A low cost guide to making music with your Mac, part one
It's well known that Macs have always been favored by musicians. And why not? Macs are the only computers that come from the factory with a starter-level digital audio workstation, or DAW as the hip kids call 'em. Point of fact, these days it's entirely possible to make perfectly respectable, professional quality music with your Mac and some relatively inexpensive outboard gear. Gone are the days when you could only use your desktop or laptop for sequencing MIDI tracks and writing lyrics for songs that you'd have to take to a professional recording studio to realize. You may not be able to make a Dark Side Of The Moon or an OK Computer in your bedroom but if you're a singer-songwriter, hip-hop artist or if you're in a band making music with simple arrangements, you can skip the studio process almost entirely.
Of course, when it comes to music, most of the quality has to do with talent and skill, not technology: despite tools like Antares AutoTune, no amount of digital wizardry can make you a better songwriter. And you'll still need to understand the fundamentals of audio production, which can be as exciting as watching paint dry.
But if you're wiling to educate yourself a bit, there's no reason you and your Mac can't make beautiful music together.
In this four part feature, we'll look at what it takes to turn your Mac into a music studio.
Part 1: You And Your Audio Interface
As nice as your Mac's sound card is, it's not really designed for recording music. You'll need to pick up an audio interface, which is sort of like an industrial-strength sound card made specifically for converting analog audio (coming out of a microphone, instrument or sampler) into digital audio (the kind that lives in your computer). It's a sound card on steroids, in other words.
Most prosumer audio interfaces are external, connecting to your Mac via FireWire or USB, and most feature microphone pre-amps and tools for routing audio in and out. They also feature 1/4" and XLR (or "Neutrik" combo plugs that combine the two; see the image of the M-Audio FireWire 410 below), which are standard in audio production. Finally, many audio interfaces also feature MIDI inputs and outputs (for controlling external synths and other devices) and digital inputs / outputs for connecting the sound card directly to digital audio sources like high-end mixing boards. Many companies are incorporating audio interfaces directly into their mixers and even their synthesizers now as well, which can make life easier.
The 800-pound gorilla in the audio interface world -- indeed, in digital audio production in general -- is Digidesign, makers of Pro Tools, which is widely considered to be the industry standard hardware / software recording solution. Digidesign's audio interfaces start with the entry level MBox 2 ($495 list price) and work their way up to professional grade systems like the HD 3, which lists at $13,995 (if you have the means and the wherewithal for that, you probably don't need my advice, though).
Another popular manufacturer is M-Audio. (Both M-Audio and Digidesign are actually owned by Avid; there are versions of Pro Tools for both companies' hardware, though that hardware can also run any other DAW like Logic or GarageBand.) M-Audio is primarily known for their consumer / prosumer products, and their gear is generally well-considered by their target audience of bedroom producers, DJs and musicians who want a simple workflow to record their own work without relying on studios or engineers.
I personally use an M-Audio FireWire 410 (list $399, though you can find it easily for $250 or less), and haven't had any real problems with it since I bought it in 2004, even though I toss it in a bag regularly for DJ gigs and field recordings.

Of course, there are dozens or more manufacturers making audio interfaces (including Mackie, Allen & Heath, Novation, Mark Of The Unicorn and many others), and your choice is really only limited by your wallet and your needs. Different interfaces are geared for different uses, so make sure to check out a lot of them before buying.
Here's seven things to look for when purchasing an audio interface for your home studio:
1) Number of inputs and outputs. How many do you need? If you're a singer/songwriter recording vocals and solo instruments, you may only need a box with two mono inputs and two mono outputs. (Two mono = one stereo.)
If you've got a band and you want to record multiple instruments simultaneously, you may need sixteen or more inputs, to record each instrument in stereo. If you're a DJ or live electronic artist, you'll want at least four mono / two stereo outputs -- one pair for cueing and one pair for the sound system.
Digital inputs and outputs are important if you're pulling or pushing audio off of DATs or other digital sources...but most home studio users aren't, so unless you specifically need them, they're not a key feature. I've never used mine, for example. Many manufacturers will include them when listing the number of inputs/outputs, though, so pay close attention to how many analog inputs/outputs your prospective interface has. The FireWire 410, for example, has four inputs and ten outputs, hence the name -- but two of the inputs and two of the outputs are digital, so it only has two analog inputs and eight analog outputs, as you can see in the picture above. (The front inputs are just clones of the back inputs.)
2) Preamp quality. The microphone preamplifier in your interface provides the necessary amplification for your microphones required for recording. Unless you've got or want to buy expensive outboard gear, you shouldn't skimp here. Many producers and technicians believe that a great preamp is more important than a great microphone for recording vocals.
Most mid-range interfaces between $300 - $1000 will have pretty good preamps that will probably do the trick for most pop music vocals / instruments. You still might want to invest in a dedicated preamp, though; there's a great (if grammatically challenged) guide at Tweakheadz on choosing and purchasing one.
3) Bitrate. The quality of a digital recording -- aside from the quality of the audio going into it -- basically has to do with sample depth and sample rate (let the comment flaming begin). The higher the better, in this case, and you're not going to want an interface that won't let you record at a minimum of 24 bit, 48KHz audio, which is slightly higher than CD quality. Luckily, all but the cheapest interfaces meet this criteria, but you should check anyway.
4) Build quality. While your audio interface may never leave your desk, you're probably going to be plugging and unplugging cables from it a lot as you record. You want to make sure it's not going to fizzle out on you thanks to cheap construction.
If you buy yours at a brick and mortar music store like Guitar Center or Sam Ash, try to get the sales clerk to let you inspect the interface before you buy it. Ask him or her if you can test the jacks out. What you want is something that feels sturdy; the sockets shouldn't wiggle, or they will eventually come loose inside and stop working. Stick a guitar plug in and out of each socket. There's no special musician's secret here: if it feels cheap to you, then it's cheap, and you shouldn't buy it.
5) Interface type. Most modern audio interfaces are either PCI / PCI Express for internals or FireWire / USB 2.0 for external. One is not necessarily better than the others, although I would hesitate at a USB 1.0 interface.
For Macs, FireWire is a pretty solid bet, but if you plan to use your interface with multiple computers or take it outside of your home studio, USB is more common on PCs. Again, it depends on your needs.
6) MIDI capability. MIDI is Musical Instrument Digital Interface, a protocol for controlling and receiving data from external device like synthesizers or keyboard controllers. If you're planning on using anything like an external mixing device or a keyboard to control software synthesizers, you probably need this. You can buy external MIDI interfaces ... but why bother, when most quality audio interfaces already come with MIDI built in?
7) Driver compatibility. Because Macs are so prevalent with musicians, no respectable audio hardware company would make a bit of kit without Mac drivers. But as we've discovered recently, some drivers don't play well with some OS updates, and so it's vital to make sure the box you want to buy works with your current hardware / OS setup. And again, if you're planning on using the device with multiple computers with different operating systems, make sure there are Windows Vista / Linux drivers available as well.
That's the basics on picking a hardware interface. If any of our more experienced readers would like to pop in to the comments of this post and recommend particular makes and models of audio interfaces for people just starting out, I'm sure it would be roundly appreciated.
Next time: digital audio workstation software!
Share
Categories
It's well known that Macs have always been favored by musicians. And why not? Macs are the only computers that come from the factory with...
Add a Comment
Thanks for your three posts Joshua - really helpful for someone that's been out of the computer music scene for a long time, but just returning!
If you have one of the many "2 analog input" boxes in one USB port, can you add a second identical box to your other native USB port on a macbook (i.e. not using a hub) and get 4 analog inputs?
Just thinking about starting small, but then if I do want to record up to 4 or more tracks independently in the future, can I expand and still use the original?
Someone mentioned daisychaining the edirol .. how does this work?
For guitar/keyboard/vocals/drumloops hobbyist recording, I was hoping to get by with Garageband and buy a Line 6 Toneport KB37.
Anybody got an opinion about that? Easy recording/looping/MIDI trumps power features for me.
Gracias a todos-
oFace
Great article! I can't wait to see what else you have to say. Do you know anything about Presonus? I'm a drummer and I thought of buying a mixer and an audio interface, but the Presonus Firestudio Project is basically the two combined. I haven't used one, but do you know of something good for drummers that need 8 inputs?
May 31 2008 at 6:16 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyThanks so much for this guide. I did a bit of recording a couple of years ago (Digi 001 on OS9 - actually the reason I am a Mac user now) but I've been out of it for a while, this little refresher was really helpful. I look forward to the next parts of the series!
May 30 2008 at 8:53 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyActually, there's not much to gain from higher sampling rates (sampling frequency). Most modern Analog-Digital converters are working with oversampling that pushes the samplerate to for example 256x44100 in a Digidesign 192 I/O. This in order to be able to use weaker analog low-pass filters (wich always needs to be there; look up sampling aliasing), and somewhere in the interface you tell it to reduce this gigantic number down to whatever you want to work with; 44,100, 48,000, 88200, 96000 or even 192 000 samples per second.
But doesn't higher sample rates give us a more detailed representation of the sound?
No, not to my understanding as a sound engineering student at least. In order to be able to theoretically re-construct the original waveform we only need just over two samples per cycle. At 44100 Hz this is doable for all frequencies represented. Digital->analog sound does NOT work by representing the sound wave with stacks of each sample and thereby describing the waveform; when you convert the digital stream to analog sound you send this through a reconstruction filter that leaves us with something very very close to the original sound (providing that the A/D and D/A is of high quality of course). 44,1 kHz is enough.
But I will register higher frequencies with a higher sampling rate, hello mr Nyquist theorem, right?
Yes you will. And the dogs and bats of the world will love or hate you for it :) . But you won't percieve it. At least not according to any modern science.
But if I record at 48 kHz, I can always reduce it when I want to go CD, right?
Right. But there's no easy mathematical connection between the two sampling rates, wich results in a lot of icky number crunching just to convert it to 44100 samples per second when we could simply have worked with that from the beginning.
Also, check out Audio Eases little shootout between sample rate converters that are shipped with most DAWs (http://www.audioease.com/Pages/BarbaBatch4/Barba4SRCTest.html)
Only reason to work in 48k would be for video production, digital radio production or somesuch application where the end product will be in 48k.
Using 24 bits makes sense though; your noise floor drops and your dynamic range goes up to near 120 dB. Just remember that when you truncate down to 16 bits you'll need to dither or you will get quantization distortion.
Zimmie: yes, the additional quantizaion levels from 24 bits are distributed evenly over the entire scale.Going from 65536 levels (16bit) to 16,7 million levels (24bit) will lower the noise floor by almost 48 dB. Sweet. Plus; going from 16bit to 24 only increases the file by 50% where going 48k->96k will of course double the size.
Hope this was to the help of at least someone. I can't vouch for it being 100% legible since I was up mixing til 6 AM :P
Zimmie -- Cool explanation, thanks! (Although actually the 48KHz is just because everything in digital audio is usually in base eight -- 8 * 6 = 48. 48 * 2 = 96.)
The bigger the bit number, the more information each sample carries. (Think of the difference between 8-bit graphics, where you can only really have 256 colors, and 24-bit graphics, where you can have 256 values of red, green and blue.) The higher the sample rate, the more samples are taken per second -- think of it as being like a higher framerate, except for capturing audio.
The reason CDs are 44KHz is because that means (for various math reasons) that they can reproduce up to 22KHz sounds, which is up near or above human hearing. Supposedly, with higher sample rates, you're getting more harmonics that make the audio sound nice.
Personally, and totally objectively, I find that the audio I record at 24-bit, 48KHz sounds "warmer". But that could be psychological -- me convincing myself. But hey, if it works, it works, right?
Also -- I want to point out that I can't claim to be an expert on the extremely technical details of digital audio recording. This is all stuff I've gleaned from manuals, production books and forums. If I'm wrong about something, don't hesitate to correct me. I'm learning, too!
Huh. I thought it was so they would have a clean number of samples per video frame for sync purposes. I'm pretty sure DAT decks used it before CDs became available, so the drop to 44.1 kHz is stranger to me than high-end equipment using 48 kHz natively.
44.1 kHz is 1837.5 samples per video frame. 48 kHz is 2000 samples per video frame, so it seems like they have to be related somehow.
Still, point is that with higher sample rates or depth, you have a better approximation of the sound which you can use to stretch it while maintaining fidelity to the original source. Higher rates let you stretch time, higher depth lets you stretch volume.
Also, I think I was wrong about the sample depth being logarithmic. After doing some more research, I'm pretty sure PCM is linear, so the extra eight bits are distributed evenly across the scale. I've been doing too much VoIP junk (that's logarithmic).
I'd hoped I would see something like this from you! Thanks!
May 28 2008 at 5:21 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyPerhaps I'm a bit late to get an answer, but I've got a question. What is the purpose of higher sample rate recording? everything gets mixed down to 44.1 kHz on CD, so you're just going to discard half of the samples if you're at 96 kHz... am I wrong?
Also, my interface can record at 48 kHz, but I tend to record at 44.1 kHz, just because I feel like that downsampling might be messy, like when you shrink an image down by 0.98x, it just gets a bit mushed up. Would I be better recording at 48 kHz?
Would just like an experts opinion!
Some people need their heads checked for bull manure. Often there is an obvious difference between being able to create music that sounds professional and making music through the studio avenue. The point of this article, is that the gap between the two is shrinking and, depending on the genre, sometimes indiscernable. Justin Timberlake is a terrible example if only for the reason that his single "Bringing Sexy Back" sounds like the beat was created by a novice in FruityLoops.
The great thing here is that to make a demo or even in some cases a full-fledged album it isn't imperative that one drop the fees associated with studio production. It might help the average musician considering they won't make a great recording, but at least they have the option of doing so.
Bravo! Great article. I'm looking forward to the upcoming installments.
May 28 2008 at 11:27 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyHot Apps on TUAW
Deals of the Day
more deals- Refurb Apple MacBook Air Laptops: 12" 64GB SSD for $699 + free shipping
- JVC Motion Sensing Clock Radio with Dual iPod Docks for $55 + free shipping
- Apple iPhone Headset with Mic for $4 + $2 s&h
- miFrame Picture Frame Dock for iPad for $64 + $8 s&h
- Refurb Apple iPod nano 8GB MP3 Player for $99 + free shipping, 16GB for $119
- Hannspree Apple-Shaped 28" 1080p LCD HDTV for $270 + free shipping
Software Updates
more updates- EFI Firmware Update brings Lion Internet Recovery to 2010-model Macs
- OS X Lion 10.7.3 released with Safari 5.1.3, Wi-Fi bug fix
- Aperture updated to 3.2.2, addresses Photo Stream issue
- Apple updates Keynote to address Lion issues
- Google Search app gets new look on iPad
- Apple releases Apple TV Software Update 4.4.3



45 Comments