5 ms·

This is likely to be personal incompatibility with Roland’s style, but I’ve always found Roland user interface designs to be inscrutable banks of deep menus, ar

This is likely to be personal incompatibility with Roland’s style, but I’ve always found Roland user interface designs to be inscrutable banks of deep menus, arbitrary buttons, tiny screens, and “wizard” style branching between wholly disparate aesthetic presets that change everything at once. I have never been able to intuit and memorize Roland gear well enough to customize according to my own mental models. The idea that anything Roland would be held aloft as “well thought out” by somebody is baffling to me. Roland’s popularity and success speaks for itself so there’s no need to prove anything. Their UIs are just completely at odds with my personal creative flow. Back in the late 90s I mixed an entire album on a VS-880 (with good results, it sold a couple thousand copies and got decent college radio airplay) so I’ve definitely given them a chance and gotten the full experience — but that damn thing fought me relentlessly. None of the motions I learned stuck with me. I feel the same way about a lot of hardware electronic gear (I was utterly defeated by an Akai sampler around the same time). The exceptions are the interfaces that hew to a consistent theoretical model and emphasize tweaking of individual parameters rather than selection of presets. I was highly productive within the Logic Audio environment; I had good impressions of the Nord Modular and its GUI software. Any Roland-style modeling of modular synthesis is likely to leave me behind. Glad it works for you and many others, though!

brudgers 2y ago
The new Roland technical strategy does not speak to me either. The book is from Roland’s 100M modular system and written in the late 1970’s or early 80’s. That version of the System 100 was menuless, entirely analog, and patched with some basic normals and wires. I came across the book because my Eurorack is mostly Behringer System 100 modules because they are cheap as am I. === I picked up a VS880 for about $100 last year and use it as my primary multitrack recorder because I prefer not to use general purpose computers for creative work anymore and it’s a hobby. I have a ZuluSCSI plugged into the back and record to an SD card on that. This year, I made a commitment to learn how to use it…not much point in selling it…and do more recording. What I like about it is not the menus. It’s that being the first in the series, the design brief seems to have been a better tape machine and alternative to ADAT. Later models were competing with DAWs. Because the VS880 is fanless, I can leave it on all day while I do other things (e.g. take a nap). Of course it works for me because my musical ambitions are very unambitious.
- jnovek 2y ago
  System 100 is a _great_ design to learn on. Nomenclature and patching strategy is pretty close to what we do today (vs Moog 55 series which is very... Moog-ey) and it includes quite a few conveniences like inverted outs on envelopes without getting in the way. Aside from using a similar visual design language it's hard to believe it's the same company that makes Roland's contemporary menu divers. And the Behringer modules are dirt cheap. I think a few of the utilities are like $50 new.
  - brudgers 2y ago
    In fairness to Roland, you can buy a ten hp Eurorack module with deep menus…and pay a premium price because, you know, it’s Eurorack. Anyway, most Behringer modules can be had used for $50 or less with some patience. They are not investments in anything other than happiness.
TheOtherHobbes 2y ago
You're talking about post-D50 Roland. Before the D50 Roland made simple analog synths with very intuitive interfaces. After the D50 - and especially after the DX7, which started the one-slider-panel 80s trend - synth interfaces started to sprout two-line LCD panels. Most Roland UIs today are pretty horrific.
liotier 2y ago
> I’ve always found Roland user interface designs to be inscrutable banks of deep menus, arbitrary buttons, tiny screens, and “wizard” style branching between wholly disparate aesthetic presets This also describes the Akai MPC world. I suspect it describes any system that has accumulated sufficient lineage to always be in tension between new features, existing technology, standard practice and legacy user expectations. Synthesizer manufacturers are expert at repackaging modules, hardware and software - their business model can't handle the costs of blank slate development for each new product... Baffling UX often results.
- brudgers 2y ago
  I’ve been thinking about buying an MPC 1, so I have been thinking about the MPC workflow and what it would take to learn it. A few years I figure to get started. That’s unreasonable for a fart app and entirely reasonable for a musical instrument. Pianos and cellos require time to learn and so do MPC’s. The MPC UX is clearly designed for musicians committed to the instrument. Sure you can play on-pitch notes more easily than with a violin, but you will need just as much practice to get to Carnegie Hall. At its core, the MPC is a B2B product. The UX is designed with a full understanding it is not for everyone. No musical instrument is.
  - liotier 2y ago
    Legacy warts aside (16 Levels, the underdeveloped step sequencer) and incomprehensible omissions notwithstanding (tons of quality of life improvements, easily within the device's ability but neglected), the MPC sequence-based workflow was fine for me because I learnt it without prior knowledge of any other workflow... But now that I have tasted a scene-based structure with Roland ZenBeats, I understand why scene-based structure is currently dominant among DAWs... But still, having an instrument that feels like an instrument is so nice that I'm still happy to do without the open-ended complexity of DAWs... And there is usually always a MPC hack to do anything !
    - brudgers 2y ago
      The main reason I am planning to buy an MPC 1 is to use it as a sampler. Over the years, maybe it will become the center of my contraption. Maybe it won't. Theoretically, a hardware DAW that is happy not connected to the internet is something I want and the MPC's are well-sorted. Well-sorted is what I want more than easy to use. Like a racecar. As an aside, I realize I can think about my MC-303 and MC-505 in terms of a scene based workflow.
jabroni_salad 2y ago
this is why I like Arturia gear. It's simple but you can play live music on it without having to dive into a menu on anything. Even if I'm not using their instruments I dont think I'll ever be able to get away from the keystep.

brudgers 2y ago

The new Roland technical strategy does not speak to me either. The book is from Roland’s 100M modular system and written in the late 1970’s or early 80’s. That version of the System 100 was menuless, entirely analog, and patched with some basic normals and wires. I came across the book because my Eurorack is mostly Behringer System 100 modules because they are cheap as am I. === I picked up a VS880 for about $100 last year and use it as my primary multitrack recorder because I prefer not to use general purpose computers for creative work anymore and it’s a hobby. I have a ZuluSCSI plugged into the back and record to an SD card on that. This year, I made a commitment to learn how to use it…not much point in selling it…and do more recording. What I like about it is not the menus. It’s that being the first in the series, the design brief seems to have been a better tape machine and alternative to ADAT. Later models were competing with DAWs. Because the VS880 is fanless, I can leave it on all day while I do other things (e.g. take a nap). Of course it works for me because my musical ambitions are very unambitious.

jnovek 2y ago
System 100 is a _great_ design to learn on. Nomenclature and patching strategy is pretty close to what we do today (vs Moog 55 series which is very... Moog-ey) and it includes quite a few conveniences like inverted outs on envelopes without getting in the way. Aside from using a similar visual design language it's hard to believe it's the same company that makes Roland's contemporary menu divers. And the Behringer modules are dirt cheap. I think a few of the utilities are like $50 new.
- brudgers 2y ago
  In fairness to Roland, you can buy a ten hp Eurorack module with deep menus…and pay a premium price because, you know, it’s Eurorack. Anyway, most Behringer modules can be had used for $50 or less with some patience. They are not investments in anything other than happiness.

TheOtherHobbes 2y ago

You're talking about post-D50 Roland. Before the D50 Roland made simple analog synths with very intuitive interfaces. After the D50 - and especially after the DX7, which started the one-slider-panel 80s trend - synth interfaces started to sprout two-line LCD panels. Most Roland UIs today are pretty horrific.

liotier 2y ago

> I’ve always found Roland user interface designs to be inscrutable banks of deep menus, arbitrary buttons, tiny screens, and “wizard” style branching between wholly disparate aesthetic presets This also describes the Akai MPC world. I suspect it describes any system that has accumulated sufficient lineage to always be in tension between new features, existing technology, standard practice and legacy user expectations. Synthesizer manufacturers are expert at repackaging modules, hardware and software - their business model can't handle the costs of blank slate development for each new product... Baffling UX often results.

brudgers 2y ago
I’ve been thinking about buying an MPC 1, so I have been thinking about the MPC workflow and what it would take to learn it. A few years I figure to get started. That’s unreasonable for a fart app and entirely reasonable for a musical instrument. Pianos and cellos require time to learn and so do MPC’s. The MPC UX is clearly designed for musicians committed to the instrument. Sure you can play on-pitch notes more easily than with a violin, but you will need just as much practice to get to Carnegie Hall. At its core, the MPC is a B2B product. The UX is designed with a full understanding it is not for everyone. No musical instrument is.
- liotier 2y ago
  Legacy warts aside (16 Levels, the underdeveloped step sequencer) and incomprehensible omissions notwithstanding (tons of quality of life improvements, easily within the device's ability but neglected), the MPC sequence-based workflow was fine for me because I learnt it without prior knowledge of any other workflow... But now that I have tasted a scene-based structure with Roland ZenBeats, I understand why scene-based structure is currently dominant among DAWs... But still, having an instrument that feels like an instrument is so nice that I'm still happy to do without the open-ended complexity of DAWs... And there is usually always a MPC hack to do anything !
  - brudgers 2y ago
    The main reason I am planning to buy an MPC 1 is to use it as a sampler. Over the years, maybe it will become the center of my contraption. Maybe it won't. Theoretically, a hardware DAW that is happy not connected to the internet is something I want and the MPC's are well-sorted. Well-sorted is what I want more than easy to use. Like a racecar. As an aside, I realize I can think about my MC-303 and MC-505 in terms of a scene based workflow.

jabroni_salad 2y ago

this is why I like Arturia gear. It's simple but you can play live music on it without having to dive into a menu on anything. Even if I'm not using their instruments I dont think I'll ever be able to get away from the keystep.