Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Music Businesses Media Apple

GarageBand Audio Unit Effects Tutorial 45

Posted by Hemos from the learning-more-about-it dept.
LG writes "The wild popularity of Apple's new music program, GarageBand, has surprisingly not yielded much in the way of instructions or guides (the program does not come with a manual, printed or electronic -- just some simple tutorial PDFs). Thus, there are many cool but totally undocumented features in GarageBand. MacJams.com has recently posted a fairly lengthy tutorial on the built-in Audio Unit effects in GarageBand, including things like delay, filters, compressor, reverb, etc. Hopefully similar documentation will start to pop up."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

GarageBand Audio Unit Effects Tutorial More

GarageBand Audio Unit Effects Tutorial

Comments Filter:

  • this is great for music. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by torpor ( 458 ) <ibisum@@@gmail...com> on Monday March 29, 2004 @07:59AM (#8702082) Homepage Journal
    GarageBand, and the general plethora of opportunity it provides to musicians -hobbyist, serious and 'pro'- is a definite improvement in the standard for media content creation tools.

    with this simple app, you're able to do things which previously required a fairly significant investment. its a great 'raising of the bar' by apple in the media content-creation apps sphere ...

    i only feel sorry for apps like Intuem, which is a native OSX-only app in the DAW sphere... surely they can't be too happy about competing with Apple directly, themselves, on an OSX-native DAW system.

    nevertheless, its great to see people starting to realize that no, Virginia, "Pro Tools" does not make a pro. In fact, you can do things with GB now, which once were the exlusive domain of the 'elite' packages like Pro Tools.

    Amen to the erosion of elitism, i say! :)
    • i only feel sorry for apps like Intuem

      You should also feel sorry for those stuck on non-Apple platforms, who will never taste the sweetness of an OSX-native DAW....

      Or, you could, instead, feel superior, and point condescendingly like Nelson Muntz and shout...

      Haw-haw!

  • Apple's Documentation (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 29, 2004 @08:17AM (#8702163)
    I realize Apple feels their programs should be simple enough to not require documentation, but they definitely should rethink that stance. The more complicated the programs get the more they require decent documentation.
    • I wonder if, in this case, Apple has purposely created only a minimal set of documentation in order to feed interest in GarageBand. For many people, finding undocumented features and easter eggs in software is fun. Couple that with GarageBand's "coolness factor" and you wind up with a group of very avid users. Granted, there would probably be fewer of them, but they would more than make up for that in loyalty and word-of-mouth advertising.
    • Actually, I wouldn't mind it if they'd just go ahead and outsource their documentation efforts to someone or somegroup else. I found the included documentation for Keynote (for example) to be less than useful, and I'm sure there are writers out there who could do better.

      One of the problems in doing this is that, to do any justice to programs of the complexity/simplicity twin nature of Apple's developments, documentation would have to be impossibly long. It's hard to cram the kind of information people c

      • Re:Apple's Documentation (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Achernar ( 189577 ) <markel@@@strategema...net> on Monday March 29, 2004 @09:58AM (#8702988) Homepage
        I might also point out (to myself) that Apple's stance of not including documentation with its products might be enhancing their reputation of "easy-to-use out of the box." Without an imposing manual through which to read, people might assume more readily that they can simply jump into a program and be able to figure it out.

        Less imposing?

        • Forces Programmer changes as well (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Zergwyn ( 514693 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @11:13AM (#8703877)
          I might also point out (to myself) that Apple's stance of not including documentation with its products might be enhancing their reputation of "easy-to-use out of the box." Without an imposing manual through which to read, people might assume more readily that they can simply jump into a program and be able to figure it out.

          As someone who has worked on a number of programs, I can tell you that not having documentation as a certainty can change how the programmer thinks about things as well. If you don't know if your end users will have any manual, and in fact you have been told that they will most likely be starting the application up raw, it makes for a change in thinking about design elements. Does this button here make sense? Are the labels as self-explanatory as possible? Are there sufficient little help messages when needed? In many other cases, these are things that can pushed aside a bit ("Oh well, they can always look at it in the manual. It makes sense to me.") So Apple's stance may actually help make for a self fulfilling prophecy: no documentation taken for granted helps lead to software that doesn't need it as much.

          • Perhaps, but it is nonetheless a pain in the ass for those who would become "power users" of the tool in question. It is one thing to design things to be intuitive; it is another to handicap those who want to go beyond mere intuition in learning a tool. I think the company should at the very least have online manuals available for those who want more documentation. It doesn't have to come in the box, but there should be something available. I still remember looking up things in the manual for Microsoft
            • Perhaps, but it is nonetheless a pain in the ass for those who would become "power users" of the tool in question.

              Apple has simply come to a conclusion obvious to anyone who does much software support: if you include a printed manual, most users won't read it (even when they have a question), making it a waste of trees (and money). As for the would-be power users, that's what the after-market book industry is for. (Garage Band for Dummies is no doubt on the way.) So the people who don't/won't read the

        • Re:Apple's Documentation (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Maserati ( 8679 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @01:41PM (#8705775) Homepage Journal
          Apple's going with PDF documentation for the consumer space. But in the Pro space, they still ship manuals. I'd have to drop a Final Cut Pro box on a shipping scale to know exactly how much the thing weighs, but it's about 4 inches of paper manuals - two volumes - and keyboard shortcut templates. This actually makes sense, the margins on iLife can't be that big, certainly not big enough to pay for printing a 200 page manual.

          It passes the 'heft' test nicely, but not the Christmas Morning test (nothing rattles).
        • Indeed, the Final Cut Pro 4 box weighs about 10 pounds and is the size of a breeze block, yet the software install is on three DVDs, which are packaged in paper sleeves, squeezed into the tiniest space left in the box after all the manuals are put in!

          Obviously it's a much more complex app (suite of apps really) and it cost nearly 1000 compared to 39 for iLife 04, but there was something refreshing about being able to pick up the iLife box without needing a warmup beforehand.

    • Re:Apple's Documentation (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Actually, I think it's probably had a lot of thought from Apple. Other comments have given possible reasons. If you read the tutorial that was referenced, you'll find that it's mostly a discussion of various filters. These are common types that anyone who has done much with music will know about. If you don't know about them, the program is just as easy to use. If you do know about them, you'll find them as you explore and say "Great". If you don't know about them and find them, and are a bit adventurous yo
    • Go to http://www.apple.com/support/garageband/ :)
    • Garage Band is based on Logic Audio, which Apple took over when they bought Emagic. Logic Audio is about the deepest DAW software around, and has about the crappiest, most out-of-date manual you can imagine. So even the true pro software has all types of hidden tricks, and other obvious features, none of which are documented adequately. Blame Emagic, the original developer.

  • 3 months (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Midnight Thunder ( 17205 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @08:24AM (#8702194) Homepage Journal
    By time the summer comes around I am sure we will see books on the GarageBand come rolling in. The book writers probably didn't get a head start with a pre-release version, so they only have the public release to work with. Also, to be able to write a good book, you need to understand fully how to use the tool.

    Then again you will probably spend all day tinkering with the possibilities, that you won't have time to read a book.

    • Re:3 months (Score:3, Informative)

      by Dstreelm ( 606768 )
      It always takes longer for books to come out when an entirely new piece of software is introduced. This isint like the update from photoshop 6 to ps 7. In a situation like that, most of the info from the ps 6 book can be translated very easily to a ps 7 book and so on. This go around, they have to write an entire book about one release, it almost certainly takes longer.

    • Re:3 months (Score:3, Informative)

      by Achernar ( 189577 )
      I seem to remember that David Pogue has a Missing Manual series [missingmanuals.com] book on Garageband that's scheduled to be released before the spring is over.

      If it's anything like the Mac OS X book [oreilly.com] he wrote for Panther users, I would say it's likely to be very helpful as a guide.

  • Perl-to-GarageBand? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by dschuetz ( 10924 ) <david&dasnet,org> on Monday March 29, 2004 @08:25AM (#8702202)
    What I'd like to see is a simple way to write GarageBand files from perl. It could be used to generate "music" based on a script output (imagine every few songs your streaming mp3 player would play an automtically generated GB song with "pleasant" sounding music when your net's okay, and "discordant" music when something weird's up).

    Or, more usefully, for various tablature -> GB conversions.

    I know there are some perl-to-MIDI modules, but from what I understand getting those into GarageBand requires additional steps, too, right?

    Anyway, I haven't had time to really search for this, so I'm sure that someone else has already come up with a solution. I just thought I'd mention it to see if anyone's got anything cool done along these lines...

  • Doh (Score:4, Informative)

    by pldms ( 136522 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @09:36AM (#8702731)
    ...and the frequency would be the length of the wave, i.e., wavelength

    Nice article, but things like that pain me...
  • I have a bit of a problem with software these days not coming with manuals. Take most video games -- they come with a tiny eight page booklet, and the 'manual' is now sold separately as part of a 'strategy guide', usually written by (or in collaboration with) the developers! The fact that a 'missing manual' series for Mac related stuff exists is a shame...it would be great to see more documentation released directly from Apple. Even as PDFs or something. Come on, Apple...documentation is supposed to be
    • Personally I think it's a shame is that people need a "missing manual". Apple's software is very easy to understand if you have any understanding of the task you are attempting to perform. If you play with the software you should be able to use it well within a day, just from tinkering.
      As for Apple not including a manual or PDF with documentation... perhaps people should learn what that "Help" menu is all about. Oh, that's right, there's no manual to explain how to use the help menu.

      • Re:where's the manual? (Score:5, Funny)

        by Achernar ( 189577 ) <markel@@@strategema...net> on Monday March 29, 2004 @11:30AM (#8704121) Homepage
        ...there's no manual to explain how to use the help menu.

        Actually, that's under "help" as well...

      • I'm not saying Apple software is difficult to use, or that the on-line help is terrible. My beef is that so many 'hidden', obscure, and 'undocumented' features necessitate these missing manuals.

        And what if there's a problem booting your computer or something? Despite the move to electronic soft copies, most people still like having paper.

        • Re:where's the manual? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by MoneyT ( 548795 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @12:08PM (#8704525) Journal
          The problem is the image. There's nothing that kills a user's enthusiasm for their new machine faster than opening the box to a manual 200 pages thick. And yes, if Apple provided documentation for all of their softwre that they ship with the computer, it would be that long (IIRC, the NetInfo documentation alone is ~300 pages)
          • I remember the iMac instructions for setting up the machine was a pamphlet with like 7 pictures.

            Also I've read that the documentation for Final Cut Pro 4 is about 7 pounds.

            Seperate professional from consumer I always say. Or at least, I think it pretty hard.

        • Re:where's the manual? (Score:5, Informative)

          by rjung2k ( 576317 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @12:27PM (#8704725) Homepage
          IIRC, MacOS X 10.3 ("Panther") came with a small booklet telling you how to get started with the OS -- how to use the "help" menu to learn more about information, how to reboot and repair your computer from the CD if something goes wrong, etc.

          So it's not quite as bleak as you make it out to be. It's just a "play around and discover more" philosophy, instead of an "overwhelm the user with a thick manual" approach.
        • I remember when I got my first copy of MS Office (for the PC) in 1993. It came with 5 thick manuals - it took up over a foot of shelf space - documenting every minute feature of the program. As a software trainer, the information was pretty useful. However, I also realized that at least $100 of the price of the software was just the printing and distribution costs of the manuals.

          As much as I still enjoy learning about all the esoteric features of software, I have to admit that most consumers neither des
  • If you have not already, I encourage you to watch the introduction during MacWorld 04 (http://www.apple.com/quicktime/qtv/mwsf04/). This app looks very powerful for its price.

    Has anyone had much experience with the live amplifier functionality? Is it good enough to use for amature type live performances when piped through a sound system?

    -Pete

  • It costs less (Score:4, Insightful)

    by gnugrep ( 696034 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @12:26PM (#8704723)
    There's also the fact that not providing any documentation costs less. In fact you can produce the documentation now as a book and people will pay $30 extra for what should come free with the software.
    • I sat down with garageband and created something cool within 10 minutes. The posts complaining about the lack of documentation are ill-informed. I think the Mac philosophy is very drag-and drop, click on this. While there may have been features that I didn't uncover, it seems GB's interface can be discovered quite quickly by clicking on the few buttons that exist and just playing with it. I don't remember if there was a PDF or not. That should be simple enough. Who cares about a book?

Slashdot Top Deals

"Gotcha, you snot-necked weenies!" -- Post Bros. Comics

Close