Computer Music Magazine Announces Fathom CM

VST, AU, AAX, etc. plug-in Virtual Instruments discussion
User avatar
TrojakEW
KVRist
256 posts since 21 Mar, 2012 from Slovakia

Post Wed Mar 13, 2019 4:10 am

fmr wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 2:03 am
Oh yeah.. the example below is muuuuch better :roll: :nutter:
There is simplicity and simplicity. In your example there is no UI. I have talked about simple UI without unusable junk. And yes even shadows and reflection on UI is distracting. Compare Ozone 5 with 8.
Image
Image
Do you think v 5 is more readable then v8? With all that shiny junk around?
Image Image Image Image

zzz00m
KVRAF
1711 posts since 17 Sep, 2016

Re: Computer Music Magazine Announces Fathom CM

Post Wed Mar 13, 2019 5:36 am

TrojakEW wrote:
Tue Mar 12, 2019 10:53 pm
zzz00m wrote:
Tue Mar 12, 2019 2:26 pm
I agree. If Fathom's design intent is to remain with form following function, then the flowchart style would be preferable to a more skeumorphic design.
Rather not. Skeumorphic design is distracting and waste of developers and also users time. Why to have shiny junk stuff that doesn't do anything. Because it may look better for somebody it doesn't mean it is practical. Simpler is better. I hope NOT to see hanging cables in Fathom. :pray:
I think maybe you need to read my post again. I WAS saying NO to shiny junk (skeumorphic), and agreeing that flowchart connections graphics (no hanging cables) would be better. Flowchart view is NOT equal to shiny objects!

Form following function is a minimalist design approach where you focus on function first, then you work an a compatible form to follow that with.
Windows 10; with instruments from Ableton, AIR, Ample Sound, AAS, Cakewalk, IK Multimedia, iZotope, KV331, NI, PreSonus, Seaweed Audio, SONiVOX, TAL, Tracktion, u-he, Way Out Ware, XLN, others...

zzz00m
KVRAF
1711 posts since 17 Sep, 2016

Re: Computer Music Magazine Announces Fathom CM

Post Wed Mar 13, 2019 5:38 am

Scrubbing Monkeys wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 3:39 am
Another vote...NO cables.
What do you call those module connectors in the existing version of Fathom? :lol:
Windows 10; with instruments from Ableton, AIR, Ample Sound, AAS, Cakewalk, IK Multimedia, iZotope, KV331, NI, PreSonus, Seaweed Audio, SONiVOX, TAL, Tracktion, u-he, Way Out Ware, XLN, others...

FathomSynth
KVRian
986 posts since 25 Mar, 2017 from Philadelphia, PA, USA

Re: Computer Music Magazine Announces Fathom CM

Post Wed Mar 13, 2019 6:56 am

Wow, a lot of action while I sleep, this is great.

OK, my thoughts.

First, There is a lot of critical work to do before I add sub component connections. Sampler, Arpeggiator, Analog Emulator, and in 2019 the ABSOLUTE highest priority is CPU which will probably be crushed by my GPU plan (in progress as we speak).

It seems like we are all basically in agreement that pointless graphics are simply distracting. The best word I've heard yet this year is "Skeuomorphic" since it highlights the real question here. Fundamentally does a UI imitate something else or simply connect the brain to the bits? The trend now for new cutting edge UI's, in pretty much in every field of software, is to utterly abandon the idea that a UI should imitate something else or a physical object, in this case the juicy knobs and dials of a hardware synth. And instead, to simply present a flat interface that follows function completely with no skeuomorphicnostalgiaphrenia.

Beauty is still be maintained by making the function itself beautiful, in most cases this is achieved with color schemes. This is ultimately the direction which I want to head in.

However, I personally prefer an interface that gives a slight feeling of being able to reach out and touch it. Some of you may have noticed a while back I redid the Fathom graphics to make them flatter but still with a slight tactile hint. I kept the big round dials since they need to be big enough to provide value and modulation range data on the same control. Generally I tried to maintain some physical feel with thin edges and subtle material texture. Otherwise, at some point one must ask, if all physical aspects of a UI are eliminated why not just have a big excel spreadsheet of parameters?

Obviously this would be a horrible idea. So I think some connection to physical reality is appropriate but without making it distracting. My ultimate plan is as follows. At some point the model for Fathom's GUI will be a holographic screen in the cockpit of a spaceship approximately the year 2245. Because of the amount of information and safety issues such a UI would be incredibly clear and well designed, showing the relationship of very complex components such as engine function and potentially weapon systems. And yet with brilliant lighting effects to make things readable at night, in zero gravity and in emergency situations. This sounds like I'm joking but I'm not, since it would produce the ultimate interface. Simple and clear but with a extremely futuristic look.

Now for some interesting news regarding all this which I've been sort of keeping a secret. Fathom's GUI is completely data driven. Meaning that the development version consists of a collection of all the images with an external definition of all spacial relationships. The ability to get to this is currently locked inside the executable. However, my plan is later this year to create an "Elite" version of Fathom which provides full access to the interface. This would enable any user to completely re-skin Fathom. Not only the images but the placement of all of them. Ultimately this would lead to far better interfaces than I myself could ever produce, even with the visions listed above. User skins could then be sold on the web site with profit share, as well as under license to release them independently.

I warn you, this is not going to be cheap since it is my ace for getting Fathom's business model to the point where the project is truly self sustaining. Fathom "Elite" will be at the very least $125 and perhaps as much as $250. This is because it will really be geared toward users that actually want to make money selling Fathom skins. Also for obvious reasons this can't be done until the CPU issue is completely crushed. I can't charge this amount until Fathom is at least as efficient as any other synth on the market, and this will require finishing the GPU design, currently in progress.

I've also been considering having a pro UI designer redo Fathom's GUI. But real UI designers (like Satyatunes) are not cheap therefore this will need to be later this year so I can afford someone of his caliber. Also, I'm going to be trying to stay away from synth UI designers who are just really good at making rusty metal in favor of someone with the rare talents necessary to create a holographic look.

:phones: SM, Really looking forward to "Purple Mist"!

:borg: Trojak, Which version were you using when the CPU seemed better? I'm doing CPU right now and would like to take a look at that based on your input. It should not have gotten worse! Also take a screen shot of your settings page for me.

:party: One more small item. In couple weeks I will be releasing the actual presets used to create the new 2019 demo song "Sorcerer", Like Mountain Climber this will include the original Ableton project with a Remixer's License, and this time I will be creating equivalent projects in Reaper, Cubase, Bitwig, and FL Studio.

https://static.kvraudio.com/files/3302/sorcerer.mp3

User avatar
fmr
KVRAF
8519 posts since 16 Mar, 2003 from Porto - Portugal

Re: Computer Music Magazine Announces Fathom CM

Post Wed Mar 13, 2019 7:45 am

TrojakEW wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 4:10 am
Do you think v 5 is more readable then v8? With all that shiny junk around?
Frankly, I never had any problem reading Ozone 5 (which I still have installed, BTW). And, although I still do not have problem reading Ozone 8, I would prefer some better separation between elements (When looking at each processor window, it's hard to separate things - everything looks the same).

If Ozone 5 GUI was as big as Ozone 8, and with the same colors, I bet you would not say the same.

Flatness makes it hard to separate elements, and in the end makes things harder to read instead of easier. I give you the example of that screenshot of PD. You say it's not a GUI... but it's a GUI :shrug:

You apparently disliked it. Yet it is the paradigm of what you defend - fully functional, and there's nothing there to "distract" the user (there is nothing to appeal the user either).

Flatness is just a trend, that will pass, as others did. Actually. Microsoft is already making changes in the GUI of Windows 10, giving it lighting effects and some "flashy" buttons... go figure. As always, the answer lies somewhere in between - some soberty combined with a degree of beautyness and visual appeal.
Last edited by fmr on Wed Mar 13, 2019 7:56 am, edited 2 times in total.
Fernando (FMR)

zzz00m
KVRAF
1711 posts since 17 Sep, 2016

Re: Computer Music Magazine Announces Fathom CM

Post Wed Mar 13, 2019 7:52 am

fmr wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 7:45 am

Flatness makes it hard to separate elements, and in the end make things harder to read instead of easier. It's just a trend, that will pass, as others did. Actually. Microsoft is already making changes in the GUI of Windows 10, giving it lighting effects and some "flashy" buttons... go figure.
I think that we'll eventually get past trying to make everything look flat like a "gee whiz" smartphone touch screen. Windows 8 was a big fail in that regard!
Windows 10; with instruments from Ableton, AIR, Ample Sound, AAS, Cakewalk, IK Multimedia, iZotope, KV331, NI, PreSonus, Seaweed Audio, SONiVOX, TAL, Tracktion, u-he, Way Out Ware, XLN, others...

User avatar
fmr
KVRAF
8519 posts since 16 Mar, 2003 from Porto - Portugal

Re: Computer Music Magazine Announces Fathom CM

Post Wed Mar 13, 2019 7:55 am

zzz00m wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 7:52 am
fmr wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 7:45 am

Flatness makes it hard to separate elements, and in the end make things harder to read instead of easier. It's just a trend, that will pass, as others did. Actually. Microsoft is already making changes in the GUI of Windows 10, giving it lighting effects and some "flashy" buttons... go figure.
I think that we'll eventually get past trying to make everything look flat like a "gee whiz" smartphone touch screen. Windows 8 was a big fail in that regard!
You bet...
Fernando (FMR)

User avatar
Scrubbing Monkeys
KVRian
687 posts since 21 Apr, 2017 from Bahia, Brazil

Re: Computer Music Magazine Announces Fathom CM

Post Wed Mar 13, 2019 9:38 am

zzz00m wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 5:38 am
Scrubbing Monkeys wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 3:39 am
Another vote...NO cables.
What do you call those module connectors in the existing version of Fathom? :lol:
Connectors

not drooping all over the rest of the interface.
Could be a cable I quess. but feels much less cluttered

zzz00m
KVRAF
1711 posts since 17 Sep, 2016

Re: Computer Music Magazine Announces Fathom CM

Post Wed Mar 13, 2019 11:42 am

Scrubbing Monkeys wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 9:38 am
zzz00m wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 5:38 am
Scrubbing Monkeys wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 3:39 am
Another vote...NO cables.
What do you call those module connectors in the existing version of Fathom? :lol:
Connectors

not drooping all over the rest of the interface.
Could be a cable I quess. but feels much less cluttered
I think of them as "smart cables". They know how to behave, and avoid "hanging out". :D
Windows 10; with instruments from Ableton, AIR, Ample Sound, AAS, Cakewalk, IK Multimedia, iZotope, KV331, NI, PreSonus, Seaweed Audio, SONiVOX, TAL, Tracktion, u-he, Way Out Ware, XLN, others...

User avatar
TrojakEW
KVRist
256 posts since 21 Mar, 2012 from Slovakia

Re: Computer Music Magazine Announces Fathom CM

Post Wed Mar 13, 2019 11:59 am

zzz00m wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 5:36 am
I think maybe you need to read my post again. I WAS saying NO to shiny junk (skeumorphic), and agreeing that flowchart connections graphics (no hanging cables) would be better. Flowchart view is NOT equal to shiny objects!
I apologize my mistake. English is not my native language and sometimes I miss the point :oops: . Regarding schematic view or flowchart as you describe it have it's advantages but when project become bigger and bigger you are again lost. Best way will be to have both with option to switch between them when you need. Best example was Autodesk Combustion that have combined layer style (like aftereffects) and node style (nuke, fusion) compositing.
fmr wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 7:45 am
Flatness is just a trend, that will pass, as others did.
For somebody it is trend but for others are not. This "flat" style is here for quite long time but those who are not working with graphic design do not know about it - check image in this link and look at yearhttp://www.moma.org/media/W1siZiIsIjMyM ... cb800530b7. Most of people think it is something new. I prefer this style even before it was trend. No matter the graphic style, UI is not just about visuals. Fact that somebody will use flat design doesn't mean he made good UI. Even ozone 8 is not good enough because it not use all advantage of this style. So you are right this is why it is hard to separate elements but still it is much better for me since I'm not distracted with elements that does not do anything and just take space on screen.
FathomSynth wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 6:56 am
:borg: Trojak, Which version were you using when the CPU seemed better? I'm doing CPU right now and would like to take a look at that based on your input. It should not have gotten worse! Also take a screen shot of your settings page for me.
I just done some testing to compare the old 2.7.1 (max 53% CPU version number here is confusing) with new 2.27.0.1 (max 46%) with same project with one instance of Fathom. So you are right latest version is better. Switching to draft mode in settings reduce CPU by 1%. Switching multi-threaded processing doesn't do anything and yes I have it enabled in FLStudio wrapper also. For Kontakt it make huge difference but for Fathom it does nothing.
Image Image Image Image

FathomSynth
KVRian
986 posts since 25 Mar, 2017 from Philadelphia, PA, USA

Re: Computer Music Magazine Announces Fathom CM

Post Wed Mar 13, 2019 12:28 pm

Trojak, Something does not sound right. In the demo I just posted I have over 20 tracks of Fathom all playing at the same time and over 100 tracks total in Ableton. Which host are you using, PC specs, and could you email me the Fathom preset?

zzz00m
KVRAF
1711 posts since 17 Sep, 2016

Re: Computer Music Magazine Announces Fathom CM

Post Wed Mar 13, 2019 2:06 pm

FathomSynth wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 12:28 pm
In the demo I just posted I have over 20 tracks of Fathom all playing at the same time and over 100 tracks total in Ableton.
Who uses 100 tracks? LOL! :lol:
Windows 10; with instruments from Ableton, AIR, Ample Sound, AAS, Cakewalk, IK Multimedia, iZotope, KV331, NI, PreSonus, Seaweed Audio, SONiVOX, TAL, Tracktion, u-he, Way Out Ware, XLN, others...

User avatar
VSTJuNkiE
KVRAF
2490 posts since 18 Jun, 2008 from "nunya"....

Re: Computer Music Magazine Announces Fathom CM

Post Wed Mar 13, 2019 2:38 pm

Just bought. Current sale is in perfect "great product/impulse buy" territory. Love the pace of updates on this synth too. Which, apparently, is an unpopular opinion..? :nutter:

Cheers/All the best/Gracias/Danke/Etc. :tu:
KVR >Gear Slutz! Change my mind! :clap:

FathomSynth
KVRian
986 posts since 25 Mar, 2017 from Philadelphia, PA, USA

Re: Computer Music Magazine Announces Fathom CM

Post Wed Mar 13, 2019 6:00 pm

Welcome!

mrdoghead
KVRer
9 posts since 26 Jun, 2018

Re: Computer Music Magazine Announces Fathom CM

Post Wed Mar 13, 2019 6:28 pm

"this is not going to be cheap since it is my ace for getting Fathom's business model to the point where the project is truly self sustaining. Fathom 'Elite' will be at the very least $125 and perhaps as much as $250. This is because it will really be geared toward users that actually want to make money selling Fathom skins"

Really?

You're planning a massive price increase to accommodate user skins? This is the key to your business model?

It's not April first.

This is pretty amazing stuff.

Return to “Instruments”