Mux modular system by MuTools - your experience? Offers other things than ZEBRA 2?

[nichttuntun]

You're totally right. Best advice you can give
Generally I am still thinking about whether such a system is the right thing for me. But with 60euros I can't go wrong to learn such a system. Would be a good start to understand more modular. With very limited time it's a serious consideration whether to invest in this system too. There are already many other modular systems out and even one very good free basic one emulating Eurack stuff. VCV and has a clearer user interface.

Maybe my last question is... is there something special for MUX itself when MUX is running via MuLab? Or does every other DAW do the same here. Want to run it via Cubase for example. Thank you in advance.

[Michael L]

is there something special for MUX itself when MUX is running via MuLab? Or does every other DAW do the same here. Want to run it via Cubase for example.

Demo it to see if the workflow "clicks" with you; the choice is easier when DAWs are different.

[bharris22]

I know that the track/vst limited version of MuLab is free. Can anyone tell me whether all of the MUX modules are available in this trial version? Thanks!

[bibz1st]

Yes, all modules available

[Eauson]

Music made only with MUX

Cache
https://sites.google.com/site/kvrosc/osc-80-mux

Thank you. I already listened to all of these tracks a while ago. Beside Taron´s piece there is really nothing which is in any way interesting for me. Neither in sound-design nor in style. Sorry. Please don´t take me wrong I am just honest. I am too much into experimental and musique concrete and things like David Sylvian, earlier Skinny Puppy, some Radiohead, Throbbing Gristle, Herbie Hancock/ Jazz in general, Einstürzende Neubauten, Sonic Youth and early Severed Heads, Wilco, John Cage, Scott Walker, early Pink Floyd and generally into Frank Zappa

So you see, I am picky and with synths it´s exactly the same. They should have something others do not provide and best in an extreme kind of outstanding way. I am spoiled

Not taken in wrong way, OP didn't mention any of the information you put here.
So, just for futures, please try to add more info, then peeps like me, who are only trying to help, can help.
Again, this isn't me having a go, its just, lack of info wastes your time and the person who is willing to locate and publish an answer.
All the best in your search, music concrete, Pierre Henry etc.
Ok, bye.

[bharris22]

Yes, all modules available

Thanks!

[benheman]

MUX is a rare gem!

[ghettosynth]

You're totally right. Best advice you can give
Generally I am still thinking about whether such a system is the right thing for me. But with 60euros I can't go wrong to learn such a system. Would be a good start to understand more modular. With very limited time it's a serious consideration whether to invest in this system too. There are already many other modular systems out and even one very good free basic one emulating Eurack stuff. VCV and has a clearer user interface.

Maybe my last question is... is there something special for MUX itself when MUX is running via MuLab? Or does every other DAW do the same here. Want to run it via Cubase for example. Thank you in advance.

Not to sound like a stuck record, but, if you're just trying to use one modular system and you want what stands out, MUX isn't it. Sorry, I own mux and mulab and while I like them for what they are, they aren't in the same category as tools like Reaktor, Max, or frankly, even Synthedit/Flowstone.

For experimental music either Reaktor or Max are the definitive standard environments. There are others that offer come close, but none are both as powerful and as widely accepted. VCV is fantastic for being free but is purely a modular synth and not a synth building environment. Reaktor occasionally goes on sale for $100 and, IMNSHO, is a much better value than MUX for being a modular environment. Where it lacks is that it doesn't host plugins. Max does host plugins but it is more expensive and seldom goes on sale. It also has a steeper learning curve for most people.

Maybe you don't care and you're just looking to spend some money that's burning a hole in your pocket but muLab users have something of a fanboi vibe and I think that it tends to exaggerate the usefulness of MUX.

For experimental stuff the absence of feedback is rather a large concern. If you don't know this now, you eventually will. The lack of lower level primitives also gets in the way. One doesn't have to go all the way to being a full on DSP dev to make use of these kinds of features. Often it's just about adding a simple mechanism from one module into another module and it's just a copy/paste job.

Bottom line, if you are as picky and experimental as you claim, you'll rather quickly outgrow MUX. While it's a cool tool, I don't think that creating interesting synths is a good reason to buy it. Its real value is in hosting your existing plugins and chaining them together in rather normal ways and being able to create a reduced front panel to control them. Think of it like Ableton's racks or Reasons combinator but much more powerful and flexible. If you don't care about creating a fancy U/I, then Plogue Bidule is the superior tool for this purpose. IMO, there isn't really a good tool on the market right now to serve this purpose. They all are limited in some annoying way. If Max were able to write plugins or be hosted as a plugin it would be my first choice for this, but it can't, except on Ableton Live.

[Trancit]

Not to sound like a stuck record, but, if you're just trying to use one modular system and you want what stands out, MUX isn't it. Sorry, I own mux and mulab and while I like them for what they are, they aren't in the same category as tools like Reaktor, Max, or frankly, even Synthedit/Flowstone.

For experimental music either Reaktor or Max are the definitive standard environments. There are others that offer come close, but none are both as powerful and as widely accepted. VCV is fantastic for being free but is purely a modular synth and not a synth building environment. Reaktor occasionally goes on sale for $100 and, IMNSHO, is a much better value than MUX for being a modular environment. Where it lacks is that it doesn't host plugins. Max does host plugins but it is more expensive and seldom goes on sale. It also has a steeper learning curve for most people.

Maybe you don't care and you're just looking to spend some money that's burning a hole in your pocket but muLab users have something of a fanboi vibe and I think that it tends to exaggerate the usefulness of MUX.

For experimental stuff the absence of feedback is rather a large concern. If you don't know this now, you eventually will. The lack of lower level primitives also gets in the way. One doesn't have to go all the way to being a full on DSP dev to make use of these kinds of features. Often it's just about adding a simple mechanism from one module into another module and it's just a copy/paste job.

Bottom line, if you are as picky and experimental as you claim, you'll rather quickly outgrow MUX. While it's a cool tool, I don't think that creating interesting synths is a good reason to buy it. Its real value is in hosting your existing plugins and chaining them together in rather normal ways and being able to create a reduced front panel to control them. Think of it like Ableton's racks or Reasons combinator but much more powerful and flexible. If you don't care about creating a fancy U/I, then Plogue Bidule is the superior tool for this purpose. IMO, there isn't really a good tool on the market right now to serve this purpose. They all are limited in some annoying way. If Max were able to write plugins or be hosted as a plugin it would be my first choice for this, but it can't, except on Ableton Live.

I don´t think you are right here... or let me better say/ask: are you joking???

Of course, Reaktor or Max go much much deeper but I highly doubt, that even with the from you called "limited feature set" of MUX one lifetime is enough to even scratch the surface of what is possible... or on the other hand that you be able to come up with different meaningful sonic results...

Do you have to use sometimes different ways to achieve a certain sound... of course... but who cares...
Only as an example: How long/often did you concentrated yourself using the Oscillator and Multiform Oscillator with all of available features... if your answer is less than at least 50 years but it´s too limited... than: back to school

Most disadvantage/criticsm of MUX I´ve read was not to have a feedback path... but honestly, how important is that... feedback sounds simply shitty and how many shitty sounds do you need in your productions...
If this would be that useful, imho much much more products would offer this possibility...
They don´t, what tells me, we are talking about something more than even a niche...

Everything else is very well covered by MUX in a very good balance...
The oscillator modules alone can keep you busy at least 20 years every day again... not to speak of the Multiform one...

Where is the sense in going deeper into oscillators or filters and ending up afterwards with a result that matches 99% of the already available presets/preconfigured modules... other than wasting time...

Why does Reaktor came up with Blocks as the main feature in the latest updates... because it absolutely makes no sense to invent the wheel every day again...

Even if somebody is even deeper into experimental sounds... everybody, who is bored by the sonic capabilities of MUX did neither understand it, nor did even scratched the surface of it...

To the OP I can only say... what you get here for this price is sonically absolute top notch and used in a correct way could be the only Synth/Sampler/Drum/FX solution you would ever need for creating 1 billion unique sounding great tunes or sounds or whatever you are after...

-It loads in a blink of an eye
-very very very low CPU and RAM consumption
-no matter what you do... MUX sounds always great
-no matter what you are looking for - MUX will deliver it (if it´s making sense... again feedback doesn´t in my opinion)
-this is an enviroment, which helps you being creative...
-great feature set for making your own GUI´s / making your stuff useable in the way you want it to be
-very fast bug fixing
-you would support a very very kind and nice developer, who is fighting hard but is a genius in my opinion being able to create and support 2 such great/deep/ complex/ good sounding products as a one man show... This is someone who is really worth to be supported...

Sorry for this long post, but I didn´t have had a choice

PS: I was just talking about the internal sound engine... being able to use VST´s too is just the icing of the cake

[pekbro]

In terms of capability, MUX certainly falls short of modulars such as Reaktor and Max as a toolset
for creating custom instruments and effects. Although, in terms of usability, for most, MUX is
going far more approachable. As for the rest, if you know what you're doing, you can create
some amazingly sophisticated stuff with the building blocks provided by MUX. E.g. Allpass filters
and whatnot. In any event, this gap could be greatly reduced in MUX with the addition of procedural access.
Something that incidentally, is already 'tentatively' planned in the long term and quite feasible.

They're all pretty cool and well worth investing in, both in time and moneys.

[JoeCat]

Thing about Reaktor is even if you don't build your own, there are enough Block patches and even modular systems in the user library to keep you busy. And a lot of the user library is geared towards experimental stuff.

This beast is almost worth the price of admission:

https://www.native-instruments.com/en/r ... how/11077/



(modulation is a bit wonky on the 'B' side interface, but it's all there)

But bigger investment. I haven't demoed Mux but it certainly sounds great - just different workflow, etc. Good price too.

[ghettosynth]

I don´t think you are right here... or let me better say/ask: are you joking???

I am, I'm not, and you're wrong.

Of course, Reaktor or Max go much much deeper but I highly doubt, that even with the from you called "limited feature set" of MUX one lifetime is enough to even scratch the surface of what is possible

Nonsense. As soon as you run into the one limitation that you need, show's over. That happened pretty quickly for me with MUX. As I said, MUX uses tend to come across as fanbois. Additionally, they tend to not have gone very deep with modularity. So, if that's you, not too deep, i.e., it will take you a lifetime to exhaust the limitations of MUX, then Reaktor is going to be over your head and I'm not talking to you.

Why does Reaktor came up with Blocks as the main feature in the latest updates... because it absolutely makes no sense to invent the wheel every day again...

To sell to people like you who don't understand how they were totally unnecessary for people who understood how to use Reaktor.

[ghettosynth]

In terms of capability, MUX certainly falls short of modulars such as Reaktor and Max as a toolset
for creating custom instruments and effects. Although, in terms of usability, for most, MUX is
going far more approachable. As for the rest, if you know what you're doing, you can create
some amazingly sophisticated stuff with the building blocks provided by MUX. E.g. Allpass filters
and whatnot. In any event, this gap could be greatly reduced in MUX with the addition of procedural access.
Something that incidentally, is already 'tentatively' planned in the long term and quite feasible.

They're all pretty cool and well worth investing in, both in time and moneys.

Sure, I own MUX. I just didn't buy it thinking that it was going to deliver something on the level of Zebra 2. Again, I don't think that building synths is one of its strengths at all. I've pretty much only seen "cute" synths done in MUX. It seems to me that it's the new synthedit in the sense that it's very approachable.

My advice is speaking to the OPs expressed needs. MUX is not a cutting edge synth building environment by any stretch of the imagination.

[ghettosynth]

Thing about Reaktor is even if you don't build your own, there are enough Block patches and even modular systems in the user library to keep you busy. And a lot of the user library is geared towards experimental stuff.

^this! If you're looking to find high quality things built by people who understand how things work under the hood, e.g., having feedback is important, then Reaktor will allow you to engage at a much shallower level than people imagine. You don't have to go right to core. You can get so much out of just patching other people's creations together and those creations aren't going to be hampered by a somewhat weak modular core that wasn't really designed to compete on that front.

[Michael L]

How long/often did you concentrated yourself using the Oscillator and Multiform Oscillator with all of available features... if your answer is less than at least 50 years but it´s too limited... than: back to school

Trancit presents an elegant "logical proof." The sonic possibilities of MUX (and other modulars) are much greater than we can ever explore in our remaining life time:
MUX! /T >> P (T-L)

If we choose modulars based only on the number of possibilities, they are all greater than we can ever explore, so they are effectively equal.
∞ = ∞

And, because our expertise increases with practice, but our practice time is limited, we should choose fewer rather than more modular programs. So, how do we choose among infinitely-equal software?

Trancit presents eight reasons to choose MUX:

-It loads in a blink of an eye
-very very very low CPU and RAM consumption
-no matter what you do... MUX sounds always great
-no matter what you are looking for - MUX will deliver it...
-this is an enviroment, which helps you being creative...
-great feature set for making your own GUI´s / making your stuff useable in the way you want it to be
-very fast bug fixing
-you would support a very very kind and nice developer, who is fighting hard but is a genius

I will add eight more from my experience with MUX & MuLab:
- it is simple on the surface, which helps me think clearly
- it goes very deep, but always at a musically-meaningful level
- each module is carefully selected to multiply possibilities with others
- samples can be dropped into many modules, then layered, and oscillated
- the waveform and midi views are huge, with many r-click options
- it has a consistent design, so the module language is understandable
- the kvr MuTools Forum has many helpful people
= But most important is to choose what you enjoy!