I Hate Fiddly Instruments

The Lounge General Discussion
#1

I don’t know if it’s me getting old, the lack of time or what not but I have started to detest fiddly instruments. Anything with too many menus and options is an automatic no, button combos that are not labelled are also a pass. These days I am using my 303 and 707 more and more despite their limitations, they are liberating, they bring joy. We are fed the illusion that more options = better music but that’s a lie.

We need instruments with better interfaces, instruments that do less but do it well.

End of the rant.

34 Likes
#2

Not a rant at all, just sound rational insights - depth can be incorporated well and intuitively but it’s rarely done as well as it could be ime - Elektrons get some way there and the benefits outweigh the issues, but a one to one direct interface is always better for expression

5 Likes
#3

I agree. So frustrated with all the Eurorack modules going tiny. They were already small. Does everything have to be on a trimmer?

5 Likes
#4

It’s a natural consequence of it being in a rack. Everyone wants to maximize what they can do in the space they have. But I agree that it is annoying in a lot of cases.

3 Likes
#5

…ur not alone…

…still way too many menu diving overkill concepts out there…in hw as in sw…
but it’s getting better…they all start to hear the call for more smartness…but what’s a intuitive workflow, a reduced to the max userinterface remains subjective…

can’t get arround, suggesting bitwig here again…that’s smart and simplified workflow throughout all the way, no matter what workload u gotto or wanna deal with…

in hw, same goes for syntakt…that’s pretty reduced to max algorithms for each sound machine right there, too…

and let’s keep in mind…where it’s at, overall, when it comes to all the sonic tools at our disposal for creating/producing music, it’s never been that easy as it is…

2 Likes
#6

I will happily relieve you of the burden of all your fiddly instruments… :partying_face:

11 Likes
#7

I really like being able to feel and see at a glance what an instrument will sound like, faders are best for this but well designed knobs and layouts help a lot. Hidden states where you don’t know what something is doing until you select it or show the right page can be quite annoying and add extra cognitive load to a performance.

I can tolerate pagey-shifty workflows in maybe one instrument on the table, like an OT which has more than enough hidden complexity to be dealing with, and I still much prefer breaking out some of its controls into surrounding MIDI controllers for dedicated level/filter/amp control.

Seeing the layout and performances on the Super Gemini is one of the big draws of the instrument for me. Not requiring presets or menu heavy screens should be the ideal that instrument designers aim for IMO.

1 Like
#8

I will say my Super 6 desktop in manual mode ticks all those boxes.

3 Likes
#9

yeah there’s a reason why the early Roland boxes are so beloved. they’re simple, they do one thing, and they do it well. there are still machines out there like that. and you’ll see plenty of them now that you know to look.

5 Likes
#10

everyone likes a comfortable pair of pants.

3 Likes
#11

i can play the lyra8 in the dark :dark_sunglasses::night_with_stars:

4 Likes
#12

Yeah not a fan of shitty user interfaces either, I don’t mind a bit of depth and am more than willing to learn a new piece of gear if it is worthwhile though, sometimes that is all it takes, sometimes not.

One pet peeve is when on one machine there are multiple ways to do the exact same thing, shocking that they don’t just choose the best/easiest way (cough Akai) another is when there is no cohesion within functions, like copying done 3 completely different ways for 3 different things, when one way would work for all 3 things. Another is illogical seemingly randomly chosen button combos and yet rarely used functions have their own dedicated button, sitting there 99.99999999% of the time never being pressed.

I have gear like this and keep it because of what it does well, but it still pisses me off.

I think the secret is to have mostly instant flow gear, then a few more complex pieces to get deeper. I do think though that some gear is needlessly convoluted, usually because too much is crammed in.

9 Likes
#13

I do sometimes enjoy turning on a basic analog synth and playing with a nearly knob-per-function hardware design. Great palate cleanser.

That said, I agree with an earlier post. For me, the “Digi” line in particular strikes a great balance between depth and accessibility, once one gets a handle on the “Elektron Way”.

6 Likes
#14

In that regard, the new S-1 from Roland is a miss. On the other hand, the PERfourMER is the antithesis of fiddly.

4 Likes
#15

I think the A4 has a perfect balance of having depth and having a nice UI. I’m using the MK1. MK2 was even better.
For some reason the Analog Keys I wasnt getting fluid with.

1 Like
#16

Depth without fiddlyness is a difficult balance to reach. I also expect one person’s fiddly is another person’s “not deep enough”.

All else equal I prefer less fiddly to fiddly, though. Fiddly is almost always done better in software.

2 Likes
#17

this is my benchmark for a device getting the balance just right, even though it’s not like a knobby synth for most, it retains a good amount of access that’s intuitive imho

6 Likes
#18

:100:

2 Likes
#19

Mostly because of the size. There are nineteen knobs and one encoder, and well-labelled buttons. It’s just that the knobs are trimmers, and the buttons less than a cm wide.

3 Likes
#20

And a lot of Shift functions.

3 Likes