snoopy@... wrote: > Just for referrence, I am mainly a PT user and somewhat new to Logic, so be > patient with me :-) Welcome to the Logic world Colin - its worth the learning curve! D

snoopy@... writes: >Could you define object based auotmation for me then? >In PT, the automation follows the regions around when >you moved them, which makes me think in terms of >'object', but maybe a different definition than the offical >one you guys are referring to. Object Based Automation (more correctly called Region Based Automation) is when the automation only exists inside the regions themselves. No automation can exist between two regions where there is empty space. Disadvantages to RBA: 1) When moving a region from one track to another the automation which follows may be completely illogical and not applicable to the destination track. 2) It's impossible to perform automation that anticipates the upcoming region (to eliminate short "clicks" for example). 3) It's impossible to continue automation after the end of a region if there is still audio in, say, a reverb or echo tail, or a synth part that keeps trailing on with a long release. 4) It's impossible to perform continuously variable automation on looped regions, since each one would naturally have identical automation. Of course, Track Based Automation could have been vaguely simulated by having extra tracks with one looooong region each from start to finish. But it's a kludge. Logic's new automation scheme doesn't *only* add the TBA method by way of automation improvement. If somebody doesn't want to upgrade Logic5 after reading about all the improvements by now, I don't know how else to convince them. snoopy@... writes: >I'm well familliar with hyper draw which is like the equiv of >PT's graphical auomtion editing, but in v4.0 it can be very >tedious. Yes, definitely. Recently I had to do a project in a studio with only Logic4 and I wish I could somehow purge my memory of Logic5 while working there. Dinosaur by comparison. f-erenc szabo, smarty pants Z+E+R+O+B+E+A+T "NOW POWERED BY THE MIRACLE OF THE TRANSISTOR!"

On 3/3/02 10:29 AM, "f-erenc szabo" <zerobeat@...> wrote: > Of course, Track Based Automation could have been vaguely > simulated by having extra tracks with one looooong region each > from start to finish. But it's a kludge. It's a kludge that's worked rather well for me for 5 years actually, but I'm sure glad those days are (almost) over... Malcolm