Is Garageband too lo-tech?

[Podcastmatters]

Since I switched to the Mac OS X platform back in February 2006 I've used Garageband, the supplied audio production/creation tool supplied in the iLife suite. In the Podcastmatters offices we're all Mac, so Garageband is on all of our machines (Soundtrack Pro is there too).

Apple built in podcast support for Garageband in the iLife update that year, although many 1st generation podcasters were using Garageband back in 2004 for all of their podcasts.

The podcast support feature includes the ability to drag-n-drop create enhanced podcasts by adding the album art directly into the podcast area of the timeline, then lining it up with the relevant part of the audio. It's all very smooth.

But is Garageband a bit too lo-tech? Should podcasters be raising their sights to something a little more professional for their audio production? Does Garageband include the audio filters and effects needed to produce great sounding audio podcasts?

What are your thoughts?

[paul nicholls]

I'm using it, it's oooookk but not great. I wish there was an upgrade with some decent filters etc.

[Podcastmatters]

When did you get a Mac, Paul?

[paul nicholls]

Just a few months ago Mark. I'm impressed, but not overwhelmed to be honest. I keep getting audio compatibility issues with my USB mixer, and it's driving me round the bend.

I love the video / graphics, but I'm not stunned by the audio.

Garageband is a more stable Audacity with a few less features as I see it.

[Podcastmatters]

You mention filters, have you played around with the presets? When you click the 'i' over on the right hand panel it gives you the chance to apply a whole range of preset audio filters to any given channel? There's a drop down arrow below that section allowing you add custom settings on top that.

[paul nicholls]

I've seen those, but they're not great and a little gimmicky to be honest.

GB is still a good introductory level tool, but it's not great is it really?

[Podcastmatters]

It's not high-end, but I'd argue it's exactly what a podcaster needs. That being said, if you're having issues with the mixer it'll be a pain in the butt!

[Graham Holland]

Just out of curiosity, have any Mac users tried Ubercaster for recording their podcasts?

Graham

[Podcastmatters]

Yes. I use Ubercaster extensively when producing podcasts that have telephone interviews. I almost always, though, export that resultant audio into Garageband. Quite often I'll run it through Levelator first, especially if the telephone conversation was a bit dodgy!

[Geoff Tinnion]

Hi Mark

"But is Garageband a bit too lo-tech? Should podcasters be raising their sights to something a little more professional for their audio production?"

I guess it depends on what you need. Now and again I record a seminar or a meeting and extract segments of audio to share on my company's intranet (via RSS). My audio recorder does the important work, but I find that Garageband is the right fit for turning around the kind of work I do and produces good results.

cheers

Geoff

[Hotrod Cadets]

I reckon that for music, we've long since passed the point where it matters which tool you use. All that matters is the result.

Modern consumer recording tools are all A LOT more capable than high-end gear from a couple of decades ago. Whether it's Garageband or SONAR or Reaper or anything else, these tools provide everything you need to create top quality recordings.

Well, everything except talent. :)

The only effects you really need are EQ, compression and reverb. Other stuff is fun, but not essential.

I spend a lot of time at the Listening Room forum at recordingproject.com. It's a great place to listen to new music and offer your critique and suggestions. You can also put your own stuff up for comment. I used this a lot when I was mixing "Something in the Engine".

But I have been really struck by something - there are lots of beautifully recorded tracks, technically excellent, with nothing out of place, but sometimes these songs don't really touch me. Some of the best pieces of music I've heard, the songs that really move me, are technically all over the place. What really matters is the quality of the song, the energy and passion that the artists put in to the performance.

Same with podcasts. It's always good to be as technically proficient as possible - get rid of as much noise as possible, neat edits, sensible level compression, etc. But what really matters is the CONTENT.

A passionate podcaster talking about something they really care about will always grab your attention and keep you listening.

A technically perfect recording of a dull topic delivered in a passionless monotone, won't.

Use the best tools you can, but never forget that it's the content that really matters!

[Neil Fairbrother]

There's a difference between easy to use and low tech. I think garageband is an excellent tool, though for sure we focus exclusively on video podcasts and use Final Cut Studio. None the less I have used garageband and think its an excellent audio podcast factory. I like the ability to drop in images and to make podcasts interactive by way of building in urls that you can click on to take you elsewhere. The filters sound OK to me, but I'm not a professional musician so they may not be as good as other ones. For the vast majority of folk, I'm sure Garageband hits the mark.

Cheers

N