Mixer's look

Hi,

This is just a very minor note, and for sure something that will not find everybody in agreement with me.

I find the look of the mixer a bit ‘toyy’. Not bad or inaccurate or not functional – just not fully fitting the image I would expect from this type of application. For some reason, it reminds me some cheap plastic mixer, with short-throw faders and badly printed, low resolution silkscreens.

It is also a bit too ‘aggressive’ for my tastes, emerging too much next to the score. Colors are very dissonant (cream against amaranth, not part of the same scale). The skeuomorphic look comes too much out of the screen, while the score elegantly sits down.

Just to remain in house, I’m thinking that the Yamaha digital mixers offer a good and tested idea of an unobtrusive look for a mixer. They also nearly match the background fading colors of the score. Also, I think that a bit less realism and a flatter design could be a more ‘British’, understated solution, better fitting the general picture.

Paolo

If we’ve gotten to the point of visual aesthetics, the Team must be doing okay with functionality. Whether the look of an on-screen mixer should mimic the physical machine, which uses markers and masking tape to distinguish channel targets, or allow or use colors, as many on-screen mixers do: That is clearly a case of personal preference, and I expect folks will disagree depending on their own aesthetics and experience.

Certainly your thoughts and experience are important here.

Copy that! This quality of life release has checked a lot of boxes, “Supercharge” indeed.

Disclaimer: personally I have little use for the mixer other than score and MIDI prep - without multichannel, ATMOS and the like my MIDI moves over to Nuendo.

Having said that I agree with OP FWIW. Doesn’t bother me as described above, well the mixer is a toy, it’s missing basic features such as a bus architecture. And that’s all good. I wouldn’t expect Steinberg to want to cannibalize their other product lines (having said that they seem to be doing exactly that, as Nuendo/Cubase/Wavelab/Dorico keep getting closer and closer together feature wise). But yeah since it is a kind of toy mixer, I’m fine with the UI.

Part of the issue may be that our eyes are calibrated to existing mixers, which are awfully dense, packed and rectilinear

For Dorico, I’d expect the mixer to be for people who don’t want to mix - composers, engravers, orchestrators and arrangers. So ‘toyish’ is a good aesthetic for that.

I like the look of the new mixer! Might be a matter of taste:-)

If the developers get rid of the bugs (e.g. the effects bus gets disconnected when a third party effects plugin is used) and if we get the ability to add further effect channels I would be fine with this mixer.
I´m using a daw for further mixing (Cubase) but I find it convenient to have the mixer in Dorico in order to make listening to the mock up in Dorico a bit more pleasing.

I think the new mixer is bold and beautiful. My two cents.

For sure it would be nice if the mixer window remembered its size and proportions of the resizable elements when resized, closed and re-opened!

EDIT: it actually works, but only when you close the windiow clicking on the “X” button (on Windows), but the relative size of the upper and low pane is not saved. When closing it with the shortcut [F3], the program doesn’t save anything about the size of the window.

Dan, you have a way with words.

I can get on board with that.

FWIW, I hate the trend these last few year (particularly in MacOS) to make things ‘flat’ and to do away with skeuomorphism.

Maybe because I’m accustomed to it, but having things that look like things, 3D effects ‘n’ all, makes the screen look much more purposeful and attractive.

4 Likes

Thanks for introducing me to a new word!