I find that I’m more often tweaking cutoff on the fly than resonance, and feel the outer part of the knob would be more ergonomic when tweaking live and more gentle on the part itself over extended use.
I agree with this. It seems natural (to me anyway) that the cutoff knob be at the base, with the resonance being the smaller of the two. Though, I’ve kind of gotten used to it.
1 Like
I agree it’s easy to get used to any ergonomic after using for a bit. My worry from a part perspective is that the center knob on any concentric pot is always a bit more fragile than the outer ring because it’s “floating” in a sense, so over extended use will likely become looser sooner - and cutoff being in many cases the more frequently tweaked setting makes sense to put it on the ‘sturdier’/base portion of the part IMHO.
I also think it’s ideal ergonomically. I’m a righty, and you can sort of scroll your hand along the top of the machine and easily tweak any of the 8 bottom rings with a single finger. That technique on the center know requires far more pressure. You can also split your fingers and adjust multiple cutoffs simultaneously from the below the knobs.
So for me it’s a two fold advantage - part longevity over EXTENDED use (I am in no way worried about the part as it is now or in the near future) - and ergonomics, single finger over an entire hand per knob + ability to adjust multiple cutoffs at once.
2 Likes
I agree with u junior 
1 Like
I wish the S2400 had WiFi capability. This is a perfect candidate for an in-app-purchase 
6 Likes
Forget the filter board, the next board is Bluetooth and wifi connectvity! 
3 Likes
oh the possibilities!!! incoming router daughterboard… let’s hook 'er up!
export mix direct to streaming platforms - 
VoIP phone (already have the dial pad) -
Netflix on the OLED - 
Lol jokes aside, was this a silly request? I think there’s something to it (the filter knob functions), but obviously have no clue what it would take to implement - for all I know would mean a complete redesign of the digital filters, but if it the functions are coded might be simple-ish to play around with? My coding knowledge borders on just enough to be dangerous, so apologies if this is a tone-deaf idea.
In any case, thanks for the laugh Mick!
2 Likes
Seriously, it is not a silly request at all.
It is a matter of preference, and as the lawyers say, reasonable minds may differ. We decided to implement the knobs this way because it made sense to us. Since either way is valid, and it is already released this way, I cannot see switching it now. We would like to limit changes to existing user interface elements except where absolutely required. Otherwise, it becomes annoying to retrain oneself with every update.
So, do we add an option to switch it? It comes down to how many options do we want to add. Every option clutters the menus. The existing options are for turning on/off functionality, not changing the actual user interface. I think we would need a preponderance of users disliking the knobs this way it in order to justify sticking another option in front of every user.
4 Likes
I definitely think they should be switched. I recently mapped them this way to control cutoff/resonance on my Matrix-1000 and it just feels right. The big knob offers better/smoother control over cutoff, which is much more important for filter sweeps than for resonance IMO.
I understand not wanting to add an option for every damn thing you can think of. I think you guys should just bite the bullet and make the change permanent. Most of us will be thrilled, and a few will be annoyed until they get used to it.
1 Like
+1 I concur! I am used to it now but big for cutoff small for resonance ‘feels’ right.
I have to say, I concur with the OP as well. Not sure why, but my brain still gets em backward after a year of use.
An option to reverse the knobs will be in the next release.
11 Likes