Hello,
First of all: thanks for your enthusiast feedback on MUTON!
Without your feedback it would be very difficult to evolve MUTON at high speed.
Even now, MUTON is still in its alpha phase, which means that it's not yet a usable application:
-> there still can be crashy parts
-> there still are unimplemented functions
-> there still can be a memory leak
-> there still must be done a lot of finetuning and streamlining
-> the session file format is still volatile
The goal of the alpha phase is to stabelize and streamline the freshly coded software modules like GUI system, Disk IO system, Audio Engine, MIDI Engine, Sequencer Engine, VST Engine etc...
That's why the alpha version is only available for a limited group of testers.
To be continued!
MUTON alpha 2
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 1645 posts since 24 May, 2002
-
- KVRAF
- 13090 posts since 14 Nov, 2000 from Hannover / Germany
If you don't mind, well... I'd like to check this out.
Almost only heard good things about Muzys.
Almost only heard good things about Muzys.
There are 3 kinds of people:
Those who can do maths and those who can't.
Those who can do maths and those who can't.
-
original flipper original flipper https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=8999
- KVRAF
- 2541 posts since 14 Sep, 2003 from Essex
HI
I can't but feel that the way VSTi's are loaded is confusing - you click on the midi track and then on the 'player' - you can then load a synth to that midi track ... do you intend to put some kind of graphic in the midi track box to the left (the area that has the 'M' in it) to show the user what synth (s) are loaded/allocated to that track?
I find that it is easy to forget to click on the midi track and wonder what is going on! - possibly a cause of frustration with new users?
Personaly I would have the 'player' in the area with the 'M' ... this would appear to be more straightfoward, would be visible to the user, save space above the arrange page to stretch the transprt accross and probably be more intuitive.
In fact why don't you consider having a 'floating' transport or as I stated before narrow it down - vertically, that is?
I think people are using much higher resolutions than your default - so you have more room to play around with than you think ... perhaps?
Otherwise Alpha V2 appears quite stable.
Flipper.
I can't but feel that the way VSTi's are loaded is confusing - you click on the midi track and then on the 'player' - you can then load a synth to that midi track ... do you intend to put some kind of graphic in the midi track box to the left (the area that has the 'M' in it) to show the user what synth (s) are loaded/allocated to that track?
I find that it is easy to forget to click on the midi track and wonder what is going on! - possibly a cause of frustration with new users?
Personaly I would have the 'player' in the area with the 'M' ... this would appear to be more straightfoward, would be visible to the user, save space above the arrange page to stretch the transprt accross and probably be more intuitive.
In fact why don't you consider having a 'floating' transport or as I stated before narrow it down - vertically, that is?
I think people are using much higher resolutions than your default - so you have more room to play around with than you think ... perhaps?
Otherwise Alpha V2 appears quite stable.
Flipper.
-
- KVRAF
- 7137 posts since 8 Feb, 2003 from London, UK
You're working on the part, not the track, remember. Right-click gets you "Choose Player" and you then choose from the loaded players.
Different parts on the track could use different players. For example, with the default session, copy the part (select it, right click to the right of the part, paste it), then load up two synths (click the player area on at the top of the main window, pick load synth, pick a synth, repeat), then right click the first part, select Choose player, VST Synths and select the synth), then repeat for the second part choosing the other player.
(I've not yet tried in MUTON but, in Muzys, you could assign Players at the Event level. It's not a track-bound workflow.)
Different parts on the track could use different players. For example, with the default session, copy the part (select it, right click to the right of the part, paste it), then load up two synths (click the player area on at the top of the main window, pick load synth, pick a synth, repeat), then right click the first part, select Choose player, VST Synths and select the synth), then repeat for the second part choosing the other player.
(I've not yet tried in MUTON but, in Muzys, you could assign Players at the Event level. It's not a track-bound workflow.)
-
original flipper original flipper https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=8999
- KVRAF
- 2541 posts since 14 Sep, 2003 from Essex
HI
That isn't exactly a natural or even obvious routine to simply load a vsti!
If this program isn't going to be just a rehash of the old Muzzy's (which I could never fathom out - it was a most unintuitive program, and that is coming from someone who has used with relative ease: Logic, SX, Live, XT, Tracktion, Orion and P5 to name a few)then IMO changes might be best implemented now - once the program becomes more evolved it is practically a no-no to make wholesale changes and will be too late.
I have no vested interest in this program beyond having had several interesting communications with the developer and being offered the opportunity to look at the Bata's.
This is my point of view; I believe that the whole base for music production software is heading towards (assuming it hasn't already got there) a state of saturation - there is just so much of everything - and much of it for free, certainly sequencer/host programs can be had for next to nothing - a Muzzy rehash will only appeal to a very small market; I believe the market place needs an EXTREMLY accessable, easy to grasp traditional horizontal tack based host that is intuitive to the point of being (almost) foolproof.
My point here is that 100's if not 1,000's of downloads for a demo will take place for every sale, the demo will be judged on the first couple of minutes, the demo will be uninstalled in less than an hour if it is not 'hitting the comfort zone' - what is the comfort zone for a host - for many people it will be how quickly they can get a VSTI loaded, their midi keyboard producing sounds from that VSTI and recording a few takes, dropping in some VST FX and generally doodling - if they can automate this stuff without any major problems they will be half sold ... and all of this will probably require that they do not have to read a manual.
That is my take on it - where do I get these assumptions from? - well I can tell you one thing; not from KVR! - and why not? - because a major part of the clientel here are opinionated, experienced and seasoned people who ARE NOT a general representation of the average user ... my son uses software, he has aquainted me with many younger (and older) users who are both hobbyists and professional producers, I also have a bunch of friends that use software for making music - none of them frequent here or have even heard of the place - what do these opeople have in common? - they are not likely to a man (or woman) to suffer a program that requires a 200 page manual reading to just get a sound going - think about it how many manuals has anone read to get a piece of hardware going? - I did have to read the manual for my Yamaha sampler ... but then again Yamaha create terrible o/s for their synths/samplers.
Sorry to waffle - bottom line is that IMO the market needs a product that is above all USABLE and UNDERSTANDABLE; if a program requires a relatively in depth knowledge of host programs to just get a VST going your going to have to fight it out with all the established host's - that is not a fight that can be won ... unfortunately.
I would say keep it simple, make it obvious where and how you can do the basic things - you might then get a few more people that use the demo (when it becomes available) to actually go buy the product - why do people buy these products? - because somewhere or the other there are a bunch of features thay jump out and grab them, another host with a bunch of features that can not be accessed because it is not obvious to the user is not a a winning formula IMO.
Flipper.
That isn't exactly a natural or even obvious routine to simply load a vsti!
If this program isn't going to be just a rehash of the old Muzzy's (which I could never fathom out - it was a most unintuitive program, and that is coming from someone who has used with relative ease: Logic, SX, Live, XT, Tracktion, Orion and P5 to name a few)then IMO changes might be best implemented now - once the program becomes more evolved it is practically a no-no to make wholesale changes and will be too late.
I have no vested interest in this program beyond having had several interesting communications with the developer and being offered the opportunity to look at the Bata's.
This is my point of view; I believe that the whole base for music production software is heading towards (assuming it hasn't already got there) a state of saturation - there is just so much of everything - and much of it for free, certainly sequencer/host programs can be had for next to nothing - a Muzzy rehash will only appeal to a very small market; I believe the market place needs an EXTREMLY accessable, easy to grasp traditional horizontal tack based host that is intuitive to the point of being (almost) foolproof.
My point here is that 100's if not 1,000's of downloads for a demo will take place for every sale, the demo will be judged on the first couple of minutes, the demo will be uninstalled in less than an hour if it is not 'hitting the comfort zone' - what is the comfort zone for a host - for many people it will be how quickly they can get a VSTI loaded, their midi keyboard producing sounds from that VSTI and recording a few takes, dropping in some VST FX and generally doodling - if they can automate this stuff without any major problems they will be half sold ... and all of this will probably require that they do not have to read a manual.
That is my take on it - where do I get these assumptions from? - well I can tell you one thing; not from KVR! - and why not? - because a major part of the clientel here are opinionated, experienced and seasoned people who ARE NOT a general representation of the average user ... my son uses software, he has aquainted me with many younger (and older) users who are both hobbyists and professional producers, I also have a bunch of friends that use software for making music - none of them frequent here or have even heard of the place - what do these opeople have in common? - they are not likely to a man (or woman) to suffer a program that requires a 200 page manual reading to just get a sound going - think about it how many manuals has anone read to get a piece of hardware going? - I did have to read the manual for my Yamaha sampler ... but then again Yamaha create terrible o/s for their synths/samplers.
Sorry to waffle - bottom line is that IMO the market needs a product that is above all USABLE and UNDERSTANDABLE; if a program requires a relatively in depth knowledge of host programs to just get a VST going your going to have to fight it out with all the established host's - that is not a fight that can be won ... unfortunately.
I would say keep it simple, make it obvious where and how you can do the basic things - you might then get a few more people that use the demo (when it becomes available) to actually go buy the product - why do people buy these products? - because somewhere or the other there are a bunch of features thay jump out and grab them, another host with a bunch of features that can not be accessed because it is not obvious to the user is not a a winning formula IMO.
Flipper.
Last edited by original flipper on Sat Jan 07, 2006 6:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- KVRian
- 1161 posts since 24 Dec, 2004 from Adelaide, South Australia
Quite possibly the future of sequencing is in the interface and workflow. I know, for me, if I cannot make any sound within ten minutes I lose interest quickly. I did like the original Muzys because I made that sound quickly. But workflow improvements can always be made and I think streamlining of the interface, simple menu systems, consistent GUI and basic features that work very well and only require a minimum of clicking are better than too many bells and whistles.
Having said all that, Alpha 2 is much more stable. Some good signs
Having said all that, Alpha 2 is much more stable. Some good signs
Mixcraft 8 Recording Studio : Reason 10
-
- Banned
- 237 posts since 7 Oct, 2004
I agree with you.original flipper wrote:HI
That isn't exactly a natural or even obvious routine to simply load a vsti!
If this program isn't going to be just a rehash of the old Muzzy's (which I could never fathom out - it was a most unintuitive program, and that is coming from someone who has used with relative ease: Logic, SX, Live, XT, Tracktion, Orion and P5 to name a few)then IMO changes might be best implemented now - once the program becomes more evolved it is practically a no-no to make wholesale changes and will be too late.
I have no vested interest in this program beyond having had several interesting communications with the developer and being offered the opportunity to look at the Bata's.
This is my point of view; I believe that the whole base for music production software is heading towards (assuming it hasn't already got there) a state of saturation - there is just so much of everything - and much of it for free, certainly sequencer/host programs can be had for next to nothing - a Muzzy rehash will only appeal to a very small market; I believe the market place needs an EXTREMLY accessable, easy to grasp traditional horizontal tack based host that is intuitive to the point of being (almost) foolproof.
My point here is that 100's if not 1,000's of downloads for a demo will take place for every sale, the demo will be judged on the first couple of minutes, the demo will be uninstalled in less than an hour if it is not 'hitting the comfort zone' - what is the comfort zone for a host - for many people it will be how quickly they can get a VSTI loaded, their midi keyboard producing sounds from that VSTI and recording a few takes, dropping in some VST FX and generally doodling - if they can automate this stuff without any major problems they will be half sold ... and all of this will probably require that they do not have to read a manual.
That is my take on it - where do I get these assumptions from? - well I can tell you one thing; not from KVR! - and why not? - because a major part of the clientel here are opinionated, experienced and seasoned people who ARE NOT a general representation of the average user ... my son uses software, he has aquanted me with many younger (and older) users who are both hobbyists and professional producers, I also have a bunch of friends that use software for making music - none of them frequent here or have even heard of the place - what do these opeople have in common? - they are not likely to a man (or woman) to suffer a program that requires a 200 page manual reading to just get a sound going - think about it how many manuals has anone read to get a piece of hardware going? - I did have to read the manual for my Yamaha sampler ... but then again Yamaha create terrible o/s for their synths/samplers.
Sorry to waffle - bottom line is that IMO the market needs a product that is above all USABLE and UNDERSTANDABLE; if a program requires a relatively in depth knowledge of host programs to just get a VST going your going to have to fight it out with all the established host's - that is not a fight that can be won ... unfortunately.
I would say keep it simple, make it obvious where and how you can do the basic things - you might then get a few more people that use the demo (when it becomes available) to actually go buy the product - why do people buy these products? - because somewhere or the other there are a bunch of features thay jump out and grab them, another host with a bunch of features that can not be accessed because it is not obvious to the user is not a a winning formula IMO.
Flipper.
The VST implementation must be child's play or forget it.
-
- KVRian
- 1161 posts since 24 Dec, 2004 from Adelaide, South Australia
True enough.
I can't help thinking that if a good timestretch could be implemented by the time it goes public it will pull a lot of crucial attention. Let's face it, not even the price-hiked Tracktion has functional Timestretch yet and the home musician on a budget is still faced with some rather pricey choices in the sequencer market.
Make it easy, make it stable, make it light, price it well and put some power features under the hood to get the gossip hounds talking and I think you've got yourself quite possibly, an attention grabbing program.
I can't help thinking that if a good timestretch could be implemented by the time it goes public it will pull a lot of crucial attention. Let's face it, not even the price-hiked Tracktion has functional Timestretch yet and the home musician on a budget is still faced with some rather pricey choices in the sequencer market.
Make it easy, make it stable, make it light, price it well and put some power features under the hood to get the gossip hounds talking and I think you've got yourself quite possibly, an attention grabbing program.
Mixcraft 8 Recording Studio : Reason 10
-
- Banned
- 237 posts since 7 Oct, 2004
Yes, good timestretching would be a huge drawcard.audiobot202 wrote:True enough.
I can't help thinking that if a good timestretch could be implemented by the time it goes public it will pull a lot of crucial attention. Let's face it, not even the price-hiked Tracktion has functional Timestretch yet and the home musician on a budget is still faced with some rather pricey choices in the sequencer market.
Make it easy, make it stable, make it light, price it well and put some power features under the hood to get the gossip hounds talking and I think you've got yourself quite possibly, an attention grabbing program.
-
- Banned
- 897 posts since 8 Jan, 2005 from Detroit
i personally would love to see some clever arrangment tools in addition to the ease of use people are talking about above. i say this because arrangment is the hardest part of writing music for me, and anything that helps me get there easier is likely to be of interest.
-
- KVRAF
- 7137 posts since 8 Feb, 2003 from London, UK
My main disagreement with original flipper is around the use of track-based sequencing as the most easy to use approach. I've tried Energy XT, Live5, Project5, Tracktion and so on - the only hosts that have made sense to me are Jazz++ (an old MIDI only sequencer) and Muzys. Now, I freely admit that Jazz++ pretty much set my expectations. And Muzys (or, rather, Computer Muzys) pretty much met those expectations. But I don't think it's because they're track based.
However, I'd like to break away further from the track-based idiom that appears to have confused original flipper. I'm not sure how to break it and yet retain the ease of use that Energy XT lacks (it's far too flexible - it takes me too long to get a basic workspace set up, so I give up). And without the screen clutter that seems to dog Live, Project5 and Tracktion. (For the record, I find Live's "tracker" view and Fruity Loops completely unfathomable.)
I wrote elsewhere that I'd like the application to be modular but come with some preconfigure frameworks to get users up and running. So there would be a "track-based sequencer", if you wanted it. Or you could load up a workspace that looked like a tracker. All the same components, just docked in different positions and "hiding" different interface features.
I'm hoping this new tool Jo's working on will have a very high degree of flexibility (it already looks more flexible than Muzys) and usability (given original flipper's comments, that's not yet been addressed: I have to say it took some poking around to find things and I was surprised where they were - but it's "like" Muzys was in many ways).
However, I'd like to break away further from the track-based idiom that appears to have confused original flipper. I'm not sure how to break it and yet retain the ease of use that Energy XT lacks (it's far too flexible - it takes me too long to get a basic workspace set up, so I give up). And without the screen clutter that seems to dog Live, Project5 and Tracktion. (For the record, I find Live's "tracker" view and Fruity Loops completely unfathomable.)
I wrote elsewhere that I'd like the application to be modular but come with some preconfigure frameworks to get users up and running. So there would be a "track-based sequencer", if you wanted it. Or you could load up a workspace that looked like a tracker. All the same components, just docked in different positions and "hiding" different interface features.
I'm hoping this new tool Jo's working on will have a very high degree of flexibility (it already looks more flexible than Muzys) and usability (given original flipper's comments, that's not yet been addressed: I have to say it took some poking around to find things and I was surprised where they were - but it's "like" Muzys was in many ways).
-
original flipper original flipper https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=8999
- KVRAF
- 2541 posts since 14 Sep, 2003 from Essex
HI
It's never an easy road (blimey, getting philishothickall about software
(intended spelling anomaly)) to travel ... what: you know - to make something different.
My thoughts are simply that I think there is an opportunity to produce an extremely easy to grasp host - that would be a real marketing 'angle' - as well as being pleasing to those who normally pull their hair out when using this type of program!
Nevertheless I will keep my eyes on 'Mu'; to see how it develops.
Flipper.
It's never an easy road (blimey, getting philishothickall about software
(intended spelling anomaly)) to travel ... what: you know - to make something different.My thoughts are simply that I think there is an opportunity to produce an extremely easy to grasp host - that would be a real marketing 'angle' - as well as being pleasing to those who normally pull their hair out when using this type of program!
Nevertheless I will keep my eyes on 'Mu'; to see how it develops.
Flipper.
-
- Banned
- 897 posts since 8 Jan, 2005 from Detroit
how confusing is muzys? i found it to be one of the easiest programs i have ever tried. how much easier could it be? if its easy enough for a child, will that subtract from its appeal to power users?
-
original flipper original flipper https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=8999
- KVRAF
- 2541 posts since 14 Sep, 2003 from Essex
HI
Did you read my post?
Then surely you must have an idea of what I was talking about?
I DID NOT find it one of the easiest programs to get up and running with - I think I put an argument accross about a series of thoughts and opinions that I have about a host program.
I am trying to give the developer some food for thought based on my experiences and that of dozens of people I have come accross that do not frequent this forum and are the type of people that are more interested in USING software rather than talking about it.
If you have some thoughts why not put them into writing ... here ... simply saying "I FOUND IT ..." is not helping the developer make an informed decision on how to move foward with a project that may be important to his financial survival.
Are you suggesting that an intuitive interface is likely to afront Power-Users? - who the hell are they anyway ... brain surgeons?
Flipper.
Did you read my post?
Then surely you must have an idea of what I was talking about?
I DID NOT find it one of the easiest programs to get up and running with - I think I put an argument accross about a series of thoughts and opinions that I have about a host program.
I am trying to give the developer some food for thought based on my experiences and that of dozens of people I have come accross that do not frequent this forum and are the type of people that are more interested in USING software rather than talking about it.
If you have some thoughts why not put them into writing ... here ... simply saying "I FOUND IT ..." is not helping the developer make an informed decision on how to move foward with a project that may be important to his financial survival.
Are you suggesting that an intuitive interface is likely to afront Power-Users? - who the hell are they anyway ... brain surgeons?
Flipper.
