FORUM CLINIC: Picking the best DCC system

[jfugate]

Okay, the letter grade is noted and I will change the posting so far to conform to that approach, with plus and minus also an option.

[tstage]

Joe,

I'm really liking this thread. Just a suggestion and to keep in line with the previous thread: How would you rank gold and silver star ratings? A and B? I like the new designation but the subtleties of old A, A-, B+, B, etc. rating system we were using allowed for better definition. I guess I just want to be consistent so that comparing each of the individual threads is easier.

Maybe a 1 through 10 rating might work, as well.

Tom

[Tom Bryant_MR]

Great! Back on-line. Thanks Joe.

[CrazyDiamond]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jfugate



I don't have the actual sales numbers, but I can get a sense from talking with modelers and from looking at the size of the Yahoo support forums gives us some idea of who owns what systems. Here's the size of the various support forums:
[code]
Digitrax 5676
NCE 2176
Lenz 1687
MRC 519
EasyDCC 455
Zimo 308[/code]
This does not necessarily mean Digitrax is the best system, or that Zimo is the worst system ... but at least you can see Digitrax does a very good job marketing and hence is well known, and to a certain degree it also shows how long the various manufacturer's systems have been on the market. For instance, the first DCC systems to market in 1993 were Digitrax and Lenz, and MRC is the most recent entry into the DCC market.

And if I want to be cynical, the membership numbers on a support forum *could* be construed to give some indication of how much support a system needs. I don't think that's necessarily true, but it could be a factor in driving at least some of the membership numbers you see on the support forums.


Does the LHS carry it?
Again based on the size of the support forums, if your local hobby shop carries a system, it will most likely be Digitrax or NCE. I also suspect the low-end systems from MRC and Bachmann will also likely be something you find at your LHS because the entry price is so low.

EasyDCC is only available via mailorder direct from the manufacturer, so it's one system you will never find at your LHS. Zimo is also primarily available overseas, so you won't see it much in the US.

QUOTE: Originally posted by jfugate

[I'm also ignoring Zimo since even the basic system is around $1000 which prices it out of range for many modelers.

I have seen many posts in this forum that Zimo is more expensive, some seem to indicate that it is significantly more expensive. Zimo could be a way better system than any of the rest, but due to 'sticker shock' the majority of the market ends up buying something else. Are you not dealing Zimo a bad card by not reviewing them? You're topic is "Picking the best DCC system", and while "best" means different things to different people. the "best" is often the more expensive gear, and many of us as a result settle for second best because of budget and other priorities. I think you should cover Zimo....I for one would be very interested in reading your review of it.

Note: I'm not gonna post in this thread anymore, cause I do not own a DCC yet, but I did want to 'highlight' that point. BTW, I am really really enjoying this thread....thank you.

[jfugate]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jxtrrx

Joe, Thanks for the clinic. You used a phrase I don't know the meaning of. What is "Extended Packet Format ?"

jx:

This is DCC technojargon for advanced decoder features like consisting and 4 digit addressing. It was a big deal in the early days of DCC but now almost all decoders do extended packet format, so it's practically meaningless today as a decoder distinction. It only applies to older decoders (1990's models).

[jfugate]

TOPIC THIS POST: Continuing to rank the systems - Ease of use - EasyDCC

Now let's consider the EasyDCC system and its ease of use.

The EasyDCC command station is a stationary panel rather than a mobile handset. Originally, before the notion of programming on the main became popular, programming on a stationary programming track was how you did decoder setup, so a stationary panel made sense. These days as programming on the main becomes ever more popular, having a stationary command panel as part of a DCC system is becoming a bit dated unless your layout is very small (under 50 square feet).

Here's the EasyDCC command panel, which includes two throttles.


(click to enlarge)

The EasyDCC system makes the buttons do double duty, so until you see how the buttons work, you may not "get it". The first label is for the first press of a button. The second label below the first is for any follow-on press of a button.

For example, to show the speed steps setting for a loco, you press the SHOW button (just to the left of the "1" button), then you press the "6" button, because the second label on the button - #STEPS - is now in effect. It takes just a bit to get the hang of it, but once you do get it, using the two step button labels becomes fairly natural.


THE EASE-OF-USE TEST: MAKING A LOCO CONSIST
EasyDCC considers command station consists to be the preferred kind of consist, so they call this type of consist a "Standard Consist" in their manual. EasyDCC frowns on decoder-based consists, and calls them something you "might want to experiment with" in their documentation.

So let's look at setting up a command station based consist in EasyDCC.

EasyDCC: Setting up a consist
Again, the first thing I look for is for some obvious way to make a consist without referring to the manual. EasyDCC has a button down in the lower left part of the key pad labeled "SETUP/ASSIGN - CONSIST", so that's where I assume I need to start.



In fact, this is correct. By pressing this button EasyDCC prompts me to setup a consist.

STEPS FOR CREATING A CONSIST WITH EASYDCC
Here are the steps to create a standard consist.

1. Press the SETUP/ASSIGN button. EasyDCC displays: Setup / Assign what?

2. Press the CONSIST second action button (happens to be the same button as the SETUP / ASSIGN button). EasyDCC displays: Setup Consist - Consist #____?

3. Type in the number of the lead loco (say 4408), which also becomes the consist number. EasyDCC displays: Cons# 4408: 1=Add 2=Remove 3=Kill

4. To add another loco, type 1, then type the loco address (like 4333). EasyDCC displays: Add loco 4333, Press R or N

(EasyDCC is asking which way the loco is facing, so you press the R or N accessory button to indicate which way the loco is facing. If Forward, press N for normal -- if backwards press R for reversed.)

NOTE: To make an decoder-based consist, EasyDCC has you press SETUP - Y, which is not at all obvious and requires studying the manual to find this out. EasyDCC clearly does not prefer decoder-based consisting, and goes out of its way to make it hard to even figure out how to do it.

CONCLUSIONS
EasyDCC gets a B for ease-of-use. Once you get the hang of the two-step double duty nature of the buttons, which button you need to press is fairly obvious. The system steps you through what to type clearly and in a helpful manner, with no use of the manual necessary.

EasyDCC's disdain of decoder-based consisting made sense in the early days of DCC but is now somewhat dated. Their deliberate attempt to make the command sequence less than obvious was a heavy-handed move on the part of the system developers and should be rethought. If EasyDCC had not burried the decoder based consisting command, they would have gotten a B+ for ease of use.

TOPIC NEXT POST: Continuing to rank the systems - Ease of use - Digitrax

[jxtrrx]

Joe, Thanks for the clinic. You used a phrase I don't know the meaning of. What is "Extended Packet Format ?"

[Pruitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jfugate


Next we take a look at ease-of-use.

.....

A very thorough but "user-friendly" approach, Joe!
YOU get two gold stars - one for clarity and one for usefulness. [:o)]

Seriously, thanks for taking the time to do this for all of us.[:)]

[robengland]

You're on the right track Joe - keep em coming!! This is what MR should have done in their recent evaluation. It was so wishy washy no-one could conclude anything after reading it

[tstage]

Good stuff, Joe! [tup] Keep it up...

Tom

[jfugate]

TOPIC THIS POST: Continuing to rank the systems - Ease of use - NCE

Next we take a look at ease-of-use. Rather than just tell you what I think, I'm going give you a chance to judge for yourself. I'm going to take each system and pick a common, yet less-than-trivial task and we'll see how each system has you do it. Along the way, I will post my comments so you can see my thoughts based on 12+ years of using several DCC systems, as well as my professional opinion as a web software designer (since I spend a lot of time trying to make web sites easy to use).

We'll take the systems one at a time. I'm going to focus on the "big four" systems, and ignore Bachmann, Atlas, and MRC systems because they lack some key long term expansion features (namely no computer interface) which limits their expansion of things like easier decoder programming using the free software DecoderPro. I'm also ignoring Zimo since even the basic system is around $1000 which prices it out of range for many modelers.

The big four are:

- NCE
- EasyDCC
- Digitrax
- Lenz

This post, we'll look at the NCE Procab system. Here's the NCE command station, which is presented as a handheld that is mobile, and is available either as a tethered plug in or wireless:


(Click for a larger image: http://mymemoirs.net/model-trains/images/post_photos/DCC-compare/NCE/Procab.gif )

THE EASE-OF-USE TEST: MAKING A LOCO CONSIST
A common task you will do on your layout, especially if you run diesels, is create sets of units that run together, which called "making a consist" in DCC terms. This task works well as a test task to check out a DCC system's ease of use.

There are two basic kinds of consists in DCC: decoder-based consists and command station-based consists.

Command station based consists were the original kind of consist and the onus is on the command station to remember what locos are in the consist, what direction they are facing, and to send each loco in the consist the same commands so the locos run together as a unit.

Decoder based consists are newer and they rely on the decoder to know it's part of a consist and to run in unison with another decoder that's also in the consist.

Each type of consist has its advantages and disadvantages and our purpose here is not to spend a lot of time discussing the pros and cons of various kinds of consisting. Instead, we will simply look at how you make a command station-based consist with each system, and rank them as to ease of use.

NCE: Setting up a consist
The first thing I look for in a system's ease of use is to see how far I can get without refering to the manual, and to see if the system steps me through the process. So I want to set up a consist with an NCE system -- where do I start? If I look at the command handheld, I notice the consist section down near the bottom:



Not bad, looks like exactly where I start. Turns out this section does *exactly* what you would expect it does. From the NCE manual:

CONSIST SETUP GROUP
Supports not only advanced decoders that respond to the Extended Packet Format but also the older entry-level decoders. For complete operating instructions on consist makeup read the section on SETTING UP A CONSIST in the Power Pro Reference Manual.

SETUP
Starts the procedure for either creating an advanced or old style (some call it Universal) consist.

CLEAR
Disbands (breaks up) a consist.

ADD LOCO
Adds a locomotive to a consist.

DELETE LOCO
Drops a locomotive from a consist.

NCE prefers advanced (decoder-based) consists, as opposed to an "old style" (command station-based) consist. However, you can set up either type of consist. We'll take a look at the old style consist.


STEPS FOR CREATING A CONSIST WITH NCE
So let's look at the steps to create an old-style consist.

1. Press the Consist - Setup button. The following text displays on the LCD.



2. Press 1 to setup an old style consist. You can have a maximum of 4 locos in an old style consist. The system asks for a lead loco number.

3. Enter the lead loco number, then press ENTER. This number becomes the consist number.

4. The entered loco defaults to forward (F). The system displays the loco's direction and says that to change the loco's direction, press the DIRECTION key.

5. Press ADD for each loco you want to ADD, up to a maximum of 4 locos.

NOTE: You can also include a decoder-consist as any one of the four locos. This allows you to do lots of powerful nested consisting tricks.

CONCLUSIONS:
NCE gets a solid A for ease-of-use. The buttons are well labeled, their function is obvious, and the system steps you through the setup process nicely. No surprises and little need to refer back to the manual once you understand the basics of DCC consisting.


TOPIC NEXT POST: Continuing to rank the systems - Ease of use - EasyDCC

[Anonymous]

I thought this thread was about picking the best DCC system, a lot of distractions here.

Down to business

I am 61 (next week), in electronics 43 years, computers 42 years.

Model rr as a kid, lionel then HO, liked to make the trains run. Not a serious operational RR guy, I like to build. Had a 6 X 8 dog leg in 78 and nothing since. Grew up in Norman Oklahoma near the tracks and saw the Texas Chief about every day, rode the Doodlebug in the 40's before I started school. Have a G scale ATSF switcher Christmas train the last 7 years, not out of the box in 5 years. Been running 2 weeks, already.

Came back to the hobby two weeks ago when I saw the BLI ATSF 4-8-4, not true, when I "heard" the Northern, I got a woodie! Have a Proto 2000 e6a&B war bonnet too. Building the atlas Midland Central layout, framed and 1/2 the planking down. ETA to run trains on the table by Thanksgiving? perhaps too optimistic.

I purchased a Lenz due to LHS influence.

Wanted to go directly to Computer so I bought Set-LI and LH100 separately

Throttles

LH100

Pro
-Does practically everything

Con
-Should have put the LH90 knob on it. (Must have been a techie that designed it.)
-Has a cord which is tangled at the moment
-Klutzy complicated, not intuitive
-Ergonomic -- NOT
-Clumbsy to move from train A to B
-EXPENSIVE, wow, way too expensive! ! ! ! I have buyers remorse on that one.
-No obvious single "stop the *** before it runs off the desk!" button (only the operating train I mean)
-Panic stop kills the layout and resumes as things were
-Rating, no better than a C from my perspective and I am being generous
-Buttons not always responsive

KAM Engine Commander (Personal Computer/CE handheld)

Pro
- allows multiple cabs, one for each operating engine on the screen, easy to switch from 12 to 3753
- intuitive operation (more so than the LH100 anyway)
- networked, can run from any TCPIP capable workstation
- Web capable so I can run my train(s) when I am in Cleveland next week on business.
- can be wireless, I run from a tablet PC or my laptop
- says it will integrate with the panel software, we'll see
- Less expensive than LH-90 or LH-100 if you don't have to buy the PC hardware

Con
-Complicated to set up if you are not familiar with Serial Ports
-If you have no PC that cost is quite high, but then I got ALL that stuff already!

Rating "B+" (By the way, I just found out while writing this that I have a DOWN level version of the KAM product, the newer version has improvements!)

Lets keep this focused on topic, not interested in pictures of your sound system or your guitar.

Diligentman

Colorado, USA, home of the braves, yankees and the dodgers,

[icmr]

I agree with waltersrails.



ICMR

Happy Railroading.[swg][swg]

[waltersrails]

any one that works

[Pruitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jfugate

Mark:

Thanks for your comments ... my argument is all theoretical anyhow and what I suggested is not what happened, probably for good reason as you mention.

The main point is that you can make user interfaces simple and obvious enough you don't need a manual most of the time once you "get it". That's also true of DCC systems and I hope to demonstrate that soon with the next official post on this clinic.

[:D]I just couldn't resist - the engineer in me coming out, I guess.

But your main point is excellent, and one that should be kept uppermost in mind by anyone who creates a product. From my perspective, the second most important feature of any product (the first being that the product can do what it's supposed to do) is its user interface. Far too many people don't give that enough consideration, and we wind up with great products that no one wants because they're such a pain to use!

in fact, the one thing that sold me on NCE for my DCC system was that it has what is, to me, the easiest-to-master user interface. I think I could learn any of them, but I didn't want to have to. For the way my mind works, NCE was most intuitive. But if someone else's mind works a little differently, another vendor's product may have a more intuitive interface to them.

[jfugate]

Mark:

Thanks for your comments ... my argument is all theoretical anyhow and what I suggested is not what happened, probably for good reason as you mention.

The main point is that you can make user interfaces simple and obvious enough you don't need a manual most of the time once you "get it". That's also true of DCC systems and I hope to demonstrate that soon with the next official post on this clinic.

[jfugate]

QUOTE: Originally posted by stokesda

Joe, are you out there?....

Just patiently waiting for the next installment on this topic [:)]

Yes, I'm here ... I'm pulling together the examples from the manuals to demonstrate ease of use. It's an ambitious undertaking, with pictures, diagrams and step-by-step examples of making a consist for each system. The idea is to allow you to do a side-by-side comparison.

It's been a busy week here with me doing some things for MR, like shooting the cover to their new Realistic Layouts issue. And then my sister loses her apartment and ends up on our doorstep, so that shoots a couple evenings consoling her. You know how it goes.

This weekend, I hope to get this thread back on track! [:D]

[Pruitt]

This is off the topic of DCC, but is in reply to an earlier post, so skip this unless you're curious

QUOTE: Originally posted by jfugate

I would also argue that the reason the airplane and the automobile user interfaces behave differently is because they both appeared at roughly the same time and each evolved their own convention. Had the automobile been well entrenched for 30 years before the airplane, the wheel on an airplane would steer the airplane as expected when on the ground.

Without trying to raise any hackles, your argument is incorrect, Joe. I've been designing aircraft for nearly two decades, and a pilot about as long, so let me explain.

The reason the airplane and the automobile user interfaces behave differently is because the vehicles are fundamentally different. An automobile navigates in two dimensions, while the airplane navigates in three. Rudder pedals steer the airplane on the ground because rudder pedals control the yaw, or left-right pointing of the aircraft, in the air. So they also control that on the ground. The steering wheel ("yoke" on an airplane) controls roll, or tilt, of the aircraft wings via the ailerons. There is no corresponding control on an automobile. A combination of rudder pedal and yoke input controls turns in an aircraft in the air (the ailerons are the primary turning agent, with the rudder assisting - different even than a submarine, another three-dimension navigator).

I could go on a lot more, but probably most folks don't care anyway, so I'll stop. Suffice it to say, though two different systems may get you to the same ultimate goal, the methods employed to do so may dictate very different interfaces. It depends on what is required in of the control system.

By the way - the auto and airplane controls developed over ten years apart, not at roughly the same time. Autpmobile controls developed basically in the very late 1890s and early 1900s, with some refinements to the basic concepts at slightly later dates. The airplane, meanwhile, developed it's "modern" control interfaces in the mid-1910s, with WWI being the main standardizing driver. It had refinements come much later.

[stokesda]

Joe, are you out there?....

Just patiently waiting for the next installment on this topic [:)]

[rockythegoat]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Tom Bryant_MR

bump

bump and also a "Shout Out" to Joe for doing this! Between this thread and the other thread "DCC Throttle Shoot Out" I'm learnin' a hoop of good info!

Thanks for doing this!

[Tom Bryant_MR]

bump

[jfugate]

Thanks for the system info postings, guys.

I have an op session today, so I won't be doing much on this thread yet, but I wanted to tell you what I hope to do for the next posting on ease of use.

I'm going to post an image of each command station and we'll step through setting up a consist on each, and then I'll give you my assessment as to which is easier to use.

And since I will show you how it's done on each system, if you don't like my assessment, you can judge for yourself. [swg]

But today, it's on to my op session. I'll be posting an op session report over on my site in the next few days, in case you're interested.

[rolleiman]

QUOTE: Originally posted by electrolove




I'm going to give a very great example from the music industri. I'm also interested in music and have my own music studio. One of the first synthesizers where the Minimoog.

.........

And we are back where we started with the Minimoog, one buttom for each function (almost). A good idea is always a good idea. I think that dcc will be much easier to use if we have on button for each function, wherever it's possible. No codes to remember, no hidden functions. And no manual.

Boy does THAT bring back memories.. Dad had a recording studio equipped with 3 full synths (with keyboards), several modules, a controller keyboard, MIDI patch bays, and the computer to track it all.. Even within a single manufacturer things weren't always compatable.. The magic 5 letters, R-O-L-A-N-D had a new one every month, and each one made the old obsolete.. with it's newer sounds.. I would LOVE to have a Roland TD-12 drum synth but I'm not willing to pay the bucks for it.. The constant button pressing on the GR30 Guitar synth to get from one sound patch to another Really gets annoying too..

To bring it back to trains, I have to agree 100%.. A button for each function, or at least the most commonly used functions, has become a must have... It's just no fun to have to do a lot of scrolling to get where I want to be..... running the trains..

Jeff

[davekelly]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jfugate
you are finally beyond the "new system buzz" and can probably tell us a few system gotchas you've experienced.

Joe,

New system buzz? Is that when I took my PE out of the box, ran two wires to a piece of flex track and then giggled for about an hour watching an engine run back and forth while ringing the bell? And then calling the wife in with a "look at this!!!!! Its DCC!!!!!! No toggle switches!!!!!!!!!" If this is it, then I have it........big time.

Seriously. I agree. Right now there is not a single thing that I don't like about my PE. It's limitations are minor. Glitches are probably my fault. You'll have to kill me to get my PE from me and I'll slug anyone that talks bad about it. In time a person does remove those rose colored glasses and that's when, I think, that an opinion is much more objective, accurate and helpful.

I do love your rule that a person has to post a couple of shortcomings. No system is perfect.

[selector]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jrbernier

Joe,

Having been in DCC since about 1994, let me make some observations. I was at a Divisional Meet last night(about 50 folks). A 'show of hands' resulted in about 40% indicating that they have or were starting down the DCC road. The rest were split on 'I am interested' to the 'I do not understand it' or 'I have too many engines to convert'.
DCC is still stuck in the old PC hobbyist mentality. ...

Jim, I have to agree with Joe's initial comment. You would be mistaken, as well, to walk into a community hall dealing with "Managing Your Money", and asking how many people in the audience are millionaires. I'll bet no hands go up. But you would be in error to assume that there were few millionaires in the city.

You club has its own culture, ways of doing what they do the way they do it, and the reasoning behind it. Generalizing to the railroading population at large is a stretch without also polling another twenty or thirty clubs scattered throughout the country.

Just my observation. [:)]

[Anonymous]

Electro,

I have used guitar processors and recording gear for the past thirty years. Your synth. example is right on...Man how I hated those boxes that would force you to scroll through 20 menus to change a sound level...You knew you were in trouble when all that was on the face of the device was six buttons and an LCD single line window.....

The most recent guitar processors are almost back to square with one button, one function... Now if we could do something about poorly designed hard disk recorders....Sorry for the digression here...back to trains.

[electrolove]

QUOTE: Originally posted by kchronister

I've never been able to put it so succinctly, but I couldn't agree more. Even without realizing it, I've always found myself favoring interfaces that provided "one button per function".

To some extent, it's why I moved to JMRI and running the layout via computer. Despite the fact that I did (still do) dislike sitting at a terminal rather than walking around throttle-in-hand, the "soft" interface (i.e. a screen rather than "hard" buttons") means JMRI offered a great deal of "one button per function" operability.

My interest in the whole topic is really driven by just that. I want to get back to running the layout "by hand" rather than from computer and am seeking the best way to do so. Thank you for a post that (at least for me personally) really exposed the core of what I need to seek out.

Thanks for your great answer, very interesting to read.

[Anonymous]

Actually, I didn't see where YOU posted any suggested rules until I was accused of my panties bein wadded up. Quit lookin under my skirt.

QUOTE: Originally posted by jfugate

QUOTE: Originally posted by On30Shay

I was under the impression MR made the forum rules.

The rules I suggested are for this Forum Clinic that I'm hosting ... no need to get your panties in a wad, On30 -- as my daughter likes to tell me if I try to make a big deal out of something that's not. [swg]

[Anonymous]

I've never been able to put it so succinctly, but I couldn't agree more. Even without realizing it, I've always found myself favoring interfaces that provided "one button per function".

To some extent, it's why I moved to JMRI and running the layout via computer. Despite the fact that I did (still do) dislike sitting at a terminal rather than walking around throttle-in-hand, the "soft" interface (i.e. a screen rather than "hard" buttons") means JMRI offered a great deal of "one button per function" operability.

My interest in the whole topic is really driven by just that. I want to get back to running the layout "by hand" rather than from computer and am seeking the best way to do so. Thank you for a post that (at least for me personally) really exposed the core of what I need to seek out.

[electrolove]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jfugate

Steve:

No problem, it's fine to disagree with me, and your example is a good one.

However, I still maintain the less you have to keep the manual handy, the more user friendly the system is.

Since I do software design for a living, here's a list of user friendly questions that apply pretty well to DCC system interfaces too. This list is from "Don't Make Me Think - A Common Sense Approach to Web Usability":

- Where should I begin?
- Where did they put ____ ?
- What are the most important things on this [DCC command unit]?
- Why did they call it that?

The consisting question provides a concrete use case for you to try where you have to actually go through these questions as you figure out how to do it.

I would also argue that the reason the airplane and the automobile user interfaces behave differently is because they both appeared at roughly the same time and each evolved their own convention. Had the automobile been well entrenched for 30 years before the airplane, the wheel on an airplane would steer the airplane as expected when on the ground.

So it's possible, when starting at the beginning to design a system to make things simpler and more obvious, and that's what we're looking to assess here as we consider the various DCC systems.

Joe, you are absolutely right about that. I'm also into webdesign and I have worked as a programmer as well. The goal for me when building an app is that the user must be able to use the app without the manual. If I succeed I know that the app is user friendly. I try very hard to leave the complicated coding under the surface. Often when I talk to other people they think that an app is advanced just because it's very hard to use. I think that is completely wrong. The app is advanced if the user can use it without any problems and still do complicated things with it. It's easy to forget sometimes that an app is a tool to make things easier. If that's not the case we don't need it.

I'm going to give a very great example from the music industri. I'm also interested in music and have my own music studio. One of the first synthesizers where the Minimoog.



As you can see there is one button for each function, very easy to use. Then after a while came the digital revolution and one of the first synthesizers that changed the user interface for many years to come was the Yamaha DX7.



The user interfaces started to change dramatically. One little display and a parameter button. To edit this synth you needed to first select the right parameter code, and then change the parameter value of that parameter. Very hard and unfriendly.

So music software companies realized that something must be done. They started to make software apps where you could see all the buttons and sliders again on your computer screen like this.



It's much easier to program a synthesizer when you can see everything at once and how it's connected.

After a while the user was forced to have tons of apps just to be able to use his synthesizers and other things you have in a studio like mixers, effect units and so on. And you could not reach 100% of the synthesizers functions from your app, because the manufacturers could not agree on anything. And on top af that, bugs in the synthesizers operating system that forced the software to do so called workarounds, and that was not always possible, a real mess. Ask me, I once made an app like this for every synth there is. It took me 2 years before I realized it's not gonna work 100% whatever I do. A nightmare!!! I even changed the operating system in one of my synthesizers (reverse engineering) and it worked but was it worth it? NO WAY!!! And there is one more thing that complicated things for the user. Many manufacturers used a hardware dongle in the computer for copy protection of the sound editor software. With lots of synthesizers in the studio there was no room to connect all these hardware dongles at once to the computer.

So the manufacturers started to change the way everything worked one more time like in this Roland JD-800.



And we are back where we started with the Minimoog, one buttom for each function (almost). A good idea is always a good idea. I think that dcc will be much easier to use if we have on button for each function, wherever it's possible. No codes to remember, no hidden functions. And no manual.