Canopus,

May the force be with you
The day I bought Logic, I stopped for a coffee.
I ran into a prominent Engineer/Producer friend that saw the box on my Table.

He said "Have you opened the plastic yet?" (I hadn't) He then said "Think twice before you do! I could never make sense of it and I threw it away!"

Oh how I wish that I had listened to him (of course that was a few versions ago)

jmp

quote:

Originally posted by Jazzooo:
I don't know enough about getting two programs to talk to each other, but I'm sure it's not as elegant as only using 1.

In my experience, you're dead right. It is no where near as elegant.

Logic is da bomb for MIDI. Even though other apps have "score editing"...they don't work as well. And bringing in a 3rd option of notation software won't do the same thing--it won't let you edit the score data while hearing/referencing the audio...defeating the purpose for me. Those apps are for score printing--like actual physical paper, getting the notation just right. And Logic does that out of the box, as well.

Even DP3 has a score editor, but it's worthless to me. It doesn't work anywhere near as well as Logic's.

I know someone who loves Logic and can't figure out other apps to save his life.

Well...I can...but, I still think for MIDI/arranging/song building, it's da bomb. Not by a little bit. Now, I'm the first to say I don't think it's audio editing is on par with some of the other apps, in terms of getting really granular with your edits and working quickly. Holds up with the professional use of Logic to build song arrangments, then exporting to PTHD for cleaning up/mixing.

"Logic is da bomb for MIDI. Even though other apps have "score editing"...they don't work as well."

If you mean the ability to edit a midi performance by tweaking what looks like musical notation, I agree to some extent. If others don't have it now, I'm willing to bet they will eventually, though.

In general, Logic's notation program is still pretty crappy, unless you're only doing the most basic stuff, and even then--I defy you to put a song title at the top of the first page but not the second page of a score. I can only compare it to a $99 Autoscore program I bought years ago, which was far more intuitive (PC only at the time). Anyway, I'm not the only one saying this--I just want to save you the embarrassment of raving about the notation aspects of Logic in front of grizzled, disgruntled Logic users who routinely switch over to another proram for serious notation work.

"And bringing in a 3rd option of notation software won't do the same thing--it won't let you edit the score data while hearing/referencing the audio...defeating the purpose for me."

Sometimes I feel like you don't keep up with product development, Pop! Almost every scoring program out there comes with some level of sequencing/sound source software. I was just looking at the newest Sibelius, which comes with Garritan orchestra qand other sounds built in. it really is standard to do this, and has been for a while.

" Those apps are for score printing--like actual physical paper, getting the notation just right."

This is why they are referred to as notation programs. I do like th option of editing my midi tracks with notation, but that's not always the best (fastest) way to do it in Logic. Only for certain kinds of edits.

But maybe I will just use the midi in Logic to work with sequenced tracks, the dump it into another system to do my audio work.

quote:

Originally posted by Popmann:


Even DP3 has a score editor, but it's worthless to me. It doesn't work anywhere near as well as Logic's.

Pop, DP3 is ancient technology, so any comparisons to or bashing of DP should be referencing DP5. Obviously there have been a ton of changes to the program. DP3 doesn't even run on OS X.

quote:

Pop, DP3 is ancient technology, so any comparisons to or bashing of DP should be referencing DP5. Obviously there have been a ton of changes to the program. DP3 doesn't even run on OS X

Yeah. You're right on some level. And it's the level that I disagree with using software in principle.

"And it's the level that I disagree with using software in principle."

Because you can't keep criticizing an old form of the software once they've made improvements?

Just kidding around, killing a few moments.

quote:

Originally posted by John Mark Painter:
The new Garritan "Gofriller" Cello is STUNNING (I was on the Beta team and have been using it for a while).

Interesting. Though I really respect the huge amount of work anyone puts into soft synths, but so far I haven't met anything that would impress me on solo level. Their STRADIVARI violin was pretty mediocre, almost useless. Do you know if V2 got any better?

quote:

Originally posted by Dot:
I think you'll find around here that people don't give a flying hoot what DAW you use. Though I do think on some of the DAW-specific forums you'll sometimes find more of a cult following. Fact is, they really aren't all that different.

I'm with you Dot. After spending 18 months looking, testing, learning I chose Protools LE; not because it was way ahead of the rest - it wasn't - I just liked the interface and the workflow better. DP was my second choice, but neither were better then the others. They all have their strengths and weaknesses; some do one thing better, and another will do other things better. The reality is that they all do what they were designed to do, and they do it well. It is a very subjective decision, but I can definately see the various cult followings.

All of our studios use the Roland VS --easy out of the box ~~ all-in-one system. Works for our clients Less brain work < more music > leaning towards a "glorified" tape deck ~~~

I use PT. I think if you want to play with the big boys, you should use the big boys' toys. I wonder what percentace of major label releases are recorded on something other than PT, Nuendo or logic.

quote:

Originally posted by nbarts:

quote:

Originally posted by John Mark Painter:
The new Garritan "Gofriller" Cello is STUNNING (I was on the Beta team and have been using it for a while).

Interesting. Though I really respect the huge amount of work anyone puts into soft synths, but so far I haven't met anything that would impress me on solo level. Their STRADIVARI violin was pretty mediocre, almost useless. Do you know if V2 got any better?

Still prefer the "engines" of the Kurweils ---especially in the orchestral sections-- really shine in the solo samples..

Kurzweil...good solo strings?

they have really nice playable ensembles for sure...but, the solo strings aren't even useable to me. Maybe the cello if it's way in the background. I've been using Dan Dean Solo strings for the lead lines...works far better, IMO.

RE: Garritan Gofriller Cello (and Stradivari)

The Stradivari sounds too mid-rangey but it isn't mediocre if you have the controllers set up and you know how to work them.

Go to the Garritan website and listen to "Sailor's Hornpipe" and "Orange Blossom Sepcial" in the demos. Those were played in REAL TIME and it isn't possible to play like that with any other Sample instrument.

RE: Gofriller Cello
THIS one actually sounds great and has the play-ability of the Strad with many improvements.

I record a REAL Gofriller Cello ($3million +) often so I know how real strings are supposed to sound

You need an Expression Pedal, a Mod Wheel, an unweighted Keyboard, and an understanding of the Instrument and you will be amazed.

I probably shouldn't post this since I can do better with today's tools, but I've been looking for an opportunity to share this under-appreciated song from my 1994 album, Art Can't Hurt You anyway! It's called Phillyjazz, and it serves to confirm at least part of what John Mark said. *Understanding the instrument* is at least half the battle.

I always thought that the string soli starting around 2:20 was well executed, given that I was only working with a Proteus and a Sound Canvas module, a volume slider in one hand on a weighted keyboard. Just an old Kawai sequencer at the time, so no heavy duty midi editing available.

http://download.yousendit.com/7982468872F1CD58

quote:

Originally posted by Popmann:
Kurzweil...good solo strings?

they have really nice playable ensembles for sure...but, the solo strings aren't even usable to me. Maybe the cello if it's way in the background. I've been using Dan Dean Solo strings for the lead lines...works far better, IMO.

I do use real strings for a solo--if it is that critical. In the Kurzweil : we blend several strings together and work with the mod wheel, to obtain a bow > thats realistic in the background. It takes some knack. Our systems/studios are pretty committed to several racks of their keys. We don't even have a PC /Mac in the studio...So probably will never make it to the ones suggested. Would be nice to hear the competition, though ~!

If you're interested...they've really poured on some reverb to make these "bigger" in the sample...they're bone dry samples. There's a little player to the left side. I wish they still had the Faulty Towers theme...that was the demo, and it was more true to what the samples are capable of in terms of "solo" drier usage.

Dan Dean Solo Strings

You want to hear what I'm about to pick up?

Horizon chamber Strings

Just for point of reference.

I get it...you can ignore the first link--Dan Dean has redone the library to be "ensemble" sounds...even though it's still called "solo strings"!! So, what I have doesn't sound like that.

quote:

The Stradivari sounds too mid-rangey but it isn't mediocre if you have the controllers set up and you know how to work them.

Go to the Garritan website and listen to "Sailor's Hornpipe" and "Orange Blossom Sepcial" in the demos. Those were played in REAL TIME and it isn't possible to play like that with any other Sample instrument.

I know about the controllers & I agree that the idea of using keys out of range to change the style of playing was pretty good, I wish Sonic implants used their samples of strings in that kind of engine, it would make it a lot easier to work with them, although would take quite a lot more memory. I wasn't impressed how playing styles were realized though & samples didn't impress me much too. I had only a couple of hours with it, but I don't want to spend weeks learning how to make a softsynth sound good. If a couple of hours is not enough to get it sound useful & I just dump it. I could have far better results with simple violinist & a simple violin. So what's the point of miking samples of such an instrument as Stradivari violin if it sounds worse than an entry level instrument?

The problem with website examples on any of those sites is that in those samples softsynth is being played by music & not music by softsynth, if you know what I mean. When you try to play music it usually doesn't work so well. Some people adapt their music to softsynth or samples to make it sound good, I don't like to do that. Trust me, if their cello is as good as you say it is I'll be in the line of their customers. Stradivari wasn't, at least for me, unfortunately.

If they could deliver those quality samples , you referenced to >> in a stand alone box, with 8 outputs ..ala Kurzweil >> would be very interested

I rely on these guys for the most part--

Yours truly ~~ the drummer in this quintet