M4 Test

[Nielzie]

and the patience with which jo responds to eveyone's concerns

Greatly appreciated and highly respected!

[MuTools]

I don't know if pads are a fad or not but I can see touchscreens becoming the standard within the next say 5-10 years(?).

Yes that's essentially what i meant, the touchscreen world (tablets, mobiles but also PCs more and more) where everything can/should be done without modifiers etc.

I won't abruptly change MuLab and deny the possibilities on desktops and laptops, but i do want to anticipate on the best of both worlds.

I think the good point of the touchscreen UI is that things are more instant and graphically.

I don't think it's a coincidence that these devices are a enormous success.
People seem to like it that way.

[MuTools]

Don't know about FL or Energy, but iMaschine is just a toy, not a serious music making program, good for "killing time" not to express deep feelings, philosophical ideas or complex moods(like all the music is, as we all know).
How many of you would think that you walk in a professional studio if you would see a iPhone as the main console ? or a iPad ?
Would you think is a professional studio ?
Would you buy their services?

Just chat-wise: I think young people are very no-nonsense these days, and that's a good thing.

Today you can be very creative with these tablet toys.
And having fun and therefore being creative and inspired is a very high quality if you look at it from a music-professional standpoint!
Instant fun and inspiration = professional feature!

Now, don't get me wrong, but I would totally hate if Mu.Lab would became just a shiny toy, an instrument of entertaining not a powerful music making tool, optimized for idiots instead of musicians (close concepts, I know, but still a bit different).

Brainstorming more: I don't get it why you guys seems to so rejective about the toy aspect. Please explain me.

That said, even though i indeed want MuLab to have that instant fun aspect, (that's one of the goals i try to achieve and that's what you're sensing), please we all know MuLab is MUCH more than that! If you look into its depths you need a parachute.

But ok, KvrAudio is not the place where i'll score many points with that aspect. KvrAudio is a power user site and so i understand the essence of your criticisms and i take it serious. That's what i meant with "i accept the warning".

[MuTools]

I get the feeling that I use the wrong programm...

Wrong Tool? Nah! Wrong Approach..

I think it's a mixed story: The tool should come as close as possible to how a user likes/is used to work. Atoh: It also indeed is a good thing that a user revises and eventually updates his workflow habbits from time to time. That can be inspiring. Yin Yang.

[MuTools]

That's really a question, if you ask me...
If you are working on a song, do you really insert new empty sequences that much, or do you do more repeating and copying existing ones to duplicate and changing the content...
For me, it's about 1% inserting new sequences (only the first ones on the most tracks (I sometimes copy them between the tracks)) and 99% I do the rest...
In Trance music, you work a lot (really a "big" lot) with periodically repeating events, like fills, crashes and so on...

Sure! I love trance too, among many other music styles. I know what you're talking about.

But then you copy the parts around, no?
That's what i'm amazed about, that you are drawing the new existing sequences by choosing them from a popup list. Is that really a efficient workfow for you?

impossible now, because the named workarounds take too much time and attention for this special situation.

'take so much time'?
In this specific case it's about 1 click extra i.e. click the sequence field on the part property panel at the bottom-left of te composer and you got the same thing as in M3, even a bit better as the audio/envelope part options are already filtered out.

But hey, i respect your workflow.
If you like to do it that way, ok, i accept that.
I thought a bit further of this and i was wrong in my first thought that a modifier couldn't solve this for when drawing new parts the modifiers are unused. I've added a note about this on the wishlist.

That said, i don't expect that this single detail will make The difference for you. Maybe MuLab indeed is not evolving the way you want? Because of that 'toy' (in a positive meaning) aspect i also want to give it.
Another consideration i often take into account is to keep MuLab small/light/simple enough (especially code-wise) so it's easily managable by 1 person (or a very small team). That's also something which influences certain design decissions.

Do know that i'll always keep on listening to your feedback and wishes, and i love frank constructive argumented criticism. Please keep on shooting.

A next thing, is this meanwhile really huge on screen piano...don't you think, there is a good reason, why many "Big Boys" on the daw/host market have one, but hidden, that only people open it, who really need it...this huge thing makes MuLab looks like a toy for children...

Well that's part of the idea indeed. I explained that in my previous posts.
It's about instant access.

(about the size: It already has been finetuned not taking the full screen; see M4075 or the next coming M4076)

Besides that aspect, there are deeper reasons for that Focussed Module Panel:

As MuLab is very modular, sometimes you want to put the MIDI focus (your keyboard & controllers) on a specific sub-module. This can now be done by dropping the module on that panel. That's an easy way of doing an advanced thing. At the same time that panel also functions as a monitor to quickly see what module has focus. So that's why that panl is there. Now hile developing M4 i got that panel with only the display and so i got the idea to add a keyboard to it so you can also instantly play that focussed module. That's how it grew.

As an alternative to this approach, i also thought about letting the tracks *always* define which module has MIDI focus. So the 'focussed' track would be highlighted and it is that track's target module that gets MIDI focus.

That sounds like a good thing, and it's a traditional way of doing it.
But then what when you quickly want to focus a certain sub-module while there is no track for it? Then you would have to make a track for it? That's not very sweet is it.

So i thought that the Focussed Module Panel is a good idea.
Also because it helps in the 'toy' aspect that i want to achieve (but which you don't seem like that much).

Maybe solution is to make all this work in parrallel and allow you to hide that Focussed Module Panel and put something else there, e.g. a dashboard with function and editor shortcuts cfr the idea we talked about earlier.
That's also what pljones meant, i think, that those panels (palettes) should be more user-controllable.

I'll think this thru more, but it will be for a future version i'm afraid.
In M4 i've invested so much time in the modular sound engine, i'm sorry i may have missed certain other aspects. Hopefully M4 will be apreciated as a much better tool than M3 and so hopefully there will be enough sales to go on for M5. To everyone: If you want the MuLab story to continue, please help in making MuLab known!

not only time to program, it's your brain filled with secondary stuff, wasted rescources of a genius mind here... that was the reason, why I didn't reply all the time...I didn't want to waste even more time...

To you these aspects are secondary, ok, but not to others, so it's ok that these aspects are taken serious.

At the same time i do want to take your feedback serious too!
So please do post your constructive feedback, i'm at least reading everything.

I think this whole discussion might be a good thing as hopefully we better understand eachother views.

I want MuLab to be friendly to kids and newbies. At the same time i want MuLab to offer a vast sonic workspace to power users and a lot of flexibility. But without compromising that basic easiness which is essential to kids and newbies. I don't see how this essential easiness could hurt power users as each power user still is a kid in some way, but not the other way around.

That's a really fine line, on which you want to walk on...

I'm afraid that's true. It's far from easy to create a concept that answers to all needs. But i do think M4 does a remarkable job there. (eventhough there is so much that can be improved/extended (first next thing = multicore!!))

FLS's key to success is it's complete package...it is an "all-in-one wonder"

I think it's success is especially created in the past.
Because it had that instant fun aspect: launch it, press play and you had sound cause you only had to click those drum leds and your ears were eating.

Lateron they build on and on on this and now they're so well known that it sells itself. I don't mean this unrespectful, i think they made some very fine synths! And it's looking good to many people, the eye candy part is important too. And another part of its success is a good marketing team there.
That's what i'm really missing.

I don't think, the key to success is a very easy to use workflow (which automatically ends up in restrictions for advanced users)

I don't agree with the word 'automatic'.
As an example: MuLab 4.

No app is perfect and you should be proud on your work...
Sadly, I overdo often some critics as soon as I get obsessed with a topic ...

No app is perfect, and also no human is perfect, not you not me no one. No prob, that's how it is

Thanks for the interesting talk about this. Hopefully to be continued.

[liquidsound]

Sorry to re-jump in this but the use of the word "Toy" is totally unfair not only for Jo but to for the most of the user which have also their own way of appreciate MuLab evolution. If someone think so high of himself to declare what's a toy or a what's "professional" tool sould use an ounce of modesty. MuLab is far from being a damn toy my friend. Mobile device issues? Our company, among the the largest in the prototype business as made a tremendous leap forward thanks to these Toys, and my self using iMaschine have done some stuff that even with a regular DAW could not be spontaneously achieved. Great people = Great mistakes! Try not to be one of them! A Toy, you must be out of your inflated mind.
Sorry everyone but I can't stand egomaniacs.

Just to add, this post is to the ones thinking MuLab is or is going to be a Toy. What a way to come across someone's vision and genuine efforts!

[janamdo]

Ok, for the new young coming user of Mulab ..it looks maybe a toy (coloring and keyboard) on first sight, but existing users no better.
For me looks it not like a toy, but it is a sort of refreshment.. a new face.
I agree that Mulab wants to make Mulab more attractive voor Noobs and youngster user..Mulab is for the whole world. (and the pipes must smoking )
I hope that @trancit get his desired functionality back from Mulab, because he
looks upset about the lost functionality he claims.
what is wrong to have a toy (homo ludens)..

[liquidsound]

You'd better rethink about kids and toy. What's a toy to them could be more than we can handle with our adult current knowledge and skills http://www.origo3dprinting.com/the-making-of-origo/

By the way the MuLab looks will be never good enough for certain users. Look what's happening to Reaper, one of the most customizable DAW in the market and still users are just complaining All-the-times...... It's never going to be good enough.
Yes I think that the overall look of MuLab is far from being hi-tech, which can invite the curiosity of a more established group of DAW users, but to feel that it's turning into an inferior music tool is a closed mind judgment and childish character. An opinion not well elaborated can easily become an attach and even an insult to the nature of the fact.

[sorohanro]

I respect Jo and his vision. This is what made Mu.Lab in the first place.
We all do and I think we all are grateful to have a brilliant mind like him to make our favorite DAW.
Those been said, here's some more feedback:
Interface
- Piano - as an idea is good. If you don't have a MIDI keyboard and you just want to check fast the sounds this is the best way. It's a bit to big to my taste but not really something to bother me too much.
- Colors - YES - when I make a sub-mix (let's say drums) is incredibly useful.
- Tracks colors - YES - now I can say just from a look where's the guitar and where's the synth.
- Konobs/buttons - loved the old buttons, so clean, so simple yet so professional looking.

New Modules
- Drums - best WIN, totally love that new instrument.
- New Synths - sounding good, more advanced controls but a bit scary. I got used to the old ones, when you have a "simple piano" without so many options that can intimidate.
- New effects - GREAT !!!

Commercial Appeal
- There is a lack of specific instruments. If you want to make is appealing to many people, I think you should have more specific styles targeted instruments (or even styles packs that you can sell separately?).
- Some more analyzing tools with eye candy interface. For n00bs this would be like "WOW" and for more professionals would be a useful tool to check the mix.
- Some new/ fresh/ big names making demo songs, maybe having also some voices or real instruments recorded in demo songs now that Mu.Lab can import mp3 and ogg.

What I can do is to make some sample packs with more orchestral instruments and maybe some percussion and drums, but would be great if we could find some people to program synths or make samples for more modern stuff.

[sorohanro]

You'd better rethink about kids and toy. What's a toy to them could be more than we can handle with our adult current knowledge and skills

Regardless of how many skills you can develop with this:


you will never ever learn to play a real guitar with it. However, if you use this:

you might learn how to play guitar, have fun, get more chicks and even play some games with it(<-linky).

I say this from the point of view of a teacher. I am teaching trumpet and guitar, from age 6 to 34 with good results and I always motivate people and manage to make them have fun.

[liquidsound]

Sorohanro,You are not the one being target by my early morning reaction to the sequel of posts regarding MuLab evolution. Even though you think so because of the word Toy. That was the tip of the iceberg. In fact you are among the most balanced input/feedback user in here.
I know Jo is actually grateful of almost any kind of feedback and I'm not intending police this forum. Far from it. I just can't understand the "One Point Of View" or else..... You know what I mean? Jo may no like my impulsive response, and I understand that too, but blunt for blunt here I am.

[Nielzie]

Thanks for changing those black knobs in the latest version Jo, they look better to me like this

By the way, I don't know if it will take you too many time or resources, but have you thought about the idea of releasing a modular synth VST based on the modular engine and modules of MuLab (so you don;t have to write too much new code I guess)?

And sell it of course. People that use other hosts would get the oppertunity to buy a fantastic new modular synth (and be exposed to the power of MuLab too with that, and perhaps a possibility to crossgrade to MuLab after that) and you could get some extra side income from it for future development of M5, etc.

Now I think of it, in fact that would be some sort of "MuLab light" in VST form, so such an idea could also be expanded later to port to portable devices like iPhone/Pad, etc. in the future.

[Nielzie]

I also have a little question. Is it possible to do FM in MuLab and how?

I'd love to be able to just add another Oscillator, right-click and select "Modulate Oscillator 1" or something so it's automatically configured to FM. And then of course be able to set the FM percentage.

[MuTools]

By the way, I don't know if it will take you too many time or resources, but have you thought about the idea of releasing a modular synth VST based on the modular engine and modules of MuLab (so you don;t have to write too much new code I guess)?

Yes absolutely.
I'm working towards that point.
In fact it was one of the main directives when building M4, that's why i invested so much effort in the modular sound engine.
MUX VST should be realizable in 2012.

While we are at that point: What would have most priority, also taking the business aspect into account: Multicore for MuLab or releasing MUX VST.
I don't know yet myself, i wish i could realize them both in 2 weeks

[MuTools]

I also have a little question. Is it possible to do FM in MuLab and how?

I'd love to be able to just add another Oscillator, right-click and select "Modulate Oscillator 1" or something so it's automatically configured to FM. And then of course be able to set the FM percentage.

Not yet, although it's close, should be realizable in a reasonable time.
But i had to draw lines somewhere for M4, otherwise it was 2012 already and we still won't have multicore in MuLab. I'll prioritize MC above FM. But i t will come! I expect that the oscillators will get an audio input for doing FM (in fact PM). Then you can route whatever audio source to PM modulate that oscillator