Bad MuLab 5 review from Music Radar...

[Tricky-Loops]

But at least it doesn't force its own plugins on you, you can use whatever plugins of YOUR OWN choice with it. (BTW I am definitely not discounting the value of MUX here.)

REAPER's lightweight is something that I appreciate. REAPER has only 5 MB Download Size - even with the weakest internet connection ever you can download it immediately!

OTOH nobody forces you to use MuSynth or MUX. Both don't need much resources, and they sound great. So you can download MuLab and start to make music.

If you're beginner in digital work stations (YOU aren't, but others... ), then you don't need all these routing, jbridge, customization possibilities and endless drop-down menus that REAPER offers. You have to learn the basics, and that's what MuLab is good for. When I started with MuLab many years ago, I didn't even know what routing is, I had to learn what a "rack" is and so on...

I used the 8-track-free version (long time ago, now it's limited to 4 tracks), and I was happy with it. Since I have REAPER, I need more than 30 tracks...

IMO MuLab doesn't have to have all these overwhelming features that others DAW might have. It should be a beginner-friendly solution into the DAW world. Something you can download, make music instantly and have fun! And if you grow with it, you can use all the more difficult features, like the MUX and the Deep Editor.

Or, compared with cars:
I wouldn't give an Opel Corsa only 3 points and a BMW X7 5 points just because the BMW is bigger and has more features. In the city you may have more fun with an Opel Corsa, at least in search of a parking lot...

[EvilDragon]

Hahahah. A decent car analogy, for once.

[MuTools]

I also think that review is quite superficial. And it indeed also depends on what type of musician you are and the reviewer seems to be a more traditional oriented DAW musician. At the same time of course i agree that there is a lot of room for improvement and extension, as with all (music) apps. But i want to make clear it is not my intention to push MuLab into the direction of something like Reaper, certainly not. There will alway be more advanced feature requests (eg APDC, built-in bit-bridge, crash sandboxing, etc...) which would be nice to have, but which are clearly advanced power user features. Those kind of features are not my top priority. MuLab will stay a simple yet deep DAW with a main focus on musical fun and creativity and on its top-quality modular sonic heart the MUX. Simple & Easy, Creative Fun, Wide Sonic Palette, Modular Vision. Those are MU's directives. If that's matching your soul, MU is for U.

[MuTools]

I do think that the review brings some good points: lack of standardized keyboard assignments

How do you mean? Do you know about MU's shortcut system?

over-reliance on menus

Would you prefer a bloated interface?

It's about a balance: Clean UI with advanced functionalities hidden in menus. Or more bloated UI that frightens the fresh mind.

I'm convinced that the start should be a clean UI. Then i have a point on the wishlist to be able to add shortcut panels to the UI where you can add all kinds of shortcut buttons so you can tweak things more as you like.

also one thing that's terribly annoying to me - always popping up that dialog when I want to extend the MIDI item length!!!

I don't understand what you mean. Please elaborate. Thanks.

Nothing can beat Reaper for fast audio editing with those mouse modifiers and macros and Python scriptability.

I disagree with loads of built-in modifier combis. They're terrible to remind. And they assume that you read the manual. Which is not creative fun. Anyway, on top of some unavoidable built-in standard modifier combis, also the shortcut system allows you to use modifiers so you got some freedom there too.

[MuTools]

Sure the interface could be better

Can you please be more specific. Which concrete points?

[MuTools]

One big problem for me - sub-menus actually NEED a click to unfold. This is very uncommon and reduces speed of work.

I accept the critic that it is uncommon. And maybe for some of you (probably including MR's reviewer) it's a bit annoying, and therefor it feels a bit like a slow down. I can also understand that. It's a working point on the wishlist.

[EvilDragon]

[How do you mean? Do you know about MU's shortcut system?

Yes, I know - what I wanted to say is that there aren't an awful lot of keyboard shortcuts assigned by default.

I don't understand what you mean. Please elaborate. Thanks.

We already talked about that one, when extending the boundaries of MIDI item (from within the MIDI editor) I am always asked do I want to just extend, extend with repeated source, etc. Terribly annoying. In Reaper I just extend the item, and "loop source" is a per item property that I can switch at will, AND loop source boundary can be moved separately from item boundaries.

Now I know MuLAB doesn't want to be like Reaper (far from it), but I just find this annoying, that's all. Sorry.

I do give you props for the simple and slick default GUI. Reaper's has some ways to go still, but v4 default is MUCH better than v3 default. Even so, I use a different skin, and it works extremely well for me.

I disagree with loads of built-in modifier combis. They're terrible to remind. And they assume that you read the manual. Which is not creative fun. Anyway, on top of some unavoidable built-in standard modifier combis, also the shortcut system allows you to use modifiers so you got some freedom there too.

You may disagree with that, but that's where its true power lies, and the fact that you can change all those assignments (mouse modifiers) yourself so they fit how YOU want them in your workflow. You're not limited to predefined modifiers at all, like I am in MuLAB.

[dakkra]

Sure the interface could be better

Can you please be more specific. Which concrete points?

The biggest point on the UI for me is it's lack of "beauty". I love that it's simple and that I can easily see what's going on. However, it feels more like a windows 2000 interface than a windows 7 interface (I'm not saying 8 because that interface is just horrible).

My favorite DAW for GUI is FLStudio. It's use of fonts, images, etc... make it feel like a more modern DAW.

Or take Reaper. The racks have nice wide level meters with (somewhat) precise measures.

I suppose the biggest issue is, the more looks you get, the less CPU space you have for audio work. However you don't want it to look like windows 200 or XP. You want it too look sleek and stylish like windows 7.

The play locator is over sized. In many modern DAWs you get a nice 1px thick line that shows the play position. 4-6px just seems like over doing it a bit and it can be a bit distracting at times

This is all a very big opinion though. I am sure someone disagrees with my likes and dislikes.


In a usability matter, minor tweaks would be nice. Such as when re organizing tracks I would like the ability to move a track above all the other tracks.
Or in VSTs folder options would be nice to I can organize my EQs and my analyzers, etc...
Just small things for usability would be nice.

Overall the interface feels good to use. My only real problem is with it's looks

[MuTools]

Hey EvilDragon, it sounds like you're a power user who is feeling well with how things are done in Reaper. We indeed seem to disagree to how things should be done. Luckily there are different apps to choose from and i'm happy for you that you found your preferred tool. I'll stay open for any criticism, so feel free to post more. But some things seem to be 'taste' and that's difficult to discuss. Thanks again, appreciating your feedback!

[Nielzie]

Sure the interface could be better

Can you please be more specific. Which concrete points?

The biggest point on the UI for me is it's lack of "beauty". I love that it's simple and that I can easily see what's going on. However, it feels more like a windows 2000 interface than a windows 7 interface

Sure there's (always) room for improvement and refinement, but I don't think it looks thát bad

[EvilDragon]

No problem, Jo. I am indeed very happy with Reaper. I was just keeping eye on MuLAB. Reaper is not without its annoyances. But, the same is true of MuLAB. I know you want to keep it simple (and stupid, to a point? ) - so perhaps my years with Reaper made me push myself over that boundary where simple becomes limiting in some ways.

[ravasb]

I have tried Mulab a couple of times, and there is much in it that I like. CM Muzys was my first sequencer, so I have some good memories of the overall approach.

Part of the challenge is that it is twice as expensive as other sequencers that can be used for entry level and beyond, such as Tracktion and Podium. I like MUX a lot, but it might be kind of sophisticated to a newbie to create their own sounds. A more experienced sound designer probably wants a more fully featured DAW than the Mulab sequencer.

I think there may be some potential to separate the sequencer from Mulab and sell it without MUX for $30-$40 with an option to buy MUX for $30-$40 dollars.
This way a newbie could begin very inexpensively with some free instruments and then add MUX later.

I am very impressed with the passion and commitment of the dev and wish him a lot of luck.

[Nielzie]

Maybe it's the two-faced character of MuLab that's confusing for some: Simple (interface, unbloated feature-wise), yet deep (modular structure, shortcut system/deeper menu's)

Simple and deep are kind of contradictions and it seems difficult to balance. Some might want some simple things a little deeper (or less restrictive) and some might want some particular deeper parts more simple to do.

Could be a problem to clearly target a particular type of audience perhaps? I dunno about that. I like MuLab for what it is actually (although I have also my personal FR's of course)

Maybe make 2 editions, a simple edition for beginners, without all the modular editing stuff available for faster approach and a deep edition with all enabled for power users who need it all.

Big downside is all the extra work to maintain 2 versions of course. Probably a bad idea because it would slow down development for MuLab and MUX in general

[dakkra]

Sure the interface could be better

Can you please be more specific. Which concrete points?

The biggest point on the UI for me is it's lack of "beauty". I love that it's simple and that I can easily see what's going on. However, it feels more like a windows 2000 interface than a windows 7 interface

Sure there's (always) room for improvement and refinement, but I don't think it looks thát bad

Haha nice!

Colors and such I like already. I just would like to see some nicer stylings such as font (I really like FLS digital look for their location bar) and images.

Just needs some touch ups and it'll feel like a modern DAW

[LunaTech]

I also think that review is quite superficial. And it indeed also depends on what type of musician you are and the reviewer seems to be a more traditional oriented DAW musician. At the same time of course i agree that there is a lot of room for improvement and extension, as with all (music) apps. But i want to make clear it is not my intention to push MuLab into the direction of something like Reaper, certainly not. There will alway be more advanced feature requests (eg APDC, built-in bit-bridge, crash sandboxing, etc...) which would be nice to have, but which are clearly advanced power user features. Those kind of features are not my top priority. MuLab will stay a simple yet deep DAW with a main focus on musical fun and creativity and on its top-quality modular sonic heart the MUX. Simple & Easy, Creative Fun, Wide Sonic Palette, Modular Vision. Those are MU's directives. If that's matching your soul, MU is for U.

Most definitely agree with this. I'm starting to get fractal music out of the MUX already. Something that is continually the same yet always different at the same time. Gotta love the MUX.