[sdiy] Pots vs Encoders, was Re: [sdiy] dave smith *instruments*

[cheater cheater]

Tom,
> A better comparison would be something like the Solaris, which has LCDs for
> each group of encoders, and consequently tells you exactly what each value
> is for anything you can change.

there is no reason why you couldn't do that with potentiometers.

> And furthermore, if you change patch, it'll
> still be correct, which pots won't.

here you are mistaking our arguments: you are talking about LCD
displays, not about potentiometers or encoders. In fact, to keep the
argument level, 'if you change the patch, the encoders will neither
display a correct nor an incorrect value, whereas the potentiometers
will display the incorrect value'. This is true, but this is not an
improvement of any sort. When you change the patch the potentiometer's
knob will not display any information that the encoder's knob would.
You are in no way losing anything by using potentiometers and not
encoders.

Besides you can just remember that, hey, you just changed the patch 5
seconds ago, of course the knobs are in the wrong positions. However
this can be overcome with the usage of parallax mode on the
potentiometers which allows you to grab a knob and immediately raise a
value or lower it. And if you need to know the specific value of a
knob, you can look at the LCD. It's not like potentiometers would
normally tell you exactly what value they are putting through, the
dots/marks around a knob are mostly for decorative purposes and to
tell you the minimum and maximum. You don't see filter cutoff knobs
surrounded with exact Hz amounts.

> It's also worth remembering that having
> pots for each function limits the number of parameters you can have.

No, because this is wrong. There is no reason you couldn't reassign
potentiometers just like you reassign encoders.

> Most
> modern synths have far more parameters than you could possibly put on a
> control panel simultaneously. So you have to have some kind of
> multi-function system, and this is the same situation as changing patches -
> a pots position doesn't reflect the value.

When you change what the potentiometer is assigned to the
potentiometer's knob will not display any information that the
encoder's knob would. You are in no way losing anything.

However most of the time people who don't need to perform using their
knobs won't care where the knobs are, anyways, because they won't be
touching them. And on the other hand, people who do perform, will be
in the situation that most of the knobs will have been adjusted during
the performance and therefore display what sound the synthesizer is
playing, which is a big plus.

Most importantly, pots do not disable muscle memory which is the
single worst thing about encoders.

D.

On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 15:22, Tom Wiltshire <tom at electricdruid.net> wrote:
>
> On 2 Feb 2010, at 13:06, cheater cheater wrote:
>
>> Tom,
>> are you saying people don't change the synth parameters during
>> performance anymore, because it's not the 70s?
>
> No, obviously not, that'd be silly. And I'm only silly after dark. Mostly.
>
> I recognise that people want to tweak parameters and that you can't do that
> using presets. You need to alter parameters, and that's the function of a
> hardware interface. Designing a good hardware interface is not an easy
> thing, and doing it for reasonable cost is even harder.
>
> I accept that a panel full of encoders and a single LCD screen isn't much
> competition for pots, since the pot positions sometimes show you something
> useful, and only the encoder whose value is on the LCD tells you anything.
> But this isn't really comparing like with like, although that is the
> situation on the P08 or Evolver, which is where we came in.
>
> A better comparison would be something like the Solaris, which has LCDs for
> each group of encoders, and consequently tells you exactly what each value
> is for anything you can change. And furthermore, if you change patch, it'll
> still be correct, which pots won't. Another similar system is the Clavia
> Nord synths with their LED rings around encoders. These provide instant
> visual feedback and update when you change patch. Again, though, the
> resolution is limited - you typically get 15 or 31 LEDs around the ring,
> which is 5-bit accuracy at best. It's also worth remembering that having
> pots for each function limits the number of parameters you can have. Most
> modern synths have far more parameters than you could possibly put on a
> control panel simultaneously. So you have to have some kind of
> multi-function system, and this is the same situation as changing patches -
> a pots position doesn't reflect the value.
>
> I think the ideal actually *is* fully motorised pots with one per parameter.
> However, that is completely impractical (size & cost), so we're left trying
> to find the best compromise solution. It isn't easy.
>
> T.
>
> PS: For what it's worth the interface for my monosynth has pots not
> encoders. The encoder/LCD interface I'm working on is just a convenience for
> testing things out.
>
>> That's what I was talking about.
>>
>> None of the situations I mentioned allows you to store presets:
>> - you can't perform on a synth using the parameters as a tool of
>> expression by just cycling presets
>> - you can't perform on a synth using the presets as a tool of quickly
>> accessing the sound you want, unless you're in a playlist band that
>> uses the exact same sounds over and over and never does anything
>> original on stage. Of course I'm not talking about this - if you just
>> want to use the same things over and over you're much better off using
>> a Kurzweil sampler, they're quite good at this. Miles Davis did not
>> have playlists for his songs and yet he was able to quickly recall all
>> the different sounds he made on his instrument.
>> - you can't directly use presets when mixing. They can only be an
>> entry point, but they will never work exactly the way you want with
>> the sounds you have, unless you're a 'loop musician' and are using the
>> same loops over and over. Every sound and every recording session are
>> different and require different compressor settings and reverb decays
>> and what ever else. Even when getting from an 'entry point' provided
>> by presets, to the exact sound you want, it's much easier to use pots.
>>
>> If the encoders don't show you anything ever, and pots don't show you
>> anything only after you've recalled a patch, then pots are not worse
>> than encoders. But all the above holds which makes pots better in my
>> opinion.
>>
>> D.
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 13:10, Tom Wiltshire <tom at electricdruid.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2 Feb 2010, at 10:35, cheater cheater wrote:
>>>
>>>> I truly cannot come up with an idea of where in a musical studio
>>>> encoders are a good idea. Maybe alpha dials to move through menus
>>>> quickly. But for editing values?
>>>>
>>>> On a musical instrument you want to be able to change the sound to
>>>> what you have in your head quickly, and you get there by remembering
>>>> how the knobs were set up and how they were positioned.
>>>
>>> Encoders are a solution to the ancient problem of knob positions on a
>>> programmable instrument. You're completely right that people want to
>>> change
>>> the sound quickly, and they mostly want to do that by patch recall, not
>>> by
>>> setting the knobs up again - that was the 70s, man. And in the 70s people
>>> responded by having a stack of keyboards set to different sounds so that
>>> they *didn't* have to change all the knobs.
>>> As soon as you put programmability on a synth, it's easy to have a
>>> situation
>>> where the knobs don't tell you anything. LCDs and encoders are one
>>> attempt
>>> at a solution to that problem. I'm not saying they're perfect or even the
>>> best solution, but I think it's worth remembering why they're there and
>>> what
>>> they are good for.
>>>
>>> T.
>>>
>>>
>
>