Poll: Most Wanted New MU.LAB Feature

[pquenin]

I've added a note on the whishlist to insert/delete a full section of a composition with 1 command

Thank you. Much appreciated.

[huguesbc]

Hi there,

I am a big fan of mulab, like everyone I would like to see new features added. But I think it would be smarter to correct the bugs in there first. Build a better automation control. It's kinda hard to reset the automation to 0, especially with bipolar automation. And most important, I would like the list editor to be linked with the sequencer window, ex: when you click on a note in the list, select the note in sequencer. Dream feature: a tracker in there...

[sluggo]

Just found this poll, I guess I'm late to the game.

IMO, the building blocks of a host are the most important and multiple cpu use is essential. I can understand why someone wouldn't rate this as the most important missing feature at first, but I also think that it is the feature that affects everyone immediately.

I'm also a bit surprised about the integrated sampler, I hear what Jo and Bonteburg and Jo are are saying but it just doesn't seem all that important.

In general I would think that several of the poll options would actually be expected from a host. Whether the people taking the poll get excited about the features, well obvoiusly the poll shows the true results of that. But certainly if you were to randomly take 100 computer music users, they would list some essential features such as multiple cpu, freeze, drag n drop, audio loops, probably rewire. As an example, I would never rate "drag n drop" as my most wanted new feature, but I would always expect all hosts to do this.

cheers!
sluggo

[pquenin]

I think it would be smarter to correct the bugs in there first. Build a better automation control.

Yes, before adding new features, I think it's better to fix bugs and to improve what is already here, but is not really properly finished (acces to composition, acces to VST presets, etc...)

[huguesbc]

IMO, the building blocks of a host are the most important and multiple cpu use is essential. I can understand why someone wouldn't rate this as the most important missing feature at first, but I also think that it is the feature that affects everyone immediately.

Sure, it definitely would be top of my list if I had a multi-core processor, but I don't. And from my programming background, I know it's not an easy feature to implement and it usually brings stability issues.

I'm also a bit surprised about the integrated sampler, I hear what Jo and Bonteburg and Jo are are saying but it just doesn't seem all that important.

I feel the same for the sampler, there are a lot of excellent samplers on the market who does the job really well. Do we need an all in one production software? To me, FL Studio Pro and Reason feel bloated with loads of cheap synths and sampler. Using these bundled goodies doesn't feel original and cutting edge. I am looking for a good and easy sequencer, not really a sampler.

[pquenin]

I feel the same for the sampler, there are a lot of excellent samplers on the market who does the job really well. Do we need an all in one production software? To me, FL Studio Pro and Reason feel bloated with loads of cheap synths and sampler. Using these bundled goodies doesn't feel original and cutting edge. I am looking for a good and easy sequencer, not really a sampler.

There is this excellent free sampler : shortcircuit
http://www.vemberaudio.se/shortcircuit.php

What does an integrated sampler can bring ?

[huguesbc]

What does an integrated sampler can bring ?

I guess you can gain a little performance with an integrated sampler, because you can avoid the need for the vst/dx plugin interface, wrapper and synchronization with the host. Compatibility might be an issue too, having an integrated sampler could be a rock solid option instead of using plugins. I think the developer might see better benefits for it though, and obviously the user like the workflow of mulab and therefore would like a sampler with similar ease of use.

[muzycian]

But I think it would be smarter to correct the bugs in there first. Build a better automation control. It's kinda hard to reset the automation to 0, especially with bipolar automation.

Point taken.

And most important, I would like the list editor to be linked with the sequencer window, ex: when you click on a note in the list, select the note in sequencer.

This is the case!

If you select a note in the note editor, it is also selected in the list editor!

Dream feature: a tracker in there...

How do you see this?

[muzycian]

IMO, the building blocks of a host are the most important and multiple cpu use is essential. I can understand why someone wouldn't rate this as the most important missing feature at first, but I also think that it is the feature that affects everyone immediately.

I fully agree that the lower the CPU weight (in whatever way that is realized) the better!

But as huguesbc wrote, multi processor support indeed is not an easy thing.
And it should not add more overhead than you gain. And it should be easy/transparant to use. All this is not a simple thing.

Anyway, as the poll showed out, cpu optimization is an important thing, and so it has high priority.

I'm also a bit surprised about the integrated sampler, I hear what Jo and Bonteburg and Jo are are saying but it just doesn't seem all that important.

It was the poll winner.

In general I would think that several of the poll options would actually be expected from a host. Whether the people taking the poll get excited about the features, well obvoiusly the poll shows the true results of that. But certainly if you were to randomly take 100 computer music users, they would list some essential features such as multiple cpu, freeze, drag n drop, audio loops, probably rewire. As an example, I would never rate "drag n drop" as my most wanted new feature, but I would always expect all hosts to do this.

Well, i see it like this:

MU.LAB is a young application, and so it still has to grow.

Now this poll asks: which features do you want to be added first.

Then you can say: all of them because all of them are essential.

But remind: a travel of 1000 miles begins with the first step.

So, although i agree that all/most of them are essential, they can only be implemented step by step. And so that's why the poll was there: which step do you like to be taken first.

Note that this poll is not 100% binding, but rather an important indication which will certainly be taken into account.

[muzycian]

I think it would be smarter to correct the bugs in there first. Build a better automation control.

Yes, before adding new features, I think it's better to fix bugs and to improve what is already here, but is not really properly finished (acces to composition, acces to VST presets, etc...)

Bugs always get priority number 1 !

That's why Bug Hunters are rewarded when they can report a repeatable bug, cfr http://www.mutools.com/mulab-known-issues.html

So if you know about any bug, please let me know.

About "access to compositions": i agree that that should be improved, but at the proper time. At this point, i think most people still work with 1 composition. Lateron, when multiple compositions become more important, then of course you'll get more advanced tools to switch/rename/create/delete/... compositions.

About "access to vst presets": Not that that is a big argument, but Ableton Live, which is a rather wide used host, also doesn't have an integrated vst preset browser. Anyway, it's a feature which is on the whishlist, but first a technical issue has to be resolved on OSX before it can be implemented. That's why it's not yet there. But will come this year (normally).

[muzycian]

Sure, it definitely would be top of my list if I had a multi-core processor, but I don't. And from my programming background, I know it's not an easy feature to implement and it usually brings stability issues.

Indeed.

As it got many votes in the poll, i've already been researching this a bit and it doesn't look straightforward.

So i'll handle this with care.

Also researching alternative ways to keep cpu weight low.

I feel the same for the sampler, there are a lot of excellent samplers on the market who does the job really well. Do we need an all in one production software? To me, FL Studio Pro and Reason feel bloated with loads of cheap synths and sampler. Using these bundled goodies doesn't feel original and cutting edge. I am looking for a good and easy sequencer, not really a sampler.

What does an integrated sampler can bring ?

1) The integrated sampler won't be cheap quality

2) The biggest advantage of an integrated sampler is: Integration!
If you don't yet understand what this means in practice, be sure: you will !

3) The sampler did clearly win this poll, so many users want this.

4) Last but not least: I fully agree that it is very important to make each version as finetuned and complete as possible. That's exactly the reason why i sometimes show some resistance to new feature requests. Because i want to take care that the current version is finetuned and complete before 'blindly' adding new features.

So it's always about making the difficult balance: work out the existing technologies / add new technologies.

Doing my best.

Much appreciating your input!

Because it's essential for knowing what's important for each of You!

Surely also taking the polls into account, because they also show things in a more statistical/objective way.

[huguesbc]

If you select a note in the note editor, it is also selected in the list editor!

OK, I will download the program again to see if it works. I thought it did select random events in the version I have, don't know why. I am using a demo/free version in Windows 2000 if that matters.

I also had a bug a few times but could not reproduce it at will. It affected the time bar/transport window. Sometimes after closing and reopening a part (and maybe messing with my audio interface), if I click on 3 sec. (for example) in the sequence editor, it shows 15 sec. in the transport window.
If I click 4 sec. it shows 16 sec. and so on, always the same offset. The bug doesn't disappear if I close and restart mulab, but it does disappear if I restart Windows.

I will try to make a screen capture video if these happen again.

Dream feature: a tracker in there...

How do you see this?

Like I said this is probably not realistic to expect. I like old school tracker and there have been few attempts to include the tracker interface in piano roll sequencers.
One example is DreamStation: http://tinyurl.com/2gzywz

The beauty of tracker interface is that they allow you to see all notes for many tracks at once on the same screen. Piano roll is not good for showing the notes of many instruments at the same time. So you always have to open/close a part to edit multiple instruments, or display multiple piano roll which rapidly clutter the screen. However trackers are pretty bad for automation data. And their main issue is that it forces you to quantize your notes.

I like the list editor because it can work a bit like a tracker where I can select precise values. But when I click a note length in the editor, 0.0.0500 for example, it pops up a text edit control in place on top of the list and the value in the text edit is blank. Could it be possible to show the previous value in that text box so I don't have to type again 0.0.0xxx to make a slight adjustment.

[muzycian]

I also had a bug a few times but could not reproduce it at will. It affected the time bar/transport window. Sometimes after closing and reopening a part (and maybe messing with my audio interface), if I click on 3 sec. (for example) in the sequence editor, it shows 15 sec. in the transport window.
If I click 4 sec. it shows 16 sec. and so on, always the same offset. The bug doesn't disappear if I close and restart mulab, but it does disappear if I restart Windows.

This is normal.

The time you see in the sequence editor is the sequence time.

And so if a part starts at bar 9, you'll still see the sequence editor time bar starting at bar 1.

However clicking on bar 3 in the sequence editor translates to bar 11 in the composer.

The beauty of tracker interface is that they allow you to see all notes for many tracks at once on the same screen. Piano roll is not good for showing the notes of many instruments at the same time. So you always have to open/close a part to edit multiple instruments, or display multiple piano roll which rapidly clutter the screen.

Got your point.

I agree that it is very handy, music-wise, to edit multiple parts at the same time.

Maybe one day MU.LAB will...

I like the list editor because it can work a bit like a tracker where I can select precise values. But when I click a note length in the editor, 0.0.0500 for example, it pops up a text edit control in place on top of the list and the value in the text edit is blank. Could it be possible to show the previous value in that text box so I don't have to type again 0.0.0xxx to make a slight adjustment.

Which version are you using?

In MU.LAB 1.1, a neat 'length editor' pops up which lets you edit the length with detailed support for editing lengths.

[huguesbc]

Thanks a lot for explanation, that was obvious. I am checking out the demo and have a few parts of softsynth and hardware synths recording. I will keep a close eye on the program and learn it better before making false statements again .

[sluggo]

hey Jo,

I've always enjoyed giving feedback to you, especially because you give feedback on the feedback .

Just to clarify something: I totally agree with Jo and Bonteburg on the sampler. I really like the idea of integrated features in a host, it is something that "brings it all together". I was just surprised that it was the poll winner, that's all.

To bring something up that I mentioned a long time ago, pre Mu.Lab and Luna. I'd love to see an integrated mastering environment in a host. Something where the press of a button and nice mixing/mastering interface is brought forward with integrated tools perfectly suited to the job. I'm not suggesting that this is a viable feature, nor do I know if it would be well received. I just think it's another example of how integrated features can useful, welcomed and actually greater than the sum of the parts.

As for the multiple cpu thing. I didn't know much about the technical aspect behind it. I suspected that some type of core processing rewrite would be required, and I wondered how viable that would be for smaller developers. So of course the suggestion or desire for the feature needs to be taken in that context.

cheers