M4 Test

[MuTools]

Wouldn't be more practical to have Two distinctive buttons for them since the Modular Area is such a unique and powerful feature in MuLab? Almost all the DAW have a dedicated button for the key features they offer and it would give the beginner an awareness of the power, implication and implementation of the Modular system. A button declares a degree of power more than a Menu choice IMO.

Interesting idea

To get the attention of more serious music lovers, but ..Jo is a modest developer

the answer invariably seems to be along the lines of 'there are key combinations' or 'it will clutter the interface', at least when i ask. but you never know. other than that, jo seems determined to follow his vision.

I'll keep on taking care that the MuLab GUI stays as simple as possible.
But of course i'm open to add things where necessary.
For example: That's why i added the grid controls in the M4 composer and sequence editors.
If i'm convinced that a certain button will benefit to all kind of users, then i'll add it. (taking worklist priorities into account, as always)
But in case i think it's too specific to a certain workflow and that it could hurt other users user experience, then i think the Dash Board feature will be a nice answer as then each one can customize things in a personal way.
Hope this clarifies my vision.

[MuTools]

jo seems determined to follow his vision.

It should be that way but he also needs to change the way MuLab is presented.
There is lot of power already in the design of it that it is not emphasized such as the Modular area and the various modules used in creating neat stuff.

By using interface clues, such as dedicated buttons, any user would get to be exposed to the inner works of his visions. For example lets say there is a button saying "Create a New Synth or Effect" and a MUX pops up, or a button saying "Go Modular" for the Modular Area(you know what I mean) even a beginner would be compelled to learn more. A menu choice seems to be one of those extra or confusing or too technical thing to leave it for later etc.

Simplicity with exposure is much better.
When you open MuLab there is absolutely nothing there that reflect its uniqueness (I'm referring to the Modularity side of it). Why not...

I agree the MUX Play Editors should have a separate button to open the deep editor. That's on the wishlist now, but i'm afraid i can't make it before release anymore, we'll see.

[MuTools]

Mmmm... A quick question - I've not investigated in M4 yet, so may be off topic.

In M3, IIRC, we can put audio effects in the audio path before recording takes place but the same was not true for MIDI events. Has that changed? i.e. if someone has a MIDI Arpeggiator effect and wants it recorded into the sequencer (but then not triggered on subsequent play back), is that possible?

Not yet.

[> DiGiT <]

looks like you cant hide the modular section at all now. and you cant page to the other windows with ctrl+tab...

[liquidsound]

Welcome Back! Drink plenty of water, get a deep tissue massage and stay away from starches for few days

[MuTools]

and you cant page to the other windows with ctrl+tab.

Nothing changed there. Ctrl+Tab to step thru the open windows still works here. Not on your system?

[liquidsound]

Why are the VST parameters no longer showing in the piano roll? I have to create a new sequencer and record some parameters in order to show up, of course, in a new sequencer and not where my notes are

[MuTools]

Are you sure that you're targetting the VST itself?

When you target the rack, it won't show the VST parameters.
Because imagine a rack containing more VSTs, then which VST parameters..?

[liquidsound]

Are you sure that you're targetting the VST itself?

When you target the rack, it won't show the VST parameters.
Because imagine a rack containing more VSTs, then which VST parameters..?

Lost...
I have the VST in the first slot in the rack.
I go to the corresponding track and I draw a new sequencer part. Open the part and I get only the Standard MIDI controllers and usual basic 4 parameters. Where are the VST parameters?
I'm a little confuse about targets as of M4 . Is there a major change in logistics?
I'm leaving the office. I will get back later on. Thanks in advance.

[pljones]

Are you sure that you're targetting the VST itself?

Would it be possible - ideally before M4 is released - to stop giving multiple things the same name? Sequences get unique names, which is good. However, giving a Rack and a module the same name is bad. The auto-naming of rack and track can be confusing.

Whilst investigating I discovered I can't actually assign a track a new target. I started with the default session, deleted all but the master rack, leaving the tracks un-targetted, added four new racks, inserted the same synth in the first two racks' first slots, then tried to select the track targets. There was no targetting menu.

[MuTools]

Are you sure that you're targetting the VST itself?

When you target the rack, it won't show the VST parameters.
Because imagine a rack containing more VSTs, then which VST parameters..?

Lost...
I have the VST in the first slot in the rack.
I go to the corresponding track and I draw a new sequencer part. Open the part and I get only the Standard MIDI controllers and usual basic 4 parameters. Where are the VST parameters?
I'm a little confuse about targets as of M4 . Is there a major change in logistics?

No changes comared to M3, it's the same principle:

In the sequence editor you'll see the parameters of the target module.
So if the track is targetting the rack, you'll get the rack parameters.
If the track is targetting the VST directly, you'll get the VST parameters.
You can change the target of a track by drag-dropping a module onto the track panel. Hope this helps.

[MuTools]

Are you sure that you're targetting the VST itself?

Would it be possible - ideally before M4 is released - to stop giving multiple things the same name? Sequences get unique names, which is good. However, giving a Rack and a module the same name is bad. The auto-naming of rack and track can be confusing.

At the same time it's a feature!
Otherwise you have to rename things more manually, now it's a helper.
And the icons between a rack and vst will still be different so you can still see the difference. And if you don't like the auto naming, you're free to give your own names, which is not more work than if the auto naming feature didn't exist cause then you had to give a name too.
Hope you agree with the logic, else please let me know.

Whilst investigating I discovered I can't actually assign a track a new target. I started with the default session, deleted all but the master rack, leaving the tracks un-targetted, added four new racks, inserted the same synth in the first two racks' first slots, then tried to select the track targets. There was no targetting menu.

Changing the target of a track can be done by drag-dropping a module onto the track panel. Much easier than in M3.

[pljones]

At the same time it's a feature! Otherwise you have to rename things more manually, now it's a helper.

Oh, I wouldn't have it not auto-name at all, just something more identifiable. And the icons are helpful once you've understood they're trying to tell you something. But keeping it simple means not introducing unnecessary points of confusion. A rack having "FancySynth" added as its first item could be auto-named "FancySynth Rack", for example.

Changing the target of a track can be done by drag-dropping a module onto the track panel. Much easier than in M3.

That's a UI inconsistency though. MU.LAB works on right-click menus, pretty much everywhere. There isn't one for this operation. That's confusing and frustrating. Drag'n'drop isn't intuitive - you have to be told about it. (Once you know, yes, it can be easier.)

Another naming issue. If I have "FancySynth" in the first slot of Rack 1 and Rack 2, then drag the first FancySynth to track 1 and the second to track 2 - both tracks are labelled "FancySynth[1]". Both instances of FancySynth in the racks appear to have the same name ("FancySynth"); ideally these should be uniquely auto-named, which would sort out the track naming problem, I think.

[MuTools]

But keeping it simple means not introducing unnecessary points of confusion. A rack having "FancySynth" added as its first item could be auto-named "FancySynth Rack", for example.

Ok, i'm open to that solution. Eventhough it will result in longer rack names. But then, a user can always overwrite it by a user-defined name.
So ok for me. What do others think?

Changing the target of a track can be done by drag-dropping a module onto the track panel. Much easier than in M3.

That's a UI inconsistency though. MU.LAB works on right-click menus, pretty much everywhere. There isn't one for this operation. That's confusing and frustrating. Drag'n'drop isn't intuitive - you have to be told about it. (Once you know, yes, it can be easier.)

You have be told about the right-click too, so the fact that you may need a hint is not a main prob. The drag-drop feature is one of the highlights of M4 and will gain importance in the future. If something can be done via DD, then i'll prefer that way over the right-click way, for the simple reason drag-drop is much more right-side-brain based, i.e. in the musical brain area, and thus more ergonomic. Of course i'll document this feature asap, and sorry for the confusion during the M3->M4 transition.

Another naming issue. If I have "FancySynth" in the first slot of Rack 1 and Rack 2, then drag the first FancySynth to track 1 and the second to track 2 - both tracks are labelled "FancySynth[1]". Both instances of FancySynth in the racks appear to have the same name ("FancySynth"); ideally these should be uniquely auto-named, which would sort out the track naming problem, I think.

The [1] appendix is about the MIDI channel. It will only be shown for modules that effectively use MIDI channels. All VSTs are using MIDI channels. Most MUX patches do not. The auto-indexing for equal names in the same group is using round brackets (). Yes, that could be confusing. But i don't see a solution for that, except that if you encounter such situation, then practical solution is to use user-defined names to avoid the equal names.

I want to hide MIDI channeling as much as possible where it is redundant. Because it would only add complexity to newbees while it would not add any functionality.

[janamdo]

parameter "dragging and dropping" i do it see more in programs and always with a menu working is also obselete
Imagine that you always must target something..that means that must be making a choice from a list and that can be complicated too for starters in music.