Feature(s) which keep MuLab from being your primary DAW?

[sl23]

It's the way I started working and the way I've worked for years with hardware. I can't do count ins it's a put off so the timing is always off. As Jo said, you can assign a key to start it but then you always have to do that, which is also awkward and annoying. I've pretty much given up after all these years, which is why I only use MuLab for sequencing loops or programming sequences in.

Live recording via a midi keyboard for me is just not happening.
Such a shame as I've been a fan of Jo's since 2005 when I first got ComputerMuzys and Luna

[docbot]

It's the way I started working and the way I've worked for years with hardware. I can't do count ins it's a put off so the timing is always off. As Jo said, you can assign a key to start it but then you always have to do that, which is also awkward and annoying. I've pretty much given up after all these years, which is why I only use MuLab for sequencing loops or programming sequences in.

Live recording via a midi keyboard for me is just not happening.
Such a shame as I've been a fan of Jo's since 2005 when I first got ComputerMuzys and Luna

Would be a great feature, and since you're asking - FL Studio does have this.

[sl23]

Thanks, that's another +1

[Jafo]

What keeps me from using it at all? Having each track appear in two places, above and below; one adds effects on the bottom rack, but not the top track. Or that racks/busses and tracks are considered completely separate things. Honestly, I find this setup (which seems to be a metaphor based on a hardware studio? those still exist, right?) irksome and more than somewhat bizarre. Maybe I'm just too accustomed to Tracktion's streamlined interface.

I was also unable to record MIDI at all; but as there isn't a button on a track to select it for recording, I suspect it's a limitation of the demo. Mouse click entry worked, but I prefer expression to expediency.

The Modular option is definitely cool, and I applaud its inclusion. I would definitely enjoy experimenting with it. But I just can't see spending $$$ to use an unpleasant interface.

[dakkra]

What keeps me from using it at all? Having each track appear in two places, above and below; one adds effects on the bottom rack, but not the top track. Or that racks/busses and tracks are considered completely separate things. Honestly, I find this setup (which seems to be a metaphor based on a hardware studio? those still exist, right?) irksome and more than somewhat bizarre. Maybe I'm just too accustomed to Tracktion's streamlined interface.

I was also unable to record MIDI at all; but as there isn't a button on a track to select it for recording, I suspect it's a limitation of the demo. Mouse click entry worked, but I prefer expression to expediency.

The Modular option is definitely cool, and I applaud its inclusion. I would definitely enjoy experimenting with it. But I just can't see spending $$$ to use an unpleasant interface.

The track/rack separation is due to the modular nature of the DAW. Mulab doesn't have a serial signal flow. You can have outputs go to different speakers for example, if you're using more than two channels. Mulab works more like a modular patch system than a linear DAW when it comes to that topic. 1:1 track-rack relationships have been a hot topic though. Some of us love the idea, some of us don't. It's just how the architecture of the software works. The biggest reason for a non-1:1 relationship by the way, is for send fx/bus racks. It's an old school technique, but can be good for say grouping all drum outputs into one bus. More modern implementations of this idea take the form of group tracks, but like I stated earlier, Mulab is more of a patch system than a linear DAW.

There is no arm to record MIDI. MIDI events are forwarded to the selected track. This also means the selected track will record the MIDI events you play during recording. Basically, selecting a track automatically arms it for recording MIDI. Audio recording used to work this way, but it got it's own arm/disarm and panel a few versions back.

And finally, the interface is also hotly debated. Mulab has an incredible feature set, but the UI has generally taken a backseat to the features. A lot of middle ground work has been done (see the beta thread if you're curious) to improve how the UI works and to improve workflow (inline shortcut mapping is a gem).

With respect to Tracktion (I own Waveform 8 + DAW Essentials), their UI originally didn't have a dedicated mixer. All mixing and plugin chains were done in that odd section next to the track, which for most of us gets pretty messy. They added their modular patch-area, but it didn't solve the want for a clean track section. Most DAW's only display plugins as inserts in a mixing panel. Some others will have a nested device panel, but that only really works if the native devices for the DAW are of decent quality.

[Michael L]

I am puzzled why users want MuLab to be more similar to other products, instead of being more unique. MuLab has always been a pioneer, and if it continues to 'boldly go where no DAW has gone before' we can learn to take advantage of the new possibilities.

[sl23]

Indeed it is and will continue to be, no doubt. But wanting functionalities that make it easier to use is a prerequisite, is it not?

Having something unique but unusable is pointless, you may as well use something else, as I am having to do. I would be happy to use MuLab as is if one thing were added, wait note. It's not MuLab's uniqueness that I am drawn to, but it's simplicity. Other DAW's are too complex in there outlook, trying too hard to be everything, yet forgetting one fundamental necessity, accessibility, ie, ease of use.

I am not wanting anything from other DAW's, whatever gets added to MuLab is a bonus. I'm expecting nothing, but hope one day I get the one thing that will unlock MuLab for me. If that were added and MuLab ceased to be developed, that would be enough for me!

Sure there are many other refinements needed, but being unable to record MIDI correctly, easily, is my only hope. But I see others aren't needing that and there are other priorities, so I can only wait patiently in hope.

[MuTools]

but being unable to record MIDI correctly, easily, is my only hope.

MuLab does record MIDI correctly.

I was also unable to record MIDI at all; but as there isn't a button on a track to select it for recording, I suspect it's a limitation of the demo.

Recording MIDI is easier than in most other DAWs: Just click record. (no need to arm MIDI tracks)

But I just can't see spending $$$ to use an unpleasant interface.

Please concretely describe what you find unpleasant about the interface.

[sl23]

Sorry Jo, you've taken my comment out of context and so it appears I'm saying there's an issue with midi recording, which I am not. There's nothing actually wrong, it's just missing a function I need in order to use it correctly.

I'm saying that, for me, because midi recording lacks what I need it doesn't 'work' for me.

Apologies for the poor explanation.

[pquenin]

I love the Mulab UI, it's clear, simple, straightforward, lovely... I also really love the piano roll that is very easy and effective. I also love the mixer because you can easily drag your effects from rack to rack, copy them, try different things...
But there were many lacks in the audio side. Mulab 8 has filled the gap !
But it's not my main DAW because I love Reason devices. Now that Reason 11 is also a VST plugin, MULAB + REASON VST could be a killer duo, but Reason Rack plugin is VST3 and Mulab still don't support this format...

[MuTools]

I understand your point.

[sl23]

Reason is now a plugin? WTF?

And yes, I agree with all your points about MuLab, that's why I love it!

[jonljacobi]

I think the post from Jafo is telling. MuLab is not like other DAWs in many of its methods, and a cursory inspection will baffle many users who are used to something else. Unfortunately, this means a lot of users, especially those who aren’t interested in modular, or even know about that, will never give it a fair shake.

[sl23]

I have to agree. When I started to use Luna/MuLab in the early days, I was put off by it's separate track/Rack system. But I kept coming back as Muzys was so good and was dead. MuLab looked enticing with it's simplicity, but I kept leaving it. When I finally decided to buy it, it was definitely worth it though.

[dakkra]

Admittedly, I had the advantage of Mulab being the first DAW that I used seriously. I was on a tight budget at the start (like most) and I was deciding between Reaper, FL Studio, and Mulab. Mulab provided the most bang-for-buck so I sent my money that way. As a result, I learned about modular workflows long before I figured out the traditional linear workflow. My only other experience before Mulab was LMMS and it's not exactly grade A software (great for those who are getting started though). I remember I got used to not having 1:1 track-rack in about a week. I got used to the idea of "building my synths" instead of tweaking already existing presets. In fact I became more of a technical musician and a sound designer rather than a music producer (as is every teenagers dream). I find myself more concerned with sound quality than with actually writing a song these days.

So in short, Mulab always made sense to be because that's where I started. However, Mulab also pushed me to be a sound designer and an audio engineer, rather than a music producer. It pushed me to be more technically oriented, and less musically inclined. Of course Mulab is a very musical software, but in my experience, it has converted me into a technical musician rather than an "emotional" musician.