There oughta be a law...

[Mark Zeger]

Originally posted by SlopHappy:

1. Sample CD-Rom pricing and licensing, specifically Ilio. Let me get this straight...I pay you $300 for a license to use your guitar/whatever sounds. I can't do anything with the CD but use it, or ship it back to Ilio. I can't give to anyone else or sell to anyone once I'm through with it. If I use your sounds on a recording I may have to credit Ilio, etc... I can see who all of this benefits, and it ain't me. I'm sure Ilio isn't the only publisher doing this, but I find this completely unacceptable and I refuse to throw my money away. I will own none of these disks. Of course, I could buy them mail order, not register my purchase, and play frisbee with them if I wanted! And how much money am I going to have tied up in these disks? What a screwfest!

 

The record industry failed at using the same tactics to shut down the used CD market.

 

No matter how good Spectrasonics'/Ilio's online MP3 or audio CD demos may be, you can't actually "try before you buy". You have to judge a CD-ROM by it's cover, more or less. I just bought Liquid Grooves after passing up a less costly, but "illegal", second hand copy. Before I opened the case, I couldn't even tell how much or little material was contained on the discs. As it turns out, though it might be a fine product, it doesn't work for the project on which I'd intended to use it. Looks like I'm another guest at the Spectrasonics/Ilio screwfest. Where's the bar...

 

It would be wrong of me to mention that there are copies of Spectrasonics libraries floating around on the Internet, wouldn't it?

[coyote]

ARRRGH!!!

 

Know-nothing salespeople. In my struggle to justify buying the Alesis QS8, not a single salesperson knows how to do any real edits on the patches or effects! Don't the manufacturers do ANY sales training in retail establishments? It's not like there are three hundred synth brands to choose from.

[MusicaL]

Coyote

 

I just read your post about the QS 8 and this post. If you're still in the market and looking for some good Rhodes patches, you owe it to yourself to look at the Yamaha S-80. They're clean, realistic and very versatile. The Alesis patches sounded dirty and mid rangey to me. I have a QS-R and IMHO, the Rhodes patches cannot compete with the S-80.

 

My OT two cents

 

Albert

[Faruk]

Well there are a few things that realy bring me down. I just hope that all of you guys would not be buged a lot with my deal of problems. So, here starts the list.

 

1. My first problem is touring with my own band, or going on a trip anywhere with them. I`m an early starter. I usually get up around 7, and they are still sleeping. We are allways late because of my bend. Sometimes I`m so embaresed, and every time when I start to wake them up we go into a fight. I dont whant to elaborate this one any more because it becomes personal on this point. Anyway I want to say to my bend here: "WHY DONT YOU LEASY STRING STRIKIN` AND DRUM HITIN` MOFOS DONT BUY YOURSELVES THE LARGEST ALARM CLOCK IN THE WORLD AND SHOVE IT UP YOUR SIT SURFACES SO WE CAN GET SOMEWHERE ON TIME FOR A CHANGE!". Wow, now I feeeel much better.

 

2. I`m tired of waiting my label about my bend`s album relase date. I`m getting frustrated waiting. I should be recording second album with my crew by now.

 

3. I`m scared crazy about keyboard technology galop. At my point of view it is going too fast. If you want to have up to date equipment and sounds, you have to spend more and more money every year, and that does not even takes in acount compatibility problems.

 

4. When I work on some new music with the guys I hate to be 'dammen' rompler and effect box, and to spend my loungs every time about the fact that I try to be a music player and maker, that I am not there to "just play one thick sound to make an atmosphere, and not to bug them with my blasted harmony", and that sounds of classical instruments are not borring.

 

5. The worst of them all is that I can not develop my own signiture, or as someone calls it style. I am keyboard player, but that does not necesseraly means that I have to make a different set of sounds for every song. I am not Casio tone bank keyboard demo. Maybe I`m a fool about thinking like this, but it hurts my feelings. I mean, guitar players may use one sound through out all songs, while we the keyboard players have to please sound visions of our band mates and to give up on our own sound and style... Sometimes I`m thinking about selling my car and buying Rhodes, and not even have a sustain pedal with it.

 

That`s it. If you my friends read this please feel free to comment.

[Michael Jones]

2. Kurzweil Kx00 pricing. Oh sure, they make great products, and I own them too. But...when they come out with that (mythical) K3000XS priced at $7700, I guarantee I'm not going to buy it. Enough is enough YC. Quit gouging your faithful customers. Those "special" prices made your products finally reasonably priced. They competed with Korg, Roland, and other manufacturer's products. I see now the prices are going back up, and I think they are back to being unreasonable. And your "upgrade" prices are totally ridiculous! $380 for an 8-meg orchestral rom for the K2600 that was sampled in what 1990? Please... Kurzweil I want to hate you in the worst way.

 

AMEN BROTHER....You hit the nail on the head. The K is way out of line when it comes to pricing. They have a premier instrument...too bad they overprice it so much.

 

Remember the Music!

 

Michael

[Michael Jones]

2. Kurzweil Kx00 pricing. Oh sure, they make great products, and I own them too. But...when they come out with that (mythical) K3000XS priced at $7700, I guarantee I'm not going to buy it. Enough is enough YC. Quit gouging your faithful customers. Those "special" prices made your products finally reasonably priced. They competed with Korg, Roland, and other manufacturer's products. I see now the prices are going back up, and I think they are back to being unreasonable. And your "upgrade" prices are totally ridiculous! $380 for an 8-meg orchestral rom for the K2600 that was sampled in what 1990? Please... Kurzweil I want to hate you in the worst way.

 

 

AMEN BROTHER....You hit the nail on the head. The K is way out of line when it comes to pricing. They have a premier instrument...too bad they overprice it so much.

 

Remember the Music!

 

Michael

 

 

This message has been edited by midirat on 05-01-2001 at 07:18 PM

[Bucktunes]

Originally posted by jarrell:

I play left hand bass, and wish 76 note keyboards started on C, or A, but not E. I guess low E was chosen years ago because that is what a Rhoades has, but - E to G? Why not A to C, like a piano?

 

I couldn't agree more. My main axe live now is a 76 key Triton because I like having the wider range than a 61 key version, especially for splits. But the problem is that if you shift octaves to get those last few high or low notes, you end up with about half an octave of notes that are either too high or low to be useful.

 

The same number of keys (76) ranging from A to C, along with a simple octave up/down toggle switch would give us instant access to the full range of a piano, but with no wasted notes. So why didn't the manufacturers think of that?

 

Actually, I guess that's more of a gripe than a real question because the answer is fairly obvious even though I don't agree with it; Apparently the synth manufacturers are afraid that a 76 key A to C keyboard would cannibalize the sales of their 88 key versions. There's a couple of reasons I don't agree with that reasoning. First of all, 76 key versions are usually unweighted which wouldn't satisfy anyone who wanted weighted keys. Secondly, if anything they would take away sales of 61 key versions, which don't yield as much profit as the 76'ers, so what's the drawback there? And I'm not even sure that some players wouldn't still prefer the 61's if just for easier portability.

 

Speaking of 88's and manufacturers not wanting to compete with their own products, I have a big gripe with Korg. Whose brain-dead idea was it to design the SGproX to respond on only ONE MIDI channel?! What decade is this again? It would have been the perfect digital piano/controller for me if not for this one limitation. I guess they were afraid of competing with their own N1 or Trinity proX, which is such an apples/oranges comparison that it's almost laughable. Did they really think we wouldn't notice this? Turns out they only hurt themselves.

 

Okay, I guess that's quite enough ranting for now. I'll get back to playing some music. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif

[KHAN]

You think you guys have problems?

 

There but for the grace of god go I...We...Us

 

****** You won't believe this ********

 

It will take a minute to load, but it's worth every second... http://cwm.ragesofsanity.com/contrib/blackeye/hihi.gif

 

 

This message has been edited by KHAN on 05-01-2001 at 08:06 PM

[Anoplura]

I was all set to post eloquent and insightful comments on the topics of MAPs and vaporware, but by the time I got to the bottom of the thread and saw the posts about bad user manuals, I started getting all worked up about my current #1 peeve: BAD USER INTERFACE DESIGN!

 

This is a rampant problem with most of the products we use from sequencing software to effects processors, digital mixers to (now) guitar amps. Synthesizers though, are especially bad. Not only do the vast majority of current synthesizers have terrible front panel interfaces (only slightly improved upon from the DX7), but in the interest of conforming to the MIDI spec - a simple protocol yes, but completely non-intuitive - they add another layer of complexity.

 

Digital interfaces disconnect the signal from the front panel. Unlike a Minimoog, where each knob and button passes signal and actually directly changes the signal flow, the front panels of modern synthesizers are a completely abstract and arbitrary representation of whats actually happening to the sound. Manufacturers are free to make any knob or button or blinky light do whatever they want. Logically you would assume that this would lead to products which are easier to use. Instead theyve only been able to think up two crappy interfaces.

 

The first being the ubiquitous tiny LCD showing an abbreviated parameter name, a menu name (usually also abbreviated) and a page number. (I liken this to having a cardboard box over my head with a tiny hole cut in it to see through, and a long pointy stick with which to poke at buttons, one at a time.)

 

The newer philosophy of cramming as much data at once onto a big dot matrix LCD isnt any better. Big graphic LCDs are for displaying graphics. The sad thing is that the same products that have wonderful graphically-intensive displays for some functions, also have these home screens suffering from data overload. Can you look over from across the room and see whats going on? Do you have to scan the LCD for 30 seconds to find the data that you know is on this screen? Back to the drawing board.

 

The problem stems from the fact that most of these interfaces are designed by engineers. Ive seen it in action and its incredibly frustrating. Remember that these are people who spend all day building very complex abstract models in their heads for things like digital circuits and big software routines. If you can consistently perform the specified task, then the interface is good in their eyes. The product works, right? The fact that you might have to jump through hoops and memorize the products twisted logic and cryptic nomenclature to make it work are irrelevant to them. RTFM, right? Its the users fault.

 

Okay... Almost out of steam. Since this thread is about things that should be outlawed, I propose a few things that I dont ever want to see on a keyboard again:

 

Double Key Commands: Hold down this and press that... This is the number one sign of product that was built before it was completely speced out. Ever hear of building a proof-of-concept? These should be reserved for Easter Eggs. (And they better be cool ones, like Pong!) I dont even think diagnostics and reset procedures should be hidden this way. Its much easier to accidentally press the wrong two or three buttons, than to get through three yes/no prompts.

 

Invisible Hierarchical Menus: Modern computer systems (Mac, Windows, et al...) all have graphical representations for data (files and folders) and command (pull-down menus) hierarchies. With synthesizers, its completely up to you to memorize the labyrinthine menu layout. If you only have one synth, and you use it a lot, you will probably finally succumb to its logic and begin to feel comfortable skipping through its menus. Good luck if you have several, especially from different manufacturers. Okay, wait... on my Korg thats under the MIDI menu, page thirteen, but on the Roland its under System, which I get to by pressing Global twice.

 

Dead Controls: If a knob or button is non-functional in one particular mode, let me know! Give me LEDs to tell me which buttons are going to do something when I press them. Dont leave me standing there like an idiot, twiddling knobs and wondering why nothings happening. (And anyway, why did you devote a whole button to a feature that only works some of the time, when another feature that I am constantly poking at is buried under two layers of menus.)

Even worse are the new Rude Dead Controls where the helpful (or smartass) product informs you that you must be in #$%&* mode to use feature ~+@!. Thanks, but why not just take me there, or give me a yes/no prompt?

 

Okay Im done. I feel much better now.

I would like to note that there are several examples of good interface design out there, but highlighting them would only make this post longer, and besides - I would probably spend just as much time pointing out whats wrong with the rest of the product. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif

 

 

Ben

[Dave Bryce]

Originally posted by SWBuck1074@aol.com:

Actually, I guess that's more of a gripe than a real question because the answer is fairly obvious even though I don't agree with it; Apparently the synth manufacturers are afraid that a 76 key A to C keyboard would cannibalize the sales of their 88 key versions.

 

I don't think so...

 

Basically, it has always been my understanding that the manufacturers are trying to stay in the most widely played range of notes. The five keys on the top of the piano keyboard, and the seven keys at the bottom do not fall into that category. How often to you actually play those notes, guys? Really...think about it...

 

The logic of starting with a low E has always struck me thusly - if you're playing in a band, the lowest note that the guitar and bass player can hit is an E, not an A. By what logic would you have the first key be an A? Because it is that way on a piano? Once again, how often do you play that note? Or any of the few notes above it? Once in a blue moon, right? On those rare occasions when you do play them, do you need to simultaneously play the high notes of the keyboard?

 

If you start with A1, you can't get to a very commonly played set of keys that go down to the E1 (the first note of a bass guitar). If you start with A0, then you're missing a bunch of commonly played keys on the top of the keyboard. You'd be using the transpose function much more often, I think.

 

I'm thinking that if you play those more than once in a blue moon, you're probably gonna want the full 88 keys.

 

Just my observations - I don't believe there's a right or a wrong on this one.

 

dB

[Michael Jones]

Originally posted by Anoplura:

I was all set to post eloquent and insightful comments on the topics of MAPs and vaporware, but by the time I got to the bottom of the thread and saw the posts about bad user manuals, I started getting all worked up about my current #1 peeve: BAD USER INTERFACE DESIGN!

 

This is a rampant problem with most of the products we use from sequencing software to effects processors, digital mixers to (now) guitar amps. Synthesizers though, are especially bad. Not only do the vast majority of current synthesizers have terrible front panel interfaces (only slightly improved upon from the DX7), but in the interest of conforming to the MIDI spec - a simple protocol yes, but completely non-intuitive - they add another layer of complexity.

 

Digital interfaces disconnect the signal from the front panel. Unlike a Minimoog, where each knob and button passes signal and actually directly changes the signal flow, the front panels of modern synthesizers are a completely abstract and arbitrary representation of whats actually happening to the sound. Manufacturers are free to make any knob or button or blinky light do whatever they want. Logically you would assume that this would lead to products which are easier to use. Instead theyve only been able to think up two crappy interfaces.

 

The first being the ubiquitous tiny LCD showing an abbreviated parameter name, a menu name (usually also abbreviated) and a page number. (I liken this to having a cardboard box over my head with a tiny hole cut in it to see through, and a long pointy stick with which to poke at buttons, one at a time.)

 

The newer philosophy of cramming as much data at once onto a big dot matrix LCD isnt any better. Big graphic LCDs are for displaying graphics. The sad thing is that the same products that have wonderful graphically-intensive displays for some functions, also have these home screens suffering from data overload. Can you look over from across the room and see whats going on? Do you have to scan the LCD for 30 seconds to find the data that you know is on this screen? Back to the drawing board.

 

The problem stems from the fact that most of these interfaces are designed by engineers. Ive seen it in action and its incredibly frustrating. Remember that these are people who spend all day building very complex abstract models in their heads for things like digital circuits and big software routines. If you can consistently perform the specified task, then the interface is good in their eyes. The product works, right? The fact that you might have to jump through hoops and memorize the products twisted logic and cryptic nomenclature to make it work are irrelevant to them. RTFM, right? Its the users fault.

 

Okay... Almost out of steam. Since this thread is about things that should be outlawed, I propose a few things that I dont ever want to see on a keyboard again:

 

Double Key Commands: Hold down this and press that... This is the number one sign of product that was built before it was completely speced out. Ever hear of building a proof-of-concept? These should be reserved for Easter Eggs. (And they better be cool ones, like Pong!) I dont even think diagnostics and reset procedures should be hidden this way. Its much easier to accidentally press the wrong two or three buttons, than to get through three yes/no prompts.

 

Invisible Hierarchical Menus: Modern computer systems (Mac, Windows, et al...) all have graphical representations for data (files and folders) and command (pull-down menus) hierarchies. With synthesizers, its completely up to you to memorize the labyrinthine menu layout. If you only have one synth, and you use it a lot, you will probably finally succumb to its logic and begin to feel comfortable skipping through its menus. Good luck if you have several, especially from different manufacturers. Okay, wait... on my Korg thats under the MIDI menu, page thirteen, but on the Roland its under System, which I get to by pressing Global twice.

 

Dead Controls: If a knob or button is non-functional in one particular mode, let me know! Give me LEDs to tell me which buttons are going to do something when I press them. Dont leave me standing there like an idiot, twiddling knobs and wondering why nothings happening. (And anyway, why did you devote a whole button to a feature that only works some of the time, when another feature that I am constantly poking at is buried under two layers of menus.)

Even worse are the new Rude Dead Controls where the helpful (or smartass) product informs you that you must be in #$%&* mode to use feature ~+@!. Thanks, but why not just take me there, or give me a yes/no prompt?

 

Okay Im done. I feel much better now.

I would like to note that there are several examples of good interface design out there, but highlighting them would only make this post longer, and besides - I would probably spend just as much time pointing out whats wrong with the rest of the product. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif

 

 

Ben

 

Ben:

 

I couldn't agree more! However when I was in college my field of chosen study required a dedication (as I suppose all do) that necessitated many hours of self-study and research. I sometimes wonder if some of the problems with the technology in the high tech music extravanganza isn't so much as having too much or too little of what we think we want, but is more of a problem of lack of dedication (or better yet lack of planning)to take the steps required to become proficient with the products we own. I know some of them are overly crytic. But the RTFM thing goes a long way. And how many people can honestly say they have methodically and with perserverance been serious students of the technology? Technology in the music field is here to stay. The sucessful musician will take the time to embrace it and realize that it is also a field of continuing education. It isn't possible to "learn it and forget it" anymore. Things happen way too fast and the movers are moving with it!

 

Remember the Music!

 

Michael

[guestuserguestuser.com]

Originally posted by midirat:

I couldn't agree more! However when I was in college my field of chosen study required a dedication (as I suppose all do) that necessitated many hours of self-study and research. I sometimes wonder if some of the problems with the technology in the high tech music extravanganza isn't so much as having too much or too little of what we think we want, but is more of a problem of lack of dedication (or better yet lack of planning)to take the steps required to become proficient with the products we own. I know some of them are overly crytic. But the RTFM thing goes a long way. And how many people can honestly say they have methodically and with perserverance been serious students of the technology? Technology in the music field is here to stay. The sucessful musician will take the time to embrace it and realize that it is also a field of continuing education. It isn't possible to "learn it and forget it" anymore. Things happen way too fast and the movers are moving with it!

 

It's true, that complex synths require a lot of study. But that doesn't mean that the design of many synths can't be improved. Imagine this, for instance: each knob has a cirle of LED's, or some kind of circular graphic display around it. The current knob setting is indicated by pixels on this circular display (yes, I know, the Nord 3 does this). Now, go a bit further: underneath each knob is another little graphic display, that tells you what parameter that knob is currently controlling (I know that on a modern synth, each is probably going to have to do double or triple duty). Also, as well as desinging each knob in a static way, put some thought into how the various parmaters will interact with each other , and the user, when the thing is actually being used. In other words, the synth should behave one way when it's being used as a multitimbral sound module, and another way when being used as a performance instrument. And there are degrees of performance. Some people will want to perform on one channel while the synth is playing back a sequence. Others may want to use it strictly as a performance instrument. These various uses should each have a "usage mode", which is optimized for that task. If you think about it, there is a lot of room for improvement in these designs. I've been buying , using and programming synths now for over 15 years, and I still haven't found a synth that makes me say: "yes, this is designed properly" (with the possible exception of the A50). Instead, i have to say: "ok, I guess i will choose synth X because it has the least limitations which get in my way."

[Dave Bryce]

It's true, that complex synths require a lot of study. But that doesn't mean that the design of many synths can't be improved. Imagine this, for instance: each knob has a cirle of LED's, or some kind of circular graphic display around it. The current knob setting is indicated by pixels on this circular display (yes, I know, the Nord 3 does this).

 

Those can also be found on the Mackie digital mixer, the Spirit 328 digital mixer, and the Behringer V-amp, among other products. I wanted to do that to Andromeda, but it was already gonna be an expensive machine, and went against the classic design philosophy of Andy. I agree that those are rippin' cool, though...maybe I'll get to use it on something else at some point.

 

Now, go a bit further: underneath each knob is another little graphic display, that tells you what parameter that knob is currently controlling (I know that on a modern synth, each is probably going to have to do double or triple duty).

 

...hmmm...wonder how much THAT would cost? I'm guessing a whole lot... it'd be a nightmare to write the code for it as well.

 

Also, as well as desinging each knob in a static way, put some thought into how the various parmaters will interact with each other , and the user, when the thing is actually being used. In other words, the synth should behave one way when it's being used as a multitimbral sound module, and another way when being used as a performance instrument. And there are degrees of performance. Some people will want to perform on one channel while the synth is playing back a sequence. Others may want to use it strictly as a performance instrument. These various uses should each have a "usage mode", which is optimized for that task. If you think about it, there is a lot of room for improvement in these designs. I've been buying , using and programming synths now for over 15 years, and I still haven't found a synth that makes me say: "yes, this is designed properly" (with the possible exception of the A50). Instead, i have to say: "ok, I guess i will choose synth X because it has the least limitations which get in my way."

 

I have been in the same boat, except for the fact that I have actually helped design synths, and am currently designing a brand new line of synths, so this thread is actually quite interesting to me. There is a line that has to be drawn between idealism and practicality, though, from programming, industrial design, manufacturing and cost standpoints. Andromeda is a good example - it's laid out great, but it has 72 knobs and 144 buttons, and consequently they had a hell of a time manufacturing it.

 

Designing a synth interface (or any interface, for that matter) ain't as easy as it may look from the outside - believe me. There's a reason things are the way they are, and it isn't that everyone who has designed synthesizers is short-sighted - at least, I don't think so... http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/wink.gif

 

dB

[guestuserguestuser.com]

Originally posted by Dave Bryce:

I have been in the same boat, except for the fact that I have actually helped design synths, and am currently designing a brand new line of synths, so this thread is actually quite interesting to me. There is a line that has to be drawn between idealism and practicality, though, from programming, industrial design, manufacturing and cost standpoints. Andromeda is a good example - it's laid out great, but it has 72 knobs and 144 buttons, and consequently they had a hell of a time manufacturing it.

 

Designing a synth interface (or any interface, for that matter) ain't as easy as it may look from the outside - believe me. There's a reason things are the way they are, and it isn't that everyone who has designed synthesizers is short-sighted - at least, I don't think so... http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/wink.gif

dB[/b]

 

Yes, I can understand that in the real world, designers have to work within a budget, and I can accept that. Maybe those were bad examples. What I really wanted to stress was that I like instruments that are designed to perform specific functions, like sequencing, or performing. I think manufacturers should not be so afraid to reveal what their designs actually are. If it's meant for sequencing, then it would help if the consumer knew that. And if it's meant for performing, then let the consumer know it, and let them know how it will behave. There is too much talk of specs, and not enough talk about how instruments actually behave. For instance, the Rolanad A50 controller, which I have said I like. I remember that one of the few reviews I read of that, in Keyboard magazine, they talked about how the sliders send their current position when you change patches. The reviewer thought this was a bad thing. Actually, it's one of the strengths of the A50, if you make use of it. So if you set a slider to control reverb on all your synths, and turn it down to "off", then when you change patches, reverb will be off on the next patch. This is a great thing. I call this "how the instrument behaves". You never see this kind of stuff discussed any more. All people want to talk about is raw specs. When Roland was selling the A50, they should have made that kind of stuff known to buyers, explain to them how it behaves, and why. Too often, manufacturs don't tell you this kind of stuff, you have to find it out by yourself. By then, it's too late, you already bought it and spent a few months trying to master it.

 

What I mean to say is, an instrument doesn't have to have every gadget known to man on it, or be really expensive. But it needs a design philosophy, a point of view, so to speak. Actually, I think it's better if instruments could be simpler instead of more complicated / expensive. I think that many synths try to do too much. I'm not talking about the Andromeda, by the way, I really don't know much about that. I've only spent about 5 minutes with one, but it looks like a nice synth, but I really don't know enought about it to comment.

[marino]

A few comments:

 

I've been awaiting for a long time for an instrument with a display under (or over) its knobs. One line of the display could show the parameter assigned to it, and another line (the one closest to the knob) could show the current value. This way, you could use knobs with infinite rotation; you would always start from the current value and don't worry about the "throw" of the knob.

Bear in mind that you don't need to do this for every knob of the synth; the majority of them could simply have their (only) function printed on the panel, and use the circular LED system.

Then you could have six or so assignabile "performance" knobs using the above system. How many knobs you need to operate during a song anyway?

 

It doesn't sound too difficult to me... In fact the Oberheim Matrix-12 use this method for editing parameters while browsing the editing pages.

 

What you think?

 

marino

[Jeff Klopmeyer]

Originally posted by marino:

I've been awaiting for a long time for an instrument with a display under (or over) its knobs. What you think?

 

I think it's a great idea...and one that would end up driving the price of the keyboard up by $1000 by the time it got to retail pricing. That's the real question, Marino...would you pay $1000 more for the same synth with the knob displays? Some people might. Personally, probably not, but I know a lot of people that have wanted to address this same issue many times over the years.

 

- Jeff

[marino]

Mmm, what about using the same display that's used for editing? Maybe just a little larger, in order to bee seen onstage and to accomodate a row of six or so big, consistent knobs. There would be enough space to show the program (or multi) name, a row with the parameter names, and another with the values.

It doesn't sound TOO expensive to me.

 

marino

[Marvster]

<>

 

Okay, Dave: If you really have balls, you'll bring back Bird Run. :-O

 

Marv

[Dave Bryce]

Okay, Dave: If you really have balls, you'll bring back Bird Run. :-O

 

Awwww - I was thinking of going with Space Invaders... or maybe Centipede... http://cwm.ragesofsanity.com/otn/wink/1bluewinky.gif

 

dB

[dansouth]

I like the SCOPE option on the JP-8000. Set it in scope mode, touch a fader, and get a numerical readout of the fader's value, which you can then edit. This is great when you need just a LITTLE more cutoff and just a LITTLE less filter envelope, for instance.

 

That said, editing velocity or ribbon parameters on the JP is a nightmare. I'd rather key in numbers...

 

Does the Andromeda have something similar to this SCOPE funtion?

[Steve44]

I just thought of something that really annoys me from time to time:

Pitch bend with sustain pedal implementation. ON my K5000 (a pretty new, if not a bit offbeat synth) if I pedal a chord, and then bend a note they all go down, resulting in a completely unuseful sound. On my PC88, if I pedal a chord, it will only bend the notes that I am holding down. In addition, on the Kurzweil, you can bend notes or chords, and then pedal them in that position, and then play things at normal pitch on top. This is all damn useful for microtonal music which I'm getting into more and more.. and not being able to do this on my K5000 really pisses me off.

[Felix_dup1]

A couple of peeves:

 

Overrated Legacy Synths: Case in point, Kurzweil K2x00 series. Seriously, guys, how much more can they squeeze out of this line? The polyphony is still lacking, the samples are small and getting more dated all the time, yet everyone and their dog want to jump on the bandwagon and profess it the greatest thing in keyboards. Kurzweil's R&D need to stop resting on their laurels, get off their butts, and invent what a Kxxxx SHOULD be, rather than re-packaging existing technology again (with a new model number)!

 

The way the public demands more, more, more - but wants it all for less. At least with cars, people understand that you have to pay more to get a bigger engine, a bunch of extras, leather seats, etc. But it seems like consumers nowadays think that synth manufacturers can make a keyboard do everything under the sun, and still put it out at a street price under $2,000. (And the sad thing is, most of what they ask for, 90% of them will never use).

 

Incompatibility - Can't we all just get along? Whether we're talking DirectX/VST/etc, or MIDI/MLAN/etc, seems like manufacturers would benefit more from agreeing on a standard, rather than utilizing something proprietary with the hopes that theirs will become the standard.

 

Extras - If a company ships an 88-key keyboard, it should come with a piano-style sustain pedal - every time.

 

Stupid Keyboard Names - Quasimidi, General Music - c'mon, guys, you're trying way too hard.

 

Salespeople who know nothing / Salespeople who try to go WAY deeper than I want them to - this is a double-edged sword, but there has to be a happy medium. Ideally, the salesperson should ask questions and listen to the customer to find out what they really want and need to know, then go from there.

 

List vs. Sale price / "Sales" that aren't sales. Why do keyboards have to be like cars - i.e. doesn't everybody KNOW that nobody pays list? List prices have become virtually meaningless - as have the promotions that tout xx% off!

[SFOracle]

On synth interface design. I work in 3 different modes. In performance mode, I just want the sounds/sequences that I have designed/chosen for a particular song to be immediately and easily recalled. I don't want an interface cluttered with buttons, knobs and sliders with the potential to introduce rat farts into my performance. I'm far to insecure for that. That's why I like the PC2X as a performance controller.

 

In composition mode, I want a wider selection of presets and programed sounds, but I really need little control over individual sounds. These sounds do not need to be accessible quite as real time as in performance mode. but if I really need to hunt for a sound, then it breaks my concentration.

 

When I am trying to get that perfect sound - that is when I want the full flexibility to tweak with sounds and effects.

 

I would suggest an interface that is very simple and uncluttered for performance, but that allows me to plug a laptop into the thing and from there have access to a full menu driven GUI. For those who don't want to use a laptop, for a few bucks more, a remote control with a large display would be the thing.

 

Don.

[Steve44]

I think there should be a law against posting a reply with a quote of someone's whole message, especially when it's a long one, and even more especially when the person's original message is right above yours anyways!

 

You should only use a quote if you're going to refer to specific parts of a message - there's no reason to make me scroll pages and pages down just to see what you have to say.

[Rod S]

I think there should be a law against posting a reply with a quote of someone's whole message, especially when it's a long one, and even more especially when the person's original message is right above yours anyways!

 

LMAO! I agree completely. Actually that's one of my pet peeves in stuff like the yahoo groups, people keep replying back to each other with the whole thing. I subscribe to the digests, and sometimes I got scroll for ever to find the next message

 

 

 

This message has been edited by Rod CA on 05-12-2001 at 02:17 AM