Confession: I can't use ugly plugins.

[Uncovered Pitch]

Screw Melda for that! If they only made simplified version of plugins with an option to expand the settings (like some do), I'd be surely looking at them. As for now, there are many other options.

Melda do have an easy screen and an edit screen though. And even within the edit screen you can hide a lot of stuff you don't want to look at. MTurboComp is probably the best example to check out in terms of UI.

[RunBeerRun]

+1

I only use 3d slanted hardware knobs with no colors but silver

[rod_zero]

Me too, I can't stand bad skeumorphic design.

[UltimateOutsider]

But the interesting thing is to define what's ugly and what's not.

Yeah, we all have our visual preferences. While I know it's a common current style, I don't care for "flat" designs. For example, I have never found the Valhalla plugins very easy to look at, but they sound so damned good I use them in every project.

Aside from the Valhalla plugins, the least attractive plugins I still use are older Native Instruments products (Battery 3, Absynth), from before they had a cohesive design language. And in both those cases, it's mostly a matter of color scheme that bothers me.

[Boy Wonder]

I dare anyone, no, make that double dare, to tell me MOK's plugins are easy on the eyes. Miniraze, Filtryg and Waverazor, though functional, looks like the cut-open guts of a malfunctioning android.

[Teksonik]

I just can't do it; no matter how good it sounds.

Hangs head in shame.

Is my Sarcasm Detector malfunctioning? Because it's off the dial right now.

But if the OP is actually serious of course it's better to enjoy what you're looking at as well as how it sounds.

No one should pass on a great sounding plugin just because they find it ugly but if two plugins have a similar sound, picking the one you like to look at while working is logical.

A pleasant workplace can only enhance productivity.

Beautiful and Ugly are in the eyes of the beholder so use what brings you enjoyment. Luckily there are so many great sounding plugins available now that finding one you find great looking as well should not be hard.

[Teksonik]

I dare anyone, no, make that double dare, to tell me MOK's plugins are easy on the eyes. Miniraze, Filtryg and Waverazor, though functional, looks like the cut-open guts of a malfunctioning android.

There is beautiful and there is ugly and then there is headache inducing and seizure triggering.

I couldn't even look at the screenshot for more than a few seconds without visual discomfort but I imagine there is someone out there who could work with them all day and love it....

[UltimateOutsider]

I dare anyone, no, make that double dare, to tell me MOK's plugins are easy on the eyes. Miniraze, Filtryg and Waverazor, though functional, looks like the cut-open guts of a malfunctioning android.

Wow, never heard of those before, but I agree. They would look awesome on a computer screen in a sci-fi movie, but those UIs are way too high-contrast for regular use.

[BONES]

For example, I have never found the Valhalla plugins very easy to look at, but they sound so damned good I use them in every project.

Yeah, I'm with you on the looks, yet people say that they love those GUIs. I don't get it at all. I've got Supermassive and I use it now and then but I reckon I'd use it more if it weren't so stupid looking.

I dare anyone, no, make that double dare, to tell me MOK's plugins are easy on the eyes. Miniraze, Filtryg and Waverazor, though functional, looks like the cut-open guts of a malfunctioning android.

That's a great example of what I was talking about above. It looks bloody awful. But it's not so much ugly as it is wildly inapprorpiate for its intended purpose.

[jamcat]

I agree with the general consensus here.

If I don't enjoy using a plugin, I'm not going to use it. So I'm certainly not going to spend money on something I won't use or enjoy. I make music for myself, first and foremost. That doesn't just mean making the music I want to hear. It also means the music making process is something I do for personal enjoyment.

The most enjoyment for me comes from learning about the legendary studios of yesteryear, their processes for recording and mixing, and of course the classic gear they used. So I want the plugin experience to be as authentic as possible. That includes not only accurate analog modeling, but also an accurate 3D modeled skeuomorphic interface.

[BONES]

Really? I have less than no interest in stuff like that, mostly because the vast majority of old recordings, say pre-1970, are shit compared to what we can do today. And yet people wan tto add thatshit back into their modern recordings. Studio One will even let you add cross-talk into your mixes, like the most brilliant engineers in the history of audio didn't make it their life's work to eliminate cross-talk. It's madness!

[jamcat]

Well, the gear and recordings I am most interested in are from the mid ‘70s through the mid ‘80s.

[Boy Wonder]

We are living in interesting (re: nostalgic) times. To wit: Every time you turn around, some company is releasing lo-fi gear that simulates noisy tape machines, turntables, tube amps and "tone drifty" synths from yesteryear. I guess it's big business. IK Multimedia thinks so. So does Waves, iZotope, XLN, Baby Audio, WavesFactory, you name it. As a matter of fact, it's becoming de rigeur these days that synths need to incorporate tone drift in their modeling circuitry for added realism.

[fese]

GUI aesthetics is one thing, usability/UX another. I very much prefer (subjective) aesthetically pleasing plugin UIs that are executed professionally, but if the actual usability is fine, I can live with a sub par visual design. The Exponential Audio Reverbs are an example. The design and execution is amateurish at best, but the usability was surprisingly good for plugin with that many controls.
A complete no-go are plugins with a fake 3D rendering distorted perspective. Does my head in. A little bit is OK, but if the GUI gives the impression that you’re 30cm in from of a rack unit, I’m out.

Luckily, there are so many high quality plugins nowadays, and I don’t really need anything new anymore, so if someone wants me to buy his plugins, they have to woo me with sound and UI/UX.

[BONES]

Well, the gear and recordings I am most interested in are from the mid ‘70s through the mid ‘80s.

That, my friend, is really sad. Can I ask why? Because, as you may know, I've been playing around with 60-odd 80s covers over the past couple of years and what always grabs me is how much better my versions sound than the originals. That, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with me and everything to do with how much better every aspect of the production process is today, compared to when those songs were originally recorded. We have infinitely superior instruments and effects at our disposal, and literally hundreds of times more tools to work with. And where the original artists might have had a few weeks in someone else's studio to record an album, we have the luxury of being able to spend as much time as it takes to make it perfect.

For example, last week I stayed up late one night working on Devo's Girl U Want. I'd found several different MIDI files on line and between them I managed ot get all the parts I needed. So I went to work on it, using Ujam's VG Carbon for the main guitar riff and VG Iron in the chorus, with TRK-01 Bass for the, um, bassline, MonoFury playing the main synth part and BM Vice doing drums. Something in the arrangement didn't feel right so this morning I put on Devo's orignal version and I couldn't believe how shithouse it sounded. Honestly, it's like they recorded it through a wall and I just don't understand why anyone would want to deliberately make their own music sound like that.

To loop back to the idea of making it perfect, your idea of perfect might be as close to the original as possible, whereas I want to make it sound as good as I possibly can, out of respect for the material. So just because Devo did the best they could at the time should not restrict me to doing as bad a job. After all, I'm sure if Devo re-recorded that song today, they would also do what I've done and try and make it as good as possible. (At least I hope that's what they'd do.)

It's the same reasoning behind us recently releasing updated versions of a couple of songs from our first album - at the time we did the best we could manage. 20 years later, technology has come a long way and we have learned a lot, and we thought those songs deserved to be made as good as we could manage.