Recording
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 7124 posts since 8 Feb, 2003 from London, UK
fuerchan's thread has a lot going on in it.
I don't do any audio recording or much MIDI recording for that matter, either in MU.LAB or other hosts.
In Reaper, I find it an incredible work up to set up for recording. Choose the track, set its inputs, arm it, double check everything, go. Oh, I meant MIDI. Oops. Start over.
In MU.LAB, I just hit the right button. Most of the time, that's it.
What am I missing that makes MU.LAB harder to use?
Is it really just a case of user expectation?
I don't do any audio recording or much MIDI recording for that matter, either in MU.LAB or other hosts.
In Reaper, I find it an incredible work up to set up for recording. Choose the track, set its inputs, arm it, double check everything, go. Oh, I meant MIDI. Oops. Start over.
In MU.LAB, I just hit the right button. Most of the time, that's it.
What am I missing that makes MU.LAB harder to use?
Is it really just a case of user expectation?
-
- KVRAF
- 2938 posts since 18 Jul, 2005
You don't even have to select the input and which rack to monitor to? It sounds like you're describing MIDI here, not audio.pljones wrote:fuerchan's thread has a lot going on in it.
I don't do any audio recording or much MIDI recording for that matter, either in MU.LAB or other hosts.
In Reaper, I find it an incredible work up to set up for recording. Choose the track, set its inputs, arm it, double check everything, go. Oh, I meant MIDI. Oops. Start over.
In MU.LAB, I just hit the right button. Most of the time, that's it.
This may be why.pljones wrote:I don't do any audio recording or much MIDI recording for that matter, either in MU.LAB or other hosts.
Midi recording is pretty awesome in Mulab, IMO. Click, record. Couldn't be easier.
Audio is fairly easy to begin with, once you get your head around the unusual routing, but it becomes slower and more labour-intensive in proportion to the amount of audio recording you do.
E.g. if you're using just the one recorder, it's fast to record the first part, but then you have to swap inputs and monitoring each time you want to record to another rack. Cumulatively that's a lot of clicks, and in sub-menus and drop downs too.
OK, so you're getting fed up of constantly swapping the one recorder around, so to do away with it you configure a multitrack setup. The swapping around is no longer needed, but you can't see what is armed for recording or what monitoring is set up. To see what is armed for recording you have to click to another screen. You can't see what is currently monitoring until you click TWO screens away from the main view. To change monitoring it's the two screens and then a drop-down list even if you just want to toggle monitoring off, and each additional input you want to change settings for necessitates a click away from the recording settings screen and then back to the same screen for a different input.
Contrast that with the scenario of tracks having inputs. You can see your recording and monitoring status in one glance at the composer screen that is at the heart of the program. To toggle monitoring/recording on and off -- one click on a button on that track's header.
-
- KVRian
- 731 posts since 25 Oct, 2008 from Holland
the solution could be a "audiorack" that youcan assign via a audiorecorder
In this audio rack are inputs and outputs to choose
Or a extension of the current racks....The condition is when a audiorecorder is assigned to a rack the input and outputs are also a option to choose in the rack
Make this sense ?
In this audio rack are inputs and outputs to choose
Or a extension of the current racks....The condition is when a audiorecorder is assigned to a rack the input and outputs are also a option to choose in the rack
Make this sense ?
-
- KVRAF
- 5005 posts since 30 May, 2006 from Hollow Earth
Flexibility is Power but it can become a little confusing to newcomers.
I do no see an extreme complex system in Mu.LAb but a DIFFERENT way of doing the same thing that's done in other DAWs.
The solution is to just write a very detailed manual or tutorials on the upcoming problem subjects.
It is easier than modify Mu.Lab every time there is a road block based on lack of understanding the "Mu.Lab way" RATHER than a real deficiency in the WorkFlow which I understand it could require Jo to adjust the application.
Understanding Mu.Lab's way it's different than changing it based on real workflow issues imo.
I do no see an extreme complex system in Mu.LAb but a DIFFERENT way of doing the same thing that's done in other DAWs.
The solution is to just write a very detailed manual or tutorials on the upcoming problem subjects.
It is easier than modify Mu.Lab every time there is a road block based on lack of understanding the "Mu.Lab way" RATHER than a real deficiency in the WorkFlow which I understand it could require Jo to adjust the application.
Understanding Mu.Lab's way it's different than changing it based on real workflow issues imo.
MuLab-Reaper of course
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 7124 posts since 8 Feb, 2003 from London, UK
OK...
So if I want to set up four (mono) inputs to be recorded and monitored, applying effects whilst monitoring but not recording the effects...
Reaper - create four tracks. Oh, they're all stereo. Uh, how do I get them Mono again? Ungh... Track channels is a multiple of 2... No, that's not it! It's defaulted them all to MONO... fine, now just select the inputs for each track. And turn monitoring on.
MU.LAB - right-click record set up... Mmmff. Right, I see. It's not comfortable is it? If I didn't know how to do it (having been lost the first time), I'd think I was doing something wrong.
If I say "Record from: Audio Input", I want to be able to specify how many audio ins there and then. Currently, without dropping into the MSA, I'm stuck with mono or stereo at this point. If I say four inputs and single channel recording, I should get four output audio parts. (And I should be able to pick the inputs using a similar multi-selector as is used to enable inputs.) (Stereo can require appropriate adjacent pairs of inputs.)
This approach would still work in the MSA -- the Audio File Recorder simply has the number of inputs as a selectable item. If in mono mode, it has one output per input; if in stereo mode, it has one output per pair of inputs. It creates one part per output.
That is, if it's possible to have the Audio File Recorder have the inputs and outputs variable like this...
--
Just to add -- I don't think it should be necessary for anyone recording a four piece band to have to drop into the MSA to set up the recording. Yes, I know it only needs to be done once. But it's such a basic operation, I believe it warrants the additional User Interface support.
Underlying it is still a similar set up being generated "behind the scenes" in the MSA to what happens now. It's just the components used need to be a little more flexible or maybe just used in a more flexible manner. (Thinking about it, you could use the existing Audio File Recorder but automatically create as many as needed.)
So if I want to set up four (mono) inputs to be recorded and monitored, applying effects whilst monitoring but not recording the effects...
Reaper - create four tracks. Oh, they're all stereo. Uh, how do I get them Mono again? Ungh... Track channels is a multiple of 2... No, that's not it! It's defaulted them all to MONO... fine, now just select the inputs for each track. And turn monitoring on.
MU.LAB - right-click record set up... Mmmff. Right, I see. It's not comfortable is it? If I didn't know how to do it (having been lost the first time), I'd think I was doing something wrong.
If I say "Record from: Audio Input", I want to be able to specify how many audio ins there and then. Currently, without dropping into the MSA, I'm stuck with mono or stereo at this point. If I say four inputs and single channel recording, I should get four output audio parts. (And I should be able to pick the inputs using a similar multi-selector as is used to enable inputs.) (Stereo can require appropriate adjacent pairs of inputs.)
This approach would still work in the MSA -- the Audio File Recorder simply has the number of inputs as a selectable item. If in mono mode, it has one output per input; if in stereo mode, it has one output per pair of inputs. It creates one part per output.
That is, if it's possible to have the Audio File Recorder have the inputs and outputs variable like this...
--
Just to add -- I don't think it should be necessary for anyone recording a four piece band to have to drop into the MSA to set up the recording. Yes, I know it only needs to be done once. But it's such a basic operation, I believe it warrants the additional User Interface support.
Underlying it is still a similar set up being generated "behind the scenes" in the MSA to what happens now. It's just the components used need to be a little more flexible or maybe just used in a more flexible manner. (Thinking about it, you could use the existing Audio File Recorder but automatically create as many as needed.)
-
- KVRian
- 731 posts since 25 Oct, 2008 from Holland
i am talking here about a "workflow" improvement
If it possible to improve the input and output monitoring and let this show up also in the composerscreen than the audio recordingprocess can be made more intuitive
That's my idea and the MSA is still providing the setup information
So it is a both worlds story.. a win win situation
If it possible to improve the input and output monitoring and let this show up also in the composerscreen than the audio recordingprocess can be made more intuitive
That's my idea and the MSA is still providing the setup information
So it is a both worlds story.. a win win situation
-
- KVRAF
- 2938 posts since 18 Jul, 2005
Yes, a slower way in these respects.liquidsound wrote:Flexibility is Power but it can become a little confusing to newcomers.
I do no see an extreme complex system in Mu.LAb but a DIFFERENT way of doing the same thing that's done in other DAWs.
That doesn't solve the amount of work the user has to do though. It's maybe 4x more steps for the simple example above of changing monitoring status for two tracks.liquidsound wrote:The solution is to just write a very detailed manual or tutorials on the upcoming problem subjects.
I agree it's easier, but is it better? The current way is slower. Current audio recording hides important info (monitoring/recording status) away from the main screen. It's also more confusing to newcomers, as you say. Those are deficiencies in the workflow. You've then gotta ask, what are the advantages that offset these flaws? Where is this flexibility?liquidsound wrote:It is easier than modify Mu.Lab every time there is a road block based on lack of understanding the "Mu.Lab way" RATHER than a real deficiency in the WorkFlow which I understand it could require Jo to adjust the application.
And the only thing I can really see is MuLab's excellent flexibility with part audio destinations -- which at least it seems many of us here on KVR and like and use a lot. And this is something Jo has said could be preserved.
Also, I agree with PlJones -- the SMA is not an ideal primary method for setting up multi-track recording.
Jan: Yes, I agree those things would help.
-
- KVRian
- 731 posts since 25 Oct, 2008 from Holland
For me is the most user friendly way for a new user who uses Mulab for the first time that he can make a audiotrack in the composerscreen and it shows also the monitoring of the input and outputrobenestobenz wrote:Yes, a slower way in these respects.liquidsound wrote:Flexibility is Power but it can become a little confusing to newcomers.
I do no see an extreme complex system in Mu.LAb but a DIFFERENT way of doing the same thing that's done in other DAWs.That doesn't solve the amount of work the user has to do though. It's maybe 4x more steps for the simple example above of changing monitoring status for two tracks.liquidsound wrote:The solution is to just write a very detailed manual or tutorials on the upcoming problem subjects.I agree it's easier, but is it better? The current way is slower. Current audio recording hides important info (monitoring/recording status) away from the main screen. It's also more confusing to newcomers, as you say. Those are deficiencies in the workflow. You've then gotta ask, what are the advantages that offset these flaws? Where is this flexibility?liquidsound wrote:It is easier than modify Mu.Lab every time there is a road block based on lack of understanding the "Mu.Lab way" RATHER than a real deficiency in the WorkFlow which I understand it could require Jo to adjust the application.
And the only thing I can really see is MuLab's excellent flexibility with part audio destinations -- which at least it seems many of us here on KVR and like and use a lot. And this is something Jo has said could be preserved.
Also, I agree with PlJones -- the SMA is not an ideal primary method for setting up multi-track recording.
Jan: Yes, I agree those things would help.
So Jo must this figure out ....
-
- KVRAF
- 5005 posts since 30 May, 2006 from Hollow Earth
This is where I think (as I wrote in another post) Setup Templates could help anyone.
There may be many variations but at least the basic should be there. I do not use audio, so for me it's much easier to work with Mu.Lab as is but I understand that there is room for progressive improvement and we are lucky to have these issue now, coming from new users.
My concern was the usual personal needs that are different from the overall character of the application if that's the case.
It is very easy to get into a rabbit hole to simplify something and loose the top view of the Mu.Lab scope and principles.
Again, this audio setup issue seems to be animated enough to deserve a real look at it.
I would rather wait for an real integration solution into Mu.Lab vision then a quick one just to melt down the tip of the iceberg...
There may be many variations but at least the basic should be there. I do not use audio, so for me it's much easier to work with Mu.Lab as is but I understand that there is room for progressive improvement and we are lucky to have these issue now, coming from new users.
My concern was the usual personal needs that are different from the overall character of the application if that's the case.
It is very easy to get into a rabbit hole to simplify something and loose the top view of the Mu.Lab scope and principles.
Again, this audio setup issue seems to be animated enough to deserve a real look at it.
I would rather wait for an real integration solution into Mu.Lab vision then a quick one just to melt down the tip of the iceberg...
MuLab-Reaper of course
- KVRian
- 1233 posts since 29 Dec, 2008 from Lithuania
Setup templates would be an awesome solution. I was very glad to see this idea.
However, because users might have different soundcards and each have to be configured and then each sound recorder have to be configured too, this is maybe also not user friendly.
The easier thing would be maybe a "audio track" and from it's menu (right click) you can choose from what device to record.
That's a bit too Cool Edit/ Adobe Audition but seems more user friendly.
Again I say, if Mu.Lab loose it's "flavor" and uniqueness, the DAW world will be a boring place.
However, because users might have different soundcards and each have to be configured and then each sound recorder have to be configured too, this is maybe also not user friendly.
The easier thing would be maybe a "audio track" and from it's menu (right click) you can choose from what device to record.
That's a bit too Cool Edit/ Adobe Audition but seems more user friendly.
Again I say, if Mu.Lab loose it's "flavor" and uniqueness, the DAW world will be a boring place.
- KVRAF
- 12689 posts since 24 Jun, 2008 from Europe
What about this improvement:
(draft graphical mockup)
This would keep the current system, but everything can be done from within the Audio Recording Setup Panel.
Audio recorders can be added, deleted, changed on the fly.
Single and multi-track recording can be handled in the same way.
The 'Options' menu may contain a "Record Mono From Input 1" and "Record Stereo From Inputs 1+2". (or it we could go for 'templates that can be opened/saved, though i will give more priority to what's said in http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=290626)
The 'Options' menu will also contain a "Open Session Modular Area".
I've also been thinking that the 'Num Channels' may also be set to 'Auto'. In this case recordings will be stereo by default, but if you're recording from Audio Input and it's about a mono Audio Input, then the recording will be mono. Of course you can always overwrite this 'Auto' mode and set it explicitly to 1 or 2 channels.
I think this new type of Audio Recording Setup Panel will have these benefits:
* Much less need for clicking
* Better overview, see everything in a glance
* No need for SMA, making it much more simple for newbies (in fact for everyone)
* Technically quite easy to implement without the need for heavy reworks
Would this improvement make the audio recording setup equally easy to a traditional track-based audio recording setup?
Curious for your thoughts.
(draft graphical mockup)
This would keep the current system, but everything can be done from within the Audio Recording Setup Panel.
Audio recorders can be added, deleted, changed on the fly.
Single and multi-track recording can be handled in the same way.
The 'Options' menu may contain a "Record Mono From Input 1" and "Record Stereo From Inputs 1+2". (or it we could go for 'templates that can be opened/saved, though i will give more priority to what's said in http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=290626)
The 'Options' menu will also contain a "Open Session Modular Area".
I've also been thinking that the 'Num Channels' may also be set to 'Auto'. In this case recordings will be stereo by default, but if you're recording from Audio Input and it's about a mono Audio Input, then the recording will be mono. Of course you can always overwrite this 'Auto' mode and set it explicitly to 1 or 2 channels.
I think this new type of Audio Recording Setup Panel will have these benefits:
* Much less need for clicking
* Better overview, see everything in a glance
* No need for SMA, making it much more simple for newbies (in fact for everyone)
* Technically quite easy to implement without the need for heavy reworks
Would this improvement make the audio recording setup equally easy to a traditional track-based audio recording setup?
Curious for your thoughts.
-
TheGuysanIdiot TheGuysanIdiot https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=213066
- KVRist
- 308 posts since 10 Aug, 2009 from United Kingdom
Looks good.
OZ
OZ
-
- KVRist
- 358 posts since 5 Aug, 2006 from St. Louis
-
- KVRian
- 731 posts since 25 Oct, 2008 from Holland
looks good for the input and output management for the audiotracksmutools wrote:What about this improvement:
BUT ..i like to see in the composerscreen also the audiotracks that the new user not can be set on the wrong leg : where are the audio tracks located in the composerscreen ?
OR you must give a warning that the audiochannels are made after the recording process and that there are no audiochannels to be seen before recording them
The recording options panel is for that a good place too
A new user must always setup the recording options ..so it can miss
The best solution is a that Mulab opens with a audiotrack already there and with input and output to choose
The user can add later more audiotracks
Last edited by janamdo on Thu Jul 15, 2010 1:29 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
- KVRAF
- 2938 posts since 18 Jul, 2005
Not equally easy, because stuff is still a screen away from the main screen, but this would be loads faster to use and more clear than the current setup. And less work to implement than the alternatives discussed as you say.