exactly. especially the screen, fuck touch screens honestly. worst way to control an instrument
4 Likes
I see it like I do with cars and touchscreens.
My car doesn’t have any of that shit in it and if I want to turn up the heating or control the music, I don’t have to take my eyes off the road, my muscles know where the knobs and buttons are and which combinations do what.
Too many surface controls or touch screens eat into my muscle memory, meaning I have to surrender some of my concentration.
There’s times when electron gear doesn’t work for me (OT recording controls for example) but mostly I think they get it about right. The A4 skirts with trouble, but I’m mostly getting on with it.
7 Likes
yeah for sure, they really fixed this with the digitakt.
1 Like
I think this is an important point for thinking about UI/UX in electronic instruments. The goal is to give users a system that they can learn and explore in a deep, rewarding way — it’s not necessarily supposed to be immediate or intuitive, because you’re not meant to have a cursory/fleeting experience with it.
I work on designing a lot of digital experiences for consumer apps and websites. In that work, we have to focus on making things as easy and intuitive as possible, because we’re catering to people who are distracted, uninterested, not very tech-savvy, and who likely won’t come back to our experience often enough to gain familiarity with it.
But these instruments are different. You’re meant to dig into them and learn them so you can make the most of what they have to offer. It’s more like reading a novel to me than passing a billboard on the highway; it’s not meant to be easy/immediate, but it has a lot more to offer if you give it proper attention.
(All of that said, there are still certainly things Elektron can/should improve, including many that have been cited here already. Just wanted to give this other perspective for balance’s sake.)
12 Likes
2 Likes
Sure, definitely agreed. Still, they’re excellent for live performing. Not perfect, but really good at something most synths, especially deep ones with extensive menu diving aren’t.
2 Likes
Totally agree with that. Some of the features that initially seem difficult or obtuse end up being some of the most useful for working quickly / playing live.
Agreed. Roland system is ass. And my forte is sound design.
IDK, I’ve been using the same 3 Elektron boxes for years now.
I feel like I have them memorized, similar to knowing scales on a guitar, lots of practice.
I used to think the A4 was a bit difficult but time and experience changed my mind.
For example, I tried getting into modular but that just made me appreciate UI design in small boxes.
Reminds me of Alexander Shulgin’s comment on making a drug that made everything work out perfect, exactly as you wished.
He said you quickly realize how boring perfection is.
4 Likes
I’ve taken that drug. It wasn’t boring.
1 Like
I can do most things on it now, but I still get caught out and confused.
The other Elektron devices, especially the DT and DN, are well structured and I find them really easy to get around.
It’s probably just not a good fit for you. Personally it took me maybe an hour to understand how to use the DT (and subsequently the DN/Rytm/A4), the OT definitely took longer. If you’ve used a tracker before the OT is pretty easy though.
For me the worst interface I’ve ever used was the MPC Live. It has dozens of different screen layouts to reach it’s various functions, all of them designed haphazardly with little regard for consistent use of color, shapes and location of virtual knobs. Literally a UI nightmare.
Save and Assign, Save and Assign, Save and Assign, Save and Assign…
1 Like
I agree and that’s why I eventually sold my MPC One too. The interface is very messy, some of the things are working “sometimes” and the software doesn’t feel very thought out at all. And the bugs…
1 Like
I now use a DT/DN combo and I am enjoying them a lot. I actually find these wonderful designed, not only how they look, feel and sound but also how to use them and which functionality they have (and also don’t have).
Not everything is directly “intuitive”, but therefore they are very fast to use, when mastered. These are not devices to use now and then, you have to “keep up”, as is with traditional instruments.
The functionality of managing samples/sounds on the devices themselves is more capable then I actually need. I’d say even more useful as on the MPC (which has a touch screen). With transfer 1.4 it is very easy to manage all of this (and make backups) from/to your computer. I use it daily and it just works.
And the fact you can turn them on and start working on your latest project within seconds is maybe one of the best things.
I’d say the exact opposite, the DN/DT interfaces are not unnecessarily dificult. There is alway room for improvement (these machines are not flawless) but more importantly they are a breeze to use and I’m happy that I’m so lucky that I can even own two of them.
1 Like
digi interfaces are a thing of beauty imo.
2 Likes
1 Like
There is definitely back and forth between screens and may be a legacy thing because think it could possibly be done better,…
but….
it’s basically a daw with 6 knobs a few buttons and a touch screen, it gets complicated with that many features so not as easy as it seems to design the perfect interface
I understand the need to deliver a lot of information through its touchscreen, but it’s actually the inconsistent layouts between all the different screens that’s the problem.
It’s designed to look ‘nice’, not deliver information in a quick or consistent manner.
1 Like
It reminds of the time I was teaching people how to use computers. Some people could not understand a thing and when you listened to those people, it was never their own fault, lack of work, it was always the computer that was dumb…
2 Likes