Eric Nassen also has a LinkedIn account.
This is a little embarrassing, but nothing. It is more for collection and educational pursuits, that I am seeking those two items. Mulab is excellent.Anyway, feel free to also elaborate on what you find missing most in MUX Modular to recreate Modulys.
But, Ill give my best shot at a overall critique. Please keep in mind, that I have found MuLab/Mux to be the most compelling option available.
- A hundful of DAWs give a superficial, but sell-able, aesthetics of being a good DAW for mastering in. I don't know if it is the dithering and noise options, being present in an overly complex menu system; or just default settings that work well for mastering, for those who have no clue how to master.
I'm not an expert at mastering, but maybe there is a "non-cumbersome" way of adding some of that mastering aesthetics to MuLab/Mux. Maybe something that makes it more pronounced, without getting in the way of MuLabs excellent flow. I've read people suggest writing in MuLab, then mastering in Samplitude, Reaper, or even ProTools.
- This might seem a bit ridiculous, but there seems to be plenty of people who really enjoy the Tracker notation style. The issue is that it is more than just the style per instrument, but that you have all instruments available to you, while editing a single pattern. You also have available to you many settings for FX and MIDI. You can navigate this with just your keyboard, and simultaneously use your keyboard as MIDI keys. The Tracker Matrix Grid.
I have my issues with the Tracker matrix style. It isn't the best for multiple notes played at the same time, especially by the same instrument. Maybe the Tracker matrix grid could be extended, in some ways, to better suite chords and audio clip recording/inclusion/trimming etc. Even more insane, would be being able to view a project in a Tracker pattern style and then also view it the more traditional way (MuLab's Composer/Editor). That would be a lot of code, and decisions on how to compromise the Tracker matrix (for compatibility with the more traditional layout). Perhaps just having a Tracker view, as an alternative to the editor (piano roll), would be enough; however still likely considered limiting to those hardcore Tracker artists. I only use Trackers here and there, for reasons mentioned above. But when I do, I always miss the MuLab backend. Renoise has a good user following, but personally I can't stand the applications backend (and the few limitations in the Tracker matrix).
- Midi Program Changes. I like the way this is handled in MuLab. I actually wouldn't want to go back to using Cakewalk .ini files. But I was thinking a midi plugin could exist, for those wishing to build their own program lists. Maybe even import/edit a few of the more popular types of instrument files.
- Mutools for visual/virtual MIDI controllers (this probably already exists).
- Speed up code, for older machines. This is a very unlikely inclusion, as it just isn't really desired or needed by most. After MuLab 4.5.2 there was some change that lowered MuLab Performance[EDIT! after reviewing my setups, it was a USB audio device that caused performance differnece]. My guess has always been code to better support multiple cores, or less likely, a compiler change/update. Consequently, it may just be a placebo, but I think there was a modest performance increase in the version 9 releases.
Anyway, its doubtful, but if there was anyway to enable a speed up (for older single core machines), that would be great. I still have some older midi hardware, tied to an older OS. I still used MuLab there (even version 9 has been usable there). There isn't much chance of using Mu instruments and effects there (the quality of those tools bare an acceptable and expected processor burden). But to control midi and older VST/VSTi, MuLab is still lean enough to handle it. This kinda thing won't matter, after the day 32bit support gets dropped.
