Open question re displays on guitar products

[presence]

Question for all hardware modeler manufacturers: what's up with the circa 1995 displays on all of your products? Why is the screen on my tiny $100 iPod nano light years ahead of the display on any guitar product? Yes, Apple has much more purchasing power, but let's be honest. The screens on guitar products do not seem to have evolved at all over the past 15 years.

I'm not saying that I need a super HD Retina display with millions of colors for my modeler, but do the text and graphics really need to look so blocky? Why are the displays so primitive?

With a lot of these products, it seems like better displays could open up the door to better user interfaces and improved functionality. Just my 2 cents.

 

[henryjurstin13]

Interesting.... it is always annoying when you have to get your angle just right to read the screen (which, in that case - an adjustable LCD would be a very nice feature with this type of screen).

 

[3dognate]

One that was easily readable from standing height... Roland did great with the dislay on the GR-55 and GT10, they regressed a bit with the GT-100..

Display on the HD300-400-500, just sucks... tiny ass thing. Yeah I can switch to the big numbers but that sucks too. Anything meaningful can't read from standing. My eyes are okay too.

 

[lowyaw]

Those monochrome displays must be dirt cheap.
Other than that, I'm okay with monochrome scenario. but it would be nice to have a bigger screen, so they could jam the proper name of the effect in, as opposed to it just being an abbreviation like DIST.
And somehow looking at HD500 screen hurts my eyes. I don't know why - the colour? i heard bright blues is the most difficult colour for the eyes to process? Refresh rate?

 

[eriwebnerr]

It is a good point, and I have wondered this a lot myself. Two points that made sense to me are:

1. Cost to benefit ratio - ultimately the display needs to be readable in all situations (on stage, at hone, outdoors). Right now, the monochromatic displays give you the best shot at this.

2. Someone made the point in the past that the processors inside of modelers are very specific for audio. So adding demands for colors and UI would rob resources. Maybe, at this point though another processor could be added for the generic display centric resources.

But no doubt user expectations have become higher for sure. Ease of editing is also an issue. Personally I think we are on a tipping point where we will likely see some much improved screens on the next generation of products. But in the meantime, it does make you wonder why the larger companies don't include a screen for each block? The Zoom G3 for example has more screens at $199 than the flagship Line 6 and Boss products.

 

[phil_m]

i heard bright blues is the most difficult colour for the eyes to process? Refresh rate?

Well, generally, your eyes see light from the blue part of the spectrum better in low light conditions, so Line 6's reasoning may be that a blue backlight would make the display easier to see on a dark stage.

All things considered, I imagine that the quality of the screen isn't something manufacturers worry about too much. If you only have so much money to spend on a product, I guess you have to prioritize where you're going to spend it. If you spend $15 or $20 more on an upgraded screen does that mean you'll be able to recoup that investment with a higher sticker price? Probably not.

 

[phil_m]

But in the meantime, it does make you wonder why the larger companies don't include a screen for each block? The Zoom G3 for example has more screens at $199 than the flagship Line 6 and Boss products.

I have always thought it would be awesome if Line 6 could take the concept they used for the M13 and apply to the HD series. It would be super cool if you could have a screen above each footswitch showing all the parameters for that effect in a preset. The one wrinkle is the assigning more than one effect to one footswitch thing, but that could be dealt with in some way.

 

[MaxTwang]

1. Price of the screen
2. Time cost of programming a more complicated display
3. Firmware bloat supporting a more complicated display

 

[Scott Peterson]

1. Price of the screen
2. Time cost of programming a more complicated display
3. Firmware bloat supporting a more complicated display

I think MaxTwang is on the button.

You see that more than a few attempts to utilize the IPad have been done. Maybe more in the future as we go?

Overall though it is less about form than function. I think at least for the most part that is the emphasis; add in the extra cost that higher res and bigger screens would involve, it hasn't been a major movement in product development... yet.

We will 'see' one way or another no matter how it shakes out.

 

[Karl Houseknecht]

Roland did great with the dislay on the GR-55 and GT10, they regressed a bit with the GT-100..

Love the display on the GT-10. Very readable even in bright stage or outdoor lighting.

But I'll disagree on the GT-100. Not one but TWO LCD displays, just as easily readable in bright stage lighting or outdoors. What did you find lacking there?

 

[shredmiyagi]

I think it's fine. I'd actually like if the AxeFX had a niftier screen, given the price and build of it, but for floor processors which get tossed and stepped on, I don't mind compromising the display.

 

[eriwebnerr]

1. Price of the screen
2. Time cost of programming a more complicated display
3. Firmware bloat supporting a more complicated display

I agree - all that does add cost. Each screen needs UI and programming behind it, but I really wonder how much that type of hardware is anymore - especially monochromatic screens.

I can an get a full sized android tablet for under $150, I can pick up a full color LCD with touch designed for programmers for under $50, boards like the Raspberry PI are $35 - and that is all retail pricing.

 

[3dognate]

Love the display on the GT-10. Very readable even in bright stage or outdoor lighting.

But I'll disagree on the GT-100. Not one but TWO LCD displays, just as easily readable in bright stage lighting or outdoors. What did you find lacking there?

It's not lacking really, I just prefered the GR-55 display over everything I have owned... but then my only experience with the GT-100 is the demo unit at GC.

 

[jay42]

Apple has huge software resources and MI manufacturers do not, so they choose OTS displays.

 

[mpr]

They did improve some since 1995, or even 2000. Beyond that, I'd say cost, even if minimal (+1-2$ for 1.5"?), and the fact that it isn't going to help that much. I don't think programming is a factor, nor the minimal extra storage for better graphics. Some more size would help on floor MFX. More resolution or color, not so much. Zoom is an exception, by the way, with 3-4 displays.

A more pressing need in most floor units is improvements to what can be done, and how, with the footswitches. Also remote interfaces are still not happening: adding bluetooth or WiFi, and creating software for phones.

There is one MFX with color that I'm aware of, but it's not from any of the major players:

 

[effectsman]

Totally agree that the screen is an overlooked area on these devices. I have an Axe Ultra and I hate programming through the screen. Too small and monochrome. Also unless you are fairly much in front of it the screen can be hard to read.

Much prefer to use Axe edit. When viewing the layout of your effects for example a colour screen with different colours for the different effects would be an improvement I feel.

Bigger screens (much) and colour!

 

[whackystrings]

UIs are something that is part of my focus at work. After 15 years, our senior management is finally making the investment in focusing on the development of a better front end as they feel it would attract new clients.

Hooda Thunk?????
There's bottom line and then there are investments that can improve the marketability of a system/product.

With so many multi-function knobs and deep menuing, inadequate UIs on digital guitar products will, and already do, cost companies money, IME, thus passing along those costs to the consumer.
I would gladly pay an extra $40-$60 for a device such as a POD500 if the UI was better.

 

[Pietro]

I have always thought it would be awesome if Line 6 could take the concept they used for the M13 and apply to the HD series. It would be super cool if you could have a screen above each footswitch showing all the parameters for that effect in a preset. The one wrinkle is the assigning more than one effect to one footswitch thing, but that could be dealt with in some way.

When the HD 500 was "rumored" I was PRAYING for this. I honestly just wanted an M13 with an additional modeling screen...

Ultimately I was happy with the HD 500, it ended up being better designed for me than I could have guessed it would be... but...

...these sucky displays have got to GO people!

 

[tomc3084]

Yeah, I agree that the Axe FX II, and other products could have better screens. Not that important, though, when they include a great software editor.

 

[mattball826]

I think MaxTwang is on the button.

You see that more than a few attempts to utilize the IPad have been done. Maybe more in the future as we go?

Overall though it is less about form than function. I think at least for the most part that is the emphasis; add in the extra cost that higher res and bigger screens would involve, it hasn't been a major movement in product development... yet.

We will 'see' one way or another no matter how it shakes out.

noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!

i sure hope not. nothing worse than musician gear bring forced into some other ios crap. then as with other products currently feeling the woes of apple changing the connectors and size, its nothing but a pita and your expensive dongle is solely at the mercy of apple. screw that.

id rather the current design. simple screens and ability to use a pc editor which makes display issues not relevant.