Garageband version 10.0.2 vs. version 6.0.5?

I have used GarageBand '11 mostly for vocal transformers, podcasts, and the sound effect instrument. And all three features are missing in GarageBand 10.0. That is why I am still starting all projects in GarageBand '11, and if I want a Drummer track or an arpeggiator, I add it in GarageBand 10.0, when all other tracks have been finished.

You're welcome, Niall.

Yes, I forgot the missing ducking features. I used it on nearly all my GarageBand '11 projects - with mixed and sometimes surprising results. The ducker is really difficult to control.

The one thing I like about GarageBand 10.0 is, that it is easier to see the effects, that the patches are using. Only, the smart controls with the huge buttons are simply ridiculous. A waste of space, without any numerical indication of the values that the controls are set to.

I'm not a prototypical GarageBand user; I do not need much more than a vocal track, a guitar track, and some rhythm in the background. I'd like to hear from HangTime or others who are making more ambitious projects.

-- Léonie

first off I'd say you nailed it for most people with this "Why change when there aren't any problems?"

that said, i really like GBv10, and use it pretty much exclusively (though i keep versions back to 4 on this machine for testing).

now i may be atypical too, i don't need a lot; multi-track recording and a few effects to sweeten things up, and i'm golden. i also probably relied more on AU plug-ins then the track effects, so for me the big advantage was more slots on the master track...it meant i didn't have to do the export-> import->master dance.

and i think that was really the big one for me, being able to master within the same project; mix everything to the point i wanted, and then gently caress the final output with some peek limiting and multi band compression.

and even if i were to find a need for the old track effects, it's easy enough to set that up in GBv6, and then bring that into GBv10 and save them as smart controls, the only difference is there are only 3 instead of 4 slots (but i think needing 4 would be pretty rare the way i work)

so there's one more viewpoint B–)>

🙂

HangTime wrote:

first off I'd say you nailed it for most people with this "Why change when there aren't any problems?"

Unfortunately, that statement is missing the point.

The statement is true for users that could do everything with the previous GarageBand app (assuming that there were no bugs). If that is the case, those users would keep on working with that version and would not need to deal with GarageBand X anyway. Of course, that would create a problem down the road when some new OS won't support the the old GB version anymore.

You don't have to look at yourself or the user, but at Apple, and for them there was a PROBLEM. They had to support two different app,s GarageBand and Logic. They solved that problem by eliminating the previous GB versions and continue to develop only one app, Logic Pro X. Now they only have to disable specific features in that code base and call it GarageBand. From now on, they have to continue to develop only one audio app with one code base. Problem solved. (some might owner why developing two apps is a problem when you have that much cash in the bank ... but that is a different story).

The painful truth now is that while that decision to "upgrade" to GarageBand X solved Apple's problem, it created lots of (new) problems for the user. Learning a new interface and workflow is a minor issue. The main problem is the elimination of previous features that were left on the chopping block (podcast, ducking, Plugin edits, etc.)

One could only hope that some features will come back upon popular demand <http://www.apple.com/feedback/garageband.html>.

But keep in mind that this means, in case of the podcast feature, that Apple has to add it to the Logic code base. As a Logic users, I don't see any reason why such feature would not be welcomed by the professional Logic community.

If Apple cold have moved the Podcast feature to the Logic (only) side and "force" the Podcast user to upgrade to the $200 Logic app.

But Apple is doing thing is own way, so you never know, just send your Feedback, they do listen.

Hope that helps

Edgar Rothermich

http://DingDingMusic.com/Manuals/

'I may receive some form of compensation, financial or otherwise, from my recommendation or link.'

Now they only have to disable specific features in that code base and call it GarageBand. From now on, they have to continue to develop only one audio app with one code base. Problem solved.

They forgot to write a documentation how to transit from GarageBand '11 and to explain the concepts behind the new GarageBand '10. Thankfully, we now have your book, but the new GarageBand 10.0 is no longer plug-and-play. It requires plenty of background knowledge to know where to look. The new GarageBand Help is missing How-tos; it only explains the menus, but does not describe the typical workflows clearly enough. They do not even mention how to turn the silly rotary knobs in the Smart Controls panel. They are just sitting there and wasting space.

Now they only have to disable specific features in that code base

But why disable features, that are still in Logic and used to be in GarageBand '11? I use the vocal transformers a lot, when I want to sing a duet with myself. The voices "Deeper Vocals" or the "Female to Male" converter in GarageBand '11 are terrific, and I used them in many songs and sound tracks for my animation videos.

What are you using to create sampler instruments? Creating soundtracks for my videos or sampling instruments that are not in GarageBand does not work well any more, even when I do the sampling in GarageBand '11 with the sound effects instrument. Is there an easy to use sampler in GarageBand 10.0 that I've missed?

I agree, the rollout/transition was extremely sloppy from Apple's side.

The naming convention is a real mess and it seems that Apple always struggles in that area. Everything is just called GarageBand, old one, new one and the iOs one. It's like a family that has five kids and names them all Bob. You might run into problems sooner or later. There is a similar mess with eBooks. There are eBooks and iBooks, and enhanced eBook, multi-touch eBooks, etc. Apple constantly rejected my eBook submissions because I used the term iBook in book (even the file extension is called ibook the app is called iBooks and the creation app is called iBooks Author". Before there was the term "iBookstore", now my book is getting rejected if I use "iBookstore" instead of the new term "iBook Store".

The bigger issue besides the name itself is what they called it, an "upgrade". This is just wrong and creates so much confusion and anger. If they started off to tell the users that the new GarageBand is a new app (called whatever they want), then it would be so much better to communicate with the user base. They pulled the same stunt with the Final Cut Pro X roll out three years ago. It created so much damage with that brand reputation among the user base and you see a similar damage (and anger) caused by the GarageBand X rollout. Everybody knows that upgrade cycles can be painful and that takes you out of your comfort zone and even eliminate features you liked or even relied on. By hiding those things or not being upfront about it is just bad. At the end, the app has name name not for what it is but for the false advertising. In the aftermath, we waste a lot of time talking about those issues and not about bugs and improvements, or even, better, use our time to actually use the app and being productive ...

The bigger issue besides the name itself is what they called it, an "upgrade". This is just wrong and creates so much confusion and anger.

Apple just announced the demise of iPhoto and Aperture. The successor will be called Photos.app. But the confusion and anger are even worse than with the GarageBand 10.0 release. Probably, because a professional application is involved.

Yes another battle zone brewing with lots of potential casualties.

Calling their apps "Mail" "Photos", etc is very simple and clean, but it makes it almost impossible to search for related issues because the terms are so generic.

Apple was never great at naming items and keeping it consistent across applications. Now that iPhoto and Aperture are sharing a unified library it is impossible to use the word project when answering a question. "Projects" in Aperture are called "Events" in iPhoto, and iPhotos "Projects" are "Products" in Aperture. The confusion is complete.

Sorry to bother you.

How do you bring a track from Garage Band '11 in to 10?

So far, all I've figured out is saving it as an mp3.

What kind of track? If it is a software instrument track and you want ti to transfer it as a software instrument track, open the GarageBand '11 project in GarageBand 10.0. This will create an upgraded copy of your project. Here you can copy the midi track to the clipboard ann then open your second project in GarageBand 10.0. Now paste the copied track into the track area of the other project.

I recorded a vocal track on my computer and my wife recorded one on her computer.

I want to synch the conversation up but I can't open her native file in my project. It creates a new project.

I figured I'd be able to import that track in to an existing project but no dice.

So I had to export her track as an mp3 which I am then able to bring in to my project.

I hope that makes sense.

nevermind. i was able to copy and paste it although I wasn't able to before. thanks for your help though!