Soft-synth interface design

[Tony Hardie-Bick]

Andy,

> Ok the topic is software synthesizer interfaces. Joost and I are  
> asking you all to please list your thoughts on this much debated  
> topic. Please reply to the shelter and let us know. Any thoughts you  
> have will be valuable to us, here are just a few questions to get you  
> started:
> 
> Which software synth interfaces do you like and why?

-

> Which hardware synth interfaces do you like and why?

Guitars, pianos and drums etc (yes - I consider these to be hardware 
synth interfaces - all the more so because electronics is not involved). 
Because the connection between unconscious and sound is not mediated by 
intention. This is true of some synths. MS20 is the supreme example. Why 
MS20 and not, say, a Moog, is not something I understand.

> What elements from hardware synth interfaces belong in the software  
> world?

-

> What elements can you dream up that could only exist in software?

An infinite number. Reducing this number is the art of instrument 
design. It took hundreds of years for instruments like the violin, 
guitar, piano etc to reach their present form. Instrument design is not 
like aircraft design. It is more like painting, so I'd suggest a study 
of Picasso, Miles Davis, Eric Satie and Caligraphy as being more 
relevant to the refinement of specific elements from the infinite set. 
This only applies to music that is spared the burden of intentionality. 
Those writing for a living may have a different set of needs and 
requirements. Please do not be offended if you are one of those people.

> Do you appreciate shinny pretty graphics? Or do you prefer basic and  
> clean?

Every musician appreciates aesthetics with reference to a different 
internal language. For this reason, diversity is essential, and 
conformity to a set of rules mistaken, except when this leads to greater 
diversity.

> Do you like soft synths that look like old hardware? Or like they are  
> a holographic interface from 2483? Or in between?

I would like a soft synth that *feels* like old hardware, but I don't 
think this is what you mean. Instruments whose sound space can be 
navigated entirely by touch are generally more expressive (in real time) 
than those where the visual sense performs a crucial role, and 
particularly where touch is abstracted to an infinite level (mouse) and 
context specified visually, thereby requiring the brain to perform 
continuous correlation at a high level between tactile and visual senses 
that are not directly coupled to sound creation (like strings, or a 
filter knob). This extra mental processing is a typical problem in 
interface design. Reducing this burden is what acoustic instruments - 
and some electronic ones - succeed magnificently in doing. It is the job 
of the instrument designer to alleviate superfluous brain usage, so the 
mind can wander in the fields of imagery and words, and translate these 
directly into sound. Whenever superfluous mental processing is required, 
conformity is imposed by the interface/instrument. The mental distance 
between the sound made and the reason for its being made should be as 
short as possible. Sometimes, even really geeky interfaces achieve this 
- LEDs, buttons, even multi-layer menus - there are no rules, but I'd 
say that hardware provides tactility, and there is something about 
pressing a button, whose location is known, and whose function is not 
completely variable, that leads to a concept of "instrument" in the 
mind, that soft synths can only evoke.

> These questions are just some basic ones, the sky's the limit, any  
> and all thoughts you have will be appreciated.

-

Tony (HB)