I have to say that the soft synths I enjoy the most look like hardware. Pro52 gives me a warm feeling when it loads up onto the screen while Reaktor is just sort of there. I want to buy Jungllist for the look alone while the modern, digital look of some new VSTi’s do nothing for me. My favorite feature of Reason is sticking things in the rack and playing with the patch cords. Maybe this is an effect of 20+ years of gear lust. Do you care if the interface of your virtual instruments and effects look like hardware?

Robert

I think that's 'cause some of us grew up with hardware only and there's some kind of strange nostalgia in it somewhere. I like both. I really only care if everything's clear and readable...and the knobs are smooth....

Hardware look, with some software only GUI features. Vintage Warmer is a sexy looking plug-in, I dig the simplicity of the Timeworks Compressor (though the contrast could be a lot better). I'm not one to need too much visual stuff going on, I don't need to, and would rather not see compression curves and whatnot as I'd rather mix with my ears not my eyes. Though I do love being able to see EQ curves, and what the frequencies are doing. It depends on the plug I guess, for instance I don't want Reverb to look like a hardware box, but I do want my compressor to look that way. As far as synths I don't care as long as they're cool, and look good, I never really used much hardware in that area.

cant really see any FUNCTIONAL point in vst stuff looking like hardware [though i can understand it from an emotional / aesthetic viewpoint] . . .

vst stuff IS software so imho it should look like it . . .

and i appreciate function over form if the effect / instrument is complex . . .

what i think are good software looking guis . . .

crystal
dr008
all the ohmforce stuff [funky skins]
z3ta+
energyPRO

. . . cheers rob

When I first got into computer music I wanted everything to be a perfect hardware emulation, to help build my confidence in this relatively new medium; Nowadays I'm a lot more open minded.

At night (when I do most of my music making) I do find darker guis such as FM7, more relaxing on the eyes.

I don't give a toss. I've owned some of the most ugly looking instruments/fx ever (roland mt-32- clock radio with lcd display, cheetah sx 16- errmmm me vs the machine with lots of buttons, JHS mini echotex- its black and the wrong size for a rack, Fostex r-8 (i think its called that, its in the cupboard, can't be arsed looking), hmmm, its black/grey again) etc etc

not to mention all the geetar fx I've owned and broken over the years (do 'frontline' still make those shite pedals? )

Loads of my fave fx plugs have no gui (simanalog, choirus2, all the MDa stuff) but if I was to say which is the best looking plug in it would have to be the olde machine of Cheeeeeze (and I can't argue with reason either)

I hope VST instruments get more creative with visuals. There are several types of synthesis that lend themeselves to traditional looks but as the types of synthesis change and new ideas on making music develop the reality is the interface should reflect whatever the designer finds functional for the design they make.

In the hardware world, don't a lot of the alternative controllers appeal to some of you? Wouldn't you buy them if they were inexpensive? My need for a keyboard is frequently unnecessary, an alternative controller could be vastly superior not to mention bringing accessability to some people with disabilities.

Solid body guitars were developed along with pickups that were capable of reducing hum when the guitar became more important in jazz orchestras and popular music of the 40's and 50's. In terms of guitar history 50 some odd years of guitars is a fraction of the instrument's history as synthesizers are to keyboards and as software is to hardware synthesis. Design changes to follow function.

I guess that I dont really care too much what they look like... except for Sonic Synth cant stand the Red

As long as they are easy to get around in and not too small

Either way works just fine for me...as long as the design doesn't get in the way of the thing's actual usability!

I think the most important thing in one VSTi's GUI is functionality and I must say most of the VSTi's which try to resemble a hardware synth aren't very functional and give me a headache. To me, the most useful GUI's are Pentagon's, Kontakt's and RMIII. RMIII is so easy to work with, Pentagon too. Kontakt is strange to use at first, but after some time, you can't live without it, very cunning GUI , gets as complex as you want it to, or it can be simple as ...well CM101? . VSTi's with several pages for parameters are also useful and easy to use, like Z3TA+'s or Ganymede, of course, if you know what you're doing...

th mortiance synths look badass, they look like hrdware but there not trying to look like anyhardware esceically oberon vsti I am impresses with all his synths

For me, it doesn't matter, as long as it doesn't hinder usability. I couldn't stand Reason purely for the fact that it limited itself to a rack mount paradigm. So much wasted space on my computer screen, when I had to use a scroll bar to access items that were too big to fit vertically, when I had plenty of room horizontally...

Don't even get me started on DSound's RTPlayer...

I personally don't care what it looks like as long as a VSTi sounds great and the interface is functional enough to make music with. I would really prefer that the interface is simpler if it increases the processing power available. That said, I do applaud some great work being done on interfaces by the developers and understand I am in the minority on this issue.

Fuck that shit. i want functionality, not smooth looking bullshit GUI's. Why would i want to look at a keyboard when im playing a real one? cut the crap, and concentrate on the real stuff.........SOUNDS!

Kriminalia wrote:

Why would i want to look at a keyboard when im playing a real one? cut the crap, and concentrate on the real stuff.........SOUNDS!

Dude, chicks dig virtual keyboards! Try it sometime! Thrown a nice midi track on the old B4, watch the keys go and work your lovin' moves...Works every time.

...but show a girl a non-keyboard GUI VST, like, say Pentagon 1, and regardless of the amazing sound, you're going to be spending the night alone.

-sleek

P.S. For the record, I like the hardware look, but don't feel it should limit functionality, and should incorporate elements that make the machine function more intuitively. It's fun. It's like with guitars, a great sounding ugly guitar is no fun! Gimme something that looks cool and sounds good any day.

Hi

I hate images of glowing tubes, oldschool VU-meters, big bakelit-buttons, screws, 8-segment displays and so on.
Imagine if Microsoft Word tryed to look like an old typewriter.

Cheers

HC

Sleek Month wrote:

It's like with guitars, a great sounding ugly guitar is no fun!

I dunno, sometime ugly guitars can be LOTS of fun! Here's a picture of one the guitarist in my little cover band made a few years ago, the Strataquarium (complete with water and real live fish):



Artical with more into at:
http://www.citypaper.net/earshot/earshot.0397/instrumental.strat.shtml

a good example is izotopes ozone vs t-rackS

similar pluggins, totatly different looks!

i prefer ozone, but they're interface is cool x-files style so..

it really depends if the GUI design interfere with its usage...

Har wrote:

I dunno, sometime ugly guitars can be LOTS of fun!

Only a madman would call that magnificent pagan beast ugly!

I think that you have proved my point....

hardclipper wrote:

I hate images of glowing tubes, oldschool VU-meters, big bakelit-buttons, screws...

I agree that screws are useless, but under the right circumstances (antares mic modeller comes to mind), a glowing tube shows you what's going on quicker than a number...the number is more accurate, but if a gui feature allows you to get a handle on a number of parameters at once through graphical representation, I'm all for it...

Mind you, I don't think anyone has used this to it's fullest potential yet.

-Sleek

I am not a fan for emulating hardware on software. The only people it impresses is people who are accustomed to using hardware... and I've been using hardware until a few years ago. There is a reason the hardware interface is the way it is - they have physical limits because it IS hardware.

A screen however, is infinate. There are better ways to represent data when you can overlay, hide, show, scroll, dropdown, etc. It maximizes the UI.

That being said, I love anything glowing as long as it represents something enabled. Just glowing to glow is not impressive. A bumping bar for audio level is fine. What is the alternative? Numbers? Big buttons, backlit or not, are not good. Why waste screen space? Screws on software is just screwy.

There is a certain charm in galncing at your screen and seeing the image of the keyboard you are (virtually) playing.

Some of the vsti's that are modeled to look like hardware are actually so well designed, I kinda wish hardware designers would take a hint.

I'm close to hardclipper and co on this one.

I want a gui that represents my workflow, which obviously includes an attractive gui, because that is part of how workflow is enhanced.

I love new design concepts that work this way, reach out into the way I work and help it.

Flashing lights and bulbs cut no ice. They're window dressing for a purchasing hit, maybe nice, but still window dressing.

Hardware emulation guis look and feel to me like a fear of leaping forward, and an obsession with the past to validate today. Chicken shit.

(okay ... bit extreme, but you get my gist )

None of our softsynths really sound like the original hardware (as so many members pointedly tell us) and it seems such a backward step when a synth "tries to be" hardware.

This is another kind of bollocks that three months after purchase doesn't mean diddley-squat (Elizabeth Taylor was the first person I heard use this phrase when she screamed at Marlon Brando for being an ineffectual lover)

Skinnable synths is getting close because at least they offer choice, even if not a gui workflow rethink.

When a new softsynth concept appears, like z3ta waveshaping for instance, I want a gui that helps me work with it in the simplest possible manner (which z3ta is quite good at)

This might just be a backhand plaudit here for rene's waveshaping graphics which, although still incomplete, are pointing the way to go.

It's often the indie developers who get these sort of ideas (DR-008?).

It's not enough to get the sound designs of the future, we need the worklow gui to match the future.

btw examples I like include say Pentagon 1 as pure function and good looks, or reverbs with interactive room pictures-sort-of-thing, ozone anything and everything, or even the new studioverb, or mda plugs with bare sliders which tell it all without the frills.

So ... a question:

Since we're all so fond of saying we have "a hundred synths" these days, how many of them have a gui that matches the workflow concept? Which ones?

OZONE is very soft looking and I like it alot.

dw

Varies. I love the classic skins for the Ohmboyz plugs and the very soft look of z3ta+, and the soft look of Ozone, but at the same time, I cannot even think about the B4 looking any different than it does.

prog

I wish Ozone looked more like hardware though the functionality of it is amazing. The black and green thing remind me of my first computer monitor though, or some kind of sonar (not the sequencer) screen. What I like is a good balance between the hardware/software look, i.e. don't make me feel like a radar (not the recording device) operator when I'm trying to get around a plug, but at the same time take advantage of what software can do in regards to a GUI.

do whatever (have i written correctly??) you want with aestethic unless you put potentiometers... i like cursors!!!!

(the only exception for me is rebirth)

i do not want oscilloscopes

the best thing is FM7 inspired by a synth with no interface, (very similar to an editor librarian more than a virtual synth)!!!

I want a big ole ugly softsynth that takes up the whole computer screen.
I want it to flash and twitter like a pinball table in the middle of a fireworks show everytime I hit a note.

Odd that so many people who prefer the software look mention Pentagon I as an interface they like. I like the hardware, I think Pentagon I looks like hardware, and I hate the interface. Everthingn is dark and the small white marks on the knobs combines with the white marks surrounding the knobs make it hard to me to absorbe at a glance. I really with the settings of the knobs were easier to see. Maybe if the white mark was replaced with red. I don't know. I don't enjoy programming it as much as I should because of the interface. Otherwise, a great synth.

Robert

Rabid I personally use the old P1 GUI, where the knobs are clearer, and the screen is smaller. Frankly I agree with you on the newer GUI, but aside from the lack of color/contrast on the newer one, I dislike the larger size of it even more.

I like ones where everything is clearly laid out and it's easy to get down to making music.

now if you're emulating a classic that everyone allready knows the look of and the layout of the controls you'd be crazy as a hoot owl to change the look.

if on the other hand you are making something that does something new and outlandish, you needn't follow and standards and you should make it look cool so that I'll download it and give it a shot.

also I think the interface should give you cues as to the purpose of it, it makes people feel more at home. i don't want my vintage warmer loking like absynth.

Well, it takes all kinds. I've tried several times to get on a grip on the Pentagon interface, but it's too monotonous. I find it hard to tell what section I'm in, where the knobs are pointing and even what the available "knob travel" is. The alternate skin for it, which most people seemed to like, featured all sorts of coloured writing - real headache material for me.

The Junglist GUI is just as plain as the Pentagon, but the grouping (VCF, VCA etc) is far more clear.

I also dislike multi-page GUIs. With all the new hi-res monitors around, and the increasing popularity of dual-screen setups, I'd much rather have one BIG screen than be switching between pages. I want to take everything in at once. If something's wrong I want to be able to see at a glance what parameter it may, not go pecking around trying to find it.

The PlasticZ interface was something new. And although it didn't fit with my otherwise reasonably hardcore screen real estate, it was so easy to see what you were doing and create new sounds in seconds, that I had to buy it.

Other good GUI (IMHO) include Kontakt, Orion, the Linplug devices, and just about all the Creamware devices. With all these GUIs you can see what you've got, what settings they're on, what's available to change, and how to get there.

On the downside I find Crystal just too ugly to allow on my screen, the Wasp is fiddly and the Ohmboyz comicbook-style GUIs worst of all (yes, I know most people adore them).

Generally I prefer sliders to knobs. It's easier to take in the settings at a glance, and I find them easier to control - perhaps some nuance of fine control is lost, but I haven't noticed. The VAZ (which I haven't played) goes the somewhat daring path of using horizontal sliders which I find unsettling in some way...

And on-screen keyboards can be useful. If you're jamming along with a part I find it much easier to glance at a "real" keyboard than to interpret the bars on a piano roll.

Opinion, not fact

For me, a UI should address these points:

group related parameters (ie Envelope)
see how multiple parameters interact (ie overlays)
see sections/parameters state (enabled/disabled) at a glance
show me ALL my options for pre-defined data (ie dropdown)

I have a love/hate relationship with sliders and knobs. For sliders, I love seeing their state (0-100%) at a glance because its just a line. The problem is they take more screen space than a knob, which is a circle. However, making a column of lines and putting the parameter names to the left of each row would work.

Circles are great for space, but its difficult to tell its state at a glance... unless you were to color coding the circle (ie reveal a gray circle trail underneath the knob as you turn the knob). The only drawback would be if you were color blind.

Screen space is important as I find it is harder to see the more I age (gasp) and throwing money at the problem (such as getting bigger or multi monitors) does not address the UI points.

Sleek Month wrote:

Dude, chicks dig virtual keyboards! Try it sometime! Thrown a nice midi track on the old B4, watch the keys go and work your lovin' moves...Works every time. ...but show a girl a non-keyboard GUI VST, like, say Pentagon 1, and regardless of the amazing sound, you're going to be spending the night alone. -sleek

Spend the night alone You dont know me very well do you The B4 is a virtual organ, why look at that when you've got a real one in ya hand

jdg wrote:

a good example is izotopes ozone vs t-rackS similar pluggins, totatly different looks! i prefer ozone, but they're interface is cool x-files style so.. it really depends if the GUI design interfere with its usage...

I LOVE Ozone.

Nice GUI. Finally, someone realized that since we are putting a nice spectro meter in there, why not let the uses VISUALLY set their parameters right on it... Great visual feedback, nice use of colors. Not a wasted control..

Cornhead wrote:

I would really prefer that the interface is simpler if it increases the processing power available.

When it comes to processing power taken, GUI's never take an appreciable amount. I would have to say close to 95% of processing power taken by a plugin is related to producing the sound.

What matter's, IMHO, most when designing a GUI, is functionality. Can this plugin be used by the operator. As several others have mentioned, does it lend itself to the musician's workflow.

What we are finding from other posts here, is that it is different from musician to musician. Some are most comfortable when it looks like hardware.

Me, on the otherhand, don't like to be limited by what was actually a compromise by a hardware's design. Do you think that if it was inexpensive and feasible, a hardware synth designer would have all the controls available to you? Imagine the size of that rack mount device...

I think a nice combination of functional and artsy is PlactiCZ. Not exactly a copy of hardware, but not Giger either. (Hey, what's up with Kantos )
Shmoe

Looking at Kantos makes me dizzy.

PlasticZ looks cool but I don't see any filters.

Robert

Just after the individuality of the synth, I'am *very, very, very* sensitive to the functionality of it's GUI, or I sould say my way of functionality !!

Shortly :
___
_________
______
_
_______________

Same values in knobs : time wasted to analyse, headaches and pain in the ass to modify swiftly !!!

Sure Buzz is harsh when 40 parameters are stacked , so " boxed " parameters & colors & cool classy not too eye distracting but pleasing GUIs ( Ozone ?? ) don't hurt ...

That's just me ... the answer is customable skins to fulfill everyone needs ...

I don't have a clue about the last proposal so devs, feel free to drag me in the mud !!!!!!

" I'll be back" on my own thread, on this subject, because I have some troubles with FM7 !!!

I much prefer some originality in the design - too many synths and effects just ape hardware - I like interfaces like Izotope Ozone and Ableton Live that try for something new and that is more functionally as well aesthetically pleasing. I love the effects on the Ozone plugin - can't wait to try version 2. Kontakte and Spektral delay have great interfaces too.

Rabid,
I don't think PlastiCZ has traditional filters 'cause it's based on a variation of PD (phase distortion) and is not subtractive, hence no filter. The DCW (digitally controlled waveshaper) acts kind of like a filter by morphing between sine waves and other available waves. It's a bit different, but it sounds good!
Shmoe

I don't get a point here... What's "hard" and what's "soft"? How should softsynth look like - like a word processor Plain boring Windows GUI with ugly sliders and checkboxes? Well, why not to create command line interface then and type some arcane commands as if we are in Unix shell

I would probably never became interested in synths and music creation at all if all music software looked like standard windows apllications. But I saw ReBirth one day And Pro-52... So, I prefere "hard" look. But I don't care if VSTi synth looks "soft" if it sounds great and doesn't eat 99% CPU resources

I can't see either what's wrong with 'aping hardware design'. For example I love the interface of SC101, just because it is a plain copy of the SH101. But ofcourse there are many lame interfaces on hardware too so no need in copying those.

I too don't like synths with tabs, but a synth like Crystal is too good to be left alone just cause of it's ugly GUI with tabs.

But to get in line with Stormrider: What is a typical synth with a 'software design?' I can't really think of a softsynth that couldn't be ported into a hardware synth.

. . . control of Absynths envelopes would be really painful on hardware. How would you move all those little points ?

. . . and what about implementing Kontakt's evolving interface on hardware as you add elements to a patch ?

my favorite software instrument, ableton live, has a very nice one-screen GUI and makes no pretense of imitating hardware. [yes, i did say instrument, didn't i?]

I agree with Spirit - I like sliders over knobs for Softz, both for visual recognition and because I hate the fact that there is no standard on knob rotation - some are side-side some are up-down and some are circular. real headache for me. But with hardware and MIDI controllers, I like knobs. it is obvious which way ya turn em. and I am mostly dealing with auditory and not visual feedback.

I kinda like crystal's GUI - except the color. green vomit or somesuch.

Creamware's GUI's are mostly nice. nothing exceptional, but elegant and easy to work with.

And while the OhmForce GUI's are annoyingly big and difficult, the "small" interfaces are worse. I'd prefer some compromise.

OH - and phatmatik. that GUI rocks. could be bigger though. designed to fit 80x 600 - I would love a 1028x7whatever on that 'un

For me the important thing is clicks. Can I find what I want right away and then do what I want without more mouse clicks than necessary. As long a hard GUI doesn't get in the way, I don't mind it.

The other thing is, if I'm using a VSTi a lot, I'll be staring at it for a long time, so it should be attractive. I like the looks of Crystal, but I like green. And I like the tabs better than pop up windows.

Uh-oh: talk about a can of worms...

I think the trick behind a good GUI is a combo of function, aesthetics, and versatility. Now that I've invented that wheel...

1. I used to love knobs to death, until I realized that a) the better ones implement a linear scroll mode anyway (much easier on the mouse) which means they essentially function as sliders, and b) sliders give a better visual feedback for envelopes and many other parameters. I also find that precise vertical movement is easier to control than horizontal, plus again envelopes visually lend themselves to vertical better.

2. Imitating hardware to a point (but NOT beyond that) enables the new user to utilize his/her acquired visual literacy better, therefore flattens the learning curve. CM101 is a good example, and there are many others. On the other hand, there are few things I hate more than when I have to go through an endless list of items linearly, by clicking the same fake led button over and over and over again... when a drop-down menu would have been so much better! If you have the screenspace, however, devoting an individual, tiny cluster of pixels to each choice to make them instantly selectable - like Crystal does with its LFOs, for instance - is brilliant.

3. Human beings, in their interactions with the environment, rely primarily on visual feedback, and it applies to computer users doubly so. I am simply incapable of using a GUI-less plugin in the long run, and so mda's superb plugs almost never get to my screen - I just can't work with them. Few things horrify and bore me more than when I see the endless strip (or humongous table) of black knobs on a brown background that Orion 'lends' to these plugins as a generic skin.

Maybe I belong to a minority, but if it's all the same, developers could expand their market penetration by designing GUI's that don't bother 'pure' audiophiles, but still enchant visuo-audionutts like myself.

4. Function, in my mind, often translates into speed, clarity, simplicity - and symmetry. If your Filter and Amplitude modulation sections have essentially the same structure, don't make them different sizes - and try to line them up so I can get clear information at a glance. Symmetry enables me to 'memorize' only half or a quarter of the screen, and yet be able to apply that memory pattern/matrix to the rest of the GUI - in other words, the more common reference points, the less I have to remember. If I have to search for the information on my screen, it's wasted time - and wasted inspiration. A big offender in this area used to be my favourite synth, Crystal. It has improved a LOT since 1.0, but still has a long way to go.

5. Too many colours and fonts are not only distracting, but are also hard on the eyes. I LOVE some of Bones' skins (especially when he adds a circular gradient feedback around knobs, or numerical screens below them), but sometimes he ends up using so many vivid colours and shades that I have to revert to the default skins at the end (e.g. Wavedream or even Junglist).

6. There is nothing wrong with breaking up your GUI into distinct parts/sections: NI does that, and many others as well. Pentagon's blue skin makes a decent attempt at it, but the contrast between the raised sections and the background is so small that it doesn't really succeed. I still find it better than the old, wood-panelled attrocity, though...

7. Related to the above: if you have a LOT of knobs/sliders on the screen, introduce some variations in sizes and colours to break up the overwhelming monotony. I changed the knob colours in certain sections of the P-blue skin, but I truly wish I had the time and know-how to radically change their sizes as well - 2 variations plus the original would be enough. Crystal's mixer section never sees any use from me, even though I fiddle every other aspect of this synth to death.

Also, the more visual clues I can get, the happier I am. I don't work *visual* or *audio* only, but switch between the two depending on my state of mind. Sometimes I couldn't care less about what I'm seeing; at other times only the 'images' guide my decision, because whatever my ears are receiving don't seem to make sense. If I have numerical values or at least tickmarks (small and large alternating 'feel' better than just the same uniform sized tickmarks) I know I will be able to work even if my state of mind is deaf...

8. Multi-page structures are very useful, but only if done logically. Z3ta+ and Crystal both have excellent, self-explanatory tabs, so I never feel crushed by their complexity; some others, on the other hand, I find impossible to remember - therefore Vivaldi and Ganymede see little use.

9. Personally, I hate funky skins. They distract me from my music, and their novelty wears off sooner than those $9 Chinese sneakers I used to think were a 'good deal'...

10. Finally, I have to admit that I do like a 'technical' look, even if it's somewhat retro, as long as it's done in moderation. Oberon - and PM4, although it's a bit hard to read because of the low contrast - are rather attractive. DS404 is beautiful (though some of its structure is less than well-thought-out), and so is Z3ta+ (though there are some contrast issues here too).

Just my very biased 0.02 cents...

First: Functional quality has always to be number one. Amen.

I believe that choosing the one or the other concept (soft/hard) should depend on the app's functional focus.
A good example of these opposing concepts would be ie. Ableton's host 'Live' versus Propellerhead Software's virtual instruments pack 'ReBirth RB-338', and 'Reason' as it combines both concepts (while it makes the split in exactly the same way).
Live uses a very clean and strictly graphical interface layout, ReBirth's interface design reflects the fact that it is an emulation.

host (sequencer) = functionality reserved to software
instruments/fx = functionality derived from real-world devices

Now, if you have to deal with a mix of software and hardware functionalities within one single device, things can get fuzzy very easily. A workaround which is good and common practice is to use the 'hard look', and to represent curves and other non-real-world controls in 'virtual displays'.
At first sight, this doesn't seem to be straight-forward concept-wise - but it usually works and feels way better and consistant than the sometimes irritating higgeldy-wiggeldy of styles found on some apps.

However, a nice look (aka style) is a functional aspect itself - if you like the way a thing looks, you will work more easily with it.
Tastes are individually different, so 'nice' is a matter of personal preferences. Pretty much everything is allowed, from cartoon style to hyper-realism ... personally, I wouldn't consider expressionism tho ...
But there's also some general 'virtues' common to all visual languages. Clarity, consistancy, well-balanced colour scale, ...

If you 'emulate' the real world, you have to virtually create a device, and just like in a product designer's real world situtation you have to be aware of quite a lot of things: assigning functions to their best-matching control counterparts (the fader versus dial-discussion), material/texture combinations, and more graphics design-oriented stuff like logo design, typography, well-balanced colour scale, and so on.
Then, there's more physical aspects like perspective, lighting, brightness, contrasts ...
Good design makes a big part in the overall quality of the product.

Sorry for the partial redundance with what has been said before

jp
aka Thomas Merkle
/bitplant

* * *

User Interface graphics design for (in order of appearance)
Propellerhead Software ReBirth - Infernalizer Mod, RedStripe DnB Mod
Propellerhead Software Reason - Rack+Devices (except the r2-devices Malström and NN-XT)
rgc:audio - z3ta+
... t.b.c.

jaypee wrote:

....User Interface graphics design for (in order of appearance) Propellerhead Software ReBirth - Infernalizer Mod, RedStripe DnB Mod Propellerhead Software Reason - Rack+Devices (except the r2-devices Malström and NN-XT) rgc:audio - z3ta+ ... t.b.c.

Wow. Impressive credentials. I have all three of those and they all look and function great. No wonder Rene chose you for the graphics of z3ta.

Robert

For some reason a hardware style interface seems more logical when asigning parameters to a hardware controller.

Robert

Oddly enough, I like the way most non-GUI'd VSTs look in Fruity. Nice simple knobs with clear value readouts. It would be nice if the more complicated ones had some organization to them, but it's a clean look at least.

Interfaces that look like hardware are OK by me if they are good interfaces in the first place, and if they are also functional. For example, an emulation of a TX81Z would suck if you had to program it like one.

I much prefer the soft look (Kontakt/Battery/Ozone) over the hard (Atmosphere/Reason/FM7). I don't really know why, but I take the soft look more seriously. Just a matter of taste I guess.

give me clear, functional stuff over hardware fetishism anyday. its a new format we should embrace - its like how old films are reminiscent (spelling?) of broadway, or how the internet still has the naming conventions of printed text (pages, bookmarks, etc). We should embrace the new aspects and possibilities of the form.

there is this old bauhaus-rule "form follows function".

i think user-interfaces for vst-instruments should not imitate
real tools you can touch. the simplest reason for this is that you
can`t grab them with your hand but you have to use the controlls
with your mouse/trackball/etc.
this means a significant difference for the designing process and the
over all look of the interface.
the computer-desktop is flat and though i tried i can`t get my
mouse-pointer to move into the third dimension.
so why should one apply 3d-design in a basically 2d (computer)-world.
(at least at the moment). it simply has no additional information.

but the operating-systems that come from plain 2d drift into a very
similar direction. i. e. apple uses more and more 3d elements (os10).

speaking of os, symbols for real-world actions, also used in
vst-interfaces, are even present in actual os. throwing data into
a trashcan or having a postbox-icon for my e-mail program are symbols
that where transfered from reality into cyberspace. computer-age has not
yet created its own graphic code.
this is a process and maybe it`s the same with vst-interfaces.

era_sand

(sorry for my english )