Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Are rotary mixers better?

djmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 68 posts

Re: Are rotary mixers better?

#51

Post by DidYaWipe »

scott01 wrote: post #46
grujicd wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's operated by a mouse you're not sure where to click and hold, and how it will react when you move mouse in which direction. I assume you're using it a lot and then it's intuitive. For novice it's not. If I click on bottom part will it operate in another direction compared with clicking on top part? Or what about if I click on left or right edge? Can I also move mouse up-down and left-right or is only one direc…

Yeah, I see how it can be confusing for novices. But learning curve aside, there is something other than just looks that kept this UI pattern alive all these decades. How I see it [1], absolute values don't matter audio software, except when working with loudness compliance or some very technical things. What's important is how things sound, and it's generally a bad practice relying on UI metering to dial in sound in…

I think knobs specifically target computer novices, with the software publisher thinking that a computer-appropriate control would be somehow baffling or confusing to people who "know knobs."

The shortcomings of sliders you mention are down to shitty implementations. I have never seen a slider that resets if you click in the middle of it; that's a crap UI. It's common to simply have a little reset button next to a variable control.

"should horizontal slider change its value with up-down movement? should interaction range extend beyond slider length?"

Of course not to both. I've never seen either one of those behaviors.

Knobs are bad for fine adjustment, because the closer to the center you click and drag, the more drastic the adjustment per pixel of dragging.

Re: Are rotary mixers better?

#52

Post by DidYaWipe »

dist-epoch wrote: post #38
DidYaWipe wrote: post #10

Not in a computer UI. It's depressing that audio software still widely subjects users to this skeuomorphic failure, trying to do everything with on-screen "knobs." Ugh.

As someone which designed such audio UIs with knobs, it's not because skeuomorphic was the target, it's because there is no better way to fit 50 controls in a small space while being able to see them all at the same time.

There's plenty of UI that presents drop-down (or pop-up) sliders.

I will say, though, that a circle whose perimeter is partially filled in is a space-efficient way to depict the current value vs. the total range available.

Re: Are rotary mixers better?

#53

Post by scott01 »

DidYaWipe wrote: post #51
scott01 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I see how it can be confusing for novices. But learning curve aside, there is something other than just looks that kept this UI pattern alive all these decades. How I see it [1], absolute values don't matter audio software, except when working with loudness compliance or some very technical things. What's important is how things sound, and it's generally a bad practice relying on UI metering to dial in sound in…

I think knobs specifically target computer novices, with the software publisher thinking that a computer-appropriate control would be somehow baffling or confusing to people who "know knobs." The shortcomings of sliders you mention are down to shitty implementations. I have never seen a slider that resets if you click in the middle of it; that's a crap UI. It's common to simply have a little reset button next to a va…

> I think knobs specifically target computer novices

I don't think this is the case. Knobs are very convenient and more compact than sliders, in my personal opinion (I did a lot of audio work in the past). Manufacturers create realistic UIs because they sell better due to various perception biases (brain interprets something as sounding better if it has a UI resembling an SSL console, etc.).

> Knobs are bad for fine adjustment, because the closer to the center you click and drag, the more drastic the adjustment per pixel of dragging.

This is incorrect. In almost all pro audio software knobs are operated with a vertical drag movement. Holding a modifier key increases movement precision. I definitely have seen the behaviour you described, but it was maybe in a very old VST plugin probably two decades ago.

> The shortcomings of sliders you mention are down to shitty implementations.

Sadly, it's quite common. Three modern examples from the top of my head: Renoise, Reaper, Max/MSP. Unlike knobs, sliders can be quite random in their implementation.

> It's depressing that audio software still widely subjects users to this skeuomorphic failure

May I ask, which software are you using? The original argument suggests we're discussing pro audio, but I can't recall seeing neither angular knobs, nor 'small [reset] buttons nearby sliders', and I've used a lot of different DAWs and plugins, so maybe we're talking about something else here?

Re: Are rotary mixers better?

#54

Post by scott01 »

dist-epoch wrote: post #38
DidYaWipe wrote: post #10

Not in a computer UI. It's depressing that audio software still widely subjects users to this skeuomorphic failure, trying to do everything with on-screen "knobs." Ugh.

As someone which designed such audio UIs with knobs, it's not because skeuomorphic was the target, it's because there is no better way to fit 50 controls in a small space while being able to see them all at the same time.

Yeah, I've seen this resentment about audio UI a lot here on HN, some of them sound more ignorant than others, but I'm yet to hear a convincing argument against knobs. People should probably check out FabFilter products, best UI in pro audio :)

Re: Are rotary mixers better?

#55

Post by DidYaWipe »

scott01 wrote: post #53
DidYaWipe wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think knobs specifically target computer novices, with the software publisher thinking that a computer-appropriate control would be somehow baffling or confusing to people who "know knobs." The shortcomings of sliders you mention are down to shitty implementations. I have never seen a slider that resets if you click in the middle of it; that's a crap UI. It's common to simply have a little reset button next to a va…

> I think knobs specifically target computer novices I don't think this is the case. Knobs are very convenient and more compact than sliders, in my personal opinion (I did a lot of audio work in the past). Manufacturers create realistic UIs because they sell better due to various perception biases (brain interprets something as sounding better if it has a UI resembling an SSL console, etc.). > Knobs are bad for fine…

I respect your analysis, certainly. And it's undeniable that knobs are more compact; and if their function has been refined over the years, good. I do have an idea for a different control that doesn't imply the need to roll the cursor around in a circle and yet doesn't take up any more space than a knob.

Let's see, going through the audio apps I've relied on the most... Back in the day it was Sound Forge. Loved its clean, efficient UI. More recently I've found Audition to be similarly clean and tidy. But I'm not renting Adobe software anymore.

So I did a mashup in Fairlight a few months ago, partly as an exercise to see if I could actually do anything resembling precision audio work in it. Like most of the "integration" in Resolve, it seems clumsy. The Effects UI is crammed into tiny panes and generally obtuse. There seem to be redundant instances for several types of parameters, but admittedly I'm not an expert in it. Effects will just stop working and you have to delete them from the chain and re-add them, though.

BTW, Resolve is where you can find widespread "reset" buttons, particularly on the Color page. I feel like these are pretty common in various media applications (including one I've written to control physical media devices, where I had them on sliders). Most audio plug-ins I've used have Reset buttons, although most of those may be for an entire effect rather than individual controls. I'll have to take a look at Ozone; I got that for timbre-matching recordings from different mics a while back.

I started to buy Pro Tools a couple years ago, but Avid's purchasing system (SalesForce, IIRC) was broken at the time and they just sent me a trial license as a workaround. Never got around to following up. Most of what I do with audio is destructive fixes or adjustments to files; for that, Twisted Wave does most of what I need and can host VST or AU plug-ins for anything else.

But, I would like to do more in a more "professional" and non-destructive environment. I'm considering the Logic Pro bundle, since it's relatively cheap and perpetual. Any thoughts on Logic? I tried it for 15 minutes right after Apple bought eMagic and wasn't impressed with the UI; but obviously it could be (and probably is) worlds away from that now. I remember reading a discussion that was generally positive, but some people called out a fundamental flaw in it... maybe its lack of pre-fader effects? Does that sound right? I'm not very experienced in this type of audio app and routing within them.

Re: Are rotary mixers better?

#56

Post by DidYaWipe »

rzzzt wrote: post #28
grujicd wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's operated by a mouse you're not sure where to click and hold, and how it will react when you move mouse in which direction. I assume you're using it a lot and then it's intuitive. For novice it's not. If I click on bottom part will it operate in another direction compared with clicking on top part? Or what about if I click on left or right edge? Can I also move mouse up-down and left-right or is only one direc…

The scroll wheel usually works for these as well.

It's a great use for scroll wheel.

Re: Are rotary mixers better?

#57

Post by comprev »

angled wrote: post #47
comprev wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Allen & Heath Xone 96 (or previous 92 model) mixers are very popular in the techno world. Pioneer DJMs have dozens of FX combinations to aid with fast/fancy transitions, whereas techno/trance (and similar) genres that rely on long smooth blends like the extra EQ channel and filters. I don't know any hip-hop DJs that use Xones? The Xones are also analogue vs digital Pioneer mixers which also plays a part in audio qual…

HÖR use A&H mixers when people play vinyl on their YouTube channel. It’s very noticeable, especially for the proggy stuff!

DJs who use rotary mixers are great to watch. They're like precision surgeons gently blending EQs while also handling vinyl. Impressive stuff to me!

Re: Are rotary mixers better?

#58

Post by scott01 »

DidYaWipe wrote: post #55
scott01 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think knobs specifically target computer novices I don't think this is the case. Knobs are very convenient and more compact than sliders, in my personal opinion (I did a lot of audio work in the past). Manufacturers create realistic UIs because they sell better due to various perception biases (brain interprets something as sounding better if it has a UI resembling an SSL console, etc.). > Knobs are bad for fine…

I respect your analysis, certainly. And it's undeniable that knobs are more compact; and if their function has been refined over the years, good. I do have an idea for a different control that doesn't imply the need to roll the cursor around in a circle and yet doesn't take up any more space than a knob. Let's see, going through the audio apps I've relied on the most... Back in the day it was Sound Forge. Loved its c…

You have quite a history with audio apps :) Mine was a bit different, something like: FL Studio -> Cubase -> Ableton Live -> Renoise -> Reaper.

As for DAW recommendation, it actually depends on your goals.

I don't know much about Logic, as I only tried it briefly like 5 years ago, and didn't stick with it for no particular reason. People love it for music production, not many use it for sound design.

I personally love Reaper, but it's a beast that you'd probably want to customise. It's very flexible (e.g., no distinction between MIDI, audio, or send tracks), has a rich extension making community (check out Global Sampler or NVK tools [1]), a ton of unique features (subprojects, render matrix, automation items, comping and a lot more), and very very customisable. If you know what you want to do, it's easy to configure everything, from hotkeys to macros to mouse behaviour. It's very popular in game audio (I work in this area but as a coder) because it allows to export dozens of assets from a single project, with standardised naming and loudness if desired. Reaper is pretty cheap, very customer-friendly (30Mb distribution size, has portable version, liberal licensing), and the founder is an ex-Winamp dev (Justin Frankel) :) The downside - the UI is not as polished as others, MIDI editor is a bit undercooked, and built-in plugins are very bare bones.

I heard a lot of good things about Presonus Studio One. I think it's made by ex-Steinberg devs, and the DAW has a very polished UI with heavy focus on drag&drop. They also have great stock plugin selection, as well as amazing MIDI and songwriting features. So, compared to Reaper, it's a more classic DAW, but it's still great if your workflow fits into it.

Ableton Live is great for music and songwriting, live performances, has a brilliant stock plugin collection, integration with Max/MSP (visual programming language) if you want to make algorithmic music and stuff.

I guess, from this response you know where my biases are - Reaper is amazing, especially for audio editing, give it a try, seriously :)

1. A good vid about some NVK tools and Global Sampler: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHpQmxQlWfI

Re: Are rotary mixers better?

#59

Post by Kirby64 »

stavros wrote: post #42
formerly_proven wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The hardware is much cheaper, but it is also way cheaper to engineer, and because a touchscreen is a very one-dimensional interface, many questions don't even need to be asked. There's no texture, shape or feedback in a touchscreen, for example.

Are there physical controls that mount on a digitizer? E.g. instead of a rotary dial on a potentiometer, the bottom sits on a digitizer that can translate the "touch" event into circular motion. Same with buttons, like with a keyboard membrane, but capacitive. Wouldn't that be cheaper?

Ford does this on the MachE and I think the F150L. They have a rotary dial for volume control and that is just mounted directly to the touch screen and uses some sort of wipers to make contact for the control surface.

Re: Are rotary mixers better?

#60

Post by nikau »

OptionOfT wrote: post #49
formerly_proven wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The hardware is much cheaper, but it is also way cheaper to engineer, and because a touchscreen is a very one-dimensional interface, many questions don't even need to be asked. There's no texture, shape or feedback in a touchscreen, for example.

BMW is a good example. They started putting in that horrendous double wide screen/touch screen removing all buttons (the radio 1-8 shortcuts), temperature, heated seats, fan speed etc onto the screen. This of course has made their dash design a lot cheaper. The only things remaining are: Volume (which can be pressed for on/off/play/pause), previous, next, park-anywhere-button, front and rear windshield defroster. One…

Is that volume behaviour intentional, or just crappy sampling rate of the encoder?
Post reply on HN