MuLab 10

[bungle]

Just read this thread as an outsider looking in (always looking at MuLab/Mux, but not enough to purchase yet)
It feels very strange to me that the one thing people on the outside look at MuLab for is the integrated modular instrument aspect, which is not quite powerful or fully integrated enough yet to drag in more people to purchasing it, but it seems its userbase wants it to be simplified and made more accessible.
Must be a strange line the developer has to follow.

For me personally I would like complete package customisation, so that end users could use the MUX side of things with full UI customisation and menu customisation, then be able to share said customisation as a package, so for instance you could create an entire set up with custom built in Mux effects and synths and UI/Menu mods for a DnB set up, or a House set up etc etc.
Currently Reaper is the closest to this, but lacks the Mux element to it.

[Michael L]

it seems its userbase wants it to be simplified and made more accessible.

Users mostly want the existing workflow and looks to be further refined in certain areas, and add some new features: search.php?st=0&sk=t&sd=d&sr=posts&keyw ... 0&start=30
Users can now share a dozen 'parts' like Mux, racks, and complete GUI settings; a MuProject as a template (e.g House) with custom track colors; or a complete project like the Demos.
There is a MuLib for sharing such: viewtopic.php?t=483718
MuLab is pretty intensely integrated, e.g. composers-inside-composers; or one sample used in many devices and converted into different forms (e.g streamed to sequenced & on) and modularity enables users like me to envision even more!
{with no reaper bloat }

[bungle]

Reaper bloat?
You have lost me with that one, what is Reaper bloat?

[Michael L]

You have lost me with that one

Once you were lost, but now you are found; were blind but now you can see:
https://www.mutools.com/info/M9/docs/index.html

[FSM77]

I started with Cubase in the 90's, then I moved onto Reason in the 00's, then I found MuLab in the 10's and that's the one I'll stick with, whatever version it gets too, because it does everything I need it to do. Frankly I'm too old to learn another DAW anyway.

And yes, we all know it's a work in progress, and it is, perhaps, a "niche DAW" with a hardcore of disciples, but that's exactly why I love it

MuLab for Life

[Tryezz]

Thx again everyone for all your input so far on this interesting topic!
I need some time to process all input and to reflect on this, not only in the details but also on a more abstract level, i mean about the direction MuLab should evolve to.

Anyway, i'd like to take this opportunity to ask every MuLab user for his/her personal top 3 feature request for MuLab. Some of you already did
Then after sufficient time, when everyone has got his/her chance to post his/her top 3, lets see which are the common ones.

Meanwhile i'll continue the planned works on MuLab 9.5.
That's apart from this interesting topic about MuLab's future evolution.

Cheers!

Peace Jo,
I'm finally participating and posting on the forums this time. Just wanted to give props once again and say big thanks for everything that you've done. For everything I'm doing, MuLab is already handling it quite well. So the features listed would only enhance everything even more.

The main 2:
1. The ability to record audio/ability for audio input with MME audio instead of ASIO.
2. Be able to group/ungroup selected sequences on the timeline for easier movement throughout timeline.

And something I think would be cool to see at some point:
3. Have midi-mappable transport controls (play/stop, loop, queue, track bar, etc.) in the browser, a browser audio player of sorts. Or perhaps a built-in audio player module. This could add an extra layer for live performances. Of course, just an idea.

Huge thanks once again for everything.

[pljones]

1. The ability to record audio/ability for audio input with MME audio instead of ASIO.

I'd really like to understand why you think this would be beneficial. You'll be trying to play in real time, listen through Mulab, with massive latency introduced by MME. It really wouldn't be a pleasant experience. There are better alternatives already available for on board audio (JACK+JackRouter, ASIO4All, or VB Audio products) than using MME. I'd rather not have Jo's time wasted on giving users a poor experience of the product and being put off, than have users educated to understand why MME isn't a viable option.

[Tryezz]

1. The ability to record audio/ability for audio input with MME audio instead of ASIO.

I'd really like to understand why you think this would be beneficial. You'll be trying to play in real time, listen through Mulab, with massive latency introduced by MME. It really wouldn't be a pleasant experience. There are better alternatives already available for on board audio (JACK+JackRouter, ASIO4All, or VB Audio products) than using MME. I'd rather not have Jo's time wasted on giving users a poor experience of the product and being put off, than have users educated to understand why MME isn't a viable option.

I thought it would be nice to have this added option to be available "right out the box", per-say, since MME is the default driver. It would be built-in, not having to differ to 3rd party programs as with ASIO. I'm sure added latency settings could be added in to allow users to optimize it to be as best possible for them. And...users could still switch and use whichever option they prefer, MME or ASIO.

In my personal experience, MME has been more stable and latency issues weren't that bad (although I've read about the issues). Having used ASIO (ASIO4All) on Windows back in the day, the latency was indeed lower, but I would experience glitches at times. Plus I couldn't use other audio programs while it was in use. Granted, this was years ago since I've used it. I've been on Linux for years now and latency hasn't been bad at all.

Either way, it's no sweat and not a pressing issue. Just an added base idea/feature that could be potentially useful. Respectfully, I don't think that Jo would be wasting his time if he chose to do it, but I understand where you're coming from.

[sl23]

I've been using MME for years and have noticed that the latency has improved drastically. For me, it's barely noticeable. I also tried ASIO4ALL and gave up on it for the same reason.

[Michael L]

I posted a download for drag & drop midi chords and progressions in this Mutools thread:
viewtopic.php?p=8892752#p8892752

It is clear there are too many choices, so a midi scripting 'MIDIMux' could be a simpler and more rewarding approach in M10 to:

-- sort within the many possible scales and chords, e.g. choose a tonal centre, then add a couple of notes to narrow options to choose a scale and key, write a melodic phrase, add chords, modify chords with inversions etc, and rearrange.

-- start with a melodic phrase and modify it by inverting, rotating, mirroring, etc the melody, then add chords and modify to make theme-and-variations.

-- use key detection to add chords to your melodic phrase, modify by changing chords, change the order, and so on.

There are many midi plugins, but most use 'black-box algorithms' that I find unsatisfying; or workflows are hardwired into the DAW; or midi packs that are like going shopping. I would prefer a stepwise decision-tree approach in a MIDIMux that would have a transparent processed, focused on a specific sequence, responsive with immediate feedback, and hence rewarding.

Because there are so many options at each step (e.g. scales, chords, naming conventions), workflows and different levels of ear training , a flexible midi scripting module would probably be best -- and we can share scripts.