No instrument should ever require a screen, I agree. The thing is though, grooveboxes aren’t really instruments. They may feel like ones compared to a DAW, but with few exceptions, they’re much closer to computers than instruments.
2 Likes
Obviously depends on the gear but if I remember correctly I think Martin Stimming mentioned once in one way or another that screens can detract from musical expression and for me that was a bit of a eureka moment because it’s clearly possible that you’re busier dialling in specific settings / numbers that you see / recognise or otherwise. I know for myself that when I am setting LFO parameters (for example) and I have a screen to tell me what ‘number’ I am at, I am really aware of that ‘precision’ factor which is really helpful but also super fucking boring after a while. I am also a bit OCD so I like the numbers to ‘make sense’.
When I play an acoustic instrument non of that shite matters.
So screens are great and all but I think about them differently now and try to just listen rather than look at what is happening.
If we’re talking about size and backlit and all that shenanigans the only thing that bothers me personally is if the text on a screen is legible… being an old fart, I have to put my magnifying goggles on.
This is probably the reason why I love the Moog semi modular gear… close your eyes tweaky heaven.
3 Likes
I have the same issues with eye fatigue as you. And i sold the Rev 2 disliking that stupid screen.
1 Like
Trackers specifically, in the case of Elektron, yes.
What can be regarded as instruments though, that is a very personal thing. To me grooveboxes are very much instruments, yes, much more so than a DAW. And the less menu diving, the better.
With these feature-rich boxes of course, that can be very difficult or impossible to achieve. The OT would not work without a screen, I get that. It’s a tightrope.
But wherever they can get away without a menu, it’s usually a big plus (for me). I would argue that a great tracker could also be operated without the need to look at a screen.
As long as it isn’t a touch screen, I’m down.
1 Like
Yeah, that’s my point really: the more deep and complex a groovebox gets, the harder it is to avoid a screen.
Regarding instrument or not, it’s definitely not binary. I’d say that a groovebox contains certain instrument aspects as part of the experience, but then the logic to sequence and program the song structure feels pretty far away from an instrument to me.
1 Like
I’d say a simpleish step sequencer shouldn’t need a screen, I’m thinking about the TR808/909, but a tracker such as the polyend or Renoise would always need a screen. It’s just a quirk of that type of sequencing
Not so sure. In Renoise specifically, pretty much everything is hot-keyable. So in theory, If you had a little more sonic feedback, for example scrubbing in the sample editor, perhaps other little audible signals to guide you, why not really? Navigating a pattern and most other hotkeys should be second nature anyway.
I mean it’s pretty hard to imagine having to rely on non-visual senses only when operating a software, but I wouldn’t rule out that people could get some great work done with minimal or no visual feedback in trackers. There are obvious benefits but that’s not really the point.
My point is rather music gear being MUSIC gear and not video gear, I think designers should always make an effort to try to design as inclusively as possible. So yes, have displays, but perhaps not as integral to the operation, if you know what I mean. As a bonus, not a requirement to operate. Be clever about it. (The Models are actually a good example for this, to some degree…)
That being said, I’m sure Stevie Wonder would be able to operate the Octatrack, without a friggin’ doubt.
1 Like
I suppose in theory you could do that in Renoise (not used a polyend) but it would be purgatory for me! I make full songs with multiple vsts etc across maybe 10 or 15 tracks and the same in sections with subgroup sends etc. Tying to remember where I’m up to with that lot going on…not a chance for me! Especially as trackers have been inextricably linked to displays since the Amiga programmes etc. But I think trackers are a bit of an exception for that reason. Maybe the limitations of the polyend in terms of track count etc would make that easier, I don’t know.
I’m straying a bit OT by bringing Renoise into the conversation but it’s my only tracker reference having never used the polyend. I really like the idea of their workflow but as I say it’s not hot enough tracks for my needs
As long as it’s intuitive, I don’t care.
1 Like
I don’t mind screens, it’s menu diving that adds more friction to creativity than I prefer
6 Likes
the Matriarch is an interesting one… it’d be weird to give it a screen because all the controls are otherwise analog, and there’s no patch store/recall. but it has an underlying digital element that has parameters to control. I don’t hate the method they chose when looking at or playing the synth, assuming everything is set up how I need it to be. but I do hate it when I have to change a parameter. like I said, it’s a tricky one…
curious where @Bunker saw people complaining about synths having screens. the only thing I’ve seen on that lately was about the OB-X8. and that’s mainly because a lot of parameters people felt should be on the front panel are in the menu instead. things that even the OB-6 has on the front panel. which is likely because they wanted a more stripped-down/vintage vibe. I don’t think anyone cared that the synth had a screen, but more so how it was being used.
For me it’s about visual dominance on mind capacity…as soon a I predominately SEE what is going on, I struggle to hear or feel it…it then becomes more mental/intellectual than aural/felt.
Saw this just yesterday on the topic of screens in mixing settings:
2 Likes
I wouldn’t say I saw people complaining as such. It was a reply to a post I read on here that went along the lines of ‘glad it’s not got a screen’ or ‘the screen is a deal breaker’. I’ve seen similar comments on other threads too. It just got me thinking is it now a thing for some folks not to have a screen? I’ve never been on trend and was really wondering out loud. Especially with stuff like the deluge and op z being pretty popular devices along with the circuit and other similar bits of gear.
I’ll caveat that as I guess the deluge has visual feedback but not a traditional screen based interface
This. 
Take the MPC vs MC-101 as an example. One has an enormous touch screen and the other one has a tiny 2-row text screen. Guess which one is the least menu-divey?
2 Likes
One of the big reasons I leaned away from the UDO super 6 was the lack of a screen… even if it just had one so I could name and see the name of patches it would go a long way for the way I like to work.
3 Likes
On hardware I really dont mind the screens. As long as the device is balanced and has limited to no menu diving, I could really care less.
But I have found that when screens are present I for one, tend to switch to a more “procedural” mode of music creation. I find myself spending time that could be used other wise precisely dialing in parameter settings instead of simply focusing on “what sounds good”.
When I am playing with a screen-less device, such as my Norand Mono, I feel the creative process is more organic and I am more prone to experimenting instead of trying to force out an idea I have in my head.
Its not that one way is better than the other for me, but I have to say that the amount of “happy accidents” that occur when no screen is present is a lot higher that if I am nards deep making sure that my filter cut off settings are all round even numbers.
3 Likes
Pot yes or no? Fader yes or no? Button yes or no? Piano or guitar?? Mountain or sea??apple or oranges???
Shouldnt be a question. Lot of good, or bad gear, with or without any of those one.
Only questionto have: is the ui good, or not??
Did i personnaly gel with it or no?
And only you can answer that…
Rest is b……t
Quite stranged to have access to elektronautsagain from my french provider…
it depends upon integration, some good, some shit…
MC707 could be better, but for the most part, once you get everything setup and all your scenes recorded you don’t really need to look at the screen as the LED buttons show you playback info you need to know. for the most part.
i use an LCXL with my octatrack, so that i don’t have to do all the menu page turning, when i mostly use it as a mixer and looper, LCXL is amazing, can’t stand menu diving when trying to “perform”
2 Likes