I love the Diva sounds and it's central to my setup. But I am frustrated by the GUI.
All the different vintage knobs look good, but they confuse the hell out of me when I'm trying to tweak patches and remember what does what? Are the different graphic emulations all basically the same 'under the hood' but just with different looks? It's really frustrating especially when the same element has different names.
Feature request: I would love it if you could develop an OPTIONAL, stupidly obvious GUI that does away with the fancy knobs, is consistent across all patches, and shows at a glance what's modding what--maybe fixed lines to show hard-wired mod paths, and something that flashes or blinks on command for programmed paths? Think of it as Diva GUI with training wheels.
I've been thinking about this ever since I started using Diva, and it really would help. Since I added Alchemy to my setup, I see what is possible in terms of a GUI that sets a priority on making everything clear. It's a joy to learn the complexities of Alchemy; it's a struggle with Diva, and there are some things that I can't figure out even with the manual in one hand.
FWIW, to my ears, the Alchemy sounds are the perfect complement to Diva sounds (and vice versa). I love to combine them in the same mix--Alchemy is full of digital detail, and Diva has that amazing analog warmth. So I'm a loyal Diva fanboy, just humbly suggesting a surface fix.
Thanks,
Steve
Diva GUI frustration and suggestion
-
- KVRist
- 45 posts since 11 Dec, 2010 from Media, PA, USA
Keyboards >iOS (AUM, Enso, MIDI Designer, Ravenscroft 275, synths, etc.) Plus orchestral clarinet with pickup > Eventide stomp boxes > iOS loopers/fx. www.ThinAirX.com; ThinAirX on Soundcloud.
-
- KVRAF
- 26992 posts since 3 Feb, 2005 from in the wilds
Your request for a stupidly simple GUI is not possible because the different modules have different controls and are not the same under the hood
What you can try is stick to the default minimoog layout and do not switch modules (osc's filter's env's) until you understand that combo. Then expand from there.
Feel free to ask any specific questions you may have.
What you can try is stick to the default minimoog layout and do not switch modules (osc's filter's env's) until you understand that combo. Then expand from there.
Feel free to ask any specific questions you may have.
-
- KVRAF
- 24454 posts since 7 Jan, 2009 from Croatia
I do think the GUI can be completely changed so that all knobs look the same for all modules. To make it universal, so to speak.
It's just the matter of making it happen. Dunno who wants to do it.
It's just the matter of making it happen. Dunno who wants to do it.
-
- KVRAF
- 26992 posts since 3 Feb, 2005 from in the wilds
EvilDragon wrote:I do think the GUI can be completely changed so that all knobs look the same for all modules. To make it universal, so to speak.
It's just the matter of making it happen. Dunno who wants to do it.
The controls differ though from module to module.
Dual VCO Eco you select between specific waveforms. Dual VCO you combine the waveforms together (switches, no knob). Triple VCO you can morph between waveforms. And so on. All very different. You could make each module have the same knobs visually, but those knobs would still do different things.
If anything, I think it would be more confusing not the have the visual difference to indicate which module you were on.
-
- KVRist
- 251 posts since 19 Dec, 2011 from Colorado
+1If anything, I think it would be more confusing not the have the visual difference to indicate which module you were on.
-
- KVRist
- Topic Starter
- 45 posts since 11 Dec, 2010 from Media, PA, USA
Since I wrote the original post I went back to the manual and looked more carefully. I do see that each of the modules works differently. As a rule, I don't tweak the oscillator/sound generation stage (but I do adjust filters and LFOs and effects to my liking), so I'm not up to speed on that end of Diva.
But all the more reason to design the GUI carefully to show what's the same from mod to mod and highlight what's different. I never appreciated (and probably still don't) how different they are. Yet, they're all a variation of oscillators, LFO's filters, and modulation routings put together in different ways. How hard could it be to show common elements in varied configurations.
Diva is designed for people who know and understand vintage analog synths. The graphics is a work of art, a loving homage to the old synths. The engineering and programming at the heart is clearly cutting edge, judging by the sounds it makes. But the homage to vintage comes at the cost for anybody else who is just starting to learn synthesis, or even at an intermediate level like me.
Why else have three names for the same thing in the filters (resonance, emphasis, peak)? That's the epitome of bad UI design. And why not show clearly what is hard-wired to mod what. The keyboard knob in the ladder filter, for example--does it modulate the whole filter, or cutoff, or resonance? I don't think even the manual says, and if you don't have direct experience with the old hardware, you're left guessing. All I see is a bunch of knobs grouped together.
By contrast, a cool feature of Alchemy is that any knob that is modulated has two different-colored rings, one showing the absolute setting for the knob, and an outer yellow ring showing the summed effect of the knob position plus modulation. It's brilliant UI design--you can see in a glance exactly what to expect to come through that operation.
I'm suggesting a new UI design for Alchemy (a skin, basically, so that the vintage look is there for people who prefer it) that is carefully planned to reveal as much as possible about what mods what, and by how much, at any one moment. It is possible, but it's not easy. But then again, the programming that Urs and team have done to make Diva one of the best synths available isn't easy either. I'm confident such a UI skin would open Diva to many more new musicians who shy away now because they hear that Diva is "hard to learn."
Steve
But all the more reason to design the GUI carefully to show what's the same from mod to mod and highlight what's different. I never appreciated (and probably still don't) how different they are. Yet, they're all a variation of oscillators, LFO's filters, and modulation routings put together in different ways. How hard could it be to show common elements in varied configurations.
Diva is designed for people who know and understand vintage analog synths. The graphics is a work of art, a loving homage to the old synths. The engineering and programming at the heart is clearly cutting edge, judging by the sounds it makes. But the homage to vintage comes at the cost for anybody else who is just starting to learn synthesis, or even at an intermediate level like me.
Why else have three names for the same thing in the filters (resonance, emphasis, peak)? That's the epitome of bad UI design. And why not show clearly what is hard-wired to mod what. The keyboard knob in the ladder filter, for example--does it modulate the whole filter, or cutoff, or resonance? I don't think even the manual says, and if you don't have direct experience with the old hardware, you're left guessing. All I see is a bunch of knobs grouped together.
By contrast, a cool feature of Alchemy is that any knob that is modulated has two different-colored rings, one showing the absolute setting for the knob, and an outer yellow ring showing the summed effect of the knob position plus modulation. It's brilliant UI design--you can see in a glance exactly what to expect to come through that operation.
I'm suggesting a new UI design for Alchemy (a skin, basically, so that the vintage look is there for people who prefer it) that is carefully planned to reveal as much as possible about what mods what, and by how much, at any one moment. It is possible, but it's not easy. But then again, the programming that Urs and team have done to make Diva one of the best synths available isn't easy either. I'm confident such a UI skin would open Diva to many more new musicians who shy away now because they hear that Diva is "hard to learn."
Steve
Keyboards >iOS (AUM, Enso, MIDI Designer, Ravenscroft 275, synths, etc.) Plus orchestral clarinet with pickup > Eventide stomp boxes > iOS loopers/fx. www.ThinAirX.com; ThinAirX on Soundcloud.
-
- KVRian
- 1276 posts since 30 Apr, 2004 from Louisville, KY
Hmmm....you probably shouldn't compare Diva to Alchemy.
Diva is what she uniquely is...if you want something else, there are lots of others to choose from. Just as those who don't like the complexity of patch cords should not buy ACE, etc.
Diva is what she uniquely is...if you want something else, there are lots of others to choose from. Just as those who don't like the complexity of patch cords should not buy ACE, etc.
-
- KVRAF
- 26992 posts since 3 Feb, 2005 from in the wilds
The epitome of bad UI design huh... Of course you can have your opinion, but I think you are rather overstating it. One twist of the emphasis/peak/resonance knobs and one knows that it is resonance. Cutoff and resonance are the two main controls on a LP filter. Keyboard knob modulates cutoff (pretty standard control on many filters also).Stevee00 wrote: Why else have three names for the same thing in the filters (resonance, emphasis, peak)? That's the epitome of bad UI design. And why not show clearly what is hard-wired to mod what. The keyboard knob in the ladder filter, for example--does it modulate the whole filter, or cutoff, or resonance? I don't think even the manual says, and if you don't have direct experience with the old hardware, you're left guessing. All I see is a bunch of knobs grouped together.
Steve
Stevee00 wrote: I'm confident such a UI skin would open Diva to many more new musicians who shy away now because they hear that Diva is "hard to learn."
Steve
I doubt many people are finding Diva "hard to learn". But hey, maybe U-he will agree with you and make an alternate skin at some point.
-
- KVRAF
- 11162 posts since 16 Mar, 2003 from Porto - Portugal
I think you are failing to understand what is the basic concept of DIVA, which very much explains it's user interface. DIVA is Digital Impersonating Virtual Analogue, which means that the synth "impersonates" several modules from well known (to those that are old enough to remember and have experience with them) old glories of the analogue past, like the Minimoog, the Jupiter-8, Jupiter-6, Juno-60 and MS-10. That's why the modules look different - becuase they have a design close enough to the ones they are "impersonating" to allow people to "know" what they are supposed to sound and work. IMO, a "simpler" GUI as you are defending would be much more confusing.Stevee00 wrote: I'm suggesting a new UI design for Alchemy (a skin, basically, so that the vintage look is there for people who prefer it) that is carefully planned to reveal as much as possible about what mods what, and by how much, at any one moment. It is possible, but it's not easy. But then again, the programming that Urs and team have done to make Diva one of the best synths available isn't easy either. I'm confident such a UI skin would open Diva to many more new musicians who shy away now because they hear that Diva is "hard to learn."
Steve
I advise you to take information about the synths that are being "impersonated" (try downloading their manuals, make some research about them on the net, etc.) and then maybe things become clearer to you.
Fernando (FMR)
-
- u-he
- 30244 posts since 8 Aug, 2002 from Berlin
It's rather difficult to make a simplified GUI. It would need to show all controls for the digital ADSR, yet two or three controls would have to be "greyed out" in analogue and ADS mode. Simply because they don't do anything in those models.
This gets worse in the oscillator and in the mixer where there is a completely different sets of controls for each model. Obviously, the Triple VCO has 3 oscillators while the DCO has just one. So in DCO mode we would have to grey out about 15 controls that only do something in some of the other modes. And then, some of the modulation switches would contradict with each other, depending on what model is chosen. Making a "simplified" GUI like this would indeed be the epitome of bad UI design
The only section that may work rather well is the filter section, if one neglects that some models have extra choices. This however gets impossible with the upcoming "Uhbie" model which has two extra knobs.
Nevertheless, if by possibility the models all looked the same while only the parts that are different get swapped out, then people would start looking for the "rough / clean" switch in the Ladder filter, or for the Dual VCO's "Tune Mod 1, 2, 1+2" in the Triple VCO. I bet it would confuse people all over the place.
So we had to make a decision. That decision was "make them look as different and distinguishable as it gets so that people will intuitively see the differences in features". This IMHO is a very valid choice for *good* design. It isn't the only choice that could have been made, but I'm rather happy with the result.
- Urs
This gets worse in the oscillator and in the mixer where there is a completely different sets of controls for each model. Obviously, the Triple VCO has 3 oscillators while the DCO has just one. So in DCO mode we would have to grey out about 15 controls that only do something in some of the other modes. And then, some of the modulation switches would contradict with each other, depending on what model is chosen. Making a "simplified" GUI like this would indeed be the epitome of bad UI design
The only section that may work rather well is the filter section, if one neglects that some models have extra choices. This however gets impossible with the upcoming "Uhbie" model which has two extra knobs.
Nevertheless, if by possibility the models all looked the same while only the parts that are different get swapped out, then people would start looking for the "rough / clean" switch in the Ladder filter, or for the Dual VCO's "Tune Mod 1, 2, 1+2" in the Triple VCO. I bet it would confuse people all over the place.
So we had to make a decision. That decision was "make them look as different and distinguishable as it gets so that people will intuitively see the differences in features". This IMHO is a very valid choice for *good* design. It isn't the only choice that could have been made, but I'm rather happy with the result.
- Urs
-
- KVRAF
- 4084 posts since 28 Jan, 2011 from MEXICO
The only real problem as it is when Using a midi controllers. Specially selecting waveforms in the Jupoter and Juno modules.
The names on the filters can also prove problematic for beginners. But at some point you become familiar with it.
The names on the filters can also prove problematic for beginners. But at some point you become familiar with it.
dedication to flying
-
- KVRAF
- 6097 posts since 5 Jul, 2001 from Just about .... there
Heck, I thought one of the great things about DIVA was how obvious the UI is. But, maybe because I've used hardware it just makes sense.
+1 on the difficulty with MIDI control... I posted a question about that but didn't get a reply. Any chance there can be separate MIDI learns for controls that are different types but do the same thing? Primarily switches, buttons and continuous dials for things like wave form.
+1 on the difficulty with MIDI control... I posted a question about that but didn't get a reply. Any chance there can be separate MIDI learns for controls that are different types but do the same thing? Primarily switches, buttons and continuous dials for things like wave form.
If you have to ask, you can't afford the answer
-
- KVRist
- Topic Starter
- 45 posts since 11 Dec, 2010 from Media, PA, USA
I hope my high regard for the brilliance of Diva comes across, and my gratitude to the whole team for what they've accomplished.
And I do appreciate the mission of impersonating classic vintage synths. For the record, my first encounter with electronic music was in 1970 when I composed on an original Buchla--with bolted-in modules and never-enough patch cords. I've owned a few of the classics, including the DX7 and a Chroma Polaris that was my diva for many years. I remember fondly the sounds that came out of those machines, which is why I got so excited when I heard U-He for the first time (started with ACE). Yes! That's the sound I remember.
But I'm first and foremost a musician--been performing since 1966 (yeah, I'm old). My approach to all synths has always been, "Hmm, let's see what 30 sounds I can use, tweak to my needs, and ignore everything else." That's how I use Diva (and Zebra, and Alchemy).
My reason for whining about the GUI is truly out of frustration. I hear a patch that's almost what I want, I go in to Diva to make an adjustment--to something the modwheel does, for example--and spend five minutes running down the modulation paths until I find it. Sometimes I never do, in which case I give up on that patch and try another. It's in these moments that I think, "if only I could click on this knob to show me exactly what causing it to change." Yes, I've studied the manual, but I don't want to have to keep going back to it to remember what this or that vintage knob with a vintage name really does, or spend lots of time exploring all the interactions just to make a tweak.
It would help, at least, to have a skin, or a version, that shows modulation paths, has lots of mouse-over help, color coding--any GUI trick you can summon to make as much as possible in the interface clear and obvious, leaving the subtle and advanced functions as they are for the people with the time and inclination to dig deeper.
My point is that out of your love for the vintage synths you've created a gorgeous instrument that a much broader population of musicians--not just vintage synth veterans--can use to make great music on their laptops. Please weigh our needs even a little bit when you design the next interface.
Steve
And I do appreciate the mission of impersonating classic vintage synths. For the record, my first encounter with electronic music was in 1970 when I composed on an original Buchla--with bolted-in modules and never-enough patch cords. I've owned a few of the classics, including the DX7 and a Chroma Polaris that was my diva for many years. I remember fondly the sounds that came out of those machines, which is why I got so excited when I heard U-He for the first time (started with ACE). Yes! That's the sound I remember.
But I'm first and foremost a musician--been performing since 1966 (yeah, I'm old). My approach to all synths has always been, "Hmm, let's see what 30 sounds I can use, tweak to my needs, and ignore everything else." That's how I use Diva (and Zebra, and Alchemy).
My reason for whining about the GUI is truly out of frustration. I hear a patch that's almost what I want, I go in to Diva to make an adjustment--to something the modwheel does, for example--and spend five minutes running down the modulation paths until I find it. Sometimes I never do, in which case I give up on that patch and try another. It's in these moments that I think, "if only I could click on this knob to show me exactly what causing it to change." Yes, I've studied the manual, but I don't want to have to keep going back to it to remember what this or that vintage knob with a vintage name really does, or spend lots of time exploring all the interactions just to make a tweak.
It would help, at least, to have a skin, or a version, that shows modulation paths, has lots of mouse-over help, color coding--any GUI trick you can summon to make as much as possible in the interface clear and obvious, leaving the subtle and advanced functions as they are for the people with the time and inclination to dig deeper.
My point is that out of your love for the vintage synths you've created a gorgeous instrument that a much broader population of musicians--not just vintage synth veterans--can use to make great music on their laptops. Please weigh our needs even a little bit when you design the next interface.
Steve
Keyboards >iOS (AUM, Enso, MIDI Designer, Ravenscroft 275, synths, etc.) Plus orchestral clarinet with pickup > Eventide stomp boxes > iOS loopers/fx. www.ThinAirX.com; ThinAirX on Soundcloud.
-
- KVRAF
- 1586 posts since 7 Jun, 2007
i think the OP is kinda missing the point of Diva. It's a synth which accurately models analog behaviour and is inspired by a number of iconic synths which are so well known to tweak-heads that to not emulate their specific interfaces would be a huge disappointment (if not downright sacrilegious), and is indeed part of the joy of using Diva!
Reading the manual is a great first step in the right direction. Well done. Get to know your tools.
Perhaps if you want less variation in the look of the synth and more obvious visual feedback as to what goes where you should be using ACE instead?
It has almost infinite mileage in terms of the type of sounds you can make with it...and they all look the same...kind of.
Reading the manual is a great first step in the right direction. Well done. Get to know your tools.
Perhaps if you want less variation in the look of the synth and more obvious visual feedback as to what goes where you should be using ACE instead?
It has almost infinite mileage in terms of the type of sounds you can make with it...and they all look the same...kind of.
-
- KVRist
- Topic Starter
- 45 posts since 11 Dec, 2010 from Media, PA, USA
No, I'm not missing the point. God bless the tweak heads who are steeped in this tradition and keep it alive!
My point is that the audience for this beautiful synth is much broader than tweak heads. There must be a way to respect the original intent--loving emulation of vintage synths--while at the same time making the sounds easier to control for people without the history.
Steve (OP)
My point is that the audience for this beautiful synth is much broader than tweak heads. There must be a way to respect the original intent--loving emulation of vintage synths--while at the same time making the sounds easier to control for people without the history.
Steve (OP)
Keyboards >iOS (AUM, Enso, MIDI Designer, Ravenscroft 275, synths, etc.) Plus orchestral clarinet with pickup > Eventide stomp boxes > iOS loopers/fx. www.ThinAirX.com; ThinAirX on Soundcloud.