PDA

View Full Version : Is there an actual quility of sound difference betwn Logic pro 7 and garageband? why?




thechidz
Apr 6, 2008, 10:46 AM
I have been running my apogee duet through garageband because it is so easy. I dont want to be losing any quality though so I am wondering if I really should be using my logic pro 7 instead? I have had a heck of a time wrapping my head around the program. So far Ive been doing simple guitar stuff but want to get into doing vocals and other insts eventually. thanks?

is the difference mainly capabilities or is it an actual sound thing?



Killyp
Apr 6, 2008, 06:18 PM
The only difference is in capabilities.

Try and get hold of Logic 8, you'll almost certainly find it much easier to use than Logic 7 (as the interface is no longer a cluttered mess of aging unused features left over from Logic's past).

WinterMute
Apr 7, 2008, 05:44 AM
From what I can tell and from conversation with Apple staff, Garageband and Logic share an audio engine, the differences, as noted above, are in the features.

The mixing environment alone is worth the price of Logic 8, as GB's mix system is abysmal.

Go climb the learning curve, you won't regret it.

thechidz
Apr 7, 2008, 09:08 AM
thanks guys. I just need a day with no distractions.. (like thats going to happen:rolleyes:)

junior
Apr 7, 2008, 09:30 AM
I have been running my apogee duet through garageband because it is so easy. I dont want to be losing any quality though so I am wondering if I really should be using my logic pro 7 instead? I have had a heck of a time wrapping my head around the program. So far Ive been doing simple guitar stuff but want to get into doing vocals and other insts eventually. thanks?

is the difference mainly capabilities or is it an actual sound thing?

It'll obviously be very different if you're going to be using 24bit and higher khz levels.

It's also easier to export stuff if you're working with someone on a different DAW.

thechidz
Apr 7, 2008, 10:19 AM
It'll obviously be very different if you're going to be using 24bit and higher khz levels.
.

this is not so obvious to me... can you explain?

junior
Apr 7, 2008, 10:41 AM
this is not so obvious to me... can you explain?

In very simple words:

Khz = Information

Recording something at 44.1khz (which I think is what garageband works at), say an acoustic guitar, and at 96/192khz, makes a pretty big difference.
Slightly different, but it's like a visual equivalent to recording with a normal DV camera and a HD camera and seeing the difference in clarity/definition.
More information of that sound is recorded, so not only does it sound different but you'll find your faders quite a fair bit lower in position than when mixing a 44.1k recording.
Now maybe if you're only working on electronic stuff it won't make a whole lot of difference for you. It's really up to you. For novices out there it also may not be a great idea because you have to keep an eye on the VU meter, rather than the peak meter a lot more, seeing as you might be overloading the master track too much for when the track is later dithered down to 44.1/48k for commercial use.
The more you get into music production, the more limited you'll feel about garageband. It may take some time but I recommend you start learning Logic while you do your current stuff on garageband.
Garageband is great for specific sounds. I predominantly use PT HD, not Logic. But when I make tracks I often find myself using Garageband to search for specific sounds so that I can bounce then import those sounds into my main DAW for editing and mixing.
I think garageband data can be imported into Logic properly, so maybe try creating a session in garageband first, then import it into Logic and mess around with what you already have. Maybe that's easier.
Good luck!

Loge
Apr 7, 2008, 05:12 PM
It'll obviously be very different if you're going to be using 24bit and higher khz levels.

It's also easier to export stuff if you're working with someone on a different DAW.

Though you can record at 24 bit in Garageband if you wish (but not above 44.1kHz AFAIK).

RedRedBlockhead
Apr 7, 2008, 05:42 PM
In very simple words:

Khz = Information

Recording something at 44.1khz (which I think is what garageband works at), say an acoustic guitar, and at 96/192khz, makes a pretty big difference.


This isn't quite true.

Whilst I'm not claiming that there aren't benefits sampling rates of 96khz thereabout, (the benefits of 192khz recording have yet to be proven) it's not quite that simple. As far as I understand it (which isn't very I assure you) it's actually that better quality filters can be applied in the D/A at higher sample rates because of the extra bandwidth. You don't gain any more detail under 22khz in the frequency spectrum as decoded PCM can be exactly the same as the original wave form at up to half its sampling rate.

The biggest benefit is the 24 bit recording process for the noise floor and capture of transients. Also most modern bits of software actually handle audio inside the daw at 32 bit, which is why your master fader doesn't clip into next week.

sycho
Apr 7, 2008, 06:36 PM
You don't gain any more detail under 22khz in the frequency spectrum as decoded PCM can be exactly the same as the original wave form at up to half its sampling rate.

Actually only things under 16kHz will be nearly the same as the original waveform on a 44.1kHz sampling rate. 2 samples per cycle are not nearly enough to get the job done correctly. Yes, a 44.1kHz sampling rate will capture upto 22kHz, but only up to 16kHz will everything remain in phase.

Recording in 88.2kHz or 96kHz sampling rate, and then doing a low pass filter at 16kHz and down-converted to 44.1kHz would likely sound much more detailed then a raw 44.1kHz sampling rate.

I'll find the white paper on it later, but basically the Nyquist Theorem doesn't take into account that the phase of the upper third frequency band ( 44.1kHz sampling rate = 22.05kHz "bandwidth" upper third part of the bandwidth starting at roughly 15kHz.) will be totally out of phase since it will not be sampling more then 3 times per cycle.

I hope it kind of made a bit of sense.

RedRedBlockhead
Apr 7, 2008, 08:25 PM
That's pretty interesting. You might be interested in this thread. http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f7/upsampling-oversampling-dac-tube-amp-best-both-worlds-280091/index5.html

RedRedBlockhead
Apr 7, 2008, 08:27 PM
Are you then saying that filter issues aside 96k is only advantageous in recording?

junior
Apr 8, 2008, 02:36 AM
This isn't quite true.

Whilst I'm not claiming that there aren't benefits sampling rates of 96khz thereabout, (the benefits of 192khz recording have yet to be proven) it's not quite that simple. As far as I understand it (which isn't very I assure you) it's actually that better quality filters can be applied in the D/A at higher sample rates because of the extra bandwidth. You don't gain any more detail under 22khz in the frequency spectrum as decoded PCM can be exactly the same as the original wave form at up to half its sampling rate.

The biggest benefit is the 24 bit recording process for the noise floor and capture of transients. Also most modern bits of software actually handle audio inside the daw at 32 bit, which is why your master fader doesn't clip into next week.

Thanks RedRedBlockhead,

That's quite interesting. And while your points may well be true in a scientific sense, I just can't agree with you from a personal perspective and that from some engineers that I work with.
Whether it's 44k or 96k, I always have my sessions at 24bit.
96k makes a huge difference in the quality of a recorded sound, and to me that difference is in the absolute detail of that sound. I'm fairly positive that I can get 99% of people with trained ears to spot the difference in a real world test under acoustically refined condition, such as in a studio.

This is info that I was aware of several years back, so it could well have changed, but here's another case of science not agreeing with us sound people:
A wall socket, plug, whatever you want to call it. A place where you plug your interfaces, amps, monitors, PCs, etc.
From what I remember, science said that neither stable electric current nor different types of stable electric current could affect the quality/color of the sound being processed.
From our perspective that was plain wrong. Just changing normal plugs to hospital grade plugs completely changes the detail of what you're hearing. I wish I could describe it better but I can't. Changing the plug to those better than hospital grade, which means better circuitry and sometimes with suspension etc, the sound definitely changes again. Change the electric cable that connects the device to the plug, the quality increases yet again.
Now I have no idea whether this has been accepted in an official manner yet, but there are many things in music such as this that are not accepted in the mainstream but are definite difference makers for some of us professionals. It just needs to be tested by one's ears, rather than with formulas on a notepad.

Having said all that, at the end of the day I always think to myself, who cares! What great music requires is great musicians, great composers, great arrangers, and to allow those qualities to shine for the masses, a good engineer with a few vintage comps, good mic, amp, pre-amp, and a good set of ears. NOT sample rate, electricity, monitor position, audio cables, bass traps, mix buffers, telling people to shut up behind you, etc, etc!
The more you get into it, the more of a nerd you become, when the all important thing is the ability to express.
I know that, but can't stop myself!:)

RedRedBlockhead
Apr 8, 2008, 04:44 AM
I may stand corrected on the issue of higher res audio. However are you seriously suggesting that in the miles of cabling between your house and the substation that just a few feet made the difference?

Whilst your end goal is simply euphony, mines actually some sort of career in radio/studio tech by the time I graduate:D. Hence me trying to learn all I can!

junior
Apr 8, 2008, 05:21 AM
I may stand corrected on the issue of higher res audio. However are you seriously suggesting that in the miles of cabling between your house and the substation that just a few feet made the difference?

Whilst your end goal is simply euphony, mines actually some sort of career in radio/studio tech by the time I graduate:D. Hence me trying to learn all I can!

It started way back when I was 18 and had just joined a music production company. I'd saved up my money and got myself a DAW+Mackie32/8 setup in my home, and asked the engineer what I could do to improve sound quality, apart from the obvious of acoustically refining my room.

-Now, in the country where I work, most domestic electric appliances use only two pins, thus aren't earthed. The third cable does however come to the wall itself, so connecting a three pin panel is not a problem.-

As you'll have guessed, the engineer suggested changing the plug on the wall.

So we went to a shop specializing in audio+electric cables and got one worth $150 (I think).
We listened very carefully to CDs and mixes before installing the new panel and circuitry.
And the change in the crispness of the sound was staggering to us, though maybe not to untrained ears. And this was in an un-treated room. Noise level also went down, though that may have something to do with the earth as much as the in-built suspension to help alleviate the vibration.

Since then, I now run a company with a recording studio and one thing I made sure of was that the major sockets that would be used for my equipment were installed with high grade ones. I'd already gone way over the budget so it wasn't possible, but ideally I would have had a transformer installed at the route of my electricity in order to stabilize the current first.
Now I have a regular (though hospital grade) socket on the other side of the room and connecting my equipment to that makes the sound "dull". I can't explain it properly, but that's my view, along with several engineers around me.


However are you seriously suggesting that in the miles of cabling between your house and the substation that just a few feet made the difference?

You'll think this is different, but say you have a CD with the most incredible recording and mix. You put it into your high grade CD player. You've got an incredible pair of speakers. But the main appliance in between; the amp, the appliance that will define the quality of the sound, regardless of the quality of the source or output, is a $60 amp you bought at the local electronics store. You are NOT going to enjoy the full quality of the source material.

I can't really explain it properly. You'll have to give it a try at your college and see (hear) for yourself. Tell the fellas that some nut in the music industry is swearing by this and that you must be allowed to research and investigate this phenomenon!

RedRedBlockhead
Apr 8, 2008, 07:11 AM
You're right I don't see it as comparable, but your the expert here not I so I'll take your word for it. It's interesting to hear this kind of view expressed by a recording professional, and I thankyou for your time in explaining this. I'm actually a history student so I think my tutors would find the suggestion of changing the plugs most odd! Given the choice they might well use candlelight! In terms of my own set up, I think my landlord would have something to say about me getting any rewiring done, let alone room treatments. Fortunately for me grounding is provided in standard UK plug sockets.

As an aside, do you have any advice for someone who's looking to get into any side of the recording industry? I do a lot of tech for my student radio, and I've got a visit day in a local radio station tomorrow. Should be interesting. I'm looking for an internship or at least some work experience over the summer and wondered what else would make me attractive to an employer?


Apologies to the OP for hijacking this thread a tad

junior
Apr 8, 2008, 09:32 AM
You're right I don't see it as comparable, but your the expert here not I so I'll take your word for it. It's interesting to hear this kind of view expressed by a recording professional, and I thankyou for your time in explaining this. I'm actually a history student so I think my tutors would find the suggestion of changing the plugs most odd! Given the choice they might well use candlelight! In terms of my own set up, I think my landlord would have something to say about me getting any rewiring done, let alone room treatments. Fortunately for me grounding is provided in standard UK plug sockets.

As an aside, do you have any advice for someone who's looking to get into any side of the recording industry? I do a lot of tech for my student radio, and I've got a visit day in a local radio station tomorrow. Should be interesting. I'm looking for an internship or at least some work experience over the summer and wondered what else would make me attractive to an employer?


Apologies to the OP for hijacking this thread a tad


Do you know specifically what you want to do? What's the appeal of working in radio? What do you see doing there in 5 years time? What aspects of the industry in general interests you?

RedRedBlockhead
Apr 8, 2008, 10:29 AM
Well I aspire to work in radio in the next five years and then perhaps move on from there. I'm particularly interested in becoming a studio manager after I finish my degree which is effectively my role at the student station I volunteer at. I don't know whether your familiar with radio station organisation but effectively it would mean working with producers, reporters/presenters and djs to create content. I think this would allow me to learn a bit more about each of these trades. In the longer term I would like either to produce shows/content which I do already for my student radio station i.e. a feature I made on Jeffrey Lewis and the anti-folk sub-culture/genre which took the form of an interview spliced with his songs. Either that or make a lateral move into music production, where I think mastering would appeal to me best. Underlying all this is kind of an obsession with sound. In many ways sound is my primary sense and on a quasi-anthropological note I see it returning to a position of strength over the written word in conveying even complex ideas. He writes. :rolleyes:
Any suggestions?

junior
Apr 8, 2008, 01:22 PM
Well I aspire to work in radio in the next five years and then perhaps move on from there. I'm particularly interested in becoming a studio manager after I finish my degree which is effectively my role at the student station I volunteer at. I don't know whether your familiar with radio station organisation but effectively it would mean working with producers, reporters/presenters and djs to create content. I think this would allow me to learn a bit more about each of these trades. In the longer term I would like either to produce shows/content which I do already for my student radio station i.e. a feature I made on Jeffrey Lewis and the anti-folk sub-culture/genre which took the form of an interview spliced with his songs. Either that or make a lateral move into music production, where I think mastering would appeal to me best. Underlying all this is kind of an obsession with sound. In many ways sound is my primary sense and on a quasi-anthropological note I see it returning to a position of strength over the written word in conveying even complex ideas. He writes. :rolleyes:
Any suggestions?

If you want to start producing shows, particularly on radio or any internet projects that station may be involved in, then an internship there will definitely be a good start. Become a studio manager, watch carefully what the creators are doing, earn the trust of your peer and one day present your ideas. People are always interested in new ideas, and I'd imagine it would especially be so at radio stations where things have been going downhill for years now with the advancement of the internet and tv.

Now regarding the second option.
Becoming a mastering engineer is TOUGH! You'll have to work for years as an assistant before getting your opportunity unless you're really lucky. Even then it'll be tough because great ears do come with experience (as much as talent) so only years of experience will gain you the trust of clients.
You'll probably have to learn multi-track mixing to grasp certain concepts too. Mastering, as long as the mix is great, is all about subtleties so you'll have to understand what each track/sound is doing in order to make it work.
Working in a radio station won't be a shortcut for this particular job.

Another approach for mastering is looking into the audio/visual field. This involves, say for a TV ad, mixing a 2-track music, sound FX and narration (which is often recorded on the spot with clients around), and syncing those sounds to the picture, after that you'd print it onto tape (like DIGI-BETA). There's lots of multi-track automation going around so you'll have to really get used to that.
You'll obviously have to work as an assistant for quite a while, but I honestly think that, no offense to those engineers, there are hardly any skilled engineers in this department and as long as you have the basics right you'd be alright. I have no idea about surround sound specialists but with stereo mixes, 95% of engineers that I've come across have been god awful.

Most of my stuff is producing music (records, LOTS of ads), with the odd stuff like engineering (mixing, not mastering), composing and arranging. So whichever way you decide to go, I'm not much qualified to be advising you on your particular path. But I'd say that your first option, all being well, will present you with a much more stable, flexible career path and I'd personally go that route.
Good luck!