Why would I need something other than GarageBand?

J

jmcdonough120

New member
ok, here's the scenario:

Imagine I'm a gifted, solo fingerstyle player (not even close) with a nice studio with all kinds of perfectly set up sound treatments (nope) and top of the line microphones (yeah, no), all perfectly set up for recording.

I know there are lots of other options, but could someone explain why I would need something other than GarageBand (that came free with my computer) to record solo fingerstyle guitar?
 
If all else is ideal as you describe, you probably don't.
In this scenario, Garageband may as well be a tape recorder. Go-Stop-Save is all you need.


The fancy suites do a lot of really cool things that just aren't necessary for straight forward audio capture. :)
Now, if you want to get into fancy pitching/timing editing, third party plugins and instruments, advanced routing and monitoring options etc, you might need to look elsewhere.

Hope that's helpful.
 
jmcdonough120 said:
...why I would need something other than GarageBand (that came free with my computer...
Click to expand...

Well...there's an audio input that comes with every computer...but anyone that is more serious about their recording never uses the on-board audio cards.

Garageband, Audacity...etc....are pretty much entry-level apps, that have some of the basic functions, but not what would fall in the true "DAW" category. It comes down to your goals and how deep you want to go.
There are some real inexpensive "DAW" grade apps (Reaper, N-Track, etc)...so you don't need to break the bank...if that's your concern.

Good luck.
 
thank you Steenaudio. it is.

Miroslav - are the "audio inputs" you refer to the same as computer interfaces? I have a Focusrite audio interface going into GarageBand. Does that fix the problem you've noted?
 
You are good to go with an interface. Which version of GB? That program started out really simple, basically best for arranging and editing apple loops. It has come a long way in the later versions. I keep v11 around for quick and fun recordings, even though Quebase and Studio One are in the machine also.

I think most of those that poo-poo it havent tried a later version. There is Eq, compression, reverb, echo, amp simulators and a bunch of stuff to toy with.

Give it a go. What have you got to lose?
 
Thanks. It's version 10.1.0. It seems plenty complicated to me. Am I wrong to presume the other DAWS (Logic, Reaper, et al) wouldn't necessarily provide a "better" sounding result, but offer more in the way of after recording features - particularly for multi-track recording?
 
jmcdonough120 said:
Thanks. It's version 10.1.0. It seems plenty complicated to me. Am I wrong to presume the other DAWS (Logic, Reaper, et al) wouldn't necessarily provide a "better" sounding result, but offer more in the way of after recording features - particularly for multi-track recording?
Click to expand...

I forgot to mention that you would need some kind of decent audio interface so hurray for Miroslav. :) Good call.


Yes, you're correct in assuming that.
Each recording suite, in theory, shouldn't sound better or worse than any other, where raw audio is concerned.
The tools for processing may be, or sound, better but for straight recording each suite should be neutral.

If there is some technical difference between them in the way that they handle raw audio in and out, it's certainly not discernible as far as I'm concerned.
 
Yeah...AFA as "raw" audio in/out...all DAWs will probably sound the same, or almost impossible to tell any differences between them.
Of course, for most people, they never just record, mix, master "raw" audio...and that's where some DAW may do a better or worse job...when you start adding plugs, mixing, etc.
Also, the better DAWs may provide you with more workflow options, thereby letting you do things in a way that is comfortable to you, rather than working around limitations.

It's OK to start basic. You don't need all the bells and whistles right away.
Get your feet wet. Find out what you like/hate and what kind of workflow preferences you want...and then demo some other DAWs. Most brands have free demos...so you can certainly find the one you like without wasting money on trial and error.
 
thanks to all. I'm not clear, however, on what "workflow options" refer to. I assume that's all the post-recording stuff, but can you be more specific about what the other DAW's offer in terms of those features that GarageBand doesn't?
 
Every DAW has it's particular steps/GUI/options that determine your workflow.
Some DAWs will feel comfortable...others a bit awkward...to you. You have to find the one that has the best workflow for you.

It's just how you move from window to window...how the menus navigate...etc.
 
Well, I think there are a couple of options here...

The first is to simply keep using Garageband until the day you have an "I wish I could do XXX but Garageband doesn't allow it" moment, then upgrade. This has the advantage of letting you have an idea of what features will important to you. However, the disadvantage is that any time you spent learning the ins and outs of Garageband will be wasted time. Whether or not this is a biggie depends on how much you resent the learning curve. On the other hand, if your needs are simple, maybe you'll never hit the "I wish" moment.

The second option is to bite the bullet and spend $60 on something like Reaper and start THAT learning curve. It might be the only software you'll ever need. The downside, though, is that maybe you'll wish you'd spent a lot of money on one of the hugely upmarket DAWs. I doubt it, but who knows?
 
If you really get an itch to upgrade DAWs, Logic X has much less of a learning curve, since GB X is now basically Logic Express X. Before you do that, you might want to try MainStage, which allows you to download all the JamPacks and Logic instruments, pretty cool for $30.00, since they'll all work in GB X.
 
It all depends on what you are using the recording for. If it is just a demo then that may not be a problem. If you are a professional musician recording the song to release on an album then I would spend the money and go to a pro studio.
 
Bradleyboy said:
It all depends on what you are using the recording for. If it is just a demo then that may not be a problem. If you are a professional musician recording the song to release on an album then I would spend the money and go to a pro studio.
Click to expand...

Seeing as this site is about home recording, and we are looking at home recording options, your advice is a little out of place. Or maybe you just want to promote your own 'pro studio'.
 
Frankly, a talented musician who knows the software inside out could produce a "professional" sound on just about any DAW. They'd probably have their own favourite but it comes down to skill for the most part, not the software.
 
Short answer:

If all you want to do is record solo fingerstyle guitar (which it seems you do) and you have a decent interface (which you do) and a decent mic (maybe?), then Garage Band will be more than you'll ever need. If you can't get a good sound out of it, then the problem will lie elsewhere.
 
Supposedly, Ratatat produced their first album just DI into Garageband. It's a surprisingly full-featured DAW that I prefer to the Reaper I paid money for. Particularly MIDI is much easier to use on it. The built-in VSTs are also pretty good.

What matters in my opinion is the plugins: your VSTs and effects. And those work in just about any DAW so I just use what's easiest and for me that is Garageband.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top