GarageBand Audio Unit Effects Tutorial

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."

Comments

this is great for music.

[torpor]

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! :)

Re:this is great for music.

[MoneyT]

You know, Apple isn't pushing anyone out of the business. The fact that they are choosing not to compete is their own fault. It's not like they can't improve on the apps Apple is writing or make better products. Certainly you can make better video products than iMovie, better photo tools than iPhoto and better Sound Programs than garage band. People don't use the default programs just because they're default (witness VLC, despite quicktime being default on all Apple computers I know of very few mac users that don't also have VLC). The key to competeing with Apple is to make somethng better, but that also works with Apple

Re:this is great for music.

[Anonymous Coward]

Waaaaah, IE and WMP are installed by default, waaaah, waaaaaaaaaah.

Funny how everything changes when it's Apple, isn't it?

Re:this is great for music.

[MoneyT]

I had no problems (nor do I currently) with IR and WMP being installed by default. What I do have a problem with is not being able to uninstall said apps. If I want to be able to remove an application from my system, I damn well better be able to do it. I can remove quicktime, safari, iTunes, iChat, iPhoto and any other Apple default app (including the finder itself) if I so choose and replace it with another app.

Bundling is not the issue, it's when you bundle it, and then force me to have it that I have an issue.

Re:this is great for music.

[commodoresloat]

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!

Re:this is great for music.

[crackshoe]

I use VLC only when i really have to - i'd rather fire up my windows box and play whatever file here (except for ogg vorbis audio or video files), than try to VLC them on my g5 - it gets stuck on single frames while the audio continues, switches the audio to the optical outputs for no discernable reason, and generally runs poorly. Of course, it doess ogg files just fine, and can usually play avi files quicktime doesn't like (except when it hangs up or shunts the audio to the other outputs). //bitching

Re:this is great for music.

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, do you follow this guy arround [sic] or something? Don't you have anything better to do with your time?

No, I just read all the apple stories at -1 for a good laugh and often enough for me to actually start noticing a pattern, I see T Money replying to some troll or flamebait trying desperately to defend Apple. The funny part is that this is exactly what the trolls want and the main reason most of the trolls post in the apple stories without restraint is because it's so easy to get a rise out of them.

I don't really care... more entertainment for me.

Oh and your little joke about how trolls have no life etc was very clever... I know I haven't heard a comment like that on slashdot before.

Re:this is great for music.

[Anonymous Coward]

replace the word Apple in the previous post with Microsoft and then re-read it

Apple's Documentation

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Apple's Documentation

[Lord Grey]

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.

Re:Apple's Documentation

[Achernar]

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 can really use and from which they can draw ideas and solutions when they have a size limit of, oh say one hundred pages or so.

Engaging and thorough technical writing takes hundreds of pages to pull off correctly. Hundreds of pages are expensive to print, bind, and ship with the product - and time consuming to write, possibly further delaying a product.

I think the Apple community does a great job of making up the difference by creating their own resources and writing their own books. I might even go so far as to say that the lack of "official" documentation has created a nice atmosphere of "let's figure out how this bad boy works" (something a previous poster has already pointed out).

Re:Apple's Documentation

[Achernar]

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?

Re:Apple's Documentation

[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 you try them and learn something. (In fact, that's just what the tutorial recommends in some cases.) No manual needed.

Re:Apple's Documentation

[Maserati]

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).

Re:Apple's Documentation

[jo_ham]

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

[jo_ham]

Apple did think about people's backs though and packaged the install DVDs in paper sleeves to keep the weight down...

No need for heavy plastic boxes!

Re:Apple's Documentation

[arbofnot]

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

[Midnight Thunder]

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

[Dstreelm]

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

[Achernar]

I seem to remember that David Pogue has a Missing Manual series book on Garageband that's scheduled to be released before the spring is over.

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

Perl-to-GarageBand?

[dschuetz]

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...

Re:Perl-to-GarageBand?

[That's Unpossible!]

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

There's a joke in here somewhere about the slashdot effect and Stravinsky but I'm not quite sure what it is.

Re:Perl-to-GarageBand?

[commodoresloat]

There's a joke in here somewhere about the slashdot effect and Stravinsky but I'm not quite sure what it is.

There's an insightful comment in here somewhere about the accessibility of Stravinsky's music and one's ability to find the joke but....

Doh

[pldms]

...and the frequency would be the length of the wave, i.e., wavelength

Nice article, but things like that pain me...

where's the manual?

[sleepypants]

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 one of those steps in the complete development cycle I learned about in my 1st year CS class!!

Re:where's the manual?

[gerardrj]

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?

[Achernar]

...there's no manual to explain how to use the help menu.

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

Re:where's the manual?

[sleepypants]

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?

[MoneyT]

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)

Re:where's the manual?

[rjung2k]

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.

Re:where's the manual?

[MikeXpop]

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.

Forces Programmer changes as well

[Zergwyn]

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.

Re:Forces Programmer changes as well

[commodoresloat]

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 Word 4.0 and Hypercard 2.0, both of which came with my first Macintosh. It's not that either of these programs was difficult to use without a manual but the manual made the experience much richer.

Packs a punch for pennys on the dollar.

[peterdaly]

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

Re:Packs a punch for pennys on the dollar.

[blackmonday]

The amps are actally very usable. There's one lead guitar tone with delay that actually kicks some ass. I don't have the jam pack for the additional amps, but that one tone alone is worth buying iLife for. It's really cool to plug your guitar right into the powerbook line-in port and get an amp sound.

It costs less

[gnugrep]

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.

Re:It costs less

[lavaface]

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?

Re:where's the manual? On the other hand

[borkus]

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 desire nor need that level of documentation. Unfortunately, some third-party manuals are insufficient. On the other hand, good third-party manuals often exceed what you can expect from the software publisher.

Re:Funny how everything changes when it's Apple

[frankie]

Funny how everything changes when it's a monopolist. If Apple controlled 90% (or even 51%) of the OS market, I would be pissed to hell at their abusive bundling. And the DoJ would be prosecuting them (hopefully). Monopoly power makes all the difference.

Manuals only for those who want them

[tverbeek]

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 manual don't have to pay for one to be printed and shipped, and the people who want/need one, will buy one.

GarageBand Tutorial PDFs available

[otterfish]

Go to http://www.apple.com/support/garageband/ :)

Re:Funny how everything changes when it's Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing wrong with bundling. The issue with IE was that it was *integrated* into the operating system, meaning that you had no choice but to have it installed on your Windows system.

Mind you, it was only distributed that way because Microsoft designed it to be. There is no compelling reason to integrate the browser into the OS.

I think it's great when companies throw in extra stuff with the OS. I think it sucks when they give you no option but to install it, or when they design it to break competitors' products (Windows Media Player, anyone?).