advertisement


"Why are there so many knobs in Garage Band?"

Julf

Julf

Facts are our friends
An interesting piece about how user interfaces of audio software are still held back by the attempt to make them feel familiar to people who grew up with analog gear:

https://theoutline.com/post/2157/why-are-there-so-many-knobs-in-garage-band

"Maybe these designs make some musicians feel more comfortable, or more inspired. After all, they hearken back to a time when physically fiddling with knobs and flipping switches was very much a part of making music. But modern music software is designed to work completely “in-the-box”; everything gets made inside the computer without any external hardware. That means there are no wires or sliders involved in making sounds. And especially now that a generation of musicians has been raised on GarageBand and iPads, does it really make sense to cover a piece of software in wood paneling? The rest of computing has moved on from felt and brushed aluminum, and this is getting embarrassing."
 
Interesting that you mention GarageBand and iPads, because I've owned an iPad for ages and it was only recently that wondered "what does this app do?" I can see me having a lot of fun with it!
 
I suspect in a few years people will say why have controls in a car, when the computer can do it all....

Some people like to have control in an analogue way and not leave everything to the cloud full of 0-1.
 
The reason is all these DAWs and plug-ins are virtual copies of real devices. I guess the designers are unwilling to completely reinvent the wheel. I also don't really understand what could be clearer visually than say the mixer channel strip in Logic, it just behaves the way one would expect a channel strip to behave. I can see things like the Butch Vig vocal processor pictured is entirely steam-punk form over function, but most of these devices are just software emulation of real hardware FX etc. It makes sense that they look the same as the real thing and hopefully that the knobs behave in the same way, e.g. if you have a Minimoog, TB-303, TR-808 or whatever plug in setting the knobs the same as the real physical item should give the same sound. It can all get a bit cluttered on a screen, but I can't picture anything more simple. Some stuff is badly designed though, and a most of it is the stuff that isn't based on existing classcs IMO!
 
misterdog said:
I suspect in a few years people will say why have controls in a car, when the computer can do it all....

Some people like to have control in an analogue way and not leave everything to the cloud full of 0-1.
Click to expand...

Sure, analog controls I can agree with, but imitating surface texture of some old gear?
 
Tony L said:
The reason is all these DAWs and plug-ins are virtual copies of real devices. I guess the designers are unwilling to completely reinvent the wheel. I also don't really understand what could be clearer visually than say the mixer channel strip in Logic, it just behaves the way one would expect a channel strip to behave.
Click to expand...

A lot of the old gear was laid out the way it was because of size of components etc, not because of ergonomics.

When "glass cockpits" started replacing mechanical/analog cockpit instruments and controls in airplanes, it wasn't by copying existing mechanical controls - it was by rethinking the actual functions. Having to mouse over a knob to adjust it is not how parameters are adjusted in any other software, so why in audio, except to cater for people who don't want to make the mental adjustment. Makes sense for us old farts, but does it realluy make sense for a generation that has grown up with software instead of hardware?
 
With the exception of emulation (virtual Minimoogs and stuff) I agree in theory, but I've yet to see anything I view as easier to use than say the visual impression of the mixer in Logic, especially if one then uses an iPad as a touch remote controller (Logic Remote app). FWIW as an ex-IT manager I hate skeuomorphism and believe apps should follow standard HIG etc, but in certain very specialist areas such as music, photography etc it is very hard to fit existing user expectations, behaviours and processes into standard interface guidelines. I also think a virtual Minimoog should look and behave as close to the real thing as possible, e.g. Arturia Minimoog plug-in.
 
Not to mention why is an icon of a folder used to represent a sub-directory.. who nowadays has ever seen a folder?! And why call the screen a desktop? It isn't. Since when could you put a short-cut to a filing cabinet on a desktop? And for that matter, why call a short-cut a short-cut?
 
AndyU said:
Not to mention why is an icon of a folder used to represent a sub-directory.. who nowadays has ever seen a folder?! And why call the screen a desktop? It isn't. Since when could you put a short-cut to a filing cabinet on a desktop? And for that matter, why call a short-cut a short-cut?
Click to expand...

The most absurd one I ever experienced was the apple way of ejecting a drive/floppy (back in the day) by dragging it to the trash can...
 
The answer is pretty damn simple, if you're copying a piece of particular kit people expect to see a GUI resembling that piece of kit. Software companies such as Fabfilter and Sound Radix have their own look and GUI that people likewise feel comfortable with.

One of the first pieces of advice given to people dipping their toes into using a DAW is this. "Stop mixing with your eyes, use your ears".

The person who wrote the article should try programming an 80s synth with a LCD screen and 20 characters or likewise, try really delving under the hood of a Lexicon reverb via the tiny LCD screen.

You might as well ask; "Why do s they make Strats and Les Pauls that look like the originals when they could make a guitar that sounds the same of a different shape?". The answer is, because that what the market asks for and it's the same with the GUIs of software.
 
FireMoon said:
The person who wrote the article should try programming an 80s synth with a LCD screen and 20 characters or likewise, try really delving under the hood of a Lexicon reverb via the tiny LCD screen.
Click to expand...

I think his point is precisely that we shouldn't copy those crappy user interfaces that were a result of limitations of the technology of the day...
 
Julf said:
I think his point is precisely that we shouldn't copy those crappy user interfaces that were a result of limitations of the technology of the day...
Click to expand...

They don't copy those particular interfaces, you have a completely different GUI for those sort of emulations, eg loads of knobs or, in the case of the Lexicon, a load of faders.

If there's a true complaint about all DAW software it's a simple one. I don't think a single one of them explains "gain staging" in the accompanying literature.
 
Also worth mentioning that a lot of gear (real or virtual) aimed at musicians/wannabes is designed and marketed with knobs and tweakability in abundance, so that 'you can find your sound.'

Bass amp heads are a case in point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top