Discussion in 'Your DAW (Digital Audio Workstation)' started by kmaster, Feb 27, 2019.
Saw this posted in the Logic Facebook group. Thought some of you might find it interesting.
I know people with much better ears than mine that would agree.
That being said, a lot of top composers are in Logic but most of them use PT print rigs as well.
Good. Anything that my DAW can do to further obscure and wreck whatever I record... helps.
Logic sounds better. Not as technical as Protools. Smoother! Now it's prooved.
As a Logic user....I don't care.
20+ years a user, and now you tell me?? I’m switching to Studio Vision immediately!
I didn’t hear anything
Come on man, don't you know it's more important that the waveforms look correct and automation isn't off by 20ms rather than how it sounds???????
His face at the end of the video was way too close for my liking. Back off buddy!
It's extremely annoying that he struggles to set automation points correctly in Logic.
Before doing such videos, people should learn the most basic functions of the software they're speaking about.
I get the impression he's not a Logic fan..
I also wonder if he had sample accurate automation on or off. That would certainly make a difference!
(raises hand to speak)
(stops, no not worth it)
He obviously doesn't understand the DAW, I wouldn't be surprised if he'd set something up wrong.
I had to read the written article to really understand his point, the video gave me a headache, though it was humorous to watch his frustration related to LPX snapping functionality.
some of the observations related to automation are valid and should be considered. Logic does interpolate all kinds of stuff, by default that is the behavior...not just fader automation, but midi CC automation too... its just the built in normal behavior of LPX. That doesn't necessarily make it inherently "bad", but its just not absolutely "accurate" for what the user is asking it to do.
The section in the article about testing with different buffer sizes was also interesting and cubase users should take note of that, wow! LPX apparently handled different buffer sizes like a pro, but still interpolates stuff...which is not technically accurate.... no comment about the subjective sound difference.
In the end, we mix until it sounds good...and that is all that matters, so I am not even remotely concerned about the fact that different DAW's handle automation or summing or panning, etc... differently from the other. I'm going to mix until it sounds good with that tool.
But I do think the points about automation inaccuracy for both Cubase and LPX (for different reasons), are valid and should be noted by all of us. In the case of Cubase, the fact that the buffer size effected the timing of the automation is scary...tsk tsk steinberg. For Logic...there is that built in interpolation which can do unexpected things. Pro Tools apparently is precise and accurate to what the user requests. But who wants to use ProTools? Not me.
In the article he also does mention LPX sample accurate automation and that it helps a lot, but uses a lot of CPU.
The author should have included DP10 also, which is something I know he is fond of.
also the "modulation interpolation" he mentioned...Logic's appears definitely to be leaking some modulation noise into the long fade test. Frankly I think that is a little concerning myself. But...like I said,...mix until it sounds good. Its not going to make me stop using LPX.
It seems that some people think I'm attacking Logic or something, I'm not.
I suggest you try this yourself. If you need help, just let me know and I'll do a step-by-step write up on how to do these basic tests yourself.
I know the basic functions of Logic. The issue is that Logic only snaps automation to fractions of beats, and does not allow snapping to other types of data. If you read the accompanying article this would perhaps be more clear.
This deficiency of Logic makes it difficult to setup these types of tests. Does it matter for music in general? Probably not. Does it matter for this video? Yep.
I do like Logic. It's simply difficult to set it up accurately for these types of tests because it does not have automation/fade snapping to non-beat points.
I very clearly address this in the accompanying article.
Let me also be clear that this video isn't about Logic (even though the OP framed it that way).
It's just about differences between products.
If the differences don't bother you, then great! They probably shouldn't.
If you're curious about how your software works, then hopefully I can inspire you to do your own testing and learn more about your tools.
It's reassuring, but not at all surprising, that ProTools does exactly what it says it's going to do, down to the molecular level. Considering its wide usage in non-musical applications in post and sound design, this is pretty much required. "Euphonics" aside, in those situations it really needs to do exactly what it says it's going to do, even if it results in stuff like non-zero-crossing edit points and clicks and pops that need to be dealt with.
And I'm glad to see that Logic deals with buffer sizes and whatnot in a way that makes life easier for the user, even if the downside is that some features are doing "what you meant, but not exactly what you said". Typical Apple, making life easier for the user even if it means invoking the "reality distortion field"!
Weird about the Cubase fade-vs-buffer thing though. I wonder if that's just something they didn't catch in testing? I won't be surprised if they correct that in an update now that it's been brought into the light.
Thanks @Robert Randolph for going to the trouble.
Separate names with a comma.