flippy: thats fine, and you have a point. you must have thought my post a low blow to your lengthly musings. i tend not to inflate what i want to say, and get right to the point. btw why dont you start your own thread so you can say what you want without fear of being challenged? if you read my thread, youll notice reasons why i liked muzys and found it to be the way i do. i guess i didnt feel the need to repeat myself here too? who knows.
you dont know any fools? ok wrong word. how about simple people?
MUTON alpha 2
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 1645 posts since 24 May, 2002
pljones wrote:For example, with the default session, copy the part (select it, right click to the right of the part, paste it), then load up two synths (click the player area on at the top of the main window, pick load synth, pick a synth, repeat), then right click the first part, select Choose player, VST Synths and select the synth), then repeat for the second part choosing the other player.
Note that, thanks to pljones, in alpha 2 you can also directly load a vsti into a Part:original flipper wrote:That isn't exactly a natural or even obvious routine to simply load a vsti!
->right-click Part
->"Choose Player"
->"Load New Synth"
Of course, then that new synth instance is also available for other parts
-
- KVRian
- 1161 posts since 24 Dec, 2004 from Adelaide, South Australia
Agreed that the Player Panel should only be used to determine what the master midi input plays through. This helps in tweaking patches etc.
Right click on parts only to change Players. Definitely less confusing. Do you think that it would also be worth being able to lock whole tracks to players just likea conventional sequencer? I mean, I realise that the point of Muzys is not only to be simple but also to do something a little different, but adding this more conventional option might make it more flexible and easier for newbies to the world of sequencing. Just a thought. Even Ableton Live sometimes suffers from the clip based approach when it comes to new users. But the flexibility is that the Arrangement view can also be used just like a conventional multi tracker or track based sequencer if you want. That's opens up options.
I like the Part based approach, don't get me wrong, but sometimes a Track based approach is easier to get to grips with for new users.
Right click on parts only to change Players. Definitely less confusing. Do you think that it would also be worth being able to lock whole tracks to players just likea conventional sequencer? I mean, I realise that the point of Muzys is not only to be simple but also to do something a little different, but adding this more conventional option might make it more flexible and easier for newbies to the world of sequencing. Just a thought. Even Ableton Live sometimes suffers from the clip based approach when it comes to new users. But the flexibility is that the Arrangement view can also be used just like a conventional multi tracker or track based sequencer if you want. That's opens up options.
I like the Part based approach, don't get me wrong, but sometimes a Track based approach is easier to get to grips with for new users.
Mixcraft 8 Recording Studio : Reason 10
-
- KVRAF
- 7137 posts since 8 Feb, 2003 from London, UK
I think there needs to be a very clear distinction between what the engine/back-end is capable of and how that's presented to the user. It can be hard to simplify a complex user interface, particularly if it's too closely entwined with the engine.
The architecture needs to be right and the core infrastructure needs to be right: the architecture identifies what dependencies exist; the core infrastructure provides the components and assorted building blocks.
I'm still not sure how much to get hung up on the UI appearance at this stage: so long as the widget set is capable of providing the necessary behaviour without impacting audio and MIDI processing, that's all I'd want to prove right now. Of course, identifying what widgets are needed so they can be tested means going through a fair degree of usability cases - rather than just creating "every possible component".
Other componentry I see at this level: hardware interfaces, plugin interfaces, OS-abstraction. And, if native Linux is going to be offered, make sure it works there now.
I've not had time to hammer Alhpa 2 (I didn't get enough time to hammer Alpha 1 as much as I'd have liked) but the testing should be about stressing these components - not usability per se, IMO.
("Humble"? Isn't that some sort of pie?)
The architecture needs to be right and the core infrastructure needs to be right: the architecture identifies what dependencies exist; the core infrastructure provides the components and assorted building blocks.
I'm still not sure how much to get hung up on the UI appearance at this stage: so long as the widget set is capable of providing the necessary behaviour without impacting audio and MIDI processing, that's all I'd want to prove right now. Of course, identifying what widgets are needed so they can be tested means going through a fair degree of usability cases - rather than just creating "every possible component".
Other componentry I see at this level: hardware interfaces, plugin interfaces, OS-abstraction. And, if native Linux is going to be offered, make sure it works there now.
I've not had time to hammer Alhpa 2 (I didn't get enough time to hammer Alpha 1 as much as I'd have liked) but the testing should be about stressing these components - not usability per se, IMO.
("Humble"? Isn't that some sort of pie?)
-
- KVRist
- 191 posts since 31 Dec, 2004 from London, UK
If you want an example of a 'host' that's incredibly easy to use or even 'simple', but incredibly powerful, you should take a look at Sony Vegas. For audio multitrack and production, IMO, it utterly beats everything else out there. A couple of limitations, but overall an incredible app and a joy to use. I challenge anyone to take more than a very short amount of time to grasp the basics of Vegas.
The downside? No midi.
But I mention this because people were discussing how an app should be intuitive, and I think this is a great example. If there was a host which was Vegas + midi I'd be into it immediately! Not being part of the alpha group, and having never used Muzys, I have no idea what Mutools is like, but if it had anything like the the intuitiveness of Vegas I think it would have fantastic potential.
ZdB
The downside? No midi.
But I mention this because people were discussing how an app should be intuitive, and I think this is a great example. If there was a host which was Vegas + midi I'd be into it immediately! Not being part of the alpha group, and having never used Muzys, I have no idea what Mutools is like, but if it had anything like the the intuitiveness of Vegas I think it would have fantastic potential.
ZdB
