Jonathan Larkin you will find Garage band still a lot more useful than the VS, and more than capable of making a finished song. I suggest looking at tutorials on YouTube for it.

If I remember I’ll find one of the most popular GarageBand based YouTube gurus for you to watch, or just search :). There’s a lot out there and it will teach you from very basic all the way up.

Found him as promised.

https://www.youtube.com/user/GaragebandandBeyond

Check this guy out :).

Cheers,

Tony

Jonathan Larkin, post: 462167, member: 51686 wrote: I`m thinking an audient 114 into an i mac desk

The audient iD14 is a good choice. Even at this size the 2 onboard preamps are of the same quality of their classical consoles. (Way better than most small audio interfaces)
It also has an Adat input if you ever want more input channels..

Another audient product that promise great things is the Audient Sono.. twice the price, but if you play and record electric guitars having a valve stage to the recording interface seems like a genious idea ! .. It has 2 preamps like the ID14 and can receive adat units..

It's a great Idea to start with something simple with garage band, either it will be everything you need or you will outgrow it and be better equiped to choose your next DAW..

Jonathan Larkin, post: 462167, member: 51686 wrote: thanks for all replies and info - i`ve done a little research - although it looks like it`s possible to still use roland vs, 188o and transfer tracks to computer 2 at a time - very slowly i understand and then i`m guessing syncing all tracks together [ 10] could be challenging for some one like me . does not seem worth it for future recordings when the quality would probably be sub par. I`m thinking an audient 114 into an i mac desk . If anybody has any thoughts on that i`d appreciate replies as always - oh yeah - the daw - for now just garage band as i`m as dumb as a bag of rocks when it comes to computery stuff. Big Thanks again

Ive never used audient, but they have a good reputation. Warren Huart (produce like a pro) did a YouTube video where he compares the pres on a small audient interface with the ones at Sunset Sound, a famous studio. Its a good peek into the audients quality.

a lot of us around here are probably more concerned about pre amp quality than the average bear. unless you are producing audio for clients who are delivering product to the commercial market this kind of equipment is most likely overkill.

Audiant makes some great gear. note the ID44 is powered by a 12.5 volt wall wart so i would be skeptical as to if it performs as well as the pres in their large format consoles. i have yet to encounter a mic pre powered by low volt wall warts that delivered. still i am sure they are "fine". they work and they sound ok but there is going to be a lack of dimension and headroom with the low volt swing these boxes employ.

the question is whether you even care about things like that. this is stuff that people who are absolutely obsessed about audio are into. you may very well be perfectly happy with the mic pres in a Roland or Tascam product and there's nothing wrong with that. if they work for you, that's all you need. don't throw your money away on things you don't even hear just because everyone else is all hopped up about them. only you can decide what's "good enough".

Kurt Foster, post: 462173, member: 7836 wrote: this is stuff that people who are absolutely obsessed about audio are into

I guess I'm one of those.. thanks for the reality check ;)

pcrecord, post: 462174, member: 46460 wrote: I guess I'm one of those.. thanks for the reality check ;)

Actually it is a id14 if that makes a difference ,After talking to the sweetwater guy - i ended up getting an apollo mk 11 - i guess that might be more overkill too. Anyway - my philosophy is better overkill than underkill if you can afford it - my wife always complains that i make too much food when cooking for guests. anyway , the headroom thing - oh well - i`m guessing it will sound better than roland vs.1880 . thanks for informative response

Jonathan Larkin, post: 462175, member: 51686 wrote: After talking to the sweetwater guy - i ended up getting an apollo mk 11 - i guess that might be more overkill too. Anyway - my philosophy is better overkill than underkill if you can afford it - my wife always complains that i make too much food when cooking for guests. anyway , the headroom thing

Jonathan Larkin, post: 462175, member: 51686 wrote: After talking to the sweetwater guy - i ended up getting an apollo mk 11 - i guess that might be more overkill too. Anyway - my philosophy is better overkill than underkill if you can afford it - my wife always complains that i make too much food when cooking for guests. anyway , the headroom thing

congratulations on your purchase. you made a good choice especially since you are already running a Mac computer. the Apollo should deliver great performance for many years to come. (y)

Jonathan Larkin, post: 462175, member: 51686 wrote: Actually it is a id14 if that makes a difference ,After talking to the sweetwater guy - i ended up getting an apollo mk 11 - i guess that might be more overkill too. Anyway - my philosophy is better overkill than underkill if you can afford it - my wife always complains that i make too much food when cooking for guests. anyway , the headroom thing - oh well - i`m guessing it will sound better than roland vs.1880 . thanks for informative response

The appolo is a great choice.. Thanks for sharing your decision and please come back to share your experience with it.. even audio samples would be nice.. ;)

Jonathan Larkin, post: 462175, member: 51686 wrote: Actually it is a id14 if that makes a difference ,After talking to the sweetwater guy - i ended up getting an apollo mk 11 - i guess that might be more overkill too. Anyway - my philosophy is better overkill than underkill if you can afford it - my wife always complains that i make too much food when cooking for guests. anyway , the headroom thing - oh well - i`m guessing it will sound better than roland vs.1880 . thanks for informative response

Apollo is a good choice. One thind that concerns me is you got the mkii not the new apollo x? Sweetwater is notorius for selling customers old model digital stuff for a very very small discount. They closeout stuff at the end of its life span and demo units whenever the new model comes out or is about to. The issue is the discount doesnt reflect the age or resale value of the product.

The apollo x 6ch unit is the a great value in interfacing right now. Its got very high spec conversion and 50% dsp power, and will retain its resale value much longer than the mkii. The mkii is "already" 4 years old, and a minor update to the 6-7 year old first edition apollo. Conversion has about a 10 year life span at the higher end and the apollo and mkii are essentially the same unit, and nearing the end of their life span.

Ive had to adress this issue with my sales engineer after he tried to sell me several items that became discontinued soon after. He also sold my cousin a 1200$ alesis keyboard, which became discontinued within a year, and mackie speakers hr824 first edition, wich also became discontinued within a year when the mk2 version came out.

Since addressing this ive not been reccomended these "deals" by my salesperson.

Besides being obsessed with audio, im obsessed with maximizing financial efficiency, and performance per dollar.

Unless this mk2 apollo was more than 30% cheaper than the state of the art apollo x, its a bad deal.

Not trying to rain on your parade, rather make sure the sun shines with your new purchase.

The exception is if you got the apollo twin duo, mkii. Since the new twins havent come out yet, the duo is a decent option. If you got the quad, the apollo x 6ch blows it out of the water.

If he is talking about the Apollo mk2 perhaps it’s the usb 2 input model he means ?, rather than the rack units.

Yeah, that's what I assumed, the appolo twin mkII ...

Makzimia, post: 462180, member: 48344 wrote: If he is talking about the Apollo mk2 perhaps it’s the usb 2 input model he means ?, rather than the rack units.

(Just fyi) The mkii is only available in TB. Usb users have to stick with the mk1. They really sorta left usb users in the back seat.

kmetal, post: 462182, member: 37533 wrote: (Just fyi) The mkii is only available in TB. Usb users have to stick with the mk1. They really sorta left usb users in the back seat.

Ahh yes, you’re right of course, I forgot :-/. As of course I’m on a silverface with TB3 upgrade.

Cheers

Makzimia, post: 462183, member: 48344 wrote: Ahh yes, you’re right of course, I forgot :-/. As of course I’m on a silverface with TB3 upgrade.

Cheers

well- here`s the deal - apollo t smk11 , 2x6 apollo tb int / uad2 , 1 x dsp - $ 54o.60. Don`t fully understand some of that , but i do i have 2 weeks to return . i could return and get the x if it would make somewhat of a difference - thanks in advance for any opinions.

Jonathan Larkin, post: 462184, member: 51686 wrote: well- here`s the deal - apollo t smk11 , 2x6 apollo tb int / uad2 , 1 x dsp - $ 54o.60. Don`t fully understand some of that , but i do i have 2 weeks to return . i could return and get the x if it would make somewhat of a difference - thanks in advance for any opinions.

then and again maybe this is the x.

Honestly the specs between twins are very similar, and the mkii has the best spec on the line outs. I read an article recently where the producer used the apollo twin to record stuff that was for a commercial record, and i think coldplays engineer used apollo as well for stuff.

Heres what it comes down to, for me. The limitation on your unit is the single dsp chip vs 2 or 4 dsp chips. If your doing just 10 tracks, and your mixes are stay straightforward, the single chip should cover you. I personally think that the unit you have is a good value (bang for the buck) generally.

If you envision using some of the amplifier simulators, or glitzy neve EQ emulations, or pre-amp emulations. The unit with 2 dsp chips would serve you better, again with modest mixing effects. This is still a good value.

As soon as you jump up the 4 dsp chips you get a fairly robust amount of effects in the mix and realtime the 4 chips become necessary. But this is poor value compared with the apollo x, which has a significant increase in dsp and audio. So for alot of effects the X is the best value.

The X makes sense if you want to track a full band at once, as well as have alot of effects.

All that said since the twin has adat in, you can add external pres that way, and any unit would necessitate an external pre amp unit for the extra mics.

So to me the ins and outs are adaquate in all units, it just comes down to dsp. Based on your intended use and experience level, id lean towards you got the right unit. If you think mixing your band or doing 'final' mixes is in your future, the extra 260$ on the twin with 2 dsp chips is not frivolous imho.

Im the type of guy who pushes things, so ive learned to adjust my purchases and expectations accordingly, having lost alot on incremental upgrades and impatience.

I feel like you probably have something thats "just right", that you can settle into, but could grow out of. That said with your nice imac theres alot of power for mixing effects as you learn. And frankly, less is often more when it comes to effects.

I think you'll be happy with what you have. If however you like to have a fair amount of reverbs or delays, especially while your tracking you'll want that second dsp chip. Those eat a ton of processing.

Congrats on your purchase! You got a very nice unit that should be a ton of fun, and serve you well. Hopefully you'll post some recordings you do, its always good to hear. Cheers!

Just fyi:

Dsp usage chart % usage for a single chip.

https://help.uaudio.com/hc/en-us/articles/215262223?mobile_site=true

Hopefully Tony @Makzimia can chime in on dsp usage, i think he does alot of acoustic based stuff.

Jonathan Larkin that’s not X. An Apollo X model is a lot more expensive and a rack unit. Here’s my take, what it’s worth. If you intend to use UAD for your journey you really want 2 DSPs at the very least. There are some available plugins that will eat 85% of one DSP in one instantiation. If you print each track at recording time you could of course get by, but, you’ll learn it’s not a great idea to print the effects all the time during the console recording time.

UAD plug-ins particularly the preamps and amp type ones make what the Apollo is all about. I record acoustic guitar and vocals at the same time all the time. Unison technology which helps the Apollo emulate the vintage models is in use each time I put a preamp or channel strip or amp in.

Make sure you don’t dive in too shallow is all I can say. Find a cost level you can really afford. Keep in mind the best choice is going to be one that will stay with you for many years to come.

Don’t overwhelm yourself with anything you won’t use either, because that will stop your progress. In the future we are here. Can help a little, and there is more information than you’ll ever be able to use in a lifetime on YouTube:).

P.S keep in mind Sweetwater do interest free financial deals. I used that a lot over many years. It can be the difference between getting what you really want or losing money down the track. Only you can make that call!,

Cheers,

Tony

This is some great info on DSPs. I hadn't dived in that stuff yet..
It's good to know that nobody is forced to use DSP while recording or mixing.. I got away with vst plugins in my DAW for years.. ;)

Thanks for great input. O.k. , so it sounds like i got 1 d.s.p. with my Apollo - I am supposed to receive my order tomorrow - I have 2 weeks to exchange it if I do choose to . So the question is would i be better off with 2 d.s.p. `s for what i am trying to do instead of just one . If i do not rely on effects in record mode than I would not need more than 1 d.s.p. - that is my understanding. I am definitely planning on using effects during mixing - but that would all be solely contained within the computer with my limited experience . I pretty much just play acoustic instruments 1 track at a time but I think I may want to do some stereo recording and perhaps maybe add an occasional effect like some kind of reverb or echo once in awhile . I can`t see myself doing much more than that.

Jonathan Larkin, post: 462192, member: 51686 wrote: I am definitely planning on using effects during mixing - but that would all be solely contained within the computer with my limited experience . I pretty much just play acoustic instruments 1 track at a time but I think I may want to do some stereo recording and perhaps maybe add an occasional effect like some kind of reverb or echo once in awhile . I can`t see myself doing much more than that.

All this can be done without dsp... Vst plugins sound very good today.
I can't remember if we already had a debate on DSPs vs VSTs here on RO. That could be interesting.
Having a chip do the job relieve your computer but I guess I should be educated on the + and - of DSPs.
I know that for instruments, keyboards chip wouldn't hold much memory and the samples were limited in quantity and time.
Virtual instruments were better for a long time because they could use longer and numerous sample per key..
I'm wondering what goes with DSP chips, how the audio processing is done and if corners need to be cut short as well to get them to work..

pcrecord, post: 462193, member: 46460 wrote: All this can be done without dsp... Vst plugins sound very good today.
I can't remember if we already had a debate on DSPs vs VSTs here on RO. That could be interesting.
Having a chip do the job relieve your computer but I guess I should be educated on the + and - of DSPs.
I know that for instruments, keyboards chip wouldn't hold much memory and the samples were limited in quantity and time.
Virtual instruments were better for a long time because they could use longer and numerous sample per key..
I'm wondering what goes with DSP chips, how the audio processing is done and if corners need to be cut short as well to get them to work..

Marco,

You're confusing him more! LOL. Ok, let me explain something. DSP based plugins which are becoming more and more common, either physically on a smaller scale in a premade chip, or like UAD processors which are used depending on the need of the physical modelling in said plugin at the time. Yes you can record with the UAD device without a plugin, but why would you when it comes with a number of them free, AND, they are superior to a lot of standard plugins. They also work as you're recording through the console with near zero latency. A Virtual instrument still has the ability to outdo a dedicated keyboard sample or modeler (sound sample size). A DSP based chipset for plugins is a different setup entirely. There are no shortcuts for audio processing they charge for them. This will get complex very fast for a learner, and is best in it's own topic IMHO :)>.

Example, preamp or channel strip in unison on input mic or eq and compressor say. These can also then be fed to an aux channel and the person recording can hear a reverb or delay or whatever without recording those though if they don't want to. Modern CPUs can handle a lot of grunt, BUT, a dedicated modelled plugin can run better outside the use of CPU. There was huge discussion about this over on the UAD forum at least once in recent years. I know I can think of a number of plugins that are native as well as modelled for the UAD devices. I am not an expert by ANY stretch of the imagination.. HOWEVER!! personal experience with various DAWs and powerful PC and or MAC tells me the UAD cards and the UAD Apollos do their job VERY well.

Regards,

Tony

Hey Makzimia,
I first wrote this message because I felt we are pushing the OP to spend more money that he may need to.
I also wanted to open the discussion to the + and - of DSPs because frankly I know next to nothing about them.
So I'm glad you stepped in to help me understand better.

Makzimia, post: 462194, member: 48344 wrote: they are superior to a lot of standard plugins

I'm getting there thanks.

- So If I'm correct the positive sides is you can make a realtime mix for headphone with effects
This must be time consuming if you have a band but their recording experience would be a lot better.. Nice thing..
On my side I always use a none DSP realtime mixer (mixwizard from focusrite and now Totalmix from RME) except from rederecting a hardware reverb to the headphones, musicians only hear the raw preamps, volume and pans.

- What about using the DSPs while mixing ? I mean recording raw and doing roundtrip to them to mix.
Can this be done. How hard is it on the computer if you do so ? Don't we fear some degradation or there is none because it stays in the digital domain ?

Makzimia, post: 462194, member: 48344 wrote: This will get complex very fast for a learner, and is best in it's own topic IMHO :)>.

You are right this could go on its own thread.. sorry..

Jonathan Larkin, post: 462192, member: 51686 wrote: Thanks for great input. O.k. , so it sounds like i got 1 d.s.p. with my Apollo - I am supposed to receive my order tomorrow - I have 2 weeks to exchange it if I do choose to . So the question is would i be better off with 2 d.s.p. `s for what i am trying to do instead of just one . If i do not rely on effects in record mode than I would not need more than 1 d.s.p. - that is my understanding. I am definitely planning on using effects during mixing - but that would all be solely contained within the computer with my limited experience . I pretty much just play acoustic instruments 1 track at a time but I think I may want to do some stereo recording and perhaps maybe add an occasional effect like some kind of reverb or echo once in awhile . I can`t see myself doing much more than that.

You can use dsp effects during mixing and tracking. One advantage to dsp effects is that they dont add any process ing load to your computer like a (native) effect would in garage band.

The other is low latency when tracking. Latency is a delay that happens while audio is going in and out of your computer, when tracking. If you are tracking a vocal and want to add an effect you can, and it will make it so there is a slight delay between the vocal your singing, and the vocal you hear in your headphones. When this delay is small enough you will not notice it. Both dsp and the (native) pluggins in the daw can do effects with the delay small enough to be negligible or "realtime" as its referred to.

What happens is as your session grows with more tracks and mix pluggins, your computer and/or dsp works harder and harder, and eventually glitches start to happen or your dsp maxes out. To prevent glitches we adjust a setting in the daw called a buffer. This eases the amount of work the computer is doing, but it increases latency when your tracking. When the latency/delay is long enough it becomes distracting and it sounds in your headphones like an echo.

There are workarounds to compensate for this in native (non dsp systems), this is where dsp really becomes a useful feature. Since a dsp effect doesn't add any burden to your computer you dont get any increase in latency, no matter how many effects you are running in garage band. The caveat is that dsp can be maxed out when you use enough effects in the mix and/or during tracking. So even tho there is no delay youll hear, there is a limit to how many effects can be used total.

Where dsp shines is when your knee deep into a project and want to add a new part like a backup vocal, or guitar solo, or maybe fix a flubbed note in your lead vocal. Dsp will let you track these new parts with realtime effects that you can hear in your headphones and even record along with a track. Like vocal reverb or an echo on your guitar. No matter hiw hard your computer is working on the tracks youve recorded already, which probably have a bunch of edits and mix pluggins, your dsp lets you record with live, realtime effects, and no troublesome latency. This is a key use for dsp, because otherwise you would have to record dry, with no effects, or you'd experience an annoying delay in your headphones.

Modern computers can handle alot of tracks and mix pluggins before latency becomes an issue, and on smaller mixes may never be an issue. If you have an imac with an intel i5 an 16gb of ram, you can do at least a dozen tracks and a dozen moderate effects before latency would ever start to be a concern.

A big trade off with dsp on UA stuff is you can't record while hearing both dsp effects and garage band effects at once, on the track your recording. You can only use your dsp or the garage band native effects in "realtime". So if garage band has a reverb you love and apollo has a preamp emulation you love, you cant use both at once on your live track. You can mux and match in the mix at any time, just not on the track your recording live.

-to the obsessed- ua has a fixed 2.2ms latency for their realtime effects monitored thru their console app. Some pluggins do add more latency. Their 2.2ms fixed latency is lower than the 4ms (or more) RTL youd get when monitoring thru the daw. This is UA being lazy with their drivers, and creating a key selling point for their dsp, since if you want maximum performance you have to use the console app and input monitoring on the daw side.

If i understand it correctly, you can run the dsp and native pluggins at once, monitoring via the daw, but the dsp is subject to the daw buffers and latency. Maybe @Makzimia can verify this for me.

This is a real bummer and why pthdx systems really are the most well integrated with regard to realtime processing and ease of use, as well as having the lowest latency of any system.

Lol this probably deserves its own thread. But.. Ill at least try to be breif.

Its worth noting that if you use Vsti's none of them run on dsp, and are subject to the daw buffer setting. Since its only a DA conversion, latency is half of what the RTL would be when monitoring a live input.

It is also worth noting that UA's sharc dsp chips are so mature, they boderline on old, and are the same basic chip they have been using since around 2003. Many new dsp like antelope for instance uses ARM chips, which are noted to be easier to program and more modern (powerful?). I suspect part of UAs use of 'old' chips is to avoid pissing users off by making their current ua pluggins obsolete, and to save on R&D, and manufacturing costs by using old parts and not having to recode their pluggins. Tho everyone is rarely happy, i have read people sneering at the new Apollo X hexacore chips, as sorta shabby, even tho they increase performance by 50% compared to the older chips. I would suspect at some point ua will have to move on from sharc chips..

Makzimia, post: 462194, member: 48344 wrote: Yes you can record with the UAD device without a plugin, but why would you when it comes with a number of them free, AND, they are superior to a lot of standard plugins. They also work as you're recording through the console with near zero latency. A Virtual instrument still has the ability to outdo a dedicated keyboard sample or modeler (sound sample size). A DSP based chipset for plugins is a different setup entirely.

I would say that UA is as hit or miss as any other pluggin maker. At least imho not having heard every single pluggin. The UA massive passive sounds sweeeeet.

One reason to not use a UA pluggin during tracking is to not have to fumble around with the console then daw mixer for the same effect. Ie just instantiate it in the daw mixer and be done.

Are you able to add UA pluggins to a vsti during tracking? Can i add a compressor to a virtual piano for instance?

Not hating UA, just exploring pros and cons.

Makzimia, post: 462194, member: 48344 wrote: Modern CPUs can handle a lot of grunt, BUT, a dedicated modelled plugin can run better outside the use of CPU.

I think this really depends on the system. An intel/ryzen 8 core cpu can run hundreds of native pluggins and/or thousands of voices of vsti at 64 and 128 buffer settings. Nevermind a master/slave setup.

From what ive gathered on the forums native performance has surpassed dsp performance for most common use cases and newer computers.

To me its saving grace is last minute overdubs where amp sims or effects are critical. Seems simpler than freezing a bunch of tracks and fiddling with buffers. Unless you can group freeze, so just like "freeze all" eccepr the live inputs, in which case you'd most often be ok.

I do hate the idea of having a mix full of dsp and enough power to run my favorite mic pre emulation. Especially if im punching in on a track way after the fact.

pcrecord, post: 462195, member: 46460 wrote: So If I'm correct the positive sides is you can make a realtime mix for headphone with effects
This must be time consuming if you have a band but their recording experience would be a lot better.. Nice thing..

You can save the settings at least, so its as easy as any other template. You can also print the effects too. Not sure if you can route it so you print both the dry and processed sound.

What i like vs using an external effects unit is you can save the effects settings within the daw and modify. I always hated the cue mix in apogee because you had to instantiate a pluggin in the daw, so the cue and daw had completely different effects chains on them. Its annoying when you cant use the cue effects within the daw. Ua and antelope allow this, but not all interfaces dsp does. Nevermind the volume spikes when you have a compressor on the track, amd swithch into input monitoring to use the dsp. Soo annoying. Singer comes in, you start tweaking, he decides to overdub, now your signals gave different effects and gain structure upon tracking and listen back. Like i said earlier this is where PTHDx shines with its super tight integration. Its as close to mixing/tracking on real console as it gets in a daw right now.

pcrecord, post: 462195, member: 46460 wrote: What about using the DSPs while mixing ? I mean recording raw and doing roundtrip to them to mix.
Can this be done. How hard is it on the computer if you do so ? Don't we fear some degradation or there is none because it stays in the digital domain ?

This can be done. If i understand correctly the only latency is due to the pluggin itself not the trip thru the dsp, since like you said it stays in the digital domain. The daws delay compensation handles the latency just like it would fir a native pluggin.

However i do not know that you freeze tracks with dsp to save dsp. I *think* you have to print the track if you run low on dsp. A "dump to CPU" type command would be nice to let you move the dsp effect to your RAM/cpu in deep pluggin heavy mixing. Lol then they could sell you addition 'UA Native' versions of all the pluggins you already own, ala' digidesign....

So much for brevity... Whos starting the new thread!?