Little questions ...

[Trancit]

I've already posted a part of this in the host forum, but perhaps, I should have done better here:

I had a small go with the free edition...

3 little questions at first:

1. I noticed, that it doesn't take use from multiple CPU cores...is that correct???

2. To make use out of an Multi I/O plugin, you have to route the plugins manually in the modular area to different racks, or is there another way???

3. How to do "normal" track/plugin automation (not inside the note editor)like here :
http://www.mutools.com/mulab/temp/autom ... part-2.png

Trancit

[pljones]

Welcome aboard!

1. Yep, no multi-core yet. One of the M4 wishlist items - hang around until the voting starts in June!

2. You can wrap it in a MUX, which is like a dedicated MPA in a Rack slot - that may help... but basically the rack is a single stereo channel. Not sure what else to suggest on this one.

3. Automation needs a Sequence part inherently. At the moment, there are only two editors for Sequences: note and event. The note editor has the automation lanes at the bottom where you can choose what you want to automate and draw your curves. The event editor lets you set specific values at specific times. (The "temp" picture you linked was an idea being discussed, not an existing feature, as I understand it.) Again, this may get onto the M4 wish list voting schedule.

[liquidsound]

A half way solution for the "temp" picture could be if the Parts had a transparency setting which it would allow them to be overlapped.
This feature could be used for other purposes too.

[Trancit]

No Multiprocessor support is quite a showstopper for me...why having a quad core since only one core is used

Hope the support is done pretty quick...I have to say, it's a quite basic program at first, but already fall in love with the modular possibilities and the absolutely rock solid audio engine...especially the last one is really hard to find in modern daws....doesn't matter, what I throw on the racks while playing back the arrangement, no gap, no stutter, neither in sound nor with the graphics...RESPECT!!!!!!!!!

Will try to rewire a multiprocessor supporting host like Reaper or FL Studio to it and let's see, how it works...

Trancit

[Resonator63]

Multicore support is the one that stops me from buying at the moment.
If Mulab had that, i'd go for it now. Maybe i'll wait for a while and see what happens.

[janamdo]

2. You can wrap it in a MUX, which is like a dedicated MPA in a Rack slot - that may help... but basically the rack is a single stereo channel. Not sure what else to suggest on this one.

So if you use for example Fl studio as VSTi Multi ( 16 midi channels) or as Rewire slave with 16 audio channels. You must wrap every channel in a MUX and use 16 racks for it
Therefore make a template ...

Reason or project2 version 2 do have 64 audi channels so it take a while to get the desired number of channels

Ableton live or renoise do have 32 audiochannels the same amount of audichannels where Mulab is working on

[mutools]

So if you use for example Fl studio as VSTi Multi ( 16 midi channels) or as Rewire slave with 16 audio channels. You must wrap every channel in a MUX and use 16 racks for it Therefore make a template ...

Just to avoid confusion: You only need a single MUX. Within that MUX you can easily connect any of the outputs of a multi-out VST or ReWire module to whatever you want, also to any racks within that MUX.

You don't even need a MUX for it, you can directly do it in the modular session area too.

But janamdo's idea to make a MUX preset for it certainly also is a good idea!

You have multiple options

[Trancit]

Multicore support is the one that stops me from buying at the moment.
If Mulab had that, i'd go for it now. Maybe i'll wait for a while and see what happens.

Yep, that's my thoughts, too...and even APDC, but more important for me is the multicore support, especially with all the fantastic routing possibilities in the modular enviorment...


Trancit

[DHR53]

I really like the fact that Jo wants to keep MuTools simple... As a longtime user of DAWs including Logic, Cubase, and Reason... I've often thought what "I do" most of the time could be done with 1/4 of the functions in the big 3 of DAWs. Admittedly, I'm not doing really complex stuff with 30 or so tracks, but I suspect a LOT of people are in my category. I cringe when I hear some of these "feature requests" because I think a lot of them are just people "repeating" what they've heard others say, and don't really need some of this stuff. Same with the big DAWs themselves. I have Logic, and know it well... but I can do the same thing in MuTools currently, albeit not as fast! ...Yet!

[liquidsound]

I really like the fact that Jo wants to keep MuTools simple... As a longtime user of DAWs including Logic, Cubase, and Reason... I've often thought what "I do" most of the time could be done with 1/4 of the functions in the big 3 of DAWs. Admittedly, I'm not doing really complex stuff with 30 or so tracks, but I suspect a LOT of people are in my category. I cringe when I hear some of these "feature requests" because I think a lot of them are just people "repeating" what they've heard others say, and don't really need some of this stuff. Same with the big DAWs themselves. I have Logic, and know it well... but I can do the same thing in MuTools currently, albeit not as fast! ...Yet!

From your mouth to God's ears....
Many musicians are more in love with their software than with their music.
Once I almost run out of cables in Reason! then I just turned on just TruePianos and I remembered music....

MuLab (Jo) is trying to do just that!

[robenestobenz]

On the tangential point of overlapping parts, the current behaviour drives me nuts when I'm trying to resize a part which extends under a part later in time. Giving draw priority to selected parts would be a vast improvement IMO.

[mutools]

Why not simply use a separate (sub)track to avoid the overlapping parts then?

[robenestobenz]

Why not simply use a separate (sub)track to avoid the overlapping parts then?

I could, yeah, but I prefer one track per musical element, myself. For example, comping (comping is when you pick the best takes of a given bit of track and assemble them as if they were produced continuously) vocals. There's often overlaps in vocal takes 'cos they generally don't start and end neatly on the bar. Having four bars of verse on one track, the next four bars on another track, the next four ba-- and so on, to avoid overlaps, doesn't make much sense to me.

More fundamentally, if a user has declared their interest in a particular part by selecting it, I can't see the sense in it being obscured by some other part that they haven't selected and are not currently interested in.

I know, I know... always me with the nitpicky stuff. I just thought it was logical and hoped it might be an easy thing to implement, in my ignorance of how Mulab does its drawing

[mutools]

The drawing currently is simply logical from techno context, i.e. part after part. What you request is logical from user context. But it needs extra code. And not only in composer cause it should be everywhere the same. On top of this i wonder how this would be affected when the composer would be using integrated editors (some future idea). That's something to think about too. So it's not a 123-and-ready thing i'm afraid. But i do understand your user point.

[liquidsound]

It's possible to have a context menu section activated when you click over overlapping parts giving you the choice of which part to select? Kind of the one that is given when adding a new part.