[LAU] yoshimi, zyn and Ardour

[jonetsu at teksavvy.com]

On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 21:00:46 -1000
david <gnome at hawaii.rr.com> wrote:

> On 09/18/2016 08:17 AM, jonetsu at teksavvy.com wrote:

>> Yes.  But, is there a real need to see them at the same time ?
 
> Perhaps, perhaps not. I'd rather have the option.

I would not impose that on SW designers and developers, for the simple
reason that there's no solid use case supporting the benefits of having
multiple windows per application.

>> I use Mixbus 32C, Renoise, Bitwig, synths, email client and web
>> browser, all running at the same time.

> I use Rosegarden.

Good if it can produce high quality mixes.  I prefer Harrison's 32C mix
strips.  Not because there were used for countless artists, from Paul
Simon to Supertramp, to Zappa, and all, but because I noticed a nice
output for what I am doing.

Rosegarden seems to come from another age, as far an application design
is concerned.  Makes me think when I was using Muse 10 years ago.  But
then, I do not write music, nor read it.  It might very well be that
there's not much choice for such software under Linux.

>> All in their respective desktop.
 
> Yup. And everytime you switch from one desktop to another, your eyes
> and neural processing have to relocate things. I'm not a fan of that
> extra effort. 

It sounds as if every desktop screen comes as a surprise to the user.
Wow, what's this desktop screen I just switched to ?  Wasn't it the one
I set up and used in the last 3 minutes, in which I exactly know the
line of the source code I was editing ?  Oh not, I already forgot, this
screen IS a surprise, my neural network has to adapt, what an effort.

I wonder how much effort is required then, to switch from one zyn
window, with all its little tiny intricate details, to another zyn
window, to another set of tiny little intricate details

> Outside of graphics editing (where I wish modern
> graphics apps had the clean NOTHING IN YOUR FACE UI of the old Targa
> TIPS graphics program), I prefer to keep everything related to a task
> (making music is a task, not a collection of tools to scatter hither
> and yon).

I do not see creating music much of a task per se, as a play.  A play
that uses various tools, each offering a ground, a terrain, to play.
If the play moves towards a tracker approach combined with a sampler,
then Renoise is there.  If it moves towards a playful modular approach
then Bitwig is there.  And in the end, it gets mixed in Ardour (Mixbus
32C) for the obvious advantages it offers.

Same with sounds and the various synths.

In the end, in the essence of things, only one single sound, one
single, modulated note would be needed to represent the quest for the
existence in life, the vibration that moves all atoms, represented in a
frequency range that's possible to hear.  But meanwhile, there are all
those notes and beats, and different sounds, and voices and things.
This is the Kun of Qian/Kun of the I Ching.  All those details of the
Earth, and then all that smoothness of heaven, of the sky.
 
>> I think that going this way is
>> just making up for not thinking much about the UI in the first
>> place, delegating part of the UI design to the user at run time on
>> the account of flexibility.
 
> Or lazy UI designers who decided that "doing it their way" is the way 
> EVERYONE must do it. I do blame MS for that, but some of the big open 
> source products seem to operate the same way.

Well, there are use cases.  If the concept of having an app popping up
many windows as part of its regular workflow would have gained public
acceptance as being a truly nice way of getting things done, then it
would have been much more popular.  

In the graphics world, the clear metaphor is with the painter's
palette.  The painter has a canvas and a palette, both active at the
same time since colours are brought from the palette to the canvas.

But there's no such thing with audio apps.  A MSEG is not
created and then dropped upon the fractal generator.  Rather, each one
of the parameters contributes to the sound, in its own capacity.  From
the human creation perspective, sequentially.  Adjust the key follower
there, the FMO here, the ADSR, assign modulation to this, go back to
the MSEG, etc... Each in its own capacity to contribute to a sound.

>> As far as it see it, not many applications are going that way.
>> Maybe even, rare ?
 
> Perhaps. I think most doing it because then they DON'T have to think 
> about the UI. Like all those silly programs that don't use files, yet 
> have a File menu that has only one option: Quit.

> Don't care. I've done UI work, and there's a lot more complexity and 
> nuance. Mass market for-profit products want to spend as little money
> as possible, because any spending directly reduces their profit.

I do not think so, not at all.  A great deal is given to the UI.  At
times a bad UI can even be detrimental to an otherwise excellent sound
generation program.  When people do not pay for it, and when people who
works on that are not paid, having other means of assuring subsistance,
then things can be light, can be so-so.  Does not matter much if the UI
is not so good.  But when a living is in question, when there is
competition, there is a lot going on in the UIs.

All u-he synths for instance have polished UIs.  A lot is being spent
on UI designs.  For MFM2 it is clearly stated in the documentation.
They could have made it dull to look at, but they wanted to convey the
circular motion of what the application can do. And that's not to
mention u-he's Triple Cheese free synth, riddled with cheese holes all
over.

Laziness on the UI design side is certainly not something common in the
field we discussing, audio creation.  In the domain of commercial
software where competition and a living is concerned.

For an accountant software, it would be different.