Implemented in the next version.mutools wrote:Indeed. I've added a note about that on the wishlist.wagtunes wrote:What concerns me however, of all things, is the metronome. It doesn't seem to accent the first beat as Cubase does.
MUX Owner With MULab Questions
-
- KVRAF
- 13865 posts since 24 Jun, 2008 from Europe
-
- KVRAF
- 3207 posts since 17 Apr, 2010 from Slovenia
-
- KVRAF
- 1925 posts since 29 Mar, 2013
Taron wrote:Jo on fire!!!
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Beauty is only skin deep,
Ugliness, however, goes right the way through
Ugliness, however, goes right the way through
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 23012 posts since 8 Oct, 2014
Well, after working with MuLab a bit now in testing, there is no question that I need a 64 bit version with a built in bridge. JBridge just doesn't do it for me as it's always been very disappointing in its performance. Sometimes it works great. Sometimes it works okay (some bugs) and sometimes it just flat out doesn't work at all as in X11, which is one of my favorite VSTs that I no longer seem to be able to use anywhere, even in Cubase since the last update I did.
But trying to work with 32 and 64 bit VSTs, which is almost unavoidable for me, makes a pure 64 or 32 bit system difficult for me to deal with.
Otherwise, I think MuLab is amazing and does appear more stable overall than Cubase 7. However, Cubase 7 at least allows me to use most of my 32 bit VSTs with little or no problem. With MuLab, it's an either or thing. As somebody who does this professionally for a living, I simply can't be limited like that.
As Taron said, maybe somebody an internal bridge will be built and I'll be more than happy to purchase at that point in time because otherwise, MuLab is amazing.
But trying to work with 32 and 64 bit VSTs, which is almost unavoidable for me, makes a pure 64 or 32 bit system difficult for me to deal with.
Otherwise, I think MuLab is amazing and does appear more stable overall than Cubase 7. However, Cubase 7 at least allows me to use most of my 32 bit VSTs with little or no problem. With MuLab, it's an either or thing. As somebody who does this professionally for a living, I simply can't be limited like that.
As Taron said, maybe somebody an internal bridge will be built and I'll be more than happy to purchase at that point in time because otherwise, MuLab is amazing.
-
- KVRAF
- 3207 posts since 17 Apr, 2010 from Slovenia
Really, I might have told you that before, but I really think it's SUPER HEALTHY to enjoy a whole new set of tools at 64-bit without looking back.
It's in my nature to seek out and find enormous excitement and possibilities with new things and even new environments, as long as I can see that all basic needs are covered.
In music and mixing this includes:
can I still get...
- proper compression
- proper eq
- proper reverb
- proper exciter
- proper side chains
- proper synthesis
- proper sampling
In 64-bit all tools are available to get all of this. Yes, I'm sure some precious old 32-bit plugs exist and may be missed, but there is so much more to explore and conquer now. I really believe it would do you a great deal of good to consider experimenting with only all the new tools available to you and explore what kind of sound You can create with that stuff. I think, you'll be just as awesome with it as ever!
I myself am still exploring mixing and mastering, even after almost 3 decades, but I'm extremely excited about the options I have at 64-bit. And as for synthesis...wow, man...yeah, there are some phenomenal vsts out there, but I'm currently deeply falling in love with MUX. I've got some wicked stuff cooking and can't wait for the coming updates on top of it. I'm just sayin'... I wouldn't want to miss a second of that!
It's in my nature to seek out and find enormous excitement and possibilities with new things and even new environments, as long as I can see that all basic needs are covered.
In music and mixing this includes:
can I still get...
- proper compression
- proper eq
- proper reverb
- proper exciter
- proper side chains
- proper synthesis
- proper sampling
In 64-bit all tools are available to get all of this. Yes, I'm sure some precious old 32-bit plugs exist and may be missed, but there is so much more to explore and conquer now. I really believe it would do you a great deal of good to consider experimenting with only all the new tools available to you and explore what kind of sound You can create with that stuff. I think, you'll be just as awesome with it as ever!
I myself am still exploring mixing and mastering, even after almost 3 decades, but I'm extremely excited about the options I have at 64-bit. And as for synthesis...wow, man...yeah, there are some phenomenal vsts out there, but I'm currently deeply falling in love with MUX. I've got some wicked stuff cooking and can't wait for the coming updates on top of it. I'm just sayin'... I wouldn't want to miss a second of that!
-
- KVRAF
- 7412 posts since 8 Feb, 2003 from London, UK
There's no reason to think a built-in bridge would be as good as jBridge. (No slight to Jo intended, of course - but equally the jBridge developers have to be respected.)
There's no reason to think a built-in bridge would take less time to develop than jBridge has done.
There's no way to have other features developed if the single developer is spending time working on a bit bridge.
(Not that I know how these things are implemented but I imagine the biggest problem is keeping the two address spaces synchronised inside the VST processing cycle - they presumably are using some "out of band" communication to pass data across the bit boundary, so neither address space "owns" the other, really, so trying to insist it completes some piece of processing in a given time must be tricky...)
There's no reason to think a built-in bridge would take less time to develop than jBridge has done.
There's no way to have other features developed if the single developer is spending time working on a bit bridge.
(Not that I know how these things are implemented but I imagine the biggest problem is keeping the two address spaces synchronised inside the VST processing cycle - they presumably are using some "out of band" communication to pass data across the bit boundary, so neither address space "owns" the other, really, so trying to insist it completes some piece of processing in a given time must be tricky...)
-
- KVRAF
- 3207 posts since 17 Apr, 2010 from Slovenia
Beyond the shadow of a doubt, an internal bridge is no feature needed to bring MuLab into the highest ranks of pro musician DAWs. It could add a nice punctuation in the realm of "everything you can do I can do better..."(sing along), haha, but other than that. Meh.
I believe, to really do a perfect bridge, an independent process that handles vst hosting at 32bit would have to receive instructions/data from the 64 bit host. I could imagine, since Jo has a 32bit version, this may be much less trouble than it sounds, but then...who knows. I can't imagine there to be a memory space synchronization issue, because the OS should help with proper allocations per process. The only thing that sounds spooky to me is dealing with the audio itself. This crap is so sensitive, especially for ASIO users. I don't even want to know what it's like, if two processes feed data via asio drivers in sync...eh...feels scary to me for sure, while it doesn't have to be. Ultimately for each duty cycle it would process one by one all vsts from the bridged 32bit process until it's done and then the 64-bit portion or the other way around. Funny to ponder over that... ...not!
I believe, to really do a perfect bridge, an independent process that handles vst hosting at 32bit would have to receive instructions/data from the 64 bit host. I could imagine, since Jo has a 32bit version, this may be much less trouble than it sounds, but then...who knows. I can't imagine there to be a memory space synchronization issue, because the OS should help with proper allocations per process. The only thing that sounds spooky to me is dealing with the audio itself. This crap is so sensitive, especially for ASIO users. I don't even want to know what it's like, if two processes feed data via asio drivers in sync...eh...feels scary to me for sure, while it doesn't have to be. Ultimately for each duty cycle it would process one by one all vsts from the bridged 32bit process until it's done and then the 64-bit portion or the other way around. Funny to ponder over that... ...not!
-
- KVRAF
- 13865 posts since 24 Jun, 2008 from Europe
I have no intention at all to implement an internal 32 - 64 bit bridge / plug sandbox.
+1 on pljones' pov.
+1 on pljones' pov.
-
- KVRAF
- 3207 posts since 17 Apr, 2010 from Slovenia
