Is GarageBand an acceptable DAW for me?

[sloppy_phil]

Hey everyone, pretty new to doing my own at-home recording, but I've got a baby setup off the ground now, and wanted some input/advice from your collectively learned mind.

I'm running an old, old MacBook (2010) and am stuck on GB '11. I know there have been sizeable updates, but until I get a new computer later this year, I'll be using what I have. First thing is that I've been doing some reading, and apparently the GB updates I've missed have dumbed down the final product? I feel it's already pretty stripped down and simple, so where would it go?

My aim is to be able to record parts for albums that are being worked on in some of the projects I'm involved with. I feel like the sound quality is (a bit surprisingly) pretty decent coming out of my little interface (Audient iD4), but will I be laughed out of my bands for trying to send "professional" takes in GB? How do people generally export their tracks? My first inclination is just export them as neutral WAV files, on the assumption they are easily read/imported by most DAWs. But I'm here for your advice, not my assumptions!

Here's the first play-test of the iD4. I added a bit of compression and EQ from GB, but if I were to send something off for a recording, I'm assuming that I should leave it fully bare/untreated, right?

So yeah, can I get away with doing my studio work in GB, or do I need to look into something more "pro" like Reaper? I'm not inclined to get one of the "big" ones like ProTools or Logic; the investment doesn't seem worth it for my limited ambitions...

 

[MonetBass]

If it works for you, stick with it. Nothing wrong with using GB as a DAW.

 

[ugly_bassplayer]

Use whatever works for you.
It aint about the gear or daw, its about the ideas and creativity.

 

[knumbskull]

GB should be fine for recording and exporting WAVs so long as you can match the bit rate of the “main” recording (although i think it’s also possible to convert to a higher bit rate).

I would send your tracks without any processing.

 

[MYLOWFREQ]

They're all the same. Unless there are certain things that you can't do with GB, I wouldn't switch.

 

[sloppy_phil]

Right on, thanks lads. Definitely happy to stick with GB for now, as I learn my way through this. If the consensus is that the exported audio is good enough for “real” DAWs, then I see no reason to fix what ain’t broke. Having had no formal engineer training, it seems a pretty user-friendly place to mess around, make mistakes, and learn.

Will be curious to see if they developed any amp sims in the intervening 11 years that don’t suck; the offerings in GB ‘11 leave PLENTY to be desired. Not that I’d be sending tracks for mixing that had been treated with any sims; those would be more for my own little pet projects etc.

 

[Richard Lindsey]

You'll be fine, provided that, as was said earlier, you match the rest of the project with respect to sample rate (that is, 44.1 kHz vs 48 vs 88.2 vs 96). It's also a good idea, though maybe not strictly necessary, to match bit depth. If everybody's working in 24 bits, you might as well use 24 bits rather than 16, though whatever DAW your partners are using will almost certainly be able to handle a 16-bit file. Whether you send an AIFF file (for Mac people) or a WAV file (for Windows people) used to be an issue, but I don't think it really is any more. I exchange WAV files with Mac people all the time, and it's not any kind of thing.

Two other thoughts:

1. Watch your levels. You don't need to run your peaks all the way up to zero, like we used to with tape. But you also don't need to give your colleagues a track that's so quiet you can barely even see the waveform.

2. If GB has any kind of even somewhat acceptable amp sim that you like, or you can find a sim somewhere else on line (try KVR), you could try sending two bass tracks, one with the amp sim and one without. Your partners can use one or the other or mix them. Though if they mix them, they should check to make sure the tracks have stayed in phase; sometimes plugin delay can slow a rendered track down ever so slightly.

 

[sloppy_phil]

You'll be fine, provided that, as was said earlier, you match the rest of the project with respect to sample rate (that is, 44.1 kHz vs 48 vs 88.2 vs 96). It's also a good idea, though maybe not strictly necessary, to match bit depth. If everybody's working in 24 bits, you might as well use 24 bits rather than 16, though whatever DAW your partners are using will almost certainly be able to handle a 16-bit file. Whether you send an AIFF file (for Mac people) or a WAV file (for Windows people) used to be an issue, but I don't think it really is any more. I exchange WAV files with Mac people all the time, and it's not any kind of thing.

Two other thoughts:

1. Watch your levels. You don't need to run your peaks all the way up to zero, like we used to with tape. But you also don't need to give your colleagues a track that's so quiet you can barely even see the waveform.

2. If GB has any kind of even somewhat acceptable amp sim that you like, or you can find a sim somewhere else on line (try KVR), you could try sending two bass tracks, one with the amp sim and one without. Your partners can use one or the other or mix them. Though if they mix them, they should check to make sure the tracks have stayed in phase; sometimes plugin delay can slow a rendered track down ever so slightly.

Thanks, Richard. That's all some mighty fine info to keep on top of! The audio levels/waveform I had been told to keep an eye on, but the bit/sample rate and depth is something I hadn't heard about yet; will definitely be sure to inquire about them when receiving tracks. Same with the amp sims and potential latency; I don't really anticipate using too many, but it's certainly still good to know. If I'm really worried about getting the tone dialled in before sending something off, I'll most likely re-amp the signal through my old Ampeg; nothing quite like the real thing! Even at the apartment volume levels I'm largely forced to contend with, it's still loaded with character

 

[silky smoove]

If the consensus is that the exported audio is good enough for “real” DAWs

The consensus has been proven scientifically for many years that there is no difference between DAWs when settings are identical. Differences identified in null tests were always down to things like pan law settings or differences in sample rate. Match everything, and I do mean everything (i.e. not just the bit depth and sample rate), and you won't be able to tell the difference from a software perspective. Your interface may have slightly different sounding preamps or converters, but the iD4 is what I would consider the upper end of consumer-grade products and should be more than sufficient for your needs. If you brought an entire record's worth of tracks recorded entirely on an iD4 to my studio I wouldn't question them for a second unless of course the playing was bad, which is something that technology has not yet figured out a way to account for... yet...

 

[sloppy_phil]

If you brought an entire record's worth of tracks recorded entirely on an iD4 to my studio I wouldn't question them for a second unless of course the playing was bad, which is something that technology has not yet figured out a way to account for... yet...

Alas, I fear no amount of tech will ever be able to account for these hopeless fingers!

But also, quite pleased to hear that you consider the interface fully acceptable. I'll keep mucking around and learning the particulars of the iD4, and GB, so that I can put out the best tracks I can for the bands

 

[Bill Murray]

Hey everyone, pretty new to doing my own at-home recording, but I've got a baby setup off the ground now, and wanted some input/advice from your collectively learned mind.

I'm running an old, old MacBook (2010) and am stuck on GB '11. I know there have been sizeable updates, but until I get a new computer later this year, I'll be using what I have. First thing is that I've been doing some reading, and apparently the GB updates I've missed have dumbed down the final product? I feel it's already pretty stripped down and simple, so where would it go?

My aim is to be able to record parts for albums that are being worked on in some of the projects I'm involved with. I feel like the sound quality is (a bit surprisingly) pretty decent coming out of my little interface (Audient iD4), but will I be laughed out of my bands for trying to send "professional" takes in GB? How do people generally export their tracks? My first inclination is just export them as neutral WAV files, on the assumption they are easily read/imported by most DAWs. But I'm here for your advice, not my assumptions!

Here's the first play-test of the iD4. I added a bit of compression and EQ from GB, but if I were to send something off for a recording, I'm assuming that I should leave it fully bare/untreated, right?

So yeah, can I get away with doing my studio work in GB, or do I need to look into something more "pro" like Reaper? I'm not inclined to get one of the "big" ones like ProTools or Logic; the investment doesn't seem worth it for my limited ambitions...

logic is a scam (unless you want to live track a full band and need lots of mixing resources) no one’s willing to admit how legit garage band is, here’s a link to a video/song I made using 100% GarageBand (effects, mixing, you name it) and IMovie.




WAV is the way to go unless they specify otherwise

 

[Vitamin D]

You can do exactly what you need in GarageBand. As has been said, make sure you export the wav file in highest quality. Outside of that, I challenge anyone to claim they can tell whether you recorded into GB v Logic v Anything Else. Other than the meta data in the file, it's indistinguishable.

The only caution is that you have to make sure your computer kept up when recording the tracks... if it didn't you get pops. But the software isn't the factor, it's just the laptop power. Make sure it's plugged in, turn off extraneous apps (email/web), and record the track. Then add effects and amp sims, etc. Minimize all other drains on processing power when you are capturing that track and you should avoid pops.

The New World Man track sounds great!

 

[Pings Bass]

GB is fine until you need more. For me, that was being able to record multiple tracks at once, e.g. for recording drums with 6-8 mics all on their own channels, or for recording live gigs and rehearsals with a group.

When I got to that point, i just dropped the $200 on Logic Pro and never looked back. It's a seamless transition from gb to logic, so yeah, go nuts on gb! It's a great daw to start out with, and everything you learn there will translate perfectly to logic.

 

[pbass2]

GB works OK. And of course, it can sound fine. But personally, maybe because I come from a traditional studio background as well as being a professional Logic user since it was Emagic, (and some ProTools as well) I find GB rather nonintuitive. It feels . . . awkward. I was helping my 15 year old and his band get going with it and man, I just went ahead and switched them to Logic and they started flying as far as progress, productivity, and working remotely with others. Honestly, if you decide to go with Logic at some point I seriously doubt you'd regret the investment. It's crazy what you get for $200 with it. It's a totally pro solution.

 

[sonojono]

If it works, it works but Logic has way more plugins to play with!

 

[Robot.G]

I honestly didn't read all the replies so forgive me if I'm being redundant and suggesting Reaper. REAPER | Audio Production Without Limits

 

[sloppy_phil]

GB is fine until you need more. For me, that was being able to record multiple tracks at once, e.g. for recording drums with 6-8 mics all on their own channels, or for recording live gigs and rehearsals with a group.

When I got to that point, i just dropped the $200 on Logic Pro and never looked back. It's a seamless transition from gb to logic, so yeah, go nuts on gb! It's a great daw to start out with, and everything you learn there will translate perfectly to logic.

GB works OK. And of course, it can sound fine. But personally, maybe because I come from a traditional studio background as well as being a professional Logic user since it was Emagic, (and some ProTools as well) I find GB rather nonintuitive. It feels . . . awkward. I was helping my 15 year old and his band get going with it and man, I just went ahead and switched them to Logic and they started flying as far as progress, productivity, and working remotely with others. Honestly, if you decide to go with Logic at some point I seriously doubt you'd regret the investment. It's crazy what you get for $200 with it. It's a totally pro solution.

If it works, it works but Logic has way more plugins to play with!

I hear you, gents. I don't doubt the prowess of Logic or that it's a big improvement on GB. I just feel like for my current needs, it's total overkill. I'm not planning on producing full songs, or doing complex editing of my stuff; the reason for investing in this interface was to be able to offer "studio" grade bass tracks remotely. A couple bands have new music on the go, and I need to be able to provide raw audio of requisite quality; thus far I've been unable to contribute anything! Sadly, our gov't is more interested in scoring political points than getting people vaccinated, and so the prospect of going into an actual studio, or even just to a friend's home studio, any time in 2021 is looking slimmer by the day. Hence this new journey for me!

Again, no doubts Logic will be excellent for this purpose. I was just wondering if GB had any inherent issues with it that would have prevented me from using it for the same ends, but it would seem the answer is no. Perhaps in time, the work I'll be trying to do here will become more complex, at which point I can reassess how well GB is serving me. But I'm not there yet

 

[Pings Bass]

I hear you, gents. I don't doubt the prowess of Logic or that it's a big improvement on GB. I just feel like for my current needs, it's total overkill. I'm not planning on producing full songs, or doing complex editing of my stuff; the reason for investing in this interface was to be able to offer "studio" grade bass tracks remotely. A couple bands have new music on the go, and I need to be able to provide raw audio of requisite quality; thus far I've been unable to contribute anything! Sadly, our gov't is more interested in scoring political points than getting people vaccinated, and so the prospect of going into an actual studio, or even just to a friend's home studio, any time in 2021 is looking slimmer by the day. Hence this new journey for me!

Again, no doubts Logic will be excellent for this purpose. I was just wondering if GB had any inherent issues with it that would have prevented me from using it for the same ends, but it would seem the answer is no. Perhaps in time, the work I'll be trying to do here will become more complex, at which point I can reassess how well GB is serving me. But I'm not there yet

I used GB for a few years before upgrading to logic, and produced (what I thought) were totally acceptable multi-track demos. It works, it's just like logic in a lot of ways, and you can't beat the price!

 

[Sunset Shalom]

I was in a similiar boat for years, got a multi track mixer that for some reason wouldn't work with either of my windows 7 computers so ended up using a decade+ old mac and garageband for awhile.

That was fine initially though I realized garageband was pretty bloated and would crash the mac often and lose work if not saved. Did some research into DAWs compatible with old computers and ended up switching to the Donationware DAW Ardour (1$ minimum price) which I've stuck with for a few years now and am very happy with. Being donationware you can pay whatever you want and get the full version, it runs smooth on every computer I've tried and has a good balance between being fairly easy to get started with but still having the depth of more expensive pro daws if you take the time to learn.

Ardour seems pretty underappreciated IME, it was made for Linux but runs great on windows and mac. It was released in 2005 and has been updated since, and being donationware it's easy to get the new version when you feel it's necessary. They've added some great quality of life features since I started using it 1-2 years ago that have made it even more convenient.

I upgraded computers last year finally and have stuck with Ardour as it's worked so well for what I need, which is pretty simple multi track recording. But it's been a big help, it auto saves data so I rarely lose anything from crashes (and it only crashes when I leave it running for days without restarting it or have plugin issues)

In the end though pretty much every DAW does the same thing. So if garageband is treating you fine nothing wrong with that. It still can be worth trying others out just to compare as sometimes you don't notice things slowing you down until trying an easier alternative. But expensive DAW's seem pretty pointless for the average home musician with all the great affordable or even free alternatives. I used audacity for years when starting out and it worked fine for basic recordings.

 

[hotrodjohn]

Agree with all the above. GB is fine for recording your bass tracks for sharing at the proper sample rate and bit depth. What I can add is that I believe it is helpful to record as pure and clean a track as possible, direct from your bass to your computer. Your room should not have any lights or other devices with rheostats that introduce noise. If you use a laptop, unplug from power supply and use battery power. Amp sims and effects can all be added later, unless you have a very specific sound you need that you can only create with your pedals, amp, and speakers. Whoever is your producer is going to take your track and do many things to it regardless, to properly fit in the mix with the other instruments.