
I’ve been reflecting on the topic of choice as it relates to interface design. Whether you’re talking about a web page, your alarm clock, or computer software, there seems to be an inverse relationship between flexibility and usability. A large number of input options means more control but is potentially confusing; while fewer input options means a loss of control but greater ease of use. Of course the most brilliant designs are the ones that have a simple interface but allow for complex behaviors.
In the DAW world Ableton Live owes a great deal of it’s success to it’s simplistic yet versatile interface. Kontakt on the other hand has a complex user interface and, in my opinion, a steep learning curve. The reward for taking the time to learn all the little secrets is a great deal of control and many many options for manipulating sound.
Another feature of Kontakt is the ability to create your own user interfaces using the script editor. While it’s possible to script completely new functionality, frequently, custom interfaces simply mirror controls that already exist within the Kontakt interface. Even though numerous controls exist within Kontakt already, adding custom interfaces is a great way to guide the user towards specific options, thereby shaping the nature of the instrument. It’s sort of like creating a big flashing neon signs that says “don’t worry about those knobs over there, try twisting these knobs”. It’s a form of creation through subtraction and re-emphasis.
When it comes to user interfaces for audio applications, there is the question of how much visual feedback is appropriate. I must admit, I like my interfaces to graphicaly reflect as much as possible, but there’s a serious risk involved with this kind of visual feedback. The danger is that we will hear what we see and not what is really happening. Our mind manipulates our senses and favors visual imput over auditory. Watch this video on the McGurk effect and you’ll understand what I’m getting at.
Now you can see why, after hours of watching your music play inside the your DAW, it’s a very good idea to give it a listen with eyes closed or the monitor turned off.
For the instrument for this post, I incorporated both the idea of a simple interface with complex results and an interface that prioritizes careful listening over visual feedback. And, just for the fun of it, it’s a puzzle too! There are just three unlabeled knobs. You’ll have to listen carefully to figure out what they do. Here’s a hint – the functionality of the knobs changes depending on the status of the other knobs. There is no sound when you first load it up, there are a few visual clues but you’ll have to figure out the rest by yourself. Or, once you’ve got it to make sound you can just randomly twist knobs and see what happy accidents you come across. Here are some of the sounds that are possible to make with this instrument.
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Have fun!



photo by Tim Prebble - used with permission




So, part III of the Pen series is going to have to wait until I’m a little less busy. In the meantime, last week’s post reminded me of an interesting essay I read about Charles Ives some time ago. There was one anecdote from the essay that has always stuck with me. Ives was talking about writing for a section of programmatic music intended to evoke images of fireworks. He said that since, in order to make fireworks one must carefully measure ingredients and follow rigid recipes, music about fireworks should be constructed in a similar manner. He therefore made up a set of formulas and rules for his musical fireworks and composed them in a very mathematical fashion. What fascinated me about this was not only the idea that process effects product but that a composer could, perhaps should, be purposeful in choosing how to approach a piece of music.