Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Logic Pro X

apple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 240 posts

Re: Logic Pro X

#231

Post by crucialfelix »

baddox wrote: post #127
crucialfelix wrote: post #125

they should just call it Garage Band Pro now. this used to be pro software but they've really killed off their professional users.

I have never used any version of Logic, but the reviews I have read are all saying that none of the power features have been removed. The Macworld review is titled "Logic Pro X loses none of its power, gains great new features" [0]. The Loop even explicitly says "Rumors have circulated for a long time that Logic Pro was going to be discontinued or that it was going to be reincarnated as some sort of 'GarageBand Pro.'…

I've used logic extensively since 1991 on the Atari. I spoke with two other professional users last night and they agreed. Reviews not withstanding, those of us who were power users feel cheated. There were strong rumors that this version was never even going to come out and that the dev team had been reduced.

Re: Logic Pro X

#232

Post by laumars »

swift wrote: post #216
laumars wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not exactly. Sadly this is one of those instances where a concise point isn't an accurate one. Sequencers (Logic Pro, Cubase, etc) were originally built to work along side classic studio hardware. And while more and more studios these days go all software, the sequencer paradigm has stuck because it largely works. You're also right that many soft-synths / virtual instruments are there to emulate real hardware, but th…

I'm not sure what you mean when you mention DAWs based around programming. Are you referring to things like Reaktor, Max, and PD?

I was thinking more text based ones like Overtone[1], but I'd completely forgotten about DAWs like the ones you've mentioned. Nice spot :)

[1] http://vimeo.com/22798433

Re: Logic Pro X

#233

Post by rhizome »

coldtea wrote: post #227
rhizome wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment is a bit like free jazz: it's all very impressive on the surface, but it doesn't really mean anything and ultimately one feels like it was just an exercise in ego massage. all that should matter is whether the new features are meaningful to you, and whether it breaks anything you need at present. It's all too rare that a person's conclusion directly contradicts their own thesis.

I don't see any contradiction. Checking if the new features matter to you, and your workflow is not "ego massage". It's simply being honest about your needs and pragmatic. The "ego massage" which the parent complaints about is a different thing, namely the: "I'm so pro, but Apple made it easier for amateurs, not 1337 like me, this sucks" kind of drivel. Notice there was nothing about how it hampers HIS workflow, only…

The contradiction is in promoting personal "meaning" (I'm guessing he actually means preference, though) in the composition of software features in an application, yet not allowing for the same to be a feature in the composition and practice of free jazz, a style he baldy denigrates as "meaningless." The only way this contradiction can be resolved positively for free jazz is if the style included pandering to his taste.

Re: Logic Pro X

#234

Post by louthy »

princess3000 wrote: post #146
louthy wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's the argument that the quirkiness of the original hardware control methods translated into unique sounds and programming. If you look at something like a 303 which was originally designed to be a bass guitar support for guitarists, and ended up being the sound of Acid House; you'd be less likely to produce that method of programming if it were set up like a standard synth.

I still can't believe they actually thought that thing was going to sound like a real bass guitar.

Right!

Re: Logic Pro X

#235

Post by scrumper »

rhizome wrote: post #233
coldtea wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see any contradiction. Checking if the new features matter to you, and your workflow is not "ego massage". It's simply being honest about your needs and pragmatic. The "ego massage" which the parent complaints about is a different thing, namely the: "I'm so pro, but Apple made it easier for amateurs, not 1337 like me, this sucks" kind of drivel. Notice there was nothing about how it hampers HIS workflow, only…

The contradiction is in promoting personal "meaning" (I'm guessing he actually means preference, though) in the composition of software features in an application, yet not allowing for the same to be a feature in the composition and practice of free jazz, a style he baldy denigrates as "meaningless." The only way this contradiction can be resolved positively for free jazz is if the style included pandering to his tas…

Well no, not really. My comment wasn't about free jazz, nor was it about meaning. I simply used a stereotype about free jazz as a tool with which to beat up the original comment.

Your interpretation is yours, and your choice to make a linkage between two usages of the word 'meaning' that weren't intended is also valid. I can't very well attack the original comment based on my reading of it and then ask you not to do the same to mine. That being said, my comment was structured like this:

1. Attention grabber: you're full of hot air. 2. This is why. 3. Here's a more mature way to think about pros, amateurs, and software.

I don't believe that the passing reference to a style of music has any real effect on the thrust of my argument.

I am slightly regretting picking on free jazz: its fans are, predictably, articulate. Perhaps I should have used Markov chain poetry instead of free jazz, then only the algorithms would be upset.

Re: Logic Pro X

#236

Post by scrumper »

mambodog wrote: post #200
scrumper wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment is a bit like free jazz: it's all very impressive on the surface, but it doesn't really mean anything and ultimately one feels like it was just an exercise in ego massage. Logic has long had a home in the 'pro' world at the songwriting and demo production stage. You'll be hard-pressed to find an engineer in a commercial studio doing tracking or mixing in anything other than Pro Tools (though they certain…

As one of the other replies to your comment touched on, I am of the belief that it is very difficult to optimise a complex interface for all skill levels (while maintaining the same level of productivity for users at the high end). You seem to be taking the term 'amateur' as dismissive or even insulting. I absolutely do not mean any offence by it, simply that it represents a shifting of focus of the application to a…

I would encourage you to spend a bit of time with the new user manual for LPX. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised by what they've done: there's really nothing missing, concealed, or watered down; even the environment is still there. There are just some new ways to access that power.

Arguing about this stuff is all fun, but ultimately we're all musicians (among other things). Snarkiness doesn't help anyone, so I apologize if I caused any offense to you personally. I do stand by what I said about your comment though.

Re: Logic Pro X

#237

Post by akrs »

akrs wrote: post #155

Check out Blend.io. Its a betaworks-studio product for open-source, cross-geo music collaboration. It currently supports Ableton Live and Maschine but support for other DAWs (including Logic) is coming soon.

Btw, Blend is still in private beta but you can use the invite code: EARLYACCESS to sign up now.

Re: Logic Pro X

#238

Post by Griever »

coldtea wrote: post #217
Griever wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've actually been storing my Logic projects on GitHub for a while. It works pretty well for the most part, but I do run into some issues when dealing with the size of the files. Perhaps Logic X shrinks them down in size a bit in comparison to Logic 9, but I doubt it. Here's the repo if you are interested: https://github.com/jpsullivan/LogicProjects One day I'd really like to make an open source album that people cou…

> It works pretty well for the most part, but I do run into some issues when dealing with the size of the files. Perhaps Logic X shrinks them down in size a bit in comparison to Logic 9, but I doubt it. How would it "shrink" them? You record uncompressed audio in high resolution and bitrate. At the very best it could half them if it could use some loseless algorithm, but DAWs record and use AIFF and WAV.

There are more files in a logic project than just .wav files.

Re: Logic Pro X

#239

Post by coldtea »

Griever wrote: post #238
coldtea wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It works pretty well for the most part, but I do run into some issues when dealing with the size of the files. Perhaps Logic X shrinks them down in size a bit in comparison to Logic 9, but I doubt it. How would it "shrink" them? You record uncompressed audio in high resolution and bitrate. At the very best it could half them if it could use some loseless algorithm, but DAWs record and use AIFF and WAV.

There are more files in a logic project than just .wav files.

Sure, but the audio files are those that contribute most to the size.

The size of MIDI/automation files, for example, are insignificant.

As for samples, those are usually referenced from outside the project.

Re: Logic Pro X

#240

Post by bsaul »

Sephiroth87 wrote: post #160
ryen wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Logic is one of the cheapest (if not the cheapest) of the higher end DAWs out there. Combine that with the amount of plugins and sounds it ships with at that price tag and I think its one of the best options out there.

I'm not disagreeing with that, but with people that complains Apple stuff is expensive, except when it's not and they still complain for the opposite reason...

There's a bit of truth in there. But my remark was more general than just apple's product. The audio software industry is extremely poor compared to the difficulty of the algorithmic it has to deal with. It's the only computer tools i know that needs sub 50ms latency all the time, with extremely complex mathematic computations, along with an extremely and intuitive GUI.

A proof of that is that android still doesn't have descent audio performance. Yet it is able to do everything else.

Post reply on HN