Once mastered and once all the menus are known and the shortcuts personalized, it actually becomes a simple system—but that doesn’t mean it’s well designed.
Take for example, the menu-driven way of setting up macros, or compare how parameter locks are handled versus how it’s done instantly on Elektrons. You can just hold a step and make any edits, “p-lock” anything on screen, including volumes, rolls, and fills via 8 encoders—versus hopping through menus and setting up knobs before you do the same on the MPC.
Or how you can; microshift one or multiple steps, rotate the whole lane, or switch timing divisions on the Elektrons without effort. The difference is a “feast in Valhalla vs a vegan yogurt pot .”
Now, the Elektrons are designed for this, so it’s the most constrained example.
But the point is: regardless of knowing how everything works, even if you are fast at it, its doesn’t mean that the design is clever.
IMO, whoever is running product management at Akai is either restricted by upper management, bound by code restrictions, or constrained by the CEO’s boundaries and target market price as I personally think the whole design is a bit of a mess and I refuse to belive a team on this level lacks the expected abilities.
Not just from GUI workflow/menu design, but throughout the tactile interface.
In contrast, look at the SP16 UI: it’s clear and simple, and the balance between the XOX grid & Pads and parameter locking is harmonious and very effective.
Furthermore; The Qlinks are not customized for the L3 but instead share the same code as the X & XL, so things like tempo are blindly mapped to the first row of encoders on the main screen. How often do you need temp on an encoder and how often have users accidentally changed tempo of a sequence without intending to?
I don’t have one, so I don’t know if it’s just a matter of getting used to, but I’m pointing out things that blur the workflow in my opinion.
I sincerely hope you guys (Akai) at least create a script to just “learn,” grab anything on screen, and p-lock it without having to bounce around setup menus. I could write a long report here, but this is not my responsibility.
In contrast,
if you look at the Elektron Tonverk and how it’s UI is designed, it’s a very hands-on, “everything is within reach” , and each menu is instantly accessible via 8 encoders. Is it perfect? Considering the surface, size/format, and cost-to-target-price ratio, you can’t really fault it.
If I were to nitpick, I would have advised switching the ‘‘Transport buttons’’ and ‘‘Track Pattern Mute buttons’’ since transport controls and their secondary functions are used way more frequently and having them closer to your left hand would create a more efficient workflow than having to reach for them in the middle. But overall, it’s just an amazing design—very well crafted.
By contrast, the UI on the L3 ‘‘is very busy’’ and even the XL, if you ask me seems clearly catered more to marketing vs practicality.
I say this because if you’ve ever done 8-hour+ studio sessions for 1,000 days on a central studio hub, you’ll know that “flying elbows” are not a workflow asset.
Likewise (on the XL) things like the channel section on the left are too far away for “frequent access,” not to mention the LCD.
And who needs a stem button on the front panel? (Yeah, marketing won that meeting.) It would have been much better to go with an 8x2 pad configuration versus 4x4. I know 4x4 pads are iconic for MPCs, but you are crafting an instrument and by logic practicality should triumph in UI design choices.
