Eurorack Development Advice - Jackalope dev diary

sakul · 2017-08-28T08:48:04.625Z

mlogger:

Diversity is welcomed but the issue i have is that some great module designers are hampered by poor aesthetic choices and i would argue because of that, they sell less modules.

I wouldn’t even disagree with that. I’ve been disgusted by designs too. It could be a great factor, specially for less known manufacturers I guess. But this generalisation is problematic. The endorphin you mentioned is one of the most successful complex oscillator in eurorack (makes me very happy, even though I don’t own one). I for one, even though it’s not my main criteria of course, feel a lot of attraction to e.g. Make Noise because of their overall style. This is so personal. It’s a bit like album covers. They don’t really matter but can have a great impact and are an art on its own. Sometimes they uncover something about the people behind. Often it’s also a matter of age. They can be terrible despite great music.
The cool thing is modules can be modded easily. And the analogy of pleasing a 5 years old kid often isn’t so far fetched

mlogger · 2017-08-28T10:27:00.636Z

Indeed, the Endorphin is a superb module, no doubts about that and i have 3 x Snazzy modules. I just wonder, if you are starting a module company, why take the risk with an ugly or even a poorly labelled panel? You are off to a loser, before you start.

Make it different, yes. My issue isn’t with OCD and every module being the same - i don’t want that. My issue is with poor aesthetic choices on a first module coming to market. The album cover analogy is quite apt in that respect as you could be dropped before you release your second album

Also note, it is not my main criteria either, its one of them. I mentioned 5 other details that buyers look for in a module. It seems that people are focusing on this one. I mentioned wobbly knobs, unique knobs, hp restrictions, skiff friendly, quality parts that don’t corrode. I would also add 2 others -> reverse protection diodes and to have clear labelling of the red stripe / -12v on the back panel.

Just for clarity i have @40u of modules. I’ve only felt the need to change 3 panels. One was a Snazzy Ardore because it was purple and green with purple knobs and not so easy to read the inputs and outputs as well as being just plain ugly. I have a Snazzy Dreamboat and i would do the same also if i could but there was no option. I changed a Mk 1 wogglebug, partly because of the graphics but also because the inputs and output weren’t clearly labelled. The last module i changed was a Mungo d0 because the original aluminium was full of scratches and also because the knobs weren’t labelled, the bottom half of that panels inputs and outputs aren’t labelled and the lower layout was quite confusing. You need to click on the photos to view them fully.

Heres the before and after of each panel. They are grayscale because they are concise, clear labelled and basically spot on and also that was the only option at the time. This was pre Magpie.

IMG_3700.JPG402×1000 89.3 KB

IMG_3701.JPG299×759 96.1 KB

IMG_3703.JPG560×1004 98.6 KB

IMG_3698.JPG467×700 65.8 KB

IMG_3699.JPG359×760 115 KB

mlogger · 2017-08-28T10:35:02.277Z

You make a really good point about the readability of panels and that is partially the reason i changed some of my panels.

steveoath · 2017-08-28T11:31:33.859Z

I think there is a fundamental difference between ugly and readable. Ugliness is totally subjective. Things can be “unusual” and readable surely?

papernoise · 2017-08-28T11:36:48.154Z

mlogger:

ugly or even a poorly labelled panel

I think we need to separate the issues. Ugly or beautiful are highly subjective and personal matters, while “poorly labelled” – even if still somewhat subjective – is something that can be clearly related to the functional realm and hence is much easier to discuss in terms of universal principles. Also, the first is mostly a matter of taste the second is a matter of usability.

So just to be clear, while I think that’s it’s great that people can do what they want style-wise, I do firmly believe that accessibility and usability should always be a strong concern.
Which opens up a wide topic, so thanks @mlogger for bringing this up… and let me use your last examples since you already posted all those pictures.

While I would personally never put a Snazzy FX module in my case because my eyes hurt from looking at it (but again, that’s my personal taste) the difference to the grayscale is mostly in the odd colour scheme, which makes reading text a bit hard, and could be even more of an issue with people who have colour blindness. There would probably have been other ways to do a panel in that style but with better readability, just by changing the colours. The Wogglebug is probably a better example. While it employs black on aluminium printing, which is great for readability, the labelling and signal flow lines do a great job at confusing you. I find that even after using for some time (my bandmate has one) you keep patching it wrong because the graphics are misleading and confusing. Again, I think MN could have done something in the same style but more functional to the understanding of what does what.
Last but not least the Mungo is probably just confusing because of the icons, though probably that’s something that will be annoying just at the beginning. Most labelling on panels is there for two reasons: you need it at the beginning, while you’re still learning how to use the thing, and then as a memory hook to remind you what does what. In the latter situation you already know what the module does and how it works, but maybe you can’t remember which one is the exact knob or button to make it happen.

When talking about usability of modules, the labelling is only the tip of the iceberg, so to get this discussion back to something that can be useful to @Simeon , two other fundamental aspects that need to be taken into account are:

the actual layout of the controls. Are the controls and jacks put in a meaningful way on the panel? You should make sure that they either follow the signal flow and/or are grouped based on the functional blocks of the module. A common mistake here is to think circuit and not musician. What I mean is: you need to think from the perspective of the person who will play the module and not from the perspective of the circuit. What happens in the latter is of course very important, but most people will neither understand nor care about it. What really matters is the sound that comes out of it, and how you change that by interacting with the controls. So the layout does need to make sense in practical use. This of course also means that controls need to be accessible, that you shouldn’t accidentally bump into a knob when flipping a switch and that jacks should not be too much in the way (though that is a war we cannot win I’m afraid )
the other thing is fine tuning the ranges. You should make sure that there’s always something happening when you turn a knob, push a button or throw a switch, and the ranges should be tuned in a way so playing the module is interesting and feeling natural. Easier said than done, but having that as a focus when developing the circuit probably gets you already halfway there.

From this perspective the Mannequins modules are great, but the Furthrrr is also really well designed from a functional point of view. Maybe the colour scheme isn’t the most optimal (red on yellow might be hard to read in some situations), but apart from that the style doesn’t really get much in the way with the usability of the module… and actually a lot of work went into the typographic details… but maybe I’m the only one seeing that I admit it.

This said, sometimes it’s nice to be that 5 year old kid when sitting in front of the modular

anon45924993 · 2017-08-28T13:29:26.381Z

papernoise:

the actual layout of the controls.

This is the only thing that really matters to me in terms of usability. After the first couple of weeks, I don’t read the panels (and in fact, there’s often too little light on the modular in my studio to do so anyway). It’s all memory and feel once I get to know it. Heck, almost half my rack is monome at the moment. Labels? What labels?

My biggest usability gripe at the moment has to do with the insanity of trying to make a bunch of i2c cables behave themselves, as they are attached to the back of modules, often don’t have the best grip on their pins, and need to be attached before screwing the modules to the rails. Rearranging a case with a lot of i2c in it can be a real headache. Now throw in sliding nuts and… sigh.

That and I need an ES-8 with about 32 1/4" jacks, evenly split between input and output, and this does not yet exist.

I wouldn’t rate panel aesthetics within the top 10 of concerns I have about my eurorack case. But I’ve seen quite a bit of Simeon’s photography, so I know he has good taste. Looking forward to seeing what he comes up with, especially after all of these words on the topic!

Simeon · 2017-08-28T16:13:21.198Z

Loving the debate. Thanks everyone.

Now really tempted to mislabel the module, and print red on pink. Jk!

I think regarding panel design, ux definitely trumps funky designs, but there’s no reason the two can’t go hand in hand. For me, Electro Harmonix are a company that do this amazingly well - they’ve sorted out the ux issues with their pedals (non standard power / flipping huge footprint) without compromising on design.

steveoath · 2017-08-28T17:13:06.899Z

I really like that snazzy ardcore above! For me the greyscale stuff is really sterile. I’m also not a big fan make noise’s aesthetic, but I still own a couple as they are great functionally. I’d love to neon everything though haha

Out of curiosity. What modules do people like the look of (and also not like).

For me Erica’s black range look lovely together (jellyfish ).

anon45924993 · 2017-08-28T17:15:48.254Z

steveoath:

For me Erica’s black range look lovely together (jellyfish ).

20 characters of +1. I need to get some Erica Synths into my rack, for so many reasons (DIY!)

steveoath · 2017-08-28T17:17:53.175Z

I’m very tempted with the Swamp module. Although I read about some issues with the last wogglebug so i’d like to see some in the wild.

shellfritsch · 2017-08-28T17:42:25.967Z

steveoath:

Out of curiosity. What modules do people like the look of

Paperface serge

x2mirko · 2017-08-28T18:01:13.840Z

steveoath:

What modules do people like the look of (and also not like).

The Gargoyle Malekko/Wiard, Harvestman and Mannequins stand out to me as really beautiful. I also liked the older Make Noise designs (old Maths, Wogglebug, QMMG) quite a lot. Can’t think of many designs that I really dislike, but the Micro Hadron Collider has to be up there. The mix of black on white and white on black with the grey explosion in the background just makes everything a big mess and I find it hard to find anything about it aesthetically pleasing.

bpcmusic · 2017-08-28T18:11:44.580Z

Some random things I learned making the TELEX (hope they are helpful):

When you are done with your design and have validated your prototypes, you are about a third of the way done.
When you have volume sourced all of your parts and had things like panels and PCBs custom fabbed, you are nearly halfway there.
When you have built and validated all of your units, you are roughly three-quarters of the way there.
When you have written your manuals, boxed your units, collected funds, shipped, and validated safe arrival, you are totally 99% of the way there.
As you support and manage the lifecycle of your unit, you are asymptotically approaching “done”.

–

If you change manufacturing technique, figure out how to make a proof before committing in volume. I 3D printed, then laser cut my prototype panels, and machined the final ones. Due to differences in tolerances and techniques, I ended up having to drill out a small shaving from every LED and jack on the finals so that things would fit. Had I only known, two minutes in illustrator would have saved endless hours and rescued my hands from serious torture.
Expect to spend some time buying and/or building tools to help you build in bulk. My reflow oven (Control LEO) and desoldering gun (Hakko FR300) were essential! And, while the assembly and stencil frames that I made with my 3D printer were invaluable, I also saved a ton of time by creating PDFs with a page for each part that clearly highlighted all the places it went. My resulting build success rate was near 100% - which more than justified the time and cost.
Allocate into your costs and build plan units for public testing and units to give to those who helped you along the way. Also, allocate extra units for in-field swap-outs. While I haven’t needed any of the latter, I sleep easier knowing that they are on hand.
When costing, don’t underestimate how much the little things contribute (like anti-static bags, packing materials, rack screws, plastic bags to hold the rack screws, boxes, shipping labels, printing documentation, power connectors, …). Adding this stuff in (especially when not purchased at serious bulk) put a lot of cost into my project that I hadn’t accounted for in earlier estimates.
If you have a Teletype, don’t just think of it as a music-making module, think of it as a scriptable testing machine! I saved an enormous amount of time by writing a few small testing scripts that allowed me to fully QA my builds. I dedicated a few LEDs on the TT to indicate PASS/FAIL conditions. It was amazing. I’ve seen others engineer and build complex test rigs that only accomplish a small percentage of what a few lines of TT scripting can.
I want to second comments made by @TomWhitwell in suggesting starting “small and simple” - but I didn’t do that either. For some of us, probably the hardest advice to follow. When you don’t follow it, the follow-up advice is to simply keep at it. I hit several points of pure despair that could have ended my project. But, with a little time off and the help of others, they were ultimately surpassed and mostly forgotten.
As for the utility and aesthetics of your product, this is really up to you. The relevance of various pieces of advice wholly depends on a shared context with that advice. How much are the modules an extension of your art? Are they the beginning of your new corporate empire or simply a break-even labor of love? What audience are you going after? Are they designed to fit in with an existing series from another manufacturer? Why are you doing this in the first place? Etc.
Seriously consider an open source approach. Not only does the practice of documenting and sharing your work product help the overall quality of your product (something that I’ve heard Oliver at Mutable say in interviews as well), it opens you up for help and collaboration that wouldn’t have been available otherwise. I know that this isn’t right for everyone or every situation - but it was a godsend for me. Plus, I had personally learned so much from the openness of others that it seemed wrong to do it any other way.
Allocate time in your schedule for unplanned breaks along the way. Whether it is a work/family emergency or you just need to take a few and let your brain repair itself, give yourself license to do it. This helps more than you can imagine.

Good luck!!!

billyhologram · 2017-08-29T09:29:49.074Z

Thanks for sharing this. And while I’m here: I’ve re-read the Telex thread several times, and I don’t even have a Teletype; just a sucker for design and process. Although…

bpcmusic:

If you have a Teletype, don’t just think of it as a music-making module, think of it as a scriptable testing machine!

… maybe I should get one.

tehn · 2017-08-30T21:49:54.788Z

bpcmusic:

When you have written your manuals, boxed your units, collected funds, shipped, and validated safe arrival, you are totally 99% of the way there.

As you support and manage the lifecycle of your unit, you are asymptotically approaching “done”.

i have to kindly disagree with this point!

support only grows with the more things you build. my “legacy” support load is not insubstantial, to the point where it actually inhibits that sense of freedom to just design new things constantly. i am incredibly aware of the perpetual support ramifications that come with any new design-- and if i’d known this sooner, i would likely have made some different decisions as to what got made and what did not.

also note that this community has been phenomenal and completely enabling, given the amount of support provided by kind people here that i would otherwise be directly fielding. and then doubly amazing that everyone has been patient and understanding during my lapses in quality support.

beyond that, outstanding post!

Simeon · 2017-10-05T10:57:06.040Z

Just got the box art back from Cath, and amazing illustrator who happens to work across the office from me.

jackalope greyscale.jpg2472×3272 1.31 MB

Things are coming together.

anon45924993 · 2017-10-05T16:34:49.676Z

20 characters of beautiful!

bobbcorr · 2017-10-05T17:56:24.574Z

FWIW, the “jackalope” is real: rabbits that contract a certain sort of papillomavirus are known to develop keratinaceous growths on their heads that strongly resemble antlers. See esp. this very well-written extract from Carl Zimmer’s book A Planet of Viruses.

jlmitch5 · 2017-10-05T18:52:26.939Z

@papernoise just out of curiosity, how does width come about when your designing panels and layout? Do you have like varying versions (10hp vs 12hp) and then weigh the pros and cons of each?

papernoise · 2017-10-05T19:04:10.852Z

Yes that is totally the case.
Sometimes we start big and then realize we can make it smaller. Or we start small and then it just won’t fit in there.
Depends a lot on the project and at what stage I get in there.
There’s also cases when I – or who designs the module – already know what size it should be. There’s modules where you know exactly that’s got to be a 10HP one, 2HP more and it will feel to bulky. 2Hp less and it will feel crammed.
Then sometimes there’s modules that feel like they should be that big, but the controls just won’t fit .
It’s sometimes a long and windy road to find the right balance.