I think Make Noise are a case where at first it looks insane but once you get used to it it makes so much sense… some of the more complicated dsp ones are a bit much but that’s kind of the euro problem all over - so much packed into a small space. Of course if you just don’t like the font or graphics…
As @chiasticon mentioned, knowing dpo and maths they are very clearly laid out including normalled connections (!) - even qpas - radiate L is normalled to Radiate R for example, the bandpass response is what is feeding back to Q, these are labelled on panel - but some companies mentioned who took a MN like approach I do think fail - it became more pure aesthetic and not a combo of that & functionality.
Looking at Clouds - it looks neater and nicer at first - but also kind of bland and too “separated.” And what do all those symbols above the lights even mean? I also prefer the MN style of putting the holes near the functionality for example rather than everything at bottom and I think that is a part of their “messier” design, too.
And I love the Moog Grandmother/Matriarch design but in the service of “cleanliness” they do not label the normalizations on the panel… this is dumb (I know there are only a few but still!)
More the first option than the second. I like the 0-Coast mainly because of the sounds, but I’ve found that the design choices do definitely lead to being experimental – there’s a just twist that, patch this, and see what happens kind of vibe. I don’t think anyone gets into MN for the sense of achievement from learning it – that applies way more to Octatrack than something like Strega imo
Agreed, they sound great and actually I learned some things about synthesis by learning how they label stuff lol - wouldn’t you say the 0 coast is actually pretty well organized and tells us what’s going on once you understand it?
Also they are not even so difficult - I mean compared to an octatrack (which I’ve played like once) a make noise panel seems insanely streamlined ha ha. What is AED, why are there 3! recording buttons, etc… of course OT looks damn cool but someone tell me how it is clearly functional from panel in a way MN is not.
Yes! But having read through the thread, I’m not sure if it’s just appealing because of my personal preferences. To me, it’s like what the fuck is THAT? I want to see what it does right now. And yep, I’ve learned a lot about West Coast/Buchla synthesis from using the 0-Coast. I love it. So much so that I find it hard to understand why East Coast/Moog ‘won the war’ in terms of ubiquitousness.
^^^ I feel your pain… get back to me when you’ve deciphered the spatula that your left pinky is dancing on. None of the palm, side, or spatula keys make sense in the progression of up or down in pitch.
I don’t own either (actually I don’t own any Make Noise or Instruo stuff). That CSL module panel design in particular seems very good. It let’s me understand immediately what everything does without having to read a manual.
Same goes for the make noise one minus a couple of symbols I have to learn.
The lines are all just showing signal flow through the device. To me it seems like the interface designs have a purpose and aren’t just random artwork. Maybe people who are very technical prefer this kind of interface via something aesthetically pleasing and simpler.
I think classic panels “block” out sections for people to see bigger pictures of sections. Where these designs show everything all together with corresponding connections.
Aesthetically, these designs look good behind a mess of wires I think.
You can’t please everyone since everyone has varying preferences.
Another good way to think of it from the perspective of a person patching modular.
Your eyes are already tracing cables constantly to remember where things are routed while patching cables. When you move your eyes to the panel you don’t have to change your mindset, you just continue to keep tracing panel lines with your eyes back to cable lines. It makes sense to me and flows well for modular.
I had a Cocoquantus for a while. It’s a lot of fun. Once you learn the rubric of inputs/outputs, and roughly what the various things do, it doesn’t take long to move around it with some facility. Ciat Lonbarde philosophy is to invite experimentation, so I think the layouts are intentionally open/lacking description.
With respect to the Strega, I would bet that the experience would be similar, albeit with a front panel that’s considerably more difficult to gaze upon (for some).
Love my Dreadbox Typhon but the moment Oversynth drops an overlay for it that is monochromatic with a nice simple single San serif typeface, my fingers will be twitching furiously to hit the BUY button.
I guess I’m one of the people that doesn’t want to be invited to experiment.
I like taking something and making it do something it’s not supposed to be doing. It doesn’t feel very experimental to me if I feel like I’m supposed to be doing it.
That sounds like a separate thing though. That is, aesthetics / UI vs. Functional philosophy. The way you described your mode of working is basically what C-L wants users to be like.
Edit: hmm, after more consideration, it’s more nuanced. C-L doesn’t really tell you what to do with their gear. So, if there’s no “proper” way of using it, there can’t be an improper “make it do what it’s not supposed to” way. This is probably a whole different thread topic though haha.
And that’s why, in my hands, a C-L would most likely be used for really boring tasks.
I’m a contrary little knob, basically.
I do think though, that UI and functional philosophy are parts of the same thing. If the user interface says “do it this way” I say “bollocks mate, I’m gonna do it this way” but if a UI says “do whatever you want to me” I’m likely going to walk right by. I need a certain amount of tension in order to be creative and a lot of these more “jazzy” pieces of gear just don’t hold that tension for me.
to signify out and 
to signify in are pretty logical in a modular flow, some of the more obscure glyphs though not so much.
