Logic Pro X

[Henchman]

It used to not sound very good, before PT9 or so, I think. (Never used PT 8, used PT 7, 5/4/3 a lot.) It sounds fine to me now (regardless of interface).

philp

No, it was well before the PT's 9.

It was around 7 if I'm correct when they changed the internal mx engine.

[Jim Feeley]

Yeah. I've heard people have seen mermaids as well.

 

Hench, I admire your restraint in waiting over 48 hours to respond. Impressive.

[Philip Perkins]

No, it was well before the PT's 9.

It was around 7 if I'm correct when they changed the internal mx engine.

I did a lot of work in those earlier PTs, and 7 wasn't much of an improvement at all to my ears from the older versions no matter what they said they fixed when (I mean their marketing blather.).  But that doesn't matter now, since whatever the issues were they fixed them @ 9 (10 for sure) to my ears.  All the current DAWs sound great to me.  

 

philp

[qwerty]

[Henchman]

I did a lot of work in those earlier PTs, and 7 wasn't much of an improvement at all to my ears from the older versions no matter what they said they fixed when (I mean their marketing blather.). But that doesn't matter now, since whatever the issues were they fixed them @ 9 (10 for sure) to my ears. All the current DAWs sound great to me.

philp

Actually, it was with PT's 7 that they introduced the 48 it is engine.

The next change is with PT's 9 Native only. Wich is 32 bit floating mix engine.

HD is till 48 bit fixed.

PT's HDX s floating.

http://www.avid.com/US/products/Pro-Tools-HDX/features

[Miguel Carretero]

Yeah Hench guess you are right. That´s why in all mixing studios all around the world they paid for Solid States and Neves to do their mixings..... they just didn´t know PT 7 sounds great. For sure you´ve mixed a lot of blockbuster features with PT 7.....

[Philip Perkins]

Well, this is a movie sound forum, and film sound is not often mixed on Neves and SSLs, and yes, Mr. Henchman actually has mixed a lot of famous shows, not with those boards.  I also mixed a couple of decent sized movies in PT7--I didn't really like it all that much but lots of films big and small were mixed on it a few years ago (on various consoles--in the USA mostly Harrison and Euphonix-- and control surfaces).

 

philp

[Miguel Carretero]

Well, this is a movie sound forum, and film sound is not often mixed on Neves and SSLs, and yes, Mr. Henchman actually has mixed a lot of famous shows, not with those boards.  I also mixed a couple of decent sized movies in PT7--I didn't really like it all that much but lots of films big and small were mixed on it a few years ago (on various consoles--in the USA mostly Harrison and Euphonix-- and control surfaces).

 

philp

 

Philip please tell me which is an standard Dolby mixing studio mixer if It is not a Neve.....

 

I have never said PT didn´t mix, so you can go and mix anything with It. The only thing is that nobody has choosen it as an option unless they didn´t have any other, untill it has become native. It´s now, right now when different enginers are resolving all mix process in PT. It has not been 10, neither 5 years ago.

 

I have mixed movies with PT, but I have done it much better on a Capricorn.

 

Philip you are telling us you didn´t like PT7 too much. So didn´t I. Mr. Henchman, you mixed movies probably both in SSLs/ Neves and in PTs??? Would you choose without any doubt a PT7 versus a Capricorn?

[Philip Perkins]

Philip please tell me which is an standard Dolby mixing studio mixer if It is not a Neve.....

 

I have never said PT didn´t mix, so you can go and mix anything with It. The only thing is that nobody has choosen it as an option unless they didn´t have any other, untill it has become native. It´s now, right now when different enginers are resolving all mix process in PT. It has not been 10, neither 5 years ago.

 

I have mixed movies with PT, but I have done it much better on a Capricorn.

 

Philip you are telling us you didn´t like PT7 too much. So didn´t I. Mr. Henchman, you mixed movies probably both in SSLs/ Neves and in PTs??? Would you choose without any doubt a PT7 versus a Capricorn?

Well, like I said, in the Western USA I see Euphonix and Harrison consoles if they have consoles at all, and otherwise Avid Icon-D control surfaces.  A few Neve DFCs it's true, but Avid and the other two more commonly.  No SSLs for movie work at all, that I remember.  Here the trend is towards more ITB work, usually on the Avid controllers.  It's been a really long time since I saw a Capricorn...out here they were notorious for having reliability issues.  Sounded nice though!  RE PT, I was commenting on the sound of the app--ie how it summed and did its bussing inside the program, something it sounds to me like they have steadily improved since PT7.  But we made good sounding films with the earlier PTs for sure, it just took a little more work....

 

philp

[Henchman]

Philip please tell me which is an standard Dolby mixing studio mixer if It is not a Neve.....

I have never said PT didn´t mix, so you can go and mix anything with It. The only thing is that nobody has choosen it as an option unless they didn´t have any other, untill it has become native. It´s now, right now when different enginers are resolving all mix process in PT. It has not been 10, neither 5 years ago.

I have mixed movies with PT, but I have done it much better on a Capricorn.

Philip you are telling us you didn´t like PT7 too much. So didn´t I. Mr. Henchman, you mixed movies probably both in SSLs/ Neves and in PTs??? Would you choose without any doubt a PT7 versus a Capricorn?

You are getting all sorts of things mixed up now.

First, I was explaining, that the mix engine was changed in PT's 7.

Furthermore, people have chosen to mix on pro-tools long before it was native.

Ask Marti Humphrey at the dubstage, he has been mixing movies in Pro-Tools,well before native, because he wants to.

I started in post mixing on consoles, mostly on the Euphonix system 5, and have no desire to use a console in post ever again. I can do a better job, more efficiently, mixing with pro-tools, than I can on any console. The last time I mixed on a console was a Harrison at Sony, and it was painfully inefficient.

Also, I have clients who have mixed on the big lots, and have become my clients after one mix, because they not only feel their projects sound better, but we work faster.

Here's Marti's IMDB.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0401937/

[podgorny]

PT's audio engine has sounded great since version 6 on HD.

 

And no one "chose PT for mixing" until recently because of the sheer SCOPE of mixing movies. Mixing in-the-box becomes a whole different ball game when you're talking about working with upwards of 500 tracks.  Even now, Pro Tools HDX is the only thing that could conceivably pull that off, and that's only with PT11.

 

I had an interesting discussion last night with Jonathan Wales (who knows way more about the post market than I do), and he said.

"If pro tools went away tomorrow, there is NO APPLICATION which could take its place."

 

 

Fact is, Avid is a big ship, and big ships turn slowly. But they ARE turning things around. Pro Tools 11 is a HUGE leap ahead of anything else.

[Miguel Carretero]

Thx for sharing your experience and knowledge. I guess everyone thinks different and I should try not to state that much. I apologize.

In Europe the market it's a bit different, and here the american engineers are the first asking for PTs mixing system in our studios.

It's a fact that one of the first PTs sounding good was PT7. I just meant that to me Native is the real "ultimate" evolution.

And of course I was just talking about sound quality, I didn't put other facts in the equation, like how fast you can work, or how many tracks you can mix. At the end It seems to be the old software vs hardware question

Just to make it clear I have always worked in PT enviroment in post and I wouldn't make it day after day without it

[Constantin]

In Europe the market it's a bit different, and here the american engineers are the first asking for PTs mixing system in our studios.

Here in Germany it's pretty much all ProTools with controllers as well. At least in all the studios I've been in. You'll still see Harrison and sometimes StageTec consoles, but even then they'll use PT with that. Usually using two systems, one for playback and one for recording (after the mixer). I've seen other systems, such as Pyramix and Fairlight, but never for film. Although, to be fair, I do know several sound designers who work with Nuendo. But the mix still gets done on PT. It does depend on the studio.

[deep owl]

Just got a chance to look at the Logic X website. Looks pretty damn decent. I'm thinking of going to an apple store and getting my hands on it for a bit to test out the details. One of the big ones for me is stretching a piece of sound. Digital Performer was the only one that did it right until PT9 I think. If Logic does it the same smart way it's a pretty complete system. Obviously I don't mix features so you post mixers that do hundreds of tracks in PT are probably used to features that I know nothing about, but for commercials and promos with max 20 tracks, Logic X for $200 is pretty appealing.

[podgorny]

It's a fact that one of the first PTs sounding good was PT7. I just meant that to me Native is the real "ultimate" evolution.

And of course I was just talking about sound quality, I didn't put other facts in the equation, like how fast you can work, or how many tracks you can mix. 

 

 

I remember the transition from 6 to 7. There was no change in audio quality. As far as I recall, Digidesign kept the same audio engine throughout the life of the HD product range.

[VM]

In my opinion,  Logic is a great software but  as it is not reading metadatas (time code, track name) you can't work on a feature film with Logic.

[Constantin]

In my opinion, Logic is a great software but as it is not reading metadatas (time code, track name) you can't work on a feature film with Logic.

That's not entirely true, Logic can read TC. I don't think it reads Metadata, though.

Still, I agree with your conclusion that Logic is not great for film post

[JP Fonseca]

One of the big ones for me is stretching a piece of sound. Digital Performer was the only one that did it right until PT9 I think.

Steinberg already had it in Nuendo/Cubase since 2001. In fact, a lot of "revolutionary new features" introduced on recent versions of PT came from Steinberg software, like instrument tracks (PT7) and clip gain (PT10).

I guess this is the bad side of having industry standards, it turns unpractical the use of something practical. Nuendo is amazing for post, I wish there was a market for it.

[Henchman]

Steinberg already had it in Nuendo/Cubase since 2001. In fact, a lot of "revolutionary new features" introduced on recent versions of PT came from Steinberg software, like instrument tracks (PT7) and clip gain (PT10).

I guess this is the bad side of having industry standards, it turns unpractical the use of something practical. Nuendo is amazing for post, I wish there was a market for it.

Nuendo missed the boat by not incorporating certain post features quick enough.

[Christian Spaeth]

Very interesting read here. I wonder if all the old Jam Packs can be used on the new version. I'm too lazy to check. Does anyone know who isn't too lazy to share? Seems like the new version has them as In App purchases.

[podgorny]

Steinberg already had it in Nuendo/Cubase since 2001. In fact, a lot of "revolutionary new features" introduced on recent versions of PT came from Steinberg software, like instrument tracks (PT7) and clip gain (PT10).

I guess this is the bad side of having industry standards, it turns unpractical the use of something practical. Nuendo is amazing for post, I wish there was a market for it.

 

 

Several of Nuendo's developers have been with Avid for a while now.

[Constantin]

Just got a chance to look at the Logic X website. Looks pretty damn decent. I'm thinking of going to an apple store and getting my hands on it for a bit to test out the details. One of the big ones for me is stretching a piece of sound. Digital Performer was the only one that did it right until PT9 I think. If Logic does it the same smart way it's a pretty complete system. .

Logic has had the TimeMachine since V4, I think. With it you could stretch sound independent of pitch or with pitch-shifting as well.

And as I'm typing this, I realise you probably meant realtime stretching?

[Petros Kolyvas]

Very interesting read here. I wonder if all the old Jam Packs can be used on the new version. I'm too lazy to check. Does anyone know who isn't too lazy to share? Seems like the new version has them as In App purchases.

Yup! All the old content remains alongside the new content.

So far, my limited time with LPX see it streamlined in the right places.

I'm not a fan of some of the massive new UIs but clearly (to me) they were designed for use on Apple's second-screen (iPads.)

Can't see anything that would slow me down yet and lots that would speed me up.

Still missing slip, slide, ripple/shuffle for audio.

Content took forever to download too (35GB), but works well off an external Thunderbolt SSD array with my other sample libraries.

[VM]

That's not entirely true, Logic can read TC. I don't think it reads Metadata, though.

Still, I agree with your conclusion that Logic is not great for film post

I mean : can't read an audio file's time code

[JP Fonseca]

Several of Nuendo's developers have been with Avid for a while now.

That explains a lot.