Hey, MuTools. (Why isn't MuLab more popular?)

[whyterabbyt]

ah well those have the same design language as they do now.

ah, you're one of that type who love moving goalposts.

do you understand?

oh, i understand all right.

and i assume those are from the 90s. take live and compare their looks today please.

and why should i do that, given that comparing how they looked to begin with is an adequate rebuttal of your claim?

back when there was not much doing what they do, its no surprise. i imagine they werent hundreds and hundreds of $$$.

since when was it about what you 'imagine?'

for the record live was £219 when it came out in 2002, so adjusted for inflation, the equivalent of over $500 at today's prices.

not that bringing up the price isnt another goalpost move, no matter how badly informed your imagination seems to be.

look, objectively mutools looks less like a pro tool.

oh, please do enumerate the objective measurements for that.

if you dont think so, what car do you drive?
how do you like the way it looks? why do manufacturers echo design elements originated with vw/audi/lambo/aston martin? or maybe ford pickup trucks? or american SUVs?.

i noticed you kept wittering on about cars, is this some sort of fetish you have?
only know one kind of analogy? or just handwavey distraction shite.

you do remember that what i was responding to was your claim that live and fl sold because they had a 'professional look' despite them selling more than adequately when they didnt?
dont you?
try focussing on that, instead of pointless tossery about cars.

some people just dont have a developed sense of design and make decisions to buy on merit based stuff which mutools meets with flying colors.

and some people do have a developed sense of design and make decisions to buy on merit based stuff which mutools meets with flying colors.
so, pointless statement.

but the reality is that the majority of people dont make buying decisions on merit.

and im sure you can provide objective documented evidence for that.

which one are you? who's money is green? does yours spend at a higher value than the fickle buyer's?

that's your goalposts in transit again. try to deal with the actual thing i addressed, why dont you... the logical failure of your assertion.

[solipsvs]

wow you are def not thinking with your head here. youd like a squabble would you? thats not what im here doing. if youd just like a battle of some sort... go have it somewhere else? in the meantime i wont respond to your taunts but feel free to spell it out!

maybe tell me why this thread was started? looks like the title just about says it all.

[whyterabbyt]

wow you are def not thinking with your head here.

ad hominem already? sad.

youd like a squabble would you?

im just identifying the mechanisms you've used to avoid responding to a simple rebuttal. if that's what you 'imagine' is a squabble, then fill your boots.

thats not what im here doing.

didnt i just identify what you're here doing? you know, moving goalposts, imagining stuff and bibbling on about cars...?
and definitely avoiding substantiating the thing i actually addressed.

if youd just like a battle of some sort... go have it somewhere else?

no thanks, im quite fine here.

in the meantime i wont respond to your taunts but feel free to spell it out!

so from handwaving paucity of substance to 'nyah nyah cant hear you.' well done. wanna throw in something about cars now?

[VariKusBrainZ]

I love watching whyterabbyt deconstruct the arguments of people that dont know how to think critically or constructively

[solipsvs]

oh you guys more emotional reactions!

keep it clinical? no need for emotions in a discussion over why mulab isnt popular. why do you think this is? id love to know!

[whyterabbyt]

oh you guys more emotional reactions!

keep it clinical? no need for emotions in a discussion over why mulab isnt popular. why do you think this is? id love to know!

are you still thinking your puerile flailings will distract people from noticing the flaws in your argument? why do you think this is? id love to know!

[solipsvs]

oh yes i still think that! thank you for responding! what do you have that contradicts what ive said? why wont you answer me questions? its as if you dont wish to engage

[whyterabbyt]

what do you have that contradicts what ive said?

its all in the post where you were contradicted. did you get whiplash-induced amnedia from the handwaving and now need a link?

[solipsvs]

most products would love to be purchased by misfits! the answer is yes their money is green! but all money is green and if it looks like a toy thats a lot of the market spending their money elsewhere.

the reason ford products tend to be on the bland side (or at least historically so) is because most of their target market wasnt as interested in looks. this tradition has fallen by the wayside but they sure do end up appropriating mojo owned by aston martin which means they have learned to place a higher value on loox, and i think thats because they want the market who was buying euro. or at least those who might end up in a european car otherwise. anyway, its all about attracting those buyers with a better looking product even tho its still ford

you dont see a direct parallel here? i do.

[solipsvs]

why isnt mulab more popular?

[whyterabbyt]

ford
aston martin
european car
ford

compelling argument.

[solipsvs]

i think aston martin has helped ford sell cars, at least here in detroit lol!

its even something they talked about in the press back when they did it originally. ford owned aston martin then btw. every manufacturer here has capitulated to euro design since then. in an attempt anyway, to gain market share. everybody was doing it! LOL see any parallels? its hard to make it any simpler.

[whyterabbyt]

aston martin
ford
ford
aston martin

[solipsvs]

i cant tell what your ackchyual reply is. are you responding in some sort of ultra hip code or something? you have nothing of substance? nothing to offer,

why isnt mulab more popular bro?

[4u610h346]

Exposure. Different people, doing different kinds of things; and writing or doing videos about it. That would help with "part" of the market.

Many people that buy music tools, have been doing it for awhile. Once they get good at a product, they need a real push to move on. Usually this happens because a company stops producing something, the user switches to a different hardware platform, or a product isn't implementing a feature they desire.

There is still a big push to organize the interface, in a way that resembles studio hardware mixing. There are defined objects of orientation, that have defined what people look for when seeking workflow or intuitive comfort.

FL Studio broke that trend, initially, inviting those that were uncomfortable with studio like work flows or tracker software. As they expanded their feature set, the upfront flow remained the same, with the extended feature set becoming "in a way" more traditional.

For me, I see three main types of software. EDM like (FL Studio), Traditional (Ableton, Pro Tools, Ardour), and Trackers (Modplug). I'm leaving out "Live Performace", because the needs there are too varied; and could include all of the products mentioned above. The labels assigned to those example will probably trigger internal pandentic nature's in many; these are just real wide generalizations. I know seeing Live and Pro Tools in the same grouping has got to seem like too much. But what I am aiming at is the approach to different aspects of music creation.

Channels, Busses, Sends, Side Chaining, etc. All of these notions create an idea of what is needed to facilitate functionality. If you fray away from the norms to far, those used to the norms will get confused/frustrated. The norms also make it easier for a beginner to figure things out. Once you bump around on enough software, an uninitiated can started to get the drift of what is going on. Why? Because all of these application require inclusion of known fundamental objects (concept, not always image).

I can put Reason and FL Studio in the same category, because they are less immediately geared towards recording. This is also why I have no issue lumping Pro Tools in with Ableton.

Trackers are either a toy or a forced professional pleasure.

For me, MuLab covers most of the above. It doesn't really fit in to the tracker design. Trackers proved a condensed interface for immediately reactive audio sequencing. There are options to fine tune, and some tracker provide near or all of the features included in a traditional DAW. However, MuLab does "somewhat" cater to a more immediate approach. I always considered MuLab to be in a similar category as Tracktor, which also provided that immediate like approach. In the end, I think MuLab's audio engine (and consequently underling code) is better than Tracktor's. MuLab also provides a more realized visual routing matrix. Reason had something like this, but I hated it. It comes back to those foundational objects of orientation. Reason gave you the non-complicated approach if drag-and-drop audio routing paths. But it limited you to the hardware studio like paradigm (yuk).

I think some people mistake that "immediate" interface quality as being "toy like". But the same should also note that, strict engineering is boring. There is nothing wrong with the audience hearing that you enjoyed making the music; and while overly engineered music "in a way" sounds good/great, if often "seems" to lacks the qualities needed to reach people at a deeper/personal level. So professional can mean "paid to care about keeping my job" and not always "paid to care about making good music" not that this is always a bad thing.

MuLab offers the objects of orientation, in a near enough traditional way. The more MuLab evolves, this near traditional interface is just MuLab's initial predefined presentation. This facing is still approachable, for the uninitiated and Professional alike. But underneath, you are getting closer to something that I have always needed. Which is a kind of visual Csound, with an orientation towards sequencing, mastering, mixing, and most importantly recording (recording is often lacking good implementation, in similar software).

All of this power requires something not often provided; A changeable work flow. Each dynamic of music creation, can often fit better in it's own work flow. This becomes more important, the more emotive of an artist you are. If you are strictly a engineer, MuLab is still an excellent tool. But, if your work is art engineering, skill, and perseverance isn't enough. You need to be able to capture the inspiration.

There is already audio software aiming to allow artist this fluid ability to capture their work. Often, the design caters to those that don't want full access to all the details of sound design. MuLab goes a step further, and keeps everything "somewhat" approachable and available. This is no easy task, especially if you still need to include traditional object orientation.

Why isn't MuLab more popular? People need to see what it can do, and demo it. They need to see that the affordability doesn't mean it's cheap. They need to see people exercising MuLab's potentials, and not just as mock demonstrations. People need to see that they can get excited about doing what they want to do. That will be the test. Does the demonstration of use, establish that "even" you can figure out how to do this the way you imagine it.

This isn't just about taking the uninitiated, and giving them power. Is about providing a tool to the powerful, that does not get in their way. But the state of a thing existing does not automatically announce its utility and value. And we should keep in mind, that this is a one man "programming" show. If suddenly flooded with "the right kind" of users, very important "required" changes would become evident. With that said, this is MuLab's greatest feature. Jo listens and tries. I, personally, think the healthy adoption of MuLab needs to be in-sync with Jo's capacity and desire to please the users.