Honest appraisal of Mulab 5
-
- KVRian
- 1233 posts since 29 Dec, 2008 from Lithuania
Best way to get an impression on it, get the demo/free version and dig in.
-
- KVRAF
- 7412 posts since 8 Feb, 2003 from London, UK
True that it doesn't have its own version of jBridge and other similar tools built in but, well, there's jBridge, etc... (I recently gave up on using both MuLab32 and MuLab64 because I really only use a small collection of plugins and they're all now 64bit.)megalodonnl wrote:One thing to keep in mind is that with Mulab, u can use 32- or 64bit vst plugins - not both at once, depending on the Mulab version (32- or 64bit version).
-
- KVRian
- 620 posts since 27 Jul, 2001 from france
It's true that Mulab have 2 ways of doing automations, and I still don't understand why. If someone here use the 2 ways, can he tells me why ?
About the look, Mulab have evolved step by step, in each major version, and I find it quiet nice now. And in Mulab 5 it's now possible to change some colors. I hope it will be extended a bit in future versions.
The look of the Musynth is horrible, I hope that it will be possible to personalize the look of the internal synths and fx in future versions.
I haven't seen Cubase, Logic, Reaper, FL Studio, Orion for years so I don't know how they look now.
I used to use Reason 3 and loved the look (I love the "harware look"), but since Reason 4, something went wrong on the look side. The sequencer is just horrible. The new mixer is too hard on the eyes.
I really love Podium for the UI, it's clean and elegant, and highly configurable, you can make your own views, and switch easily between them.
The DAW I used to use the most is Tracktion, and on the look side, it's a kind of "special case" : it doesn't look very great at the first glance, but you can create themes to improve it, and it's in the Tracktion philosophy to be simple and effective.
I have tried Studio One, but was not relly impressed by the look.
One thing is sure : I love when things are clear, simple, uncomplicated, and this is why I love using Mulab, I feel good in it.
About the look, Mulab have evolved step by step, in each major version, and I find it quiet nice now. And in Mulab 5 it's now possible to change some colors. I hope it will be extended a bit in future versions.
The look of the Musynth is horrible, I hope that it will be possible to personalize the look of the internal synths and fx in future versions.
I haven't seen Cubase, Logic, Reaper, FL Studio, Orion for years so I don't know how they look now.
I used to use Reason 3 and loved the look (I love the "harware look"), but since Reason 4, something went wrong on the look side. The sequencer is just horrible. The new mixer is too hard on the eyes.
I really love Podium for the UI, it's clean and elegant, and highly configurable, you can make your own views, and switch easily between them.
The DAW I used to use the most is Tracktion, and on the look side, it's a kind of "special case" : it doesn't look very great at the first glance, but you can create themes to improve it, and it's in the Tracktion philosophy to be simple and effective.
I have tried Studio One, but was not relly impressed by the look.
One thing is sure : I love when things are clear, simple, uncomplicated, and this is why I love using Mulab, I feel good in it.
PQ
free software at : http://pquenin.free.fr/pqnaudio
free music at : http://www.soundclick.com/thepqueninproject
free software at : http://pquenin.free.fr/pqnaudio
free music at : http://www.soundclick.com/thepqueninproject
-
- KVRAF
- 7412 posts since 8 Feb, 2003 from London, UK
1) MIDIpquenin wrote:It's true that Mulab have 2 ways of doing automations, and I still don't understand why. If someone here use the 2 ways, can he tells me why ?
2) High resolution
That's all there is to it. You get the choice. Either you have MIDI-compatible automation, or you have high-resolution VST-compatible automation.
Although, to be fair, that's really not all there is to it... The "MIDI" is actually high resolution anyway but it's event-based, like MIDI, so bound to bar-beats-ticks on the time line. The "high resolution" is curve-based, i.e. mathematically generated as required, rather than stored as individual events.