Mulab under the hood

[mgiambro]

I'm conflicted on this. I do like the idea of minimalism and restricting yourself. My productivity has been affected by being overwhelmed with too many options. Most of the music I have ever released was done in early versions of Reason. I'm currently looking at what vsts I would miss. The Valhalla effects stand out as being difficult to recreate. I think the compromise for me would be to use the MuLab plugin in reaper and cut down my vsts to a bare minimum.

Jo, I have question which you may not want to answer and I fully understand if you don't. Which of your products gets more sales, MuLab App or MuLab Plugin/MUX? Sorry for being nosey .

[avid_d]

I am a rank amateur using the Covid19 lockdown in 2020 as a reason to start to learn about sound synthesis. I know from reading your posts how the technical skills of many of you are so far beyond my own, thus you can envisage Mulab having no VST support because you can probably build what you want within Mux.

Having purchased Mulab 9 app last year, I recognise that it is rather more temperamental with VST plugins than some of the other DAWS I have tried out. Also, the work around to get Mulab to work with VST3 is not nice (a couple of my favourite plugins are VST3 only). That said, if Mulab 9 had not supported VST I would never have considered buying it and I would stop using it immediately if VST support was withdrawn.

[sl23]

I think the compromise for me would be to use the MuLab plugin in reaper and cut down my vsts to a bare minimum.

See this is the crux of the matter! I think by restricting MuLab, you may push people into using MuLab/MuX as a plugin, which pushes them to use other DAW's, thus defeating the whole purpose of simplifying MuLab!

Though the argument really is about saving Jo's time so as to devote more to developing MuLab/Mux, gradually there will be little need for MuLab as a compositional tool and so MuX will prevail. In the end the original tool that was great becomes a shadow of it's former self.

If you're selling the idea of simplicity, users need self-control on what they use, plain and simple. You don't need hundreds of VST's, just pick ten or twenty of the best, in your eyes, and work with that. If you're a sound designer, there's a few great ones to work with. If you're a sample mangler, there's plenty to be had just in MuLab/Mux or a few good VST's. If, like me, you're just a patch worker, stick with a few synths that have thousands of presets available. There's just no need for a massive library of VST's where every track has a different one that requires new skills or learning to use them. Unless you're a pro that is. But that's a different ball game.

[sl23]

I am a rank amateur using the Covid19 lockdown in 2020 as a reason to start to learn about sound synthesis. I know from reading your posts how the technical skills of many of you are so far beyond my own, thus you can envisage Mulab having no VST support because you can probably build what you want within Mux.

Having purchased Mulab 9 app last year, I recognise that it is rather more temperamental with VST plugins than some of the other DAWS I have tried out. Also, the work around to get Mulab to work with VST3 is not nice (a couple of my favourite plugins are VST3 only). That said, if Mulab 9 had not supported VST I would never have considered buying it and I would stop using it immediately if VST support was withdrawn.

Well said

[sl23]

Just to contradict myself, I had a thought... If you could provide thousands of preset sounds as good as things like Sylenth, u-he and Tone2, and FX presets with easy connections more 'abilities' then I would probably be happy with a closed MuLab.

But without all that, I would need to resort to using Reaper, the only other cheap and portable DAW with VST compatibility, and would deem MuLab an unnecessary purchase eventually. Sorry Jo!

[robert_p]

Just open Mulab's plugin manager, remove all plugins and you've got a MuLab with no vst - simple - but mind that pro-level producers, mixing and mastering engineers have been using vst's for over 20 years at some point in the production process. It's easier and more efficient (especially if you meet the deadline) to spend £50 instead of wasting your time building something that won't work well.

Plugins.jpg

[robert_p]

If you could provide thousands of preset sounds as good as things like Sylenth, u-he and Tone2, and FX presets with easy connections more 'abilities' then I would probably be happy with a closed MuLab.

Good sounds created with MuLab can use 4x more CPU comparing to well-optimized vst synths.

[sl23]

Is that right? Wow, I suppose another reason not to have a closed ML! I do see the advantages, and at first, when I got MuLab, I wanted the same thing. Over time, however, I see that it's not a good idea to do that.

[whyterabbyt]

So wouldn't a totally integrated MuLab (without external plugins) decrease the total learning time as everything works in a uniform way?

Nope. The total learning time for (totally integrated MuLab) versus (plugin-capable MuLab using no plugins) would pretty much be exactly the same.
Noone is forced to use plugins within MuLab, so the 'totally integrated version' would only remove user choice, it doesn't add anything.

Its your project, though, but if MuLab didnt support plugins at all, I'd have no use for it, and I'd suggest that'd be the same for a lot of people; I suspect you'd lose more customers from a closed system than you'd gain from one.

People do want the option of plugins (particularly more specialised plugins, very accurately modelled plugins, or those that cant be approximated within MuLab) so I would suggest that those who 'need' a closed version of MuLab be offered a simple 'dont use any plugins' preference, or an alternate build. But I dont want it closed.

Im not convinced by the argument that integrated software somehow enables one's own creativity better. It sure doesnt if you have no inclination to build everything you need. And your stuck with inherent, baked-in limitations. Yes you can build your own custom stuff, but if you're stuck having to do that instead of being able to use something that already exists, then that's just as likely to be a barrier to creativity, not a gateway.
And if I want to custom-build something, and it couldnt be built in MuLab/Mux, then plugin support means I can look into achieving that with other tools, from VCV to Reaktor to MAX/MSPs RNBO to C++ unless its a closed system. I dont want that door shut; if the alternatives are open systems, then why would I choose a closed one? If I was already capable of building, say, a Pigments-alike in Mulab, then I'd probably be capable of building one in something else too, so why would I choose the more restricted option.

[whyterabbyt]

OTOH, some of the most innovative composing software is integrated (e.g. Kyma, MetaSynth, Max)

Nope, not Max.

https://docs.cycling74.com/max8/refpages/vst~

(And Kyma is software running on a very expensive proprietary hardware system. )

[Michael L]

OTOH, some of the most innovative composing software is integrated (e.g. Kyma, MetaSynth, Max)

Nope, not Max.
https://docs.cycling74.com/max8/refpages/vst~
(And Kyma is software running on a very expensive proprietary hardware system. )

Integrated means that all parts of a system communicate to form an interoperable whole.

Plugins share limited information, and thus are only partially integrated into a DAW.

I have seen MuLab users suggest many very cool features, and have seen Jo develop features that are beyond what I could imagine. I find MuLab's integration (e.g. with samples) to be its greatest asset, so I have confidence that further integration would result in greater benefits

[whyterabbyt]

OTOH, some of the most innovative composing software is integrated (e.g. Kyma, MetaSynth, Max)

Nope, not Max.
https://docs.cycling74.com/max8/refpages/vst~
(And Kyma is software running on a very expensive proprietary hardware system. )

Integrated means that all parts of a system communicate to form an interoperable whole.

Plugins share limited information, and thus are only partially integrated into a DAW.

So by that definition, MuLab is already exactly as integrated as Max is, right?

[whyterabbyt]

BTW, that bit about communication doesnt actually seem to be part of any major dictionary definition of integrated.

[Michael L]

BTW, that bit about communication is doesnt actually seem to be part of tany major dictionary definition of integrated.

Here you go:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_integration

MuLab is already exactly

MuLab is not "exactly" like Max, Kyma, MetaSynth, or anything else.
But they all create value through integration.

To quote Wikipedia again,
System integration involves integrating existing, often disparate systems in such a way "that focuses on increasing value to the customer" (e.g., improved product quality and performance) while at the same time providing value to the company (e.g., reducing operational costs and improving response time).

Based on my own use case, I have confidence that greater integration within MuLab will increase its unique value to users.

YMMV

[humanboeing]

Wow, this caused a real stir
I think Jo meant it only hypotheticaly.