This exactly.. and still funny how people come from one daw and to another and then are surprised that it doesn't have the same functionality or approach on things. I for one really don't think you should drop the modular aspect. You have a nice legacy there. I also don't think you should abandon your artistic/technical views from which this wonderful program grew, unless your customers are really really that unhappy about it or starts becoming counterproductive for yourself. Don't let the people rush you, it's your vision, your child, it's your work of artsl23 wrote:Although I don't often delve into the modular side of things to make new devices, gen appreciate that its there as and when I need it. Perhaps you should have a separate version of mulab for the school girls.
To cripple the existing version of mulab, not necessarily version 7, 8, 9, 10, etc, but this actual app, would be cruel to the existing user base. I didn't buy mulab for its modular system, didn't even know about it, but I'm so glad to have it, for that to be removed would be devastating for me and maybe others too.
Which is why a separate basic version of mulab would be better. If mux is available on its own, it shouldn't be too difficult to have mulab on its own too?
Whatever the choice you make I love mulab and plan to stick with for many years as long as we don't lose that modular system!
What genres of music you do with MuLab?
-
- KVRist
- 54 posts since 16 Nov, 2016
-
- KVRAF
- 13865 posts since 24 Jun, 2008 from Europe
I repeat what i wrote:
I won't change MuLab itself too much as i will respect the users that chose for that concept ie. an unbloated DAW combined with a flexible modular sound engine. But maybe i might implement a new concept into a new product. Or maybe i can improve MuLab's concept. Or maybe both. Not yet decided, not yet a clear plan. Breeding on it.
Adding to that:
I agree with the critical analysis that combining a 'simple looking' DAW and a geeky deep modular system might be more confusing than inspiring to most people having a first look at it. Only experienced users will look thru that initial confusion and see the beauty of it. (even while it's not perfect, and open for many more improvements and extensions) From both an economic point of view as well as from a music-creative pov, this conceptual issue needs attention.
I won't change MuLab itself too much as i will respect the users that chose for that concept ie. an unbloated DAW combined with a flexible modular sound engine. But maybe i might implement a new concept into a new product. Or maybe i can improve MuLab's concept. Or maybe both. Not yet decided, not yet a clear plan. Breeding on it.
Adding to that:
I agree with the critical analysis that combining a 'simple looking' DAW and a geeky deep modular system might be more confusing than inspiring to most people having a first look at it. Only experienced users will look thru that initial confusion and see the beauty of it. (even while it's not perfect, and open for many more improvements and extensions) From both an economic point of view as well as from a music-creative pov, this conceptual issue needs attention.
-
- KVRist
- 54 posts since 16 Nov, 2016
Yes, that's true aswell. What I was trying to say was I have strong faith in your vision and whatever may come of it I'm sure it will be an excellent product even if it confuses some peoplemutools wrote:
Adding to that:
I agree with the critical analysis that combining a 'simple looking' DAW and a geeky deep modular system might be more confusing than inspiring to most people having a first look at it. Only experienced users will look thru that initial confusion and see the beauty of it. (even while it's not perfect, and open for many more improvements and extensions) From both an economic point of view as well as from a music-creative pov, this conceptual issue needs attention.
-
- KVRAF
- 13865 posts since 24 Jun, 2008 from Europe
-
- KVRist
- 54 posts since 16 Nov, 2016
You are most welcome.
-
- KVRAF
- 1925 posts since 29 Mar, 2013
Like the saying goes...
“You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time”
“You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time”
Beauty is only skin deep,
Ugliness, however, goes right the way through
Ugliness, however, goes right the way through
-
- KVRAF
- 3161 posts since 28 Mar, 2008 from a Galaxy S7 far far away
-
- KVRist
- 329 posts since 6 Mar, 2015
ok so this is what you make mulab concept for? a warm fuzzzy group hug? ok can we get past the 'jos is a genius' thing for a moment and focus on profit (ie mass appeal)? theres no denial that anyone putting out a home rolled DAW with a deep end is talented. but lets forget that part or maybe take it as a given. does jo wana make more money? i think its possible. but if warm fuzzy group hugs are getting in the way lol then how do you focus on real questions? i think its more about the group hugs than making profit. so be it. lets just say that and get it over with.
ACKCHYUALLY
-
- KVRAF
- 3161 posts since 28 Mar, 2008 from a Galaxy S7 far far away
-
- KVRist
- 54 posts since 16 Nov, 2016
Hahah
-
- KVRAF
- 5383 posts since 25 Jan, 2014 from The End of The World as We Knowit
I turn field recordings into instruments and soundtracks. Mux is ideal because many Devices shape sounds, and the Modules give more control than plugins that are often limited to a style or a workflow. I bought plugins that do what MuLab doesn't: spectral manipulation, visual analysis, PM synthesis and acoustic instruments for layering.
In kvr I watch how ‘average DAW users’ learn to become ‘power users’ who then teach new users. MuLab power users must learn-by-doing, such as discovering context menus, the many uses of modules and features, and signal processing tech. However, some people learn more systematically. Perhaps the learning-by-doing curve could be easier with tools co-created by users who are learning such as:
1. A window next to the racks that shows enough info about a module, preset, and feature when you roll over it;
2. A basic-to-advanced tutorial sequence with a downloadable project or preset for each, using existing MuTools and user videos or Demos.
I find that the biggest cost of software is the time it takes to master it well enough to use it creatively and enjoyably. Perhaps steadily reducing that time would increase the number of power users?
In kvr I watch how ‘average DAW users’ learn to become ‘power users’ who then teach new users. MuLab power users must learn-by-doing, such as discovering context menus, the many uses of modules and features, and signal processing tech. However, some people learn more systematically. Perhaps the learning-by-doing curve could be easier with tools co-created by users who are learning such as:
1. A window next to the racks that shows enough info about a module, preset, and feature when you roll over it;
2. A basic-to-advanced tutorial sequence with a downloadable project or preset for each, using existing MuTools and user videos or Demos.
I find that the biggest cost of software is the time it takes to master it well enough to use it creatively and enjoyably. Perhaps steadily reducing that time would increase the number of power users?
F E E D
Y O U R
F L O W
Y O U R
F L O W
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 3186 posts since 18 Mar, 2008
Great suggestions Michael L. 
This entire forum is wading through predictions, opinions, barely formed thoughts, drama, and whining. If you don't enjoy that, why are you here? 
ShawnG
ShawnG-
- KVRAF
- 8577 posts since 29 Sep, 2010 from Maui
I pretty much use it exclusively for its modularity. Although I do
enjoy the look and feel / ease of use things.
I think a regular and advanced version is a good idea if its not
too much work for Jo. That way he could make the advanced
version even more nerdy than it already is. For instance, some
kind of SDK for the audio engine would be awesome IMO.
That way the community could help to grow it and such.
Keep it C++ and I would think it pretty straight forward.
-Cheers
enjoy the look and feel / ease of use things.
I think a regular and advanced version is a good idea if its not
too much work for Jo. That way he could make the advanced
version even more nerdy than it already is. For instance, some
kind of SDK for the audio engine would be awesome IMO.
That way the community could help to grow it and such.
Keep it C++ and I would think it pretty straight forward.
-Cheers
-
- KVRAF
- 13865 posts since 24 Jun, 2008 from Europe
Huh?? I don't understand that conclusion. Can you explain the logic behind your conclusion?solipsvs wrote:ok so this is what you make mulab concept for? a warm fuzzzy group hug?