Experiment from the MUTOOLS Lab: LUNA Modular

[muzycian]

Dear Luna Users,

Some thing popped up in the MUTOOLS Lab: No, not a purple rabbit.

But a version of LUNA where the whole Rack system is replaced by a pure modular plugin system.

Now i don't want to spend too many words on it, because i'm especially curious how this experimental version feels for you, as a musician.

You can download the experimental LUNA Modular from

OSX: http://www.mutools.com/luna/luna-free-m ... t1-osx.zip
WIN: http://www.mutools.com/luna/luna-free-m ... t1-win.zip

For now, this is a limited version like LUNA FREE, i.e. you can only load up to 4 VSTIs, but with as many effects as you want.

(it's not recommended to create bigger projects with it now, as it comes fresh from the lab)

You'll notice that if you would open one of your existing projects, the "Plugin Setup" window at first looks a bit messy.

This is because the Plugin Setup Editor does not yet have a good way to auto-arrange the plugins for you, so you need to do a bit of manual arranging for now;

The essence is now is about the concept, not yet the details.

So what's your opinion on this new LUNA approach?

MUTOOLS' opinion up to now when comparing LUNA Modular to LUNA Classic:

(- for disadvantage, + for advantage)

- maybe a bit more "work" to arrange/connect plugins
+ unlimited routing possibilities in an easy way for both audio and midi plugins
+ even for beginners, it may be easier to understand LUNA's signal flow because of the graphical nature of the Plugin Setup Editor
+ feels more free and musical, as it's more the atmosphere of a music studio (yeah, let's put that cable in there
+ it's easy to edit only those mixerstrips that you actually need at a time

So we tend to switch to the modular approach.

But please feedback Your opinion as it is also Your input that makes the future LUNA!

[muzycian]

===============================================
LUNA Modular -> Plugin Setup Editor Quick Guide
===============================================

-> Plugin Setup Editor allows to connect plugins in the session
-> Plugin Setup Editor can be resized, or moved to another monitor
-> Top of box = inpus, bottom = outputs
-> Red connectors = audio, blue = events
-> Drag line from output to input (or vice versa) to connect them
-> Right-click (osx: control-click) a plugin for its context menu
-> Right-click a connector to delete a connection
-> Right-click the Plugin Setup Editor backgroud for its context menu
-> When you load an existing session, Racks are replaced by "Dummys".
Dummys can be used as a Target in the Composer, so when you change anything downstream the dummy, you don't have to update anything in the Composer
Dummys take almost no CPU power.
You don't have to use dummys; They're only there for if you want them.
Still looking for a better name than "Dummy".
-> OSX Tip: i first had some difficulties connecting plugins until i realized that the very hotspot of the arrow pointer is the top of the black part of the arrow.

[muzycian]

And here is a screenshot:

[Bonteburg]

Hey this is fun!
Just connecting some plugs and mixer strips.

Can't say how viable it is though, I remember testing Tracktion and each rack filter iduced a horrible latency, made mixing a bit of a desaster.
We're talking racks connected to racks here, going to yet another rack and finally to Audio Out.
As I said though it's great fun to play with .

PL Jones - are you reading this? What is your verdict on the hanging notes? It's pretty consistent and reproducable here , happening not only with chords but in legato and mono modes in synths that have them.

Marco

[muzycian]

LUNA Modular does not have any more latency than LUNA Classic.

This means that the latency = your pure ASIO latency, thus a couple of milliseconds for most good soundcards

[Bonteburg]

Hmm. I have to say my original vote was more conservative than it should have been.

Why not go down a less trodden path and have some modular racks? I think I'm all for it

Marco

[PTV]

This one is fun!
Is there an option to route a midi file/sequence to a synth?
btw: i voted modular

[Branis]

Why not have both?
Leave the rack system as it is now (mixer-like, more immediate for beginners) and add a switch in the main window for the modular view.
Why the main window? Because you'll have a visual feedback of what you're doing in the mixer.
I'd also like to see sequence and audio parts in the modular view, so I can connect them to plugins and audio outputs at will. The same sequence part could easily be connected to more than one plugin, and audio parts to more than one mixer channel.
Also double-clicking on a mixer strip in the modular view could focus that mixer strip in the mixer window instead of the pop-up.

[Bonteburg]

good plan Branis... I don't know how hard it is to implement but it sounds sensible.

Just noticed I could make one instrument from two synths using a "dummy", tight

[DaveL60]

Some thing popped up in the MUTOOLS Lab: No, not a purple rabbit.

But a version of LUNA where the whole Rack system is replaced by a pure modular plugin system.

This looks like fun, can't wait to play.

Dummys can be used as a Target in the Composer, so when you change anything downstream the dummy, you don't have to update anything in the Composer. Dummys take almost no CPU power.
You don't have to use dummys; They're only there for if you want them.
Still looking for a better name than "Dummy".

The "dummy" is a relay or patch point. I think "patch point" would be a reasonable name, albeit more meaningful to those of us familiar with modular synths and studio patch bays than to real newbies. But you explain the concept as "all of the parts that go through the same processing sequence get connected to Patch Point X, and the processing path is built from the Patch Point to the Audio Output" and it should be clear enough.

Another way to look at is is that the "dummy" is the beginning or anchor of a processing path, so "path anchor" or "patch anchor" are other alternatives.

I like the modular concept, conceptually, but will have to play a bit. Looking at the screenshot, a couple of thoughts come to mind:

1) At least in this picture, there's no visual indication at all of the connections between MIDI parts and VSTi players, so it's hard to see what part triggers what player.

2) Since a mixer strip is reduced to level and pan in the modular concept, maybe it should be called a "Fader/Pan" rather than "Audio Mixer Strip". I think that would be especially the case if you adopt the suggestion to have both the modular and the rack system available within LUNA since a rack system mixer strip would then be something very different from a modular "Audio Mixer Strip".

Dave

[muzycian]

Why not have both?
Leave the rack system as it is now (mixer-like, more immediate for beginners) and add a switch in the main window for the modular view.
Why the main window? Because you'll have a visual feedback of what you're doing in the mixer.
Also double-clicking on a mixer strip in the modular view could focus that mixer strip in the mixer window instead of the pop-up.

Of course, having both worlds together is a logical request.

But:

(it's not easy to explain, but i'll try)

In fact, a rack is a collection of plugins. When a rack receives audio/events, it processes that thru plug 1 and so down to plug 6, applying volume, pan and mute at the right time. (speaking LUNA classic rack -wise)

In LUNA classic, a rack is at the top level of the plugin setup, and so you can reach all individual plugins of this rack from within the Composer.

Now the bottleneck is: if you would be able to freely edit the connections between the plugins of this rack (via the Plugin Setup Editor), how should that be reflected in the rack editor?

For example, via the plug setup editor, you can easily create connection graphs that are far beyond a rack's possibilities, or don't match the structure of a rack.

So conclusion is:

OR A: you must make racks closed-architecture, so you can only edit the internals from a rack from within that rack.
OR B: you make a rack fully modular. but then the rack editor will show you the same editor as before. and so there is no added value.

So in fact, A is the only option which can bring a benefit.

But if you choose A, then you are not able to access the individual plugins of a rack from within the Composer, because a rack is closed-architecture!
(unless extra efforts, see below)

So practically: The only "solution" to bring the classic rack system and the modular system more together is this:

Assume we stick to the Plugin Setup Editor.
You can create a rack there.
A rack has 1 audio in and 1 out, 1 event in and 1 out.
You can connect a rack like any other plugin.
When you doubleclick a rack, its editor opens.
It's a similar rack editor as in LUNA classic, and it's an easy way to chain up a couple of plugins, and apply volume, pan, mute before the first "Post" plug.
BUT you cannot use 'sends' now because a rack is a black box, and doesn't know anythin except its own plugins.
And another BUT: Since a rack is closed, you cannot automate the inner plugins of a rack from within the Composer.
Unless we would setup a system so that you can create a parameter map where you e.g. define that parameter 1 of the rack maps to parameter 76 of plugin 4.
But then the question rises: does this effort is worth the benefit of a rack??

So, to recap all:

There are 2 possibilities:

If a rack is a closed group of plugins, then you cannot access the individual plugins in the rack from the Composer. Unless extra efforts.

If a rack is an open group of plugins, then there's in fact almost no difference with the pure modular concept. I mean: what's the specific function of a rack then?

My conclusion for now:

Having Racks in LUNA Modular is certainly a nice option to think more about as it can make the modular concept even more practical.
But these racks are not the same as the racks in LUNA Classic.

Hope this clarifies things.

[muzycian]

The "dummy" is a relay or patch point. I think "patch point" would be a reasonable name

Like that

(more than patch anchor)

I like the modular concept, conceptually, but will have to play a bit. Looking at the screenshot, a couple of thoughts come to mind:

1) At least in this picture, there's no visual indication at all of the connections between MIDI parts and VSTi players, so it's hard to see what part triggers what player.

Yes, there is:

1) In the Part Property Panel at the top-right in the main window, you can see the target for a part.

2) When a part is selected, the relevant target plugin is focussed (thick border (for now)) in the Plugin Setup Editor.

2) Since a mixer strip is reduced to level and pan in the modular concept, maybe it should be called a "Fader/Pan" rather than "Audio Mixer Strip". I think that would be especially the case if you adopt the suggestion to have both the modular and the rack system available within LUNA since a rack system mixer strip would then be something very different from a modular "Audio Mixer Strip".

a) It does more than vol + pan: vol + pan + mute + levelmeter. So that's why it deserves that name imho.

b) A "Rack" is a Rack, and will not be called "Rack Mixer Strip" or alike.

I understand your initial confusion because you're on the LUNA train, and we have seen different evolved concepts already. And some names are now used for other things...

But within the context of this tryout version, i'm confident that there is no ambiguity between terms. But i'll give it a second thought.

Ah, luna modular is still so young...

[muzycian]

I'd also like to see sequence and audio parts in the modular view, so I can connect them to plugins and audio outputs at will. The same sequence part could easily be connected to more than one plugin, and audio parts to more than one mixer channel.

And what's the timeline then?

I mean: when should such part play?

[DaveL60]

Now the bottleneck is: if you would be able to freely edit the connections between the plugins of this rack (via the Plugin Setup Editor), how should that be reflected in the rack editor?

For example, via the plug setup editor, you can easily create connection graphs that are far beyond a rack's possibilities, or don't match the structure of a rack.

It seems to me that the part of this I made bold is the key point. Maybe the solution is to have both, but limit switching between the two options to be a one-way thing: you can convert a rack-structured session into a modular session, but you can't go back.

DaveL

[muzycian]

Yes, technically that's an option, indeed. I've been thinking about this too. Not yet convinced of it as a concept though, because it makes the app more complex to understand, as you have to learn more about it. And that's not the goal. Prefer to keep everything simple / uniformous. Anyway, breeding on it...