KVR Audio

Numanoid · Post by **Numanoid** » Tue Mar 25, 2014 7:53 pm

Examigan wrote:I am not sure why I haven't heard much else about it.
http://www.mutools.com/mux-product.html

It got a pretty good review in CM/MusicRadar last year:
http://www.musicradar.com/reviews/tech/ ... mux-579122

Tricky-Loops · Post by **Tricky-Loops** » Tue Mar 25, 2014 7:58 pm

Numanoid wrote:
Examigan wrote:I am not sure why I haven't heard much else about it.
http://www.mutools.com/mux-product.html
It got a pretty good review in CM/MusicRadar last year:
http://www.musicradar.com/reviews/tech/ ... mux-579122

http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=385560

Numanoid · Post by **Numanoid** » Tue Mar 25, 2014 8:01 pm

Tricky-Loops wrote:
Numanoid wrote:
Examigan wrote:I am not sure why I haven't heard much else about it.
http://www.mutools.com/mux-product.html
It got a pretty good review in CM/MusicRadar last year:
http://www.musicradar.com/reviews/tech/ ... mux-579122

http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=385560

After having "slaughtered" MuLab in the previous issue it was like CM got "cold feet" and embraced MUX even more that they maybe would have done

Examigan · Post by **Examigan** » Tue Mar 25, 2014 11:16 pm

Well I finished my review, and I really like it.

It just has so much included, especially for the price. Lot's of creative possibilities with this one.

Compyfox · Post by **Compyfox** » Wed Mar 26, 2014 3:46 am

MUX is highly underrated, maybe due to the fact that it's currently still "Win Only":

I was in touch with the dev recently, sharing some ideas. And I know that he's currently working on a new engine, with certain enhancements here and there, maybe even custom GUI (it's on a FR list - but who knows when that will happen), Mac port, etc.

I've yet to try the most recent version - but I'm distracted with other stuff currently. Still, I am keeping my eye on MUX as alternative to eXT (which stopped to working for me with eXT2) and Metaplugin (which unfortunately lacks the custom GUI and container functions). It's also cheaper than Bidule.

So to me, it's more like a modular environment for VST (with custom GUI capabilities) rather than a custom synth sandbox or something. Definitely worth a look.

Numanoid · Post by **Numanoid** » Wed Mar 26, 2014 3:02 pm

Compyfox wrote:MUX is highly underrated, maybe due to the fact that it's currently still "Win Only"

No, that is hardly an issue

I think it is more rather down to the name. Mux is what cheap 70's deodorants used to be called

Compyfox · Post by **Compyfox** » Wed Mar 26, 2014 5:24 pm

I think you misinterpret that with AXE.

And... it is an issue to me... as I use both Windows PC's and Macintosh PC's. Sometimes I even want to build custom devices for clients. That is so far only possible with modular sub-hosts that are crossplatform.

And I only consider Metaplugin and Bidule stable for that task, eXT not so anymore. Yet MetaPlugin is the cheapest of these tools (crossplatform), but lacks container and custom GUI capabilities. MUX would be a tad more expensive than Metaplugin, but wasn't ported yet. Then again, MUX is on the best way to be Mac-ported, thankfully.

Numanoid · Post by **Numanoid** » Wed Mar 26, 2014 5:29 pm

zerocrossing · Post by **zerocrossing** » Wed Mar 26, 2014 5:42 pm

ravasb wrote:I love MUX a lot, but I think part of the problem is that very few people really know about it as a product separate from Mulab. Mulab has a lot of good features, but it is not as fully developed as a number of other DAWs, at least not yet. If people have heard of MUX at all, they may think it too is not as full featured a synth. I think the best part of Mulab is that MUX is integrated into it.

I know the dev is a one man operation and must be incredibly busy, but I think it would help him to push MUX separately from Mulab.

I agree. I'm sure all have seen that I'm on KVR all the time and I've never even heard of MUX before this thread and I love virtual modular stuff. Mulab needs to up their presence on the web a bit if someone like me who's always looking for cool stuff like this hasn't found it.

Numanoid · Post by **Numanoid** » Wed Mar 26, 2014 5:47 pm

What do you guys prefer if you had to choose between MUX or KarmaFX?

http://www.kvraudio.com/product/karmafx ... fx/details

zerocrossing · Post by **zerocrossing** » Wed Mar 26, 2014 5:58 pm

Numanoid wrote:What do you guys prefer if you had to choose between MUX or KarmaFX?

http://www.kvraudio.com/product/karmafx ... fx/details

I'm about to download the MUX demo right now, but just from reading the product description it's clear to me that MUX is more like Reaktor as it's a kind of modular authoring environment. KarmaFX's Modular is much more of a fixed Modular synth like VAZ Modular or Zebra.

So... very different though they overlap. If you're looking for a modular instrument that's easy to use, go with KarmaFX. I don't own it but I found the demo fun to work with and I recommend it all the time especially to people who want to learn synthesis.

If you're looking for a really open system where you can get really creative, then something like MUX or Reaktor is for you. Again, it's just a hunch from it's description and the posts on this thread, but MUX seems like it's very deep. Of course, like Reaktor it comes with finished instruments and presets, so you could easily buy it and never build a single thing in it and be happy. I've never built a Reaktor ens myself, though I've edited a few that I found on the Reaktor exchange.

Nielzie · Post by **Nielzie** » Wed Mar 26, 2014 6:44 pm

Numanoid wrote:What do you guys prefer if you had to choose between MUX or KarmaFX?

http://www.kvraudio.com/product/karmafx ... fx/details

Depends on your needs. With MUX you can build both effects and synths and can be build from a deeper level so its much more flexible, but for more straight forward modular synth patching, KarmaFX could be a more interesting for some. The visual feedback from the KarmaFX modules is also quite nice. Additive, FM and more filter types available are a plus for me.

KarmaFX tends to use more cpu I think, at least from my personal perspective. MUX usage seems amazingly low on cpu, very much optimized. Soundwise.. hmmm.. they do sound quite different to me. MUX sounds a bit "cleaner" to me. KarmaFX has a "particular sound" to it that you might like or you don't. It excels in 303-like basses and psytrancy leads.

MUX is very frequently updated and is evolving quite fast into.. ehhh who knows where this might end? KarmaFX is I believe pretty much at the end of the production cycle, a mature product, has not had many updates/improvements for a long time although there is a 64-bit update in beta (also since quite some time)

So to conclude: better get both of them, they complement very well and by using KarmaFX within MUX the sky is the limit

Tricky-Loops · Post by **Tricky-Loops** » Wed Mar 26, 2014 6:57 pm

As has been said, KarmaFX is like a small sister of MUX. MUX can do much more modular stuff but KarmaFX is easier to handle, looks better and simply sounds good. I've always waited for an update of KarmaFX with new features (then I would have bought it) but...

(I'm still waiting...)

bharris22 · Post by **bharris22** » Wed Mar 26, 2014 7:19 pm

Examigan wrote:Well I finished my review, and I really like it.

It just has so much included, especially for the price. Lot's of creative possibilities with this one.

Where's the review? I would be interested in reading it.

Examigan · Post by **Examigan** » Thu Mar 27, 2014 12:22 am

bharris22 wrote:
Examigan wrote:Well I finished my review, and I really like it.

It just has so much included, especially for the price. Lot's of creative possibilities with this one.
Where's the review? I would be interested in reading it.

It will be in the next issue of SoundBytes

MUX in review