The simple fact is this: EQ is easy to understand, and EQing vocal (if it has been tracked well, in a good room) is a matter of a minute or two, no more. Yeh, I meant, maybe Garageband comes with some automatic presets, for example, I don't know maybe some stereo enhancer and automatic EQ on vocals or something like that that'd make a simple 5 or 6 tracks song sound better from the get go rather than the many options in cubase, for someone who doesn't know much about mixing.This really does speak to a fundamental misconception of the lay of the land: no, Garageband does not have "awesome male rock vocal" preset, or "punchy wide stereo mix" preset that means novice users of GB can get professional sounding mixes, while those in Cubase are left to spend hours agpnising over the exact Q and EQ of a vocal. Its Mac equivalent is Logic, not Garageband. Cubase is a full-function production environment, and a great one at that. But mostly it's about the prepacked loops. That doesn't mean those people are lying, though: someone who knows how to mix and EQ could do it in Garageband. They will not be related to: using Cubase.įorget about Garageband: it is a total red herring! The issues you're experiencing will be related to any or all of the following: (i) the vocal itself (ii) the room (iii) the mic (iv) Eq and processing choices you are making in Cubase. Once it's a digital file, then all the playback engines have imperceptible differences in them - just like it makes no difference if you listen to an audio file in Windows media player or iTunes.Ī good vocal throug a good mic in a well-treated space will sound good. Depth and clarity in vocals - or in a mix in general - have abdolutely zero to do with the DAW. No, Garageband is not better - not at all! Much of the time, I suspect, when someone talks about how they "made a song in Garageband" it's shorthand for: "I used a bunch of Garageband loops".
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |