Recording- draw waveform?

[pinki]

How do you actually know you are recording?

There's a standard answer to that: use your ears.

As dakkra says, you've got level meters showing the levels, so you know if you're near to clipping (you want to be well below that level, of course, so you won't be in danger).

It sound like you're more interested in whether you're recording, though. Most of that's down to setting things up right in advance. Once you have, you hit record and it will be recording. As with anything you're unfamiliar with, you need to have patience whilst you build confidence in the tool and get familiar with operating it.

You misunderstand. Saying “use your ears” is not correct. If I am typing into a word processor and I have a whole paragraph to type I would not type for 5 minutes on a blank sheet with no visual feedback and then when I am done hit return and ..bam!...it all magically appears. That’s not a gui paradigm.

I’ve been using Pro Tools, DP, Live, Bitwig since forever and I have never come across this workflow before.
So I wasn’t asking ‘how do I record in a Daw?’...the answer to which would not be, by the way, “use your ears”...I was asking how on earth in long recordings can you ever be sure you are laying it down without visual feedback, as every other DAW uses?

[pljones]

You comparison between typing into a word processor and seeing text on a screen vs recording music is incorrect. The correct comparison would be dictating to a tape machine and recording music to a tape machine. In both cases, you don't know what's on the tape till you play it back. In studio recording environments, it's been the same until relatively recently -- so "use your ears" actually is the correct answer for many studio technicians. The wiggles on a time line are far less useful and can even be distracting.

The comparison with typing into a word processor would be playing MIDI events and hearing the notes played as you play them, whilst recording, and being able to edit them. With part-based recording - I compare Reaper and MuLab here - I'd agree it's not as clear not to see the notes until the part is completed. Then again, the delay between playing and Reaper drawing something would have been distracting if I was doing any more than seeing anything at all happen.

So, yes, some kind of "yes, you're definitely recording a part" feedback would be useful, I think, rather than just having the play position change and the record light on. At least knowing which track or tracks were getting recorded would be useful.

[pinki]

Ooh OK if you want to make the comparison to a studio environment: tape recording had the ability to monitor off the playback head after the record head. Standard analogue practice. The engineer always knew it was actually being recorded to the physical medium. And my analogy, we have to agree to disagree on this, is absolutely correct.

It is not possible to "use your ears" unless you have some form of feedback
The feedback can be aural or visual but it has to be one or the other and it has to be derived post record.
I mean it's 2019- it's just the most basic of facilities and I'm surprised that a highly developed DAW (and extremely ahead of the curve in many aspects) as MuLab wouldn't have this. But I did make reference to Jo making reference to his FR post, so I understand so please don't think I'm 'having a go' !

[Jimp_music]

Ooh OK if you want to make the comparison to a studio environment: tape recording had the ability to monitor off the playback head after the record head. Standard analogue practice. The engineer always knew it was actually being recorded to the physical medium. And my analogy, we have to agree to disagree on this, is absolutely correct.

It is not possible to "use your ears" unless you have some form of feedback
The feedback can be aural or visual but it has to be one or the other and it has to be derived post record.
I mean it's 2019- it's just the most basic of facilities and I'm surprised that a highly developed DAW (and extremely ahead of the curve in many aspects) as MuLab wouldn't have this. But I did make reference to Jo making reference to his FR post, so I understand so please don't think I'm 'having a go' !

Hey, if you were originally looking for a solution to this then here is a live waveform display in Mulab, here you go https://drive.google.com/open?id=11w4wk ... 18tdIUH_pu .
Otherwise, you can always use free soft. like audacity etc.

[pinki]

Thanks..
I think that's just a monitor of the input though so not quite the same!

[dakkra]

Mulab is definitely a function first, UI/UX later program. No animations, deep diving menus, little visual feedback on most modules, and so much more that could be considered standard visual feedback.

On the opposite side, since Mulab (and MUX) are all about function, one must consider that sheer capabilities of synthesis, sampling, mixing, mastering, creative effects, and incredible modular nature to everything. It's not a recording studio, it's an instrument, much in the same paradigm as Bitwig.

If Mulab does not fit your needs then so be it. There are other solutions out there (you said yourself you came here from Bitwig, so I assume there's something there you didn't like). At the same time, I gave up on finding the "perfect DAW". There is no such thing. I instead decided to go for "best fit". For me, Bitwig and Mulab best fit how I work and what I do. Are they perfect? Heavens no, far from it, but they get the job done in some way or another.

If you're more intro recording than you are into creative signal generation/processing then software like Reaper, Cubase, Pro Tools, and DP might be your best fit. If you value creative signals over recording, then Mulab, Bitwig, and Live might be a better fit. Or if you just want a jack of all trades master of none, you could always for for everyone's favorite software to hate, FL Studio.

As you said you've used other software before. You have the astounding option to be able to pick what you want for your needs. Mulab is missing features you think are fundamental, and you know that development on the software is very focused on what it can do, considering there is only one developer. I found that having more than one software benefits me, as it gives me more options. But if you're not a fan of that, then find your best fit. Should you decide Mulab is that, fantastic and welcome to our modular mayhem that we call a community. Otherwise, there are other solutions.

This thread went from being a question to an argument. Granted it has stayed polite thus far but it's no longer about Mulab in specific and more about what is industry standard. As how these always go, you asked a valid and innocent question, we tried to provide solutions, you didn't like it, and the die hard Mulab fans jump to it's defense. So let's sit back, and chill out.

pinki, if you find that recording is not the primary objective of your day-to-day digital audio work, I implore you to delve into the modular environments and learn about what makes Mulab/MUX so great! Otherwise, I wish good luck on your search, I mean that.

To the Mulab fans here, if pinki doesn't like it, there's no reason to get up in arms about it. it is an opinion, and we should respect that. I don't like the color yellow but some fan of yellow could probably go on for years about how yellow is all you need. Doesn't matter, I don't like yellow.

And end of a long and probably unnecessary post but such it is.

[pinki]

Dakkra that is a great response and I thank you!

You are right and I hear what you say.

I was literally about to join the community and then I found the odd anomaly we have discussed here.
Is it a deal breaker? Well I don't want it to be. I'm not looking to replace DP with MuLab so I can carry on using that for recording.
It's Bitwig I'm looking to replace which I started using about 2/3 years ago and it has never clicked with me. And it was going to be my, like you say, instrument-daw, not my recording-daw. But it has defeated me with its complexity. And do get me wrong, I can do complexity- but not when I'm making music! (You say you use Bitwig, so maybe let's not go in to details!)

And yes MuLab feels like an instrument! As you say:
"Mulab is definitely a function first, UI/UX later program. No animations, deep diving menus, little visual feedback on most modules, and so much more that could be considered standard visual feedback.
On the opposite side, since Mulab (and MUX) are all about function, one must consider that sheer capabilities of synthesis, sampling, mixing, mastering, creative effects, and incredible modular nature to everything. It's not a recording studio, it's an instrument, much in the same paradigm as Bitwig."

This I like to hear.

So I will give it another go and hopefully join soon.

Thanks

[MuTools]

Good post dakkra Thanks

[Raph-T]

Friend of mine uses Fl studio only for its sexy girl with boobs that appears on one of native fl studio plugins,he says that i didnot buy the worlds most powerfull computer to sit on beos,msdos or react os.Well it is easy to paint dots comparing painting waveforms,maybe he meant drawing midi sequences realtime,not audio waveforms.Same here using bitwig+mutools mulab for their minimalistic approach,for functionality,these daws looks like twin brothers

[sl23]

You comparison between typing into a word processor and seeing text on a screen vs recording music is incorrect. The correct comparison would be dictating to a tape machine and recording music to a tape machine. In both cases, you don't know what's on the tape till you play it back. In studio recording environments, it's been the same until relatively recently -- so "use your ears" actually is the correct answer for many studio technicians. The wiggles on a time line are far less useful and can even be distracting.

The comparison with typing into a word processor would be playing MIDI events and hearing the notes played as you play them, whilst recording, and being able to edit them. With part-based recording - I compare Reaper and MuLab here - I'd agree it's not as clear not to see the notes until the part is completed. Then again, the delay between playing and Reaper drawing something would have been distracting if I was doing any more than seeing anything at all happen.

So, yes, some kind of "yes, you're definitely recording a part" feedback would be useful, I think, rather than just having the play position change and the record light on. At least knowing which track or tracks were getting recorded would be useful.

As usual, your analogies are way off! It's more like the word processor than the tape machine. Tape machine have no settings other than possibly a record level, which is pretty bloody obvious how to use! So when you hit record, it records. I myself thought it was strange behaviour in MuLab on first use as I wondered if it was recording or had been setup right. That visual feedback is necessary imho. If those wiggles weren't useful they wouldn't be in just about every audio recording software in existence! Using your ears doesn't ensure recording to a track either. All it means is sound is being output from your speakers, NOT that recording to the specified track is taking place.

[MuTools]

Mulab is definitely a function first, UI/UX later program. No animations, deep diving menus, little visual feedback on most modules, and so much more that could be considered standard visual feedback.

One philosophical note: I think that too much eye candy can distract the ears from the sound.
So i'm still convinced that a DAW should be simple & sober UI wise. I know this is not a commercial attitude, bling bling you know. And i also know some functions in MuLab could use some extra visual feedback, always feel free to make suggestions. But don't you agree that too much fancy graphics can distract the ears & creative soul from the sound & music creation? (question not only to dakkra, but to all users)

[sl23]

Good point! But when something graphical serves a purpose, it becomes useful and therefore adds to the usability. I admit that many apps I use are ones where I can customise the interface to a minimal point. I hate apps with tons of menus and icons that can't be hidden! So I avoid them.

MuLab does a good job of this, not perfect, but then most apps are guilty of not being customisable. Which really, they should be. Everyone is different, so everyone requires a different approach to their setup and will use only certain functions. I used to have hundreds of apps, depending on the situation, but it became tiresome keeping up with it all, now I have around 30 or so. Too much clogs the mind and reduces productivity. Whether that's apps, graphics, menus, features, it doesn't matter. That's why I believe it's the small things that often count to making apps great. That's difficult when you have to keep up with the big guns tho, understandably.

[dakkra]

For me it has to deal with how quickly I can tell what's going on. Yes Bitwig gets flashy, but I know exactly where signals are going, what they're doing in each module, and what each parameter does to change the signal. In my case it's more about information. For example, when mixing, it's hard to tell if your high pass at 200hz is actually doing anything without soloing the channel. However, the goal isn't to change the sound. The goal is to mix it in without creating a muddy low end. Half of my effects are usually mixing/mastering tools rather than creative tools. That means I'm trying to be precise and surgical, not necessarily depending on my ears so much as depending on level meters.

Like you said, it's a philosophical question. One could argue that since ears are the 'endpoint', use ears to do all the mixing and mastering. For me though, ears aren't always enough. I'm not always going to be able to catch one stray harmonic in the mix that's triggering the master limiter, preventing me from really pushing the audio up. For me, good visuals can lead to more accurate/precise work.

On the other hand, there's a difference between practical visuals and 'bling bling'. Tracktion/Waveform has a terrible user interface. Everything is an overloaded function that changes based on context. Yes it's nice that it's a vector UI but it's not clean at all.

Fl Studio is clean to boot but outside of automation, it's hard to be creative from a sound design aspect. It's still a groove/loop software that became competent enough to do music production in, but it doesn't feel fun to work in.

Reaper and Cakewalk feel like software out of the early 2000's. Bitmap interface, little scaling, complicated piano rolls that really don't need to be, right click context menu's for everything (Mulab get's a lot of heat for that as well), etc. But, they're also trying to be function first, especially Reaper. In Reapers case, multi-audio out, ARA, VST3, inline audio editing, and plugin chains are what makes it more than just a recording DAW. However, because it's not modular in nature, it's not as flexible as I'd like (Mulab spoiled me there) and because there's no visuals for my signal processing, I feel like I'm sitting down with a technical tool instead of a creative tool.

I think the issue lies with what I was stating to pinki. There's no such thing as the perfect DAW. Mulab doesn't have PDC or good in-device signal visualization, Bitwig doesn't have a good sampler nor does it provide many function in audio editing (mostly bling there). Bitwig also doesn't provide different automation curve types like Mulab and FLS (Mulab 5 was amazing because of that). FLS is an eye candy DAW with little creative freedom. Sure there's patcher, but that's really only good for chaining plugins and doing layering. What if I want to create a multi-tap delay with reverb trails on each repitition? Patcher can't do that. Reaper is another function first DAW, but it's functions lie almost purely in audio and midi editing. It's great for musicians, but it's not all that great for sound designers. I like my DAW to feel like an instrument.

For me, Bitwig is currently the best fit alongside Mulab. It has visuals for signals, but doesn't waste much time on making them "pretty". It's modular, supports multi-out audio, picks up side chain instead of sending to side chain (this is amazing on it's own), has APDC, and is still competent enough for audio work. However, I abhor Bitwigs sampler, and the GRID is a fun little playground, but it's not the same power or capability of the MUX. Automation in Bitwig is also a pain. I love automation clips in Mulab, and I love the curves. Bitwig went the Ableton (pre-10.1 which added different curves) route by making automation tracks that are meant to be simple. No clips, no complex curves or shapes, just linear and exponential changes. Instead with Bitwig I'm supposed to use modulators. This is where I get caught. Bitwig doesn't have MSEG's, meaning complex modulation takes stacking/modulation of modulators. Not terribly creative, more like a headache.

TL;DR it depends on the user and what they're trying to do. I typically do all of my functions in one place: I sound design, compose, arrange, mix, and master all in the same software. That means I want a balance between functionality to keep be creative and working, and visualizations so I can ensure i'm not negatively affecting my signals. I do agree that there needs to be a balance between UI/UX and functionality. I don't want to feel like I'm using an early 2000's software, but I also don't want a vector graphics nightmare that overwhelms me with flashing lights, animations, and scrolling texts. I don't just use my DAW for music creation, I use it for sound design, mixing, and mastering. That means I'm not only depending on my ears, but on my tools as well to ensure that I'm doing the right things to the signals.

To be clear, I'm not saying Mulab is bad, it's quite the opposite. I still use it and love working in it! I'm spoiled by so many creative features that working in other software feels like I'm giving up some of my creativity. But when it comes to "surgical" or precise audio work, Mulab falls short for me. It can feel slow and clunky (right click menus, no inline editing, no ghost notes/layered editing, etc...) to work in and provides little means for working with plugins that create noticeable delay. But like I said earlier, sampling, synthesis, composing, and creative effects are very strong in Mulab. That's something I miss very much in other software.

[MuTools]

Thanks dakkra, that's interesting user feedback. I'll reflect on this.(while continuing the short term works)

[MuTools]

For example, when mixing, it's hard to tell if your high pass at 200hz is actually doing anything without soloing the channel. However, the goal isn't to change the sound. The goal is to mix it in without creating a muddy low end.

And you can't check it by inserting a spectrum analyzer at the relevant point(s)?
Please elaborate on this example case.

Like you said, it's a philosophical question. One could argue that since ears are the 'endpoint', use ears to do all the mixing and mastering. For me though, ears aren't always enough. I'm not always going to be able to catch one stray harmonic in the mix that's triggering the master limiter, preventing me from really pushing the audio up. For me, good visuals can lead to more accurate/precise work.

I fully agree, of course.
So i repeat to add more visual feedback where necessary.
Pls make concrete suggestions.

It can feel slow and clunky (right click menus

And that's not solvable with a shortcut?
If not please let me know those workflow bottlenecks.