MUX Modular 7.2.23 VST, also for Mac!

[Zexila]

Queue the "boo-hoo's" of the ProTools users wanting AAX as well.

"ProTools is an industry standard, Y U NO?!"

Are there any PT users here anyways?

[MuTools]

There are new MUX Modular 7.2.12 VST packages in http://www.mutools.com/galaxa/

What's new:

• Improved protection against hosts that do invalid multi-threaded UI function calls.
• Unused keyboard events are forwarded to the next keyboard event handler.
  Note that it still also depends on the host whether these forwarded key events are processed or not.
• "About MUX Modular" splash screen now properly shows up.
• Fixed a possible memory corruption bug.

How to install: The new M7.2.12 zip packages contain the DLL only so make sure you already have installed the complete M7.2.10 package, then replace the relevant files by the new ones in the M7.2.12 zip packages.

[Taifunk]

This new version work really well,I see also performance improvements compared with the 7.0.47
and graphical improvements ,including that thing on the front panel,
do not know what it's called,but it's very useful!
Thanks Jo

[whyterabbyt]

Queue the "boo-hoo's" of the ProTools users wanting AAX as well.

"ProTools is an industry standard, Y U NO?!"

Are there any PT users here anyways?

yes.

[MuTools]

including that thing on the front panel,do not know what it's called,but it's very useful!

Which thing?

[Taifunk]

I hope it's not a bug,seems useful, at least for me.

Edit:
a better video

[MuTools]

Definitely a bug. Will look into this. Thx.

[Taifunk]

Ok, I thought it was a new feature

[Zexila]

Queue the "boo-hoo's" of the ProTools users wanting AAX as well.

"ProTools is an industry standard, Y U NO?!"

Are there any PT users here anyways?

yes.

Meant here in MUTOOLS forum, craving for MUX?

So you are one of them, anyone else?

Also what does it take for one developer to do AAX?

Found something on Avid's forum among other things:

PACE signatures are required, so that only licensed Avid development partners plugins are recognised, and loaded, by Pro Tools.

This is simply a means of quality control, and costs the developer $500 per year (a flat fee, regardless of how many plug-ins are submitted for signatures).

Presumably you're looking at developing AAX plugins for native processing, rather than DSP or Hybrid, which will make things much more simple, but you're going to have to meet some very stringent requirements, and robust quality assurance in order to become one of Avid's development partners.

Which again brings the question, how many of industry PT heads care about MUX? Aren't majority of them recording and mixing engineers anyways?

IMHO pretty niche market for MUX and big waste of time/money, but that's just my opinion, just like that supporting AU's on OS X should be priority

[pekbro]

I use ProTools as well. AAX support would be nice. Most devs I've
talked to about it have AAX in the works if not already available.
Eg. I don't think a port is a hugely difficult thing to do. Likely
a matter of time and/or licensing.

Either way, its not a huge deal as I use mux in ProTools via DDMF
metaplugin all the time.

-Cheers

[Zexila]

I use ProTools as well.

So that's your main and only DAW?

Eg. I don't think a port is a hugely difficult thing to do. Likely
a matter of time and/or licensing.

Just patience, time and money, nothing else. But does it worth for one man operation to focus his valuable time on that, that's the real question here, knowing that majority of PT users are industry professionals who don't need MUX more than majority of OS X DAW users that actually can and use AU's.

[pekbro]

Its not my main DAW.

Anyway I don't see any reason not to make an AAX port if
he can manage it. No doubt any avenues for income would
be helpful.

In any event, only Jo can decide if its worth it or not. I'm
sure hes perfectly capable of figuring that out for himself.

-Cheers

[Zexila]

Its not my main DAW.

Anyway I don't see any reason not to make an AAX port if
he can manage it. No doubt any avenues for income would
be helpful.

In any event, only Jo can decide if its worth it or not. I'm
sure hes perfectly capable of figuring that out for himself.

-Cheers

That's up to him for sure, but making AAX isn't that straightforward as it seems, so it will take enough patience, time and even money on his behalf (see my quoted line in other response) and all that for some small number of folks interested in it, on other hand MuLab still don't have time stretching, talking about priorities.

All I'm saying is that he is missing out a lot not catering to AU crowd now when doing OS X MUX and it would be wise to get AU out ASAP.

[MuTools]

At this point i think AAX indeed has less priority than eg. time-stretching. I also agree with Zexila that AU is another story. Due to Apple's protectionism, Logic only does AUs, and i think Logic is much more used/popular than PT, though i have no figures on that (anyone?). That said i don't know yet whether i'll prioritize MUX Modular AU over time-stretching, that's still to be evaluated. At this point i'm still finetuning MUX Modular the VST version. Thx for sharing your thoughts on this, interesting input.

[MuTools]

There are new MUX Modular 7.2.13 VST packages in http://www.mutools.com/galaxa/

What's new:

• Workaround for a possible issue with stepping thru MUX presets in Bitwig Studio on Mac.
• Finetuned behavior when resizing the VST editor on Mac eg when changing presets.
• Fixed a recent new graphical bug when dragging front panel components.

How to install: The new M7.2.13 zip packages contain the DLL only so make sure you already have installed the complete M7.2.10 package, then replace the relevant files by the new ones in the M7.2.13 zip packages.