Logic Pro 10

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"

You're conflating lots of different things.

For one, frameworks like CoreAudio have (or can have) ARM code in their UB, because they are also used in iOS. It's mostly a building (compiling) preference. The ARM code doesn't do anything else on a Mac but occupy space: it's not loaded and it doesn make Logic any slower or anything.

I don't know what your theory about this is, so I'll reply to any I can think you might mean:

1) That the ARM code makes Logic slower.

No. ARM code in a UB is not loaded at all in non-ARM architecture. It's like it's not there (besides taking some drive space).

2) That the ARM code means Apple is porting Logic to iOS.

Apple has already ported most parts of OS X to iOS. That's what iOS is, a port of OS X. Some frameworks, like CoreAudio, are shared between the two. That doesn't mean anything about a specific program using them being ported or not.

3) That Apple might introduce an ARM Mac in the future, and that is bad because ARM is (as you put it) "an instruction set built for phones and ULPs, not professional workstations.".

If and when Apple introduces an ARM Mac, it will be plenty powerful to compete with the Intel offerings. ARM chips are mostly RISC instruction sets, and there's nothing that makes them especially unsuited for workstations. Actually, until the big UNIX companies dies, most ACTUAL workstations (costing tens of thousands of dollars) were based on similar architectures (MIPS, SPARC, etc). In any case, will see Logic 10 (and probably 11) before any of that.

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.

Versions don't mean anything. Features matter. What exactly has Cubase 6.5 (7 now) added over Logic? Not much, if anything.

I don't own any of the above DAWs except for Reason and FL but the point is still that L9 needs an update.

Reason and Fruity Loops? I'm talking to a dabbler...

OK, conversation ending, thought I was talking to a professional DAW user.

You're conflating lots of different things.

For one, frameworks like CoreAudio have (or can have) ARM code in their UB, because they are also used in iOS. It's mostly a building (compiling) preference. The ARM code doesn't do anything else on a Mac but occupy space: it's not loaded and it doesn make Logic any slower or anything.

I don't know what your theory about this is, so I'll reply to any I can think you might mean:

1) That the ARM code makes Logic slower.

No. ARM code in a UB is not loaded at all in non-ARM architecture. It's like it's not there (besides taking some drive space).

2) That the ARM code means Apple is porting Logic to iOS.

Apple has already ported most parts of OS X to iOS. That's what iOS is, a port of OS X. Some frameworks, like CoreAudio, are shared between the two. That doesn't mean anything about a specific program using them being ported or not.

You still miss my point. My point is that it's IN OS X. If there was no intention of running this code on OSX at some point, and assuming (as you would have to) that the iOS software team is seperate from the OS X teams, why would ARM be included on OS X binaries if there was no intention of ever using the code that was left on the install disk. Sure iOS exists, but that only excuses it's existence, not the fact it's on our install disks being copied to our HDD with the rest of OS X. I'd put money that on the iPhone where space is at a premium, iOS binaries sre probably not UB so it's not like they don't recompile or at least strip away the x86/PPC parts of the UB binaries.

2) That the ARM code means Apple is porting Logic to iOS.

Apple has already ported most parts of OS X to iOS. That's what iOS is, a port of OS X. Some frameworks, like CoreAudio, are shared between the two. That doesn't mean anything about a specific program using them being ported or not.

Apple ported Garageband. It's common knowledge that that runs on a Logic core. I don't think it would be incredibly hard for them to port Logic. In fact, if you think about it, with the same OS, just stripped down, and an already converted core, they would probably find it quite easy. THe rest of your point is above.

3) That Apple might introduce an ARM Mac in the future, and that is bad because ARM is (as you put it) "an instruction set built for phones and ULPs, not professional workstations.".

If and when Apple introduces an ARM Mac, it will be plenty powerful to compete with the Intel offerings. ARM chips are mostly RISC instruction sets, and there's nothing that makes them especially unsuited for workstations. Actually, until the big UNIX companies dies, most ACTUAL workstations (costing tens of thousands of dollars) were based on similar architectures (MIPS, SPARC, etc). In any case, will see Logic 10 (and probably 11) before any of that.

Actually, the very fact that they are RISC is irrelavent. The machines you refer to are specialized servers and compute engines. ARM does not support SSE 1/2/3/4, MMX, and gazillions of other extended instruction sets that make normal processors run much faster clock for clock. They don't even support out of order execution! AMD recently released a new ARM processor, and even if claims that they can clock it much higher are true, it still only just meets the power of 10 year old Pentium M tech. Give them the years for them to grow and x86 will grow too so ARM systems will still look slow and inefficient.

See here: http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1039287045&postcount=26

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.

Versions don't mean anything. Features matter. What exactly has Cubase 6.5 (7 now) added over Logic? Not much, if anything.

How quick you are to say this and how easily you forget that we've had 2 new features in 3 years (OSC and 64bit)... 3 if you count in-app audio library download. I guess we should just wait for them to catch up and overtake us then...

I don't own any of the above DAWs except for Reason and FL but the point is still that L9 needs an update.

Reason and Fruity Loops? I'm talking to a dabbler...

OK, conversation ending, thought I was talking to a professional DAW user.

Dabbler eh. If I told you who I've worked/work with I doubt you would believe me, but lets just say I'm definitley not a dabbler. Maybe you misinterpreted me. I own Logic, Fruity Loops and Reason, but I did not comment on Logic so didn't include it. If your comment is due to the fact I dow't own Pro Tools, I own PT8 and decided there was no point in me upgrading as I never used my personal copy, in fact I only ever transferred stems to it when I was turning stuff over to an engineer and the Mbox Pro I got it with put me off. The added time due to the fact that I have to adjust to the workflow is the main reason I will only use it in rare circumstances and material that I get coming in will be converted nearby and then brought into my place in Logic.

The problem with most people is they think it's the Daw that makes them good at what they do. In truth if you're any good at what you do, and by that I mean a pro, you can use a 4 track with no sequencer and turn out incredible song. It's the person behind the Daw, not the Daw. Reason, FL, Garageband for that matter can turn out incredible music and hits, if the person using it can create incredible music and hits. I doubt that we ever see an upgrade to Logic PRo 10. Logic 9 is still very viable and a powerful piece of software, I've since then switched over to Presonus Studio 2, now 2.5, mainly because it suits my workflow better. I've gotten beyond the point of which Daw is better, because it doesn't really matter. I've owned Pro Tools TDM, won a Grammy with it. I've used Logic Pro Pro since it was Emagic Logic 4.7 sold millions of records using that. I've gotten records placed with Presonus Studio, and I've also won a grammy using a MPC and two inch. I think all you who've read this get my point. It's me and not the product.

I see way too many people arguing over irrelevant issues, Heck I've been one of those who was all Logic before anyone was jumping ship from Pro Tools to Logic of why Logic was better. I soon realized that is was me and not the DAW. I hope you all eventually come to that conclusion. Let's get back to making music and get away from stupid conversatations about what DAW is better, because each DAW offers something that the other doesn't.

Jonathan Robinson1 wrote:

The problem with most people is they think it's the Daw that makes them good at what they do. In truth if you're any good at what you do, and by that I mean a pro, you can use a 4 track with no sequencer and turn out incredible song.

Absolutely!

One of the Brazilian singers Pat Metheny used quite a few years ago got the gig by giving Metheny a casstte of a completel Beatles album he had recorded at home on a 4-track cassette, he played/sang all of the parts. Metheny was so blown away by the tape he hired the fellow a few weeks later.

gen_ wrote:

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).

I haven't seen higher latency or less reliability from running logic with HT. It's easy enough to compare, any machine with chips that support HT can have it disabled, and in my experience I have yet to see performance be any worse with HT on.

Can you give a specific example of how you have observed higher latency due to HT?

Plain and simple: Logic Pro doesn't containy any ARM code, just 32-bit and 64-bit intel:

$ file Logic\ Pro

Logic Pro: Mach-O universal binary with 2 architectures

Logic Pro (for architecture i386): Mach-O executable i386

Logic Pro (for architecture x86_64): Mach-O 64-bit executable x86_64

I haven't heard anything about the next version of Logic! I'm still using Logic 8 and have been using Logic since it's PC days. I do know that they are working on it cause Apple sent me a questionaire about what I how I like Logic, it's features, and how it could be improved! So I'm confident that Logic 10 is coming! I think Logic is a Pro music/media app over Cubase and Sonar (I use them too). Many producers who work in TV and Film use Logic Pro but also I think Logic comes with the most content in terms of samples, loops, effects and instruments! I do believe Apple is taking it's time going through the next version of Logic and I think it will be killer!

Ron

I forgot this thread existed.

Mike Connelly wrote:

gen_ wrote:

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).

I haven't seen higher latency or less reliability from running logic with HT. It's easy enough to compare, any machine with chips that support HT can have it disabled, and in my experience I have yet to see performance be any worse with HT on.

Can you give a specific example of how you have observed higher latency due to HT?

You misread me. I said you will need a bigger buffer to see benefits of HT, and then said bigger buffers increase latency. The latter point is common logic, the former is becasue HT only works if there are more threads than real cores, and if so, some threads must wait for idle time in order to execute. That is the nature of HT. Overloads are seemingly random becasue Logic does not know a real core from a virtual one, nad ther when it allocates tracks to threads it often gives a core more work than it can handle by assigning more work than 1 HT processor can handle on those two threads.

Bigger buffers give you better performance because there is more time for the CPU to find idle time for those virtual cores.

gen_ wrote:

I forgot this thread existed.

You misread me. I said you will need a bigger buffer to see benefits of HT, and then said bigger buffers increase latency.

Thanks for the clarification. That hasn't been true in my experience, there is a major difference even with smaller buffers. And that difference can be easily quantified with Logic benchmarks. Also, Logic only uses the assigned buffer for "live" tracks, tracks that aren't armed automatically use a bigger buffer, so even if buffer did make a difference, Logic would only have an issue with a relatively small number of tracks.

Specifically what smaller/larger buffer sizes do you see a benefit for HT or not?

So Logic Pro 9 IS 64bit? I just bought it and the splash screen says 32bit. I know this is a discussion about Logic 10, but I was looking for news about if Logic 10 was going to be 64bit or not since my 9 "appeared" to be 32.

So why would my copy show 32bit? I downloaded it from the App store, so its not a physical disc version.

Yes, it is 64-bit - for many years. But you have to switch to 32-bit: select the Logic Pro application in the Finder, open info and deselect "Open in 32-bit mode".

Cool. Just unchecked it. 64bit! Thank you!

Logic deliberately defaults to a 32 bit startup first time so that all your 3rd party 32 bit plugins (if you have any) can get scanned and recognised. If you went straight to 64bit, there is no mechanism for them to be seen. Now that you are in 64bit, you will see a separate folder in your plugin menu for 32 bit plugs.

Enjoy!

I still go back to 32bit if I am not needing the extra grunt of 64bit, because the workflow is faster. The 32bit bridge is a brilliant innovation because it allows you to still use the 32 bit plugs, but it's slower than having them all available native.

So until ALL plugs are 64 bit....

I don't know when the new logic is coming out but I would guess probably around the same time the new iLife suite is released.

Got to get one thing off my chest. To the GarageBand pro people-----GarageBand IS logic with a different GUI. Think about it. They sound the same. They integrate seamlessly. And GarageBand was release incredibly fast after apple bought Emagic. Logic is GarageBand Pro. On a side note, I would not mind a little de-cluttering of logic. If apple can make logic different so I can think more about music and less about software then I am all for it. I like being a musician more than a technician.