Talk:Logic Pro

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

Initial text

somebody might merge this with Apple Logic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter S. (talk • contribs) 18:25, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

• I'd be inclined to simply ditch Apple Logic and turn it into a redirect, but I lack the requisite boldness. Haikupoet 19:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

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).

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)

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

I was just searching for information about the audio engine (32 or 64 bit). Would've been nice to have it here, that information. :( 80.171.57.21 (talk) 11:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.188.151 (talk) 02:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

--> 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.84.2 (talk) 21:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I think I agree. I am a long-time Logic Pro user, and I came here because an outside article mentioned Creator/Notator by C-Lab as the original 'incarnation' of Logic. If Logic was indeed a complete rewrite, albeit from the same software developers, then it should be a separate article with a link. On that note, I came to the discussion page because the term 'C-Lab' appears in this article with no prior identification or link. I hope it's not asking for too much to see C-Lab documented somewhere on Wikipedia, although this article is probably not the place.--BrianWilloughby (talk) 22:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Versioning

The final (2002) version of Logic available for Windows was not version 6 but version 5.5. I know because I continued to use it for six years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarretc (talk • contribs) 06:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

32 bit ranting

There is some very problematic content in the section on version 8 and 9, regarding 32 bit issues. The English is poor, the prose is unencyclopedic, even ranty and polemic, and blanket statements are being made claiming sourcing from (unnamed) online forums (hardly reliable sources). Examples:

• also known as "Logic 9 , "Memory bug from hell" Awful without a reliable source and enough notability
• Users around the world have illustrate the issue on every major forum about music production poor prose and poor sourcing, even if such a source were actually cited.
• It is now a historical fact that Apple has promoted 64bit computing since year 2003 with the launch advert of the PowerMac G5 but still on 12/2009 did not offer real-life 64bit audio host applications for the end users. Sheer rant and soapboxing as well as poor language.

I had a go at incorporating the 32 bit issue into info about 9.1's release, but that was reverted. I cannot imagine this type of language and soapboxing can serve the project well, so will have another go. If anyone wishes to elaborate on the 32 bit issues, that's fine but please provide a reliable source, say a respected audio magazine, and use encyclopedic, declarative language. Thanks, Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

--

OK, after I reverted and came here to discuss, the next part of WP:BRD is, um, discuss. I have sought more opinions at the NPOV noticeboard and at WikiProject Professional sound production talkpage. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the product issues, but such opinions would need to be cited from a reliable source, e.g. "X magazine writes that ________" etc. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore I agree with Baccyak4H's assessment. There may well be a 32 bit issue that could be reliably sourced if someone were to undertake that task, but totally unsourced rants such as the IP has been adding should rightly be removed from the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

- I am so sorry but the fact that Logic Pro 7 official minimum RAM requirement is 512 MB and Logic 8 and 9 is 1GB (2GB or more highly recommended) have created a huge problem due to 32bit RAM limitations. This is not an opinion...this is HISTORY. As for the PowerMAC G5 64bit-ish campaign...it is also HISTORY. Apple Inc. promoted 64bit since 2003 and only now 2010 they offer a real 64bit solution. Many companies including Spectrasonics and Eastwest have illustrated the 32bit issue publicly and many users for years had the false impression that apple could offer a 64bit solution. So... the history is written... the after-fact of few apple marketing executives. As for the 'poor-english'... i suppose that you could ask and make the necessary corrections. and yes... this is VERY problematic content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.75.12.18 (talk) 12:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The issue isn't with the factual nature of those claims. It is with the tone of how they were written that was the problem. This is (or at least strives to be) an encyclopedia, a respectable reference work. There have been several attempts to acknowledge the existence of such issues by using it as a segue to the release of version 9.1. No polemics, no rants, just declarative language without assinuating judgement of any variety. Note that all content here needs to adhere to the neutral point of view policy and the policy on using reliable sources. But these are necessary, not sufficient, constraints for editing. The content should read like an encyclopedia.

Simply put, if you do not understand what this means, you will have a hard time editing here. That is OK; it is not for everyone, and you are free to pursue your writing in many other venues more suited to what you wish to accomplish. But simply put Wikipedia is not such a venue, unless you come around to understanding what it is about. That is not a threat, but a simple factual statement of what you can expect from future editing experiences, and perhaps something to chew on seriously if you do wish to constructively contribute to this project. I encourage you do to so. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 02:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

- thank you for understanding that! my goal is to contribute with my engineering knowledge... your are obviously experienced in editing in wiki so if you are genuinely interested in having all the 'Logic' facts in Wiki than you could re-produce a sum-up of the info i supply for this issue an allow to the wiki users to get the full picture of 'Logic Pro'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.38.54.89 (talk) 08:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

OK. Understand however that I am interested in having a good encyclopedic article here, not in having all the facts about Logic in here (see this for the spirit of this constraint). Also, there are good places to do this but Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. We need to wait until the content desired is already found in reliable sources.

Here is a suggestion. Can you provide an article in an engineering or audio magazine describing some of these issues? It could also be a newspaper article or a serious nonfiction book, etc. Right now the only source we have that passes muster of the project's standards is the manufacturer's website, and that says quite little about what has been proposed to be added. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

- Apple.com is my primary source, plus I am an Apple Certified Pro and a B.Sc.Hons Engineer. I use Logic Pro 7,8,9 Protools, Nuendo and more than 100 3rd party Plug ins on a daily basis, exploring limitation of software and engineering the solutions. For a week now you block 'reliable sources'. I have contacted Apple Inc. about that and you could be sure that many people and professionals read these lines.

"the project's standards is the manufacturer's website" is this official wiki policy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.75.30.62 (talk) 05:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Many new users mistakenly assume that Wikipedia should accept their personal knowledge and professional opinion as fact. It's a common mistake, and as Baccyak4H has tried to explain, that's not the way Wikipedia works. Objective 3rd party sources (trade journals, professional magazines, etc) are preferred, especially for controversial material (such as rumours of product flaws, manufacturer's errors, user community response, etc.) In this case, Apple itself is a good source for software releases and notes, but not much more. Also, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original ideas, "news", or analysis. If it hasn't already been published somewhere else in a highly reliable source, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

- You call Apple official spec, a rumor? you call 32bit ram addressing limitation, a rumor? you call engineering facts ... a "professional opinion and personal knowledge" (now that's HUGE). You compose the logic pro wiki article via the apple press/marketing announcements and you present it as a highly reliable source and in the same time you deliberately ignore the specs? I will wait Apple official response on that. What about mathematics?

2004: Logic 7 32bit theoretical Ram limitation 3.9GB, official Minimum RAM requirements 512MB. Crash takes place on approximately 3GB of physical memory usage.

2009: Logic 9 32bit theoretical Ram limitation 3.9GB, official Minimum RAM requirements 1GB (2GB highly recommended). Crash takes place on approximately 2GB of physical memory usage.

In other words, the actual Apple Inc. Pro Audio Progress Index in 5 years is...!

"Here’s to the crazy ones..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.75.30.62 (talk) 15:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you're taking this issue personally. I'd advise against that. Reading the applicable Wikipedia policies to understand WP goals and how WP works doesn't seem to interest you, so why not draft a paragraph here on the Talk Page of what you'd like to include in the article (keep in mind your own personal analysis and conclusions aren't permitted) and we can discuss it and see if we can help resolve your concerns. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much agree. I have requested a good source for this information (not the specs themselves but the negative analysis: we must avoid synthesizing our own original research and rather can only provide that analysis if a reliable source does), and now LL has requested a draft paragraph. Either are good paths forward; they need not be mutually exclusive.

I would reiterate to the anon IP that learning about how the project works will benefit both you and it. You will be less frustrated and be better able to constructively contribute to content. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The issue has been officially logged in wiki discussion and that's fine with me. Allow me to log another fact: With the introduction of Logic Pro 9.1, Apple removes the "(2GB highly recommended)" sentence from the official minimum requirements. Thank you for your time and effort! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.75.30.143 (talk) 11:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

This is an article talk page. It's a convenience for editors, a place to discuss improvements and changes. It doesn't "log" anything. Eventually it'll be archived to make room for new discussions on new topics. So if you want to see changes made to the article, post a draft of how you'd like it to read here. Otherwise, good luck on your quest. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Ringshifter.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Ringshifter.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 5 June 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Ringshifter.png) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I recently added two items, and deleted a couple non content related items (i.e.,only for grammatical purposes). The first change I made was regarding the new organizational options afforded to Logic Pro X that were mentioned in previous version versions of the page, but never expanded upon. The expansion is minimal, however, I believe will help readers better understand their new options within Logic Pro X. The second change I made regarded Logic Pro X's ability to transfer project files as old as Logic Pro 5 into it's new interface while also referring back to the new universal 64-bit plug-in retirement. I believe this will help users understand that their projects are not lost if they switch to the new platform, and that they will have more editing and plug-in options available to them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachary J Davis (talk • contribs) 06:02, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

E-cigarette?

I just saw an ad for a Logic Pro e-cigarette device. Is it the same company? 69.62.243.64 (talk) 03:45, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Nope. That appears to be made by a different company, according to its website. -Philippe (talk) 05:59, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Logic Pro. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20141202191148/http://www.blog.logitunes.com/history-of-daw/ to http://www.blog.logitunes.com/history-of-daw/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091001083357/http://www.xlr8r.com/news/2009/07/first-look-logic-pro-9 to http://www.xlr8r.com/news/2009/07/first-look-logic-pro-9

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Space Designer Image

I would like to change the image for the Space Designer effect to a newer one, as the plugin was redesigned. However, I'm not autoconfirmed, so I can't upload it.

I took this screenshot of it: https://drive.google.com/file/d/170ywJNTofnkuKq-I0DAwHjoOkNWVw_ln/view?usp=sharing --Nzsaltz (talk) 14:19, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Logic Express into Logic Pro

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To merge Logic Express into Logic Pro; short text and context; by analogy with other software. Klbrain (talk) 17:36, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

---

Short-lived pared down version of Logic Pro can be covered as a section in this article ~Kvng (talk) 01:38, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Support, after this this discussion at WikiProject Apple Inc. This is pretty standard for software suites like Microsoft Office, or Adobe products; for example, Photoshop Elements redirects to Adobe Photoshop. DFlhb (talk) 10:45, 5 February 2023 (UTC); refactored two long-ass comments of mine into one.

Support. Usually, I'd be opposed, but looking at the article's size makes me realize merging them would be the best thing to do. Explodicator7331 (talk) 14:39, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. All the Logic Express article needs is some expanding, which most would be happy to do. Plus, Compressor and Motion still have their own articles even though they are just companion softwares to Final Cut Pro (like Logic Express was to Logic Pro). Just because the article is short doesn't necessarily mean it should be merged. Sussybaka6000 (talk) 01:27, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Support too small to stand on its own. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  Y Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 17:36, 18 August 2023 (UTC)