Logic Pro X 10.0.5 is out now!

[jendakub]

The update is great, however new serious bug has been introduced.

 

Midi Transform editor is not working correctly and always operate on all events in region.

 

1. Select any notes in piano roll

2. Apply fixed velocity command

3. All notes regardless your selection will change velocity.

 

This is a serious issue.

 

Otherwise, great update

[Multispace]

The update is great, however new serious bug has been introduced.

 

Midi Transform editor is not working correctly and always operate on all events in region.

 

1. Select any notes in piano roll

2. Apply fixed velocity command

3. All notes regardless your selection will change velocity.

 

This is a serious issue.

 

Otherwise, great update

 

No problem here. You should hit the Operate Only button in the Transform editor if you want it to apply to your selection only.

[Jordi Torres]

The update is great, however new serious bug has been introduced.

 

Midi Transform editor is not working correctly and always operate on all events in region.

 

1. Select any notes in piano roll

2. Apply fixed velocity command

3. All notes regardless your selection will change velocity.

 

This is a serious issue.

 

Otherwise, great update

 

Cannot confirm. Works as expected here.

 

Before:

 

After:

 

J.

[Glenn L.]

With the exception of having to re-initialize core audio more than before, things seems better. The core audio thing I can foresee becoming an issue, though.

[jendakub]

The update is great, however new serious bug has been introduced.

 

 

Midi Transform editor is not working correctly and always operate on all events in region.

 

1. Select any notes in piano roll

2. Apply fixed velocity command

3. All notes regardless your selection will change velocity.

 

This is a serious issue.

 

Otherwise, great update

 

Cannot confirm. Works as expected here.

 

Before:

FeedBass.cst.zipScreen Shot 2013-12-20 at 14.13.39.png[/attachment]

 

J.

 

Hello, It is affected when you assign Articulation ID.

 

Select any note and assign different articulation ID.

 

Then do the midi transform, it will process all midi notes.

It is broken if you assign any note different articulation ID. It will operate on whole region then.

[David Nahmani]

Hello, It is affected when you assign Articulation ID.

 

Select any note and assign different articulation ID.

 

Then do the midi transform, it will process all midi notes.

It is broken if you assign any note different articulation ID. It will operate on whole region then.

Hello jendakub,

 

Could you please start a new thread regarding this bug? That way we can move it to the Bug section. Thank you!

[Jordi Torres]

Hello, It is affected when you assign Articulation ID.

 

Select any note and assign different articulation ID.

 

Then do the midi transform, it will process all midi notes.

It is broken if you assign any note different articulation ID. It will operate on whole region then.

 

Still cannot reproduce here. Tried with sixteen notes with 16 different articulation ID's and also with the same Articulation ID: Same result as before: only selected notes are affected by the transform window.

 

J.

[jendakub]

Hello, It is affected when you assign Articulation ID.

 

Select any note and assign different articulation ID.

 

Then do the midi transform, it will process all midi notes.

It is broken if you assign any note different articulation ID. It will operate on whole region then.

 

Still cannot reproduce here. Tried with sixteen notes with 16 different articulation ID's and also with the same Articulation ID: Same result as before: only selected notes are affected by the transform window.

 

J.

 

Just tried with fresh project, could not reproduce, however several times it has affected whole region instead my selected notes when I pressed Operate only. I will take a look if there is way to fully reproduce it.

[anp27]

I'm trying to just install the new Producer Kit patches but I can't seem to just tick that box. It seems I have too reinstall all the producer kits again. Does anyone else see this? Any workarounds?

[noisenet]

If you use Logic in a professional setting you may want to wait before updating. I accidentally did "update all" in the app store and now I am dead in the water with projects in progress and deadlines that will not be met now.

 

I have the following issue:

 

When recording audio in replace mode, Logic does not record the first 2.5 measures (in 4/4). At the 2:3 mark it sounds like the track is punched in. When you re-record a section (haven't tried auto-punch, just hitting record), it acts normal during recording, even showing the live waveforms, including the first 2.5 measures. When played back, the OLD take is played and if it was shorter than the new take, the new one picks up after the old one is done. (again sounding like it was punched in.) The resulting track is *one single region* with seemingly no way to see the old or new takes individually. The color of the track is also off, with the light portion at the top of a selected region abruptly ending and starting again later. And not at the point where recording of various takes started or stopped. It's arbitrary.

 

Just giving you a heads up so hopefully you're not screwed over too.

 

I encountered this issue on a song on which I was working yesterday. I've run into this before with LPX - always when recording into a track stack - I figured that was the problem. What was even more weird, though, is that after it did it, I moved onto another track, same part, just a double, in the same song and it did not happen. I moved back to 'glitched' track and, again, it happened. Flattened the track stack and the problem went away. But on the double track it never happened.

[Tgreer]

Amazeballz.

[anp27]

I'm trying to just install the new Producer Kit patches but I can't seem to just tick that box. It seems I have too reinstall all the producer kits again. Does anyone else see this? Any workarounds?

 

Never mind, I solved it by clicking on 'Install new packages only'. Duh.

 

Great update!

[greentusk]

At first sight, 10.0.4 was the last release where we can make it "compatible" with OSX Lion with a little hack. 10.0.5 doesn't startup on OSX Lion on my mac pro 1,1.

[thedivisionbell]

This update almost has me more excited than news of the the X upgrade. A new EQ! If they update the Compressor and Sculpture in the next update, I'm upgrading to X.

[Assessor]

Does the new EQ sound different, or better, without oversampling engaged?

Is it a new EQ or just a new GUI?

[Kim Olesen]

Does the new EQ sound different, or better, without oversampling engaged?

Is it a new EQ or just a new GUI?

 

Aside the oversampling option there is one thing to remember regarding digital eq. Unless some analog modelling is going

on all digital eqs sound the same. This was proven on a gearslutz thread some years ago. Perception in difference was all placebo. So no. It does not sound better. Nor worse. It sounds just like a clean digital eq should. This also means that yes, it is a new gui, it couldnt be anything else really.

[M.K.BEAT]

This was proven on a gearslutz thread some years ago

 

That made my day!

 

 

Best,

m.k.beat

[Multispace]

Does the new EQ sound different, or better, without oversampling engaged?

Is it a new EQ or just a new GUI?

 

Aside the oversampling option there is one thing to remember regarding digital eq. Unless some analog modelling is going

on all digital eqs sound the same. This was proven on a gearslutz thread some years ago. Perception in difference was all placebo. So no. It does not sound better. Nor worse. It sounds just like a clean digital eq should. This also means that yes, it is a new gui, it couldnt be anything else really.

 

I find this hard to believe actually, would love to see the link to that thread.

For one, the precision is which the processing is done differs a lot from EQ to EQ. Why would Apple otherwise included Double Precision Processing and Oversampling with the new EQ?

 

If all digital EQ's would sound the same, why are there digital EQ's (hardware) from 10000 euros and up?

 

Nah....

[Kim Olesen]

I am talking about plugins here. Hardware has all kinds of variables. The fact of the matter was that they could get almost any standard eq plugin to null with the same settings. And null means exactly the same.

[Multispace]

I am talking about plugins here. Hardware has all kinds of variables. The fact of the matter was that they could get almost any standard eq plugin to null with the same settings. And null means exactly the same.

 

I found the thread already. Interesting to read!

Still previous versions of the EQ (remember the Fat EQ?) in Logic sounded worse than the Channel EQ. That's not perception, but maybe precision

 

The hardware EQ's I was talking about are used for mastering (like Weiss EQ's) which are pure digital EQ's without AD/DA converters, so what are the other variables?

[Holger Lagerfeldt]

If you take two identical types (e.g. minimum phase) of equalizers and compare their parametric bands, they'll usually null. Often the high and low pass filters can be made to null as well. This is what that Gearslutz thread is about.

 

Minimum and linear phase won't sound identical, so you need to compare oranges to oranges. Oversampling will make a difference as well.

 

Many EQ plug-ins claim "fat" and "analog modelling", but aren't actually different from e.g. the Logic Channel EQ. Some have different curves in the shelves, e.g. a Gerzon type shelf that dips above or below the cut off point (such as the Waves Renaissance), and some have variable Qs which affects your workflow.

 

Double precision helps eliminate quantizing noise, especially when using high/low pass filters and parametrics with tight Qs, and oversampling will help remove warping in the high frequencies.

 

Regarding the Fat EQ vs. Channel EQ, the Channel EQ actually has more quantization noise in the HPF, if I remember correctly. The parametrics will null once you've found a common Q value (offset).

Edited December 21, 2013 by lagerfeldt

[Kim Olesen]

If you take two identical types (e.g. minimum phase) of equalizers and compare their parametric bands, they'll usually null, i.e. 100% identical. Sometimes you need to offset set Q since the face values don't match up. Quite often the high and low pass filters can be made to null as well, once the slope is offset. This is what that Gearslutz thread is about.

 

Minimum and linear phase won't sound identical, so you need to compare oranges to oranges. Oversampling will make a difference as well. This is just as easily testable as the above.

 

Many digital equalizers claim everything from "fat" to "analog modelling, but aren't actually different from say the Logic Channel EQ. Some have slightly different curves in the shelves, e.g. a Gerzon type shelf that dips above or below the cut off point (such as the Waves Renaissance), and some have variable Q which affects your workflow. So workflow is a factor as well.

 

Double precision helps eliminate quantizing noise, especially when using high/low pass filters and parametrics with tight Qs, and oversampling will help remove warping in the high frequencies.

 

Regarding the Fat EQ vs. Channel EQ, the Channel EQ actually has more quantization noise in the HPF. The parametrics will null once you've found a common Q value (offset).

 

And here is the thread http://www.gearslutz.com/board/so-much-gear-so-little-time/330874-digital-eq-fact-myth.html

 

Read through it all! And then don't waste your money on digital eq plugins that does not have special features. They will not sound different from your daws eq. What is important is if the eq gui "speaks to you". Because that will make you use the tool better.

[Multispace]

Thanks for the info, Lagerfeldt.

 

I remember when the Channel EQ was introduced and I compared it with the exact same settings of the Fat EQ on an acoustic guitar recording and the Channel EQ sounded much smoother than the Fat EQ. So you say that's just a Q value offset?

 

The quantization noise should be gone then, since the new EQ uses double precision processing.

That's what I meant originally: precision does make a difference.

[Holger Lagerfeldt]

And here is the thread http://www.gearslutz.com/board/so-much-gear-so-little-time/330874-digital-eq-fact-myth.html

 

Read through it all! And then don't waste your money on digital eq plugins that does not have special features. They will not sound different from your daws eq. What is important is if the eq gui "speaks to you". Because that will make you use the tool better.

I'm well aware of the thread, but see my response above (edited for clarification).

[Holger Lagerfeldt]

I remember when the Channel EQ was introduced and I compared it with the exact same settings of the Fat EQ on an acoustic guitar recording and the Channel EQ sounded much smoother than the Fat EQ. So you say that's just a Q value offset?

 

The quantization noise should be gone then, since the new EQ uses double precision processing.

That's what I meant originally: precision does make a difference.

Regarding the Fat EQ then it depends on what bands you used and how you set them in the Channel EQ as well. Remember that the slope of the HPF/LPF will have to be identical, the Qs need to be offset, etc. But I've only tested the parametric - and it nulls.

 

Regarding double precision: yes, it makes a difference. Whether that's particularly audible is another matter.

[Multispace]

Regarding the Fat EQ then it depends on what bands you used and how you set them in the Channel EQ as well. Remember that the slope of the HPF/LPF will have to be identical, the Qs need to be offset, etc. But I've only tested the parametric - and it nulls.

 

Regarding double precision: yes, it makes a difference. Whether that's particularly audible is another matter.

 

I'm pretty sure it was a boost with a parametric EQ band with exact same settings for Channel EQ and Fat EQ (low Q boost around 7 kHz) and it sounded different. I remember that I was surprised to hear such a difference! Before I thought that I wouldn't hear a difference actually, because the differences (if any) would be so small. But at these exact same settings it would definitely not null. Why would they introduce a Q offset anyway? Has that to do with the Gain-Q Couple Strength parameter in the Channel EQ?

 

Maybe this is getting off-topic for this thread by the way

[siderealxxx]

Great update, but one big bug still not fixed for me… please confirm:

 

If you have the piano roll set to open at maximum size, the keyboard doesn't line up with the grid! You can see in the screen shot here, C3 isn't aligned, and there's a big gap up the top of the keyboard. If you re-size it goes away.

 

 

Annoying!

[stratquebec]

At first sight, 10.0.4 was the last release where we can make it "compatible" with OSX Lion with a little hack. 10.0.5 doesn't startup on OSX Lion on my mac pro 1,1.

 

 

I know you (we) all know but here it is anyway:

 

LPX Minimum system requierements

 

4GB of RAM

Display with 1280-by-768 resolution or higher

OS X v10.8.4 or later

Requires 64-bit Audio Units plug-ins

Minimum 5GB of disk space. 35GB of optional content available via in-app download.

[Holger Lagerfeldt]

[

I'm pretty sure it was a boost with a parametric EQ band with exact same settings for Channel EQ and Fat EQ (low Q boost around 7 kHz) and it sounded different. I remember that I was surprised to hear such a difference! Before I thought that I wouldn't hear a difference actually, because the differences (if any) would be so small. But at these exact same settings it would definitely not null. Why would they introduce a Q offset anyway? Has that to do with the Gain-Q Couple Strength parameter in the Channel EQ?

Yes, or just different ways of calculating the Q. I assure you they will null when offset.

[xgman]

With the exception of having to re-initialize core audio more than before, things seems better. The core audio thing I can foresee becoming an issue, though.

 

I'm still seeing this as well. Not too often, but still annoying,. I expect this is a Mavericks issue and not LogicX specifically maybe.