I have to open a VST for it to work - what's going on?

[sorohanro]

@johnjaypl
Somehow to me, the tone of your discussion sound very aggressive and mean, some people might find it offensive.
Maybe it's your way of talking and your intentions are good but still, the tone of a discussion can make miracles or get you comments like " "

Somehow you have problems with things that nobody else had.
I have no crashes, not in M2.7 and not in M3. Well, I have one constant crash when using EW Symphonic VSTi, but I have same crashes in FL9, Cakewalk (demo) and Pro Tools (demo), so it's not a Mu.Lab issue.
I use many plugins (I have aprox. 2GB of plugins) and no crashes, no timing issues, no mute problems, no nothing.
To me Mu.Lab seems to be pretty much "rock solid".

Of course, there are some important features that I would like to have but just because Jo don't tailor a special Mu.Lab for me I don't throw stones at him.

[liquidsound]

because I'm a nice guy

[johnjaypl]

Jo,

I don't know why you are confused with the status of my mute problem vs. my possible mixdown problem. I've tried to be clear, even giving an update status report when I was no longer seeing a mixdown problem in 3.x.

I "worked around" the mute problem by not using Asynth very much but the problem is real. Just because the problem shows up when I use Asynth does not mean that Asynth is the cause, (although it could be). But, it seems to me that Asyth should be isolated enough by your software that it shouldn't be able to mute tracks or notes in tracks that it is not associated with.

I'm going to let your "intelligence" comment slide because I'm a nice guy and I assume you're a bit stressed with the 3.0 release and all.

Strange that you take the comment negative.
I almost wanted to ask why.

Maybe it's just a language, cultural, forum communication problem between you and me. I interprerted your comment, "i do assume you have the intelligence for that", as sarcasm, and I don't think that sarcasm is at all appropriate. Perhaps you didn't mean it that way.

I'm going to skip replying to every one of your statements in the interest of shorting this but if I skip something that makes my answer seem unfair to you then point it out and I will respond.

Are you perfect? Do you see all cases all the time?
If so, respect for that.
Talking about myself: I'm doing my best, no more, no less.

My comments were never meant to be a personal critism of you, jo. And hopefully there's more than one person at MUTOOLS making this all work. It's too much work for one person.

Ok, we have different definitions of the term "rock solid".

For me, rock solid especially means: Stable and Usable!

I guess I have a wider range of the quality of software.

I'd put Stable and Usable somwwhere between "rock solid" and "flakey". I'd be willing to say that the relased MU.LAB 3.0 is Stable and Usable- maybe just barely, but that's not too harsh considering that it was just released.

MU.LAB also crashes from time to time. I've had two blue screens today not counting the other MU.LAB crashes. I can't remember the last time I had a windows blue screen. That's not good.

Understand that i can't do much with such reports.

I need technical descriptions as detailed and narrowed down as possible.

Besides that there are just wierd things that happen from time to time. I can't reproduce them, that doesn't mean that they are not real and happening.

Maybe. But it also means i can't research them until the report is explicit enough. I won't start hunting ghosts.

It seems to me that this falls into the area of how much testing MUTOOLS can and does do on it's own. And how much testing MUTOOLS does on its own is releated to how much you would have to charge for the software. I think everyone would expect a $400 DAW package to be tested fairly well before it went out. And that means a significant team of people developing test suits that run on many platforms that uncover many intermitant bugs. The testing is part of what you get for your $400. Of course it still won't be perfect but it will be close enough or people will want their money back.

Now I imagine that your business model doesn't provide for that kind of testing, I don't see how it could at your price point and what I guess your volume is like. And that may be a good value for a lot of people. On the other hand, some people may feel that the amount of time they spend dealing with MU.LAB anamolies is a waist of their time and in the long run therefore not a good value.

My advice (again, you can file it as you see fit) would be to track down every anamolie as best you can and make MU.LAB better than "Stable and Usable" and really make it Rock Solid.

For me, a bug is something which is intended to work and doesn't.

I would suggest a new definiton of bug. A bug is something a user could have reasonably expected to work given the product and documentation and doesn't.

John

[johnjaypl]

Somehow to me, the tone of your discussion sound very aggressive and mean, some people might find it offensive.
Maybe it's your way of talking and your intentions are good but still, the tone of a discussion can make miracles or get you comments like " "

I'm not sure what "tone" you think is appropriate.

For the most part I only come here to report problems in as frank and clear a way as I can. But I also sometimes give my feedback, again as frankly and clearly as I can about a product. Which is hard to do on an internet forum.

I think there's a lot of room to modulate the tone of what I write by how you read it.

If you see something specific that I said that you feel is in appropriate then please point that out.

For example, I think calling someone an idiot in a form is inappropriate.

Somehow you have problems with things that nobody else had.
I have no crashes, not in M2.7 and not in M3. Well, I have one constant crash when using EW Symphonic VSTi, but I have same crashes in FL9, Cakewalk (demo) and Pro Tools (demo), so it's not a Mu.Lab issue.
I use many plugins (I have aprox. 2GB of plugins) and no crashes, no timing issues, no mute problems, no nothing.
To me Mu.Lab seems to be pretty much "rock solid".

I believe that there are ways to use MU.LAB that would make it seem pretty much, "rock solid".

Perhaps you can lend the same courtesy to me and bleive that my experince is real too

John

[MuTools]

Ok, we have different definitions of the term "rock solid".
For me, rock solid especially means: Stable and Usable!

I guess I have a wider range of the quality of software.

Topic was defining "rock solid" not "quality of software".

It seems to me that this falls into the area of how much testing MUTOOLS can and does do on it's own.
And how much testing MUTOOLS does on its own is releated to how much you would have to charge for the software. I think everyone would expect a $400 DAW package to be tested fairly well before it went out. And that means a significant team of people developing test suits that run on many platforms that uncover many intermitant bugs. The testing is part of what you get for your $400. Of course it still won't be perfect but it will be close enough or people will want their money back.

Money back because e.g. there would be a bug in Cubase?!

Get real.

Even microsoft isn't sued for all the security wholes in windows
Start counting the financial consequences of that!

My advice (again, you can file it as you see fit)
would be to track down every anamolie as best you can and make MU.LAB better than "Stable and Usable" and really make it Rock Solid.

It sounds like you don't respect my words.

Well John, i'm sure your "Rock Solid" is waaaaaaay better than mine.

And yes, this is 100% irony. You're welcome.

If you have something concrete to report, a real well defined issue in MU.LAB, then i'll be interested. And if there are VST plugins involved, then please first try to make sure that it's not a buggy VST. Because, as said before, this company is indeed too small to start researching every single VST. Smallness is not a synonym for disadvantage, it's a quality/property.

[liquidsound]

Dear John...

Since it's impossible to change, we are what we are, it would be helpful to you, as for everybody else including me, to understand that the world out there will reflect EXACTLY who you are.

It would be very helpful for you to check this link. Seriously.

http://www.amazon.com/As-You-Think-Jame ... 732&sr=1-1

It's OK to avoid my posts but it will not help you to improve.

Not everyone it's beyond repair. You can do better than this.

[MuTools]

Trying to abstract from a couple of more emotional posts on this topic:

John, the fact that you provide interesting feedback is greatly appreciated, even though your technical descriptions are not always clear from the first post, imho. Anyway, bottom line is: appreciated!

At the same time it's also my impression there is something in the way you write things down that sounds aggressive, unhappy and sometimes a bit unrespectful. Usually people don't like that. I would be surprised if this is the first time you get this kind of feedback, is it? We could go on on this on a psychologic topic, but hey there are other forums for that. Anyway, be yourself, be happy, with respect.

About MUTOOLS, the company: Yes, it's still small, and MU.LAB still is the only product, a young product. It can't be big from the start. And even integrating a project like MU.LAB into a big company is not a guarantee that things will evolve better. Been there, seen that, with Muzys.

Luckily MUTOOLS gets support from a group of very gentle people and i want to thank all these people for that! The constructive people here on the forum, the other people who rather prefer emailing, and also the MU.LAB customers, who choose MU.LAB as their tool. Without you, MUTOOLS is nothing. Thank you for helping MU.LAB grow!

My passion about music and technology is also a bit a weakness: I should focus more on the commercial side too, as it's vital for the further evolution of MUTOOLS. I must and will also work on that.

That's also one of the reasons (among others) i'll take an r&d pause after releasing M3. To de-focus from coding and re-broaden the mind on conceptual level, both product-wise as marketing-wise.

Last but not least: When i try to avoid wasting time with examining every little (buggy?) VST (as there are a lot of buggy VSTs out there, if you're experienced in the field, you should know this, else: believe me), it's not because i don't care, at the contrary, it's because i also do care about the many items on the whishlist. Balancing, time management.

Cheers,

Jo

[Stephan326]

So Jo.. apparently this John chap does not understand what can be done with MuTools..

For the last 3 or 4 days I have crawled into my R & D Cave and begun to see what was possible. Lets just say that I have taken the guitar rig 4 loopmachine and triggered it by sending a MIDI clip to the guitar rig channel and letting guitar learn that note to control its Record mechanism.
I start it and let it record a drumloop from Jamstix. It plays thru once then I can record guitar or whatever keys I want because I can route wusik or dimension pro,etc to the same channel all the while using a footcontroller to control panning and record volume in GR4. So a lot can be done.

Unfortunately not all plugins are gonna be compatible because of issues related to the plugin. I love Sonar and some the other "Big Daws" but you cannot even get them to do what is described above. Reaper and Live are the only two that can do similar.

It's not the price of the DAW that matters. Sometimes it takes a bit of forward thinking to use your tools to their fullest. Sorry John, ol pal but you're wrong.

[TheGuysanIdiot]

Hi All,

I am not here to argue nor am I here to change the way people think.

Everyone has a right to their own opinion.

For what it is worth.

Here is my opinion.

I think MU.LAB M3 is genius.

I think Jo is a genius.

OZ

[liquidsound]

It's sooooo good to be in great company.

I have (and just about to "HAD") several DAWs.
MuLab did the trick. It removed everything a Musician doesn't need.

There is no way back.

[sorohanro]

@johnjaypl
Taking a look on your website, seeing all thise guitars... impressive... quite impressive. This explain the level of your perfectionism
However, the software it's a bit of different "animal". It's just one product that it's tailored to fit several users. It is also stated (if I remember correctly) that not all plugins are supported.

Also you can't make just one guitar to fit all people( half electric/ half acoustic/ strings half nylon half metal/ sound good for jazz, metal, blues, country...etc...) but when you make a good one, you'll say "it's a freackin' awesome guitar" and you'll find hurtful comments like "it's not good, your definition of good is wider than mine, your guitar sucks if you want to play epic-polka-metal-jazz on Indian not tempered scales".

Bottom line, try to see the good sides of things when you talk to people and let them see that you've seen those.
Second bottom line, your guitars are awesome, now I dream about them I love, really love how looks that white strat.

[johnjaypl]

Ok, we have different definitions of the term "rock solid".
For me, rock solid especially means: Stable and Usable!

I guess I have a wider range of the quality of software.

Topic was defining "rock solid" not "quality of software".

I have no idea what your point is. We were talking about MU.LAB, which is software, and if it's rock solid or not. Here's some definitions I googled.

Definition:

1. completely solid: firm and unshakable


2. unlikely to break: extremely hard and unlikely to break

That is simply not my experience of MU.LAB. I break it every day in many ways, it's a pretty fragil application in my opinion. And I'm perfectly entitled to my opinion. Furthmore, I'm willing to explain why I feel this way to anyone that honestly wants to understand my MU.LAB experience.

It seems to me that this falls into the area of how much testing MUTOOLS can and does do on it's own.
And how much testing MUTOOLS does on its own is releated to how much you would have to charge for the software. I think everyone would expect a $400 DAW package to be tested fairly well before it went out. And that means a significant team of people developing test suits that run on many platforms that uncover many intermitant bugs. The testing is part of what you get for your $400. Of course it still won't be perfect but it will be close enough or people will want their money back.

Money back because e.g. there would be a bug in Cubase?!

Get real.

I think you need to get real. But I assure you that if I paid $100 for an application that performed like MU.LAB, let alone $400, I would get my money back. I've used MU.LAB (this time around) about a week and I had how many problems that I've posted about let alone the ones I don't post about because of the difficuilty of doing so and the poor service I get when I do. Not to mention the abuse I have to put up with in the process.

It sounds like you don't respect my words.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. I don't agree with everything you say, that's for sure.

... And if there are VST plugins involved, then please first try to make sure that it's not a buggy VST. Because, as said before, this company is indeed too small to start researching every single VST.

I've been thinking about my VST compatabilty issues with MU.LAB. Maybe I should start a thread entitled somehting like "Plugins that won't work in MU.LAB." List the plugin, describe the issues, etc. etc. That might save some other folks some time and maybe some of the plugin developers will get involved in finding out what's really happeing. Do you think that's a good idea?

I'LL also add, if MU.LAB behaves in an poor way when dealing with a plugin issue that it could have handled more appropriately then it's understandable that a person wouldn't be too quick to blame to plugin.

John

[cytone]

I think you need to get real. But I assure you that if I paid $100 for an application that performed like MU.LAB, let alone $400, I would get my money back. I've used MU.LAB (this time around) about a week and I had how many problems that I've posted about let alone the ones I don't post about because of the difficuilty of doing so and the poor service I get when I do. Not to mention the abuse I have to put up with in the process.

Unbelievable. If I recall, Jo gave you MU.LAB 3 UL for free and this is how you return the favour. All you ever post are incoherent, obtuse and insulting ramblings. If you have found genuine bugs in the product I've no idea of how anyone of sane mind could follow your descriptions. Other members of the forum including Jo have been more than considerate to you. I called you an and still stand by it.

[NBV]

My two cents:

There are very specific VSTi's which will not work with Mu.Lab. That's a fact. I know one that I simply can't use.

Will I not use Mu.Lab because of that? Certainly, that's not the answer. Mu.Lab might be not completely "rock solid", but it is simple, yet powerful and absolutely modular and does what I want it to do without the cumbersome workflow of most other DAW's. Instead, I would look for alternatives to those VST's which causes crashes. I think it is normal, every DAW has its own issues, there are too many VST's to research about every one. It is simply not possible, even if you have an army of programmers testing every existing VST and finetuning mulab to work with that specific VST, it is not an atainable objective.

So compromise, look for another plugin and move on.

By the way, I find something strange in your comment since the integrated synths and effects work very well in Mu.Lab.

Cheers.

[Nielzie]

John,

May I suggest you read all 59 pages of this thread: http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=274889

Well okay.. you may skip some pages because it's a BIG read

Hopefully you will get an idea how much work and devotion the developer has brought into this program in the beta stage and how much has been fixed and fine-tuned. How actively developed this piece of software has been in just a relatively short time. And you will see that there aren't many if not any users that are experiencing the problems that you seem to have with M3 in the last beta stages, otherwise MU.LAB wouldn't certainly be in final stage right now.

And don't be sad or angry. Be patient and helpful as development will continue