Talk:Logic Pro

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the Professional sound production WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the technology, equipment, companies and professions related to professional sound production. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.


Per talk page guidelines Layout, please post new topics at the bottom


Contents

[edit] Advertising and trivia

Considerable percentage of the article is either advertising (celebrity lists) or advertising (external forums). The celeb list is now gone and if someone could overhaul the discussion forum part to the external links and perhaps add link to original source of the notable users under Trivia then it'd be much better.

The matter of who should be in such list is also generating edit spam and is better left to another site or a new article that has definite list of every "notable" user of every software ever created. Or maybe not.

--> I agree it could be reformatted, but taking the entire chapter out is a little drastic. Leave it there, or reformat it, but don't take it out altogether? I put it back for now until someone reworks the way it is presented.

[edit] Notable Users

I've added Linkin Park to notable users because in Hybrid Theory DVD they'd shown their studio_in_the_back_of_the_bus - there was one workstation with Logic Audio and another with ProTools (from Mike's words)

The list was intended at first to list a dozen celebrities or so, not to make a complete list of Logic users around the world (there is such a list @ http://logicprohelp.com/vip_users.php and as you can see if everyone adds who they consider a celebrity, this page will soon be 10 feet long).

[edit] Should we have a dedicated page for notable users?

Should we have a dedicated page for notable users? If nobody answers I will start a dedicated page soon. Kickin' Da Speaker 20:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'd just use a dedicated page and change the section to 'Some notable users include...' with three or four of the most notable, a link to the page, and maybe a link to that site. --Baryonic Being 12:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Cool, I'll take care of it. Kickin' Da Speaker 20:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


Wikipedia doesn't like people making advertising for their site. Kickin' Da Speaker is actually modifying all the infos in order to get his site advertised (logicprohelp). This is not allowed.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by X-man (talk • contribs) .

X-man, you are in violation of federal copyright laws by reproducing HTML code and content first published on Logic Pro Help and developped by the Logic Pro Help community. Please remove the page from your website and don't link it from this article. Stop reverting edits that have been discussed here. Kickin' Da Speaker 22:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
No, you are out of law. The list that you consider yours, is the Emagic VIP user list. Word by word, It's the only list out there, and you are pretending being the author? That's ugly.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by X-man (talk • contribs) .
The list is based on the original Emagic list but has been updated over the course of several months by the Logic Pro Help community. It represents a lot of work by the community trying to find the information, and from myself entering the information in a database and creating the code to display it and design the page. It is kept updated on a regular basis and is an ongoing work. In any case it doesn't excuse you for making a simple copy of the list, adding it to your website so you can promote it on this page, and impersonate a Wikipedia representative to send threat emails or even to vandalise this article to put threats on its front page as you've done in the following edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Logic_Pro&diff=55772506&oldid=55772024 . Please stop vandalising this article and copying Logic Pro Help's content to add your link here. Kickin' Da Speaker 22:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tech Specs

Do we really need a complete listing of all technical specifications of this software on wikipedia? Wouldn't a link to Apple's page be sufficient? Kickin' Da Speaker 05:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


No. I think the Features section is brief enough and covers mostly basics, but the Tech Specs section should be removed entirely. For info beyond the Features section, a link to Apple's website is sufficent. -J


[edit] Loss of TDM compatibility due to Apple transition to Intel

I reverted the Anonymous User's edit that had removed the section explaining the loss of TDM functionaility due to the Intel transition.

To the user who wrote this note:

67.101.170.138 (This is not a place to discuss Logic's TDM compatibility past, present or future)

- please consider that the Pro Tools TDM support package feature is listed in the previous section, but that feature does not work any more on the Intel Mac. Since this article is for the purpose of giving accurate information to readers, we should include the facts, which are that the TDM feature is temporarily not part of the package. When Apple releases an update to fix the broken feature, we can remove that note from the article.

If we don't explain this, then we should remove the mention of TDM from the Features list. Really though, it is more correct and of more use to readers for us to include all the facts.

If you don't agree with my reasoning, please explain so I can understand why you don't want this valuable information included in the article.

Thanks. Parsifal 09:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss what works or doesn't work in Logic Pro! There are a lot of features that are currently broken under the Intel platform (ex: export to movie). The purpose of this article is not to list them. (This comment and related edit was not signed Parzival418)

My reply is the same as I wrote above last time this happened. If we don't mention a feature that is no longer included, why should we list any features at all? Parsifal 05:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

If you let everybody complain about all the features that don't work with each specific configuration of hardware and software, you'll end up with something that has nothing to do with a Wikipedia article. (This comment by an unregistered user was not signed Parzival418)

I don't see why you want people not to know that this function was removed from Logic Pro, or why you feel that has nothing to do with Wikipedia. However, in the interests of consensual editing, instead of just undo-ing your erasing of that section again, I will make it shorter and move it to the place in the article where the TDM compatibility is listed. I am also adding an addition cited reference, this one directly from Apple themselves, stating TDM is not supported on Intel Macs.

If you have a reason that information should not be included, please explain in more depth. Because the article mentions a feature which does not exist any more, that either needs to be documented, or the mention of that feature needs to be deleted, otherwise the article would be misleading. Since it used to be a feature and now is not, I think it's better to document both facts instead of just erasing them both, that way the complete history is noted. Parsifal 21:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the way you included the information now is much more encyclopedia-like. A full paragraph was too much, but now it's great. I would leave it like that. (This comment by an unregistered user was not signed Parsifal)
Thanks for the acknowledgement. I agree with you that it's better this way as a result of your input. Since you've visited a few times and have ideas about making Wikipedia better, maybe you'd enjoy setting up an account and editing some artcles... it's free, private and easy to get started. If you're interested, you can read about it at these links: [1], [2] or on your talk page. Parsifal 06:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Enthusiasm

I'm sure you're keen on this software, but sentences like "This was a tremendous event...and "Notator was like a dream come true..." are POV and sound like they were written by an Apple marketing flak. They don't belong in an encyclopedia. Cavort 18:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. In fact, the entire "Early history" section needs a rewrite. In addition to the POV comments, it is confusing (how can a software application have "a clean 'hi res.' paperwhite display, like the Mac, but larger"?), incomplete (when did Emagic acquire Logic?), and goes off on a U.S.-centric tangent (why is the U.S. debut of the software given special mention?). --emw 17:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Historical info includes both features and bugs

To 76.167.117.248 (talk · contribs), regarding your removal of information from this article that is supported by third-party reference an on-topic:

When you removed the information, the edit summaries you used were as follows:

  • (No other software article on Wikipedia lists all the history of bugs or incompatibilities. Doesn't make sense to list ONE of the many bugs that are or have been present in Logic in the past.)
  • (This article is not the place to make a history of features that were at one point in the past broken.)
  • (Many 3rd party compatibilities with LP have been broken at various point. We don't need the list here. Maybe start a page on Logic/TDM compability and link it at the bottom of the article?)

The reason I've restored the info each time is that this is an encyclopedia article about this software package, including both current and historical information. The article must follow the Wikipedia core policy of WP:NPOV (neutral point of view). That means, we don't leave information out just because it might seem negative. There is another core policy, WP:V (verifiability), that asks us to include information only when it can be verified with reliable source references.

The article already includes all sorts of detailed information that has nothing to do with describing how wonderful the program is today - history about how and when it was started, the various names it went through, when various features were added, and even the list price when it was first released.

Instead of removing valid information, why don't you expand the article further? You say in your edit summaries that there were other 3rd party compatibilities that were broken in the past. You could add that information, and we could improve the article with a separate section heading about third party compatibility, how it's evolved, what worked when, and what didn't.

The point is, the article needs to provide as much information on the topic as we can, that has references to support it, without biasing the discussion to either the positive or negative. I recommend that you read the links I included to the two core policies, and instead of erasing valid information, contribute to the article by adding more information.

Thanks. --Parsifal Hello 07:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Should we merge Logic Express into this article

Lets face it. There's not a lot of difference between the two now. Most information about Logic Express on this encyclopedia is in this article anyway, so every time you want to find anything about Express you go to the pro article to find it.

If people want to make changes to the Express article to change information about Earlier differences between the 2 programs I think they should stay separate but as far as current versions of the software are concerned they are exactly the same except for 4 differences that could easily be (and I think, possibly already are) mentioned here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sebbi (talk • contribs) 18:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hidden comment added to notable users section

I added the following to the notable users section in a hidden comment:

"Please do not add any more artists to this list. The list we have is sufficient. If you believe a crucially important artist is missing from this list, please comment on the talk page."

The other day someone reverted a random addition to this list with the summary "the list could go on forever", and I'm inclined to agree. Practically anyone big who creates their music digitally with a sequencer is bound to use Logic, it's an industry standard. If anyone disagrees with my addition please feel free to tell me. - Zeibura (Talk) 05:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Space Designer Logic Effect.png

Image:Space Designer Logic Effect.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale template has now been provided on the image page.

--Tikilounge (talk) 18:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notator

The Early History section was very confused about the origins of Logic. Logic did not originate as Notator, it was the successor of Notator, rewritten from scratch and totally different. I've tried to include sufficient detail to explain this distinction, but I'm now left with the feeling that there's too much here and what's really needed is a separate article about Notator to which this can link. Any views? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.169.15.38 (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)