Logic Pro 10

sootysax wrote:

I am also dreading the release of "GarageBand Pro X". I have been using Logic since back before the Emagic days when Logic was "C-Lab Notator". Logic has maintained the same look and feel through all of the changes and upgrades.

The "Garageband Pro X" meme is journalistic and blogger BS.

What happened with FCPX is they had to rewrite the code from scratch to get it to support modern technologies. When they released it, it has some features missing from the old version and a new UI.

The press and some users, show the missing features as a sign of "dumbing down".And the new interface reminded them of iMovie, hence "iMovie Pro".

Both notions were idiotic:

1) The features were missing because you cannot replicate from scratch 100% of a 10+ year old program in one go. They had been adding these features back slowly release after release (multicam editing, etc).

Rewritting from scratch does not mean "dumbing down", it means investing TONS OF MONEY on the project.

That is, instead of doing an incremental update, like Adobe does with the Suite programs most of the time, and call it a day, they took the time and development costs to lay a new foundation.

2) As for the new, iMovie like UI, it was the opposite case (iMovie adopted a "pro" look, not vice versa).

iMovie served as a testbed for some FCPX features, and as it was smaller in scope, and easier to ship, they shipped it with their new pro look (black, gradients etc), BEFORE FCPX shipped.

It's not like the old FCP look was the "pro" one, and the black look is the "amateur one". Black is the new pro Apple look. Apple went for the slick black, gradienty look in its Pro programs for some time (see Aperture, Logic), and the they added the same look to iMovie and iPhoto.

The only reason FCP had a different look before FCPX was because it was an old program, written before the look change.

3) Logic already had it's big change, version 9 the transition to 64bit. If they didn't have much pain with that, it means that the code was already in good shape, so no need for a FCPX rewrite.

That said, they will most certainly move to a new blacker UI, a la FCPX, because Apple tries to have a unified look for their apps at any givent point in time.

It also had not been adandoned at all, besides the job ads for Logic engineers (in US *AND* Germany), it has had tons of updates, with bugfixes and smaller new features. The most recent one, just came out.

4) Keep in mind also, that music tech needs change over time. Elvis had a 2 track tape machine, we have 100+ DAW channels. In the nineties there were no plugins, now even the biggest stars mix "in the box", at least partially. And back in the day, only profesional engineers used a DAW, now everybody can be his own engineer (and a lot of times is forced to be because of lack of funds).

A modern DAW has to reflect those things too. Not only adding support for new stuff, but also making modern workflows better, not immitating how they used to do it in 1989.

bugpowder wrote:

sootysax wrote:

I am also dreading the release of "GarageBand Pro X". I have been using Logic since back before the Emagic days when Logic was "C-Lab Notator". Logic has maintained the same look and feel through all of the changes and upgrades.

The "Garageband Pro X" meme is journalistic and blogger BS.

What happened with FCPX is they had to rewrite the code from scratch to get it to support modern technologies. When they released it, it has some features missing from the old version and a new UI.

I didn't think of it as dumbed down as much as it was an Alpha or early Beta release and they decided to release it and use paying customers as beta testers... half the features they did implement either didn't work as advertised or crashed the program... then following updates would hose projects that were completed in earlier versions. Apple caused the problem not by releasing software that was missing features but by releasing software that just plain wasn't ready... the PBS editors I work with tried the first few versions and finally tossed it out the window, ended up moving to a competitors software.

Wow...I have to admit that I'm a bit stunned to see so much negative speculation about the future of Logic. Except to the extent that anyone might have posted reliable inside information in this thread, it is well to remember that, as a friend of mine is fond of saying, "Expecting truth from online discussion groups is like expecting gourmet from a mouthful of wasps."

Maybe it's time to back up, take a deep breath, and recognize that Apple is still selling Logic Pro, and they're still updating it. So far, I have no reason to infer that they intend to kill it or dumb it down.

OK...wait—I'll admit that maybe there's a reason to wonder whether Apple is abandoning the pro user in general. There's no end of speculation on that point, and I can't say that there's no rhyme or reason behind such fears. After all, the 17" MacBook Pro simply vanished from the product line without so much as a by your leave. But then, this is Apple we're talking about, and no one should be surprised that they offer no explanations. It would be more surprising if they DID explain. Besides, I'm not convinced that the 17" MacBook Pro is permanently extinct. I have a hunch that it's...er, "on sabbatical" until Apple retools it with Retina, and possibly makes other enhancements that elevate a new and improved 17" MBPro well above the Anorexic Chic™ malaise that currently afflicts the existing smaller MBPs. One can hope, anyway.

What about the suggestion that Apple is becoming "a phone company"? Well, so what if they are? That doesn't mean they can't fill more than one market niche. They're certainly doing that already, and they're not exactly hurting for development capital. Expansion and market share growth in new areas doesn't necessarily mean curtailing their market position in existing areas.

I have no inside information, so my hunches are no less speculative than anyone else's, but I don't see Apple abandoning the pro market. I suspect it's partly a matter of company pride, but it's more than that. Apple has been a technology leader for many years, and I think that has been in large part responsible for the company's extraordinary success. They can't afford to lose the initiative as a technology leader. Innovation has always driven the company (...well, except for a period during the 1990s, before Steve's return to the helm).

Of course, Steve's gone, and no one knows exactly what that bodes for Apple's future. But if Apple intends to stay on top, they're going to have to innovate, and that means creating the kind of high-end products that professionals use—not because the pro market will ever be the principal source of the company's revenue streams, but because the technologies that trickle down from those high-end products are the ones that eventually tug the low-end, mass-market products upstream.

In other words, I don't expect Logic to become "Garage Band Pro". What I think is far more likely is that Garage Band will increasingly become "Logic Lite". 😉

Pancenter wrote:

Here's an example regarding Retina systems... and there a many similar posts in different forums.

https://discussions.apple.com/thread/4454047?answerId=20092844022#20092844022

This issue has been fixed in the latest (9.1.8 IIRC) release.

All software has bugs. Your point?

Pancenter wrote:

I didn't think of it as dumbed down as much as it was an Alpha or early Beta release and they decided to release it and use paying customers as beta testers... half the features they did implement either didn't work as advertised or crashed the program...

Only the complaints wasn't about bugs or crashing, but about features missing and "dumbing down".

If it was just the 1.0 version of a rewrite not being 100% bug-free, that's hardly an issue. Actually it is to be expected.

But people complained about a supposed "intentional dumbing down" which was BS.

Both missing features and bug fixes were added to the following versions.

Plus, what kind of pro jumps to a new program as soon as it is released and before it had it's first updates?

Most of the pros I know are 1-2 versions behind the latest, both in DAW and video editors. Why? Because they have actual work and projects to do, and value stability over jumping to test the latest software.

bugpowder wrote:

Most of the pros I know are 1-2 versions behind the latest, both in DAW and video editors. Why? Because they have actual work and projects to do, and value stability over jumping to test the latest software.

Yup...that's certainly true in my case. That's one of the reasons it took me so long to upgrade to Logic 9. I had my hands full with many projects I had started in Logic 7.2.3, and as long as everything was working perfectly (which it was), I had no compelling reason to install Logic 8 (which I completely skipped), and plenty of reason not to impose massive disruption on my daily workflow.

I have a similar situation now with Logic 9 in Snow Leopard. Everything is working beautifully, and I have no reason to install Lion or Mountain Lion, which I know will render other software non-functional. Why should I seek that headache? Just to be on the bleeding edge? No thanks.

Productivity trumps The Latest and Coolest™ every time for me. For that very reason, I'm in no hurry to see a new version of Logic, and I won't rush to install it when it's released.

bugpowder wrote:

Pancenter wrote:

I didn't think of it as dumbed down as much as it was an Alpha or early Beta release and they decided to release it and use paying customers as beta testers... half the features they did implement either didn't work as advertised or crashed the program...

Only the complaints wasn't about bugs or crashing, but about features missing and "dumbing down".

If it was just the 1.0 version of a rewrite not being 100% bug-free, that's hardly an issue. Actually it is to be expected.

But people complained about a supposed "intentional dumbing down" which was BS.

Both missing features and bug fixes were added to the following versions.

Most of the pros I know are 1-2 versions behind the latest, both in DAW and video editors. Why? Because they have actual work and projects to do, and value stability over jumping to test the latest software.

I'm with you on the last part, I've stuck with Snow Leopard and Logic 9.1.3, because it works... however I work with video editors from several PBS stations that honestly gave FCPX a fair try, not one of them mentioned dumbing down, what they most complained about was inconsistencies, features that did not work as advertised, random crashing and just plain erratic and unusable performance (at a professional level). This was after several updates.. these people work under time limits.

When FCPX came out Apple advertised it as the best thing since the invention of the PB & J sandwich, big hoopla... the facts were, it svcked something awful.

Also, FCPX has the single distinction of being one of the first (if not the first) pieces of Apple software where users demanded their money back en masse.... and got it!

So, are you assigned from the damage control division.

And lets not forget the awful situation with Mac Pros at the moment, that only just got a sandy bridge update a few months back, when Ivy Bridge is mid-cycle and Haswell is well on its way.

Let's also not forget that Logic Pro in its current iteration contains ARM code in its Universal Binary, an instruction set built for phones and ULPs, not professional workstations.

Lets also not forget that there have been 2 new Garageband apps and countless updates since LP9 sat twiddling its thumbs.

Let's also not forget that LP9 is dead end code too, technically. Environment was designed and created when multiprocessor systems didnt exist, let alone Hyperthreading, which slows LP down in most applications and that is why incidentally, LP runs less tracks per CPU cycle on Mountain Lion than it has ever done since Leopard.

Let's also not forget that it took nearly 1.5 years for Apple to get off its butt and fix the GUI lagging issues on Lion, and they still havnet managed it on ML.

Let's also not forget that Logic was a selling point for Macs when Prokit apps were a selling point for Macs, and whilst it's great to think that Apple will still support us when we represent a very small portion of thier new microprogram markets (driven by the App Stores, flashy GUI, marketing to the young masses, twitter integration and in essence, profit), Logic hasn't featured on thier main reasons to go Mac in eons. Logic costs a lot to develop, if they an sell just as many Macs making $15 apps that do lots of little things then monolithinc profession applications just don't make sense anymore.

And lets not forget the awful situation with Mac Pros at the moment, that only just got a sandy bridge update a few months back, when Ivy Bridge is mid-cycle and Haswell is well on its way.

For the Mac Pros, I agree. Though:

1) Cook said there would be a 2013 redesign of the line.

2) Apple might choose to drop it entirely, since it doesn't sell that well, and Thunderbolt gives the same extension capabilities to iMacs and even laptops nowadays.

Let's also not forget that Logic Pro in its current iteration contains ARM code in its Universal Binary, an instruction set built for phones and ULPs, not professional workstations.

ARM code in Logic's universal binary? This is not true, not to mention BS that doesn't even hold technically. Why would they put ARM code in the binary, since no Mac CPU can execute it?

Where did you found that BS rumor?

Lets also not forget that there have been 2 new Garageband apps and countless updates since LP9 sat twiddling its thumbs.

Where by "twiddling its thumbs" you mean "a constant row of updates, not only with bugfixing and polishing but also major stuff like 64 bit support and OSC"?

Where is the 64-bit Pro Tools, exactly?

The 2 Garageband versions mean nothing at all. Garageband is a much more scaled down and easy to add stuff to app, since they are mostly adding basic stuff that already existed on Logic.

Let's also not forget that LP9 is dead end code too, technically. Environment was designed and created when multiprocessor systems didnt exist,

Which, as a coder, can tell you is totally beside the point. The environment is an abstraction layer over the workings of the sound engine, not something that needs to be multiprocessor aware itself.

The multiple processors should be transparent to the environment and the worlkflow anyway -- so you can work with 1 or (eventually) 16 of them at the same time.

let alone Hyperthreading, which slows LP down in most applications and that is why incidentally, LP runs less tracks per CPU cycle on Mountain Lion than it has ever done since Leopard.

No, it's not that the reason. Not even close. Leopard and Lion already supported hyperthreading anyway.

A higher CPU usage on ML can be explained with lots of things, basically changes to the OS kernel and memory schedulers. Those things happen all the time with different kernels, and it can go up or down, but usually not much. In fact, as for Logic 9's performance on ML, check:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgpLEIdVI3E

Let's also not forget that it took nearly 1.5 years for Apple to get off its butt and fix the GUI lagging issues on Lion, and they still havnet managed it on ML.

Or that it took decades for Avid to provide 64 bit Pro Tools or better MIDI editing or working with native cards, or even plugin delay compesation.

Your point? 1.5 years, and SEVERAL Logic updates. So it's not like it was an easy task to fix.

Logic hasn't featured on thier main reasons to go Mac in eons.

Actually, Logic NEVER featured on their main reasons to go Mac EVER. So nothing has changed in this regard. Their ads and web copy are for everyday users, you don't show a DAW to Joe Average on a TV ad... What would he do with it?

bugpowder wrote:

1) Cook said there would be a 2013 redesign of the line.

2) Apple might choose to drop it entirely, since it doesn't sell that well, and Thunderbolt gives the same extension capabilities to iMacs and even laptops nowadays.

Yes, the 2013 product will be interesting. Since one noe can run almost 100 tracks on a Mac Mini, and since the number of people who need a Mac Pro will be reduced for everyperformance bump other Macs get, of course Apple won't reinvent the Mac Pro every year.

Re. dropping the Mac Pro entirely - I believe that they'll rather look for some radical changes, like making it smaller, not necessarily contain *built-in PCIe slots*, possibly use their own chip sin the future, and a lot more capacity in terms of connectors.

ARM code in Logic's universal binary? This is not true, not to mention BS that doesn't even hold technically. Why would they put ARM code in the binary, since no Mac CPU can execute it?

Where did you found that BS rumor?

I'm looking forward to his response to that question.

About "Garage Band Pro" - what if Apple actually IS using Garage Band and iOs as labswhere they can try out modernizing the audio engine, making it more cross-chip compatible, more CPU - and multicore efficient etc. and at some point will use the refined and modernized engine in a pro product? Sounds like a b r i l l i a n t idea to me.

Where is the 64-bit Pro Tools, exactly?

All we know is that it's late, and probably that users have to pay to get that code when it's ready. In Logic it came as a free feature (two years ago?) in one of the many Logic subreleases, while Avid not-so-silently has fired half their staff, including the whole Sibelius team. And so on.

Most of the pros I know are 1-2 versions behind the latest, both in DAW and video editors. Why? Because they have actual work and projects to do, and value stability over jumping to test the latest software.

Yes, pro users are used to be 6-12 months or more behind the latest versions of things. Some people on this forum complain the same day a new OS is out, if it isn't 100% compatible with their DAWm which pretty much is like having a tattoo in their forehead saying "I'm not a Pro". :-)

But with all due respect, the "don't forget that there's ARM code in there" makes this whole thing a little funny: how can I forget something I don't know, anyway? :-) But Logic on ARM, in one future Apple product, would probably be great - and maybe even a necessary move, for what I know. Seing how much power there is in Apple's thin and tiny consumer products, I wouldn't mind seeing what they could do with such chips in a pro environment at some point.

Such a change would also address a problem which could become an increasing one for the pro market: since fewer and fewer people actually need Mac Pros (current iPads and iPhones can probably run circa 100 audio tracks anyway), the amount of people who use such products/who find bigs in real life use and report them will also go down. If Apple would use A6 (or A7, A8 etc) chips in their pro products, they'd use code and hardware which that's being used by millions of users. There are 100 million iOs devices out there already.

I doubt that if Apple would release a small, supferfast, 16-Core Mac Pro follow-up product that people would start to beg for them to go back to the Intel chips.

gen_ wrote:

Hyperthreading, which slows LP down in most applications and that is why incidentally, LP runs less tracks per CPU cycle on Mountain Lion than it has ever done since Leopard.

I haven't seen any downside to HT, it gives a big boost on every system I've seen. What do you mean "why incidentally, LP runs less tracks per CPU cycle on Mountain Lion"? ML does seem to be less efficient but I don't see what HT would have to do with that considering HT is used on 10.6 as well.

Logic has a lot of old code that I hope will be removed for in Logic 10 to make it seem more 'snappy'. Running Logic in 64bit has made a big difference. With CPU power these days as well as OSX advancements, I'm hoping for a smooth run of Logic Pro!

It used to run very smooth.

Let's also not forget that Logic Pro in its current iteration contains ARM code in its Universal Binary, an instruction set built for phones and ULPs, not professional workstations.

ARM code in Logic's universal binary? This is not true, not to mention BS that doesn't even hold technically. Why would they put ARM code in the binary, since no Mac CPU can execute it?

Where did you found that BS rumor?

Get a UB stripper like TrimTheFat.

This application shows the different UB architectures in a fat binary and allows you to strip them out. I have not run it on Logic, but CoreAudio is based off Logic's audio core and so is Garageband and both have been ported to some extent so I have no reason to believe not. Nearly all of the Apps that come with your Mac, OSX itself, a good portion of the kexts and most suites have ARM in thier UBs and it is VERY underreported. But still has LOTS of articles if you google 'mac arm architecture', just without the explanation. It's possible that this was done for the sake of iOS (which is based on OSX) but that then begs the question "Why leave lots of it it in OSX when you could strip it out"

Lets also not forget that there have been 2 new Garageband apps and countless updates since LP9 sat twiddling its thumbs.

Where by "twiddling its thumbs" you mean "a constant row of updates, not only with bugfixing and polishing but also major stuff like 64 bit support and OSC"?

Where is the 64-bit Pro Tools, exactly?

The 2 Garageband versions mean nothing at all. Garageband is a much more scaled down and easy to add stuff to app, since they are mostly adding basic stuff that already existed on Logic.

Firstly, comparing Logic to Pro Tools is a exercise in futility. Since around the time Logic 9 came out, Digidesign got bought out, PT switched from hardware to native and a new hardware based platform and numerous other mitigating circumstances. Sure, Logic is now at 9.1.8 and bugs have had to be ironed out but that's 3 years on. Fair play to Apple for fixing stuff, but there's been no new features and in that time Cubase 5.1 has become 6.5, FL 9 became 10.1, Reason 4 become reason 6.5. Even PT has had like 2 major versions if my memory doesnt fail me.

I don't own any of the above DAWs except for Reason and FL but the point is still that L9 needs an update. and all of the above programs are 64bit so singling out the black sheep is not really fair.

Let's also not forget that LP9 is dead end code too, technically. Environment was designed and created when multiprocessor systems didnt exist,

Which, as a coder, can tell you is totally beside the point. The environment is an abstraction layer over the workings of the sound engine, not something that needs to be multiprocessor aware itself.

The multiple processors should be transparent to the environment and the worlkflow anyway -- so you can work with 1 or (eventually) 16 of them at the same time.

True. Maybe I should just explain the percieved problem and you can work out the root of it. In Logic, when play is pressed it seems the individual tracks are allocated a core to use and that's it, they cant switch till you stop. Most of the time that results in a single core maxing out when other cores sit at 45% On some of my larger projects I can't get them to run on my Mac Mini without pressing play a number of times, but after that they run fine (this is not a caching issue, it happens every time I press play regardless of how many times that part has been played before).

let alone Hyperthreading, which slows LP down in most applications and that is why incidentally, LP runs less tracks per CPU cycle on Mountain Lion than it has ever done since Leopard.

No, it's not that the reason. Not even close. Leopard and Lion already supported hyperthreading anyway.

A higher CPU usage on ML can be explained with lots of things, basically changes to the OS kernel and memory schedulers. Those things happen all the time with different kernels, and it can go up or down, but usually not much. In fact, as for Logic 9's performance on ML, check:

Saw the youtube vid and I don't believe its very relevant becasue I run just Logic on its own nearly all the time. As for Kernels, it's gone down update on update since Leopard. SL was slower than 10.5.8 (probably due to Aqua) so x86_64 can be excused. Lion was slower than SL, probably due to background process bloat coming from things like iCloud, Autosave, Mission Control and that annoying save on restart thing that happened even if you unticked the box.

Let's also not forget that it took nearly 1.5 years for Apple to get off its butt and fix the GUI lagging issues on Lion, and they still havnet managed it on ML.

Or that it took decades for Avid to provide 64 bit Pro Tools or better MIDI editing or working with native cards, or even plugin delay compesation.

Your point? 1.5 years, and SEVERAL Logic updates. So it's not like it was an easy task to fix.

Digidesign, not Avid had ADC for ages, it was just sold seperately with thier HD range to force you to buy that. It's not that they couldn't, it's that they wouldn't for fear of giving users no real reason to upgrade. MIDI editing is nor really comparable to Logic even so and rightfully so, Logic started as a MIDI sequencer, PT started as a hard disk recorder. It just begs the question, "What were the testers doing to miss that bug when Lion/ML was in beta?" Maybe it was hard to code around, maybe they couldn't fix it with app specific libraries or hooks in the OS. I don't know enough about coding or the codebase of OSX to judge. What I do know is that a company with $100bn in its pocket could sure as **** taken less than a year and a half to fix a major bug in an existing frontline 'ProApp'.

Logic hasn't featured on thier main reasons to go Mac in eons.

Actually, Logic NEVER featured on their main reasons to go Mac EVER. So nothing has changed in this regard. Their ads and web copy are for everyday users, you don't show a DAW to Joe Average on a TV ad... What would he do with it?

Prosumers. Doesn't matter what they do, it matters that they buy, but if that's the case then 2.5/6.

Mike Connelly wrote:

gen_ wrote:

Hyperthreading, which slows LP down in most applications and that is why incidentally, LP runs less tracks per CPU cycle on Mountain Lion than it has ever done since Leopard.

I haven't seen any downside to HT, it gives a big boost on every system I've seen. What do you mean "why incidentally, LP runs less tracks per CPU cycle on Mountain Lion"? ML does seem to be less efficient but I don't see what HT would have to do with that considering HT is used on 10.6 as well.

Two things. Firstly, I made the mistake of going back and editing the wrong point in my post to add ML. It was meant to go in the code bloat bit. I was in a hurry so I will apologise to you about it too.

As for HT, it is more efficient, but terrible for low latencies and Real Time based code due to a few things. Firstly each virtual core is not equal in performance. Secondly, processing on one virtual core negatively affects the processing power of another virtual core. This leads to single core overloads becasue a Virtual Core is stalled whilst another Virtual core is using the real core and times out.

You will get better performance from HT and big buffering, but it will be at the cost of higher latency, less reliability (core overloads can happen at any time if a program is not HT aware) and the occasional freeze if you really like to run big projects (as I do).

Don't get me wrong, I don't dislike Apple. I just think they could do more. Much More.