zynaddsubfx concept ui

Programming applications for making music on Linux.

Moderators: MattKingUSA, khz

fundamental
Established Member
Posts: 165
Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2013 1:19 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: zynaddsubfx concept ui

Post by fundamental »

> A few apps have the option for "fine-tuning" knobs by holding control or shift

That was previously part of the knob behavior, though I don't recall if that's the case in git master or not.
tatch
Established Member
Posts: 662
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 3:18 pm

Re: zynaddsubfx concept ui

Post by tatch »

The fact that you don't have the interface, control functions, label meanings etc. memorized is exactly what I mean by "not understanding the synthesis engines". You start by saying that I'm insulting you by wrongly assuming you don't understand the thing, and then you go on to explain all the ways in which you don't understand it. For the record, I'm not trying to be insulting. I'm in full agreement that the current instrument editing interface has quite a steep learning curve attached to it and that not everyone should be expected to understand (or even need) it. Some people need it though. Those white-lab-coat wearing sound designers who actually understand what all those controls are for.
I suppose I have a different "understanding" of what you meant by "understanding the synthesis engines" then. I understand fundamentally how synthesis works and by extension how zyn's engines work (less so the padsynth), but I'm less familiar with the particulars of zyn's parameters.
When you call Zyn's interface bloated and poorly designed, I find it hard to take you seriously. The interface is complex, but only because the thing it controls is complex. ZynAddSubFX basically has a 1:1 control/function interface. That's not bad design, it's a design that is considered necessary for the task at hand (#3, sound design). It's just and overly-complex design if you consider only the #4 use-case.
I think it's poorly-designed because there are other simpler, cleaner ways to present a still-1:1-mapped interface.

I guess that means that I don't have a reasonable screen size then :p
I have had my 1280x1024 screen for ages, which might put me in the minority on this issue.
Whoops, I was wrongly assuming everyone has widescreens. Regardless, 1000x800 I think should still be a fine size for 1280x1024. I'm actually working on reducing the size even more, right now I think it's around 850x790, which is neat. I'm gonna need to figure out a good size for the sliders/knobs too, on a different monitor they actually look larger than I intended.
I guess you have not seen the tooltips then. They do a decent job at elaborating what the terse names are, which is justifies the truncated names IMO.
Indeed I haven't. Personally I still prefer being able to see the parameter name in full without having to hover over the knob for a second.

If you're trying to condense everything into one complete view of everything at once, that makes sense, but it does not really seem to hold up when you consider that they can be different views for different uses.
It might be handy to be able to tweak the volume of something while working on its parameters and then later it may be handy to have an overview of all the volumes in the instrument for instance.
I think my design acommodates this, as I've basically kept all the controls of the voice list intact but significantly shrunk down in the right box while omitting a large "voice volume control" as in the current ui. The right box is always visible when you're editing the adsynth.
Yes and no, they are very very similar, though there are differences between the parameters offered at each level and some slight differences in how they behave (with actual reasons behind such).
I know this. For the most part though I think it makes sense, and perhaps clear labeling could highlight the subtle parameter differences.
Once I get some time to finish up the work up on the last 0.01% of the controls all of the knobs, sliders, selection boxes, check boxes, etc can be controlled externally.
I will admit that the UX for setting up the MIDI linkages is utter rubbish at the moment, but I'll have to try fixing that once I have time enough to work on things again.
sounds good!
User avatar
raboof
Established Member
Posts: 1855
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 11:58 am
Location: Deventer, NL
Has thanked: 50 times
Been thanked: 74 times
Contact:

Re: zynaddsubfx concept ui

Post by raboof »

tatch wrote:I was wrongly assuming everyone has widescreens. Regardless, 1000x800 I think should still be a fine size for 1280x1024. I'm actually working on reducing the size even more, right now I think it's around 850x790, which is neat. I'm gonna need to figure out a good size for the sliders/knobs too, on a different monitor they actually look larger than I intended.
Even for users with a large screen it's lovely to have the basic functionality in a fairly small (or fluidly resizable, but getting that right is rocket science) window - more space to put more stuff on your screen. Also useful for the mini-laptop-on-stage uses.
rickbol
Established Member
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Jan 05, 2014 5:16 pm

Re: zynaddsubfx concept ui

Post by rickbol »

raboof wrote:
tatch wrote:I was wrongly assuming everyone has widescreens. Regardless, 1000x800 I think should still be a fine size for 1280x1024. I'm actually working on reducing the size even more, right now I think it's around 850x790, which is neat. I'm gonna need to figure out a good size for the sliders/knobs too, on a different monitor they actually look larger than I intended.
Even for users with a large screen it's lovely to have the basic functionality in a fairly small (or fluidly resizable, but getting that right is rocket science) window - more space to put more stuff on your screen. Also useful for the mini-laptop-on-stage uses.
Yes. I have an HP Mini Netbook with an infuriating screen resolution of 1024x*576* !!!! Not even 600! This was one of the earliest netbook series with the original intel atom processor, so I'm not sure how much FM synthesis it can muster, but I thought I'd chime in with this discussion of UI design.
Javafant
Established Member
Posts: 15
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 11:09 pm

Re: zynaddsubfx concept ui

Post by Javafant »

fundamental wrote: I guess you have not seen the tooltips then. They do a decent job at elaborating what the terse names are, which is justifies the truncated names IMO.
The tooltips don't exist in git master also shift/control doesn't work to finetune controls.
fundamental
Established Member
Posts: 165
Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2013 1:19 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: zynaddsubfx concept ui

Post by fundamental »

Javafant wrote:
fundamental wrote: I guess you have not seen the tooltips then. They do a decent job at elaborating what the terse names are, which is justifies the truncated names IMO.
The tooltips don't exist in git master also shift/control doesn't work to finetune controls.
Some Tooltips were temporarily disabled in the ntk version as well as the right click for slow movement.
These have been re-enabled (for ntk) and the fltk UI should work exactly as it has for quite a few versions.
ZynAddSubFX maintainer
Javafant
Established Member
Posts: 15
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 11:09 pm

Re: zynaddsubfx concept ui

Post by Javafant »

fundamental wrote: Some Tooltips were temporarily disabled in the ntk version as well as the right click for slow movement.
These have been re-enabled (for ntk) and the fltk UI should work exactly as it has for quite a few versions.
Thanks for the quick answer and the fix. Working fine now.
diizy
Established Member
Posts: 105
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 2:48 am

Re: zynaddsubfx concept ui

Post by diizy »

I've been thinking about a concept for complex UI's, but I've no idea if it's feasible to implement with any of the current UI toolkits.

Basically, a zoomable interface. Have you seen some of those large pictures online, where you can pan the picture and zoom in and when you zoom in new detail pops out that wasn't visible before?

Well, it's kind of like that. Most "important" controls of each module could be larger and visible in normal mode, then you could quickly zoom in to any module, and new, more granular, fine-tune controls would "appear" or get in focus. Maybe the controls would, when zoomed out, fade in the background as just part of the texture, but when you zoom in you'd notice they're actually controls.
Post Reply