Logic's greatest deficiencies...

[ERO]

Logic's two greatest deficiencies are (1) the lack of in-track graphic pitch correction (like DP) and (2) lack of region fade handles (DP & Nuendo). Both of these features speed up work flow tremendously and are urgently needed in Logic.

 

-ERO

[prjkt]

"region fade handles" do you mean using a mouse cursor to drag in a fade? if so this already exists - "crossfade tool"

 

but I may have misunderstood

[ERO]

Logic requires you to use a separate tool (crossfade tool) to draw a fade. Some other DAWs use a fade handle on the edge of the region that can be grabbed with the arrow pointer - i.e., no separate tool required. It's all about saving steps and time.

 

ERO

[fader8]

Simply assign 2 key commands for "Create 4 Nodes at Region Border" and "Move Current Track Automation to Region". Select the regions you want this applied to and invoke those KC's. Then you can drag the handles any which way you like or use the automation curve tool to modify the fade.

 

The benefit of this over many other DAWs is that you can do this for any automatable parameter, not just volume.

[m-m-m]

Simply assign 2 key commands for "Create 4 Nodes at Region Border" and "Move Current Track Automation to Region". Select the regions you want this applied to and invoke those KC's. Then you can drag the handles any which way you like or use the automation curve tool to modify the fade.

 

The benefit of this over many other DAWs is that you can do this for any automatable parameter, not just volume.

wow .... you continually amaze me Fader8!!!

[FlowerPower]

If you work with audio (and not MIDI), you could also assign the crossfade tool to your command key, and create crossfades with the Command key pressed.

 

If you want to modify the shape of the crossfade curve, press Control and Shift - this works even if the crossfade tool isn't active (the shape of the tool changes into the look of the automation select tool after you have pressed the mouse over a fade).

 

(The best way to watch this video is to click the Full Screen button!)

 

 

When using audio fades instead of automation, you would have an additional level of control over fades that would follow the regions also when they are moved - without combining track based and region based automation - which sometimes creates problems.

Edited August 23, 2008 by FlowerPower

[Spunkadellic]

wow...who is fader8.....he (or she...but not likely) continuously amazes me with extraordinary knowldge!!!!!!

[MiserableSod]

Simply assign 2 key commands for "Create 4 Nodes at Region Border" and "Move Current Track Automation to Region". Select the regions you want this applied to and invoke those KC's. Then you can drag the handles any which way you like or use the automation curve tool to modify the fade.

 

The benefit of this over many other DAWs is that you can do this for any automatable parameter, not just volume.

That's a crap solution because it locks the fader into automation, making it a real pain to subsequently adjust the level.

 

The only effective way to simulate Nuendo's "fade handles" is the crossfade tool, which indeed is not as elegant, but not the end of the world.

 

Another great Nuendo feature which Logic lacks is region "volume handles" whereby the volume of an individual region can be changed without locking it to automation or hyperdraw.

Edited August 23, 2008 by MiserableSod

[FlowerPower]

That's a crap solution because it locks the fader into automation, making it a real pain to subsequently adjust the level.

Well, the problem with using that methods occurs when some other level changes are happening in the same region, at the same time - which is why I think using the fade tool (or fade parametersin the Inspector) is a better idea (and elegant enough for me...).

 

When it comes to 'volume handles' in Nuendo...I guess they must be non-destructive, and therefore only serve as some sort of 'volume offset' parameter stored on a per region basis.

 

That sounds like a good idea, but I guess it will affect the overall performance? If you have a song full of small regions and each of them both have both needs to follow the overall automation level and automation offset on many tracks/regions.... Is Nuendo as CPU efficient/stable as Logic in such songs?

[ChicoSatis]

The volume region feature in Nuendo is a great feature. At least for the way I like to work. As for fading I never understood the big deal about using the crossfade tool. If you set it to a key command it takes no time at all to apply fades. But, at the same time it would be cool to have that Nuendo feature integrated in Logic.

 

HAve a good one.

[fader8]

That's a crap solution because it locks the fader into automation, making it a real pain to subsequently adjust the level.

Only if you use this for channelstrip fader automation, which you're not locked into. Depends on the workflow for the track.

 

Typically, I'll use this with a gain plug-in as I then have control of where that gain is inserted in the channelstrip plug-in chain. For example, it's a convenient way to handle prefader rides. If you have the gain after a noise gate, it doesn't mess up your gate threshold and hysteresis settings. Likewise having the gain before your channel compression gives you control over how each region drives into the comp threshold, which is often desirable.

 

The problem I had with Sequoia, similar to Nuendo which has lovely region based handles, was that I had no control over where that region gain envelope control was placed within the effects chain without setting up additional mix architecture to handle it. For me, that is a "crap solution".

 

If all you want to do with the region is fade in/out, then yes the region fade tools are the most convenient. But if you want full envelope control, eg fade in/out, region gain, rides, etc., with the ability to choose where that gain is in the signal chain, then this method is tough to beat.

[MiserableSod]

If all you want to do with the region is fade in/out, then yes the region fade tools are the most convenient.

 

Exactly. Thank-you and goodnight.

[ski]

I dunno... I ride volume automation extensively on pretty much all of my tracks (orchestral music) and rarely have need to change the gain on the actual recording. But on those occasions where a note here or there was recorded waaaaay too low and I can't get enough gain from the channel's volume, I go into the sample editor, select that section, and boost the gain. Then I'm back to riding automation on it if need be. And I'm always shaping attacks and releases with automation.

 

Yes, the gain-change procedure above is a destructive process, but I actually like the idea of committing to such changes. Sometimes things that remain fluid & flexible can become liabilities. But philosophies about that aside, what am I missing here about volume handles, shaping envelopes, etc. that can't be done with automation?

 

MiserableGuy, what's wrong with being "locked into" automation? I don't understand what the objection could be. Could you clarify?

 

FlowerPower, thanks for sharing that video. I wasn't aware you could change the shape of crossfades in the way you demonstrated. Cool!

 

Who is Fader8? He's a mythic figure with the body of Adonis and the head of a goat. Or is it the body of a goat and the head of Adonis? I forget. In any case, he's a very knowledgeable guy who continues to amaze me as well with his knowledge of the operation of multiple DAWs and plugins, as well as more worldly things...

[Ashermusic]

Fader8 is indeed an impressive guy.

[fader8]

Who is Fader8? He's a mythic figure with the body of Adonis and the head of a goat.

Twisty horns and all! Actually, with this sunburn I'm presently sporting the Hellboy look.

 

Thanks for the kudos guys, but as they say, Live & Learn . . so if you live long enough . . . .

[PMcC]

Well,

Even though the crossfade tool or the inspector work just fine for me. As someone who came from Nuendo. I'd ask Miserablesod and the others just how much time are you losing using them as opposed to the Nuendo handles?

 

because Nuendo I find a complete buzz kill when making music, it is far behind in so so many other areas. You have to be kidding, name a few you ask. OK, off the top of my head.

 

ever need to do a comp track, good luck in Nuendo

how bout simple things like adjust the pan of 8 tracks at once,. Nuendo,? nope.

instantiate a send on 12 drum tracks at once,.Nuendo,? nope.

adjust the 12 send level on said drum tracks at once,.. Nuendo, ? nope

 

lets say you recorded a guitar with 3 mics and want to do volume automation on the guitar.

group automation in Nuendo?,... Bzzzzz... nope again,

so,. automate one track and copy it over,.. you say.. OK,...

"A crap solution"

 

Now,. how much time do you waste in just these areas, to name a few?

[FlowerPower]

I dunno... I ride volume automation extensively on pretty much all of my tracks (orchestral music) and rarely have need to change the gain on the actual recording.

I know of a few people who miss that feature - they've probably used it in another DAW.

 

If you have a track with, say 20 regions, and 3 of them are generally too loud, it would IMO be great to be able just lower the overall level of those regions (non-destructively, to preserve sound quality after repeated edits).

 

This way, you could keep creating edits using normal automation, and these few regions wouldn't need a special treatment, because they already had their offset valued attached to them.

 

If this could happen non-destructively on a file level (meaning that - just like with audio fadeins - Logic would just play back these altered files), we would also avoid lots of minor, real time automation changes.

 

Fade files already exist as separate files, and/but any change to an audio fade is based on the original region, not an edited version of it. If the same could happen for a whole audio region (when raising or lowering the overall volume) , we wouldn't risk an quality loss after many edits. And: we wouldn't risk any conflict between track automation and region based automation.

 

I'm sure we all work in different ways, but even if I've only used Logic for many years, I've still missed this function, eg. when compiling a track based on several takes. I normally just create 4 nodes, which is a very useful trick, but less useful in those situations where you want to keep the volume offset for that region in a section that also needs some normal automation 'on top of' the general adjustment of a region.

 

 

Maybe it would be confusing if Logic had both track automation, region automation and 'region volume offset'? I don't know, but for work I've done with audio books it would have saved me days of work...

 

Another couple of reasons for such a function is that Logic already has had problems with playing back automation reliably in large songs and that region based automation and track based automation simply can't be used at the same time without causing 'nervous' faders, jumping up and down all the time. OTOH, if Logic could could get a lookahead kind of analyzing both the track automation and HyperDraw automation, we would have something even more flexible than volume handles...

 

The more I think of this, I think the need for 'volume handles' rather should be covered by a way to freeze a region (with automation burned into the file), If this would be implemented, and new 'freezes' always a re based on the original file, we would both get 'volume handles' and Bounce-In-Place in one function, with one user interface.

[ski]

Thanks for your very detailed explanation/assessment of this situation.

 

Not to take away from your reasoning of why these features could be of importance, but Logic's inability to playback automation data shouldn't be reason to introduce a new feature, IMO. Yes, I've seen this problem also. Plain and simple, it needs to be fixed,. And in the meantime there needs to be some kind of communication from Apple/Logic explaining that "no, you're not going nuts... if you get to bar 700 and your automation isn't tracking, it's not you, it's a problem with Logic and we're working on the probem..."

 

But I digress.

 

Something tells me that once you get into multiple layers of level control that at some point the potential complexities could start to outweigh the overall usefuless of all that control. "Why isn't it (loud/soft) enough? Let's see.. volume automation? No... Region automation? No... Maybe I sent that one over to an unused bus to get a little more (boost/cut)? No. Oh, I know, it's the handle-based automation...

 

Those would be my concerns having "too much control of the same thing." Still, per your examples, I can see how they could be very useful. So thanks again for elucidating on this.

[Eric Wikman]

http://web.mac.com/absorbmusic/Absorb_Music/LOGIC_8_TUTORIALS.html

 

look at the SX3 snip/tuck/fade video.... (at the bottom)

 

about half way through it....

I showed a simple example in SX3 for fades & vol handles.

I love L8 and all that is does, but this it really missed... esp wwhen adjusting 300 Back ground vocals for a quick setting.

 

BTW, This was b4 I started to use Logic, and this was not to compare, but to show a few interns/friends a few of SX3s editing features at the time.

[ChicoSatis]

Cool Vid. I LOVE the way the waveforms look in Cubase. That's my least favorite part about L8. Can't stand the way the waveforms look. Then again it doesn't really matter in the end.