Some concerns about Parts based approach

[audiobot202]

Hi Jo and other testers for Muton.
I want to make it clear that I'm not at all being overcritical here, just raising a few concerns about the current vision for Muton. In fact, my questions may well be easily solved by Jo in another build of Muton, so I just want to clarify that these are merely thoughts.
Jo stated in another thread that Muton is currently a Parts based philosophy of working rather than a track based one. I've been considering the implications of this and working with it and I have a few questions.
Currently, if I understand correctly, Muton features a parts based approach to music making whereby each clip or part is treated as independent and can be assigned to different instruments or players. I like the idea of treating each part as an object with distinct properties as this makes for a potentially very flexible environment.
What I am not sure of is the organisational and practical aspects of this approach. For example, I have 2 parts. Part 1 is a bassline part assigned to a bassline synth. Part 2 is a chord line attached to Chord synth. They exist on the same track. But, say I was composing this track and at some stage in the song both Part 1 and Part 2 needed to play simultaneously. I cannot simlpy just drag Part 1 and 2 over each other. Since they exist on the same track lane it restricts my organisation and makes it hard to work with.
In this example, if we were utilising a conventional Track based approach, while it requires more room, it is better organised.
If we expand this simple example to include a dozen different major song parts with synths and effects I think you can begin ti see what an organsational dilemma it might become. Parts would then need to be moved around just to enable practical composition.
This is one big concern I have.
The second concern I have is the ease of use of this system. As I said, I like the object oriented nature of the part based approach to Muton at the moment, but how intuitive is it to new users with little experience? I think I've mentioned before in another thread that it might also be wise and expedient to include lockable Tracks so that all parts on that track can be assigned a master instrument and mixer channel.
Mt third concern may well be solved in another release down the line. Currently when I add instances of instruments a mixer strip is auto added. I can then add effects to that strip and edit each and every instrument and effect from the Player panel. However, the two reverbs in this example are both added to the Player panel and can only be edited from there. They have the same name and there is no distinction between them at the moment which could make it confusing. I think an edit toggle switch next to each effect in the mixer strip would be more intuitive. In this case, effects need not even be added to the Player panel. They only need to appear in the channel strips. This seems a much simpler approach. Dare I say it, but even ijnstruments in their own mixer strips can also have this edit switch. Maybe then the Player Panel can become an indicator of what instrument the midi controller is playing. To extend it's functionality, maybe Muton can have it's own system of preset and bank saves and they can all be controlled from the master Player Panel. Right now though, it just seems more logical to focus editing on the mixer strips. This is what most users would expect and find intuitive I feel. I could be wrong of course !

So, those are currently my concerns. I'd like to know what other testers think. I may have missed something and if I have I apologise to Jo.

Steve

[muzycian]

What I am not sure of is the organisational and practical aspects of this approach. For example, I have 2 parts. Part 1 is a bassline part assigned to a bassline synth. Part 2 is a chord line attached to Chord synth. They exist on the same track. But, say I was composing this track and at some stage in the song both Part 1 and Part 2 needed to play simultaneously. I cannot simlpy just drag Part 1 and 2 over each other. Since they exist on the same track lane it restricts my organisation and makes it hard to work with.
In this example, if we were utilising a conventional Track based approach, while it requires more room, it is better organised.
If we expand this simple example to include a dozen different major song parts with synths and effects I think you can begin ti see what an organsational dilemma it might become. Parts would then need to be moved around just to enable practical composition.

Well, you're just free to do with the parts what you want.

If you need/want more track-space, right-click the track headers and "Add Track".

I don't see a problem here, nor for newbies, nor for advanced users.

In a track-based system, you HAVE TO make room in advance. In a part-based system you MAY make room whenever you WANT.

The second concern I have is the ease of use of this system. As I said, I like the object oriented nature of the part based approach to Muton at the moment, but how intuitive is it to new users with little experience? I think I've mentioned before in another thread that it might also be wise and expedient to include lockable Tracks so that all parts on that track can be assigned a master instrument and mixer channel.

What exactly is your second concern?

Imho: A newbie user doesn't know about the conventional way of doing things, i.e. working track-based.

The main workflow is:

->select sound
->play around
->record/draw sequence
->result is part with created sequence with selected sound

You can repeat this over and over without having to worry about track-types, setups etc...

What do you think?

Currently when I add instances of instruments a mixer strip is auto added. I can then add effects to that strip and edit each and every instrument and effect from the Player panel. However, the two reverbs in this example are both added to the Player panel and can only be edited from there. They have the same name and there is no distinction between them at the moment which could make it confusing.

They can also be edited from the Audio Mixing Desk: Double-click on them!

But you do have a point: differentiating between multiple instances of the same effect is difficult in the Player Panel. I'll think about that...

In this case, effects need not even be added to the Player panel.

Yes they do, because it must be possible to select an effect as target for MIDI input, for example if you want to "play" that effect with your MIDI controller.

They only need to appear in the channel strips. This seems a much simpler approach. Dare I say it, but even ijnstruments in their own mixer strips can also have this edit switch. Maybe then the Player Panel can become an indicator of what instrument the midi controller is playing. To extend it's functionality, maybe Muton can have it's own system of preset and bank saves and they can all be controlled from the master Player Panel. Right now though, it just seems more logical to focus editing on the mixer strips. This is what most users would expect and find intuitive I feel. I could be wrong of course !

I think some users like to close the mixing desk to have more room for the composer window.

Some people like to work without a separate mixdesk. They just edit the mixer strips individually.

But all this is very open for discussion.

It are exactly these details that i find very important at the moment (i.e. the basic framework)

Thanks audiobot202!

Jo

[audiobot202]

Well, you're just free to do with the parts what you want.

If you need/want more track-space, right-click the track headers and "Add Track".

I don't see a problem here, nor for newbies, nor for advanced users.

In a track-based system, you HAVE TO make room in advance. In a part-based system you MAY make room whenever you WANT.

Point taken. Perhaps I'm not seeing the whole picture or maybe I'm approaching it from too linear a point of view. I have been used to working with Tracktion and Live after all. I'm just trying to think about the implications of such a system. Given its fredoms there may well be some drawbacks to it as well. Maybe I have my foot in my mouth or maybe I am confused about the concept at the moment. Hopefully it will become clear.
When I build up tracks I tend to set a few loop points and work from A to B within those points making sure all the parts work well together. Then I can do with them whatever I want and copy and paste them wherever I wish. That's a track based approach though. If I was to try the same thing in Muton, I would need to still create seperate tracks for each part. That doesn't change. See what I mean? If I want the bassline, the harmony and the melody all playing simultaneously I can't have them on one track anyway, I still need to add new tracks to the project. It's really much the same thing at the end of the day I guess, which is maybe why I'm confused. You either create seperate tracks to make your parts and assign them different synths, or you make seperate parts on one or more tracks and then move the parts around so they can play at the same time. I still don't see the advantage of one over the other at this stage.
What would be a great killer feature is to be able to route one part to more than one Player so that layered sounds can be made. Then you wouldn't have to copy and paste the same part to do it in a different track.

What exactly is your second concern?

Imho: A newbie user doesn't know about the conventional way of doing things, i.e. working track-based.

The main workflow is:

->select sound
->play around
->record/draw sequence
->result is part with created sequence with selected sound

You can repeat this over and over without having to worry about track-types, setups etc...

What do you think?

Definitely. The more play around the better ! More fun, more music

They can also be edited from the Audio Mixing Desk: Double-click on them!

But you do have a point: differentiating between multiple instances of the same effect is difficult in the Player Panel. I'll think about that...

Oooops...I'm sure I tried this already. Maybe my mouse button didn't work or something...Still, if we're talking about new users here with not much concept of how a sequencer works, it might still be a good idea to include some sort of edit button next to each item on the mixer strip when they are added.

Yes they do, because it must be possible to select an effect as target for MIDI input, for example if you want to "play" that effect with your MIDI controller.

Ok.

I think some users like to close the mixing desk to have more room for the composer window.

Some people like to work without a separate mixdesk. They just edit the mixer strips individually.

But all this is very open for discussion.

Fair enough. Maybe some sort of 'hide' button or autohide functionality? The other option of course is to ditch the mixer alotogether to save screen space and just have all players and effects pop up on the left hand side of each track. Or, sticking with the object oriented parts based workflow, maybe effect and player icons can be added to each and every part as they are assigned so that the user can simply click on the part to edit them.

Anyway, it's all looking bright !!! Looking forward to Alpha 3 !

Steve

[muzycian]

If I want the bassline, the harmony and the melody all playing simultaneously I can't have them on one track anyway, I still need to add new tracks to the project. It's really much the same thing at the end of the day I guess, which is maybe why I'm confused.

Yeah sure, if the parts are on the same time, then it's best to have separate tracks.

But at another time in your composition you're free to put whatever part on whatever track

There ARE tracks in MUTON, but they don't dictate too much, they're just there as horizontal lanes to put parts on. And it's a part who defines what sound etc...

What would be a great killer feature is to be able to route one part to more than one Player so that layered sounds can be made. Then you wouldn't have to copy and paste the same part to do it in a different track.

Coming lateron with the MultiPlayers...

Still, if we're talking about new users here with not much concept of how a sequencer works, it might still be a good idea to include some sort of edit button next to each item on the mixer strip when they are added.

There definitely should be a uniform and obvious way to "edit an object".

Currently the rule is "double-click on it".

But i'm not yet convinced about the "double-click = edit object" gui-rule.

Because double-clicks are generally slowing down the gui, making it less snappy, because the gui-system has always to wait like half a second or more to check whether the user goes for a second click or not.

You can very much see this slow down when you click a plugin in the mixdesk. A single click opens the plugin list. A double-click opens the editor. So if you do a single click, there is a delay before the list opens

So what about replacing the double-clicks with an "Edit" option in the object's context menu.

E.g. for a part: right-click part, and "Edit".

But that are 2 sperate clicks, not ideal either.

What do you think?

Fair enough. Maybe some sort of 'hide' button or autohide functionality?

There is a close button on the mixer.

The other option of course is to ditch the mixer alotogether to save screen space and just have all players and effects pop up on the left hand side of each track.

That gives a complex screen layout.
(see cubase, sonar, logic, ...)

Let's try to minimize the "gui-complexity-impression".

Or, sticking with the object oriented parts based workflow, maybe effect and player icons can be added to each and every part as they are assigned so that the user can simply click on the part to edit them.

Currently a part show its label and its contents.

Adding more to part rectangle could be overkill?

But what about a property box somewhere where you can see/edit details about the selected part?

[audiobot202]

Yeah sure, if the parts are on the same time, then it's best to have separate tracks.

But at another time in your composition you're free to put whatever part on whatever track

There ARE tracks in MUTON, but they don't dictate too much, they're just there as horizontal lanes to put parts on. And it's a part who defines what sound etc...

Fair enough. It's not too big a deal really, as new tracks can simply be created anyway. The lockable track idea still might be useful though to simplify things for some users and it would only be an option that is either on by default or not. The biggest advantage of the Part based approach you are working on is that individual parts can be assigned keys or shortcuts and played in real time to create an arrangement.

There definitely should be a uniform and obvious way to "edit an object".

Currently the rule is "double-click on it".

But i'm not yet convinced about the "double-click = edit object" gui-rule.

Agreed. Well, maybe the easiest way to implement it is when a new player or effect is added to any mixer slot or strip, a simple 'e' (edit) type button pops up next to that slot or player. When that button is clicked once the plugin pops up to be edited. No slow downs either because it's one click functionality. And you don't need to right click in a context menu and then left click. Just one simple button does the job.

Let's try to minimize the "gui-complexity-impression".

True. I think I'm just trying to be consistent with your Parts oriented vision for Muton. To make it graphically consistent and intuitive. For example, if a user is focussed on a Part because the software is Parts based instead of Tracks based, it's more likely that they'll be right clicking the part or double clicking it to bring up some sort of edit screen rather than digging in other menus. That makes sense because the program is based around Parts. It's like combining Cubase with Ableton Live. It wouldn't work because they are totally different systems of workflow. It wouldn't make any sense. So, if Muton is based on playing with Parts and easy flexibility, I think that all the menu structures should be completely in line with that vision. It would make it logical as a system.
So any functionality that can be accessed through a visible button or one click should be a feature. Functions that are visible to the user and functions that only need one click make a lot of sense in an audio program that needs to be fun and easy to use.
Just my 2 cents though.

Currently a part show its label and its contents.

Adding more to part rectangle could be overkill?

But what about a property box somewhere where you can see/edit details about the selected part?

I don't know. It might work. Largely depends on how the GUI is presented. Clean lines, geometric shapes and easy eye colours would possibly make it workable.
Again though, maybe it only needs to be a simple 'Part Properties' button on the top of the part itself. That could access any effect or player attached to it really quickly and emphasise the Parts based approach you are working towards. You might even add a 'midi' button alognside it to access the midid editing page through a simple one click.

Just ideas though. I mean, the best way forward is to make it as easy as possible to use. The only problem is, the word 'easy' means different things to different people. The trick is working out how Muton can be as easy to as many users as possible while stilll being flexible and powerful.

[muzycian]

Fair enough. It's not too big a deal really, as new tracks can simply be created anyway. The lockable track idea still might be useful though to simplify things for some users and it would only be an option that is either on by default or not. The biggest advantage of the Part based approach you are working on is that individual parts can be assigned keys or shortcuts and played in real time to create an arrangement.

It's not a too heavy job to make track/part based a choice for the user. So it's not a technical reason.

BUT it's a conceptual choice.

I'm glad you also see the advantages of being part-based.

And once you're there, even the option of having track based tracks complicates things, as you have to think double many times.

So that's why i'm thinking of saying: 100% part-based. As that makes things simpler

Agreed. Well, maybe the easiest way to implement it is when a new player or effect is added to any mixer slot or strip, a simple 'e' (edit) type button pops up next to that slot or player. When that button is clicked once the plugin pops up to be edited. No slow downs either because it's one click functionality. And you don't need to right click in a context menu and then left click. Just one simple button does the job.

And what with Parts?

We clearly can't add an "e" button into each part.

A possible solution:

->Let's add the Part Property Panel (i mentioned this in another post) and add the "e" buttons there.

->Let's also support pressing the "e" key: the focussed object opens its editor

->And together with these a 3rd option: right-click and choose "Edit"

Let's try to minimize the "gui-complexity-impression".

For example, if a user is focussed on a Part because the software is Parts based instead of Tracks based, it's more likely that they'll be right clicking the part or double clicking it to bring up some sort of edit screen rather than digging in other menus. ... So, if Muton is based on playing with Parts and easy flexibility, I think that all the menu structures should be completely in line with that vision. It would make it logical as a system.

100% agreed.

The menu system must/will be object-based too.

So any functionality that can be accessed through a visible button or one click should be a feature. Functions that are visible to the user and functions that only need one click make a lot of sense in an audio program that needs to be fun and easy to use.
Just my 2 cents though.

Instant access is fun, that's true.

At the other hand, an audio host quickly reaches some complexity level. It's not a pocket calculator, right.

Then to give instant access to everything would mean that you have a complex looking screen with a lot of buttons, each giving you another instant options.

Well, that's not what i want either.

I think there should be a well-balanced compromise between instant access and hiding gui complexity.

And that balance should be flexible enough so that users can tweak it to their own preference.

What about a property box somewhere where you can see/edit details about the selected part?

I don't know. It might work. Largely depends on how the GUI is presented. Clean lines, geometric shapes and easy eye colours would possibly make it workable.
Again though, maybe it only needs to be a simple 'Part Properties' button on the top of the part itself. That could access any effect or player attached to it really quickly and emphasise the Parts based approach you are working towards. You might even add a 'midi' button alognside it to access the midid editing page through a simple one click.

Just ideas though. I mean, the best way forward is to make it as easy as possible to use. The only problem is, the word 'easy' means different things to different people. The trick is working out how Muton can be as easy to as many users as possible while stilll being flexible and powerful.

Yeah... i'll think it over.

To be continued