Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Affordable Logic Pro/Adobe Audition alternative

brdeveloper

brdeveloper

macrumors 68030
Original poster
Apr 21, 2010
2,629
313
Brasil
Hello,

I'm pretty impressed with Pixelmator, an affordable Photoshop alternative which gives nearly everything I need in respect to image editing. However, I need something similar for audio. Garage Band seems limited in terms of usability and advanced options (e.g., setting my M-Audio Fast Track Pro to 96KHz sample rate).

Some time in the past I subscribed as a beta tester of Adobe Audition, and I was very satisfied with its features, but now its monthly fee seems expensive for amateur playing, recording guitar licks, etc.

My question is: is there any audio processing application which has a license fee as affordable as Pixelmator, but gives nearly the same usability and feature set of an Audition?

Thanks in advance!
 
Luap

Luap

macrumors 65816
Jul 5, 2004
1,249
743
Agreed. Give Reaper a go :cool:
I don't use it myself however, but I have tried it, and thought it was great for the money.
 
S

SimonUK5

macrumors 6502
Nov 26, 2010
476
7
Another +1 for Reaper, for the price its pretty amazing, but if you can afford it/save up. Its really worth investing in a decent DAW whether that is Logic, Pro Tools or anything like that.
 
Fishrrman

Fishrrman

macrumors Penryn
Feb 20, 2009
28,330
12,452
There are also versions of Cubase that can be freely registered, such as Cubase AI 5.

The trick is -getting- those versions, which are generally included as "bundled software" with digital audio interfaces.

They -can- be found, if one searches carefully...
 
Morpheo

Morpheo

macrumors 65816
Feb 26, 2014
1,273
1,589
Paris/Montreal
I've heard great things about Reaper but I've never tried it (I'm on Pro Tools). For $60 it's hard to beat. And you can try it for 60 days with no restriction.

Logic is a great value but since there's no upgrade possible, with each new major revision you have to pay full price (still doesn't make it a bad deal considering it's only $199 - depends on your needs of course)
 
brdeveloper

brdeveloper

macrumors 68030
Original poster
Apr 21, 2010
2,629
313
Brasil
Thanks, people!

Since no one quoted me, I was unaware of the answers. I'll give a try on Reaper and then other options later (Ableton and Cubase). $60 seems to be the maximum I would afford for my kind of usage... that is, I just want recording my guitar and perhaps my voice and a couple of overdubs... maybe 4 tracks at most.

I think GarageBand is too much concerned on giving a big set of "artificial" instruments and guitar effects than giving an easy-to-use sound recording/mixing tool. Also, it artificially limits the capabilities of my already limited sound adapter :mad:

Thank you again!
 
brdeveloper

brdeveloper

macrumors 68030
Original poster
Apr 21, 2010
2,629
313
Brasil
Regarding Reaper, I already found an issue: it doesn't recommend using different devices for input and output. It's referred as a "legacy" option. However using my M-Audio adapter for both input and output decreases the sample rate. The only way to use the maximum sample rate (96KHz) is by connecting the headphone in the internal Macbook card.

I didn't like the "legacy" observation because it tends to be unavailable on next versions.
 
S

SimonUK5

macrumors 6502
Nov 26, 2010
476
7
brdeveloper said:
Regarding Reaper, I already found an issue: it doesn't recommend using different devices for input and output. It's referred as a "legacy" option. However using my M-Audio adapter for both input and output decreases the sample rate. The only way to use the maximum sample rate (96KHz) is by connecting the headphone in the internal Macbook card.

I didn't like the "legacy" observation because it tends to be unavailable on next versions.
Click to expand...

Why are you using 96khz anyway?
 
brdeveloper

brdeveloper

macrumors 68030
Original poster
Apr 21, 2010
2,629
313
Brasil
SimonUK5 said:
Why are you using 96khz anyway?
Click to expand...

Short answer: just for the sake of it.

Long answer (not that it's a good answer):

- 48KHz is not what I would expect from a dedicated audio adapter for recording.
- The recordings are intended for listening in the same Mac, mainly with entry-level Shure professional headphones late at night, that is, I won't need to export to CD format in most cases. If it was the case, I could introduce noise when down sampling to 44.1KHz.
- 48KHz is just too near to the Nyquist frequency. Some noisy artifacts can appear.

I can agree with you in the sense that I don't necessarily need to record at 96KHz. But I just want. Sadly, input and output from distinct devices are being deprecated in an unknown future on Reaper.

------------------------------------
EDIT: it's a long discussion in which I'm not really sure of which is the right answer. It's just something like: "I bought a 22MP camera capable of generating raw files of 14bit/channel... so why should I capture pictures at 8bit/channel and 11MP just because it's good enough?". Maybe I keep a photographer habit.
 
Last edited:
S

SimonUK5

macrumors 6502
Nov 26, 2010
476
7
brdeveloper said:
Short answer: just for the sake of it.

Long answer (not that it's a good answer):

- 48KHz is not what I would expect from a dedicated audio adapter for recording.
- The recordings are intended for listening in the same Mac, mainly with entry-level Shure professional headphones late at night, that is, I won't need to export to CD format in most cases. If it was the case, I could introduce noise when down sampling to 44.1KHz.
- 48KHz is just too near to the Nyquist frequency. Some noisy artifacts can appear.

I can agree with you in the sense that I don't necessarily need to record at 96KHz. But I just want. Sadly, input and output from distinct devices are being deprecated in an unknown future on Reaper.

------------------------------------
EDIT: it's a long discussion in which I'm not really sure of which is the right answer. It's just something like: "I bought a 22MP camera capable of generating raw files of 14bit/channel... so why should I capture pictures at 8bit/channel and 11MP just because it's good enough?". Maybe I keep a photographer habit.
Click to expand...


yeah i understand the *want* for a higher sample rate.

I work in the recording industry (luck for me! haha), and i know 1 person who records at 48Khz, everyone else i know, every studio i go into, and my own setup here i work at 44.1.

You are always going to bounce down to a MP3 or a CD in the end. I do work at 32-bit Float, but always 44.1
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom