AHDSR into an AHD

[tulamide]

The one knob VSTs are actually the ultimate result of reduction to enhance usability. Often times, you come up with a fantastic idea, but then you have like 20 knobs. This overwhelms a user, and often times isn't needed. Always think about, which tweak you really absolutely must expose to the user. As an example, you might have an effect, which is only really good at frequencies around 100 to 150 Hertz. Should you really create a knob on the UI? Or isn't it better to find the optimal frequency and set it as a fixed parameter, that doesn't need to be dialed by a user?

Other times, the UX makes it so easy to follow the logic of the application, that you never need to read about functionality. I can give a great DAW example for that.

I own FL Studio and Presonus Studio One Artist. When I work in FL Studio, I need to read the manual every 5 minutes. In Studio One, I didn't need the manual once so far! So what is the difference?
First, FL Studio uses a UI that wasn't changed since its humble beginning as a sanple loop player back 20 years ago. Every new function was just stuffed on top of it, somewhere, where it does hurt the least. Studio One uses a modern, context-aware UI, that never shows things that you can't use anyway in the current situation. No need to boast about your set of functions. Show those that make sense, hide everything else. When I work on an audio track, I don't need to see any midi functions. Etc.
Second, Studio One uses shortcuts, that are well established. No need to re-invent the wheel. Left click to select a specific onject, right click to lasso-select a group of objects. FL Studio breaks with everythnig you know. Example: Ctrl-Left-Click to select something, Right Cick (!) to delete something, unless you are at places, where you can't delete anything, then - and only then - it opens a context menu instead. Imagine how often I accidentally deleted notes, patterns, clips, etc. Even shift isn't shift. Left-Shift-Left-Click has a different action than Right-Shift-Left-Click and there's even a double right click. It's by far the weirdest thing of re-inventing the wheel in the history of DAWs!
And the synths aren't any better. Do a quick test. Google for "Image Line Harmor" and "HY-Plugins HY-POLY", and watch images of their UI side by side. Which one would you love to work with, and which one would you avoid at all cost? They both work similar.

So, to answer the question after all this babbling: Studio One is a DAW, where you don't need a manual.

[R&R]

Only tried FL and Studio One very briefly so haven't tried creating an actual arrangement/project with either of them. But FL did seem very messy somehow...

Studio One feels fresh and is much more to the point...
Maybe they just haven't reached the point of having to just add stuff on top of the old UI tough balance...

Competitive market might bring everyone to a feature creeping point eventually?

"Image Line Harmor" and "HY-Plugins HY-POLY", and watch images of their UI side by side. Which one would you love to work with, and which one would you avoid at all cost? They both work similar.

LOL
All you need is a "mental armor" to use Image Line Harmor?
Even feels strange "to me" as pretty much a non music maker... when they break from common designpatterns in that way, and also make up non descriptive terms/labels for functions or?

Almost worse than me, naming a knob in my newbie synth to frag/slice (but just a "sample delay thingy")

[Spogg]

...
So, to answer the question after all this babbling: Studio One is a DAW, where you don't need a manual.

I find that very surprising and quite remarkable!
I guess they have the luxury of starting with a clean sheet and, combined with knowledge and insight into the actual creative process, have put much thought and effort into getting the workflow right.

I use Reaper for making my introduction sounds and “music", and for pretty much everything I want to do I have to consult the help file and/or watch a YouTube tutorial. I always start with a precise idea of what I want to achieve, but the DAW doesn’t follow my intuitions about how it can be done. I’ve even had to make a document detailing the things I frequently need to do, because most of it isn’t immediately obvious.

If making music was my hobby and goal, I reckon I’d buy Studio One based on your experience.


An old friend, ages ago, said she didn’t like computers because they don’t do what she wanted to do in the way she wanted to do it.

[k brown]

Slightly off-topic, but the discussion reminds me of my first, overwhelmed reaction to Photoshop. As a (almost literally) lifelong avid photographer, and having made my living for many years working in commercial photo labs, I found the interface and especially the terminology used, to be utterly foreign to me. It struck me as a software created by computer programmers, rather than photographers.

This is in stark contrast to a little-known software called Picture Window (not surprisingly, Windows-only), which was actually written by a photographer who had the same reaction to Photoshop that I did.
https://www.dl-c.com/index.htm/
The interface is much simpler, and the terms used make perfect sense to photographers. The workspace is way less cluttered, but it does about 70% of what Photoshop does, because it doesn't contain functions that are not directly related to the editing of photos (like a lot of the Photoshop tools that are much more graphics-oriented).

Picture Window.jpg (101.06 KiB) Viewed 8811 times

It also hits home because the project I'm finishing up now, has become rather 'over-knobby', but I can't quite figure a way around it. It's a (perhaps a bit over-stuffed) tribute to several of Martin's unique 'sound generators' that he's laid at our feet over the years: the Spread Partials oscillator, the padOsc, String Orch, and Random Partials oscillator (that came to be dubbed 'Randy'). Also includes, of course, Korous and MVerb7B. Spogg gave it a once over and corrected a few things, and Martin fixed an odd bit of code that prevented Randy from working in FS4. I'm calling it "the V-Suite". It's done and on my website, but I'm putting together some presets to add to it. I did the GUI up to look like a modular synth, although it's not one

the-v-suite_orig.jpg (76.54 KiB) Viewed 8812 times

[R&R]

It also hits home because the project I'm finishing up now, has become rather 'over-knobby', but I can't quite figure a way around it. It's a (perhaps a bit over-stuffed)

Hey thats nice!
Gives the feel of an instrument panel on boats/marine context with that brass/mahogny theme

Hmmm... I don't find it over-knobby at all

It might the the numbers around the knobs that causes the illusion of more knobs than there actually is?

An experiment you can always try... is to reduce the numbers around the knobs to quarter numbers only? 0-2-5-8-10
or perhaps dial back the color somehow of all numbers that aren't 0, 5 and 10... iow min,mid and max?

...tribute to several of Martin's unique 'sound generators' that he's laid at our feet over the years

Martin is incredibly generous with his time and effort... I've been getting some help from him with my envelopes lately

[tulamide]

It struck me as a software created by computer programmers, rather than photographers.

I'd rather say, it is exactly on-topic, because this is the same point I made about the differences in FL Studio and Studio One.
The latter is at least heavily influenced by real musicians, the former a fantastic piece of work, but from developers with little or no understanding of musicians.

It also hits home because the project I'm finishing up now, has become rather 'over-knobby', but I can't quite figure a way around it.

I see what you mean. It actually feels a little crammed, and you did your best to categorize and guide our eyes. From my perspective (a potential user), it needs more space. Whitespace is more important than people think. It calms down an otherwise slightly chaotic appearance. Since you decided to go with a vertical layout, I would give it more height and use it to leave more space between the sections. And since Randy differs from Spread partials, of which there are two, you could make the difference more prominent, by using a different colored background, or by making it wider than the two other OSCs. Lastly, I would remove the effects section from the main page and have a second page for it, where the layout would be horizontal with three sections. But that's just me.

One little thing, that confuses me right away, only by looking at the image, is the use of two identical knobs, both named "Cutoff" for the spread partials OSCs. You could rename it to make its function more obvious, like "to Cutoff" or "Envelope amount to Cutoff" (too long, but you get what I mean).

[R&R]

An old friend, ages ago, said she didn’t like computers because they don’t do what she wanted to do in the way she wanted to do it.

Actually, this could also be used as reference to a subjective observation of the real world

Whitespace is more important than people think. It calms down an otherwise slightly chaotic appearance.

Feels like i'm destroying my synths UI a little bit in this regard right now...
Adding some tiny-a** buttons that aren't selfexplanatory at all

I'm going to "UI design hell" in the afterlife

[k brown]

Agree about the numbers around the knobs - unfortunately they are an inherent part of the knobs' bitmap images, so can't be changed.

When I've used them on solid-color panels, I block out every other number with same-color ellipses, and/or darken the numbers with a same-color ring over the numbers with a low alpha, to darken them a bit. none of this is practical with the wood-grain photo background.

I'm experimenting with an alternate GUI for "the V-Suite" that has solid-color panels, so I can apply these 'clutter-reducing' tricks.

[k brown]

It struck me as a software created by computer programmers, rather than photographers.

I'd rather say, it is exactly on-topic, because this is the same point I made about the differences in FL Studio and Studio One.
The latter is at least heavily influenced by real musicians, the former a fantastic piece of work, but from developers with little or no understanding of musicians.

It also hits home because the project I'm finishing up now, has become rather 'over-knobby', but I can't quite figure a way around it.

I see what you mean. It actually feels a little crammed, and you did your best to categorize and guide our eyes. From my perspective (a potential user), it needs more space. Whitespace is more important than people think. It calms down an otherwise slightly chaotic appearance. Since you decided to go with a vertical layout, I would give it more height and use it to leave more space between the sections. And since Randy differs from Spread partials, of which there are two, you could make the difference more prominent, by using a different colored background, or by making it wider than the two other OSCs. Lastly, I would remove the effects section from the main page and have a second page for it, where the layout would be horizontal with three sections. But that's just me.

One little thing, that confuses me right away, only by looking at the image, is the use of two identical knobs, both named "Cutoff" for the spread partials OSCs. You could rename it to make its function more obvious, like "to Cutoff" or "Envelope amount to Cutoff" (too long, but you get what I mean).

All good points - thanks for the input.

Not sure what you mean by 'whitespace'; more 'empty' areas?

I also noticed the two 'Cutoff' knobs so close together as to confuse. One thought I has was to add a BG 'stripe' of some sort, behind the EG-related knobs, emenating from the EG to make it clear they are all EG-amount controls. Also might be sufficient to simply rename the EG's Cutoff knob "Filter".

Making the GUI taller is also a good thought.

As to the FX section - I did consider making it a second page (still might; sharing that second page with the mod matrix [not seen on the screenshot]), but as to horizontal layout, I was trying to suggest the appearance of Moog-style modules, which were all vertical.

[tulamide]

Not sure what you mean by 'whitespace'; more 'empty' areas?

Yes, exactly. I wrote it wrong, its name is actually "white space". It's a term from designers (layout, UX, typography) and describes space between design elements, chosen for specific reasons. Here's a good intoduction into "white space", if you're interested: https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/article/the-power-of-white-space

I also noticed the two 'Cutoff' knobs so close together as to confuse. One thought I has was to add a BG 'stripe' of some sort, behind the EG-related knobs, emenating from the EG to make it clear they are all EG-amount controls. Also might be sufficient to simply rename the EG's Cutoff knob "Filter".

A perfect idea! Much better than just renaming! Please do so!

As to the FX section - I did consider making it a second page (still might; sharing that second page with the mod matrix [not seen on the screenshot]), but as to horizontal layout, I was trying to suggest the appearance of Moog-style modules, which were all vertical.

Totally understandable. My suggestion came from looking at the amount of knobs, that would be easier to read in a longer horizontal line. But it is just a suggestion. And just moving the effect part to a second page already helps a lot, regardless of layout!

I'm curious about the result!