Logic Pro vs. Ableton - TranceAddict Forums

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Production Studio
-- Logic Pro vs. Ableton
Pages (3): « 1 2 [3]

Posted by orTof�nChiLd on Jul-21-2010 22:35:

Posted by DJ RANN on Jul-21-2010 22:53:

quote:
Originally posted by Eric J
Its just not as easy as with Ableton. The operation must be performed inside a "Sample Editor" window, as opposed to directly on an audio track in the Arrange window. The transient detection is not quite as intuitive and accurate as Live, and there have been some questions about inferior quality in fast transients when warping at extreme levels. I think that Live has superior algorithms for warping as well as offering specific algorithm types based upon source material. I could not find any option equivalent in Logic FlexTime.

However, I think that we are closer to having Ableton style warping in Logic than ever, as the Live method seems to be the standard. I would anticipate seeing a more "Live-like" warping method in Logic sooner rather than later, provided they can do so without violating any patents or technology copyrights.

I think so too - the flextime came as a response to ableton but it came from protools having developed elastic time (which absolutely destroys ableton). You are going to see logic build on this more, and if they are able to take the same sort of leap in logic 10, as they did with logic 7-8 (new integrated arrange interfaces etc.) and 8-9 (flex time and audiotakes etc.), then I think the logic will become even more so THE sequencer to beat.

Bear in mind though, I think with Logic, they have no desire to be a DJ style platform, so I think they will only go to a point as they're happy being professional composing, scoring, arranging engineering and mixing platform.

Posted by Eric J on Jul-21-2010 23:07:

quote:
Originally posted by DJ RANN
I think so too - the flextime came as a response to ableton but it came from protools having developed elastic time (which absolutely destroys ableton). You are going to see logic build on this more, and if they are able to take the same sort of leap in logic 10, as they did with logic 7-8 (new integrated arrange interfaces etc.) and 8-9 (flex time and audiotakes etc.), then I think the logic will become even more so THE sequencer to beat.

Bear in mind though, I think with Logic, they have no desire to be a DJ style platform, so I think they will only go to a point as they're happy being professional composing, scoring, arranging engineering and mixing platform.

Completely agree with you here. Make no mistake, Apple has a lot more interest in competing with Avid's Pro Tools rather than Ableton Live. This seems especially evident considering their recent partnerships with various hardware companies. I have seen more than one marketing strategy that champions the Logic/Apogee/Euphonix combination as a lower cost alternative to a full blown Pro Tools system. "Get all the functionality of Pro Tools at 1/3 the cost" seems to be the angle they are going for with this hardware/software combo. The cost of entry to a Logic system is certainly within the budget of a greater number of composers and engineers, and the expansion options are certainly designed to fit a wide array of budgets (although a high end Mac Pro, Apogee Symphony system, and Euphonix control bundle can certainly eclipse the cost of a start-up HD system).

Of course, Logic lacks the DSP capabilities of Pro Tools, but the general consensus of the Apple Pro Applications marketing machine seems to be that with today's powerful computers, a native system can be every bit as powerful and stable as the Pro Tools DSP system. Personally, I question that claim, but it is becoming more and more a reality with each passing cycle. That being said, it is quite clear that they are attempting to take aim at the high end production market who wants to retain the power of Pro Tools but remain outside the clutches of Avid's controversial customer policies.

Posted by Lolo on Jul-22-2010 21:01:

At times I got to use flextime quite a bit the last months. My conclusions are the same as yours, they've only scratched the surface! But I truly think the time correction system is way better in Logic. I just regret you can't pitch-shift on the fly as in Live. So Live wins, but for how long?

And yeah Protools, the notepad audio application that got finally mature with v8. Too bad they make you pay a lot of $$$ for nothing because they call themselves Avid (obviously they are, of our money).

Now that the ipad's out in my country, I can't wait for a dedicated control surface from apple themselves so I can control Logic. That would be bad-ass.

L.

Posted by DJ RANN on Jul-22-2010 21:34:

quote:
Originally posted by Eric J
Completely agree with you here. Make no mistake, Apple has a lot more interest in competing with Avid's Pro Tools rather than Ableton Live. This seems especially evident considering their recent partnerships with various hardware companies. I have seen more than one marketing strategy that champions the Logic/Apogee/Euphonix combination as a lower cost alternative to a full blown Pro Tools system. "Get all the functionality of Pro Tools at 1/3 the cost" seems to be the angle they are going for with this hardware/software combo. The cost of entry to a Logic system is certainly within the budget of a greater number of composers and engineers, and the expansion options are certainly designed to fit a wide array of budgets (although a high end Mac Pro, Apogee Symphony system, and Euphonix control bundle can certainly eclipse the cost of a start-up HD system).

Of course, Logic lacks the DSP capabilities of Pro Tools, but the general consensus of the Apple Pro Applications marketing machine seems to be that with today's powerful computers, a native system can be every bit as powerful and stable as the Pro Tools DSP system. Personally, I question that claim, but it is becoming more and more a reality with each passing cycle. That being said, it is quite clear that they are attempting to take aim at the high end production market who wants to retain the power of Pro Tools but remain outside the clutches of Avid's controversial customer policies.

I think that's where Logic business model is going, at least a bit. At them moment a lot of composers use logic but then their engineers (me) have to bounce everything down and build a PT session which I can tell you is annoying and basically a complete waste of time if you think it all could havce been done in the same platform. I don't think it will truly take over protools and incorporate everything it does simply because there are so many options in PTHD that logic would become unmanageable.

However, I think they are stealing the middle ground and it will only get more advanced, so Logic becomes the platform of choice for everything apart from the upper echelon of pro usage (i.e. score or dub stage mixing where you can easily go 250 channels before getting in to groups).

As you said, the way logic is being coupled with hardware alternatives to PTHD is working very well for consumer, semi, and even fully pro situations, where budgets still have limits.

I think anyone investing in a new PTHD is either mad or has gigs book so they can guarantee thay will recoup in a year or less. The PTHD DSP is going to become more obsolete and with the amount of people who have invested in it, there will be complete uproar if avid bring out a new PT system that is not backward compatible in terms of hardware (like all the previous incarnations were not). The new macs are sson going to get to the point they can at least in theory handle the same processing power (if written correctly) that the PT cards do, and then avid have a real problem on their hands because they'll have to introduce new technology to just to stay current.

@lolo - the ipad logic control would be superb if it ever comes to fruition. I would seriously consider buying an ipad for that alone.

Posted by sterilis on Jul-22-2010 21:47:

quote:
Originally posted by music2dance2
I want a macbook pro

i went down the credit card route. still paying it off

Pages (3): « 1 2 [3]