Just a few remarks from a Mulab newbie...

[pljones]

You're right, thanks for highlighting. Corrected in the next version.

Aww, it's been a much beloved MuLab-ism for years for me...

[fluffy_little_something]

Somebody else has a similar problem, don't remember who it was, well, it's not really a problem, but still, a bit inconvenient: When I save a patch I made within an external synth VST, the next time I want to open a patch from or save a patch to that same VST user patch folder, another folder much higher up the hierarchy opens. However, when I load various patches from the patch folder one after the other, it remembers that folder and opens it right away. It's as if saving deleted the last used folder information. Strange

[fluffy_little_something]

You're right, thanks for highlighting. Corrected in the next version.

Aww, it's been a much beloved MuLab-ism for years for me...

Sorry I assume unlike me you are a native English speaker, are there more odd terms like that? I haven't used all options and menus etc., yet

[fluffy_little_something]

As I was programming a patch and had a zillion little windows open, I thought it would be cool if the little expand arrow in the rack would be inverted after clicking on it. Thus clicking on it again would close all those windows associated with that synth or effect

[fluffy_little_something]

Is it just me or is the orange color on the brown background a bit demanding on the eye? After working on a Mulab patch for a while I really have to stare to make out those letters and numbers. Maybe white instead of orange would be easier to read. Wondering what kind of display and resolution most people are using. On a notebook it must be even harder to read than on my 24" screen.

Yesterday I watched one of those tutorials and noticed that when changing a parameter value, there was a kind of yellow bubble or something. Is that on the MAC? I don't have such bubbles on Windows.

[fluffy_little_something]

I don't know on which side the issue is, but when I use Noisemaker in a pattern, I never know which patch I am using. (I have to get into the habit of renaming racks right away.) It just doesn't show up anywhere, neither in Noisemaker itself, nor in the corresponding Mulab rack. It always shows the name of some Noisemaker factory preset

[robenestobenz]

Is it just me or is the orange color on the brown background a bit demanding on the eye? After working on a Mulab patch for a while I really have to stare to make out those letters and numbers. Maybe white instead of orange would be easier to read. Wondering what kind of display and resolution most people are using. On a notebook it must be even harder to read than on my 24" screen.

Yesterday I watched one of those tutorials and noticed that when changing a parameter value, there was a kind of yellow bubble or something. Is that on the MAC? I don't have such bubbles on Windows.

Don't find the legibility of the orange poor on any of my equipment, but I do agree white would be more legible.

The yellow bubble is added by the recording software -- often they have click effects, key presses and so on to show the viewer offscreen input.

[fluffy_little_something]

Especially the parameter names might look better in white as the background shade of brown is even lighter there. The contrast between white parameter name and yellow parameter value would look nice and provide more visual structure to the GUI I guess. Just saying...
Maybe I am just spending too much time with Mulab It is quite addictive, though
(A friend told me recently that I must try Synthmaster, that it was the best synth out there. So I tried it just for fun and found its sound a bit sterile and plasticky, no chance against my own Mulab and Noisemaker patches )

Oh, ok, so I am not missing out on anything regarding those bubbles

[fluffy_little_something]

With some patches it only says Parameter 1 etc. on the first deep editor level while other parameters are named. Nobody knows what those anonymous parameters stand for. For instance with the B3 organ, which is a rather complex patch judging from all the modules and wiring on the next editor level

[AndreasD]

If you see "parameter 1" or such, these are not assigned.

Those patches that have some empty parameter ("Parameter 1") alternating with parameters having names (and functionalities) is a legacy issue.
In 'ancient times' the 16 meta parameter were setup in a fixed 4x4 grid. Not movable! So, if you want 1 param in the middle of row 2 you used meta parameter 6 or 7. The others left empty.
It was never put in the proper order. Quite a tedious task

[fluffy_little_something]

Ah, I see. Since there are hundreds of factory presets, streamlining them all manually would be quite a task. Can't one write a little script that can be applied to all the patches?
It does look a bit unprofessional, though, if I dare say If even I notice (but don't care apart from the initial wondering), professionals might consider such things indications of a lack of product maturity and maintenance, sorry After all, Mulab is supposed to steal paying customers from its fierce competition
Maybe one day the developers will have to decide whether they want to consider Mulab/MUX their one and only full-time calling (which might involve some financial risk) or a kind of hobby

[Reincke]

Ah, I see. Since there are hundreds of factory presets, streamlining them all manually would be quite a task. Can't one write a little script that can be applied to all the patches?

Funny, I had the same wish this morning (or at least the ability of manually sorting metaparameters). But then i thought "Hey!", I'm just in the deep editor, the "MuX development site" inside MuLab. Any "beautifying aspect" could be considered in the play editor. So this wish got low priority. (But it's still there ...)
JR

[fluffy_little_something]

I am almost always in the deep editor as the changes one can make via the uppermost level are somewhat superficial, they assume that one is basically happy with the main character of the sound already, which I hardly ever am, though
Agreed, it is not important to me, either, I was just wondering. Now that I know it, I will just ignore those parameters...

[MuTools]

With some patches it only says Parameter 1 etc. on the first deep editor level while other parameters are named. Nobody knows what those anonymous parameters stand for.

In the deep editor (MUX' programming editor) you can double-click a meta-parameter to see/edit its assignments.

When a meta-parameter says "Parameter N" (where N is a number) then chance is high it's an unused meta-parameter.

For instance with the B3 organ, which is a rather complex patch judging from all the modules and wiring on the next editor level. [...] Maybe one day the developers will have to decide whether they want to consider Mulab/MUX their one and only full-time calling (which might involve some financial risk) or a kind of hobby

I know there are MUX presets that have a basic looking front panel (Play Editor). Normally we'll get more UI options there in M5, and then it's a good time to upgrade preset front panels, make them better looking.

Anyway, sound still is more important than the looks, don't you agree?
Do you find the MUX sound amateurish? I think these B3 organ presets sound Excellent!

[fluffy_little_something]

No, I was not talking about the sound, that is pretty good in general The B3 also sounds realistic as far as I can tell. I mean, I know that sound from old songs, but I don't like organ sounds as such, thus I am not really in a position to judge on its authenticity.
I was just talking about empty parameters and things that might seem cosmetic issues to us, but might make a more critical person (maybe someone about to make a purchase decision) wonder if there are other legacy issues (according to AndreasD it is a legacy issue) in Mulab.