Logic 6 Or Digital Performer?, which one is right for me? Options

[bishop263]

I have been working with digi 001. I've used performer 3 for a short time. I thought it was great for midi. My old g4's main harddrive crashed on me, so I Purchased a 1.25 ghz machine (osx only). Lately I've been using digi 001 for midi as well as audio. I know there are much better programs that I can use for midi, but I'm just stuck on which one would be right for me. I'm working on a Hip Hop track right now but I also do stuff like bjork, jazz, and house. I just started getting a system going when my computer crashed. It's becoming very frustrating...( I create music so well, but these technical difficulties are just really slowing me down.) I checked out logic 6, and found it a little confusing; however, so many people seem to be using it. I am more familiar with performer, but I'm still torn between the two. I use some outboard gear (mc505, proteus 2000, controller jp8000). I also started using unity sessions which, when it worked was great, but I always had some problem with. I basically need a program that will be user friendly and allow me to let my creative juices flow. Instead of being frustrated , a getting a tenth of creativity recorded. If you can help me, please feel free to write. Thanks

[damon]

If you can help me, please feel free to write. Thanks

Stick with Digital Performer then. If it was working for you before, and you're feeling comfortable with it, then stick to it now.

I recently went through the whole 'choose an A+M sequencer' thing myself. I began with Logic and, while it took me several weeks to get fluid in it, I never really found it *fun*. Someone here said that Logic is for musicians who love the tools and Digital Performer is for musicians who love the music... I think there's some truth to it.

I don't know where that leaves me, as I ended up with a Digi 002 running ProTools LE, and I'm happy as a clam. ;-]

But, the truth is, pick something that seems comfortable to use then focus on it. None of the choices out there from the big names (Cubase/Nuendo/Sonar/Digital Performer/Logic/ProTools/etc) are going to have you 'stuck', they're all extremely competent, very high quality products.

Anyway, if you liked DP before, there's no real reason to change. Wait to change until -you- start finding things in the tool which limit how -you- want to work. Until then, just march on through. ;-]

[urbanmatador]

i likewise went through the process of choosing, and i'm came up with DP 4 and the 828 for hardware. neither has been delivered yet, but i'll review them here as soon as i get the chance.

here was my reasoning. first off, i've used protools since verison 3.5, and i like it, but i have a laptop. so my hardware options were either the mbox or the digi002. the mbox is usb, which i think is terrible since it's so low-bandwidth, and i need more than 2 channels, so that was out. the 002 looks great, but it's very very expensive, and also kind of bulky. plus, i already have a mixer, so that's out.

then there's logic. i did a lot of reading, and from what i can tell, the interface is very cluttered, and in my opinion just plain ugly. if you're going to spend hours mixing a project, you want something that will be comfortable to look at. also, there's no obvious choice for hardware, which left me feeling like i would be mixing and matching in the dark, with on real guideline as to which interface would be better.

i've been intrigued by DP for a few years, and now that it's OS X-happy i can't resist. it's got a lot of great plug ins bundled with, and in general seems to be a well designed, easy-on-the-eyes product. again, i haven't gotten it yet, so i've no hands-on experience. the other reason i chose it was because of the 828, which is, as far as i can tell, the best firewire multichannel box for under 1000 bucks.

i used cubase a little once, and i felt like it was using tonds of processor power just to draw the interface, and therefor not enough juice was left for my audio. nuendo, i've never seen or used.

so that was my process. we'll see how it goes.

[bishop263]

thanks for the reply guys. Can I use the digi 001 interface to run dp4? or midiman 4x4? I plan to start using software synths, can anyone give me advice to a plug-in that I can purchace for loading in sounds. I really am fed up with bitheadz. does dp4 have anything like exs in logic, because then I could just purchase sample cd's.I'd like to head in that direction with my music.I pretty much know how to tweak the sounds enough to sound original.Is there anybody using mach 5 out there? How is it? Is it complicated? Does it work within the session or as a plugin, or is it stand alone that needs to be imported into the track?

[lepetitmartien]

Bishop please, try to keep to one burst of related questions in a thread…

The MOTU answer to EXS is MachFive (anyone using it already?) It's just out since the begining of the month

[dixiechicken]

I have used Opcodes Vision way back ( since 1.0.3 ) quite a lot. I loved that program.
At that time I felt there was nothing you couldnt with midi in it.
( I'm probably wrong )

After that have tried varous daws. To me Pro Tools and DP3/4 feels the most comfortable to work with. I dont know why really.

Now I have settled for DP4, I'm waiting for my free upgrade. If, in the future, I feel the need for it I'll add Reason and/or Machfive.

I still miss the comfortable feeling I had with Vision, though.

Cheers: Dixiechicken

[urbanmatador]

dixiechicken, i'm totally with you. vision was absolutely amazing at the time, and i've been wistful for it ever since. the guys nowadays have a lot to learn about intuitive interfaces from that program. well, except for patch setups. "no, dammit, no! i'm using a korg x5 *d*, not an x5!" that was sort of a pain...

bishop, never used mach five, but the press release is pretty impressive... it is a plug in, and is compatible with audiounits, mas, vst, rtas and tdm. so that basically covers it. motu has said that there is going to be a free update to dp4 "soon" which will add support for all digi hardware, so it will work with your digi001. as for the midiman, it should work fine. dp4 uses coremidi, so (theoretically) any device that is working properly in coremidi should work properly in dp4.

[mook noodler]

Can I use the digi 001 interface to run dp4? or midiman 4x4

I don't know about the 001, but Midiman 4x4 definitely works with dp4. I just got dp4 and am really liking it so far. I got the 828 too, but I'm not so happy with that. Urbanmatador, I'd love to hear what you think when you get yours set up.

[bishop263]

thank you, You guys are very imformative. so what do you think of the mackie control? It does not have any audio ins. `has anyone used it? just let me know.it works with any interface. the hands-on control is becoming more and more popular.i'm kind of getting sick of using the mouse.

[urbanmatador]

well, i've got dp4 installed and i played around with it for about a half hour, and so far i really like it. coming from protools free, it is a pretty steep learning curve; it's based on a different design philosophy than protools. but i like it. here are my first impressions.

dp is essentially a midi sequencer that happens to have a multitrack recorder built in. once your audio is recorded, and here's the big thing, it's treated essentially as if it were just another block of midi data. you can slice it up, loop it, move it around, etc. just like a chunk of midi data. you can do this in protools too, but it feels different. in protools, it feels like you're working in an audio environment that happens to do midi...

something borrowed from vision (in fact, the program reminds me a lot of vision) is the concept of "chunks." any sequence of audio or midi or both (which you or i would consider to be a song) is referred to as a chunk, and projects cna contain multiple chunks. this means you can have one set of audio and midi recordings, and make entirely different songs out of them. not just different mixes, either. a whole new set of windows opens up when you create a new sequence, a new edit window, and new mixer window, a new tracks window, and they all start from scratch. so basically, you can have a complete environment for one chunk, and a completely different one for another, but they're both part of the same project file.

one little complaint i have right off the bat is the fact that dp does not use standard os windows, widgets, scroll bars, etc... so far, i don't see why not, and it would really have cut down on development time, processor overhead, etc.

still waiting on the 828; should get it next week. mook, i'm interested to hear your thoughts.

i will be writing a full, detailed review of both within a few weeks, as well as continue to post here as i discover new things, etc.

cheers all.