Yep, there is quite a difference in the UI. System-8 allows more direct access to most of the parameters we need for daily work. It’s not a one knob per function layout completely, but almost. There are some sound-parameters hidden in the menu, but not too deep.
For me the A4/AK UI is a good compromise between size of the intstrument and complexity of the synth engine and the sequencing and performance features. After some hours spent with my AK, I had developed a kind of mussle memory to switch quickly between the “parameter” buttons and the encoders. The display has become relatively unimportant, since I am used to work more with my ears. I use the display almost only for orientation that I have pushed the right button or going for the right encoder.
If you ended up using the presets of the AK mostly, you did indeed not get, what this synth realy can deliver. If you are not entirely finished with the AK, I would suggest, give both of you more time, and learn to program the AK via its physical UI - or - via OB, which is excellent and pretty much of a high standard GUI for a VST/AU plug-in.
Comparing the System-8 and AK as ITB ready instruments … well, the AK works fine via OB. There is nothing to compare with for the System-8. But if standard midi and audio via USB is sufficiant, then both do the job.
Comparing the keybeds … IMO AK feels very good, but System-8 does not play in the same league. The keybed of the System-8 has no aftertouch (which is something of a shame for a polysynth) and the action is not as good, as for other keybeds, which are delivered at the System-8 price range.
Comparing the sequencers … well … which hardware step sequencer can challenge the Elektrons? Not many, if we compare those, which are integrated in an instrument ;). The sequencer of the System-8 is good, it also records live and parameter changes. Which is great and useful, but not as flexible and manyfold as the Elektron sequencers.
Comparing the synth engines … last but not least … most important, IMHO, both sound excellent. But each of them go in a totally different direction.
The A4/AK comes with a very versatile new designed circuitry, which wants to be loved as is. There are many complaints in the net about the A4/AK not sounding like some of the old famous legends of the 80ies or 90ies. The sound engine of the A4/AK is one of the most versatile and complex engines today. Such a thing want’s to be used to it’s limits.
The System-8 wants to be a modern VA synthesizer with some very fresh ideas. It allows quickly to go off-road and to create impressive non-standard sounds. But it’s sound-engine is straight and provides rather simple modulation capabilities. The Jupiter-8 and Juno-106 simulations are supposed to be retro. Both are great sounding simulations and after some research I conclude, that many agree about the Juno-106 to be almost undistinquishable from the original and the Jupiter-8 simulation should be the best of today. But from some YT videos I would say, the original Jupiter-8 has more beef to the sound. But the simulation is very close (TBO I have never played an original Jupiter-8 myself ). But there are some videos out there, which compare the real Jupiter-8 vs it’s simulation and IMO the guys made a good job discussing the similarities and differences. This said, after I switched on my System-8 in the studio and played the Jupiter-8 simulation, I had nothing to complain. Beefy 80ies sound, exactly what I was hoping to get, without having to pay a fortune for a rare 30+ year old veteran in a good shape.
If you are about to decide either to stay with the A4/AK or to go for the System-8, I would recommend, listen to your ears. Both are very different beasts. If you can, get both
And sorry for such a long post …