MuTools

pljones · Post by **pljones** » Sun Jan 10, 2010 4:52 pm

pljones wrote:(Actually, I guess I could use a MUX, a channel splitter and target different MIDI channels from the two parts but it's not exactly intuitive...)

Wrong... MIDI channel is now per track, too. That breaks the basic MIDI data model.
<edit>OK, no it doesn't exactly. What I mean is MIDI events have the channel encoded, so it would be nice if the sequencer could encode channel at event granularity - if the user chose to do so. A previous M that no longer exists allowed this, letting the user decide how to target. Defaulting to track is fine, so long as it can be changed per composition to a finer level.</edit>

bpblog · Post by **bpblog** » Sun Jan 10, 2010 4:55 pm

the target-per-part system is something that we could all probably live without. on the other hand, it is certainly a neat option to have, it always felt rather natural, allowed the user more freedom, and i also got very used to and very fond of it.

the m2.5 system in which you could choose between per-track or per-part targets was the perfect combo imho. i vote for making the default m3 settings track-based, and leaving the target-per-part system as a hidden gem, under the hood.

sorohanro · Post by **sorohanro** » Sun Jan 10, 2010 5:35 pm

Didn't got the chance to try the new version but somehow some of the stuff I hear scares me...
I see that some of the features that made Mu.Lab to stand out of the crowd now will be missing

I hope it will get to a shape that will make me like it as much as I like 2.7.

MuTools · Post by **MuTools** » Sun Jan 10, 2010 7:11 pm

sorohanro wrote:Didn't got the chance to try the new version but somehow some of the stuff I hear scares me...
I see that some of the features that made Mu.Lab to stand out of the crowd now will be missing

I hope it will get to a shape that will make me like it as much as I like 2.7.

Regarding the track/part targets: This is a conceptual topic which we'll talk about more the coming days. Don't worry

TheGuysanIdiot · Post by **TheGuysanIdiot** » Sun Jan 10, 2010 7:35 pm

Hi sorohanro

Putting a side the "track/part targets" issue for a moment a feature that I personally do not use, so I will let you talk amongst your selves on.

M3 is packed with new features and quite frankly I have been stunned at Jo's programming yet again.

Just wanted to make sure people not in the test group do not get the wrong impression of M3.

Jo as ever will sort all the bugs and find neat solutions for stuff he always does.

This is a test release to be discussed and de-bugged.

And along the way change of concept can be discussed etc.

For me, I am sure the LIVE release of M3 will be fantastic.

Keep the faith!

OZ

Dionysos · Post by **Dionysos** » Mon Jan 11, 2010 12:42 am

TheGuysanIdiot wrote:M3 is packed with new features and quite frankly I have been stunned at Jo's programming yet again.

No doubt.

A basic list of changes/new features and screenshots would be nice - unless too much of it is still subject to change, of course.

TheGuysanIdiot · Post by **TheGuysanIdiot** » Mon Jan 11, 2010 12:02 pm

Hi Dionysos

Only time will tell what M3 will actually look like and what actual features and changes appear in the LIVE M3 when released.

I guess as Jo receives feedback from the test group as a whole, he will make those kind of decisions.

Unfortunately I cannot post screen shots or tell you what is in M3 as it is not my place to and I also do not know the final list of features etc for the above reasons.

All I can say is for me, I like what I have seen so far.

OZ

sorohanro · Post by **sorohanro** » Mon Jan 11, 2010 7:09 pm

I wonder... how about latency compensation of VST plugins (like SIR) ?

MuTools · Post by **MuTools** » Mon Jan 11, 2010 7:15 pm

Auto PDC is not yet in M3.

Of course it's always possible to realize PDC in a manual way, so it won't limit your music!

Dionysos · Post by **Dionysos** » Mon Jan 11, 2010 8:44 pm

TheGuysanIdiot wrote:Unfortunately I cannot post screen shots or tell you what is in M3 as it is not my place to and I also do not know the final list of features etc for the above reasons.

No problem, thanks for answering!

sorohanro · Post by **sorohanro** » Mon Jan 18, 2010 8:42 pm

A quick question about M3.
Is the internal folder structure the same ?
I'm working at the sample packs and I wonder if "installation" is the same and how will they work in M3.

pljones · Post by **pljones** » Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:39 pm

A quick answer: looks like it to me. (Your instructions worked okay.)

MuTools · Post by **MuTools** » Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:47 pm

Yes the library folder structure is the same.

But with M3 you should be able to create sample packs that are independent from MU.LAB's Library.

Do it like this:

Create a folder somewhere on your computer where all patches and samples that belong together are grouped. If you want you can even group the samples in a separate subfolder below the patches themselves.

When M3 saves a patch that is using samples, it will store the links to samples that are in the same folder or in a subfolder of the patch folder in a a relative way.

So when you then zip the whole thing, extract it to another computer, M3 should find the samples without problem!

So it should be easy to create patch/sample packs independent of your MU.LAB installation.

Sorohanro, do you have M3 there? If not, mail me i'll send you the link.

pljones · Post by **pljones** » Mon Jan 18, 2010 11:14 pm

That was one of the things I was thinking an installer .exe could do -- offer an alternate location for the MULAB Library. (I have a separate disk for samples and other "content", as opposed to programs.) This makes that less necessary, of course!

MuTools · Post by **MuTools** » Mon Jan 18, 2010 11:39 pm

I've double checked this and it all seems to work fine

As an example, here is a zip file containing a simple "patch pack":

http://www.mutools.com/mulab/temp/MuSyn ... xample.zip

How to use:

1) Extract the zip to some place on your computer
2) Plug-in a MuSynth (Patchlist -> Templates/MuSynth)
3) In MuSynth editor, right-click the patch name and choose "Open Patch File"
4) Now browse to that folder and load that Traveller patch

It should play fine

This example patch uses an oscillator and 2 samples: 1 sample is in the pack itself, and 1 sample comes from the MU.LAB library.

Thanks to the relative sample paths all works fine out of the box.

Of course this is a very simple example. A patch pack can contain many more samples and many more patches.

Then when doing "Open Patch File", you can preview all patches while browsing

I know that the patches in such separate folder don't yet appear in the default patch list as that one only lists the patches in the MU.LAB library. I have notes on the whishlist about expanding all this (using a User library) but that's all food for the future. I'm confident M3 is a nice step forward from M27 also in this aspect.