Ableton Forum

oblique strategies wrote:I have always thought that Live was an exceptionally good looking application. This was a factor that got me to purchase Live back at version 1.

Form follows function... beautifully.

+1

LOL - Exactly!

Pitch Black wrote:On the subject of GUIs. Case in point, Arturia:

Robert Henke wrote:Every company who puts the image of a rotating fan in their interface to make it more realistic needs to see a doctor.

I don't think I have seen a single program with a nicer interface than that of Live, it's outstanding and deserves some sort of award.

I love how Live looks too.

balanced, I'm curious, is there specific things you don't like, or the overall look?

I would think it's hard to say Live is "ugly" just as it would be hard to say it's "beautiful". It's really mostly "functional" which is great. I think it looks better than Logic but then I think all Apple's pro apps (like Final Cut pro etc) look pretty bland).
I do like the Cubase look. It's actually not as much about "virtual 3d knobs" as some here are suggesting. Sure there are some subtle shading effects here and there but it's not like Reason, and it's come quite a way since Cubase VST

if you want a really ugly DAW, take a look at Pro Tools or Sonar

I think in a way we're all sends on the return track of life, as such the GUI reminds me of my humanity, desires and ultimately, the futility of human existence.

if a sample fell in the webz and there was no summing bus to hear it, would it make a sound?

Everything I've read about the optimization of operating systems for use with DAW's puts a large emphasis on minimizing the visuals of the OS. I can't imagine it is any different with the DAW itself. The bottom line is that thos fancy visuals tax the CPU. That makes no sense when the application is used specifically for audio which is also CPU intensive.

I remember shopping for my fist DAW. I had about three candidates in mind, boiled it down to two, Live being on of them, and debated flipping a coin to decide. The reason for this was that by looking at the back of the box of Live the program just looked plain old boring. But upon reflecting on this some more, I decided that since Live pitched itself as being oriented to be used for live perfomances, this made the best sense for me since ultimately this is where I would like to take my music. In the end I am very glad I was able to resist the "eye candy" factor and bought Live because overall I've been extremely happy with the program despite the recent hiccups. The way I look at it, I feel more comfotable that the developers at live are working on fixing bugs in the code that are the result of some complex program designs that are designed specifically for audio applications and are not instead devoting thier time to come up with some fancy 3d fader on the screen that comes complete with tracers the the telltale gold bling.

Granted there are some things that could be done that could make the GUI more user friendly but that will always be the case with any program as hardware and monitors advance in technology.

longjohnmike wrote:The bottom line is that thos fancy visuals tax the CPU. That makes no sense when the application is used specifically for audio which is also CPU intensive.

Yes, General really is an ugly place. The Lounge is much better.

oblique strategies wrote:

longjohnmike wrote:The bottom line is that thos fancy visuals tax the CPU. That makes no sense when the application is used specifically for audio which is also CPU intensive.

good point.

I only wish they'd let us break views out and let Live's plug-ins escape from the bottom view.

nobody's mentioned how great the Live 8 ZOOM function is. 82% zoom for me, going to 100% looks goofy, too big.

I'm an audio guy, screw the shiny blinky bling.

Hey, I love Arturia's plugins

I think it's a big difference designing a GUI for a DAW workstation compared to making a GUI for a softsynth.

I like Live's GUI because it is uncluttered and functional, but given that Arturia are typically modelling vintage synthesizers, the fact that they make their GUI to almost be a mini-match to those is fine by me, especially if you are familiar the original synth interface.

Meh, CPU taxing GUIs might have been a problem when CPUs weren't that robust etc.
Personally I like Live's GUI, but I thought Logic pre-8 was the best, mostly 2d, only some 3d, and ultimately customizable, including support for
screen sets and multiple monitors.

Also you want ugly? look at Sonar, Acid, Cubase. Live is middle of the road IMO.

Interesting regarding Arturia,

Their stuff sounds way way better (or is easier to get the sounds I want) than anything else in AU land.

I love me some Ableton but I haven't found operator to be as easy or as functional to get good sounding stuff. . .

Yeah the spinnign fan is silly as anything but the CS80v sounds f*cking mint.

Doing it al;l again i'd buy ableton first then arturia second.

And if we are in thre realms of criticising software peculiarities - why the hell hasn't sampler got time stretch functions yet.

Thats a bigger question than why does software x have a silly gui.

Btw I think the ableton 'look' is absolutely excellent.

In comparison to say, UAD which exemplifies visual aesthetics over usability a lot of the time (imo - still great soundsing but the guis are annoying to say the least) ableotn rules, it's quick, not distracting and has it's own elegance. .