MU.LAB 2.0 Release

[Bonteburg]

Hm, just playing around with MU.LAB a little and I think it's a little counterintuitive that you can't have a few instances of sampla share the same sample and use different loop points. What does everybody else say?

nite..

[MuTools]

That IS perfectly possible!

Just click the sample display or sample name to select whatever sample in the session.

And regarding the loop points: each sample can have an unlimited number of locators. Each Sampla (or MultiSampla zone) can use any of these locators to define the Start-Loop-End sections.

[Bonteburg]

oh, f**k!

I totally forgot the multiple loop point thing. Obviously, you're right

[S.HUSH]

Ok, so lets ask other users too:

Would you prefer that the sequence name dialog auto pops up when you create a new sequence?

That's also OK, but what I wanted to say is to place a checkbox somewhere near Edit > Preferences, so that everyone can set their preference about this sequence name dialog. (Individuality instead of democracy. )

Agreed.

[S.HUSH]

I am using 2.02 and notice the keystroke to copy/duplicate parts is not working (CNTRL/SHIFT drag). Anyone else?

[pljones]

I am using 2.02 and notice the keystroke to copy/duplicate parts is not working (CNTRL/SHIFT drag). Anyone else?

Ctrl-drag is ok. Ctrl+Shift-drag works but you have to leave shift off until after you start dragging. Not sure if that's changed.

[S.HUSH]

I am using 2.02 and notice the keystroke to copy/duplicate parts is not working (CNTRL/SHIFT drag). Anyone else?

Ctrl+Shift-drag works but you have to leave shift off until after you start dragging. Not sure if that's changed.

There it is, thanks!

[pljones]

At least you got me to install 2.02. I was getting behind!

[robenestobenz]

I am using 2.02 and notice the keystroke to copy/duplicate parts is not working (CNTRL/SHIFT drag). Anyone else?

Ctrl-drag is ok. Ctrl+Shift-drag works but you have to leave shift off until after you start dragging. Not sure if that's changed.

Ah, I was wondering about this. Any reason for requiring the delayed shift keypress, Jo?

Also:

When you drag notes in the editor, it'd be much better if the piano roll would scroll when you drag them below the visible pane, IMO

I've found what seems to be a bug - with a multi-out VSTi in a rack, only the signal from the first output is displayed in the rack meter.

[MuTools]

Any reason for requiring the delayed shift keypress, Jo?

Because pressing [Shift] before the mouseclick is used to for selecting parts/events.

Maybe it would be better if the [Shift]+arrow only expands selections when the click is not on a part but on the composer grid.

It may be a bit confusing like it is now?

When you drag notes in the editor, it'd be much better if the piano roll would scroll when you drag them below the visible pane, IMO

That's on the whishlist.

I've found what seems to be a bug - with a multi-out VSTi in a rack, only the signal from the first output is displayed in the rack meter.

It's not a bug.

Only the first output is routed into the rack, the other outputs can be connected too by right-clicking the vst -> Connect Alternative Outputs.

Or you can also use such vst directly in a modular patch a connect it's inputs/outputs too whatever other plug you like.

[robenestobenz]

Any reason for requiring the delayed shift keypress, Jo?

Because pressing [Shift] before the mouseclick is used to for selecting parts/events.

Maybe it would be better if the [Shift]+arrow only expands selections when the click is not on a part but on the composer grid.

It may be a bit confusing like it is now?

Yeah, it's unusual behaviour for a modifier key combo. I'll need to wait to get home and try this out to get a firm idea, though.

I've found what seems to be a bug - with a multi-out VSTi in a rack, only the signal from the first output is displayed in the rack meter.

It's not a bug.

Only the first output is routed into the rack, the other outputs can be connected too by right-clicking the vst -> Connect Alternative Outputs.

Or you can also use such vst directly in a modular patch a connect it's inputs/outputs too whatever other plug you like.[/quote]I used connect alternative outputs, and all outs were sounding, just not showing up in the rack's level meter. Maybe I set connect alternative outs to audio output, not rack? I'll check when I get home.

Yeah, I use Mux to wrap a lot of my most used plugins, now because offers me the ability to add easily add my own tweaks. Absolutely love it.

[MuTools]

I used connect alternative outputs, and all outs were sounding, just not showing up in the rack's level meter. Maybe I set connect alternative outs to audio output, not rack? I'll check when I get home.

The auxiliary audio outs of a synth doen't stream thru the rack. You can connect them to (an)other rack(s) and then you'll see the level there.

[DuX]

Talking about routing, IMO there's something fundamentally wrong with it IMO. Now don't get me wrong - it looks very very promising, ideal actually, but it can get confusing very easily if you work with many VSTi's with many individual outs.

I'll try to elaborate... let's take RM IV rhythm machine with 18 outputs for example. I need all individual drums on individual outputs so I can process them with different EQ/FX etc. So I put RM IV on the first [T]rack and record a groove. I think you can get my drift by now, but if you don't keep reading . Now I configure say 8 different outputs from RM IV to 8 different racks and ok, I get those outputs in the mixer... now what about all those unused [t]racks? They get in the way. Talking about "the way", we should be able to zoom in/out quickly horizontally, too.

I think you should make a clear distinction between the mixer and the sequencer. That would be a big help to those who use many channels in the mix. I'm 100% certain I couldn't work with Mu.Lab just because of this, as I wouldn't know where something is routed in no time and would scroll up/down like a mad man to find tracks and 90% of them would be empty.

Also, IMO modular view is far underused. You could use the modular view to connect additional outputs, and bypass creating unnecessary additional [T]racks. If I had a RM IV in rack A, I should be able to see and use the additional outputs in the modular view without creating or using any additional [T]racks.

So what am I saying here?

Think about this idea: I put a multi-out plugin in rack A. 1st output is connected by default, but I can connect additional ones in the modular view to wherever I want and *I see them there available and open for a connection*. When I connect an additional output to the master, it shows up in the mixer as an additional channel/rack and I can put FX's on it, but there's no creating additional tracks. Don't forget about drag/drop changing the order of the FX in the channel/rack... they forgot it, for example, in old Cubase and it was a great PITA... So anyway, that's what I meant by making a distinction between the sequencer and the mixer. In the sequencer, there should be *tracks*, and in the mixer there should be *channels* [or "racks" if you want, no problem there]. There can be as many as say 16 tracks, but there could be as many as 64 channels/racks if I use 16 multi-out VSTi's with 8 outputs each. Think about it. Separate the sequencer from the mixer...

Try doing a project with the 100 individual outputs/[T]racks in Mu.lab and see... I know already it won't work .

OTOH, this app is so promising it hurts . So simple, yet complex enough, and everything is possible. Could this be the real heir to EnergyXT 1.4? With a little tweaking... I think *yes* .

Thanks for implementing F1 and F2 shortcuts... they really speed things up and thanks for creating a reeeaaally promising app, I might give it another try some day... for now, EXT1 is still my king for quick MIDI composing. That kind of flexible and quick routing still can't be found anywhere else.

btw. Have you got some kind of dithering going on on the master output? I can clearly hear the noise...


p.s. I won't even mention the "ghost MIDI parts", yet...

Cheers!

[MuTools]

DuX, thanks for your detailed feedback.

Now I configure say 8 different outputs from RM IV to 8 different racks and ok, I get those outputs in the mixer... now what about all those unused [t]racks? They get in the way.

How do you mean the racks get in the way?

You do want a separate rack per output, right, so to be able to have individual processing. So then i don't understand that they are in the way, as it is something you chose to have. No?

Talking about "the way", we should be able to zoom in/out quickly horizontally, too.

Can you please elaborate on this. How would you like to have it?

I think you should make a clear distinction between the mixer and the sequencer. That would be a big help to those who use many channels in the mix. I'm 100% certain I couldn't work with Mu.Lab just because of this, as I wouldn't know where something is routed in no time and would scroll up/down like a mad man to find tracks and 90% of them would be empty.

Do you know that if you set the Track Target to "No Target", then each part on the track can have its own target.

So then you can use parts with different targets all on that same track.

Would that be a solution for you?

Or am i not yet fully understanding your point?

Also, IMO modular view is far underused. You could use the modular view to connect additional outputs, and bypass creating unnecessary additional [T]racks. If I had a RM IV in rack A, I should be able to see and use the additional outputs in the modular view without creating or using any additional [T]racks.

What you could do is:

* RM IV -> "Pull Out Of Rack". So the RM IV will be straight in the MPA.
* Connect the main outs to e.g. Rack A
* Connect other outs to whatever Racks/FX/EQ/... you want and collect all resulting outs in Rack B

So then you have only 2 racks for RM IV i.e. "main out" and "aux outs", while still being able to have pure individual processing of each aux out.

The above is just an example of course.

Many other routing possibilities, just as you want.

Think about this idea: I put a multi-out plugin in rack A. 1st output is connected by default, but I can connect additional ones in the modular view to wherever I want and *I see them there available and open for a connection*.

How would you visualize that?

That would mean that in the MPA racks and each of the plugs in a rack would be visible.

That would be confusing imho.

And also: it doesn't feel right, conceptually, imho.

The essence of racks is to be a simple and easy container for a couple of plugs, kind of 'preset' routing thing.

As always 'presets' (read Racks) are simple and easy but have less flexibility.

Atoh, 'freesets' (a neologism i guess)(read: MPA) have unlimited possibilities, but are much harder to understand for the more newbie user.

I think that if you want to use a plugin in a very individual way, then you just have to use it 'straight', i mean not in a rack. Though you can still connect it to a rack more downstream if you want, cfr the above example.

So anyway, that's what I meant by making a distinction between the sequencer and the mixer. In the sequencer, there should be *tracks*, and in the mixer there should be *channels* [or "racks" if you want, no problem there]. There can be as many as say 16 tracks, but there could be as many as 64 channels/racks if I use 16 multi-out VSTi's with 8 outputs each. Think about it. Separate the sequencer from the mixer...

Just select "No Target" for the track, and i think the separation you want is there, right?

Have you got some kind of dithering going on on the master output? I can clearly hear the noise...

Nope, no dithering inside MU.LAB.

p.s. I won't even mention the "ghost MIDI parts", yet...

What do you mean?

[DuX]

Oh, ghost parts are kinda virtual midi parts which behave as one - when you edit one of them, every "ghost copied" part changes, too. It's exceptionally practical so you don't have to edit all MIDI parts one by one. Speeds up things .

Cheers!