Would You Not Buy A Synth Because It's Not Skinnable?

[BONES]

are there really people here, who can hear a synth, and think "wow, that sounds awesome" then find it's not skinnable and don't buy them?

this isn't about "ohmygod wasting time on skins..." i get that if it's included, it can help with eye strain or just wanting to change something up...
it's about whether the lack of the option would put anyone off a great sounding instrument?

i only ask because it was the first point, in a thread about synths
i can't be the only person who would expect the first and most important point, to be sound related?

Vurt asked the question, I've turned it into its own thread, with a poll!

[FigBug]

What thread was this from? I know the mod had to come in the Vanguard thread twice and clean up the mess related to skins. I know there are people who feel really strongly about skins, I didn't realize there were people who felt really strong against skins. Anyway, skinning is a very hot button issue, and any time I touch skinning code I know support is going to blow up if I break any skins.

[Ah_Dziz]

I have never bothered even changing the skin of any of the plugins I own (except ohm force). I can't imagine this being a consideration. Once when I updated zebra it changed skins all by itself.... I never changed it back or cared. Is this about the dune vs hive guy who only talked about the skins?

[DJErmac]

I don’t really care.

If the synth I use is beautiful, I’m happier. I might change the base skin sometimes.

If a synth is usable and I love its sound, I use it.

If the GUI is so stupid that you don’t understand a thing you’re doing, yes, maybe I’ll leave this synth to people who enjoy that mindf#ck. It rarely happened to me with a synth, but very often with FX plugins.

I simply want to work.

[chagzuki]

I find myself moving away from the hardware emulations after the novelty wanes partly because the GUIs tend to be a bit cumbersome. But for original soft synths it's generally not an issue.

[THE INTRANCER]

For me, it depends.
1. In how it looks by default.
2. How it functions, i.e (being able to scale up and down to adjust to resolutions)

If the GUI of an instrument can't be altered graphically in a significant and easy way and has a bad design by default, I won't buy it.

If the instrument has a good-looking GUI with acceptable legibility at 1440p but doesn't have a skinning function, I would buy it.

If the instrument has a good-looking GUI with acceptable legibility at 1080p but doesn't have a skinning function, I might buy it.

If the instrument has a good-looking GUI with acceptable legibility at 1440p and has a skinning function, I would buy it.

If the instrument has a good-looking GUI which is scalable and has a skinning function, I would buy it.

If the instrument has a bad-looking GUI but is scalable and has a skinning function, I would buy it.

The conditions above are just one part of the conditional pie chart. Many other aspects such as sound quality, technical design/features, stability, cost, and copy-protection requirements come into play.

All sectors of the pie chart need to be completed and ultimately it depends on whether I actually need another instrument that I'd actually use and justify the need for.

[wagtunes]

As I said in the other thread, if the GUI is a trainwreck, I won't buy the synth, period. I have to be able to use the controls.

[cryophonik]

Being skinnable is not a deciding factor for me. If a synth is skinnable and some nicer skins come along as freebies, sure I’ll sometimes give them a go, but that has no bearing on whether or not I’ll buy the synth in the first place,

[Michael L]

My workflow must be colour-coordinated.
I just can't stand clashing.
Queer eye . . .

Teal & Complementaries.png

[Greenstorm33]

I'd skin a synth that's not buyable.
Unless it's absolutely hideous I could not care less

[Robmobius]

Don't care if a synth is re-skinnable or not. I've never changed the skin of a synth. Bit like what Wags said. If it's a 'really' shit interface that affects the workflow I'll give it a miss.

Sound will always be king for me. Aesthetics are down the list...

[seangm]

Could care less

[Jafo]

Of course not! Supersaws sound 46.1% better from red synths than blue; and square waves sound a whopping 93.7% better from a green synth. What a silly question!

But hey, I'm a heretic -- I believe synths are to be heard.

[pekbro]

The bulk of my synths are not skinnable, as for the skinnable ones, I don't use 3rd party skins tbh. Generally, I think the devs do a fine jobs in most cases. As a trained artist myself, I have yet to see a skin for say u-he that is really better than the "modern" defaults. Certainly they are fancier, but in the design world, that rarely equates to better.

[BONES]

What thread was this from?

It came up in the DUNE v HIVE thread and seemed like something worthy of a separate discussion.

If the GUI is so stupid that you don’t understand a thing you’re doing, yes, maybe I’ll leave this synth to people who enjoy that mindf#ck.

Now that's something I have read, more than once, in relation to Olga. The thing for me, though, is that I love Olga's GUI, every part of it.

For me, it depends.
1. In how it looks by default.
2. How it functions, i.e (being able to scale up and down to adjust to resolutions)
... acceptable legibility at 1440p but doesn't have a skinning function, I would buy it.
... acceptable legibility at 1080p but doesn't have a skinning function, I might buy it.
... acceptable legibility at 1440p and has a skinning function, I would buy it.

What I read here is that you allow your monitor to decide which plugins you will use, rather than choosing your plugins and finding a monitor that works for them. To me that is totally arse-about.