Is it just me...
From the original Analog Industries archive. Some links and images from that era no longer resolve.
…or do all the new Native Instruments plugs look like they were made in Reaktor? Obviously, it’s wise for a company to have a common look/feel amongst its products, something we’ve been struggling at with the AD line since the beginning.
There are two schools of thought to plug-in UI design. I, of course, am of the firm opinion that if there’s a real-world analog for a particular plug-in, the plug-in should look exactly like the real-world device. This solves two problems. First, a customer can tell what a product does just by looking at a screenshot. Even with a small screenshot of Reverence, it’s pretty obvious as to what it’s all about, and we don’t have to spend much time explaining it. Second, the customer already knows how to use the product as soon as he installs it, and the only reason he’d have to consult the manual would be for a technical explanation of a feature, or to learn how to use any “secret” things we’ve added.
When something looks like FM7, you know what it is, what it does, what it sounds like, and how to use it from the git-go. When something looks like FM8, given the screenshot above, at the _very_ least you have to read a couple paragraphs of liturature to even figure out what it is in the first place, never mind whether it’s something you need or not. The only thing you can really tell for certain is that it’s a synth, and it probably uses FM.
These are just my opinions. Your mileage, as always, may vary. I already know that there is a fairly even split between people that prefer modern UIs versus those that prefer the hardware look. I wouldn’t turn down some thoughts on the matter, if you feel like typing them out.
43 comments
I personally prefer user interfaces that don't try too hard to emulate 'real world' user interfaces, as often much of the benefit of a real world interface is in its tactile feel - something which isn't carried over into software. Just because something looks like a real world item doesn't mean that it feels the same to use.
Also, given that I don't have a long history with actual hardware, I'd personally prefer something that takes into consideration the added flexibility that a software UI can provide (ie. displaying only certain controls based on context, inline help, etc). There's a reason, after all, why word processors don't require you to draw out letters on a virtual piece of paper. It's all to possible to be too constrained to real world concepts.
Of course, if you're marketing to people who have all kinds of experience with this hardware in their studios - as you seem to be - basing your UI on real hardware actually does make some sense. It's sub-optimal for newbies like me, but then again people like me are probably not where you're making any money. :)
Just my 2c...
- Jeff
First, lemme bitch about Reaktor. I've had so many problems dealing with many of Reaktor's synths that I've given up trying to program them. Take a look at Carbon 2, for example. Despite having "been optimized for maximum usability," everything's abbreviated and hard to read. The addition of different groups of tabs makes things harder to find than need be. Keep in mind, I program Kawai additive synths using Excel spreadsheets to calculate harmonics.
Unlike some Reaktor synths, FM8 looks like it will be pretty easy to get around. I notice there are no screenshots of the "Attributes" or "Expert" screens, though. I don't know about you guys, but if I'm going to buy an FM synth I want to see the FM screens. I don't need to see the fuckin' tube effects they included to "warm things up." Besides, if I wanted warm would I even use FM? Gotta give NI some pri-zops for moving away from the emulations into some new territory, though.
One new-type synth that really got it right is MOTU's MX4. Its so clearly laid out that I had oodles of patches programmed lickety-split, without a manual. Those cats really got it right. Native Instruments, on the other hand, may have lost the plot a bit.
From the product page: "[easy edit page blah blah blah]. The synthesizer is however equally suited to experts in the field: operator details and the full range of advanced, editable parameters are all available and accessible within a vastly improved hierarchy." So there's still detailed edit screens.
I think FM is something that does not necessarily benefit from looking like the hardware, but I like the look of FM7 much better. It's idiosyncratic, rather than the bland and generic look of the new one.
But I really like Logic's FM synth too, not just because of its simplicity but because it gives the most important parameters big huge knobs. That's an example of "modern" design working out well.
Nice topic.
As a designer myself, I've always been a big believer in making the form enhance the function. The problem with this is that in some cases (particularly with softwareUI design it seems) the function can be a bit fuzzy. Is it supposed to -a: Sell the product, b: Make the product easy to use immediately, or c: Provide lot's of usability and depth in the long term?
It's gotta do all of those things, and it has to do the last two within the structure of a predesigned meta-UI (the computer, OS, etc.). Frankly I don't think FM7 (or various other hardware clones) did that very well. Sometimes cloning the hardware UI just doesn't make sense. Imagine if you and Adam were cloning the Eventide Eclipse (yes, I know how ridiculous that is). You'd be fools to implement that interface in software.
That being said, the stuff you guys have done has all really lent itself to immitating the hardware UI.
And for what it's worth, I think that while there are still some problems areas, both VemberAudio's Surge, and Ableton Live do some very cool stuff in the area of UI.
I think one reason I always liked Ableton Live is because it's built around providing the optimum computer UI, recognizing the computer as the actual piece of hardware you're using. Similarly the reason I can't stand Reason is because it's the opposite - it's built to emulate a hardware rack, with dangling cords and everything. Who wants dangling cords both on AND offscreen? Maybe some of you do, but I've learned everything on the computer rather than hardware. But as long as the UI is intuitive and fast, no matter what it looks like at first, it's great. Branding comes second. Coolness third.
I agree with you completely on the NI interface design on the new plugs. I think it's worthy of mentioning another reason why real-world look-alikes can be a great benefit. It's somewhat more subtle but quite powerful; a real-world-referential gui helps evoke the emotional state and mindset the user had and felt when twiddling with the physical device. Especially for instruments, but also for effects that's a pretty big deal when it comes to creativity.
The new NI plugs, with FM8 the best (or worst) example, lacks that soul. They should've made it look like the DX7/FM7, even if different in details. Just keeping the color scheme would've helped alot.
It really depends on the software I suppose. I appreciate when a UI really capture the flavor of hardware, and it gives me, a neophyte with limited studio exposure, at least the appearance of experiencing the intended schematic of the synth/effect. impOSCar, VintageWarmer, 914 FFF, et cetera, I find these not only interesting to look at but inspiring to work with. And its cool to see how devs add new features without breaking the flow of the emulation. However, sometimes its nice to see a product throw off the constrictions of hardware and find a new approach. For me, this is a hit or miss affair: sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Though it's always weird when hybrid instruments are shoe-horned into pseudo-hardware interfaces.
But FM8? Feh. I'm getting a little tired of this washed, beveled and embossed look that seems to be all the rage. It's all over the web, but is becoming the UI go-to trick these days. It was inviting back with XPhrase, but this looks like it was modeled on a marshmallow. Actually, it looks like it was modeled on a plastic controller. (And as someone on KvR pointed out, wouldn't it make more sense for it to have *8* operators? Not sure what good it would do, but it makes more sense.)
I'm not sure I like this direction of NI, this convergence of all their plugs into one unified suite of all-but interchangeable interfaces. I like some personality in my plugs.
The DX-7 has one of the worst UI's ever, why emulate it? The DX-200 software based editor has a "classic mode" which lets you pretend you're working on a DX-7, and it is perversely difficult compared to the main "show me everything" editor. FM synthesis is arcane, and the more you can see, the better your chances are at making out what's going on. At the very least, graphical envelopes help a great deal.
There are plenty of synths I can think of that you would not want to make into a photorealistic VSTi... obvious choice, the Matrix1000. Or any of the Roland synths that had external hardware programmers. (well, in this case, I guess you could emulate the programmer). What about the DSI evolver, or Waldorf pulse? - why would you emulate a matrix style programmer? There is a reason that Sounddiver has made a fortune... most synths (starting with the DX-7) have cheap-ass user interfaces that are madening to program! Even effects boxes benefit from software interfaces - like my old Quadraverb.
just my $0.02
I appreciate both types of design but the people who hate the hardware look seldom offer any real innovation in its place. Even the flat vectory looking interfaces still use the concept of a knob or slider. Where is the crime in providing a little extra light and shadow to really differentiate the knob from the background? I think the people who are opposed to 3d interfaces are on a misguided crusade that has some truth at its core but fails to separate the useability issues from the purely aesthetic issues. Take Live for example. The usability would probably be the same or similar if it used photorealistic knobs instead of flat fields of color and yet Ableton made a glaring design flaw in not allowing users to freely move windows around. You can't even use the mixer and the main timeline simultaneously! But thank god it's nice and minimal on the surface :)
I like a GUI as long as it is easy to use and isn't too awful to look at. Beyond that, I'm pretty easy.
I just can't abide by cluttered crap that is awkward to use, hurts my eyes, or requires me to remember many mystery-key combinations to actually get anything done.
I kind of like the look of FM8, it's very tidy. But yes, it is all very Reaktor factory looking.
Obviously, in a situation like a DX7 clone, or the Eclipse mentioned above, or whatever, you're going to need to break out the menus in to their own panes. That goes without saying.
I think Ableton did (and continues to do) a fanstastic job on the graphics of their product. But they're not emulating anything. The layout is a different issue, and I agree with nousrnm inasmuch as there are some odd decisions, especially if you run two monitors like I do. I'd prefer Live to be like all other DAWs, where I can have the arrange in one monitor and the mixer in the other. But that's just me. Obviously, Ableton does fine without my input, so I won't offer it.
What I'm saying in my initial post is that the new crop of NI products don't provide any visual enlightenment to what the product actually does. Even if it's a modern take. They're just flat and they look cheap. Perhaps in real life they're not so.
For plugs that have no analog in the analog, I look to the synths in Logic and MOTU. They're extremely well laid-out, and the design is top-notch. I don't do our synths like that because that sort of thing is far beyond my graphics expertise. Doing something _real_ in 3DS Max is no problem for me, but I don't have the Photoshop Chops to pull off Structure or Model 12. If I did, all our products would look like that, because I feel that style is the best compromise between visual inspiration and the computer environment. It just looks fucking pro, basically.
But, seriously, would Dubstation be as fun if it didn't look like it does, and looked like Logic's TapeDelay instead? I doubt it. The visual side is just as important.
-CR
Lets break it down. FM8's cooler than thou gray on white scheme is fucking difficult to read, full stop. They're trying too hard to be hip... to stand out... for the sake of... standing out. I'm starting to feel their marketing department is making the decisions. "Make it not toooo 3D," they say. "That's what's hot." Now, I own FM7 and both sound sets. I'm not happy its already been dropped from NI's site. Its not Universal. FM8 is. Ergo, I MUST update. I don't like getting strong-armed by the software mafia.
As has been previously stated, EFM1 is kinda tight and Apple could tear shit up on the next release. Look at Sculpture, por ejemplo. Damn, NI might have to lick my left nut on this one. Fact is, the FS1R DOES have 8 operators and a distortion effect that makes the FM8 sound like some wise-crackin' Fred Flintstone monkey on a treadmill type 'o' shit.
One more thing. A tech from Roland never came over to my house and disabled my Jupiter 8 'cause I wouldn't buy a Jupiter 9... or a Bahn Sage.
It's also worth noting that it can easily go the other way, too:
http://www.sonicprojects.ch/stringer/
That's an excellent example of why the UI is just as, if not more, important than the audio stream that results. Wouldn't that plug _sound_ better if it looked like a vintage string synth instead of some MS Paint version of a PPG? I hate to say it, but yes, it would.
Or take Kantos. I know for a fact that Antares spent almost exactly twice as much money advertising Kantos as Audio Damage grossed in 2005. I don't know the exact sales figures, but it is one of the most spectacular failures ever, as far as audio software sales go.
The reason for this failure? I'll give you a hint: it had nothing to do with how the plugin sounds, which is excellent, or what it does, which is something unique and quite usable.
-CR
I like both, as both schools of UI can serve to appease different creative moods that I might be in at any given time. I'm grateful for the variety.
I say, build a DX7 emulation, and i'll buy it in a heartbeat.
Thats not the case with FM8 though.
I agree, Chris, if a plugin is visually attractive, it is more fun to use.
But, I'm not always sure that looking like the hardware you are emulating is a good thing. In the csae of digital synths form the 80s, how many ugly dark grey interfaces with crappy LCD screens do we really want to see, no matter how expertly modelled?
For what it's worth, I think the cell-shaded look is very cool and under-utilized. I don't know why more devs/companies take advantage of that.
I'm confused by ecallender's comments. I own FM7 also. It still works. Nobody's forcing you to upgrade to FM8, AFAIK--unless you want a UB version. Speaking directly from personal experience, doing a UB version is not always a straightforward process. It really depends upon how the previous version was built. In some instances, if the company is considering a new version anyway, it makes good biz sense to not do a UB revision of the current version but to just move ahead to the next version.
Hardware (usually) has a longer lifespan than software. 'Tis the nature of the beast. OTOH most software is not made "obsolete" by its maker. It is rendered obsolete by changes in the operating system or the hardware upon which it runs.
Or, putting it another way, it's not NI's fault that Apple made a bad choice in CPU manufacturers many years ago, finally had to switch, and now you've decided to switch also. If you don't want to be forced into paying for UB upgrades, don't buy an Intel Mac.
--Adam
I think realistic interfaces work well on smaller interfaces like plugins. With a full screen app like a DAW all the extra graphic touches required complicate the view too much and make it harder to read. I would love to use Live as my DAW, if it was up to the task, just because the screen is so easy to read.
I really like all of my AD plugs and I think the unique look is a part of that - they just look, and are, fun to use.
For me there's a threshold where it becomes more important to ditch the 'real world' look, that threshold one of functional complexity.
I tried Arturias Modular, and that 'real world' vibe didn't improve the experience, the fake wood and dangly cables seemed to make it more difficult to use rather than less. While at the simpler level of a mini-moog the GUI emulation is OK.
The history of the trends are interesting:
Some of the old (1990s) rack samplers and synths suffered greatly from 'through the letterbox' programming, meanwhile, old analogue mono synths seemed comparitively easy to program. It's old news but - the emergence of VA was as much about reclaiming those abandoned interfaces as it was about the sounds.
So, now for many people 'emulation is always best' , even when the item being copied was a "through the letterbox" synth or rack, one of the ones which drove the movement to retro-emulation!
To my mind there are key things about 3d and 2.5d interfaces we can mostly agree on : some depth simulation helps our primate spatial location and that emulating 'known' interfaces increases the speed of recognition.
Having said that - the simplicity of a vector interface has much to commend it. So I think the blend of vector simplicity with a little drop-shadow goodness and of-course recoginizable GUI elements. But also to add new items if they are more apt than a 1970's patchbay!
As an example of a 2.5d interface - Zebra2 has a few good qualities, although I think the contrast is poor and I dont like the zebra stripes
http://createdigitalmusic.com/gallery/d/3047-1/zebra2.jpg
the patching there seems infinately preferable to a dangly cable emulation.
I agree with that, although I like the visual feedback of a matrix or something. Dropdowns for patching are kind of a drag. I think Urs' UIs are some of the best in the business, for sure. As I said, if I had the graphics skill, I would do stuff like that, instead of how we do it.
Ultimately, at least as far as Audio Damage goes, we make what I can do well, which is the 3D ones. Even Reverence and 914 are done entirely in 3DS Max, even though they are flat-on. You can always tell plugin UIs that were done in 3DS Max or Maya, because the shadows on the knobs are different for each knob. If you look at Reverence, or the URS products, or the UIs of the plugs in Duende, you'll note that each knob has its own shadow, pointing away from a common light source. If someone just did a single knob in a 3D program, but built the rest of the UI in Photoshop, all the knobs have the same shadow.
(Note: for those curious, I do the "silkscreen" lettering in Photoshop, then import it in to 3DS Max as a texture.)
In any case, I think that most everyone here agrees that for simple shit (single-purpose effects) the 3D or "hardware" UI is the prefered method, and for complicated multi-pane shit, something with a modern, yet artistic look (like the MOTU and Logic synths) is best. Does that seem to be a consensus?
-CR
I like my emulations to look like the real thing so in that respect I find FM8 dissapointing.
Honestly if I get another FM synth I'll get Ableton's Operator to complement my FM7 (aka not upgrade to FM8).... pricewise it makes more sense too.
Native Instrument's has been a little dissapointing to me lately. I think Kore is rediculous. They had a lot of great innovative product but most of them now have competitors that one up each one.
No shit. I've been a professional musician since the 80s, and using technology all that time. That by way of saying I'm quite comfortable using computers with music, since I've been doing it for a fifth of a century. But I find both Kore and Kontakt to be completely inpenetrable. I can't figure out the purpose of the former for the life of me, and the latter makes so little sense as to be completely useless. Halion, while being a far less sophisticated product, is much more like what the fuck you'd expect a sample player to do.
(And make no mistake, hardly any of the products called "samplers" these days are.)
Basically, it comes to this: someone in charge of Native Instruments has gone insane.
-CR
for me, its all down to feel. the feel of the UI when i move knobs around.
i love absynth and battery, but i hate feel. i like Reverence and RatShack's feel, but i find DubStation and the 914filter not as good, as far as knob feel...
to continue on that very subjective thought and my bad english...
i personnaly like the feel of Logic s faders, and hate the DP one. Maybe it s just a matter of microsecond reaction, but when you work everyday with these tools, it becomes a bit of a pita and i tend to go the plugs with better feel, rather than the most sophisticated plugs...
btw, offtopic but: Chris, i'm sure AudioDamage would make a KILLER bit reduction/sound destroyer...but do you have a recommendation? (MAC OS X AU)
aK
Of course, this whole debate about FM8 assumes that it's still supposed to be a DX7 emulation. What if it's just supposed to be NI's new take on FM synthesis? Does not looking like a DX7 really matter then?
My recommendation is to wait for Master Destrukto 2, the sequel to our sound destroyer that sported bit reduction, sample-rate reduction, and other fun WMDs. :-)
Kidding aside, though, we do talk about doing such a thing sooner or later. If anybody has any particular desires about a sound-destroying plug-in, it wouldn't hurt to jot them down here or send us a message directly. You can take all of the features of Master Destrukto as a given.
--Adam
Adam, if you could figure out the Lo-Fi effect on the SP-1200 you would be a king among the rest of the coders.
Heres a loop I presume went through the emu processor from the first quasimoto album
http://www.soundarc.net/music/AxePuzzle.aiff
god damn thats warm and fuzzy. ive heard from several zealots it will be impossible to do this with software correctly but since the 1200 was digital through and through I dont see why not.
Fm8 looks like a it borrows GUI from Live and the Korg Wavestation plug ...and fuck yeah it looks like its created in Reaktor. My Two cents..whether it looks like hardware or its Robo-copped the fuck out I'm all for it as long as it doesnt take too much time away from actually creating music. Alot of Reaktor ensembles for instance sound good but how far buried is the ADSR?? Slightly off topic but slightly relative ..the Korg Karma (just picked one up for practically pennies on craigslist)who the fuck has time to learn that cryptic Karma function when it cuts in to precious creativity time. Some muthafuckaz just wanna play and some dont mind programing.
And a Lofi bit reduction effect by AD sounds great.
D-pole does the bit reduction thingy well and brings me eargasms when I get that harmonic-like hum when the LPF and bit reduction knobs are low as fuck and some chunky bassline is going through it.
Knock our socks off..may the force be with you! And please noone break my balls about owning a Karma around here.It was a price too low to refuse.
No ball-busting from here: I'd buy a Karma if I found one for cheap.
--Adam
Chris-
First off, I am SO with ya on Kore... it's one of those products that boldly answers the question no one asked. Yuck!
But getting back to the topic... here's my 2 cents: I can program sounds like gangbusters on ES2, because it's really simple (except for all the vector madness). I also use Pro-53 a lot, and HATE the wee knobs that make it look so nice. But I was lucky enough to get me a real Prophet-5 recently, and, to state the obvious, it's real life big chunky knobs are wonderful. I can program that thing REALLY fast (of course the lack of mousing is biggest reason).
So... the tiny imitation Prophet interface doesn't help much. When confronted with a complicated synth, give me optimized computer efficiency (in pretty colors though). I'm pretty sure I like the real Prophet better because the of sound that comes out of it too...
mitchell
Knobs on GUI do have different feel( or I need to put the mouse down and get out more) but I know what ya mean with the wee knobs...URS BLT EQ and Korg MS-20 vst have very nice knobs ...smooth chunky feel...I know, they are not the real deal ,not hardware..etc..but figured just throw it out there while on the topic of GUI. Anyone remember (or man enough to admit remembering)the Rebirth mods in like 97-98ish..some interesting GUI, some shitty and really fucking fly. I admit looks have a play on creativity and I guess motivation for some(otherwise HCGPF wouldnt exist)but looking at a really bright GUI just plain can be harsh on the eyes. Have a look at the rebirthmuseum screenshots..
http://www.rebirthmuseum.com/downloads/mods/img/l-sidstation.jpg
http://www.rebirthmuseum.com/downloads/mods/img/l-minimod.jpg
Hi Chris,
i was involved in developing the FM7 and i criticized the DX7 look of the FM7 often in this time (and also afterwards). My fear was, that the people will take a look at it and say: "oh, it's a DX7 clone", but in my opinion the FM7 is a sophisticated FM7-Synth that has the feature to import DX7 sounds. And when i read the passage
"When something looks like FM7, you know what it is, what it does, what it sounds like, and how to use it from the git-go. When something looks like FM8, given the screenshot above, at the _very_ least you have to read a couple paragraphs of liturature to even figure out what it is in the first place, never mind whether it's something you need or not. The only thing you can really tell for certain is that it's a synth, and it probably uses FM."
i think my fear was justified and the new look of the FM8 is the correct way.
And depending Kore: Of course it's not a tool for everybody, but i (will) play live with a laptop and i really hated the interaction that was needed with the laptop between the tracks and really love the possiblity to put the laptop in a closed state at the ground and do all the interaction via the kore-controller on my masterkeyboard. For my, this feature alone justify the existence of Kore, especially in combination with the high-resolutin knob. But of course i'm biased concerning NI products (i love also Kontakt ;-) ).
Wow, a NI guy in our very midst. How 'bout that. :-)
I can see your point re the DX7 look of FM7. I hadn't thought about that before, but you're right, FM7 is much more than a DX7 and to present it in a way that makes people think it's a DX7 clone is selling it short. That said, I've always found the FM7 interface pleasant to look at and work with, and one has to wonder whether it would have made as large an impact in the market upon its debut if it looked like, say, FM8 rather than reminding people of a very famous piece of hardware. I will reserve judgement regarding FM8 until I purchase it and have spent some time with it.
I love Kontakt also, FWIW, but it has been well established that Chris and I have different brains. OTOH I'm not convinced re Kore either. If the point is to turn a laptop into a hardware synth, why not just take a hardware synth to the gig?
Cheers--
--Adam
Because a laptop is much more flexible then any hardware synth on the market (okay, Receptor would be a possible solution, but i have a laptop anyway, why should i buy an additional computer?).
i only care what sound comes out of the software , i could care less what it looks like
Xmuzik - I call bullshit. How software looks affects how you use it and thus, what sounds comes out. If you just use presets or modify them slightly, then it doesn't really matter, but if you create your own sounds then the user interface is a big deal.
inasilentway: "...if you create your own sounds then the user interface is a big deal." that may be true for you but i don't think your argument works as a general truth. max/msp, audiomulch, pd, and supercollider all to some degree defy your point.
while i enjoy a nice ui, whats important is the results, at least for the music i make. i agree that "how software looks affects how you use it..." because, well that seem rather obvious. but i don't see how how it looks definitively equals "what sounds comes out." i mean if we're talking simply about what tools are visually presented, then yes in most cases this is accurate...there are plenty of sound tools that don't look pretty, not all is made readily available by the main ui or menu's, etc.
i mean maybe you speak for most people and i've stated i enjoy i nice clean ui but i'm lookin for sound results. so i'm not sure what Xmusik's exact point of his post was but i'm afraid i'm apart of the "bullshit" crew according to your post.
i know the sounds i want, i then find an app, plug, or go down the route of making the tool that will make sound. fortunately there's so many great tools out there for us sound designer's, but they're not all pretty ;)
I think the only reason I get as much mileage out of Kontakt as I do is because it lends itself to a particular workflow which is useful for sound design (it has little to do with the UI and more to do with the conceptual heirarchy of things).. For sampler UI's I'd have to say on one end I think that if Applemagic ever update the EXS24 to a new version it will likely look the business. That's another way of saying that I completely agree on Logic looking 'Pro".
For MOTU however I'd have to say that imho <a href=" http://www.motu.com/products/software/machfive/images/machfive_full1.jpg " target="_blank">Mach5's UI</a> sucks. It's nice & eye candy in screenshots but there's SO much space given up to the details that the rest of it feels a tad cramped. Text fields, waveform displays etc definitely benefit from having more focus than they do there. MOTU did a decent job on their later devices though, the smoothness and eye candy didn't take up as much of the UI's canvas.
I also agree that dropdown routing isn't ideal. I think that a mix of Fm7's fixed mod matrix combined with the flexible Albino/z3ta/BLUE/etc style would be rather nice if done properly (think RME's totalmix with its matrix view on the x key).
To the FM7/NI poster: I understand reservations about people not seeing the full-potential as an FM synth because its UI too closely held to the synth from which it was derived. But even those of us who are not synth gurus only needed a little playing to see the depth of the synth. There is nothing wrong with users being able to pull up a plug and say, Yeah, I know how this works. But everything the user read, from the manual to the reviews & how-tos in glossy Brit gear porn, showed how much more there was to the plugin. When the UI actually detracts from the usibility of synth and forces devs to hide features in drop-down menus and convoluded layout in order to adhere to some old hardware derived model, then by all means chuck it out. But throwing out a decent & logical interface because it might limit people from seeing the more advanced features is not necessarily a better solution.
We're still talking about a paged-interface, a fixed matrix, and EZ-edit page. Yes, there were a lot of new features to get in there, but was it the button design and color-scheme that was preventing that from happening? As it stands, FM7 went from being a cleverly designed, hardware-modeled synth that had a unique look (for software), to another in a growing list of plugins that does a lot of things and has no special look that sets it apart from other FM contenders.
actuel - I do take your point that the look doesn't matter as much as the layout, I misinterpreted the previous poster's comments. Max/MSP wouldn't work with a UI like most soft synths, because of its open nature. I was referring more towards software that is prebuilt by a company for a specific purpose, i.e. subtractive or FM synthesis.
While the look does not indeed affect the sounds that you create, it has an impact on your experience using the software. Pro-53 is probably my most-used subtractive synth because I love the layout and look so much. I've opened Logic's ES1 a few times and it was just hideous, so I never use it, even though the layout's not too bad the screaming green just irritates me. I'm sure it sounds great but I'm not interested.
here's my 2 Yen's worth:
I have no hardware synths any more, no room for em, but I did actively choose to get a Mackie C4 because there just are not enough screens in my budget to make all the little bits of soft synths and FX easily visible to me. The more cluttered any interface is, the less likely I'm going to spend enough time hunched near the screens to setup the hardware for it. So my point is less UI cruft and visible controls are good.
The FM8 looks visible, but that mini KB and wheels is just cruft IMNSHO.
Okay, in the rather unlikely event that someone's still paying attention to this thread: I got my upgrade to FM8 yesterday. I haven't had a chance to do much besides rattle through some presets and glance through the various UI pages, but I can say that the new UI is better than the old one. The color choices, while not reminiscent of old Yamaha hardware, are generally easier to look at. The way parameters are displayed is more clear. The multi-envelope display is very nice. All in all it's a definite improvement over FM7. It also sounds better, at least as far as the presets reveal. So far I'm quite pleased with it, and I'm not easily pleased by soft synths.
Something that's funny about this, though, is that all of the screenshots used for marketing purposes--on the NI website, on the product box itself--are of the "Easy" pages. These pages are not the strongest bits of UI design in the program; it's not until you get into the detailed programming pages that you start to appreciate the differences. The Easy pages are kind of sparse; it's not apparent why there's so much empty space. The answer to that is that the non-Easy pages are much more complicated so they need the room. I don't know why NI didn't want to show the world what they've done with the detailed programming pages. I can only guess that the marketing department decided that their target buyers are kind of stupid and would be intimidated by images of actual envelope curves or something.
Someone commented about the keyboard being a waste of space: you can hide it if you don't like it. I think you can do that in FM7 also.
--Adam
Comments are closed on this post.