I like MN form because it isn’t some boring, by-the-book design. That said MN gear (I have 4 modules) comes off to me as logically laid out, however difficult to read on the panel (the manual uses a normal font 
)
All of them - strega, 0coast, shared system - more or less go left to right.
Constantly reinventing the wheel = eurorack stuff. Its going to be ugly isnt it? I mean the law of entropy demands it.
I think it would do the likes of make noise etc. no harm at all, from a sales perspective at least, to offer alternative layouts or at least simplified designs/fonts.
Probably makes less sense from a production/tooling point of view though.
Some people have better aptitude for learning language, I’d guess that is a factor too? I think that a person who finds computer programming languages easy and is comfortable with abstractions is more likely to make sense of these kinds of design.
Also put me in mind of this, which makes zero sense to me.
Interesting thread over here. I’m one of those people who got interested into Eurorack from seeing Pressure Points and René faceplate in some studio picture / videos, at the time I was just thinking “what the hell are those things, I want to touch them”.
I really love the weirdo / surrealistic imagery of Make Noise modules (this is why I own a full system and a 0-Coast I guess hahaha), but from a design point of view I think is interesting to share my experience as a teacher: I teach people how to use modular synthesizers, and one of the piece of gear that I bring in a Shared System; most people get very intimidated by it, especialy those with already a good experience in classic synth. But it’s one of the system that people tend to prefer amongst the others (Intellijel, Verbos, Serge) in the end because it does pack a lot functions nad very fun way to play those function in relativly small package.
It also worth mentioning that Make Noise are quite influenced by Serge modular design and philosophy (patch programmability is a concept that come back a lot in their manuals and videos), and look at how some the Serge panel looked like in the 70s:
Why make simple when you can do complicated.
That page is legendary, along with the ‘trigless trigs’ passage
I guess the question I’m asking is do people like stuff like Make Noise because they make useful and interesting tools or do people like them because of the sense of achievement one feels after deciphering and mastering something difficult.
If that difficulty has a purpose (the Octatrack, for example) then fine, but if that difficulty is arbitrary or simply aesthetic, I struggle to see the point in it (although I will admit that even some of the Octatrack’s more difficult areas series feel a bit arbitrary).
I know that I’m being totally subjective here, but I do sometimes feel that, especially where Eurorackcs concerned, there’s a lot of people with the same sort of satisfied satisfaction on their faces as someone who’s just completed Skyrim. It’s all totally valid, but it does make me struggle to take aot of gear that seriously as actual musical instruments.
Like I said, miserable git…
I like that the MN stuff encourages you to just play around and listen.
Easier to fall into boring learned patterns when everything is set out like everything else. Different interface is conducive to trying different things.
From the answers we’ve seen, it’s clear that for some people it’s the former (perhaps despite the design language) and for some people it’s the latter, and for some it’s both.
Wouldn’t you agree that some people find appeal in going against established norms or good taste?
I can only speak for myself here but here’s my answer.
I got attracted by the weird and “touchy” aesthetic of the Make Noise devices but indeed the first I used seemed very complicated. But once you know one modules it’s very easy to understand the others as most of the symbols are common to the same functions from one to another.
I actualy don’t see any “difficulty” in there, it’s just learning a language with only a few words in it to me.
But I am a person who is very attached to the way instruments look. If something does not inspire me visualy I will basicly never use it.
I personally dont see the difficulty in MN gear aside from the legibility of the font (which admittedly on the strega is much clearer) which for me personally is not a deciding factor on an instrument. In addition, in my opinion MN makes some of the most (if not the most) playable modules in Euro.
Again the Strega cannot be more easily laid out: osc section, delay section, filter.
The OT on the other hand for what it is in complex lends to the depths of its abilities. Am I proud to know my way around it? Sure…why not be? Do I gloat? No.Gloating is silly.
Good points, thanks.
I’m quite different, if all my gear was black and had nice square layouts of very logical knobs, buttons and switches I’d be in creative heaven.
I guess that’s where neurology comes in again, because I do not see what you see.
Nobody sees what they see, they see what they think they see.
True.
I think
Everything is so meta these days…
I think we live in metamodernist times.
Ok maybe previously speaking MN is a factor here.
Big Knobs are important and they have satellites. First one is osc tune, second one is delay time, third one is filter freq (which is extreme simplification).
