Question concerning front panel design
-
- KVRist
- Topic Starter
- 125 posts since 14 Dec, 2010
Hi everybody,
Two questions on front panel design:
1. I'm considering to add some additional controllers to some front panels of factory presets.
But what will happen when I install a future release of the Mux? Normally the complete Mux VST-folder of the old version will then be changed to the new Mux VST-folder. I assume that the changed factory presets must be saved and then copied to the installation folder of the new folder to keep my changes, right? Hopefully the preset files stay compatible to the new version.
2. Since the stored files are always preset files - What if there are a couple of sound patches stored that where made with the same synth creation. Then it's not possible to change the front panel of all these presets at the same time. It would be nice if there was a way to save the synth creation seperately from the presets so that a change in front panel design would affect all presets created with that synth.
Two questions on front panel design:
1. I'm considering to add some additional controllers to some front panels of factory presets.
But what will happen when I install a future release of the Mux? Normally the complete Mux VST-folder of the old version will then be changed to the new Mux VST-folder. I assume that the changed factory presets must be saved and then copied to the installation folder of the new folder to keep my changes, right? Hopefully the preset files stay compatible to the new version.
2. Since the stored files are always preset files - What if there are a couple of sound patches stored that where made with the same synth creation. Then it's not possible to change the front panel of all these presets at the same time. It would be nice if there was a way to save the synth creation seperately from the presets so that a change in front panel design would affect all presets created with that synth.
- KVRAF
- 12689 posts since 24 Jun, 2008 from Europe
That's why you best store them in your user folder. Then upon installing a new version, put that new version in a separate folder then copy over the user folder. That way you have the new version with all new app-related files (in the "App" sub-folder) but have preserved your user folder. Also see http://www.mutools.com/info/docs/mulab/ ... ation.htmlDIGIFEX wrote:Two questions on front panel design:
1. I'm considering to add some additional controllers to some front panels of factory presets.
But what will happen when I install a future release of the Mux? Normally the complete Mux VST-folder of the old version will then be changed to the new Mux VST-folder. I assume that the changed factory presets must be saved and then copied to the installation folder of the new folder to keep my changes, right?
Yes.Hopefully the preset files stay compatible to the new version.
Well MUX' concept is essentially differerent than the traditional approach you describe. In fact each MUX patch is a synth/effect on its own. The big advantage of that is that you're not "boxed" = limited to a certain synth/effect design, but each and every MUX patch is totally flexible! Without having to worry about dependencies.2. Since the stored files are always preset files - What if there are a couple of sound patches stored that where made with the same synth creation. Then it's not possible to change the front panel of all these presets at the same time. It would be nice if there was a way to save the synth creation seperately from the presets so that a change in front panel design would affect all presets created with that synth.
- KVRAF
- 7124 posts since 8 Feb, 2003 from London, UK
I have my user folder completely separate from my MuLab folder -- as it's shared between my MuLab and MuX installations.
The only real "dependencies" are where actual MuTools "Devices" and "Modules" change behaviour but Jo's good about flagging that up in advance - and generally the new version "knows" how to open the old version and make it sound as close as possible to what it did as it can.
(I'd guess a redesign on something like the MultiForm Oscillator might need some careful thought to get the backward compatibility working. Most of the others are pretty straightforward though.)
The only real "dependencies" are where actual MuTools "Devices" and "Modules" change behaviour but Jo's good about flagging that up in advance - and generally the new version "knows" how to open the old version and make it sound as close as possible to what it did as it can.
(I'd guess a redesign on something like the MultiForm Oscillator might need some careful thought to get the backward compatibility working. Most of the others are pretty straightforward though.)
-
- KVRist
- Topic Starter
- 125 posts since 14 Dec, 2010
Well, in the end it's a matter of workflow and by using the Mux I may have to rethink my personal workflow.
Usually, when I have a special sound in mind that I want to achieve, I start thinking which of my synth machines could be able to do that. Then I open a synth plugin and browse for presets to see if anything comes close to what I want. And if I find any presets that come close, I may change them to my taste. (I usually don't start a synth preset from scratch because my programming skills aren't that great.)
When using the Mux you could first browse any presets you like and if anything comes close to whta you want, you can even change the synth structure if simple knob tweaking doesn't do the job.
In fact the Mux concept is very special and it takes some time getting used to it.
Usually, when I have a special sound in mind that I want to achieve, I start thinking which of my synth machines could be able to do that. Then I open a synth plugin and browse for presets to see if anything comes close to what I want. And if I find any presets that come close, I may change them to my taste. (I usually don't start a synth preset from scratch because my programming skills aren't that great.)
When using the Mux you could first browse any presets you like and if anything comes close to whta you want, you can even change the synth structure if simple knob tweaking doesn't do the job.
In fact the Mux concept is very special and it takes some time getting used to it.
- KVRAF
- 12689 posts since 24 Jun, 2008 from Europe
Well in MUX it's only 1 step: Browse for a preset that comes close to what you want. So 1 step less, which is an advantage i think.DIGIFEX wrote:Usually, when I have a special sound in mind that I want to achieve, I start thinking which of my synth machines could be able to do that. Then I open a synth plugin and browse for presets to see if anything comes close to what I want. And if I find any presets that come close, I may change them to my taste.
And another advantage is that with pre-boxed synth/effect concepts you will be limited when tweaking that preset. With MUX you know you will always have the full modular power under your control, if you need it.
-
- KVRist
- Topic Starter
- 125 posts since 14 Dec, 2010
You're not a marketing guru -aren't you? If you were, you had put a workflow comparison on your MUX website. Showing how people usually work (in fact it's the way we all were working in the 80's or 90's when it was hardware synths we were using) and then showing how we can work with the MUX nowadays (by having a sound in mind first, not a machine).
Isn't it funny: Even nowadays when I'm listening to electronic music I sometimes think "aah, this is a Waldorf playing" or "oh yes, this is a Yamaha DX 7". This may be because you simply identify certain sounds with a special hardware instrument.
But while this was OK in the past - because we could choose only between a small number of synths - nowadays it often annoys me that I have more than 20 synth plugins for any task but it takes too much time to open them all and browse through the preset lists. I want to make music - not spend my time looking for the right instrument. The massive amounts of plugins are counter productive.
By the way: Did you know that french developer "Big Tick" some time ago had released a preset browser that was able to browse presets crossover from a bunch of synth plugins? Not a bad idea, but it would be better if one machine could deliver most of the sounds of course. The Big Tick plugin wasn't too successful because they couldn't integrate all these synths that were released during the last years - a support problem.
Isn't it funny: Even nowadays when I'm listening to electronic music I sometimes think "aah, this is a Waldorf playing" or "oh yes, this is a Yamaha DX 7". This may be because you simply identify certain sounds with a special hardware instrument.
But while this was OK in the past - because we could choose only between a small number of synths - nowadays it often annoys me that I have more than 20 synth plugins for any task but it takes too much time to open them all and browse through the preset lists. I want to make music - not spend my time looking for the right instrument. The massive amounts of plugins are counter productive.
By the way: Did you know that french developer "Big Tick" some time ago had released a preset browser that was able to browse presets crossover from a bunch of synth plugins? Not a bad idea, but it would be better if one machine could deliver most of the sounds of course. The Big Tick plugin wasn't too successful because they couldn't integrate all these synths that were released during the last years - a support problem.
- KVRAF
- 4756 posts since 25 Jan, 2014 from The End of The World as We Knowit
Unclear on your analogy. After developing Zen, Big Tick designed the Alchemy browser and then the new Akai Advance controller software integration.
Are you saying that you believe most people don't start with a 'musical idea' but with a plugin they want to use? Or they buy too much?
Do you think the MuLab videos communicate workflow well?
Are you saying that you believe most people don't start with a 'musical idea' but with a plugin they want to use? Or they buy too much?
Do you think the MuLab videos communicate workflow well?
d o n 't
w a n t
m o r e
w a n t
m o r e
- KVRAF
- 7124 posts since 8 Feb, 2003 from London, UK
Personally, I don't think videos communicate well. They require too much concentration and they're always at the pace of the presenter, rather than the important person -- the viewer. The delivery method is simply wrong where the aim is to give the viewer easy access to information.Michael L wrote:Do you think the MuLab videos communicate workflow well?
- KVRAF
- 12689 posts since 24 Jun, 2008 from Europe
I'm afraid i'm the opposite, which is not good for business.DIGIFEX wrote:You're not a marketing guru -aren't you?
Yes i recognize the feeling.Isn't it funny: Even nowadays when I'm listening to electronic music I sometimes think "aah, this is a Waldorf playing" or "oh yes, this is a Yamaha DX 7". This may be because you simply identify certain sounds with a special hardware instrument.
I agree and they're too isolated from eachother.But while this was OK in the past - because we could choose only between a small number of synths - nowadays it often annoys me that I have more than 20 synth plugins for any task but it takes too much time to open them all and browse through the preset lists. I want to make music - not spend my time looking for the right instrument. The massive amounts of plugins are counter productive.
- KVRAF
- 12689 posts since 24 Jun, 2008 from Europe
I think videos are a good way for tutorials cause the are easy to play, rewind, forward, they combine video and sound, and show the real thing in practice. I think the majority of people prefer watching a tutorial movie than to read (pdf) text. Is that a wrong supposition? What alternative way (that suits the majority) do you have in mind?pljones wrote:Personally, I don't think videos communicate well. They require too much concentration and they're always at the pace of the presenter, rather than the important person -- the viewer. The delivery method is simply wrong where the aim is to give the viewer easy access to information.Michael L wrote:Do you think the MuLab videos communicate workflow well?
- KVRAF
- 7124 posts since 8 Feb, 2003 from London, UK
I've seen some online presentations where each step is a very short video clip accompanied by voice with written instructions along side. You can set them to step forward automatically or to require manual "step" instruction. They're probably the nicest ways I've seen. Don't remember the names of the websites but there's a few.
The thing with a video stream is that it's playing and, if it's a tutorial, not only are you trying to view the video but you're trying to control some possibly unfamiliar software at the same time. You keep having to fight with both the video player and the software and will likely miss any need to pause the video until "too late" and then get distracted from the software by having to adjust the video stream, ruining the learning.
The thing with a video stream is that it's playing and, if it's a tutorial, not only are you trying to view the video but you're trying to control some possibly unfamiliar software at the same time. You keep having to fight with both the video player and the software and will likely miss any need to pause the video until "too late" and then get distracted from the software by having to adjust the video stream, ruining the learning.
- KVRAF
- 4756 posts since 25 Jan, 2014 from The End of The World as We Knowit
I have not seen the 'step' videos but I also learn best with a mix of video/ audio/ text. My personal favourites are Dan Worrall's Alchemy videos. He is slow and clear, uses classic 'teacher' methods (this is what I am going to do, what I am doing, what I just did), he points to the text on each control while he talks about it, and enlarges each section of the synth when needed. He did a set of eleven 7-10 min tuts that cover the basic skills (I have the set). I agree there is a BIG difference between video tutorials, and it would be good to take elements from the best.pljones wrote:I've seen some online presentations where each step is a very short video clip accompanied by voice with written instructions along side.
d o n 't
w a n t
m o r e
w a n t
m o r e
-
- KVRist
- Topic Starter
- 125 posts since 14 Dec, 2010
Since we are getting a little off topic here, let me suggest to make a sticky thread "Video tutorial suggestions". This is an important issue and I feel there is lots of room for improvement in the current MUX videos.
I'd like to contribute some general thoughts on good practices in e-learning that are relevant for graphical user interfaces like software synths well.
What do you think?
I'd like to contribute some general thoughts on good practices in e-learning that are relevant for graphical user interfaces like software synths well.
What do you think?
- KVRAF
- 12689 posts since 24 Jun, 2008 from Europe