gnapier

Hey there! I started out on an Atari ST also (Dr. T KCS -> Opcode StudioVision-> etc.) I've used Logic off and on through many versions since the 90s. IMHO Logic Pro X is easier to deal with than Logic 9. If your machine can run it, give it a try! Cheers and much success to you.

With a macro, you can create complex multi-step processes that are executed with one click. Imagine a series of key commands that are strung one after another in a group, and then that group of commands is assigned its own key command. Use of the macro's key command would cause the whole group of key commands to launch sequentially. A made up example. (This isn't how you would do this.) If you wanted to take a marque selection, ripple cut it, back the playhead up 1 bar before the cut, then play through the edit to see how it sounds, it would take four separate key commands and each command would have it's own key combination -Turn selection into region <CTRL X> -Delete region <CTRL XX> -Rewind playhead 2 bars <OPT Y> -Play <SPACEBAR> But if I made the above into a macro, I would set up these key commands inside of it, then give the macro itself a key command like <OPT CTRL J>. Now, if I just hit <OPT CTRL J>, all four of the key commands assigned to that macro would execute one after the other. So in one swoop I'd delete my selection, back up the playhead and listen to my edit.

I use a few different DAWs for different types of work. The reason usually comes down to workflow, integration with other toolsets, or built in capabilities. For instance, StudioOne has a more robust key commands / macro creation system than Logic. I can create a custom key command that executes a series of key commands and thus encapsulates a mini-workflow. For editing dialogue and narration, this is a godsend. I can do a similar thing in Logic, but I either have to use some thing like keyboard maestro, or create the macros in my Slate Raven set up. So it's possible, but it's simpler to pull something like that off in Studio One. Similarly, Studio One and Cubase have Audio and midi based chord tracks and chord extractors. Again, I can do this with Logic and Scaler, but it's an extra step. Logic on the other hand is Logic with all of the wonderful things that go with it and that the others don't have - beautiful GUI design, Alchemy, flex time, etc.. I tend to use Logic when I'm not focused so much on client work, but on my own creative endeavors. Lastly and FWIW, I also believe that being fluent in two DAWs that offer very different capabilities/workflows can really be helpful when you find yourself stuck in a creative rut. For years that alternative for me was Ableton Live because it offered such a different experience. I migrated to Bitwig. And although Logic now has track clips and such, Bitwig is a sufficient different beast that creative solutions that come from there are usually things I would not have created were it a Logic based project. Hope that makes sense. Cheers!

Azbeats88, Hey man welcome. I think the thing you want to do can’t easily be done in Logic. If you didn’t sell your FL license, you can probably grab FL20 Mac native (lifetime free updates after all) and use a combo of the two in your workflow. FWIW, hats off for making the transition. I just got FL and it’s such a different way of working, it’s kind of mind bending to wrap my head around it. I can only imagine how weird it must have been to go the other way... I have to say: FL has a lot neat tools and capabilities that can really help with sparkling some creative ideas/approaches. Good luck!

This is helpful. The first few pages have essential info. I found this to be particularly useful:

I know you said earlier that you do not want to use a 3rd party utility, but at least take a look at this. It’s tailor made for what you want to do, works great, and has been trouble free on my system for years.... http://appleinsider.com/articles/18/02/10/hands-on-rogue-amoebas-loopback-is-the-mac-utility-every-audio-user-needs

That pretty much does what I need. Thank you!!!

No I have not! But I will try it now and get back to you. Thanks!!

Hi. Sorry about the confusing title. I just want to make sure I'm not missing something with LPX. I've been doing some work in Cubase and Studio One recently. Both of them have an ability to take individual audio events (what we call "regions") and "combine" them into a larger single audio event WITHOUT bouncing the events/regions down to a new file. Essentially you can create a container for the individual audio elements that you can then treat as a single event (region). This is different from joining or bouncing the events in LPX as joining audio regions into a single file requires a bounce and creation of a new audio file. This wipes these discrete components from the new file. (After the bounce, you can't go back to recover any missing sub-component info as that part of the audio would no longer be present in the bounced file.) The advantage of being able to create this "meta event" is that if ever you need to go back to modify one of the original constituent audio events (regions), you can simply dissolve the combined file back to its discrete components. This has been very useful for instance when I am putting together dialogue only to realize much later (somehow it's always at the 11th hour) that a word or line is missing. I've been able to go back to the meta audio event, dissolve it, find the component event (region) containing the missing audio and adjust its length or otherwise recover the info, then combine everything back together, re-export, and continue. It's a huge timesaver. So, I just want to make sure: LPX does not have an equivalent yet, correct? I can work around it of course, but I'm writing macros and batch commands for my Raven and want to make sure I'm not missing something before I get too far down the road. If you've read this far. Thank you.

Cornel, Thanks for the more detailed explanation. It really helps. And it’s a bit brilliant too! So as you said, it’s definitely possible, so let’s hope Apple engineers put a prettier front end on doing this (and fix the patching issue). Until then, maybe a moderator could pin this somewhere...? Thanks again!

True. But they might do it from a marketing angle. Unveil new iMacPro, demo some new stuff from Adobe and FCP that makes it look great...then maybe - just maybe - they will throw a bone to us musos in the demo too. (I can dream anyway!)

I think the update depends more on the release of the the new iMac Pro. I could see Apple releasing something exciting in Logic and FCP that helps to pimp the new machine.

This is just a long shot, but thought I'd throw it in. Have you tried removing the tempo info then bouncing the track to a different format (e.g., wav) and continue working from there? Perhaps the m4a format has some weird way of weaving tempo info throughout the file and some residual tempo info is in there somewhere and globally changing the tempo only layers new information over existing info. When you cut a region, that new layer of info doesn't "stick" and it reverts back to the original info. Bouncing it to a different format might rewrite all tempo info completely. Total conjecture, but thought I'd throw it out there. Good luck!

Nobody then I take it?

Compliments to you both for the thoughtful exchange and discussion. Just throwing in a quick 2 cents... I think Atlas007 has a really salient point re: the discrepancy between limited physical controllers and the hundreds of parameters available in most instruments. I've gone through scads of kbd controllers by most manufacturers over the years and the "layer flipping" and labeling issues (in some cases) just wore me down. Your "glass" comments are noted. However if you want a great degree of flexibility, it's hard to beat something like Touch Osc from Hexler.net as it allows you to build and organize custom controllers for your instruments. Metagrid is also a great app though more focused on DAW control and macros as opposed to parameter automation. As to the Raven, again it's glass. But I think it represents a direction things are likely to go as the missing tactile experience is counter balanced if not out weighed by the extreme convenience and capability. (Full disclosure, I just bought my second one.) Anyway, just another viewpoint. There's a lot of good info in this thread. Thank you! G