MuLab & MUX Modular 6.4.17 Released

[magicmusic]

I notice when i test MUX VST Synth in mulab too a key not pass problem with the space key for start and stop mulab. when MUX is add as module, then it work ok. But with MUX as VST the space key work only (to start stop mulab) when the MUX VST Synth front panel window is active. Is any other window of MUX VST is active(for example brower or modular area window) the space key do nothing.
The Problem i see in other DAW too. use mulab and MUX VST is only to show you the problem more easy

maybe thats the same problem as get with Nora ctrl key

I use now 6.5.31. Nora work ok now, but the problem with the space key is still in. I test in mulab 6.5.31 and add MUX VST synth. the basic synth window is show. space work. But when click on any GUI panel and release mouse button space key do not work to start or stop mulab play

[mgiambro]

Tracks are not 1:1 with racks. More than one track can target the same rack. What should happen? You delete one track, the rack goes and then all the other tracks get deleted that were targeting that rack? That doesn't sound like the right thing at all.

I'd have an option in preferences to switch this on or off. If on, when you delete a track have a 'do you want to delete the associated rack' yes/no? If you select yes, other tracks that were associated with that rack are kept for you to manually attach to other racks/vsts. I can see this may be controversial here. I can live with it how it is, but my personal workflow is often, but not always 1:1 track-rack. Not a deal breaker.

I've changed my position on this. Now I am used to the MuLab way, I'd prefer this not to change, especially since I discovered the ''delete unused' options. Coming from other daws, sometimes you expect things to work a certain way, which is not necessarily the best way.

[MuTools]

I've changed my position on this. Now I am used to the MuLab way, I'd prefer this not to change, especially since I discovered the ''delete unused' options. Coming from other daws, sometimes you expect things to work a certain way, which is not necessarily the best way.

An interesting coincidence that you say this now as i'm evaluating to change the concept to a 1:1 track-rack concept in order to make things more obvious and straightforward. So this question: With your DAW experience, why do you say that the free track-rack concept is better than the 1:1 track-rack concept? Which situation(s) did you encounter where the free concept is better? Asking this so to check i'm not missing anything while designing the next version.

[sl23]

Though not an expert with music production, I'd say the free assignment is obviously more versatile but makes things a little confusing on first use. Whereas, the 1:1 concept is less versatile but simply makes sense to new users as most Daw's use this method.

I suppose it depends on the target audience, where you're aiming to go as well as what's most popular. I found mulab extremely confusing at first in this respect, but once I got used to it it simply doesn't matter. It does make things a little easier if creating a new track auto assigns a new rack though.

[MuTools]

Though not an expert with music production, I'd say the free assignment is obviously more versatile but makes things a little confusing on first use. Whereas, the 1:1 concept is less versatile but simply makes sense to new users as most Daw's use this method.

Indeed.

I suppose it depends on the target audience, where you're aiming to go as well as what's most popular. I found mulab extremely confusing at first in this respect but once I got used to it it simply doesn't matter. It does make things a little easier if creating a new track auto assigns a new rack though.

Understood. Yes that's why i'm exploring that 1:1 concept.

[sl23]

I assume it'll be an option though? It'd be a shame to lose the flexibility.

[MuTools]

I'm still brainstorming about it and researching it, no decissions yet. But i'm trying to make the track - rack concept more straightforward, indeed without abandonning relevant flexibility. So: No, i'm not researching to offer it as an option but as a solid concept.

[mgiambro]

So this question: With your DAW experience, why do you say that the free track-rack concept is better than the 1:1 track-rack concept? Which situation(s) did you encounter where the free concept is better? Asking this so to check i'm not missing anything while designing the next version.

For me it wasn't that the free track-rack was confusing. The (minor) gripe I had was having more clearing up to do when deleting a track. That said, the 'Remove unused racks/tracks' feature gets around this to an extent.

The free concept is useful as it enables you to have multiple racks set up with different insert effects configurations which you can route tracks to to trial out sounds. Without this you have to change the one configuration instance you have and sometimes I've found that I wanted to go back to an earlier setup on the rack, but wasn't able to remember all the effects settings I had. I suppose you could probably get around this by creating busses, routing to those and then copying the setup to the track rack when you're happy, but I think the free modular approach is nicer. Also, how would a 1:1 relationship work with multi-timbral instruments? Usually although an instrument may have 8 outputs, I would rarely want a rack for each. Again, you can create busses to group, but if it automatically created a rack for each output, for my setups they'd be a lot of redundant racks.

[MuTools]

For me it wasn't that the free track-rack was confusing. The (minor) gripe I had was having more clearing up to do when deleting a track. That said, the 'Remove unused racks/tracks' feature gets around this to an extent.

I understand. But i have the impression that many people are initially a bit confused by MuLab's free track-rack system. Also you and sl23 said the same thing about your initial experience. Now it's important for MuLab's future that more users feel instantly comfortable with it. That's why i'm looking at the 1:1 track-rack concept. But atoh i don't want to trash anything good of the free system. That's a design challenge.

The free concept is useful as it enables you to have multiple racks set up with different insert effects configurations which you can route tracks to to trial out sounds.

Good point! Will reflect on this.

Also, how would a 1:1 relationship work with multi-timbral instruments?

Using sub-tracks. Each sub-track of a main track can play on a different MIDI channel on that rack. Cfr M6.5.

[MuTools]

I found mulab extremely confusing at first in this respect, but once I got used to it it simply doesn't matter.

Can you explain what you at first found so confusing about MuLab's free track-rack concept?
Maybe i can learn from your first time experience.

It does make things a little easier if creating a new track auto assigns a new rack though.

M6 already does! But it does not yet auto-delete a rack upon deleting a track. I guess that should be done too (if the rack would be unused after deleting the track)

[mgiambro]

I understand. But i have the impression that many people are initially a bit confused by MuLab's free track-rack system. Also you and sl23 said the same thing about your initial experience. Now it's important for MuLab's future that more users feel instantly comfortable with it. That's why i'm looking at the 1:1 track-rack concept. But atoh i don't want to trash anything good of the free system.

Fair enough. Initial impressions are crucial. While demoing, users will discard a product quickly if they hit something which isn't logical to them. Of course, you'll know better than anyone from the feedback you get as to what aspects of MuLab could be hindering its saleability.

That's a design challenge.

Indeed, but I'm sure you'll nail it!

Using sub-tracks. Each sub-track of a main track can play on a different MIDI channel on that rack. Cfr M6.5.

Makes sense. Sort of a rhetorical question, but I assume we'd still have the flexibility to route/group these subtracks to their own rack e.g. a drum vst with 8 outs with racks for kicks, snare/claps, hats, other perc.

Last off, I really would be gutted if you had to abandon MuLab through lack of sales. Having used virtually all the main daws, I don't understand why MuLab doesn't have a bigger chunk of the market. It's almost like a fashion thing. People go with the big names because everyone else does. A bit like the music industry in general.

Best of luck Jo and I look forward to future iterations of MuLab!

[MuTools]

Fair enough. Initial impressions are crucial. While demoing, users will discard a product quickly if they hit something which isn't logical to them. Of course, you'll know better than anyone from the feedback you get as to what aspects of MuLab could be hindering its saleability.

No, not sure... (read on below)

I really would be gutted if you had to abandon MuLab through lack of sales. Having used virtually all the main daws, I don't understand why MuLab doesn't have a bigger chunk of the market. It's almost like a fashion thing. People go with the big names because everyone else does. A bit like the music industry in general.

To be honnest it's a big question mark for me too why MuLab & MUX are not getting thru enough to a broader user base. Of course MuLab is not perfect, but the other DAWs aren't either. Checked them out again the last weeks. All DAWs can learn from eachother. But indeed MuLab is too much under the radar, if you compare it to the popular DAWs. Don't know why. Maybe cause i don't have the advertising capital to buy media?

Makes sense. Sort of a rhetorical question, but I assume we'd still have the flexibility to route/group these subtracks to their own rack e.g. a drum vst with 8 outs with racks for kicks, snare/claps, hats, other perc.

Yes, sure. Multitimbral, multi-output, send effects and side-chaining have been important design goals. It's all already possible in M6 but it will improve in M7, especially multi-outs and side-chaining within the rack system. In fact meanwhile i took decission on this track-rack aspect and will mainly keep the current system but will improve it in various important aspects. It will improve easiness and obviousness, but keep that sweet freedom. Thanks for your feedback on this these days, it really helped in the idea flow here.

Best of luck Jo and I look forward to future iterations of MuLab!

Thanks. Be sure: M7 is in the making. Can't put a time estimation on it yet, but the concrete M7 design plan is ready, now i'm starting implementation. I expect to publish intermediate test versions on the forum here the next weeks/months.

[sl23]

The only thing I found confusing was trying to understand the relationship between tracks and racks. I came straight from the world of hardware and then muzys where a track and rack are portrayed as one and the same, at least that's how I always saw it. But mulab separated them and I had to get my head around that.

Although it was confusing, I always knew I'd buy mulab right back from the days of Luna. Because muzys was dead and mulab was it's successor. Music is only a hobby for me, a bit of fun, but other Daw's don't make it fun! Mulab is great to use and I hope it goes on for many years. The only other Daw's I'd consider are bitwig and reason.

Bitwig I am put off of, not sure why really. Never tried it.

Reason is my favourite, but again, just can't get into it. This I have tried.

Both are overly expensive to warrant me purchasing and both require installation. That is one of my main prerequisites for any software, it's gotta be portable! I can't thank you enough for making mulab portable, I hope it stays that way!

[Michael L]

--moved to UI Looks thread--