MuLab 10

[oldcastle]

One more UX feature that most of DAWs have and it's a super time saving to have is fades and cross-fades per clip/sequence.

It's already available:
https://www.mutools.com/info/M9/docs/mu ... poser.html
See the "Audio Clips" section.

Ah, but it seems that it works only with audio streams. No MIDIs, is that right?

Now, we have another beginner issue here!

2024-03-15_13-33.png

This feature is a double-edged sword. While advanced users appreciate its power, it can overwhelm newcomers. In Izzy's videos, we observe how other DAWs handle this task effortlessly with a simple drag and drop of audio files. This is the expectation for many users. My suggestion is to consider relocating this feature to the right-click menu for those seeking advanced functionality. Meanwhile, provide a quick and easy method for users who simply want to drop their WAV files into the timeline.

[fde101]

What I want is an option to show the front panel of an embedded MUX onto the front panel of another MUX which contains it.

In other words, instead of adding copies of every single control for every instance of a MUX I might have several copies of, I want to design a smaller sub-panel interface for that MUX once, then show the entire front panel of each copy on the front panel of the containing MUX instead of needing to recreate it for each one.

[sl23]

Only managed to get in 20mins of the first video so far. Really great job you did there Izzy! Anyway not sure if it's been mentioned, or if it really qualifies as workflow. But what about adding things like pitch bend, cutoff sweeps and other automation uses curves or even drawing them in like you can oscillator?

I remember a guy showed me back in 2004 using his daw, might've been cubase, dunno, but he drew some pitch bend curves in and I remember thinking wow! Lol

Is that already on the wish list or videos? Be amazing if we could have that.

[dakkra]

Hey Izzy, let's flip this: In your experience, what type of user is MuLab the very best DAW for?

For me personally there were two things that drove me to Mulab back in M4 and kept me using Mulab as my primary through M7:
- Cost: Mulabs value has always been insane. A full featured DAW for 100USD. incredible!
- Modular: I can build my audio and event routing how I please.

Now, today there is more competition on these two aspects.
- Cakewalk By Bandlab exists as a freemium full featured DAW
- Bitwig is almost equally as modular (only one composer, but everything else is modular) but has a more (IMO) ergonomic workflow.

That being said, Mulab is the only DAW that merges both modularity AND low cost. Making it great for beginners (all features, low price) and professionals (modular workflow) assuming folks can get past the... well UI/UX impediments that Mulab currently has.

Mulab has remained a part of my process since M4, and I don't plan on removing it. I simply wish for it to improve I'm not trying to downplay it. I even recently made an electro track with Mulab and a single ecosystem of plugins (what I expect most professionals experience to be like) which while it got the job done, and to what I would call a successful track, it wasn't as pleasant of an experience as I believe it can be.

No DAW is perfect, obviously, but I think Mulab can learn form it's competitors and really refine what it already has, instead of chasing the new features. Let the plugin manufactures do the chasing of new paradigms, and then be compatible with what they need. Instead I'd personally (and this is why I said many folks would disagree with me) like to see Mulab become the best DAW it can be before it continues to invest in the synthesis and FX realm. Plugin creators have far more focus and time to invest in their specific domain, whereas Mulab is a jack of all trades, master of none. I'd like to see Mulab master the DAW, and thus master being a fantastic container (multi-band splitting, standard fx like compression, limiting, eq, chaining, metering) and then have MUX be a starting point (but not the definitive answer to) sound design.

I know I compare Mulab and Bitwig a lot, and some folks are sick of it (including me sometimes), but there are reasons why I chose Bitwig as my primary. Bitwig also has a modular midi/synth/fx area in the form of the Grid. However, that's the the core of Bitwig. It's not Falcon, Avenger, Serum, Zebra, MSoundFactory, Phase Plant, etc... It's enough to get started and provide the essentials for a musician, but ultimately Bitwigs power comes form being a modular container.

Okay I think I've written a long enough essay now. TL;DR Mulab is an inexpensive, full featured DAW that is a modular container. That's where I think it shines.

[Michael L]

Hey Izzy, let's flip this: In your experience, what type of user is MuLab the very best DAW for?

I'd like to see Mulab master the DAW, and thus master being a fantastic container (multi-band splitting, standard fx like compression, limiting, eq, chaining, metering) and then have MUX be a starting point (but not the definitive answer to) sound design.

I have a different vision for MuLab, because I used to be a producer but over years found digital studio "life" less-than-human so became a teacher/mentor of others, and with my own projects.

Thus, I use MuLab to develop and store the motifs I hear without cluttering my mind and muscle memory with the excessive options that typify "pro software."

However, your inspiring videos helped me see "UI/UX impediments" more clearly and how even my "non-pro-workflow" would benefit from changes that smoothify the idea recording process like:

• click and open ready to instantly record midi
• midi buffer of # bars just played
• audio-to-midi OR align audio and midi tracks for transcription
• visual browsing (hover to see that module's front panel)
• click on a module to appear in the focused mux
• modules out/in connect when nearby
• peak analyzer with +/- cents
• user midi scripting modules (e.g. key detection by intervals; rules for melody inversion, rotation, mirroring; key commands for selected chord inversion, 7, add, sus; tempo change).

Thanks for your generous video sharing; I'm just paying it forward.

[FabBad]

My list

• A new compressor with right algorithms would be very welcome

• Pitch manipulation on Audio Sequence

• More pitch automations for audiostream

• audiorate on everything

[Kalamata Kid]

Mulab modular environment, Mux can host third party plugins. A big plus for me.
AFAIK Bitwig grid cannot.

[dakkra]

AFAIK Bitwig grid cannot.

Correct but you can use containers and modulators for BWS. Still just as modular as Mulab. Think of GRID as a PolySynth module in Mulab. Only different is that Bitwig isn't a plugin, whereas Mulab is

[Kalamata Kid]

Not very familiar with Bitwig. Containers and modulators can host third party plugins?

For me that Mulab Plugin can be opened in any DAW is a big plus.

[Kalamata Kid]

My Mulab Plugin Feature requests:
Multitouch capable.
ARA full implementation. If this is so it will be the first plugin that has ARA.
Wish it has many midi effects modules.

[liquidsound]

Mulab modular environment, Mux can host third party plugins. A big plus for me.
AFAIK Bitwig grid cannot.

And in Bitwig you can't create custom Grid device's Panels which is a huge advantage MuLab has over all the DAWs I know of (M4L getting better and better).

Bitwig Comping is not well implemented, and it should not be used as an example.

I like to slice my samples and save them as Individual Audio files "All at once" and again, Bitwig (and Ableton) can't do that due to the way they deal with the audio, while MuLab has (I think) the potential to do so once it has been sliced. Reaper does it incredibly well (and Reason).

If we talk about workflow improvement, we should pick up from the current MuLab system (and I think the videos suggest that direction) and evolve it from there using MuLab realm rather than borrowing.

MuLab is such a unique platform that should be expanded with the same mindset.
If FL Studio (talking about a workflow nightmare) is the most "Beginner" DAW out there, then I don't think MuLab has critical issues with a beginner user experience.
I would like to see some large evidence for that.

The videos are perhaps a wakeup call for moving forward and I welcome them but there is more to MuLab than just borrowing...
MuLab Matrix, again Jo's mind at work here, is more versatile than Ableton or Bitwig due to the Independency from the Timeline and I've never seen it anywhere (Logic maybe? I haven't fired up that thing in a very long time).

I used so many DAWs but I always kept MuLab on my Laptop for immediate inspiration.
Used Bitwig for, IIRC, 5 years and Ableton much longer than that with S1.

MuLab has a great DNA: Evolution of its DNA is the key.

my2cents...

[PelletProject]

Right now, what MuLab suffers from more than anything isn't that there are a few features that it has that are implemented well that lets users pick it over other DAWs, but rather that there are many other features that it lacks as a DAW overall that hinder its development to the point where those few good features wouldn't get recognized in the first place.

The features dakkra, oldcastle, and myself are suggesting in relation to UX/UI therefore are reflective of the fact that despite those shortcomings, it has potential to more readily reflect how the end user thinks about music production. Otherwise, MuLab wouldn't have bothered being a full-fledged DAW from the start.

The way I see it, it's not simply requesting more features for the sake of uniqueness; IMO it already acquired its own identity from the MUX modular area simply existing.

Maybe some people are complacent with the fact the racks only support 6 modules currently, but I often use a lot of effects and plugins for each element, and the methods in which to add more effects with other racks or the MUX, rearrange their order in the rack desk, and reorder the slots, combined with the inability to resize in any way and being limited to drag the racks according to what the screen shows at the time drives me crazy, as other DAWs take care of most if not all of these features already and in better ways than MuLab currently does.

Maybe some people don't mind that the Multi-Form Oscillator module is designed with a maze of different tabs and sub-menus, where as I lament how the detune, phase, and number of voices can't be automated, simply loading a wavetable requires a lot of user intervention, adding transformations features their own menus, rearranging transformations is made available only via a textbox within a right-click, and even that it isn't automatable without reflecting on the wavetable itself, and it's unfortunate, because so many alternatives, even FREE ones, do all of this and more in a much more user-friendly fashion.

Even when it comes to the edge cases, it simply cannot hold up to most of them, because its ecosystem is that limited. MuLab also doesn't have the benefit of being popular to use, which certainly doesn't help the fact that a common defense that other DAWs like Bitwig, FL Studio, Logic, etc. have their own shortcomings continues to be prevalent, especially when those other DAWs are in their own right exceptional at being DAWs.

[Michael L]

other DAWs are in their own right exceptional at being DAWs.

You & Dakkra certainly identify ways the MuLab workflow can be improved, but to what end? I'm not sure the market needs another exceptional DAW.

People often complain that fully-featured DAWs complicate the workflow of developing musical ideas. Ableton actually limits its features for simplicity.

I personally would like the flow of say, a keyboard workstation in software.

Just sayin'

[oldcastle]

People often complain that fully-featured DAWs complicate the workflow of developing musical ideas. Ableton actually limits its features for simplicity.

I understand your point and I agree with it. I'm far from being a pro or even a decent musician, and in my opinion, ML is a fully-featured DAW. It's the only one I use, and I don't feel like I'm missing anything that significantly impacts my productivity. IMHO, having that reverse-mux-sidechaining-with-automation-push-in-to-vst3-bus-master-sender-mixer won't necessarily help any musician create the next Billboard hit. In 90% of cases, the issue lies with us, not the DAW. That being said, the UI/UX recommendations some of us have suggested here are additional features that new users would expect to find. For example, we expect that when we press CTRL+D, something gets duplicated, since this is a common behavior on PCs and, consequently, in other DAWs. Implementing these changes in ML 10 would make it more welcoming for users transitioning from other DAWs.

[nenneb]

People often complain that fully-featured DAWs complicate the workflow of developing musical ideas. Ableton actually limits its features for simplicity.

That's exactly what I do! I did a couple of songs in Cubase, but it was no fun at all. Of course Cubase is much more powerful, but much too overhelmed.
Why I like MuLab?
- It opens within a second.
- It offers plenty of space for musical content (I guess, most of all DAWs out there)
- With its flexibility almost everything is possible. If necessary, you can put racks into rackslots
- To me it offers an inspiring workflow.

So MuLab is my main-DAW. The only things I miss badly (and mentioned that before):
- Tempo-track for acceleration/deccelaration control with curves
- Select tracks for beeing visible while editing another one
- Option for synchronizing zoom and song-position-settings in all tracks when changing tracks in edit-mode

Everything else in my opinion is very well done! I enjoy using MuLab every time i do!