Remix.run Logo
cpuguy83 7 hours ago

Just an fyi to anyone making or thinking of making one of these:

Turning a knob with a mouse is the worst interface I can think of. I don't know why audio apps/DAWs fall so hard on skeuomorphism here when the interface just doesn't make sense in the context.

Slow_Hand 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I use knobs everyday in my audio tools (with my track pad) and they're perfectly fine as long as they have three features:

1. Drag up/down to change value. 2. A modifier key to slow the drag for finer resolution changes when dragging. 3. The ability to double-click the knob and type in precise values when I know exactly what I want.

The problem with knobs on a GUI is when designers stay with them when there is a faster option. Like an opportunity to combine three knobs.

For example, the EQ on any SSL channel strip is a nightmare because they slavishly stick with a skeumorphic design of the original hardware. The hardware required mixers to use two hands to adjust gain and frequency at the same time, and then dial in Q on a third knob. Very tedious when you have a mouse.

When this is done right, you get something like FabFilter's Pro-Q graphic EQ. The gain and frequency controls are instead an X/Y slider that you can easily drag across a representation of the frequency spectrum. In addition you can use a modifier key to narrow/widen your Q. All with a single click and drag of your band.

mjr00 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> For example, the EQ on any SSL channel strip is a nightmare because they slavishly stick with a skeumorphic design of the original hardware.

True though I would put this very much in the "feature, not a bug" bucket. These tools are for people who have worked with the original hardware and want a very faithful emulation, including the look and feel. In the digital world with a modern PC there's not much purpose of a channel strip plugin in the first place, so the only people using one are doing so with intention.

It's a bit like saying that manual transmission cars could be controlled more easily if they were automatic transmission; it's completely true, but if you're buying a manual you want that experience.

Pro-Q is a great example of a digital-first tool (the automatic transmission equivalent), with lots of great visual feedback and a lot of thought put into a mouse+kb workflow. All of Fabfilter's stuff is like this actually, though sometimes to its detriment; the Fabfilter automation and LFO system feels very different from basically every other plugin. It's actually a more efficient workflow when you get used to it, but due to how different it is from everything else most people I talk to dislike it unless they've really bought into the Fabfilter suite.

Which kind of goes back to the original point: VSTs use knobs because it's what people are used to, and using something different might be a negative even if it's better!

Slow_Hand 3 hours ago | parent [-]

I agree that the SSL channel strip GUI is deliberate because users want something that operates like the hardware. However, I would love the option to grab the freq knob and have it work like an x/y slider for freq/gain.

Sure it mismatches the GUI, but it gives users the option when they don't want to do a click/drag for freq, then gain, then freq, then gain, then Q. You know?

That tediousness is what keeps me from using the SSL channel strip altogether.

Re: channel strip plugins: The advantage to using them in DAWs is speed and economy. Having everything in one window (ala the Scheps Omni Channel) saves me a lot of clicks vs. when I have multiple plugins in different slots.

I do absolutely everything in the box with a laptop keyboard and track pad. My primary motive is being quick and precise, and the less plugin window management I have to do the better. The channel strip keeps the tools compact and my movements minimal.

bolangi 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Good morning. An expanding plethora of buttons, tabs, menus requires geometrical memory that may have nothing directly to do with the function in question. The first GUIs were designed that functions be "discoverable," however the size of haystacks in which these discoverable functions hide has grown exponentially, adding cognitive overhead, and increasing the length of apprenticeship needed to master the application.

A slick-looking GUI is a kind of ad for the app. As author of an accessible, terminal-based DAW app, I contrast remembering an incantation like 'add-track' or 'list-buses' with hunting around. These incantations can have shorter abbreviations, such 'lb' for list buses, and 'help bus' or 'h bus' to be sufficiently discoverable, easier for both implementer and user. And then to have hotkeys to bump plugin parameters +/- 1/10/100 etc. Probably I'm pissing into the wind to think the majority of users will ever choose this -- and GUIs do provide amazing facilities for many purposes -- but we do have a huge array of choices on linux, including this plethora of music creation and production apps. That is a big success, IMO.

mimischi 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Mind sharing your DAW app?

brindy 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

What is the DAW that you are the author of?

ofalkaed 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

A 20 pixel knob has considerably greater resolution than a 20 pixel slider with its max resolution of 20. I don't think I have come across a digital knob that you have to turn with the mouse since the previous century, just drag up or down or left or right.

mock-possum 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Or scroll your mouse wheel up and down

cpuguy83 4 hours ago | parent [-]

The scrolling makes sense. Dragging up and down does not.

lukaslalinsky 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Unless the implementation is really bad, you actually have more control over these knobs than you would have over sliders. You could technically remove the knob completely, replace it with just textual number you click on and move your mouse, but the knob is easier to read.

Gracana 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It allows for dense controls and everyone's used to them. I don't find them to be a problem, they aren't intuitive in that you might think you're supposed to grab the knob and "turn" it with a circular cursor motion or something, but once you learn to drag linearly, they're an easy to use and consistent interface. And as giancarlostoro mentioned, you can map them to a MIDI device if you want to twiddle knobs while playing/recording live.

sroerick 6 hours ago | parent [-]

I'll add in addition - the skeumorphism here is generally pretty functional, you touched on this when you said "everyone is used to them"

But the layout of these buttons, while certainly not standard, is generally familiar across various filters, etc. So if you are dealing with a complex interface the skeumorphism absolutely helps to make the input more familiar and easily accessible.

This is what skeumorphism is for and this is a great place to use it.

Imagine if the symbols for "play" "pause" and "stop" were changed simply because it no longer made sense to follow the conventions of a VCR, then multiply that by an order of magnitude.

mjr00 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Turning a knob with a mouse is the worst interface I can think of.

I'm racking my brain thinking of what a better interface would be for selecting a number between a range of values, where the number is a point on a continuum and not any specific value, and can't think of one. The equivalent "traditional" UX for webapps would be a slider control, but that's functionally the same and you'd be going against many years of domain-specific common understanding for not much benefit.

ofalkaed 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I personally prefer the good old number box but they have their problems and you actually have to read each and ever box to see what the state is, with sliders and knobs we can see the value of a great many controls at a glance.

mjr00 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Some newer synths do this where it makes sense. e.g. in Phase Plant the wavetable frame is a number, since wavetable positions are discrete values from 1 to 256.

Ultimately I see two problems though,

1. sometimes the number doesn't matter or make sense at all. A good example is a macro knob. The value is somewhere between "0" or "1", and synths do let you set it manually (since this is how recorded automation works), but a macro slider doesn't make too much sense IMO.

2. lots of controls deal with logarithmic values. Anything that corresponds to a frequency is going to need finer control when you're tweaking values below 500Hz vs changing a value between 10000Hz and 10500Hz. Knobs mask this pretty well. I'm sure you could build a slider that dealt with this, but a number box would be very weird since you'd want the scroll step to be much smaller at lower values.

ofalkaed 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Number boxes can be log or expo or even an arbitrary list, and they can have a fine tune through holding shift or the like. They also generally allow you to just type in the number you want. They definitely are not the best solution for all situations, just my preference.

jrm4 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Is it fair to assume most mouses have a scroll wheel? Hover and use that? Do they do that?

ubercow13 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Some audio software lets you do this but mouse wheels are incredibly imprecise compared to the mouse sensor itself so this isn't really useful for many types of control which require precise adjustment.

mjr00 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Is it fair to assume most mouses have a scroll wheel?

Probably not, a lot of musicians develop on the go (planes etc) so they're dealing with built-in trackpads pretty often. You can still scroll but it's not as ergonomic.

ofalkaed 4 hours ago | parent [-]

This is one of the things which helped sell me on Thinkpads with their three physical trackpad buttons and trackpoint, middle click+trackpoint gets you your scroll wheel and it is quite ergonomic.

camtarn 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Huh, I had one of those Thinkpads and I had no idea that this was a thing!

bandrami 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think it's even more fair to assume the user has a MIDI device with a bunch of knobs on it?

bigyabai 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Most have click+drag and a shift modifier for fine adjustments.

ubercow13 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It works great though, what's the alternative? It's visually small, so you can fit a lot of controls in a small space. You can glance at it and know the current setting and where it falls within the range of possible values. By making the mouse control modal when you click on a knob (so you start dragging and can drag over a much larger area than you could for say a slider, which isn't modal) you have immensely precise control over the value in realtime, while still being able to quickly make big changes. This is essential for performance. Combining this with some gentle mouse acceleration for the rate of change of the control when dragging gives you even more precise control. This isn't possible with a slider either.

I would say the opposite, it's basically the perfect interface for a very specific scenario with requirements that don't really occur in much other computer software.

reactordev 4 hours ago | parent [-]

The alternative is the mouse wheel and keybinds. Flight Simulators got this right. Roll up on the wheel to increase the value, roll back on the wheel to decrease the value. Left click to push, right click to pop (or context menu, left click to push it again to turn off).

In fact, if it was all MIDI controlled, it's just a matter of mapping the mouse scroll wheel to a midi channel.

ubercow13 an hour ago | parent | next [-]

I don't really see how that would be precise enough, the mouse wheel has a DPI of like 10 vs 400-800 for a mouse. A mouse wheel has like 25 notches in a full rotation and even MIDI CC values go from 0-127, that's 5 full rotations, that doesn't sound practical as it would be far too slow. And many parameters require much more precise control than 127 steps.

I don't play flight sims but I imagine most flight surfaces require small adjustments and the effect of those adjustments on the aircraft is naturally smoothed out by the dynamics of the plane (you're adjusting an acceleration).

I imagine the scroll wheel is not suitable for dogfighting.

yunwal 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Almost all DAWs I've used allow you to use the mouse wheel while clicking to increase/decrease the value on a knob.

reactordev 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I only use logic now but used FLStudio in the past. I’m by no means an expert or anything, just an audiophile ex-musician turned software guy and find that it’s similar between flight simulator and logic. With FLStudio I did everything with midi controllers so I never used the mouse that way.

adzm 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If not using hardware, you just click and move horizontally or vertically; not sure what a better interface would be? Though I do like it when the numeric value shows when changing. I really don't know what other UI would work well here. Usually there are so many knobs it makes sense to be compact. Though really it makes sense as well to match the visualization of the knobs on my midi controller anyway.

masspro 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Also they are horrifically broken if you use OS-level magnifier (ctrl+scroll etc). I don't know if this is the application devs' fault or not; I haven't investigated OS mouse warping APIs. Warping the mouse back to the center of the knob goes in a feedback loop with the magnifier and spams crazy mouse events such that every knob will immediately go to min or max. Really shameful accessibility fail that no one cares about.

bandrami 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I can't think of the last time I used a knob with a mouse; you usually map it to a knob on a MIDI device and the GUI just gives you visual feedback

mjr00 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Really depends on your workflow. Many, many successful musicians are entirely or almost-entirely "in the box" and use mouse+kb for everything. Doubly true when you're talking about mixing and mastering workflows where you're not usually going to be using a MIDI controller at all (but doing plenty of knob-tweaking).

saidnooneever 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

most daws allow you to map hardware to the dials so u dont need to tweak by mouse. that being said, good automations are a fair replacement depending on your style of music. lfos, adsrs and pattern tools for automation lanes aswell as ability to record automations (to keep em consistent, modify manually etc ), and ofc humanization algorithms that u can apply to automation lanes.

i never use 'hardware', totally happy doin what i do. (thats music i think. enjoying your craft). most ppl i know using similar tools do have midi controllers to have more of an instrumental interface. theres tons of options. no need to discourage anyone...

luqtas 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

and most interfaces have a condition watching for CTRL or SHIFT to ++/-- values slower or faster depending on the modifier held... that allows one to turn a knob with much greater precision than a physical interface!

double-clicking usually lets one type the value... really good interfaces let one scroll seamless independent of screen borders; the perfect pair with a trackball or a long surface/desk for sliding the mouse

Lapsa 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

tbf audio hardware stuff is getting obsolete. signal processing has become so powerful that the difference is marginal. nowadays you can even get an exclusive 24k gold plate reverb in a software form (https://blackroosteraudio.com/en/products/ro-gold)

giancarlostoro 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Isn't the entire idea that you hook it up to physical hardware?

drabbiticus 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

No. MIDI controllers have their place, but many people work without one, or only use one for live performances. There are often also way more knobs in the various FX chains in a DAW than you would reasonably want to map to a controller, but still want to touch at least a few times while making a song.

Knobs are confusing when converted to a mouse paradigm because there can be a few strategies to control them (click+drag up/down, click+drag right/left, weird rotational things, etc), and you have to guess since each FX studio and software may implement it just a little different.

5 hours ago | parent [-]
[deleted]
jennyholzer2 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]

kgwxd 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The amount of time it takes to have 1 debate about the choice is more time than I'll spend in my entire life figuring out how all the specific "knobs" I'll ever touch work. It's just not a real problem.

Reaper has a standard UI for controlling plugins you can use instead of the VST UIs, other DAWs probably do too. It's an awful, lifeless sea of sliders and check boxes that hurts to look at, and instantly drains one of all creativity.

recursive 5 minutes ago | parent [-]

I've heard this POV before. Personally, I'm glad there's a DAW option with a no-frills approach to UI. I don't want a flashy or "inspiring" UI. Everything should be within arms' reach and do what it says on the tin. All the creativity happens in the audio domain. I prefer to use my ears.

Some people like Reason for instance, but I find that its UI innovations just get in my way.

yowlingcat 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Are you experienced with DAWs as a composer or producer?

Many if not most professional producers use MIDI controllers with knobs/sliders/buttons MIDI mapped to DAW controls. As such the skeuomorphism actually plays a valuable role in ensuring that the physical instrument experience maps to their workflows. Secondarily, during production/mastering, producers are generally using automation lanes and envelopes to program parameters into the timeline, and the piano roll to polish the actual notes.

When I've historically done working sessions, the composition phase of what I'm doing tends to involve very little interaction with the keyboard, and is almost entirely driven by my interaction with the MIDI controller.

Conversely, when I'm at the production phase, I am generally not futzing with around with either knobs or the controller, and I am entirely interacting with the DAW through automation lanes or drawing in notes through the piano roll. So I don't really ever use the knob through a mouse and I've never really encountered any professional or even hobbyist musicians who do except for throwaway experimentation purposes.

rasz 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

On the other hand turning a knob with a mouse wheel is the best interface I can think of.

ubercow13 5 hours ago | parent [-]

It doesn't provide enough precision for many synth/music effect knobs.