One thing that might be done better is the way windows open when editing a patch. Sometimes there are four levels and for everything you click, some window pops up somewhere on the screen, some even almost off the screen for whatever reason. And since those windows all look similar and are often one in front of the other, it can be a bit confusing.
(I know it is just a matter of taste, but still, the gray background of those MUX windows looks ugly in my view. Reminds me of LabVIEW, which I used to play around with years ago )

Since there is no Rhodes piano, I created a multi-sample based on 6 E notes I found on one of those sample sites. On the site those 10 second notes sound perfect, but in the sampler there is a disturbing noise, which increases as the sound level decreases. Is that normal? Maybe I did something the wrong way, I am new to this sampling thing

As far as recording, I find it not very intuitive that a double click on the beginning or end of a segment deletes that segment.

On the positive side, I tested several renowned and recommended synth modules yesterday (some of which cost several hundred dollars) and none of them produces the warm pads and strings I programmed in cheap little Mulab Since I am not into extreme digital sounds, I feel like I can do everything I need right there in Mulab The only problem remaining is the CPU load

Since someone mentioned Mulab 5 already, will my Mulab 4 license be valid for that to?

I'm not sure if i've got this right, but, is the MUX the same sort of thing as NI Reaktor? Where you can literally create your own instruments/fx? I'd like to create a similar thing to an electribe ER-1, EA-1 and ESX-1 all combined into one groovebox. Is that currently feasible or even a possibility of creating stuff like that in future MUX versions?

It is already possible with the current MUX
Take a look at the VA MuDrum patches, it's pretty much what you're talking about.
If you want to build drum synths with MUX, just remember to set a fixed phase start for the oscillators (instead of the default random phase start), so that you get a percussive (... and musical) clip attack, or a soft attack, but not a random one .

As for synths, you can do pretty much anything you can imagine except FM synthesis that will come in a future i guess.
Take a look at Trancit's Silencio synth, that shows a very advanced synth done with MUX.

In my very humble opinion, sound wise MUX is superior to reaktor, also much more user friendly and noob accesable. But Reaktor is more deep right now, with much more possibilities, like mod matrix, sequencers, more customizable PEs etc...

In resume, reaktor is an already grown over the years platform, while MUX is just a child compared to it. But i remark, that sound quality wise MUX is superior IMHO, and it's just a matter of time that it adds more and more features that will make it a very serious alternative to NI Reaktor or even synth edit and such.

Thanks for the info. The main thing I want to emulate though isn't so much sound but the sequencer. I'd like, for example, to have the same seq as an ESX-1 where each drum/synth part can, like the current MuDevices, add any VST/sample and is easily selectable from one instrument

I wonder if it's possible to build:
1 - IR reverb
2 - a round robin in the sampler (a randomizer that trigger a different multisampler?)

Do others agree with this?

What about this:


Last edited by mutools on Tue Jun 12, 2012 12:12 pm; edited 1 time in total

Not yet.



Not yet, but this should not be too difficult to implement. It's on the wishlist.

Thanks for reporting!

Nice!

Does Mulab not give themes? There you would have the option to change backgrounds and other elements.

What do you figure this VST will cost? I am thinking the low figure would be around $45.00, high would be around $70.00. Is this about right?
Last edited by Caps on Tue Jun 12, 2012 12:58 pm; edited 1 time in total

I think the most important thing is can you see the modules on the background... which you certainly can in all of them. The Grid makes sense if the modules "snap" to the grid lines making it easier to organize and or align elements. Otherwise not necessary, maybe? I'm liking the overall design of things, but I'm coming from Logic which is well, a lotta grey! Ha! I can live with Cubase blue also... really it's about functionality. Can you do what you're supposed to with the visual design. Yes. Considering how far MuLab has come, the overall UI is very well done. My .02

Given that the complete Mulab DAW costs 75 € (~ $93), it would be too high to expect $70 for the MUX VST alone.

A price between $30 and $50 would be appropriate...

Plus, IMO there should be an (reduced) introductory price...

i have a crazy idea:

make auxiliary input/output 'patch point plugins' that deliver either audio or midi to/from a single mux vst instance and allow you place them 'wherever' in the host daw... with the purpose of getting around host limitations AND providing unprecedented flexibility in terms of side chaining capability, output etc...

Yeah, so crazy, I think that would b e quite liberating. Do not know of anyone else having an idea like this.

This idea demonstrates the limitations of VST technology. VST API limits how the plugin will integrate. You are not able to use one GUI, each VST has its own GUI /rules and you can easily loose a VST setting.

One problem for the host is that every VST I/O has to be serviced: there's no concept of "not currently in use", as far as I remember. It's why Kontakt, for example, comes with plugins with different numbers of outputs, so you can pick one with enough but not too many. Otherwise it's wasting CPU resources.

I'd agree with enabling side-chaining by having at least one extra stereo pair input. Number of outputs, well, personally I've never used more than an single pair but I can imagine needing up to 16 primary pairs (one per MIDI channel ) plus a number of aux outs for effects busses inside the MUX I want to keep separate for mixing in the host...