MuLab & MUX UI Looks

[mgiambro]

To be honnest it's a big question mark for me too why MuLab & MUX are not getting thru enough to a broader user base. Of course MuLab is not perfect, but the other DAWs aren't either. Checked them out again the last weeks. All DAWs can learn from eachother. But indeed MuLab is too much under the radar, if you compare it to the popular DAWs. Don't know why. Maybe cause i don't have the advertising capital to buy media?

Advertising and marketing for sure. It's always going to be difficult for a small startup to compete. However, I'm going to stick my neck out here, and this is a completely subjective opinion and I know I may well be shot down for it. When I was looking to defect from Cubase, MuLab was near on the last one I demoed. The reason was aspects of the GUI. Having used it, I think it's great and very powerful, but when I first saw it, it just didn't 'look' like a serious tool, almost a novelty music tool and a bit dated. From a usability point of view, it's great, but from a sales point of view, I think the look is crucial in order to get people to demo it in the first place. Of course existing mulabers don't care, but you've already got them. Imo, if MuLab looked like an Apple product, more people would demo it and subsequently buy it. I sincerely hope I haven't offended you because I know that accessibility and usability is what you are striving for, hence the design. However, like most things now, looks matter more than substance. I'm not suggesting a complete overhaul by any means. The cleanness of it is a big plus, it's only subtle things like slicker, less chunky images.

[mutools]

However, I'm going to stick my neck out here, and this is a completely subjective opinion and I know I may well be shot down for it. When I was looking to defect from Cubase, MuLab was near on the last one I demoed. The reason was aspects of the GUI. Having used it, I think it's great and very powerful, but when I first saw it, it just didn't 'look' like a serious tool, almost a novelty music tool and a bit dated.

Which MuLab version was that? M6? Or earlier?

From a usability point of view, it's great, but from a sales point of view, I think the look is crucial in order to get people to demo it in the first place. Of course existing mulabers don't care, but you've already got them. Imo, if MuLab looked like an Apple product, more people would demo it and subsequently buy it. I sincerely hope I haven't offended you

Not at all. I also had a supposition it's related to the looks. That's why invested serious work in the looks with M6, which was a great step forward from M5, imho. But maybe it's still not good enough? What can be improved about the looks?

it's only subtle things like slicker, less chunky images.

Which ones? Eager to improve.

[pljones]

To me, it's a very deep-seated issue with the UI. If MuLab used the standard platform windowing toolkit or something that looked like it - rather than its own implementation based on the low-level operations - it would have more appeal visually as it would look far more like products people were familiar with. As it is, it looks like ... well, and 1990s Java applet or something.

Splitting off the existing GUI and replacing it -- as you saw from the vote -- isn't something existing users care about, particularly. However, it is IMO highly likely to be off-putting to anyone looking at screenshots or running it for the first time. It's going to feel alien and, hence, scary.

Getting a proper survey on something like this is particular tricky as, on this forum, you've got pretty much only people who didn't run away screaming, so to speak.

[mutools]

pljones thanks for your feedback. Some questions:
Do you like Live's UI?
Do you like Bitwig's UI?
Do you like Tracktion's UI?
Do you like Reaper's UI?
Do you like Studio One's UI?
In your opinion, which DAW is looking best? (besides Reason)
Could it be that it is especially MuLab's font that should be improved?

[Michael L]

Getting a proper survey on something like this is particular tricky

I think that is very true. Many people don't know what they want until they see it. Some people think of MuLab as a "modular synth environment" so perhaps look for design cues not only in other DAWs but also in the new 'modular synth environments' like Subatomic Audulus, Max for Cats' OSCiLLOT, Reaktor6, Cycling 74 Max7, Usine Hollyhock, Madrona Aalto, Karma FX Synth Modular, and the design of 'modular' iOS synths like Wolfgang Palm's Wavegenerator and Wavemapper that use the same design for iOS and desktop. Also, Syntorial is a tutorial app with good ideas for managing the modular learning curve.
Compare to the design of previous generation modular environments like Tassman, AudioMulch, Max4Live, Plogue Bidule, SSC Kyma, Pd, & SynthEdit.

on this forum, you've got pretty much only people

like me who are already interested in this stuff and who are not your target market.

[mutools]

so perhaps look for design cues not only in other DAWs but also in the new 'modular synth environments' like Subatomic Audulus, Max for Cats' OSCiLLOT, Reaktor6, Cycling 74 Max7, Usine Hollyhock, Madrona Aalto, Karma FX Synth Modular, and the design of 'modular' iOS synths like Wolfgang Palm's Wavegenerator and Wavemapper that use the same design for iOS and desktop. Also, Syntorial is a tutorial app with good ideas for managing the modular learning curve.
Compare to the design of previous generation modular environments like Tassman, AudioMulch, Max4Live, Plogue Bidule, SSC Kyma, Pd, & SynthEdit.

Michael are you talking about functional design or about the looks? If you're talking about looks then do you see so much difference between MUX and, for example, Oscillot?

[mgiambro]

Which MuLab version was that? M6? Or earlier?

Yes, it was M6. An early version of M6. MUX was still at 5 at that point.

Not at all. I also had a supposition it's related to the looks. That's why invested serious work in the looks with M6, which was a great step forward from M5, imho. But maybe it's still not good enough? What can be improved about the looks?

This will obviously be subjective and I'm certainly no designer, but I'm happy to give my opinion. I think it is more the MUX's aesthetics that I would tweak. Maybe buttons and knobs could be a touch smaller or give an option to set a size ratio in the settings if that's realistic. This may be doable already, but the ability to change some of the colours could make a difference i.e. the grey backgound and the brown borders. More flexibility in skinning it. MuLab, I think looks pretty good, I like the tracking screen, the midi editor and browser. I wasn't sure about the desk at first, but like it now. That's probably not very helpful . Again personal taste, but I'd have the transport bar a bit thinner and again the ability to skin it, colours,size etc would be nice.

it's only subtle things like slicker, less chunky images.

Which ones? Eager to improve.

As mentioned, buttons on the MuLab transport bar and knobs on the MUX panels along with the ability to change some more of the colours.

Not drastic changes by any means. I think with a few tweaks with regard to the size of components, colour skinning options a lot could be achieved. One of the users on here uploaded some nice looks presets a while back. I think with a few more skinning options you could create some very nice looking templates.

[sl23]

The font is a major thing that needs something done. It's more like the sort of font used in programming or consoles and the like. At least that's the impression it gives me. The options list is a serious chore to go through due to the font readability. This affects all aspects of the ui as has already been discussed. This change could possibly be one of the best things to do for mulab at present?!

Also, already discussed, the rest of the interface would benefit from colouring.

Buttons could do with a better look. Don't ask me how though I'm no designer. I just think they look basic. But then so does windows 8/10! But it looks basic to the point of amateurism. Sorry, hope I don't offend, just trying to be honest. When I first saw Luna, it did put me off because of how it looked, as muzys looked more professional I chose to start with that. Mulab hasn't changed graphically all that much since. Perhaps when you get round to it, a suggestion would be to allow users to design skins. But that sort of undermines all the work you did in M6! And it'll probably be a lot of work? But then could that be what mulab needs to appeal to more people? It's a difficult decision to make!

But definitely do something about the font! When I get time I may try to do a little mock up of some graphical pieces to give you ideas, can't tell when that'll be though.

Maybe the lack of a VST bridge could put some off? Yes there's jbridge, but that's extra expense and needs installation, mulab doesn't. I don't know how it works, probably wouldn't or licence would restrict it, but LMMS has a built in bridge. Would it be possible to get permission, donate or purchase rights to add the bridge code/application to mulab? Probably wrong language or something anyway, just a suggestion that would reduce your dev time while adding something existing/potential users may want.

You're doing a fantastic job with mulab, so don't get disheartened, I'm just trying to point out flaws that may put off demoers of mulab.

[sl23]

I also like to have the transport bar in middle like muzys, not because I want a muzys clone, but because it's functionally preferred by me, not sure if others would prefer it though?

Personally, if I had to pick a Daw based on looks alone, I'd probably pick bitwig.

[mgiambro]

To me, it's a very deep-seated issue with the UI. If MuLab used the standard platform windowing toolkit or something that looked like it - rather than its own implementation based on the low-level operations - it would have more appeal visually as it would look far more like products people were familiar with.

I think that's a good point, but I imagine switching to the standard platform windowing toolkit would be a huge amount of work?

As it is, it looks like ... well, and 1990s Java applet or something.

A bit harsh, but I know where you're coming from.

Getting a proper survey on something like this is particular tricky as, on this forum, you've got pretty much only people who didn't run away screaming, so to speak.

Absolutely.

In your opinion, which DAW is looking best? (besides Reason)
Could it be that it is especially MuLab's font that should be improved?

I think I like the look of Logic the best. Ableton has some nice aspects, subtle buttons etc, but the midi editor is a pain (more of a functional aspect). Reaper can look really nice with some work skinning it.

I don't think changing the font would make a huge amount of difference. Maybe I'd have to see it first.

Compare to the design of previous generation modular environments like Tassman, AudioMulch, Max4Live, Plogue Bidule, SSC Kyma, Pd, & SynthEdit.

I was comparing MUX to Bidule this morning. I think with some skinning options in MUX, colours e.t.c. you could achieve a similar look if that's what you wanted.

[SQ4]

Not really a substantial contribution to the "looks"-debate but :
"de gustibus et coloribus non est disputandum"
and fwiw : I like the looks.

[mutools]

I've made a webpage so to easily compare the UIs of Bitwig - MuLab - Reaper - Live - Studio One:

http://www.mutools.com/ui-comparison.html

What i don't understand is that several of you say that MuLab's buttons look dated. At the same time the Bitwig UI is generally praised, which i agree on, i also like BW's general look. But now what i don't see/understand is where is the difference between Bitwig's buttons and MuLab's buttons, they're quite similar, aren't they? Or is it the rounding which makes them look more dated?

Note that i'm not 'defending' MuLab's UI, not at all, i'm just trying to analyse precisely what needs to be improved.

[runaudio]

i like the bitwig and studio one has tool bar the way bitwig has the arrange window and the clip laucher beside each other wish mulab has this in version 7 and the bitwig auto colours the clip in the arrange view like that ableton has its browser on the left hand side it would great if you could snap it to left or right side one more wot i like about bitwig is it has bounce in place

[pljones]

pljones thanks for your feedback. Some questions:
Do you like Live's UI?
Do you like Bitwig's UI?
Do you like Tracktion's UI?
Do you like Reaper's UI?
Do you like Studio One's UI?
In your opinion, which DAW is looking best? (besides Reason)
Could it be that it is especially MuLab's font that should be improved?

I use Reaper - it's basically using Windows' native UI features to display everything but with some custom controls and a GUI scripting language. For example, I didn't like the "Strip Meter Bridge" mixing desk track layout control, so I wrote my own to include the widgets I wanted. That degree of flexibility is nice to have - but it took me eight years to get to the point I could stand the existing layout no more and learn how to change it.

I also use Audacity. Again, pretty much Windows' native UI (it uses a cross-platform UI toolkit) with some custom controls. I don't think there's a GUI scripting language but you can script plugins that get added to the standard menus. Again, it's taken me many years to get around to actually setting up three keyboard shortcuts that save me ages in point-n-clicking time.

The only thing I really find unattractive about MuLab is the outer frame. If that used the standard OS frame, I think it would go a long way to make people feel comfortable. Even if there was then a "full screen" command to get rid of it.

[pljones]

I've made a webpage so to easily compare the UIs of Bitwig - MuLab - Reaper - Live - Studio One:
http://www.mutools.com/ui-comparison.html

To me, Studio One and - more so - Live, look dreadful. I can look at Bitwig and know it's not the tool I'm looking for. Reaper looks simple from that screenshot. MuLab doesn't look too bad but without a standard menu, I'm left thinking "where do I start"? (Usually, File->New - it's not got a File menu, so..?)