mux patches

[pljones]

I think embedding is useful for "no install" situations - one file, drop into user folder, done. With linking, to upload a single file, you have to archive it. That means you have to provide installation instructions to the consumer of the file. That, in turn, means more support queries, less inclination to provide the patch and hence fewer people pushing MUX. So, I think having the embedded option is pretty important.

[mutools]

I understand your point. Now reasoning further on that:

I think embedding is useful for "no install" situations - one file, drop into user folder, done.

The single file "no install" case would still continue for all MUX presets that don't use external files. So we're talking about a specific case: MUX presets that use custom samples.

With linking, to upload a single file, you have to archive it.

Yes "Export Consolidated Preset" is an action, but only an easy single action. Now you have to embed samples, which takes multiple action clicks. I think using a "Export Consolidated Preset" will mean less work and less complexity for the preset creator. Also: currently when you would embed samples just for saving a preset, then they're embedded for the project as well, it would take action to return them to linked state. Far from ideal. With the pure linking solution, the links would stay as is as the "Export Consolidated Preset" function will use temporary copies to export it with the samples in a sub-folder of the preset.

That means you have to provide installation instructions to the consumer of the file. That, in turn, means more support queries, less inclination to provide the patch and hence fewer people pushing MUX. So, I think having the embedded option is pretty important.

True point. Now if it would really prove to be too complex for users to extract such zipped mux preset before using it (something which often has to be done now to, eg when sharing presets via Kvr) then i could add zip file support. Would be a benefit for creating consolidated projects and presets, and it would make it possible to simply drag-drop a consolidated zip onto MuLab/MUX. Yes it means extra work for me, that's a short term penalty. But it is a more OO solution than the current embedding samples solution. And so on the long run adding zip file support may be a win for other cases too. Another disadvantage of embedding samples is the extra bit of complexity both from code-side as from user-side. And an embedded sample cannot be edited externally. I may sound biased. But dropping the 'embed sample' feature is something that has been around for a longer time.

The above still is theoretical reasoning. I'll certainly will give it some more reflection time. Thx for your interesting feedback pljones.

[Michael L]

My theoretical 2 cents. In OSX I edit custom samples outside of MuLab and must keep them organised in one place, so linked files works for me. However, to improve link navigation it would be good if the Browser showed more file data in the directory structure such as size and date, and allowed adding custom categories to the "What." Perhaps it can do that now I just don't know it?

[mutools]

...and allowed adding custom categories to the "What."

How do you mean custom categories?

[Michael L]

How do you mean custom categories?

Sorry, not clear. I meant being able to add sample folders, or to show 'most recent,' both in order to speed up navigation.

[mutools]

You can add sample folders using the browser presets. Browser presets are a combination of What + Where + Which. And on top of that, the Where field also always shows any favorite folders you have stored in the general popup file browser.

[Taron]

Ah, yeah, that's fine by me, as long as I'm aware of it. I lost one curiously freaky choir, because I was sure it would embed grains like waveforms automatically. Inconsistency is a dangerous thing there, you know. Go for it, do everything linked only, why not, consistency will make Mux feel more serious again, too.

"fascinating trouble" has nothing to do with mulab. It's listening and scouring carefully, nay painstakingly, each choir sample for the most ideal moment, judging zero crossings for the proper nature of the sound, visually and audibly. Then trimming it, making a marker and move on to the next. Then making sure the subsequent waves all have enough in common with each other so that blending will sound fairly natural. Then at the end assembling them all into one wavetable waveform doing a procedure like: pick file 01, copy, pick wavetable, (use elegantly crafted paste macro to make sure markers line up nicely), pick file 02, copy, pick waveta....... pick file 18, copy, .....
At some point I tried one with 48 grains and that was nasty work. It sounded super fun, but that was the one I lost, actually, haha, but it didn't sound real.
The last one, though, it sounds pretty freaking wild for an 18kb wavetable!

I'll post in a moment.
Thanks for getting back to me on that, though!

[Taron]

Alright, here's a first version of my wavetable madness Choir...(prototype without proper front panel!)

Choir v2.1
(made with MuLab v6.4.22)

Category: voices
Range: d#1 - a4 is ideal
Special: besides the range, pitch bending and vibrato go through wavetable

Idea behind it:
Like with "Diana", this is my next approach at creating and using wavetables, trying to map them adequately. It's no small task trying to preserve the tonal qualities of voices, but with some practice this may well get very exciting.

Story behind it:
Over 20 years ago I was crazy about sampling CDs, but they were pretty expensive for me then. When I bought the "Classical Choirs" CD, I remember how amazingly excited I was. So, some 10 or so years ago I dropped some of the major tracks of the CD on my drives and carried those over from computer to computer. Now, over 20 years later, this silly CD still gets me excited for some reason, not like I'm using many choirs in my songs (ever), but to reproduce the human voice is really entertaining and it's elating to play with them, when they sound right.

Dear Jo:
Note to Modulation Conversion improvements as begged for above!

[Michael L]

Thank you for the mad choir v1! Great fun to mod the Wave Index on the MFO with a gentle touch on the pitch bend wheel.

[Taron]

Sweet, thanks, Mike! Yeah, I'm already well into a proper version with integrated effects, too, whereby I'm pretty excited to have created the probably most dry choir sound ever!

I've also altered a few things that give it a certain extra complexity without any extra effort. It'll be a curious patch for sure, considering that it zips up to less than 12kb, hahaha...kinda curious for sure.

If only I could figure out how to get complexity into the men's section. It's tough but great fun!

[Michael L]

FWIW, I added a touch of chorus, low shelf & a multiband eq in a harmonic series for male complexity.

[Taron]

Uh, that sounds neat! I could imagine that it helps a good deal. I speculated on possibly dealing with the rasp by low shelfing it with some modulation, but wasn't sure, if that could sound alive enough.
Don't hold back, if you wanted to post your changes, I'm very curious!

[Michael L]

Sorry, will need to do it later. Its midnite in Australia! My thinking on the harmonic eq is that as the wave peaks (on the scope) changed with notes, the fixed bands would change their relative amplitude & add complexity in a non-random way, without muddying up the sound. A formant-wave LFO might be fun to try...

[runaudio]

great stuff keep it up look forward to more like this thank you

[AndreasD]

Meine Hochachtung!!

Your patches, especially the Choir are absolutely first rate!!
There is a reason why there is a folder called Taron on my system.