View Full Version : I invite Pro Tools users to use ProControl studio but most of them use Logic?????????

11-12-2000, 07:01 AM
So the ProControl 'shuts out' Logic. These are serious pro's who happen to use Logic FULL TIME and telling them to 'get over it' and swap to Pro Tools software in a finger snap aint gonna happen, most of them use Mackie DB8 studios.... as The DB8 doesn't 'shut out' Logic.
There are lots of plus points for me regarding the ProControl, I am glad I bought it. My clients like it, but then I start sessions with PT software.
What I am looking for here are some real world tips on how to get clients that use Logic (or DP or SVP or CueBase) to make the transition into a ProControl session (and sometimes back to Logic again) The other option is throw the desk in a corner and give em a keyboard and mouse....
If ProControl wants to crack seriously into the MUSIC market this is one area that needs addressing. The Legacy of Logic Audio is too long and too established to be incompatible with.




11-12-2000, 09:43 AM
Don't Digidesign open the specs for their console for other software ? Most people with Protools and Logic Audio that I know, love the best of both worlds and stick to TDM and lightning arrangment. You can just about forget stuffing a Logic operator on to the Procontrol for anything but mixing.

So if that doesn't work, NOBODY in their right mind and Logic Audio under their belt would jump at Protools for recording, arranging and cutting. Mixing... perhaps. I've heard guys mull about the fader resolution of Logic Audio, but that's about all they didn't like. They can use all the TDM power PLUS multiple plugin windows have been available for a long time and PT5.1 only got it now.

Nah. Open da specs Digidesign, and you may sell some Procontrols. Of course it would require Emagic to up the fader resolution on their audio tracks.


11-13-2000, 10:08 AM
Same as for Digital Performer' users (like me...). Open the specs, Digi !

11-15-2000, 12:55 AM
Just play/rec buttons,faders, pans, solo, mute and some way to navigate between strips would make so much sense and be a good start.

If not they will build their own anyway...really..

I have said it before and will say it again.
I would love to be able to switch between Protools
and Logic TDM and have the Procontrol and USD follow.
And th ebusiness POV... we put of purchases of two new Procontrols for this reason.

Janne Anderson

11-25-2000, 10:32 AM

Greg Malcangi
11-26-2000, 09:39 AM
I don't understand, why can't you use PTools and Logic together? I did this for quite a while and so do some of my fellow pros. Why not output your MIDI through Logic and bring in the resulting audio through PTools and the pro-control. Sounds better anyway.

<< You can just about forget stuffing a Logic operator on to the Procontrol for anything but mixing. >>

Sorry, I'm lost again. The Procontrol is a mixing surface, what else do you want to use it for?

<< NOBODY in their right mind and Logic Audio under their belt would jump at Protools for recording, arranging and cutting >>

Oh well, I'm obviously not in my right mind! http://www.digidesign.com/ubb/images/icons/smile.gif

<< Open da specs Digidesign, and you may sell some Procontrols. Of course it would require Emagic to up the fader resolution on their audio tracks >>

And how can Emagic do that? Logic is essentially a MIDI sequencer and controls outboard equipment through MIDI. Fader resolution, pan or any other feature is therefore limited to the 128 steps of MIDI. MIDI control of a mixing console has therefore never been acceptable in a professional set-up. However, the ProControl is controlled through ethernet not MIDI, that is how it gets its resolution. In the case of fader resolution, 1024 steps.

If Digi did open the specs for ProControl Emagic still wouldn't support it. They would have to completely re-write substantial sections of the Logic program and to a certain extent move away from the MIDI ethic.

My 2 cents worth,


[This message has been edited by Greg Malcangi (edited November 26, 2000).]

[Note: This message has been edited by Digidesign]

Chris Lambrechts
11-26-2000, 02:11 PM
Thanks Greg, you kinda said what I wanted to but didn't find the energy to put it down in words...........

Chris Lambrechts

11-27-2000, 09:23 AM

11-27-2000, 05:53 PM
I think Greg pretty much said it all, but I'll condense:

Logic is songwriting software. Pro Tools is mixing software. ProControl is a mixing desk.

The reason so many people are using Logic is because they're songwriters. You, Jules, are an engineer, which is why you use Pro Tools, as do most pro engineers. Its automation is way better than Logic and ProControl is designed to match those capabilites, and does it very well.

[This message has been edited by sidereal (edited November 27, 2000).]

11-27-2000, 06:32 PM
thanks for that valuable comentary. I've been so confused maybe that's because I'm both a songwriter and an engineer. I also see Digi catching up with logic with 5.1 and hopefull, we wont have to discuss logic ever again.

11-28-2000, 08:24 AM

11-28-2000, 08:47 PM

If it matters I think you are right.
Sure would be nice to be able to use the Procontrol with other apps.
Even if Protols is just a "mixing desk" as someone put it.
This was a major dissapointment for us that Digi is not collaborating
as much with Emagic as we might have hoped and they did in the old days. But it has been fruitless to discuss that here or
on some lists like he Daw-Mac in the last few years.
Never say die...and the fat lady might have taken a walk around the block before she comes on..what do I know.


11-29-2000, 05:00 AM
"I also see Digi catching up with logic with 5.1 and hopefull, we wont have to discuss logic ever again"...

Hmmm, don't think so, the legasy of Logic is here to stay...



11-29-2000, 11:32 AM
I never said Pro Tools was "just a mixing desk." I said ProControl was a mixing desk and that Pro Tools (in comparison to Logic) is mixing software. Personally, I use Pro Tools for tracking, editing, mixing and arranging. I've used Logic, but don't really like it. To use an analogy, when I get in my car, I like to turn the key, press the accellerator and be able to go where I want to go, without having to open the glove box, fiddle with the carburator, tweak my starter configs, choose different accellerator settings and read 20 different speedometers before getting to my destination.

But I guess that's a whole seperate issue altogether.

Seriously, ProControl is made to match the automation capabilites in Pro Tools. If you want a control surface for Logic, you should talk to emagic.

11-29-2000, 01:29 PM

Sorry for misquote, no offence intended.
I just agree with tightbeats, and I sure feel silly buying separate
control surfaces for all different apps.
already have PC for PT, Morormix for Kyma, Radical for logic
on the way....
It defeats the purpose of a control surface if it is not somewhat generic.

dos centavos

[This message has been edited by houser (edited November 29, 2000).]

11-29-2000, 02:13 PM
I feel your pain. http://www.digidesign.com/ubb/images/icons/smile.gif It makes me glad that I use one software app for everything... you don't have to worry so much about compatibility nightmares.

I wonder if there's a control surface that works for both. MotorMix and HUI work with Pro Tools, do they also work with Logic? Granted they're not nearly as precise as PC for PT, but it's an option. I guess it's not a solution for Jules' original issue though. http://www.digidesign.com/ubb/images/icons/frown.gif

[This message has been edited by sidereal (edited November 29, 2000).]

11-29-2000, 04:39 PM
"Seriously, ProControl is made to match the automation capabilites in Pro Tools. If you want a control surface for Logic, you should talk to emagic."

Thats a slap in the face for a comercial studio trying to bring in clients 'hooked on Logic'. Thankfully I'm not a comercial facility... I would, however, like several Logic user chums to book my place from time to time...


[This message has been edited by Jules (edited November 29, 2000).]

11-30-2000, 12:04 AM

11-30-2000, 09:06 AM
The point is that Emagic are sure to make their own surface if the PC is not open for development.

...and maybe that will be open for Protools..;.9)


Greg Malcangi
12-01-2000, 01:04 PM
There seems to be a lack of understanding about what a control surface is, and how the Pro-Control operates.

I can understand your frustrations, you see a piece of equipment with an excellent features list that you want to be able to use with your MIDI sequencer (Logic) but can't. What you don't seem to realise is that those excellent features of the ProControl exist precisely because PTools does not use the MIDI standard for mixing/automation. So on the one hand you have a piece of software designed exclusively to record and manipulate MIDI information and on the other you have a piece of software with a control surface that specifically avoids the use of MIDI. This is an absolutely fundamental difference between PTools and a MIDI sequencer like Logic. There is no quick patch, either Digi or Emagic would have to completely redesign their software.

<< I want to use the same system for writing and arranging through Logic before he puts it into ProTools to do his magic. Why should I have to buy two control surfaces? >>

You don't, in fact you don't need any control surfaces except a keyboard and a mouse. If you want an additional control surface for both programs then you will need a surface that uses the lowest common denominator, ie. MIDI. Get yourself a generic MIDI controller like the HUI. But of course, it will only control the limited feature set of MIDI. The ProControl on the other hand was specifically designed to take advantage of the feature set within PTools. A feature set that does not exist in Logic.

<< ...if a user wants a ProControl for its strengths and also wants a control surface for Logic or whatever sequencer, what's the big deal if digi opens the specs? So what if there are midi limitations, I can work with that. >>

Really ... Logic uses MIDI to control fader levels, pan, etc. The ProControl does not. So the MIDI limitations we are talking about includes no control whatsoever of the channel levels or pan positions. If you can work with that you are a better engineer than me.

<< It defeats the purpose of a control surface if it is not somewhat generic. >>

If you want a generic MIDI controller go and buy one. However, like the control surfaces of all other higher end mixing systems, the ProControl is designed to facilitate the use of the specific features available in it's underlying software/hardware. Why limit your complaints to DigiDesign. Why not complain to AMS/Neve, SSL or Euphonix that their control surfaces can't be used from within Logic.

I hope this has cleared up a few points.


12-01-2000, 05:22 PM
Not really.

There are no prizes for pointing out facts here, the point was and still is this - how do ProControl owners ease Logic users into being happy with the system, (go read the starting post) I was looking for tips, not descriptions of products..., I HAVE ONE ALREADY!


12-01-2000, 10:50 PM

We have three ProControls too and know what they do.
I also know that Logic uses the same hardware for audio
because Digidesign have made that available in a SDK.
They are not releasing a SDK for the ProControl AFAIK.
I would still hope that either manufacturer is not done with their
products and PT 5 will not be end of the line.
Development continues last time I checked..

Yes, I have hoped that Emagic will rewrite their engine to use
a deeper subset of features, including the resolution
for automation that you speak of.
But then Digi needs to publish the SDK.

the Digidesign / Emagic saga is a mystery to me and neither
company comments in a meaningful way of what is going on.

You may consider this a little lobbying, just like most
of us do from time to time, hoping that a great product
will still get greater.
And that means DIgi colaborating with their development
partners like they did in the past.
I'll shut up now...


12-02-2000, 09:36 AM

Greg Malcangi
12-02-2000, 10:58 AM
Hi Jules,

Sorry, your thread seems a bit hijacked. http://www.digidesign.com/ubb/images/icons/smile.gif

<< how do ProControl owners ease Logic users into being happy with the system >>

Sync Logic to PT and let them use Logic to write and arrange their songs, then use the ProControl/PT to mix. In fact much the same as they would if they were using Logic with say a D8B. Your selling point is that a PC/PT + Logic is a much better quality system than writing/arranging/mixing all within Logic.


12-02-2000, 04:31 PM

These "open up the Procontrol" threads tend to end up
with less than useful stuff like this.
Apples and oranges...get thrown....
It's a good and valid question IMHO that Jules asked.
Ah well, Digi did not respond this time either...;-9)


oh...and even though it's more expensive than a Ferrari...Rolls Royce does make a station wagon
if you pay for it...thru the nose...

Greg Malcangi
12-03-2000, 12:33 AM
Hi Tightbeats,

<< It doesn't matter how you get information into the computer or what format it is in, software converters can be written to convert it to the midi spec which PT's obviously can understand. >>

This idea of a conversion program works for say faders and pans although of course the resolution would have to be drastically reduced. But what happens with loads of other features, say surround mixing for example. How do you convert from PT to MIDI spec when the MIDI spec doesn't include provision for surround. In fact there are very few features of the MIDI spec designed for mixing. MIDI was originally designed for the control of MIDI instruments (synths, etc.) and their very poor internal mixing features.

Mackie's HUI already controls all the features available via MIDI. What is the point of Digi bringing out a ProControl (PC) that can be can be controlled by MIDI? Used via MIDI the PC could not provide hardly any additional features to the HUI. So what you are left with is a Digi PC that has the same resolution and features as a Mackie HUI but for 5 times the price. Sounds like a bargain to me http://www.digidesign.com/ubb/images/icons/smile.gif

<< With the Sony DMX-R100 you can at least control transport, can you do that with a ProControl and Logic? >>

There are two ways of doing this with PC/PT: MMC (MIDI Machine Control) or using OMS to sync Logic to PT.

<< "Why not complain to AMS/Neve, SSL or Euphonix that their control surfaces can't be used from within Logic." ... If I could afford one of their products I would. >>

And they would laugh at you... Actually I quite like the idea: A Neve Capricorn HUI; All the features of a MIDI controller in a fantastic looking desk for only $700,000! While we're at it, why don't we ask Ferrari to turn their Marinello model into a station wagon? http://www.digidesign.com/ubb/images/icons/smile.gif


12-03-2000, 10:33 AM

12-03-2000, 07:46 PM

If you're considering Pro Tools/ProControl, you're obviously serious about your investment. I'm curious why you think that Digi "shutting out Logic" for PC would affect your decision. If you're going to be spending the cash, you must be more than a hobbyist and are doing this to make a living. Pro Tools software will go a very long way to getting clients and being able to exchange sessions. With this in mind, I'd recommend you go with the PT/PC combo, and learn PT software so you can mix with it on Pro Control. BUT this doesn't mean you have to stop using Logic. You can continue to do what you do with it with a keyboard and mouse and switch back to PT when you need to.

The bummer is you wouldn't have a control surface with Logic. I understand that. But I think you'll find that if you try PT software, you'll dig it and you'll actually start WANTING to use it to mix becuase of the better automation and audio handling. And as a benefit, you'll also be able to use Logic when you want to.

Greg Malcangi
12-04-2000, 03:31 AM
<< I know that it is an easy problem for Digi to solve but for whatever reason they will not. >>

Oh well... If you still think this I've obviously been wasting my time posting to this thread. Can't complain though, I thought I would probably be wasting my time when I started. http://www.digidesign.com/ubb/images/icons/smile.gif


12-04-2000, 03:21 PM

Its' hard when people don't just agree with you is it not...;-)

Sure would be helpful if someone from Digi could just step
in and kill this thread with a definite "no we will not do this"..

Until the large woman chants, some of us will keep hoping...


12-04-2000, 04:16 PM

12-04-2000, 06:33 PM
But it does take away from Digi resources. The fact is, engineering is a very expensive resource. I have no idea what it would take to do what you ask, but I do know that it would take time and money. I would prefer they spend the time and money to work on Pro Tools software rathar than spend time making another software app work on ProControl that won't even be able to take advantage of PC's features. I suppose we'll have to respectfully disagree on this.

I hate to sound like a broken record, but if you want a control surface for Logic, I think you really need to talk to Emagic.

12-04-2000, 09:22 PM
>I hate to sound like a broken record, but if you want a control >surface for Logic, I think you really need to talk to Emagic.

Andf they wanted to write for the Procontrol the last time I
checked on this a couple of months back.

If Digi don't release a SDK for the PC, they will have to design their own surface, or work with another company that
will release their SDk, like perhaps Radical technologies.
Make no, mistake they will...
I would have preferred to us the PC for both PT and Logic.
..and I think it would have made business sense too..
I can't imagine why you would not open up the PC for
other apps....the depth of use in using it with PT would still be there...
but wadda I know...

dos grumpy centavos and another broken record..;-)


12-04-2000, 10:15 PM

12-06-2000, 03:12 PM
"If there is a desparate need for a control surface for Logic that's Emagic's problem, what has it got to do with Digi?"

You have missed the point of this thread. it was for - studios with ProControl that want clients used to Logic to be able to use their studio.

"OK, this was my last try ... I give up! Greg"

It's just a matter of reading the thread carefully and taking onboard the different needs and working methods of the other posters, take those blinkers off! Hello?


This has been a long Digi-Nag. I would just like to say I love my ProConrol and wouldn't swap it for anything else.



12-06-2000, 05:25 PM

12-06-2000, 06:07 PM
>Lets just agree to disagree and get back to making music.

Good lord, I agree. Jules, read back. We've tried to answer your specific questions and you keep getting angry. I think the reason is you're asking for something that doesn't exist. We've even tried to tell you WHY it doesn't exist and why it's fruitless to try and make it exist.

I guess I'm no help. I'm done here.

Greg Malcangi
12-07-2000, 12:10 AM
Hi Tightbeats,

<< Greg: Just out of curiosity, what is your affiliation with digidesign? >>

I'm just a customer.

<< Do you have any professional experience on how easy or difficult it is to implement new software features into a product? >>

Yes, I'm a qualified C++ programmer and have worked professionally in this capacity (though not for DigiDesign).

DAE and TDM were designed specifically at the time to provide accessability to the Digi hardware by third parties without having to give away an SDK containing the PTools software itself. However, with the exception of the monitor section, the ProControl doesn't really have any functions of it's own. All it does is control the functions in the PTools software/hardware. As I understand it, for Emagic (or anyone else) to write code for the ProControl would mean Digi giving away the code for all the functions within PTools (controllable by the ProControl) and then for Emagic to incorporate those functions within Logic. Is the resulting software Digi or Emagic? I can't see Digi giving away it's source code like this and rightly so, it would be commercial suicide. The only other option I can see is the one I've mentioned, turning the ProControl into a generic MIDI controller.

It would be nice to have the control surface of a Boeing 747 in a truck but what is the point if the truck doesn't have the same underlying functions as a Jumbo? Getting Boeing to provide an SDK for the flight control surface is not going to make much difference unless you turn the truck into a 747!!

If there is a desparate need for a control surface for Logic that's Emagic's problem, what has it got to do with Digi?

OK, this was my last try ... I give up! http://www.digidesign.com/ubb/images/icons/smile.gif