As for the layout, it seems basically standard-fare to me: You've got Oscs, and below them, envelopes. You can toggle that to be LFOs instead, or a combination of Envs / Lfos. You've got a filter. There's a page for MSEGs. There's an FX section over to the right. There's a smoothly implemented 'routing' page if you want to get more advanced. You can make it white or dark...I prefer dark. I think it looks nice. There's a lot to look at, sure, but that's because it's a workhorse instrument with many parts. I understand if people are confused by the Performer page at first, but MSEG implementation is always a bit complicated, and these are VERY powerful MSEGs: you need a lot of controls here.
So how is this a wildly different, totally awful design-flow compared to literally anything and everything else out there? What is so 'bad' about it? I can program it way faster than Zebra, which I've always found very slow despite it's "only show what you use" approach. It's lightyears better than Omnisphere. Dune 3 is also slow for me, with a totally outdated approach to modulation assignment. Makes me wonder what synths the MX-UI-Haters think have 'Great' UI's -- Falcon? Lol. Or are they just comparing it to synths with a fraction of the functionality of MX, making it much easier to have a simple UI? Repro-5 is my favorite synth and also my favorite UI, but it has so, so much less to do than MX, it's clearly not even reasonable to compare...which brings us back to Zebra, Omni, Falcon....Hive? Serum? Ok, Serum has a very nice UI, no doubt. Is that the hate-creating basis of comparison?
Shrug.
