I wonder if there are many people programming patches in Mux/Mulab...Dreamy, warm & smooth synth sound
-
fluffy_little_something fluffy_little_something https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=281847
- Banned
- 12880 posts since 5 Jun, 2012
Sounds reasonable to me I wonder if there are many people programming patches in Mux/Mulab...
I wonder if there are many people programming patches in Mux/Mulab...-
fluffy_little_something fluffy_little_something https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=281847
- Banned
- 12880 posts since 5 Jun, 2012
Thanks
Unfortunately I have only few MUX patches, maybe a dozen or so. Usually I just can't force myself to program sounds in MUX anymore as the user interface with all its little windows just doesn't appeal to me. Since I got Retrologue, I hardly touch the MUX anymore. It also sounds different, not sure if one can say better, but different, anyway. It is better for the kinds of sounds I want and need, and I get results way faster.
Unfortunately I have only few MUX patches, maybe a dozen or so. Usually I just can't force myself to program sounds in MUX anymore as the user interface with all its little windows just doesn't appeal to me. Since I got Retrologue, I hardly touch the MUX anymore. It also sounds different, not sure if one can say better, but different, anyway. It is better for the kinds of sounds I want and need, and I get results way faster.
-
- KVRAF
- 13863 posts since 24 Jun, 2008 from Europe
You don't have to dive into the deepest MUX level. The MuSynth, for example, gives you a lot of synthesis power from a single window. So what's your opinion on the MuSynth?
-
fluffy_little_something fluffy_little_something https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=281847
- Banned
- 12880 posts since 5 Jun, 2012
I know. I remember using MuSynth a couple of times. Since you asked for it, here is what I think of it:
At first glance it is more appealing than the modular view (in my view it really is nothing but a matter of view, the architecture underneath seems to be the same). So if you click on the arrow to expand, say, the envelope, you still get the modular envelope window with zillions of knobs. Same goes for the osc section.
MuSynth seems more like a limited version of the MUX, i.e. for instance only three filters instead of theoretically an unlimited number of them. In that sense it is positive as a reasonable selection of modules have been prewired and stuffed into a common user interface, so to speak.
Speaking of the user interface, I just opened a MuSynth to see why exactly it does not appeal very much to me. I opened Retrologue and the U-NO-LX alongside to compare.
- I hate abbreviations (some of yours are not even standard in my view), they force me to think about things that should be automated after some time of usage. The outlay of the VSTs mentioned is inherently asymmetrical, which makes it much easier to remember which control is where.
- I prefer various kinds and sizes of controls. For instance sliders for envelopes. In MuSynth there is just one kind and size of control. Being old-fashioned, I want my 4 or 5 envelope sliders all lined up next to each other, not 5 knobs spread over two or three rows.
- The whole interface looks amateurish compared to the VSTs I have mentioned. Somehow I want to feel like I am using a musical instrument, Retrologue gives me that feeling. All that orange on gray doesn't appeal to me.
- The workflow of Retrologue simply appeals to me. For instance I was programming a Jazz Bass emulation the other day. So I listened to music and analyzed what makes the sound so typical. Then I simply used the 10 modulation slots to map velocity to all kinds of parameters such as filter attack, amp attack, cutoff, resonance etc. I like that analytic approach.
All of that is just my opinion of course, others might prefer MuSynth for the very reasons I do not
At first glance it is more appealing than the modular view (in my view it really is nothing but a matter of view, the architecture underneath seems to be the same). So if you click on the arrow to expand, say, the envelope, you still get the modular envelope window with zillions of knobs. Same goes for the osc section.
MuSynth seems more like a limited version of the MUX, i.e. for instance only three filters instead of theoretically an unlimited number of them. In that sense it is positive as a reasonable selection of modules have been prewired and stuffed into a common user interface, so to speak.
Speaking of the user interface, I just opened a MuSynth to see why exactly it does not appeal very much to me. I opened Retrologue and the U-NO-LX alongside to compare.
- I hate abbreviations (some of yours are not even standard in my view), they force me to think about things that should be automated after some time of usage. The outlay of the VSTs mentioned is inherently asymmetrical, which makes it much easier to remember which control is where.
- I prefer various kinds and sizes of controls. For instance sliders for envelopes. In MuSynth there is just one kind and size of control. Being old-fashioned, I want my 4 or 5 envelope sliders all lined up next to each other, not 5 knobs spread over two or three rows.
- The whole interface looks amateurish compared to the VSTs I have mentioned. Somehow I want to feel like I am using a musical instrument, Retrologue gives me that feeling. All that orange on gray doesn't appeal to me.
- The workflow of Retrologue simply appeals to me. For instance I was programming a Jazz Bass emulation the other day. So I listened to music and analyzed what makes the sound so typical. Then I simply used the 10 modulation slots to map velocity to all kinds of parameters such as filter attack, amp attack, cutoff, resonance etc. I like that analytic approach.
All of that is just my opinion of course, others might prefer MuSynth for the very reasons I do not
-
- KVRAF
- 13863 posts since 24 Jun, 2008 from Europe
-
fluffy_little_something fluffy_little_something https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=281847
- Banned
- 12880 posts since 5 Jun, 2012
Hard to say, I can't say that I particularly like it or don't like it. To me it sounds rather neutral, it is probably very correct in terms of physics. Actually, it sounds a bit like good SE synths, without most of the aliasing and other noise typical of SE, thoughmutools wrote:Thanks for your feedback, especially on the UI side. Any opinion on the sound?
But there is also a certain Dune sound characteristic to it. Somewhere between SE and Dune I would say - if that makes any sense 
(One thing I noticed: When one loads a MuSynth patch the arrows for selecting the previous and next waveforms in the osc sections don't seem to work, goes for the Mux as well. When I load the same waveform again manually, then the arrows work.)