Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple GarageBand Tips and Detailed Info
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Nay, and they shouldn't either, to keep it simple and stable. The more third-party compatability an app supports, the greater chance for problems arises.
Well, the MBox only has two inputs anyway, so yes, you'd be able to record either one stereo or two mono signals simultaneously. This does require, however, the Digidesign Core Audio driver (available here). The big question is why would you want to? The Mbox ($399) comes with ProTools LE and scaled-down versions of Reason and Ableton Live. There'd be no reason to use Garage Band at that point. Plus, there are much less expensive audio interfaces that perform the same tasks (like the M-Audio Mobile Pre ($139) or the Tascam US-122 ($199, which includes MIDI in and out, whereas the MBox does not).
I'm convinced that's actually a good thing. With MIDI out, you suddenly have to explain MIDI ports, MIDI channels, local control, program changes, multitimbrality, polyphony... not to mention why the sound of the keyboard won't play through the computer speakers. Think about it-- Garage Band should be as accessable to newbie musicians as iPhoto is to newbie photographers. Plus, sheesh people, it's free.
Unnecessary. All you have to do is find the resultant GB mixdown file and import it from Logic. Or even easier, drag the file into Logic's audio window, and then onto anywhere in the song's arrange window. I have a screenset programmed for this specifically, and it takes about three seconds.
Garage Band will be able to read AIFF, .WAV, and ACID (which are essentially .WAV files with pitch, tempo, and marker info encoded into them) files. It will not be able to read Akai, E-MU, Kurzweil, Roland, Samplecell, or Unity files. The raw samples in Emagic EXS files are actually AIFF, but are useless, because any pitched instrument samples (as opposed to a simple loop) can't be played from anything but a software sampler (like Emagic's EXS24 MkII), which must be accessed through an existing app (like Logic).
I can't imagine GB would or should support anything other than 16-bit/44.1k simply because CDs have to be burned at that resolution. It it did support higher resolution, Apple suddenly has to explain sample rate conversion and dithering to newbies. Yuck. Keep it simple. Plus, 16-bit/44.1k sounds just fine, especially for a free app, and especially when you consider your average GB user can't tell the difference between AIFF and AAC (or MP3!). Recording 24-bit/96k into Garage Band would be like puting jet fuel in a Yugo.
Apple's not going to get into impedences, level-matching, the differences between balanced and unbalanced, etc. The stock line input on Macs (if your particular Mac has one) isn't really meant to take a guitar-level (lower) signal. To get the best sound-quality, you'll want to get some sort of instrument preamp (which will boost instrument level to line level) or if your guitar amp has a line output, you could connect that as well. Plus, there's no way to control the analog gain into the line input's A/D converter, so the input volume has to be controlled at the source, necessitating some sort of audio interface with input trim control (see above) or a standalone mixer (Behringer makes one for less than $40 that can handle a mic/instrument, a keyboard/drum machine, and the output of your Mac, and then combine them all out to a single pair of speakers).
The monster adapter mentioned earlier will get the guitar signal into the computer just fine, it's just not the correct way to do it, and it won't sound very good.
Hope this helps.
Re: GarageBand and where it fits in Apple's lineup
Ya, but here's the problem.
Home musicians are not limited to people that play analog / acoustic instruments. If you're like me, then most of your friends "garage bands" are made up using a set of Technics 1200's and a slew of MIDI devices.
Nevertheless, people like this are just as broke as traditional analog / acoustic musicians. Moreover, just because they dabble in electronic music doesn't mean they are the least bit adept with popular professional recording and sequencing solutions. These people should have proper access to this application as well.
Apple has already allowed Garage Band to fully interact with 1/4inch musicians. A typical crappy local band now has no need to spend money on something like Logic, Cubase, or ProTools if they are not doing any high-end recording. Why should MIDI musicians be exempt if they wish do do the same?
If Apple was really concerned about competition with it's Pro apps, they would've limited Garage Band's recording tracks. However, they didn't. And with, or without MIDI out, people are still going to stray from Apple's other products.
Ya, but here's the problem.
Home musicians are not limited to people that play analog / acoustic instruments. If you're like me, then most of your friends "garage bands" are made up using a set of Technics 1200's and a slew of MIDI devices.
Nevertheless, people like this are just as broke as traditional analog / acoustic musicians. Moreover, just because they dabble in electronic music doesn't mean they are the least bit adept with popular professional recording and sequencing solutions. These people should have proper access to this application as well.
Apple has already allowed Garage Band to fully interact with 1/4inch musicians. A typical crappy local band now has no need to spend money on something like Logic, Cubase, or ProTools if they are not doing any high-end recording. Why should MIDI musicians be exempt if they wish do do the same?
If Apple was really concerned about competition with it's Pro apps, they would've limited Garage Band's recording tracks. However, they didn't. And with, or without MIDI out, people are still going to stray from Apple's other products.
"The monster adapter mentioned earlier will get the guitar signal into the computer just fine, it's just not the correct way to do it, and it won't sound very good."
I don't know enough to dispute this. John Mayer sounded pretty good on the playback during the keynote. Were they doing something different than just plugging his guitar directly in to the mac?
I don't know enough to dispute this. John Mayer sounded pretty good on the playback during the keynote. Were they doing something different than just plugging his guitar directly in to the mac?
Ya, but people that want MIDI-out already know the basics of MIDI. People that don't know much about MIDI can simply record with a 1/4inch.
Simple playback through an instrument is a features that should be available. Heck, I'd be happy if it only supported one MIDI device.
Then again, if non-keyboard midi devices can trigger Garage Bands instruments properly, and they don't sound like ****, I'll probably shut up. But, I doubt garage band will have a MIDI drum set that sounds as real as my V-Drums
[Does anyone know what (if anything) sits between an electric guitar and the Mac (aside from the player)? Is there some sort of adapter or preamp needed to capture guitar input to GB?
Simon
you can get a 1/4inch to 1/8inch adaptor (if you have a mic port). If not, you need some type of USB adaptor.]
You could do that, but I can assure you, plugging an electric guitar straight into a computer is going to sound like poo poo.
An electric guitar is a combination of the guitar and the amp. In my career of audio recording, I have never once recorded a guitar from plugging it straight into the board. Get a guitar mic, like a 57, and stick that thing right up to your amp, take your level, and then record. Otherwise, it's going to sound horrible.
Simon
you can get a 1/4inch to 1/8inch adaptor (if you have a mic port). If not, you need some type of USB adaptor.]
You could do that, but I can assure you, plugging an electric guitar straight into a computer is going to sound like poo poo.
An electric guitar is a combination of the guitar and the amp. In my career of audio recording, I have never once recorded a guitar from plugging it straight into the board. Get a guitar mic, like a 57, and stick that thing right up to your amp, take your level, and then record. Otherwise, it's going to sound horrible.
That's why Logic Audio's only $199 with a bunch of softsynths included.
I'm sure they had some sort of simple preamp to get a decent-sounding, hot signal into the Mac. A good guideline to follow is to record each signal as loud as possible without distorting. Otherwise, you actually end up using fewer bits, and when you turn up that track's output volume to compensate, it can very easily sound like crap. There's no analog input trim on the Mac, which, again, means you have to control the input volume at the source. If your guitar is active, it probably has enough "juice" to drive the Mac's input properly. Most guitars are have passive pickups, however, which need to be boosted. Mics are even worse. True, there are some line-level mics (Sony make some decent ones), but your average Shure, AKG, or Neumann needs a proper mic preamp to get it to line level. A mixer or audio interface with preamps with volume control are the easiest options.
Again, it'll work-- it's just not the right way to do it.
If you do it right (i.e. implement a proper instrument preamp), and utilize decent amp simulation software, direct recording of guitars can sound great. You'd be surprised how many major-label guitar tracks use Line6 Amp Farm. Plus, with software amp simulators, you can change the amp and effects after the guitar's recorded.
yeah but...
When you say "mixdown file," you're obviously referring to an exported, final stereo AIFF / WAV / MP3 file and importing it ino the Audio Pool. That's not what I'm proposing at all.
What I'm talking about is importing the separate MIDI and audio tracks (or in GarageBand parlance, Real Instruments and Software Instruments) to new, separate MIDI and audio tracks in Logic. Unmixed and/or uneffected.
Ideally, there would be a GB import function in Logic that would pull in audio loops to the Audio pool and place them on new tracks in the timeline automatically, and put MIDI data on new tracks (without assigning them to any particular instrument necessarily).
For instance, this would let someone use GarageBand as a sketchpad (for instance, in case you forget your XSKey dongle at the studio and can't use your other Logic installation!) and then to import that data into Logic later.
Or if someone has songs in GarageBand and decides later that Logic suits their needs, they shouldn't have to throw away those files.
When you say "mixdown file," you're obviously referring to an exported, final stereo AIFF / WAV / MP3 file and importing it ino the Audio Pool. That's not what I'm proposing at all.
What I'm talking about is importing the separate MIDI and audio tracks (or in GarageBand parlance, Real Instruments and Software Instruments) to new, separate MIDI and audio tracks in Logic. Unmixed and/or uneffected.
Ideally, there would be a GB import function in Logic that would pull in audio loops to the Audio pool and place them on new tracks in the timeline automatically, and put MIDI data on new tracks (without assigning them to any particular instrument necessarily).
For instance, this would let someone use GarageBand as a sketchpad (for instance, in case you forget your XSKey dongle at the studio and can't use your other Logic installation!) and then to import that data into Logic later.
Or if someone has songs in GarageBand and decides later that Logic suits their needs, they shouldn't have to throw away those files.
[If you do it right (i.e. implement a proper instrument preamp), and utilize decent amp simulation software, direct recording of guitars can sound great. You'd be surprised how many major-label guitar tracks use Line6 Amp Farm. Plus, with software amp simulators, you can change the amp and effects after the guitar's recorded.]
Honestly, there are no major label acts in America or any other part of the world that record a guitar by plugging straight into the board. I can tell you, from my experiences and sessions with top players from all over, it just doesn't happen. Line 6 is used, this is correct, but it's used and then output from an amp. Otherwise, you end up with this completely cold sound that sucks. I guess you could do it that way, plugging it straight it, but it's kind of like spray painting a corvette.
Also, you don't want as high of a level as possible. That's a mistake that many amateurs make. You want a little bit of "air" in there. Otherwise it's too hot, and will sound way too "digital".
Honestly, there are no major label acts in America or any other part of the world that record a guitar by plugging straight into the board. I can tell you, from my experiences and sessions with top players from all over, it just doesn't happen. Line 6 is used, this is correct, but it's used and then output from an amp. Otherwise, you end up with this completely cold sound that sucks. I guess you could do it that way, plugging it straight it, but it's kind of like spray painting a corvette.
Also, you don't want as high of a level as possible. That's a mistake that many amateurs make. You want a little bit of "air" in there. Otherwise it's too hot, and will sound way too "digital".
a few thoughts
Some thoughts that may also be answers:
Regarding the Monster cable adaptor. I think it may also transform the mono signal of the guitar to stereo (no DSP, just splitting so it matches the audio in). You may want to find out as you'll then need two adaptors (1/4" to heaphone, and mono-to-stereo). Maybe the audio in on the mac handles both mono and stereo, though (I'm not sure).
If you have an ibook, you can get the Griffin iMic to import audio (older PowerBooks models also lack a dedicated audio-in).
From asking an Apple guy manning the Garage Band booth, Garage Band gets its audio from whatever you've selected in System Preferences. I doubt you can multi-track into Garage Band, but if you can get your audio in gizmo recognized, you can send that audio to Garage Band.
For the bass whiners, I mean players, you should be able to use any of the guitar amp filters for bass. I know that some customized bass amps would be cool, but all the "guitar amp" does is apply a filter to incoming audio: you should be able to sing through it, have a "surf kazoo," or "British Invasion pots 'n pans" if you like. Of course, the filter may be attuned to guitar frequencies, but that's a broad enough range that you're probably all going to be happy with your instrument, whatever it is.
Some thoughts that may also be answers:
Regarding the Monster cable adaptor. I think it may also transform the mono signal of the guitar to stereo (no DSP, just splitting so it matches the audio in). You may want to find out as you'll then need two adaptors (1/4" to heaphone, and mono-to-stereo). Maybe the audio in on the mac handles both mono and stereo, though (I'm not sure).
If you have an ibook, you can get the Griffin iMic to import audio (older PowerBooks models also lack a dedicated audio-in).
From asking an Apple guy manning the Garage Band booth, Garage Band gets its audio from whatever you've selected in System Preferences. I doubt you can multi-track into Garage Band, but if you can get your audio in gizmo recognized, you can send that audio to Garage Band.
For the bass whiners, I mean players, you should be able to use any of the guitar amp filters for bass. I know that some customized bass amps would be cool, but all the "guitar amp" does is apply a filter to incoming audio: you should be able to sing through it, have a "surf kazoo," or "British Invasion pots 'n pans" if you like. Of course, the filter may be attuned to guitar frequencies, but that's a broad enough range that you're probably all going to be happy with your instrument, whatever it is.
They probably stayed away from acc because it's lossy compression. I'm sure my recordings would be great if I combined 128 AAC with a live recording.
Soundtrack doesn't support ACC or MP3 does it?
Ya, but you're missing what I'm saying.
I'm saying you can add MIDI out, however you don't really have to explain it to users. People that use it know how to use it.
Basic MIDI playback through one synth is not rocket science. MIDI can get quite complicated; however, if you only want a piece of software to play back a certain instrument with X notes, at Y time, and Z velocity, then you can usually leave everything at it's default settings.
---
and as for the software synths. Well, they can be cool, however if you've spent $3000 on a nice MIDI instrument, it's sure nice to use the hardware as opposed to your computer.
I have recorded directly into my mac, and a preamp is needed. The signal is too weak. As for getting the mic. Here's the problem. Pre-amps are relatively cheap and all that. However a decent recording mic is not. To get sound that is close to what you'd get by a direct computer plug in you'd have to buy a lot of expensive equipment. Let's start off with the guitar. I have a strat, set me back 800 or so. Then the amp. I have a Kustom, not the best, but it's good enough to the point where i'd use it for recording. Then I'd need a mic, but, I'm not going to just plug the mic into the computer, you need phantom power. Well I also need a compressor.
If you cheap out on any of those parts your quality is going to go down quick. Back in the day when all i had was my strat and an 80 dollar custom amp which sounded like ****. You can't record that amp. It doesn't do the guitar justice. Garageband is by no means a professioinal recording studio. The only place you can get that is with 10,000 in equipment. This is so I can make that demo so that I can get that 10,000 to make my own studio.
Don't know if this has been asked or not, but can you record your own music and turn it into a loop? This would be very nifty, especially for a little doo ti doo doo, doo ti doo doo, doo ti doo doo...etc
Confused
Not to be rude to the original poster, but it was quite clear to me what GB would do from Steve's little demo and presentation. I've got to say if I had to rely on the post to discover what GB could do, I would be uterly confused.
Not to be rude to the original poster, but it was quite clear to me what GB would do from Steve's little demo and presentation. I've got to say if I had to rely on the post to discover what GB could do, I would be uterly confused.
with all this talk of pre-amps, I have a question for some one knowing a bit more then me, would having active pickups do you better for going directly into a macs line in?
I'm playing Bass so I don't know if I'd want to do that anyway as there doesn't seem to be any bass amp options, but lugging around a big rack mounted amp is a pain and if I could just use Garageband to play with at home that would be fun.
I'm playing Bass so I don't know if I'd want to do that anyway as there doesn't seem to be any bass amp options, but lugging around a big rack mounted amp is a pain and if I could just use Garageband to play with at home that would be fun.
Wrong. It's used on TONS of major label records. In fact, I would venture to say most top-40 pop songs with guitar in them have implemented Amp Farm. I know, because I work with these people-- they're complete ProTools geeks and they don't have time to track with real amps, because they're cranking out multiple songs a day.
Nine Inch Nails uses Amp Farm almost exclusively for their guitar tracks. Filter uses Amp Farm. Underworld uses Amp Farm. The Neptunes use Amp Farm. Timbaland and Missy Elliott use Amp Farm. Dr. Dre uses Amp Farm. Even Aerosmith and Radiohead used Amp Farm on a couple of tracks on their last albums. It's used everywhere.
[Wrong. It's used on TONS of major label records. In fact, I would venture to say mosttop-40 pop songs with guitar in them have implemented Amp Farm. I know, because I work with these people-- they're complete ProTools geeks and they don't have time to track with real amps, because they're cranking out multiple songs a day.
Nine Inch Nails uses Amp Farm almost exclusively for their guitar tracks. Filter uses Amp Farm. Underworld uses Amp Farm. The Neptunes use Amp Farm. Timbaland and Missy Elliott use Amp Farm. Dr. Dre uses Amp Farm. Even Aerosmith and Radiohead used Amp Farm on a couple of tracks on their last albums. It's used everywhere.]
That is laughable. Radiohead is world famous for recording everything analog. Then digitizing into pro tools. Read any Nigel Godrich interview. I'm not saying that people don't use amp farm, honestly thousands do. I sure lots of people use it by plugging straight in, and you know, as an audio engineer, I'm here to tell you that it sounds like crap. I don't care how you manipulate it, the converters cannot capture what a microphone can, it's just not possible. As for NIN, have a look over at Trent's studio, http://www.nothingstudios.com/studio.html they give a detailed listing of the amps they use. They even mention amp farm in their software listing. They use it, but after recording it from the amp. I'm not here to argue technical bs, I'm just saying if you want your guitar to sound halfway decent and get a wide frequency range, it's best done by getting a decent guitar mic and recording it from your amp.
Nine Inch Nails uses Amp Farm almost exclusively for their guitar tracks. Filter uses Amp Farm. Underworld uses Amp Farm. The Neptunes use Amp Farm. Timbaland and Missy Elliott use Amp Farm. Dr. Dre uses Amp Farm. Even Aerosmith and Radiohead used Amp Farm on a couple of tracks on their last albums. It's used everywhere.]
That is laughable. Radiohead is world famous for recording everything analog. Then digitizing into pro tools. Read any Nigel Godrich interview. I'm not saying that people don't use amp farm, honestly thousands do. I sure lots of people use it by plugging straight in, and you know, as an audio engineer, I'm here to tell you that it sounds like crap. I don't care how you manipulate it, the converters cannot capture what a microphone can, it's just not possible. As for NIN, have a look over at Trent's studio, http://www.nothingstudios.com/studio.html they give a detailed listing of the amps they use. They even mention amp farm in their software listing. They use it, but after recording it from the amp. I'm not here to argue technical bs, I'm just saying if you want your guitar to sound halfway decent and get a wide frequency range, it's best done by getting a decent guitar mic and recording it from your amp.
MIDI playback through one synth is definitely like rocket science to most people. You know how MIDI works, I know how MIDI works, Joe Schmo down the street has absolutely no clue how it works. Garage Band is for him, not you or I. In other words, if your needs surpass Garage Band, it's simply not the app for you. Similarly, one can't crossfade tracks while burning a CD in iTunes, so it's not the app for me-- So I use WaveBurner Pro-- simple.
And I can guarantee when Joe Schmo comes across "select MIDI channels and MIDI ports", he's gonna be confused, even if he won't ever implement that particular function. I've sold recording and MIDI gear to thousands of people, from the most clueless newbies to major-label acts and film composers. No one makes multitrack sequencing and recording software that newbies will be able to grasp. That is, until now. The more stuff Apple adds to Garage Band, the more it's gonna confuse people.
Garage Band has to be designed so complete morons, 11-year-olds, and technophobic housewives can master it without a manual. Like iTunes and iPhoto.
MIDI export? Okay, I can see that one. Hide it in the "Advanced Features" page or something. But sample-accurate OMF-esque playlist export is awfully damn complicated-- so complicated in fact that I'd suggest Apple will never implement it, especially when workarounds are readily available. Because those who need to perfectly export a song into Logic are typically smart enough to be aware of said workarounds.
If anything, perhaps Apple will offer a "Render All Tracks to New Folder" feature, which would mean all one would have to do is drag those files into Logic's arrange window, and voila!
There's a $20 version of Logic out there (I forget where I saw it, but it came with a book) that does all of the stuff you want. Or you can download Logic VS, which won't record audio, but its MIDI functionality far surpasses that of Garage Band.
If Apple does anything to Logic, they need to fix all the TDM bugs before 20,000 Logic TDM guys (such as myself) give up and switch to ProTools. That's definitely coming.
We're not discussing whether it sounds good or not-- That's obviously highly subjective. I would certainly suggest that if one wants the best possible recording tone, he or she should mic up an amp. That much we agree on. Cool, fine.
No, seriously. Trent used to buy stuff from my store several years ago. I've spoken to him on numerous occasions. Amp Farm isn't a "piece of gear" per se, so it won't be listed at Nothing. Joe Chicarelli (Grammy-award winning producer/mixer-- Tori Amos, Frank Zappa, Bon Jovi, Couting Crows, Hole, U2) mixed two of my songs last week and we were talking about all the people he's worked with who use direct Amp Farm tracks on their records. Like Nigel Godrich's productions with Radiohead and Beck (Radiohead relies heavily on ProTools, whether the initial tracking's on 2" tape or not). In fact, the whole conversation started because he liked my guitar tone and asked what I used. It was Amp Farm.
AU with Midi out
What's to stop someone from writing an Audio Unit that sends midi out? There's several new AUs that send audio out to any application you want, or take audio in from any application you want. I would imagine sending out the midi data would be no problem in a plug-in.
What's to stop someone from writing an Audio Unit that sends midi out? There's several new AUs that send audio out to any application you want, or take audio in from any application you want. I would imagine sending out the midi data would be no problem in a plug-in.
Re: AU with Midi out
If you had, say, a standalone softsynth app with built-in sequencing (like NI Reaktor), you could very well route that MIDI data into Garage Band, but how would Garage Band then send that data back to Reaktor? It can't.
One thing I think Apple might that wouldn't be too obtuse is MIDI clock out.
Except Garage Band doesn't support AU plugins, nor can it send MIDI data out to anything but its internal instruments. At least not with the current version.
If you had, say, a standalone softsynth app with built-in sequencing (like NI Reaktor), you could very well route that MIDI data into Garage Band, but how would Garage Band then send that data back to Reaktor? It can't.
One thing I think Apple might that wouldn't be too obtuse is MIDI clock out.
Soundtrack vs GarbageBand
Got this info from Apple Australia:
1) GarageBand is a great way for music hobbyists and people who want to
experiment with creating music
Soundtrack is a professional app designed for serious loop music creation
2) Soundtrack has advanced abilities to create custom scores for video and
motion graphics (video window, markers, export options)
GarageBand = no
3) Soundtrack supports the thousands of loop libraries out there Apple Loops,
Acid Loops, WAV, AIFF
GarageBand = Apple Loops only
4) Soundtrack has region pitch shifting and master automation of tempo and key
GarageBand = no
5) GarageBand has SW instruments and Guitar amp simulators for musicians who
want to use these features with keyboard or guitar
Soundtrack can record these things but does not have SW instruments or amp
simulation
6) GarageBand = music Starting point for everyone
Soundtrack = Music starting point for motion graphics folks or people who want
to get more serious with looping after using GarageBand and are not interested
in continuing use of SW instruments
Logic = More serious application for recording and SW instruments after using
GarageBand
Got this info from Apple Australia:
1) GarageBand is a great way for music hobbyists and people who want to
experiment with creating music
Soundtrack is a professional app designed for serious loop music creation
2) Soundtrack has advanced abilities to create custom scores for video and
motion graphics (video window, markers, export options)
GarageBand = no
3) Soundtrack supports the thousands of loop libraries out there Apple Loops,
Acid Loops, WAV, AIFF
GarageBand = Apple Loops only
4) Soundtrack has region pitch shifting and master automation of tempo and key
GarageBand = no
5) GarageBand has SW instruments and Guitar amp simulators for musicians who
want to use these features with keyboard or guitar
Soundtrack can record these things but does not have SW instruments or amp
simulation
6) GarageBand = music Starting point for everyone
Soundtrack = Music starting point for motion graphics folks or people who want
to get more serious with looping after using GarageBand and are not interested
in continuing use of SW instruments
Logic = More serious application for recording and SW instruments after using
GarageBand