Experiment from the MUTOOLS Lab: LUNA Modular

[aMUSEd]

What about using a sort of grid/matrix type modular approach where there's a racklike structure but the flexibility of a modular - I'm thinking something like the old Spark fx machine approach:





With this you could do parallel and serial routing and insert any VST/i as well as the internal ones but the built in structure made it easy to work with and visualise routings and audio flow.

[swatwork]

The problem with having just one plugin area is that you have to wire ALL the signal flows through it and it can easily turn into a mess of wires, even when you just want to do something simple for each track. Having multiple modular racks allows you to keep the complex stuff out of the way when you don't need to look at it.

[> DiGiT <]

i say forget the whole newbie focus, and make this a thinking mans software.

[swatwork]

i say forget the whole newbie focus, and make this a thinking mans software.

Keeping things simple isn't just for newbies, it's also for people with 16-bit brains. Like me!

[pljones]

Euh, pljones, i've been thining: what's wrong (besides the channeling thing we discussed a couple of days ago) with the current system of auto-routed-midi-input?

It's not consistent. You've got Audio In on the patch area. If MIDI In isn't there people will think they can't arbitrarily route MIDI In.

In fact, it makes the auto-routed-MIDI-input even less intuitive for a newcomer to the system. (This might mean the modular approach is not recommended for LUNA, of course.)

Let me put it like this.

I'm recording a session. I've an audio signal from the singer and a MIDI signal from the pianist.

I look at the patch area and I can see "Audio In" but not "MIDI In". First though: Oh! LUNA doesn't support MIDI recording!

Then I read that I can record both Audio and MIDI to parts in the sequencer, which makes me feel relieved.

Now, I want to have the Audio part processed through a bit of a slapback echo to keep the vocalist happy. I don't want this on the recording. Is it clear that connecting "Audio In" to an echo plug in won't affect the recorded signal? And is it clear that just hitting record will be enough to record the audio signal, with "Audio In" not connected to anything?

Next I want to know how to get the MIDI part recorded. I've got my piano plugin sitting on the patch area and I'm wondering what I do. I'd sort of expect to connect "MIDI In" to the piano and then hit record. But no. I have to create a part in the sequencer and assign that part to the piano and then record a new part. That just doesn't seem at all obvious.

To me it seems obvious that hitting record for MIDI should record each MIDI channel for each port to a separate sequence part and put each onto a new track in the sequencer. If the "MIDI In" point on the patch area were to allow each channel on each port to be connected to a different target, each recorded part could be patched automatically to the appropriate target (it doesn't need to remember anything about channel). That way I could record two MIDI instruments (on separate channels) concurrently - just how MIDI is expected to work.

Oh, and the fact the keyboard is on Channel 2 shouldn't mean that the events it's sending to the piano plugin are on Channel 2. That should be determined by which event port I connect to. (The modular routing systems for MIDI I've seen show sixteen connectors per MIDI port and per VST event port or allow some way to specify which channel should be used.)

Parts recorded from Audio In should also remember where there were connected to and retain that by default.

I still haven't decided what I'm going to vote..!!

[DaveL60]

I haven't voted yet, either. I lean very strongly toward modular, but I agree that it's more work than racks, especially for simple projects. I used to have a PAiA modular synth (similar to the stuff shown here but not nearly so big!), and I wound up installing quite a few normalized connections so that basic patches didn't require patch cords, but the normalized routing could be over-ridden to do more involved things (a la an ARP 2600, for instance). If there were some easy way to create a simple "rack" of plugins in one stop that could then be enhanced, tweaked, etc., some of that objection would be relieved. Also some way to maybe drag a plugin onto an audio connection and have LUNA automatically insert it into that connection (i.e., break the one connection into two, one into and one out of the new plug). That would speed up workflow while retaining the nice visualization that the modular approach gives you.

WRT color, IMO color is a basic visual organizing tool. I might color all of the plugs primarily associated with a particular track or instrument one way. Or I might make all my VSTi's one color, my inserts another, my sends a third. Or reverbs one color, distortions another, EQs a third. I just think that having color as a straightforward option gives the user a tool to build the set of visual cues that make that user's workflow easier. And, sorry Jo, but I just don't agree that "if you need the coloring to make things clear, then we don't have a clear system" -- on a large complex project, there are just going to be a lot of boxes and things to help keep them straight visually will still be helpful no matter how anal-retentively organized the user is in wiring it up to begin with (just look at the batches of patch cords in the set of pictures I linked).

One thing I think I saw in the experimental version (not at my music PC right now so can't check) was that creating a new session resulted in a conventional rack appearing as a plug in the plugin area, but I didn't see any way to add such a rack on the context menu, which seems inconsistent. One way I could conceive of to have a semi-modular approach would be to have racks as plugins within the plugin area. Each could have red and blue triangles to represent the audio and MIDI ins and outs both of the rack and of each slot in it, with inputs to the left and outputs to the right. That way there's an easy way to just use a collection of channel strips if that fits your needs, but each plugin could still be accessible as an automation target, and things like side-chaining would become easier. That feels like a way to get pretty close to the best of both worlds.

Nice jam by the way

Thanks. Had a fun evening playing with your toys and working that up.

DaveL

[v1o]

And here is a screenshot:

This reminds me alot of Jeskola Buzz

[grizzly]

Hi,

i say forget the whole newbie focus, and make this a thinking mans software.

I dont' know if this was meant tongue in cheek, but I don't think this is a newbie vs thinking man question. It may be a hobbyist vs professional question, but even then the 'professional need' would needed to be divided into (a) fast and efficient workflow needs, and (b) complex routing needs. Not everybody professional needs complex routing, but I'd dare claim that everybody professional needs fast and efficient routing.

I've been doing sequencing for over 10 years now, starting with Cakewalk 5 or 6 in the mid 90s. With CW my workflow was fast and intuitive, which resulted in a huge amount of songs. At some point I meant to go professional, and decided to get outboard gear (hw synths and sampler, digital mixer, NI Generator, the works...), Logic Pro etc.

The result? I ended up getting lost in Logic's endless possibilities (the Environment, it gives me the creeps ), getting no work done having all the time re-configure everything to get even a simple task done. For other reasons I left the professional side of audio, but I left the scene with a very strong sense of having been cheated away from actual music making.

Since then I have looked at Cubase and CW every now and then, just to find that they had moved in Logic's direction. Having to go through manuals and doing serious thinking is not what I want to do, when I want to capture some musical inspiration. I get to do the serious thinking quite enough in my daytime work .

So, since abandoning Logic in about 2001, I haven't gotten any music made before I stumbled upon Luna last November. It immediately hit a string with me, and since getting the Unlimited version I have made a dozen songs in the less than so hours that I have had time for it.

For me, that intuitive composing and arranging workflow is the essence, and complexity is the enemy of that. This is not to diss Jo's modular approach tryout, I like that ideas are tried out, especially in such a public and constructive manner. But I seriously think that making the decision for modular or not a question of "n00bie" or "thinking man", leads in the wrong direction. The thinking man has also other options, he can get Logic or make his own sequencer with Buzz or something similar.

rgds,

grizzly

[Calum]

Jo,

At the risk of standing in the way of progress, if I have to choose between the 2 systems, then I would definitely want to stick with Racks. I honestly feel that if you drop the Racks completely, in favour of a modular approach, then you run the risk of alienating a lot of potential (as well as existing) users.

On the other hand, the addition of a modular approach to Luna's existing features would be a very exciting prospect. If, creating a hybrid version of Luna can only be achieved through compromise, then why not allow both environments to co-exist, by:

1. Allowing the user to choose between a Rack or Modular environment at Luna startup or when creating a new project.

or

2. Allowing the user to startup Luna in the Rack environment, with the ability to move to the Modular environment at any stage in the project. If the Rack arrangement could then be ported to the Modular environment, then this could also act as a learning aid. A nice feature would be to auto-save or freeze the project when entering the modular environment just in case everything goes pear-shaped!

or

3. Developing the Luna Modular environment as some sort of plugin, a bit like BIAS Vbox (not sure of the technical implications here - I'm just thinking out loud!).

The only downside of any of the 3 options would be that you could not go back to Racks once you have entered the Modular environment, but this would be no different from dropping Racks altogether.

[Bonteburg]

Having turned over the matter in my mind again and again I tend to agree with Calum.

There are still too many loose ends/more important features (hanging note syndrome, missing preset chooser for GUI-less plugs etc) to implement such a drastical change at this point.

I realize how this may come across but you don't want to suffer Luna from Tracktion syndrome - lots of paradigm and some core functionality still missing.

Re-reading this it sounds like I'm against the modular system which is not the case ... I just think it should be put on the back burner until Luna works flawlessly as it is now.

Marco

[> DiGiT <]

well i and my friends are long time muzys users, and i at least feel that the modular environment is what muzys lacked. i also dont feel that this adds much complexity at all. more possibilities, maybe.

but then again, i can see myself using energy xt as a plugin to achieve the same or similar routing. the only problem with that is that the individual instances of xt wouldnt be able to talk to each other.

[bambooman]

"Like LUNA Now"

why "kill+destroy" luna's original concept 3-steps before the finish line?
and trying to make something totally different out of it?

the new idea is like:
teasing poor little luna with a voodoo puppet imho *sniff*

there are already enough projects around who try to copy the idea of XT.
like maize studio, plus i've found at least 5x more at sourceforge.net and other places.

at the present stage,
i would simply make a sub/fork-project out of it
but keeping the main focus on getting luna done,
the way it was meant to be...
before doing anything else with it.

[Bonteburg]

yup , what I have come to think.
I hereby officially re-confirm my original vote against modular.

[bambooman]

don't kill luna, she's already very sexy

[muzycian]

Now, I want to have the Audio part processed through a bit of a slapback echo to keep the vocalist happy. I don't want this on the recording. Is it clear that connecting "Audio In" to an echo plug in won't affect the recorded signal? And is it clear that just hitting record will be enough to record the audio signal, with "Audio In" not connected to anything?

Next I want to know how to get the MIDI part recorded. I've got my piano plugin sitting on the patch area and I'm wondering what I do. I'd sort of expect to connect "MIDI In" to the piano and then hit record. But no. I have to create a part in the sequencer and assign that part to the piano and then record a new part. That just doesn't seem at all obvious.

Well, maybe it's not mathematically perfect now.

But it's definitely very usable, imho.

The good thing is that it can't go wrong now. if you record audio, and you put some audio at audio in, you'll effectively record audio. as simple as that. same for midi.

If the user would have to connect cables before recording, that would not be ok, imho.

I do plan to add that brilliant idea of you at some point: an "audio record" and "midi record" plugin that can be plugged in a some point in the patch work. That gives you the possibility to record from another point

And thing is, if they are not there (like now)(or when you would have deleted them again) then audio recording defaults to audio in, midi recording defaults to midi in

And about routing MIDI input: i'm not convinced of the usability of having to connect (in the patch area) a midi input to a plugin all the time so to get a sound on the keyboard. That's too much hassle, i think.

For me "the sound on the keyboard" should be that of the focussed part or plug, thus the sound you're working with. And it should be there automatically. (with eventually the option to break that auto-follow, an option which could be added lateron).

Until now, i do think that the current automatic midi input routing is working very well, musically.

Except for the behaviour when inputting on multiple channels, there LUNA is still basic.
But then, i say, LUNA is not yet at that level that it's really a back hole in the feature map.
I think it's normal for its current stage.