I've been using recording software continuously since 1995 and spent countless hours playing with different DAWs over the years. Lately though I came to realization that two qualities that matter to me most when it comes to recording software are simplicity and intuitive design. Now I'm not saying that functionality and features are not important, however, the market offers a vast variety of DAWs these days and most of them provide enough functionality (give or take) to do what musicians do: record, edit and mix. That's what it ultimately comes down to - well, to me anyway. Record, Edit and Mix. I understand that being able to being able to publish your podcast directly on the net may present a valid benefit for someone who does lots of podcasts but it is not a necessity to me. Which is why I am going to look at these two lovely little packages from my standpoint.
Firstly, why Mixcraft (MC) and Garageband (GB)? In my opinion, these two are the most lightweight and most popular nephews out of the entire DAW family, representing both sides of the clan - Mac and PC. Sure, there are heavyweights like ProTools and Logic - both of which boast some fancy and advanced features - but frankly I rarely use either one and only when I face a specific challenge outside of my normal recording activities (like fix timing on a track with Time-stretching). Browsing through intricate webs of elaborated and undoubtedly useful features hidden deep in the jungle of ProTools 7.4 settings and menus, as well as having to memorize wicked key combinations to perform a simple split is not my idea of fun.
What is my idea of fun? Being able to follow my creative flow as soon as it hits me without having to read the manual. To do what? Well, again, Record, Edit and Mix! :)
A well designed DAW - from my standpoint - is the one that is one step ahead of you. It expects what you are going to do next! With 20 years of software development background I know full well that this is what sets apart applications written from developer's perspective from those written with user in mind.
So let's start...
Look and feel
GB is cool! No question about it. I like the slick look of that famous Apple interface. I love that you can pick an instrument flavour from the library and it will assign appropriate effects to the track automatically! Way too cool! It's pretty easy to use when it comes to basic operations: recording, moving regions, resizing them, etc.
However, no right-click menus!! Give me a break! How do you expect a PC guy who spent last 20 year preaching right-click menu as a good example of user-friendliness to simply give it up? When I position the cursor exactly where I want my region split I wanna be able to do that without putting away the mouse or looking at the keyboard or going to another menu! I'm in the zone, remember? Command-T? Sure, but it will mean taking the focus off the screen and using both hands (well, you can use one, of course, but that wouldn't be my first thought when I'm in the zone), which inevitably interrupts the flow. And, frankly, I don't want to have to memorize all those key strokes to do the basics, either. I'm a mouse user and I want to be able to ride this little thing as much as I can.
MC scores a big point here, in my opinion. Most basic operations can be accessed through the mouse (maybe with added CTRL or Shift, which is no big deal). Speaking of coolness, I think MC is pretty cool too (MC 5 looks even cooler than my current MC4). Everything is so intuitive that it almost hurts! I do believe that is probably the most intuitive application on the market!
GB has a great ducking option when you do voiceovers or podcasts, which MC doesn't, but then again I don't use it that much.
Loop libraries are similar and using them is fairly easy in both apps.
There're several things where MC rules over GB. First, it's crossfades. It is a breeze in MC! It's especially useful when you overlap regions. When two regions overlap it automatically creates a crossfade - very intelligently and seamlessly! You can change the shape of crossfade later, if you have to. Anyone who ever had to connect two regions so that there's no click between them knows what I'm talking about. GB doesn't allow overlaps - and the only way to do it is to use two tracks instead of one which can be a hassle because you have to watch volume levels as well as keep same effects and identical settings on both tracks. Major flaw, in my opinion.
Secondly, MC can handle volume separately on each region! This is a major point right there! I was recording vocals in GB and of course I ended up with a few sections recorded at different times. Everyone knows that when you do that your regions may turn out to be at different volume levels. The only way to do it in GB is by using Automation, that is to manually add automation points for the track. Ok, that works! But later on I needed to slide the region over to the next verse. Oops! Automation points stayed put so I had to manually delete old ones and create new curve at a new spot. Quite a nuissance, I must tell you! GB uses track automation whereas MC allows full volume control for each individual region. So when you move a region - the volume moves with it. Plus you can still adjust overall volume for the entire track!
Third point will have to go to MC for their TimeFlex feature. Very powerful and at the same time easy to use! Time stretching was never easier. GB doesn't have it. They do have auto-adjust feature that may stretch the region if the tempo changes, but so does MC.
One other thing that annoys me in GB (much like in many other Apple apps) is a necessity to name and save a project when you want a brand new one. I don't understand why they do it. I don't like the fact that you are forced to create a project - even if it's a bogus one - and name it too before you can touch a record button! When it's created the only way to get rid of it is to go to File Finder and delete it. Because few people do it you end up creating a new project pretty much every time you open GB so after awhile you wonder: what the heck are all those files - which of course you wouldn't know because you have to open them to know what they are. Then of course you have to close them first, then go to File Finder and delete. Also why do they always force you to choose a pre-canned type of the project??
There's one thing in GB that MC doesn't have: virtual keyboard to enter software instruments. Now that is useful! Especially when you don't have a keyboard hooked up to your computer. Or when you're on the road. A point for GB. (Note: after I wrote it I discovered that Virtual keyboard is available in a new MC ver.5)
Another point goes to GB for virtual guitar amps. Great feature that MC lacks! Adding a stomp box to a virtual amp is as easy as clicking on a 3d image of the item and there's a few to choose from! To get that functionality in MC I had to pay almost $200 for an Amplitube plug-in! And this one has it all built-in! Great feature! (Apparently some of the effects are being added in MC ver.5 as well.)
Another thing GB has is instrument lessons (piano and guitar). This is very cool and the way lessons are built and presented on screen is absolutely fantastic, in my opinion. This is a perfect example of well thought through multimedia project! The video shows the instructor as well as the neck of the guitar diagram that shows exact fingering synchronized with the video! You can slow it down, add metronome, rewind over and over again. Just awesome if you are learning how to play! However I'll only give GB half a point for this feature as it is of no use to you unless you are a beginner.
Overall I have to say that as neat as GB is I don't think it quite matches MC when it comes to R.E.M (Record, Edit and Mix), which has more power and at the same time is extremely easy to use.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Monday, November 16, 2009
Progressive overload: more thoughts (effort)
I was thinking more about the intensity and effort and their effect on muscle growth. I do tend to agree with Doug McGuff (Body By Science) - it's more about Time Under Load than anything that defines the impact in terms of level of stress (stimulus) applied to the muscle. Plus of course load itself (resistance). Other parameters (speed, number of reps, type of resistance) seem to be of less importance. Another thing I was pondering upon is what they call level of Perceived Effort. Despite the fact that it may be deemed as somewhat subjective by some people I believe that when used properly it can be a powerful measure of workout efficiency.
I use a simple system based on a few concepts I found in Stuart McRobert's Beyond Brawn to measure my effort on a set. Here's how it goes: I estimate the effort on a scale 1 to 10 like this -
10 - all-out effort, to absolute and unconditional flat-out failure (I only use positive part of the movement), the final rep cannot be completed no matter how hard you try without messing up the form;
9 - very tough effort; the final rep is completed but one more full rep would be impossible (again, with the correct form);
8 - hard effort; I completed all the planned reps with good form and could probably do one or maybe even two more if my life depended on it. But that would be it.
7 - solid effort; The weight is heavy enough but you could probably do 3-4 more if you were to go all-out.
I don't usually do anything below 7.
Here's why I like this system no matter how subjective it may appear. It allows me to keep track of my effort and intensity which adds one more dimension to help me measure the efficiency of my workouts besides weight alone. Let's say for my lat pulldown I increased poundage by 5 lbs and attempted the same 12 reps that I did last time with smaller weight. I want to make sure that I not only complete my target 12 reps but also do it with the same form, speed and effort! Let's say I did it with PE (perceived effort) of 8 (had a couple more reps left in me) last time but this time the weight felt very heavy and I ground out that final rep with extreme effort and strain and after much huffing and puffing decided that it was an honest 9, almost 10 then - no matter what the weight is - I may have not been as successful as last time. It could either be too much of an increase in resistance or my recovery has been insufficient for some reason (either too short or otherwise compromised).
One other thing. I've read a lot of discussions in bodybuilding community on whether or not training to failure is "the way to go". There's a variety of opinions and from what I read it's not a clear cut solution. My feeling is that although going to failure does indeed exemplify an all-out balls-to-the-wall effort when it comes to training intensity but it appears that it may also be too much of a burden on the CNS. Seems like its taxing into our body's recovery capability could be way too severe - to an extent where its negative side outweigh its benefits - for an average trainee, anyway. I feel that going to 8 or 9 (vs 10) might represent a "less is more" approach still providing enough stimuli for the body to grow without overtaxing it. I found for myself that when I was taking almost every working set to failure I would be tired and low of energy pretty much all the time.
I use a simple system based on a few concepts I found in Stuart McRobert's Beyond Brawn to measure my effort on a set. Here's how it goes: I estimate the effort on a scale 1 to 10 like this -
10 - all-out effort, to absolute and unconditional flat-out failure (I only use positive part of the movement), the final rep cannot be completed no matter how hard you try without messing up the form;
9 - very tough effort; the final rep is completed but one more full rep would be impossible (again, with the correct form);
8 - hard effort; I completed all the planned reps with good form and could probably do one or maybe even two more if my life depended on it. But that would be it.
7 - solid effort; The weight is heavy enough but you could probably do 3-4 more if you were to go all-out.
I don't usually do anything below 7.
Here's why I like this system no matter how subjective it may appear. It allows me to keep track of my effort and intensity which adds one more dimension to help me measure the efficiency of my workouts besides weight alone. Let's say for my lat pulldown I increased poundage by 5 lbs and attempted the same 12 reps that I did last time with smaller weight. I want to make sure that I not only complete my target 12 reps but also do it with the same form, speed and effort! Let's say I did it with PE (perceived effort) of 8 (had a couple more reps left in me) last time but this time the weight felt very heavy and I ground out that final rep with extreme effort and strain and after much huffing and puffing decided that it was an honest 9, almost 10 then - no matter what the weight is - I may have not been as successful as last time. It could either be too much of an increase in resistance or my recovery has been insufficient for some reason (either too short or otherwise compromised).
One other thing. I've read a lot of discussions in bodybuilding community on whether or not training to failure is "the way to go". There's a variety of opinions and from what I read it's not a clear cut solution. My feeling is that although going to failure does indeed exemplify an all-out balls-to-the-wall effort when it comes to training intensity but it appears that it may also be too much of a burden on the CNS. Seems like its taxing into our body's recovery capability could be way too severe - to an extent where its negative side outweigh its benefits - for an average trainee, anyway. I feel that going to 8 or 9 (vs 10) might represent a "less is more" approach still providing enough stimuli for the body to grow without overtaxing it. I found for myself that when I was taking almost every working set to failure I would be tired and low of energy pretty much all the time.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Progressive overload: more thoughts (recovery)
So how long does it take for the body to fully recover from resistance training?
The funny part is that I don't think there is a definite answer to that question. The best one I can come up with is: it depends. There are numerous studies that provide such a wide variety of - not even answers - suggestions that it makes it extremely difficult to come to a complete and definite answer. I wonder if it's even possible. Different bodyparts require different amounts of time. It also vastly varies depending on the intensity and volume of training. Easy gainers and younger people with fast metabolism may require less time to fully recover than more senior "hardgainers". Traditional recommendations maintain that 2-3 days is enough for recovery, which is why most traditional programs are built around 3-4 sessions per week. "Hardgainer" pioneer Stuart McRobert, on the other hand, provides extensive evidence that 4-5 days is an absolute minimum for a typical genetically average trainee, and that some may even become overtrained on once-a-week programs.
There's another question relevant to it: how long does it take before the body becomes deconditioned, i.e. starts losing the gains after the last training session. Our body, like a well-managed team is not going to keep additional resources on the payroll unless they are used. It's been long thought that the muscle starts losing its strength after only 3-4 days unless trained again however there are other opinions claiming that the body remains "supercompensated" for 3 and even 4 weeks. It is a well known fact that some athletes take a month completely off training and come back stronger than before knocking their personal bests right off on the very first day after the break. Many HIT people train once a week and sometimes find that they grow even if they do big lifts (like squats or deadlifts) once every 10 days. Doug McGuff, father of Body For Science, claims that many of his clients maintain gains while training once every two weeks!
So where does it leave us? A range of opinions is so wide that the only choice we really have left is a good old trial and error approach.
Let's say you try working out twice a week, which gives you 3-4 days of rest between sessions. Theoretically, if your recovery time is sufficient you should be able to increase your poundage a little (say, 2-2.5 pounds) every week. The important thing is: you should be able to handle increased weight with roughly the same amount of effort and correct form. If you have to grind it out, cheating and compromising the form for the sake of making that last rep - it doesn't count! If you stall (can't handle the 2 lb increase no matter how hard you try) for more than two weeks it means your recovery is either compromised or insufficient. Whichever the case, the key is to focus on recovery - not exercise (unless there's an injury; in which case some exercise adjustments may be in order)! If that happens, it might be good time to review your eating regime, nutritional and caloric value of the food you eat, sleeping pattern (total hours of sleep per day), and possibly extend recovery time (by switching to once-a-week or 3-times-every-2-weeks mode, for example).
Again, the basic principle to remember is: if you eat well, sleep well and rest enough - you should be able to handle small weekly increases with no perceivable increase in effort! If you can't - it might be time for adjustments. Of course, there's more to it, but that's the basics.
The funny part is that I don't think there is a definite answer to that question. The best one I can come up with is: it depends. There are numerous studies that provide such a wide variety of - not even answers - suggestions that it makes it extremely difficult to come to a complete and definite answer. I wonder if it's even possible. Different bodyparts require different amounts of time. It also vastly varies depending on the intensity and volume of training. Easy gainers and younger people with fast metabolism may require less time to fully recover than more senior "hardgainers". Traditional recommendations maintain that 2-3 days is enough for recovery, which is why most traditional programs are built around 3-4 sessions per week. "Hardgainer" pioneer Stuart McRobert, on the other hand, provides extensive evidence that 4-5 days is an absolute minimum for a typical genetically average trainee, and that some may even become overtrained on once-a-week programs.
There's another question relevant to it: how long does it take before the body becomes deconditioned, i.e. starts losing the gains after the last training session. Our body, like a well-managed team is not going to keep additional resources on the payroll unless they are used. It's been long thought that the muscle starts losing its strength after only 3-4 days unless trained again however there are other opinions claiming that the body remains "supercompensated" for 3 and even 4 weeks. It is a well known fact that some athletes take a month completely off training and come back stronger than before knocking their personal bests right off on the very first day after the break. Many HIT people train once a week and sometimes find that they grow even if they do big lifts (like squats or deadlifts) once every 10 days. Doug McGuff, father of Body For Science, claims that many of his clients maintain gains while training once every two weeks!
So where does it leave us? A range of opinions is so wide that the only choice we really have left is a good old trial and error approach.
Let's say you try working out twice a week, which gives you 3-4 days of rest between sessions. Theoretically, if your recovery time is sufficient you should be able to increase your poundage a little (say, 2-2.5 pounds) every week. The important thing is: you should be able to handle increased weight with roughly the same amount of effort and correct form. If you have to grind it out, cheating and compromising the form for the sake of making that last rep - it doesn't count! If you stall (can't handle the 2 lb increase no matter how hard you try) for more than two weeks it means your recovery is either compromised or insufficient. Whichever the case, the key is to focus on recovery - not exercise (unless there's an injury; in which case some exercise adjustments may be in order)! If that happens, it might be good time to review your eating regime, nutritional and caloric value of the food you eat, sleeping pattern (total hours of sleep per day), and possibly extend recovery time (by switching to once-a-week or 3-times-every-2-weeks mode, for example).
Again, the basic principle to remember is: if you eat well, sleep well and rest enough - you should be able to handle small weekly increases with no perceivable increase in effort! If you can't - it might be time for adjustments. Of course, there's more to it, but that's the basics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)