Help to start

[fuerchan]

Hello,

I have tried for several days to record an audio track with MU.LAB Free. But impossible. I made several options… Even on my soundcard (terratec fir6 24/96). But always nothing…
Even by helping me of the handbook of assistance...

What it is exactly the procedure to be followed?

In the same way, I tried to make a mixdown with a music of demonstration. All that I obtain it is a file .wav of 12 Mo with any sound. I make listening with VLC.

And to finish, I have make a safeguard of the various tests carried out with a music of demonstration… I find that the backup file is enormous!! Not less 92Mo for one of the small musics of demonstration and that, apparently without audio.

Can one inform me on all that? : -)

Thank you.

F.

[MuTools]

Hello,

I have tried for several days to record an audio track with MU.LAB Free. But impossible. I made several options… Even on my soundcard (terratec fir6 24/96). But always nothing…
Even by helping me of the handbook of assistance...

What it is exactly the procedure to be followed?

http://www.mutools.com/mulab/docs/recording.html

In the same way, I tried to make a mixdown with a music of demonstration. All that I obtain it is a file .wav of 12 Mo with any sound. I make listening with VLC.

I assume you have used FILE -> Mixdown Audio, right?

Some things to check:

* Maybe you had selected a part that only contains controller info, and mixdowned that? Solution: Make sure you don't have any parts selected or click "No" on the question "Only mixdown selected parts".

* Maybe you mixdowned to a 32 bit audio file and VLC can't open 32 bit audio files?

And to finish, I have make a safeguard of the various tests carried out with a music of demonstration… I find that the backup file is enormous!! Not less 92Mo for one of the small musics of demonstration and that, apparently without audio.

Maybe you did a couple of mixdowns to sample?

Such mixdowns result in new samples in RAM and when you save the session the samples are embedded in the MuSession file.

Hope this helps.

[janamdo]

Is there no way to make the audio routing more userfriendly for the mono and stereo recording?

i suggest to give the audio input module in the modulair session area extra names : mono or stereo

It works like this..if the user select one input ..mono is written on the adio input module
If the user choose two inputs ..stereo is denoted on the audio input module


When a session is set up in teh modulair area is clear what are mono or stereo recordings

How about this?

[MuTools]

Sounds like a nice suggestion
I've taken note and will check deeper when i'm back from holidays.
(leaving soon)

[fuerchan]

Hello,

I very tested and that still does not function. No the led, not of sound…

This software is unfortunately not simple to control. There are too many handling to make and options with notching for Juste to record a sound…

I do not say that the software does not function. It is surely a problem of handling… But after 3 days passed on this software for nothing to have, then there are things to re-examine in its ergonomics…

Moreover, this video: summarizes the situation very well. To click here, then there and still here…

I am not carrying a beginner in this kind of software, but there… It is incomprehensible and its logic is not mine (...).

I am sorry, I give up and pass to another… Damage but I do not have time to lose in interminable handling… : -)

Good continuation… and thank you ; -)

F.

[robenestobenz]

I agree, it is a bit complex. Not unmanageably so for me, but it took me a while to get my head around it.

To be able to right click on an audio track and select inputs from your audio interface -- the same way you currently select output targets -- would simplify things enormously IMO.

[MuTools]

This would require a track based system.

Maybe a track based system would simplify the whole concept?

To all: What do you think?

[liquidsound]

Is there anyway to write Macros for basic procedures?
Standard setups that they could eventually be customized by the user.
You know, Record an Audio it should set up a basic routing etc and then anyone can take over and modify.
XT 2.5.3 has something similar with Ctrl+I
Of course XT is not as modular as MuLab any longer so it's a little easier to implement

[MuTools]

This would require a track based system.
Maybe a track based system would simplify the whole concept?
To all: What do you think?

Added info: In a track based system it would still be possible to do things per sequence part because you would be able to set the MIDI channel per part.

It's already a longer time that i tend to choose one of them, not both, as it complicates things and makes MU.LAB less easy and less transparant.

Curious for what you guys think about the advantages and disadvantages of a track based system vs a part based system.

(open topic for the coming weeks)

[janamdo]

Hello,

I very tested and that still does not function. No the led, not of sound…

This software is unfortunately not simple to control. There are too many handling to make and options with notching for Juste to record a sound…

I do not say that the software does not function. It is surely a problem of handling… But after 3 days passed on this software for nothing to have, then there are things to re-examine in its ergonomics…

Moreover, this video: summarizes the situation very well. To click here, then there and still here…

I am not carrying a beginner in this kind of software, but there… It is incomprehensible and its logic is not mine (...).

I am sorry, I give up and pass to another… Damage but I do not have time to lose in interminable handling… : -)

Good continuation… and thank you ; -)

F.

Is Mulab right now not OK?
For me its only a question of automating some basic setups for starting up

note: i urge a few times to the developer to add some basis templates for audio recording and midi recording and a combination of both
On this way the new user can study how things are set up and record a piece of music to get already some confidence and study the software

Now we get the situation that a firsttime user must figure out how it all works ..that's too much time consuming and frustrating i think
Think commercial...Mulab for the mass ( whole world) than it must be simple to start with
The principle is: start from basic to complicated
Ideal when the "easy user" discover later on what he can do with mulab

It must be easy for the new user to set up a audio track or a midi track in the composerscreen
There must be a coming up a message : choose audiorecording or midi recording? and from there further....
If user choose audiorecording than follows ..is this a mono or stero recording
Than what name for audioinput ( eg, singer or piano, gitar ..) ..and so on

Some basic steps automated for fuerchan to get starting..

[robenestobenz]

Added info: In a track based system it would still be possible to do things per sequence part because you would be able to set the MIDI channel per part.

While I'm in favour of having set inputs per track, would it not be possible to keep the flexibility of allowing tracks with per-part destinations? I often have this sort of track to save track-count for one shot or section specific samples which need to go to different racks.

It's already a longer time that i tend to choose one of them, not both, as it complicates things and makes MU.LAB less easy and less transparant.

I don't see the part thing as complicating things for users -- it's one clearly labelled option in a drop down list which they don't have to use if they don't need to. If it results in a complication the code however, that's another thing...

Curious for what you guys think about the advantages and disadvantages of a track based system vs a part based system.

(open topic for the coming weeks)

Recording improvements are the biggest advantage, IMO. Being able to select inputs to a track the same way you do outputs now is one good thing - both faster and more simple. Then there's the ability to move monitoring and recording control onto the track headers themselves -- which will enable users to quickly control recording and have an at-a-glance view of the current settings.

I think getting rid of the session modular area as a necessary step to setting up multi-track audio recording is a good thing. I love the session modular area, and use it a lot, but I imagine it's a bit technical for new users.

Disadvantages, the only one I see would be if removal of the per-part target feature was necessary. But even then, I think having the simplified recording would be worth the trade-off.

[liquidsound]

A SubTrack can easily substitute a Part Target in case of a trade-off.
Is there any other loss in that case?
More experienced users could shed some light on this. After all whatever you can do with a Part can be achieved with a SubTrack.
I am I missing something?

[janamdo]

I think getting rid of the session modular area as a necessary step to setting up multi-track audio recording is a good thing. I love the session modular area, and use it a lot, but I imagine it's a bit technical for new users.

let us look first to the existing Mulab to get a easy start for recording a Midi or audio track
This discussion about to getting rid of the session modular aerea ..is too easy for a developer to give up because the concept is good

[sorohanro]

Maybe a track based system would simplify the whole concept?

To all: What do you think?

The most unfortunate idea.
The modularity and freedom are the landmarks of Mu.Lab. If you give up to those, Mu.Lab will be just another clone of Cubase or Cakewalk.
This would be like castrating a young man in love.

[janamdo]

Maybe a track based system would simplify the whole concept?

To all: What do you think?

The most unfortunate idea.
The modularity and freedom are the landmarks of Mu.Lab. If you give up to those, Mu.Lab will be just another clone of Cubase or Cakewalk.
This would be like castrating a young man in love.

i agree with you let Mutools first to try automate a midi and audio track set up for the user