Forum rss-feed

Forum

General Discussion: I'd like to recommend that the key numbering style be completely redone.

Most Recent

written by: dhjdhj

The issue is not about remembering that one row is samplers and one row is AUs (and in fact they're not, they are in columns!). The issue is being able to FIND the right key quickly.

Using an analogy, imagine if you're playing the piano and you see the chord "C E G" on the staff. Now suppose you wanted to play in a different octave but those notes were in different places in different octaves....you would go nuts!

Indeed, if you're playing the guitar and you want to transpose to a different key, you can slide up the fretboard and the desired notes are still in exactly the same relative locations so you can play the sequence "1 3 5" wherever you are (vertically) and get the same result. I'm suggesting that the same should be true for the Alpha for control purposes.

As for playing notes on the alpha, the situation is even worse because the actual scale can change, i.e, the note generated by pressing a specific key can be different depending on what you're doing. If you're told to play key 17, how can you possibly know what physical key that represents when it can be different depending on a particular layout, and even worse if not all keys in a column are used.

Indeed, it might be worth thinking about using a cartesian notation for absolute references.
(3,1) means 3rd row, first key
(5,4) means 5th row, fourth key
(24,2) means bottom row, second key

That scheme would work across all Eigenharp instruments consistently, making it easier to switch from one to another as well.
geert said:
The key number that makes the most sense to me, follows the flow of the notes, ie. higher is vertical. In the case of the keygroup mode layout, I personally don't remember this at all with numbers, I remember that one row are sampler instruments, the other row has AUs, than the three natively modeled instruments and then the MIDI outs. The final row I just know by hard.

Also, this logically groups together functionality in lumps of consecutive numbers, which does feel easier to understand.

Of course, this is all very personal but it's interesting to see how people have different views of what looks like the most logical approach.

Take care,

Geert

written by: dhjdhj

Thu, 26 Aug 2010 21:24:07 +0100 BST

It is extremely difficult to remember the various sequences because of both depth and breath of the tree and because there is no user conceptual model that one can leverage to aid memory. This is particularly the case if you are learning as a hobby and only have time to play with it occasionally.

A particular difficulty is the numbering scheme used to reference keys. Unfortunately, the numbers ascend based on vertical position rather than horizontal position. For example, if you're told to press key "7" in some key clump, you cannot just automatically go to the second key of the second row of that key clump because the actual key number will depend on how many rows are used for the particular key clump.

I'd like to recommend that serious consideration be given to using a horizontal numbering scheme that would be independent of row height and so far easier to remember without having to look at a picture.

I've used Photoshop to change an image to reflect this suggestion and posted the image to the eigenzone wiki as a Proposed Numbering Scheme.


written by: mikemilton

Thu, 26 Aug 2010 22:07:12 +0100 BST

-1 ... I find that the current scheme makes sense to me and would prefer not to see this change


written by: dhjdhj

Fri, 27 Aug 2010 03:25:49 +0100 BST

I realize that everyone else has more experience than me but I don't understand how the current scheme makes more sense.....for example, suppose there's a block of keys starting at some row and I tell you to press key 9 (say). How can one QUICKLY determine where that key is located when its physical position (relative to the top row) can change arbitrarily based on (A) how many rows make up the block and which ones are actually active?

In my scheme, that key would ALWAYS be the second last key of the second row of the group, no matter what configuration is being used, no matter what group, no matter what keys are active or not.


written by: geert

Fri, 27 Aug 2010 08:22:43 +0100 BST

As a player, I personally also prefer the original vertical scheme in general.

However, there are some parts in the reference guide where I think the vertical scheme needs to be revised. For instance in the advanced drummer controls, the main controls section (page 14). Keys 1 & 3 logically belong together, as do 2, 4, 5, 6 and 8. I think it would be clearer to renumber those and number them horizontally since that's how the functionality is structured. For instance 1, 2 - 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 - 8. This would then also group the lines in the legend together.

dhjdhj, Mike, what do you think about that?


written by: geert

Fri, 27 Aug 2010 08:33:54 +0100 BST

dhjdhj said:
I realize that everyone else has more experience than me but I don't understand how the current scheme makes more sense.....for example, suppose there's a block of keys starting at some row and I tell you to press key 9 (say). How can one QUICKLY determine where that key is located when its physical position (relative to the top row) can change arbitrarily based on (A) how many rows make up the block and which ones are actually active?

In my scheme, that key would ALWAYS be the second last key of the second row of the group, no matter what configuration is being used, no matter what group, no matter what keys are active or not.


The key number that makes the most sense to me, follows the flow of the notes, ie. higher is vertical. In the case of the keygroup mode layout, I personally don't remember this at all with numbers, I remember that one row are sampler instruments, the other row has AUs, than the three natively modeled instruments and then the MIDI outs. The final row I just know by hard.

Also, this logically groups together functionality in lumps of consecutive numbers, which does feel easier to understand.

Of course, this is all very personal but it's interesting to see how people have different views of what looks like the most logical approach.

Take care,

Geert


written by: mikemilton

Fri, 27 Aug 2010 08:37:36 +0100 BST

Geert - good thought.

Dhjdhj - I did not find a lot of stuff immediatel intuitive either. However, I have consistently found those same things to be the result of a lot of careful thought. My general take now is to try to understand the thinking behind 'what is'. That has mostly proven helpful and productive although it sometimes leads to ideas for improvement. In this case, I'd rather have things grouped in some sensible way rather than simply being orderly

M


written by: dhjdhj

Fri, 27 Aug 2010 12:30:51 +0100 BST

Well, I'd argue that a lot of stuff SHOULD be more immediately intuitive and this numbering suggestion is a contribution towards that goal.

The keys can continue to be grouped in whatever way makes sense. All I'm suggesting is that if the "notation" for referencing specific keys was changed the way I propose, it would be significantly easier to "find" the right key to press/play when following directions. It's just easier for the brain to do consistent mod 5 arithmetic and certainly easier if the same numbered key is always in the same relative position in a group.

I have also thought about it but I cannot see what the stronger argument for vertical numbering might be. There is no semantic information in those numbers. Of course it makes sense to have related items together (e.g, the 4 AUs, the 4 Samplers) but they can still be laid out vertically. You can still easily remember that they are "underneath" each other (say) but if you are told to press button 9, it will be easier and faster to know what physical key to press.

mikemilton said:
Dhjdhj - I did not find a lot of stuff immediatel intuitive either. However, I have consistently found those same things to be the result of a lot of careful thought. My general take now is to try to understand the thinking behind 'what is'. That has mostly proven helpful and productive although it sometimes leads to ideas for improvement. In this case, I'd rather have things grouped in some sensible way rather than simply being orderly

M


written by: dhjdhj

Fri, 27 Aug 2010 12:49:35 +0100 BST

The issue is not about remembering that one row is samplers and one row is AUs (and in fact they're not, they are in columns!). The issue is being able to FIND the right key quickly.

Using an analogy, imagine if you're playing the piano and you see the chord "C E G" on the staff. Now suppose you wanted to play in a different octave but those notes were in different places in different octaves....you would go nuts!

Indeed, if you're playing the guitar and you want to transpose to a different key, you can slide up the fretboard and the desired notes are still in exactly the same relative locations so you can play the sequence "1 3 5" wherever you are (vertically) and get the same result. I'm suggesting that the same should be true for the Alpha for control purposes.

As for playing notes on the alpha, the situation is even worse because the actual scale can change, i.e, the note generated by pressing a specific key can be different depending on what you're doing. If you're told to play key 17, how can you possibly know what physical key that represents when it can be different depending on a particular layout, and even worse if not all keys in a column are used.

Indeed, it might be worth thinking about using a cartesian notation for absolute references.
(3,1) means 3rd row, first key
(5,4) means 5th row, fourth key
(24,2) means bottom row, second key

That scheme would work across all Eigenharp instruments consistently, making it easier to switch from one to another as well.

geert said:
The key number that makes the most sense to me, follows the flow of the notes, ie. higher is vertical. In the case of the keygroup mode layout, I personally don't remember this at all with numbers, I remember that one row are sampler instruments, the other row has AUs, than the three natively modeled instruments and then the MIDI outs. The final row I just know by hard.

Also, this logically groups together functionality in lumps of consecutive numbers, which does feel easier to understand.

Of course, this is all very personal but it's interesting to see how people have different views of what looks like the most logical approach.

Take care,

Geert



Please log in to join the discussions