Logic platinum or pro tools?

[roman]

I'm a logic user and am wondering what things are different. Can I use Logic platinum and not even touch the pro tools software. Would it be possible or sensible to use them together on the same projects.
Peace.

[meshtheflesh]

I have been a long term Logic user, but have since change over for all my MIDI need to PT 5. I feel the audio side of LOGIC is weak . You cannot in properly. The automation doesn't really work. Any there are too many windows. Although I do large MIDI projects, I a not a major tweakhead midi editor. I find the editing in PT fine. I run all my modules via PT , and have no analog console, only a HUI, which I use as a glorified volume knob.
In regards to using both at the same time. I think it would suck not having you midi and audio integrated.

[Bryan]

I would love to hear more opinions from people who have experienced both PT5 and Logic. As a SVP refugee, I've been slugging by in PT5. The integration and stability is simply beautiful.

However, there are some little things which make the overall midi experience a bit taxing. The process that you have to go through to get a new midi channel happening (presuming you have the sampler/synth aux already set, you must: open new track, mouse click the record button to even hear it, mouse click to select the module/channel, mouse click to select the program) is a real flow-breaker. I'm sure there are some shortcuts for these things, but I haven't found them yet.

Also, it is vital that digi address the playlist situation. Some variety of a global/group playlist needs to appear. Or subsequences.

I'm leaning towards the 'hang with PT and see if it evolves' camp, but I've had serious temptations to try Logic recently. I know that there are a tone of you who swear by Logic. I hesitate to jump into it because I sense that the audio/midi integration and automation isn't as solid in Logic as PT.

I'm sure that the screenshots would be a good thing, but then again I'm growing accustomed to the PT landscape...so who knows.

Another important factor: who is gonna be around in 10 years. Impossible to know. In next year the advent of multi-processor macs will make matters even more interesting (exciting!).

On a related note, I started messing with Unity 2.0. I don't have the install yet, so it was merely the demo install. It did crash protools, which I took as a very bad sign. I simply can't put up with a buggy environment. I've worked with PT5 and samplecell for 4 months with nary a crash, I see no reason to go backwards. I do love the notion and layout of unity, I will give it a few more chances, tweaking my configuration and whatnot. Maybe it will only work with a G4...



[This message has been edited by Bryan (edited April 14, 2000).]

[AdamFrick]

I'm eager to hear opinions though I've never used Logic. I'll be watching carefully!

Bryan - set up a template for yourself with all your standard patches pre-set and use that instead of just opening PT for a new session... That saves me on the audio side.

-adam

[shaddoe]

I've been using logic since the notator days(a little biased maybe). The pros of using logic for me is as follows.
1.Midi (the best IMHO)
2.Multiple plug in windows
3.Instantiate plug-ins on the fly
4.Stereo tracks
Cons
1.Automation sucks(hyperdraw is a nightmare).
2.Fader resolution(not enough steps)
3.Too many windows(hate screen sets)
4.Mixer layout (clumsy)
5.No hardware inserts on the master buss

That's my small list. I like both programs. When I'm satisfied with digidesign's midi implementation in pro tools I will probably switch to pro tools for good.Editing and mixing in pro tools wins hands down.

[shaddoe]

double

[This message has been edited by shaddoe (edited April 14, 2000).]

[Greg Malcangi]

I used Logic (Platinum) exclusively for a couple of years until I upgraded to PT5 at the end of last year. I recorded to the Digi hardware from Logic using the DAE and mixed on an O2R. I hardly ever even ran PT4.

PT5 is definitely weaker on the MIDI side and certainly something I miss is the standard notation even though Logic’s implementation wasn’t always accurate enough and I had to switch to the matrix window. Beyond recording MIDI, moving sequences around, changing the volumes and occasionally using a bit of quantise or transposition, I have never really needed many of the more advanced MIDI manipulation features. On this basis I actually find PT superior to Logic. Except for the lack of notation PT does just about everything I want it to and is often quicker and easier that it was in Logic. I always found Logic to be very stable but I find PT5 to be rock solid.

On the audio side I find PT to be better for editing than Logic. Logic does have the advantage of Stereo tracks. However, I also work quite often in surround and Logic’s philosophy of only mono or stereo tracks is far more difficult to work with than PT’s edit and mix groups. Although there is still a lot PT could do to improve the experience for those who sometimes have to work in surround. I have a friend of mine, a highly respected musician, who runs both Logic and PT at the same time. All the audio in PT and all the MIDI in Logic. He feels the quality of the audio is better recorded into PT than it is into Logic. They both use the same DAE and hardware so I don’t know why this should be. His main reason for running both is that he feels PT is so much better for editing the audio and Logic is better for MIDI primarily because it has standard notation which he can printout for the musicians he employs.

On the automation side I can’t say much as I never used it in Logic, I just automated everything from the O2R. I now use a 16 fader Pro-Control and I have no complaints about automation within PT. There are a few additions I would like to see that I’ve used on other desks but at a cursory glance the automation, routing, etc., appears more advanced than that offered by Logic and is again very stable on PT.

Logic and PT are both complex bits of software with tons of options, it would be impossible to compare all the differences. Using a previously mentioned example, MIDI tracks are more time consuming to set up in PT but there again I find the end result (effectively the addition of a MIDI send channel strip) easier to work with. All I can say is that in my situation I’m generally very pleased with my switch to PT and I won’t be going back to Logic (unless I have to export a MIDI tack to print out some notes!).

Greg

[Bryan]

Thanks for the comments.

[Zep Dude]

There was a time when Logic was actually a better interface for audio than PT, plus it had the extensive midi. Unfortunately their direction right now is toward the majority of their users who are not TDM but native users so TDM development has slowed dramatically.

I agree with most of the above pros and cons although I think the screensets are incredible and the mixer layout is superior to PT. In Logic I have my mixer set up exactly the way I want it -with a 19" monitor and two rows of custom sized faders, I can see 19 audio tracks plus all buses, sends, external returns, monitors and master -this reflects logic's superior flexibility and user customization to PT.

I am in the process of learning PT 5 after years of Logic to control TDM. Besides the obvious stuff like superior automation I find many details of PT to be pleasantly suprising, easy to grasp and well suited to audio production. All of the different ways of grouping in the mix and edit window are very cool as well as the many ways to use memory locations and some of the basic methods of editing audio segments.

Logic is a great program but in it's attempt to be all things to all people it risks becoming confusing and unfocused. PT very focused on audio production and not trying to satisfy every weekend warrior midi user.

[Compression Records]

I'm a bit amazed by the comments here. As a musician and programmer, I must say that Pro Tools isn't just weak on the MIDI. I'd call it unusable. With all due respect for all, has anyone ever scored a movie on Pro Tools using MIDI?

•No events window
•No notation window
•The conductor track is rudimentary
•Tempo changes are inflexible
•Limited (comparatively to its siblings) flexibility in velocity, duration and quantization editing or splitting notes...
•No Groove quantization
•No off-line editing capabilities for controllers (so-called continuous data)

I could go on, but the point is that we all love PT for its pro audio, not for professional MIDI programming, and I know many of us that would pay top $$$ to see a program like Performer or Vision incorporated in PT 5.1. Especially when OMS is retiring. Just a hope or an inevitable destiny?

------------------
Marco Marinangeli
Magelic Productions, Inc.
Compression Records
http://www.compressionrecords.com