A clearer/better GUI for "DYN EQ4"

Forums Forums SQ Forums SQ feature suggestions A clearer/better GUI for "DYN EQ4"

This topic contains 5 replies, has 3 voices, and was last updated by Profile photo of SQuser SQuser 1 month, 3 weeks ago.

Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #121171
    Profile photo of SQuser
    SQuser
    Participant

    I hope that the following does not offend A&H – apologies in advance – but that it may not only be viewed critically by other users.

    There are these really great add-ons DYN EQ4 and Multi BD3/4, but in my opinion the handling of these is anything but nice and rather very uncomfortable.
    Setting it up on the Avantis isn’t really fun, but on the even more slimmed-down version for the SQ it’s even worse.

    I’ll describe this using the DYN EQ4:
    I have to constantly switch back and forth to get to all the parameters of a band – “Tresh <-> Filter”, of which the selected one always lights up green.
    Then I also have to switch between 2 x 2 bands.
    That alone is a total of 4 different settings screens!

    Then there is the “Parallel <-> Cascade” switch, where, unlike Tresh/Filter, the selected green does not light up.
    The same applies to the switchover “Std9 <-> Fast9”.
    But with “Above <-> Below” there are again 2 buttons, of which the selected one lights up green.
    “Bypass” lights up red – otherwise Allen & Heath usually has a round green “In” button.
    Sometimes there is a 3D button (Comp – Exp) but then there are simple sliders for the remaining parameters (Freq, Width, Tres and Master Trim).
    Then there are the 4 square In buttons arranged 2 x 2 for 4 effects next to each other.
    And finally there are the 2 horizontal displays in green and red per band, which are probably not even available on the Avantis.
    It doesn’t have to be, because they probably correspond to the changing level displays in the graphical display.

    There is a touchscreen – even a large one on the MixPad – but even there you can only change a single parameter in the graphic display: Freq (intentional?).
    If I move this and want to see the frequency information, I have to switch up to 2 times – namely to the frequency and the band pair if necessary.
    I’m usually unlucky and the frequency information is obscured by the finger I’m pushing with. 😀
    If I then want to adjust the threshold, I have to switch back to Thresh and select the desired band, etc. etc.

    The presentation also seems strange because no attempt has even been made to bring it closer to the PEQ of the SQ.
    Instead of a continuous frequency line, the frequency changes are seen as colored areas, which are transparent and therefore very dark and are therefore difficult to see, especially in daylight.
    What’s also confusing to me is that the thin band curves react not only to the Comp/Exp control, but also to Threshold.
    (I don’t understand the connection and can’t find it anywhere).
    All in all, everything is nice and colorful, mixed up, confusing and absolutely nothing for live stress.

    I also don’t really understand the function of the “Parallel <-> Cascade” switch.
    All factory presets are in Cascade mode, where each band is influenced by the activity of the previous one.
    I also don’t want to succeed in creating differences between the two positions.
    What am I doing wrong?

    Somehow I always thought you couldn’t design the surface any other way.
    In this respect, I was surprised when I was able to use the DYN EQ4 with the “Mixings Station” app for the first time.
    All 3 parameters, frequency, Q and gain (compressor or expander) can now be set as usual in no time on the touchscreen.
    You only have to use another controller for the threshold.
    Everything is simple and clear.

    Something like that should also be possible on the SQ/MixPad and so i tried to design a variant of the SQ-GUI in the same SQ size and retaining the controls, which is still easy to use and does away with the many confusing switchings.

    If users are also not satisfied with the current interface, I would be happy to present this variant here compared to the original.
    I doubt that A&H would change anything about the current GUI, but it might still be worth a try.

    Thank you for reading!

    #121748
    Profile photo of SQuser
    SQuser
    Participant

    After 3 weeks:
    It’s a shame that nobody seems to be interested in it (unfortunately also not A&H).
    Although changing a GUI should be relatively easy to implement – without the support of other users, a suggestion like this has no chance and I don’t even need to introduce it.
    Maybe only a few people have bought the dynamic Add-ons or people don’t use it – possibly precisely because they are only complicated and not intuitive to use.
    It’s really a shame about that.

    Of course, it would be nice to be able to set the two add-ons comfortable without 3rd party software and directly on the console, but apparently everyone is satisfied or happy with the confusing GUI.

    It was still worth a try – thanks for reading.

    #121750
    Profile photo of Tobi
    Tobi
    Participant

    There is No reason to call me a shame.

    #121771
    Profile photo of SQuser
    SQuser
    Participant

    I’m really sorry if I was misunderstood.
    I didn’t want to address anyone personally.
    English is not my native language and so I sometimes use Google Translator.
    Unfortunately, it misinterpreted my text.
    In any case, it should say “It’s a pity” and not “It’s a shame”!
    Excuse me!

    #121772
    Profile photo of KeithJ A&H
    KeithJ A&H
    Moderator

    @squser

    It is not that we are uninterested in your comments, which are thought out and well explained, but it’s (unfortunately) impossible for us to work on every suggestion we see here.
    Every popular suggestion is discussed and considered in house, but we tend to only comment when something isn’t possible at all or if something needs clarification.

    It would be possible to redesign and rebuild any aspect of the GUI of course, but perhaps not as trivial as you seem to suggest:
    – The current GUI for the DynEQ is mostly common across multiple consoles which would all require separate design and development, even when using the same algorithms in the back end. We aim for use of the same unit or processing to be as similar as possible across all, so wouldn’t want to make fundemental changes to only one.
    – There are those who are used to the way it works currently, so changing how it works may actually be annoying for them.
    – We haven’t had lots of complaints about how it is currently (and it’s one of the most popular add-ons)
    – Spending R&D time on one thing means we’re not working on something else, potentially something you want far more!

    Keith.

    #121798
    Profile photo of SQuser
    SQuser
    Participant

    Thank you very much, Keith – I really appreciate you responding.
    Please let me answer something else:

    > The current GUI for the DynEQ is mostly common across multiple consoles …
    Even on the modern Avantis, handling the DynEQ is no real joy.
    For example, why is there this switching between frequency and gain?
    Should we be happy that this isn’t so on your PEQs too? 😉
    Somehow it feels like the designer never had to work with it live.
    But by far the worst thing is probably the handling on the SQ’s GUI, which is significantly different.
    If a similar version can be found on other A&H consoles besides the already dead GLD, a more useful GUI would be a blessing there too.

    > There are those who are used to the way it works currently, so changing how it works may actually be annoying for them.
    According to this argument, changes could never be made to a firmware because there are always those who have already gotten used to things are bad.
    But if you unsure, you could also present such projects here in advance and see how “they” would rate them.

    > We haven’t had lots of complaints about how it is currently (and it’s one of the most popular add-ons)
    This experience is also unfortunate reflected in this thread.
    I really didn’t expect that everyone except me would be happy with the current handling.

    > Spending R&D time on one thing …
    I would like to provide you my suggestion.

    > … means we’re not working on something else, potentially something you want far more!
    The firmware 1.5 celebrated its 4th anniversary these days.
    The forum is full of sensible ideas and wishes, some of which are also few years old.
    There’s unfortunately really little hope left when it comes to “want more”.

    But no offense and thank you!

Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.