The original post was for something that had the monome sense of industrial design, which is more specific than just being “minimal” or “small.” Though we’re all experts in loving the monome design style I thought I’d weigh in on some observations of the monome design language. Obviously, since @tehn and others who actually do that design are here, I’m offering this just as observation for consideration.
Some of the design philosophy, integrated with functionality, would separate this mixer design project from becoming a hardware nano Kontrol Studio dressed up in aluminum (which, for the record, I’d be a sucker for). In other words, if the design philosophy influenced the functionality as much as the other way around, we’d end up with something that was more unique and “monome” in spirit as well as looks.
Among my favorite quotes is one from Anaxagoras which is sometimes translated as “We think because we have hands.”
Some (outsider) observations on monome instrument/controller industrial design language:
-
The blank object. While monome gear is often used for controlling, there is a distinct lack of any permanent surface indicators such as dial position or button label. This results in smooth metal surfaces and no distractions and no visible indications of what to do next. []The lack of surface markings allows some users to work more freely and the smooth surfaces encourage some to apply their own decals and indicators as they personalize the gear for their own uses. The blank object draws attention to the core elements that fingers will touch and alter. The only thing visible is the knob, the grid of buttons.
-
The object illuminated. What indicators and markers exist in the monome instruments are provided with light: buttons that glow, LED segments in a ring, or screen of the Norns. This creates an interface that is adjustable, programmable, customizable, in a way the engraved or printed markers are not. []Indicators that are only present through illumination can be altered, animated, re-animated to suit the needs of the person using the instrument or tool.
-
Hands-first design. The build of the monome instruments seems to be first a consideration of “What kind of hand movements do I want to employ?” rather than “What kind of specifically-defined functionality do I want?” For example, the simplest design brief one might write for a grid would be “I want to push buttons and alter the flow of music.” Similarly the simplest design brief for arc might be “I want to turn knobs and alter the flow of music.” []The desire statements begin with what it is that the user’s hands want to do. As objects, the specific hand-machine interaction is the only thing visible and the complete focus until the object is turned on. And even after being turned on the illuminated indicators are very tightly integrated to the touchable element.
-
One interaction element, in multiples. monome instruments focus on one kind of interaction. In grids it’s pressing buttons. In arc it’s turning a knob. In both instruments there are multiples of the interaction elements and the implementation of software determines how or if the different interaction elements function. []But each one is an expression of a singular hand/machine interaction. In many ways this mirrors instrument design as practiced by humans since we’ve been human: a tube with many holes, a box with 4 strings, a collection of cylinders with skins stretched across them, a series of resonant plates in a row.
-
Software defined functionality. Each of the monome instruments is completely defined by software. The instruments themselves, as noted above, are a gathering of one type of interaction element. []The interaction elements themselves may lend themselves to specific functions or kinds of interaction. The grid appears well suited to step sequencer or other on/off functions but we’ve all seen an array of other interesting things it can be. The arc might seem well suited to traditional volume or panning functions but is clearly far more flexible than that based on the code which illuminates it. []While the specific interaction element defines the scope of the kind of data/functionality that might be most obvious, the open-endedness of the instrument is revealed by having it entirely programmable and reprogrammable.
-
Material. The monome instruments are tactile experiences. Aluminum, weighted, the rubber of the buttons on grid. There is a satisfaction in the feedback of the instrument through the fingers back to the mind. Illumination confirms motions, but the fingers know it before the light reaches our eyes.
-
Portable. All of the monome instruments could be fit into one backpack with a computer or small sound generation device (such as Norns). This allows for their use in a wide variety of physical environments from corners and desks (as is documented in the tiny studio corner topic) to the woods or other outdoors locations to transitional places like trains and busses.
I think if we were to approach the idea of a mixer like monome we might want to start first with a design brief that was in spirit with what we know about existing monome objects. Something like:
“I want to [insert what my hands will be doing] and alter the flow of sound.”
In this case, since it’s sort of pre-meditated that we want to mix different streams of sound together and place them in a sound field, we might want to ask ourselves “what control element, in multiples, might have the data capability to do this and be enjoyable for my hands?”
The object that is built could be utilized as a mixer or whatever else someone comes up with. But the idea of mixing itself would change, just as the idea of step-sequencing changes when using a monome grid.
One potential approach, everyone should ideally think about their own for a bit first
Though someone earlier suggested jokingly that a bunch of joysticks was the way to go, the more I think about it, the more it might make sense. A collection of N joysticks (4? 8? 12? 24?) that control the flow of signals through the device. Joysticks can have the right amount of variable data to control sound levels and positioning in space. See @zoundsabar’s commentary above, based on his experience using several kinds of joystick-driven mixing devices.
Obviously design and materials research time would have to be spent on designing a truly satisfying joystick. Something small but feeling substantial. Perhaps with an additional small wheel or rotation element in/on/consisting-of the stick. If we were to reserve “square” for the grid and “round” for the arc perhaps the joystick would be set in an octagon or a triangle or a pentagon of light elements. Or maybe that’s too much.
If the design brief were “I want to tilt weighted rods and alter the flow of sound” we might end up with more of a “monome mixer” than the things we’re seeing in this thread currently. Though the things we’re seeing are also beautiful and look like very functional, very clearly defined mixers.
Think stirring/mixing.
I’d like to tag in @Jonathan_Riley because he’s thinking more about a joystick idea below.
