MacInTouch Amazon link...

audio

Channels
Other, Questions
I'd like to throw this out there to get comments and suggestions. My home is wired ethernet with an Airport Express used in bridge mode to create a wireless access point for my iPad and iPhone. I also use the Airport Express to stream music from my iMac (via ethernet) to the audio out port on the Airport Express so it can feed my high-end stereo system.

Now that the Airport Express has been discontinued, I was hoping that someone in MacInTouch-land might offer a suggestion of how else I can get audio from my iMac to my stereo system (the inputs are RCA plugs) with the highest quality possible (this means no bluetooth, even if my audio system had bluetooth, which it does not).

Right now, everything is working fine, but sooner or later the Airport Express will die, so I'm just being proactive by looking for an alternative piece of technology. Thanks!
I've got a similar setup. At some point I know I'm going to need to replace my AirPort(s) - actually, Time Capsules - but fortunately there is an easy solution to the "issue". Even though the devices have been discontinued by Apple, they still function just fine. I'm thinking that Apple will continue to provide software (security mostly) updates for quite some time yet.

My plan, when I reach the point where I need to get a new main router for the house, is to simply keep one of the AirPorts connected to my network for streaming purposes, perhaps setting it up as a separate network, so I can easily identify and connect to it when setting up devices that I'll stream to.
 



Basically you are looking for a Mac friendly wi-fi streamer - I have abandoned my Airport Expresses and moved to Yamaha kit.
A basic streamer which works for me and funnels AirPlay music into an older amplifier via RCA plugs is the Yamaha WXAD-10.
I also find Airfoil from Rogue Amoeba a helpful little app on my MacBook Pro.
I just looked for the WXAD-10 and it looks like it might have been a model only available outside of the USA. I did find another model that appears to still be available and it is the Yamaha WXC-50. One thing that's not clear to me is if it can stream from my iTunes on my Mac since I have all my music in an iTunes library. It also looks like I would need to purchase a device to take over creating a wireless access point for my iPad and iPhone since my main router/firewall is strictly ethernet with no wifi capability. Comments?
 



It also looks like I would need to purchase a device to take over creating a wireless access point for my iPad and iPhone since my main router/firewall is strictly ethernet with no wifi capability. Comments?
From my memory of the last time this was discussed here, Apple was the only company that made a device that combined Airplay audio with a WiFi basestation, so anyone needing a replacement for both functions of the Airport Express will need to purchase two devices.
 


I just looked for the WXAD-10 and it looks like it might have been a model only available outside of the USA. I did find another model that appears to still be available and it is the Yamaha WXC-50. One thing that's not clear to me is if it can stream from my iTunes on my Mac since I have all my music in an iTunes library. It also looks like I would need to purchase a device to take over creating a wireless access point for my iPad and iPhone since my main router/firewall is strictly ethernet with no wifi capability. Comments?
Yes, I got and use the WXAD-10 in the UK. I also have, and use, the WXC-50 to feed another room's amplifier via RCA inputs. I also have the WXA-50 amplifier to feed loudspeakers.

All these devices can stream connected via ethernet cables or wi-fi. That ethernet capability may allow you to listen to AirPlay music from your iMac, but I do not have a wi-fi solution for your iPhone and iPad. It works for me because my router has both ethernet and wi-fi.
 


I have had great results using products from iEast (you can find them at www.ieast.net). They make some very flexible Airplay-capable endpoints, as well as a couple of amplified solutions. I have found their products to be very good sonically, and their control app (for iDevices and Android both) is very simple to understand and use. Their equipment has been rock-solid for me and for my installed clients.

One of their greatest features is the ease of setup, including the flexibility of naming each unit. Most of the less-expensive Airplay endpoints I have seen or used are maddening to set up, or are frustratingly inflexible for renaming (and identifying) multiple endpoints.
 


I have had great results using products from iEast (you can find them at www.ieast.net). They make some very flexible Airplay-capable endpoints, as well as a couple of amplified solutions. I have found their products to be very good sonically, and their control app (for iDevices and Android both) is very simple to understand and use. Their equipment has been rock-solid for me and for my installed clients.

One of their greatest features is the ease of setup, including the flexibility of naming each unit. Most of the less-expensive Airplay endpoints I have seen or used are maddening to set up, or are frustratingly inflexible for renaming (and identifying) multiple endpoints.
Question for BrendanS: can the iEast products allow me to stream directly from iTunes to my stereo system? I've seen some systems that can access the iTunes music library, but they use an app as the front end, not iTunes itself. Thanks!
 


Question for BrendanS: can the iEast products allow me to stream directly from iTunes to my stereo system? I've seen some systems that can access the iTunes music library, but they use an app as the front end, not iTunes itself. Thanks!
I mostly use the amplified solutions for my clients, though the non-amplified boxes work pretty much the same way. You can stream directly from, say, your iPhone via Airplay, and use the Music app or the iEast Play app to control the music. You can also control a "host" device - i.e., I can stream music from my iMac using iTunes via Airplay to the speakers, while controlling the music using the iEast Play app on my phone to change volume, pause, skip, etc.. In this way, the iEast Play app works very much like the Apple-written Remote app on a phone, where you can manage a different actively playing device.

Using the iEast app, you can also change sources of the music (Pandora, iHeartRadio, Spotify, etc.) as well as playing your own music from your own source. You can also create playlists within the iEast app. As of yet you cannot see the iTunes playlists on a host device, say, the playlists on my iMac iTunes library. But I have iCloud Music Library turned on, and can therefore play or switch a playlist using my phone - though that then switches the host to my phone rather than the iMac.

I'd add that my only real regret is the iEast hardware is not Airplay2 enabled. I recently sent an inquiry to the company regarding a possible upgrade but have not received a reply. But, I have a client who uses six of the amplified devices in a whole-house music setup and is extremely pleased that, using a Mac with iTunes as the music host, he can control that setup with his phone to add and subtract rooms at will while the music plays. Should Airplay2 get enabled in the future, I could see whole-house setups getting very easy and very clean to install, and very simple to control.
 


Ric Ford

MacInTouch
I am still using Mavericks on two systems, in part to keep my installations of Peak LE 6 functional. I am really not interested in putting in the time to learn a different application for my limited purposes, although I have a couple of other apps. Has anyone here upgraded beyond Mavericks and gotten Peak LE 6 to work with a later OS? I would like to move to Sierra on at least one of the systems.
I don't have any experience with Peak, but I'll just note that I'm a big, long-term fan of Martin Hairer's wonderful AmadeusPro for the Mac, if you do need to consider another app (and it is "fully optimised for Mojave").
 


I like to use the open source Audacity for my audio work. I'm still running it on El Capitan, but the download page says it's compatible with Mojave.

The Mac port is still only 32-bit. They say "64-bit only builds will be available in due course", but don't say more than that. Hopefully they will have that release ready before Apple tosses 32-bit app support.
 


I don't have any experience with Peak, but I'll just note that I'm a big, long-term fan of Martin Hairer's wonderful AmadeusPro for the Mac, if you do need to consider another app (and it is "fully optimised for Mojave").
I would also endorse Amadeus Pro. Have used it for years and is very well supported and regularly updated.
 


I am still using Mavericks on two systems, in part to keep my installations of Peak LE 6 functional. I am really not interested in putting in the time to learn a different application for my limited purposes, although I have a couple of other apps. Has anyone here upgraded beyond Mavericks and gotten Peak LE 6 to work with a later OS? I would like to move to Sierra on at least one of the systems.
Those in the pro audio community who have held onto Peak have reported various "show stopper" issues with Peak and macOS 10.12+.

Depending on what you're using Peak for, there are many alternatives, he most "Peak-like" being DSP-Quattro.

Or you may even look at something like Izotope RX 7 Elements. It's primarily meant for cleaning/restoring audio, but it works as a 2-track editor, too. It wouldn't be a good choice if you're doing more than trimming audio, adding fades, normalizing gain, and cleaning. The plus to RX is that you get some very powerful restoration tools, arguably the best in the pro audio world.
 


Those in the pro audio community who have held onto Peak have reported various "show stopper" issues with Peak and macOS 10.12+.

Depending on what you're using Peak for, there are many alternatives, he most "Peak-like" being DSP-Quattro.

Or you may even look at something like Izotope RX 7 Elements. It's primarily meant for cleaning/restoring audio, but it works as a 2-track editor, too. It wouldn't be a good choice if you're doing more than trimming audio, adding fades, normalizing gain, and cleaning. The plus to RX is that you get some very powerful restoration tools, arguably the best in the pro audio world.
I do have DSP Quattro, but may give Izotope a look. I can always keep a Mavericks or earlier system going for Peak LE, also. Thanks for all suggestions. With limited time for big projects, I want/need to avoid time spent learning a new app when Peak LE 6 does exactly what I need, and I am already familiar with it.
 


I don't have any experience with Peak, but I'll just note that I'm a big, long-term fan of Martin Hairer's wonderful AmadeusPro for the Mac, if you do need to consider another app (and it is "fully optimised for Mojave").
I also migrated from Bias Peak to Amadeus Pro long ago. The transition was fairly pain-free, and Amadeus is a leaps-and-bounds better Mac app than Audacity.

If you really need to keep running Peak, then I'd recommend setting up a Mavericks VM with Vmware Fusion (or equivalent) for the sole purpose of running Peak, and upgrading your host system to something current.
 


I also migrated from Bias Peak to Amadeus Pro long ago. The transition was fairly pain-free, and Amadeus is a leaps-and-bounds better Mac app than Audacity. If you really need to keep running Peak, then I'd recommend setting up a Mavericks VM with Vmware Fusion (or equivalent) for the sole purpose of running Peak, and upgrading your host system to something current.
I can easily keep Peak going on a couple of systems: I have it on a Snow Leopard drive in my Wayback Machine (2006 Mac Pro) and on a 2011 MacBook Pro (Mavericks).

What prompted the question was that I will want to finally upgrade my main Mavericks work drive, which has Peak installed, to Sierra, when Dropbox “drops” Mavericks support in the not too distant future.

For those interested in keeping Peak alive, I think it is still possible to get additional Peak authorizations from Soundness.
 


I have been using Bias Peak for years, and while I have migrated its primary use to a computer running Mac OS X 10.6.8, I'm still using Peak on my main machine running High Sierra. It's the version that had various Bias effects modules bundled with it, and they work, too. The only problem is every now and then an unexpected quit, but it doesn't happen very often.

On my Mac OS X 10.6.8 Mac, Peak and a set of primitive (version 8.0 I think) Waves plug-ins are going strong. I recall having to get a special archived installer for the Waves copy protection when setting it up. A request for additional Peak authorizations (at that time via Soundness) was granted without difficulty, so I intend to run this program as long as the fates allow. For my hobbyist purposes, there's nothing better.
 


I do have DSP Quattro, but may give Izotope a look. I can always keep a Mavericks or earlier system going for Peak LE, also. Thanks for all suggestions. With limited time for big projects, I want/need to avoid time spent learning a new app when Peak LE 6 does exactly what I need, and I am already familiar with it.
Peak LE is quite long in the tooth, so I think you're going to find that more recent 2-track editors will have at least a little bit of a learning curve. You'll also find that newer editors sound markedly better. They have better SRC algorithms and better Nyquist filters than Peak had. They also offer better options for dither. I do understand the reluctance to move to another editor and the time it takes to orient yourself with a new GUI and work paradigm. That said, Peak is very much the past. The sooner you get familiarized with a new editor, the better off you'll be.
 


Peak LE is quite long in the tooth, so I think you're going to find that more recent 2-track editors will have at least a little bit of a learning curve. You'll also find that newer editors sound markedly better. They have better SRC algorithms and better Nyquist filters than Peak had. They also offer better options for dither. I do understand the reluctance to move to another editor and the time it takes to orient yourself with a new GUI and work paradigm. That said, Peak is very much the past. The sooner you get familiarized with a new editor, the better off you'll be.
I had Peak for the longest time, after coming out of the dark ages of SoundEdit 16 (remember that one?). Been using CoolEditPro on PCs for ages, with my radio broadcast background, and got suckered into Adobe's claim that SoundBooth was "... Audition for the Mac." I bit the hook twice, wasted my money and discovered you can't polish a turd, no matter how hard Adobe tried! I reluctantly use Audition but usually at client facilities, as I refuse to give these guys any more of my money - being burned twice taught me a lesson.

I've used Amadeus II / Pro, and it worked quite well. I recently upgraded from iZotope's RX6 Elements to RX7 Standard, and, if you can afford it, it's quite a capable editor. I'm sure there are other,s but these happen to be my flavor of the moment.
 


I don't know much about audio software beyond GarageBand, and even that, barely. I know that pros use ProTools, and it seems daunting and expensive, but recently I was thinking about wanting to do some editing of recordings I did in a studio with my band (now yesterday's papers). I asked my old friend Steve Remote from Aura-Sonic Ltd. what was the least expensive ProTools setup I could use to accomplish my mission, and he recommended Reaper instead. I haven't seen Reaper mentioned in this discussion, so I thought it might be helpful to pass this info along. Steve does really big-league recording and he says he likes Reaper for its portability as well as its tools. (He also showed me how to do what I'm trying to do using GarageBand, so learning Reaper may not happen in the forseeable future...).
 


I don't know much about audio software beyond GarageBand, and even that, barely. I know that pros use ProTools, and it seems daunting and expensive, but recently I was thinking about wanting to do some editing of recordings I did in a studio with my band (now yesterday's papers). I asked my old friend Steve Remote from Aura-Sonic Ltd. what was the least expensive ProTools setup I could use to accomplish my mission, and he recommended Reaper instead. I haven't seen Reaper mentioned in this discussion, so I thought it might be helpful to pass this info along. Steve does really big-league recording and he says he likes Reaper for its portability as well as its tools. (He also showed me how to do what I'm trying to do using GarageBand, so learning Reaper may not happen in the forseeable future...).
Reaper is an interesting DAW. Those who use it really like it, but for pros, it's really a non-starter, because every studio and every post house uses Pro Tools. I actually prefer Digital Performer. In fact, I recorded one of the Halo soundtracks with Digital Performer. I also have (and use) Pro Tools to stay compatible with the rest of the pro audio world.

Reaper definitely has an underground fan base. Much like Harrison MixBus. They're just too fringe for me to rely on, when I have big projects with big clients and real income on the line.

For those doing work in home studios, it really doesn't matter what you use... until you book studio time for your drum session and realize what a pain in the arse it is to make anything but Pro Tools work in a Pro Tools-centric workflow.

I downloaded Reaper a while back , and my big reason for deleting it was that it was not getting delay compensation correct. That was a deal-breaker for me. Maybe I had to tweak it more to get the delay compensation to work properly. I don't know. I just know that I didn't really want to spend the time to futz around with it when I had two perfectly functioning DAWs.

My issue with GarageBand is that all files are MP4's. So you never get uncompressed audio from it. I understand why it's that way. It pushes Logic sales. Logic is quite popular, but for me, I've been burned by Apple with buying into a technology they are pushing only to have them lose interest and leave me hanging (Aperture, anyone?). So I'm not interested in that path at all.
 


Logic is quite popular, but for me, I've been burned by Apple with buying into a technology they are pushing only to have them lose interest and leave me hanging (Aperture, anyone?). So I'm not interested in that path at all.
Hi... well I've used Logic since its Notator and Creator Atari origins in the 80's, where it was extensively nurtured by its main founder, Gerhard Lengeling, who then ran Apple audio apps after his company, Emagic (formerly C-Lab,) was purchased by Cupertino. Still there possibly...

Its user base is considerable, and even though there's still some ancient code in it, it won't become hugely rewritten like Final Cut was a few years back (losing many users, including a bunch of my colleagues). I use an ancient version of Logic 9 (on my 2008 Mac Pro) and the most recent on my laptop and iMac. All are super-fine, and to me, with Logic X being updated regularly, and much more so than Performer and Cubase for me, they remain the most natural and musical apps for MIDI and audio-based multitracking. ProTools remains the Pro standard for the majority of projects where MIDI isn't involved....

Hope this is of note!
 


My issue with GarageBand is that all files are MP4's. So you never get uncompressed audio from it.
... Unless the latest version has changed something, if you choose the option to export in original quality, you can save individual tracks or mixdowns as standard AIF files. Any professional recording studio can import those files into whatever DAW they happen to use.
 



I love Reaper, and it is supported natively on my Linux Mint system. If only Martin Hairer would port Amadeus to Linux... I am still looking for something which creates such good spectrograms.
 


I can't imagine anyone more professional than Steve Remote.
I suppose he can do whatever he wants. But if I walk into Power Station or Germano (or Sound City or Skywalker on the other coast) with a Reaper session, I'm pretty sure I'm not going to be their favorite client of the day... if you know what I mean. ;-)

But, serious question: is Steve using that as his main DAW?
 


... Unless the latest version has changed something, if you choose the option to export in original quality, you can save individual tracks or mixdowns as standard AIF files. Any professional recording studio can import those files into whatever DAW they happen to use.
That I didn't know - and I'm going to check that out... because my son's getting into recording, and I was about to drop the $200 on Logic for him, so he could record and export/bounce uncompressed audio. He's been using GarageBand on his Mac and just brings it to the studio to plug into my signal chain, because he doesn't want to use my system and finds both Pro Tools and Digital Performer a little daunting right now (he's 11).
 


Hi... well I've used Logic since its Notator and Creator Atari origins in the 80's, where it was extensively nurtured by its main founder, Gerhard Lengeling, who then ran Apple audio apps after his company, Emagic (formerly C-Lab,) was purchased by Cupertino. Still there possibly...

Its user base is considerable, and even though there's still some ancient code in it, it won't become hugely rewritten like Final Cut was a few years back (losing many users, including a bunch of my colleagues). I use an ancient version of Logic 9 (on my 2008 Mac Pro) and the most recent on my laptop and iMac. All are super-fine, and to me, with Logic X being updated regularly, and much more so than Performer and Cubase for me, they remain the most natural and musical apps for MIDI and audio-based multitracking. ProTools remains the Pro standard for the majority of projects where MIDI isn't involved....
Hope this is of note!
The user base is quite large. I'm also seeing a lot of commercial studios having it as their Pro Tools alternate. That says that there is significant momentum behind it.

I still just have this fear that Apple will lose interest in the music creation market, or, as you remarked, turn it into the new Final Cut Pro X. I think when FCPX hit and everyone realized what a mess it was, Adobe started writing thank you notes to Apple. ;-)
 


I suppose he can do whatever he wants. But if I walk into Power Station or Germano (or Sound City or Skywalker on the other coast) with a Reaper session, I'm pretty sure I'm not going to be their favorite client of the day... if you know what I mean. ;-).
But, serious question: is Steve using that as his main DAW?
Steve recommended I use Reaper because the price is right and it could do what I needed it to do. (Digital Performer is an entirely different value proposition.) He uses whatever works in the particular instance. He happened to mention that he likes and uses Reaper sometimes in the field. When he worked on a couple of my songs in his studio, he used Pro Tools. That was why I asked him about the least expensive Pro Tools setup I could use.

My career was in graphics. My purpose in posting was to introduce a product which had been recommended by a friend who happens to be a high-profile professional in the field of audio recording, for the benefit of the MacInTouch community....
 


Steve recommended I use Reaper because the price is right and it could do what I needed it to do. (Digital Performer is an entirely different value proposition.) He uses whatever works in the particular instance. He happened to mention that he likes and uses Reaper sometimes in the field. When he worked on a couple of my songs in his studio, he used Pro Tools. That was why I asked him about the least expensive Pro Tools setup I could use.

My career was in graphics. My purpose in posting was to introduce a product which had been recommended by a friend who happens to be a high-profile professional in the field of audio recording, for the benefit of the MacInTouch community....
This is from Steve Remote:
I recommended Reaper to you, due to the fact that it is free and will do what you need it to do at an entry level. Since you are not doing this professionally, it was the best option economically until you can figure out the direction you want to go once you have grasped the DAW mindset. Reaper is perfect for the simple stuff you were planning to do.

Furthermore, when I use Reaper on gigs, it's used as a virtual mixer and not as a DAW. I'm running hard disk recorders and Reaper acts as my monitor mixer (only) during certain situations. When I'm mixing a record, radio or television show, I'm always using Protools. When we are on any of my trucks, we use hard disk recorders and Protools.
 


Steve recommended I use Reaper because the price is right and it could do what I needed it to do. (Digital Performer is an entirely different value proposition.) He uses whatever works in the particular instance. He happened to mention that he likes and uses Reaper sometimes in the field. When he worked on a couple of my songs in his studio, he used Pro Tools. That was why I asked him about the least expensive Pro Tools setup I could use.
My career was in graphics. My purpose in posting was to introduce a product which had been recommended by a friend who happens to be a high-profile professional in the field of audio recording, for the benefit of the MacInTouch community....
I appreciate the info. I hear a lot of talk about Reaper, but this is the first time I'm hearing it from an industry pro. That's very interesting to me. I hope you didn't take it as me being difficult... unfortunately you can't see me smiling when I type... despite all those fancy new emojis Apple released. I was seriously saying, Steve has the cred to do whatever he wants. I simply do not. So I play by the rules, and in the studio world, rule #1 is "use Pro Tools."
 


I appreciate the info. I hear a lot of talk about Reaper, but this is the first time I'm hearing it from an industry pro. That's very interesting to me. I hope you didn't take it as me being difficult... unfortunately you can't see me smiling when I type... despite all those fancy new emojis Apple released. I was seriously saying, Steve has the cred to do whatever he wants. I simply do not. So I play by the rules, and in the studio world, rule #1 is "use Pro Tools."
I'm glad Steve clarified his use of Reaper on gigs. As you can see, he uses Pro Tools, and as I initially said, "pros use Pro Tools." I am not a pro, and I don't really grasp what he's referring to when he talks about "virtual mixer." I'm sure you understand why I would turn to him for advice, and I thank Ric for providing this venue for the exchange of information.
 


I'm glad Steve clarified his use of Reaper on gigs. As you can see, he uses Pro Tools, and as I initially said, "pros use Pro Tools." I am not a pro, and I don't really grasp what he's referring to when he talks about "virtual mixer." I'm sure you understand why I would turn to him for advice, and I thank Ric for providing this venue for the exchange of information.
Yes - saw his reply. I see that he's using it as a foldback monitor controller for his hard disk recording. Thanks for sharing his reply.

And yes, thanks Ric!

Happy Holidays to all.
 


Don't want to get into a lengthy back and forth about the merits of ProTools, Reaper and anything else, but [here's my feedback].

Not only does GarageBand use and export uncompressed audio, but it has for many versions, probably since the start.

Reaper is not free. It offers a free, totally unlimited time and function demo that doesn't expire, but it's $60 for individuals or business of less than $20,000, $225 for professional use above that. Well worth it.

As far as ProTools being the standard in industry, sure. But I use Reaper all the time in projects that are worked on in both high-end ProTools studios and Digital Performer production rooms. AATranslator works great, but I don't even need it most of the time, giving them the stamped audio files. There really is no block to bringing work into major studios, unless you are sharing the mixing job, going back and forth. Otherwise, there's no issue with using different tools when you hand files over.

Avid going to a bizarre subscription system that makes Adobe's sensible in comparison has totally changed ProTools' landscape in professional project studios. I see a lot of old cheese grater Mac Pros running older OS X and older Pro Tools and owners who do not intend to enter Avid's ecosystem moving forward. And nearly all of the small production rooms I see in larger Pro Tools studios are not using Pro Tools in those rooms - always Logic and Reaper.

Avid is not selling many Pro Tools systems to personal-use studios any more. They just don't have that covered the way they did 10 years ago... I still use ProTools, and it is my preferred DAW, but it's apples and oranges in discussions about personal-use DAWs

As far as the non-pro status of Reaper, it really depends what one is doing. It's about the most stable and best resource-handling DAW there is, although the OS X version is a bit behind the Windows version there, but still ahead of most Mac DAWs. Reaper is huge at the BBC, for one, and I recently handed over several TBs of files to Audible, who use Reaper in their in-house editing. Its video editing and notation is a plus for many. I personally dislike it immensely for MIDI, but not everyone agrees. There is nothing I'd rather use for my professional remote recording, certainly not Pro Tools.

There are a lot of reasons why Reaper isn't the right DAW or choice for everyone, but whether its "professional" or not isn't one of them.
 


Reaper is an interesting DAW. Those who use it really like it, but for pros, it's really a non-starter, because every studio and every post house uses Pro Tools. I actually prefer Digital Performer. In fact, I recorded one of the Halo soundtracks with Digital Performer. I also have (and use) Pro Tools to stay compatible with the rest of the pro audio world.

Reaper definitely has an underground fan base. Much like Harrison MixBus. They're just too fringe for me to rely on, when I have big projects with big clients and real income on the line.

For those doing work in home studios, it really doesn't matter what you use... until you book studio time for your drum session and realize what a pain in the arse it is to make anything but Pro Tools work in a Pro Tools-centric workflow.

I downloaded Reaper a while back , and my big reason for deleting it was that it was not getting delay compensation correct. That was a deal-breaker for me. Maybe I had to tweak it more to get the delay compensation to work properly. I don't know. I just know that I didn't really want to spend the time to futz around with it when I had two perfectly functioning DAWs.

My issue with GarageBand is that all files are MP4's. So you never get uncompressed audio from it. I understand why it's that way. It pushes Logic sales. Logic is quite popular, but for me, I've been burned by Apple with buying into a technology they are pushing only to have them lose interest and leave me hanging (Aperture, anyone?). So I'm not interested in that path at all.
I'm with SteveCT: I have used (and still use) Digital Performer as my main recorder (DAW) since I sold a 2" Ampex 24-track in 2001. A lot of my clients just send me mp3's of their track, which I lay into a new DP session; then I'll add my overdubs, and freeze them as .wavs, which will line up fine with their session after I .zip them in a folder, and send them back to the client via wetransfer. I also keep an inexpensive Pro Tools subscription.

Unlike many youngsters, Logic (and Live) befuddle me. DP will do everything you need, and you needn't 'learn it all'. DP works for me because I use a lot of synths and not a lot of acoustic instruments. Logic has a bigger set of built-in high quality virtual instruments.

I've heard it said that DP is quite popular with Hollywood movie composers due to its feature sub-set that enables easy matching of tempi to 'hits', cues, streamers, as well as its facility with multiple cues

All depends on what you started with, and what works for you. Almost tried Reaper, but it was another unnecessary hill to climb. But for someone starting out, maybe... People used to rave about Reason, too. Maybe they still do.
 


I'll throw my limited-experience two cents in here.

"Portability" is a very relative thing. You may be using the same software as the studio you are working with, but it is unlikely you will have all the plug-ins and other tools they are using. Most good studios have scores of plug-ins and processing tools that the average musician doesn't have the budget for.

I recorded my own album in a pro studio about a year ago. Looking around at the time, it was obvious that pretty much every studio uses Pro Tools. Apple's Logic seemed to be a close second. Larger studios had access to other software packages but still did most of their work in Pro Tools.

I use Logic in my "home studio" (in quotes because I hesitate to call it a studio after seeing what real studios have to offer). There were a few tracks we recorded in the pro studio that needed editing work. The engineer and I decided that it was more efficient for me to edit the tracks at home. I could get exactly what I want in much less time and not incur the studio's hourly fees. Bottom line, I received the stems, made my edits at home, and gave the output files to the studio for inclusion in the finished project.

Same with a few other tracks that were MIDI-based. I output the MIDI track as an audio file to get the exact patch sound I wanted. In another case, I gave the MIDI file and used a patch on their system. The studio took the audio file and mixed it with the rest of the project.

It's all interchangeable. You only need to make sure your software can output the correct sample size/bit rate for your project. GIve the studio an unprocessed audio file from any software, and they can put it into your project.

If cost is an issue and GarageBand can output what you need, you already have a solution.

While I agree with the other comments about the fear of Apple abandoning Logic, I still believe that Logic offers some big advantages. It comes with tons of loops and instrument patches. I used these features extensively when planning my album to test ideas and create a rough guide of the sound I wanted.
 



A reality check, please: For years, my music library worked with Sonos on a Mac Mini server in “/Users/Shared/Music.” Just before Thanksgiving, Sonos released a 9.2 update to their controller software, and our whole 4-room Sonos system went down. None of the Sonos devices could access my music library anymore.

I finally created a temporary music library in “~/Public/Music”, which Sonos had no problem accessing. I then tried adding “/Users/Shared/Music” as a second library. Sonos had no problem with that. I deleted “~/Public/Music”, and Sonos is still happy. I repeated this entire scenario with two different Macs as music servers, one Mojave, one High Sierra.

Although the system had been working for months with no change other than the Sonos update, Sonos support blamed my network. Three printers, an Apple TV, plus at least a Mac, iPad, and iPhone for all three current residents are networking fine, but it was my network? Now, Sonos is blaming the need for my above workaround on Apple.

Is that at all likely?
 


Anyone here familiar the the Aurender NH100 music server?

I'm having issues with connection drops, whether it be by AFP or SMB protocol over both wifi and ethernet. Similar issues whether connected to Airport Base Station, or ATT wifi device.

Is there such a thing as a third-party app that might make a more durable, robust connection?
 


Anyone here familiar the the Aurender NH100 music server? I'm having issues with connection drops, whether it be by AFP or SMB protocol over both wifi and ethernet. Similar issues whether connected to Airport Base Station, or ATT wifi device. Is there such a thing as a third-party app that might make a more durable, robust connection?
Stick the music on a spare Mac, hook it up to the network, and play it (using iTunes or Roon or BluOS or whatever), replacing the Aurender. If all works well, the Aurender is the problem. If it doesn't, now you've got a computer that's misbehaving, and there's probably a bunch of software that can help you find out what's going on.

(Personally, I run Roon on an old Mac Mini; I'm not at all convinced that blingy expensive computers pretending to be hifi by being called music servers help a great deal, except in making money disappear quickly. But then I don't use expensive interconnects nor unobtainium ethernet cable...)
 


Amazon disclaimer:
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

Latest posts