Making MuLab More Obvious & Easy

[mutools]

One thing that could be clearer in automation is to Name the parameters after its Midi CC number instead of "Bank select" and "breath controller". The idea is good but i think it would be more clear to have the CC too. I use a lot of hardware and i really like the concept of automation

Yes including the MIDI CC number in the MIDI CC names sounds like a good idea. So what format would be best?

Like this

Code: Select all

000=Bank Select MSB
001=Modulation Wheel
002=Breath Contoller
003=Controller 3
004=Foot Controller
005=Portamento Time
006=Data Entry MSB
007=Volume
008=Balance
009=Controller 9
010=Pan

or

Code: Select all

Bank Select MSB (0)
Modulation Wheel (1)
Breath Contoller (2)
Controller 3
Foot Controller (4)
Portamento Time (5)
Data Entry MSB (6)
Volume (7)
Balance (8)
Controller 9
Pan (10)

or another form..?

[mutools]

I've started to use a multi-timbral VSTi (TX16Wx) and thus add tracks and change midi channel a lot. A request would be so that i could use the righclick/change midi channel, but be able to use the scrollwheel instead of reaching for the numpad.

I don't understand why you need the numpad, it's a popup list from which you can choose the MIDI channel.

If you have a track with a corresponding rack and then pull out the top module (in this case a multi output vsti), the track goes empty.

So i assume the track was connected to the VSTi, not to the rack. Right?

[mutools]

I will take some time to write down my own personal reflections of the experience of getting to know MuLab as a newcomer at first level at version 4. Unfortunately I will not have the time to do this until the beginning of next week and I hope that will be OK.

Hey voidpipe, i'm still looking forward to your mulab reflections. Hope you were not too shocked by that one ugly topic here on the forum. It definitely was an ugly one, i agree, but lets assume it's passed and everyone learned that it doesn't make sense. So hope you'll be back.

[liquidsound]

Please give some concrete examples. What i'm wondering about (technically) is when the user clicks a toolbar button, then to which object should it be applied? In many cases it may be obvious but maybe sometimes not. So that's why i'm asking for concrete examples so to get a better view on what users would actually do with such toolbar(s).

im not referring to the Macros, extension, in Reaper, but more like the ones in Studio One that I find simple and useful.
If you want I'll find some videos about them because explaining it is not as good as seeing them in actions.
Some of them are not applicable here because of different features the two programs have.
Honestly, in MuLab I do not miss the macros in S1 because the workflow is simple and sufficient to my needs but if I had those toolbars I would probably use them for the most common and frequent actions I perform and avoid the context menus.

[> DiGiT <]

I will take some time to write down my own personal reflections of the experience of getting to know MuLab as a newcomer at first level at version 4. Unfortunately I will not have the time to do this until the beginning of next week and I hope that will be OK.

Hey voidpipe, i'm still looking forward to your mulab reflections. Hope you were not too shocked by that one ugly topic here on the forum. It definitely was an ugly one, i agree, but lets assume it's passed and everyone learned that it doesn't make sense. So hope you'll be back.

huh? ugly topic? it wasnt ugly (assuming we are talking about the thread i started) and it really does make sense... what didnt make sense about it? i still feel we need a way to organize windows and navigate mulab. theres nothing ugly about that. the only ugly thing was the way liquidsound jumped in and started trolling because we werent paying attention to him (i think he is a bit jealous that i have a point that he didnt think of first haha)

jo if thats not what you meant then what do you mean?

good thing this post is on topic, since you brought it up.

[jazzdoktorn]

[quote="mutools"][quote="jazzdoktorn"]One thing that could be clearer in automation is to Name the parameters after its Midi CC number instead of "Bank select" and "breath controller". The idea is good but i think it would be more clear to have the CC too. I use a lot of hardware and i really like the concept of automation
[/quote]

Yes including the MIDI CC number in the MIDI CC names sounds like a good idea. So what format would be best?

Like this

[code]000=Bank Select MSB
001=Modulation Wheel
002=Breath Contoller
003=Controller 3
004=Foot Controller
005=Portamento Time
006=Data Entry MSB
007=Volume
008=Balance
009=Controller 9
010=Pan
[/code]

[/quote]

This is the best way i think, theres no way that i can misunderstand that

[sl23]

Like toolbar idea. Personally I much prefer a customizable toolbar than a context menu any day. I would like to see customizable menus too though, any chance of that?

[Crackbaby]

Good idea dr jazz!

[Reincke]

Hi Jo, is there any chance for a change of the "Show Preset Info" dialog as mentioned earlier in this thread:
http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic ... 6e#5133652
JR

[Crackbaby]

I'd like a toolbar, possibly a floating one that you can change the size and shape of (ie a vertical or horizontal line, one row or two, up to a cube etc). Not sure how much work there is to make it customisable so you can decide what buttons to have yourself.

[mutools]

If you want I'll find some videos about them because explaining it is not as good as seeing them in actions.

Yes please, if it's easy to find for you.

but if I had those toolbars I would probably use them for the most common and frequent actions I perform and avoid the context menus.

Still, looking forward to some concrete examples.

[mutools]

huh? ugly topic? it wasnt ugly (assuming we are talking about the thread i started)

It was ugly because of all the ranting there. The FR itself is interesting.

the only ugly thing was the way liquidsound jumped in and started trolling

That's your analysis, but i don't agree.

Anyway, my point is that it was ugly communication and that's also how it was perceived by voidpipe, potentialy pushing him away from this forum, while he seems to be an interesting and experienced user.

Hopefully we all learned something.

i think he is a bit jealous that i have a point that he didnt think of first haha

That's a pure joke, right?

good thing this post is on topic, since you brought it up.

The only reason why i mentioned it in my post to voidpipe is because i'm concerned that such communication degrades this forum. It certainly also costed me a serious portion of nerves and slowed down the M5 R&D during those days. No win at all.

[mutools]

New Session brings up a dialog asking "New Session into..."
From the many posts it seems that very few user use additional sessions.
It could be cleaner to just use the default "This Session" and possibly use a menu command such as "Add Session" when an additional session is needed.

That indeed sounds better. Anyone disagrees?

Ok i've been looking into this and thing is that "New Session" will popup an alert anyway, at least a "Are you sure?" alert. You don't want "New Session" to erase your current session without any warning at all, do you?

So as doing "New Session" will popup an alert anyway, i though it is ok to use the "This Session - Extra Session" alert for that. (that alert should have a cancel button too though). The only alternative i see is that "New Session" would alert "New Session will close this session, OK?" as it was before in M3, and then with a separate menu option "Extra Session" to create an extra session if you need that. But what's the gain of that? Maybe the "New Session will close this session, OK?" is more understandable than the "This Session - Extra Session - Cancel" alert?

For "Open Session" things are more obvious, as it popups a file browser and so you still have a chance to cancel there.

But so what would be the best "New Session" behaviour?

[liquidsound]

New Session brings up a dialog asking "New Session into..."
From the many posts it seems that very few user use additional sessions.
It could be cleaner to just use the default "This Session" and possibly use a menu command such as "Add Session" when an additional session is needed.

That indeed sounds better. Anyone disagrees?

Ok i've been looking into this and thing is that "New Session" will popup an alert anyway, at least a "Are you sure?" alert. You don't want "New Session" to erase your current session without any warning at all, do you?

So as doing "New Session" will popup an alert anyway, i though it is ok to use the "This Session - Extra Session" alert for that. (that alert should have a cancel button too though). The only alternative i see is that "New Session" would alert "New Session will close this session, OK?" as it was before in M3, and then with a separate menu option "Extra Session" to create an extra session if you need that. But what's the gain of that? Maybe the "New Session will close this session, OK?" is more understandable than the "This Session - Extra Session - Cancel" alert?

For "Open Session" things are more obvious, as it popups a file browser and so you still have a chance to cancel there.

But so what would be the best "New Session" behaviour?

I see your point...
If the session is saved and not changes are made then is no harm to just select New Session without warnings (as with the other DAWs) because the work has been saved except the fact that we may loose some Undo.

Also, I never understood the last dialog when quitting asking to save a saved session...

[Crackbaby]

I think a "Do you want to save your current session first?" would be nice. Sometimes i get a feeling that i expect the program to ask me this after i hit "this session" .. that could be dangerous!