I have been a GUI snob

[fieldframe]

What GUI acctually can provide for some, me atleast, is inspiration. Pulling up that nice looking RE can be pretty sweet if you like the looks.
A bit silly maybe but who dont want to have nice looking things around you eh!?

Not silly at all, though I think there's more to it. Inspiring tools don't just look good; the UIs feel good to use and have workflows that guide your mind into thinking about possibilities.

I've found the most inspiring synth for me is Antidote, which is funny because I didn't initially like the way it looked (even though it's competently designed). Its workflow is a near perfect balance of making it easy to quickly dial in a sound, while offering a surprising amount of depth.

[selig]

A bit silly maybe but who dont want to have nice looking things around you eh!?

Not silly at all, though I think there's more to it. Inspiring tools don't just look good; the UIs feel good to use and have workflows that guide your mind into thinking about possibilities.

I've found the most inspiring synth for me is Antidote, which is funny because I didn't initially like the way it looked (even though it's competently designed). Its workflow is a near perfect balance of making it easy to quickly dial in a sound, while offering a surprising amount of depth.

I agree - it’s true “you can’t judge a book by it’s cover”, which sums up what fieldframe says about workflows.

That was my experience with the first McDSP products. They were not “pretty” at all, but the workflow turned out to be absolutely awesome IMO. But I had to give them a chance, which I almost didn’t due to being initially turned off. Turns out Colin was better at device design than making them look pretty. The UI, great as it was, just wasn’t all that “attractive” to look at IMO.

It’s also true that if you’re not “pretty”, you have to try harder to make a good impression. So ideally and in a perfect world, both are important. But if the workflow isn’t there (and possibly even more importantly the sound quality), then the “look” and even the feature list become much less important IMO. The last thing I want is a great looking device with few features, poor sound quality, and a horrible workflow - despite it’s good looks, you’ll never get any meaningful work accomplished with it.


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

[Marco Raaphorst]

that's what I like about Ableton Live. not trying to mimic hardware. it's flat 2D but I know many people who hate it.

[dioxide]

I still am a bit of a UI snob. There is a lot of duplication in devices and effects, so I can afford to skip some things even if they sound good. There are often several good options, and what I already have is good enough most of the time. A bad GUI is enough to put me off and stop me demoing it. I can make good sounding music with what I have and few devices are unique.

[gullum]

not a real GUI snob but if the demos on the RE page don't sound good I won't even try it so I guess I'm a sound snob then

[PinkSlime]

The zero point in GUI are the airwindows vst plugins. All free, really love this guy the time he takes to make and explain them

http://www.airwindows.com/

Great for saturation and all sorts of non linearities but no GUI I could not load them up directly in Reason without using a wrapper (I use PM Chainer).

[Faastwalker]

Yes it's fucking important to have a decent GUI.

[Marco Raaphorst]

listening with your eyes

[FLVZ]

The zero point in GUI are the airwindows vst plugins. All free, really love this guy the time he takes to make and explain them

http://www.airwindows.com/

Great for saturation and all sorts of non linearities but no GUI I could not load them up directly in Reason without using a wrapper (I use PM Chainer).

I think this is what some REs lack in the shop. A guy sat there nerding away and illustrating uses of his devices in comparison to stock ones. Its one thing to say "where only harmonics that don't alias distort" and its another to actually show what you mean because some people may not even know what that means.

[BRIGGS]

Who wants to look at something that is ugly?

[Marco Raaphorst]

Who wants to look at something that is ugly?

You've not seen my guitars and pedals, did you?

[selig]

Who wants to look at something that is ugly?

It’s really not that simple. When something grant’s your wish, you begin to see the inner beauty. That’s what I mean by (paraphrasing) a lacking front panel needs to hide some amazing functionality.

I always hated the DX7 look, the Rhodes Chroma was not a “looker”, I used a Yamaha mixer (and others) for years that never won me over, never thought my Ensonic EPS or Matrix 6 or DX 8-16 rack or K2000 was all that attractive on any level, my first impression of the Lexicon PCM 70 was that it wasn’t finished (saw a pre-release first), the EMT “R2D2” reverb, Fairchild, 3M 32 track, Vocal Stresser, Urie monitors, JBL “butt” speakers, KRK E8, all left me turning away at first look (and loving them for years to come).

I could go on and on, but I’ve made some amazing music with those ugly tools over the years.


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

[Rick75]

This idea that music is all about the sound is pretentious nonsense. I don't care what the music sounds like. If it looks cool on-screen with bad ass virtual devices with awesome looking faders, controls and displays then it's cool as shit. It's even more awesome if the guy who made it has a sleeve tattoo. That's a fact.
Look guys I know what I'm talking about, I receive Allihoopa promotional emails and have learned all about what makes great music. I've seen their stock photos which have educated me that any tune sounds much better in front of a graffitied subway train especially if the composer has a random tuft of blue hair down covering one eye or an interesting shape shaved into the side of their head.
You might get away with producing music looking like a nerd on an ancient DAW with no whistles and bells but in those isolated cases, everyone would find those guys a lot more awesome if they made everything look better. Next time you're composing, try publishing it with some edgy photos because frankly that will make everything about your music more alluring and ultimately better.

[antic604]

Who wants to look at something that is ugly?

It’s really not that simple. When something grant’s your wish, you begin to see the inner beauty. That’s what I mean by (paraphrasing) a lacking front panel needs to hide some amazing functionality.

This idea that music is all about the sound is pretentious nonsense. I don't care what the music sounds like. If it looks cool on-screen with bad ass virtual devices with awesome looking faders, controls and displays then it's cool as shit. It's even more awesome if the guy who made it has a sleeve tattoo. That's a fact.

I don't think anyone in this thread said they won't use wonderfully sounding and/or innovative device, because it's ugly. What we - at least I - mean, is that how the device looks plays big factor in whether or not we're interested in buying it if there are equal alternatives and also with how inspired we are when using it.

Example? When possible I prefer to use REs instead of VSTs, so when I've learned about existence of Ochen K's Carve EQ Ducker that does what Wavespacer VST does I immediately wanted to buy it. But then I saw how it looks:



I mean it's not ugly or anything, but it doesn't fit at all in the Rack with everything else - it's made to look like a swollen, bulgy, chrome device with those ridiculous, etched knobs that I imagine you'd have to operate with a screwdriver?! I think Props have some guidelines on how REs should look like and I guess it's along the way "realistic, but stylised" and I don't know how Carve passed this... So in the end I decided not to get it, because I can use Trackspacer VST or even build my own with Audio-to-CV and some EQ or compressor.

It's similar with many Turn2On devices, which - functionally - are awesome, but somehow I can't make myself buy them. To make matters worse, they usually end up in one of two extremes:

- either their devices look a bit drab and boring:





- or they're too eclectic and chaotic (in terms of design, not functionality):





So I won't be getting them, because I have alternatives that more or less do the same and look better.

[Rick75]

I don't think anyone in this thread said they won't use wonderfully sounding and/or innovative device, because it's ugly.

They did and they're right - and I'm with them.

[BRIGGS]

I have zero problems with Reason's stock devices.

How about if rack extensions looked more like Reason's stock devices?

[hurricane]

Not an RE but dammit - I fell for the pretty face + cheap price again.

$9 and it looks good (I don't like the wooden sides though)

fazortan2.png (957.66 KiB) Viewed 1219 times

[antic604]

$9 and it looks good

Where is it for $9?

[bik44]

$9 and it looks good

Where is it for $9?

It is upgrade price for old Fazortan.


Wysłane z iPhone za pomocą Tapatalk