Quote: “You people are mental...aeshetics matter but seems a crazy waste of time and effort to me”
With respect, there is no evidence to support the initial assertion.
Perhaps it could be said that certain individuals appear to inebriated with the exuberance of their own imagination.
The thing is, the original poster stated that any help or input would be appreciated, so perhaps the best way to address this, would be to examine his proposal closely.
People appear to have assumed that the finish on this product is simply a covering that is applied. A form of sprayed paint finish.
However, many products today are fabricated in such a manner, that the final finish is actively formulated as part of the moulding, as its actually being created.
In other words, it is often the case that the finish you see is not a coating per say applied during production, but rather, an essential inherent ingredient of the outer material.
Painting such a product as described above, has formidable and foreseeable difficulties.
Metamorphosing the essential nature of its basic properties.
If it is a coated finish and you want to respray and recoat such a product achieving excellent luminance of the finish. Then prior to the final coat, you need to get the product as close as possible to the spectrum of colour, you ultimately wish to obtain.
Hence ideally, a light final coat requires a light undercoat. A dark final coat requires a dark undercoat. A bright red final finish requires a red undercoat. Many less vividly extreme members of the colour spectrum can be accommodated by a neutral or grey undercoat.
Here, one is faced with the difficulty of transcending basic physics in paint application, attempting to circumvent widely accepted principles in paint preparation. Transmogrifying the brightest, shiniest, most brilliantly eye-catching colour, to a state closely akin to its exact opposite, in the available palette.
When a manufacturer wants to ascertain the coverage performance of a new paint finish, they place black and white labels on the product they are testing. As these two extremes of shade, are the hardest possible to effectively make invisible to the eye.
Its worth reflecting that almost the most extreme transformation possible is being proposed by the original poster. How wise is that?
Someone has noted that proper preparation of the product is necessary.
As everyone knows, proper paint preparation promotes perfect paint performance.
However, if the innate colour of the product is an essential inherent ingredient of the material.
As is increasingly the case for more and more products, then sanding it down will only reveal more of the same.
It may key the surface as is commonly believed to be beneficial, but many manufacturers have eliminated such processes.
Finding they make no genuine contributory difference in production.
Whatever the product is finished with, (no indication is given), there is no guarantee, (unless someone with a chemistry degree is handy and is given all relevant information), that the solvents in the newly applied paint will not have a severely detrimental effect upon either the metal itself or indeed plastic parts, that will be fitted adjacently.
Although such solvent based reactions can be instant and extreme, hence very alarming, they can and often do gradually appear over a period of time. Those on the forum that know anything about guitar finishes, know that they can severely deteriorate over time, as the finish and its solvent’s gradually gas off. If not properly processed.
You will appreciate that products where a final finish is actively formulated as part of the moulding or where a high temperature oven is utilised to stove the product, allows the solvents to be safely extracted and filtered as part of the production process.
In general, most paint has three main constituents.
A pigmentation, (its colour), a resin or binder (this makes it stick to the product its being applied to and also keeps the other two components properly enjoined) and a solvent (this allows the ideal viscosity to be achieved so the paint flows well, not to thin or thick).
Different solvents used in different finish materials, often react badly to each other, not being chemically designed for use with each other.
I could give a great many practical illustrations where quite brilliant people in the music world, whose productions I admire, have ill-advisedly decided to modify products.
In doing so, it regularly becomes crystal clear that what seemed to be an ingeniously creative idea, has in practice, become an unmitigated disaster from which there is no way to extricate themselves. Then they contact me.
Well-engineered products of the category into which RME products fall, are by design created to accommodate their integral components extremely tightly indeed. Consumers perceive such tactile snugness of fit, as excellent build quality.
Of course, extra layers of paint material have many microns of thickness. If one is attempting to transform a bright shade to a dark shade, its is inevitable that extra, additional layers of material, will be required to provide adequate coverage especially on edges.
At a certain point, the snuggly fitting components won’t fit properly at all.
Then, it will become necessary to remove layers of paint in places.
As any experienced paint sprayer will tell you, paint adhesion is always at its thinnest, at the point where two edges meet. Corners on a product.
Where two edges meet on a sprayed finish and where those snuggly fitting components are located, additional passes on the spray gun are normally required hand spraying to achieve balanced overall coverage.
On a badly engineered product with loosely fitting component’s, one might get away with it. But on a well-engineered product with tightly fitting components, providing excellent build quality, it would seem extremely unlikely.
An expensive disaster zone, rather than an audio interface.
This is before we have even begun to consider the injudicious imbecility of totally invalidating the manufacturers warrantee, (up to five years in certain regions).
With all the potential difficulties involved in reverse engineering the product, taking it completely apart for proper masking and refinishing or leaving vulnerable sensitive components in situ, in risk of contact damage from undesirable, but unavoidable, paint overspray.
The equivalent of shooting oneself in the foot with one barrel and pointing the second barrel towards one’s other foot and pulling the trigger again, for good measure.
The design features and distinctive colouring of various RME products did not happen by accident.
They are the result of careful thought and design, crafted to ensure particular product lines, aimed at specific consumer types are immediately identifiable.
Primarily, in terms of identifying their manufacturer, and secondly, in terms of the specific product family represented, amongst the wide spectrum of products they fabricate.
In addition, to distinguishing product lines, it is necessary for manufacturers to clearly differentiate their products, from those of their direct competitors and inferior imitators.
Why take a Mercedes and make it look like a Toyota?
As someone with a wide experience of manufacturing processes, I can categorically state that refinishing a product is always far more expensive, far more complicated, and far less desirable than the right first time alternative.
Of course, thus far we have not considered the cost of extremely fine preparation materials, undercoating materials, paint finish materials not the skills, knacks and good judgement and experience required for their proper use.
Last but not least.
Any product that involves a lot of handling, is subject to the oils, acids and friction of fingers.
What this means in practise, is that non industrial finishes, even if appearing to be initially entirely satisfactory.
Are extremely likely in use, to suffer either rapid or gradual deterioration, that is inevitable and inexorable, dependent upon use.
In short, such a finish is unlikely to last, as desired.
How good will your interface look then?
