Experiment from the MUTOOLS Lab: LUNA Modular

[muzycian]

Why not have both?
Leave the rack system as it is now (mixer-like, more immediate for beginners) and add a switch in the main window for the modular view.
Why the main window? Because you'll have a visual feedback of what you're doing in the mixer.
Also double-clicking on a mixer strip in the modular view could focus that mixer strip in the mixer window instead of the pop-up.

Of course, having both worlds together is a logical request.

But:

(it's not easy to explain, but i'll try)

In fact, a rack is a collection of plugins. When a rack receives audio/events, it processes that thru plug 1 and so down to plug 6, applying volume, pan and mute at the right time. (speaking LUNA classic rack -wise)

In LUNA classic, a rack is at the top level of the plugin setup, and so you can reach all individual plugins of this rack from within the Composer.

Now the bottleneck is: if you would be able to freely edit the connections between the plugins of this rack (via the Plugin Setup Editor), how should that be reflected in the rack editor?

For example, via the plug setup editor, you can easily create connection graphs that are far beyond a rack's possibilities, or don't match the structure of a rack.

So conclusion is:

OR A: you must make racks closed-architecture, so you can only edit the internals from a rack from within that rack.
OR B: you make a rack fully modular. but then the rack editor will show you the same editor as before. and so there is no added value.

So in fact, A is the only option which can bring a benefit.

But if you choose A, then you are not able to access the individual plugins of a rack from within the Composer, because a rack is closed-architecture!
(unless extra efforts, see below)

So practically: The only "solution" to bring the classic rack system and the modular system more together is this:

Assume we stick to the Plugin Setup Editor.
You can create a rack there.
A rack has 1 audio in and 1 out, 1 event in and 1 out.
You can connect a rack like any other plugin.
When you doubleclick a rack, its editor opens.
It's a similar rack editor as in LUNA classic, and it's an easy way to chain up a couple of plugins, and apply volume, pan, mute before the first "Post" plug.
BUT you cannot use 'sends' now because a rack is a black box, and doesn't know anythin except its own plugins.
And another BUT: Since a rack is closed, you cannot automate the inner plugins of a rack from within the Composer.
Unless we would setup a system so that you can create a parameter map where you e.g. define that parameter 1 of the rack maps to parameter 76 of plugin 4.
But then the question rises: does this effort is worth the benefit of a rack??

So, to recap all:

There are 2 possibilities:

If a rack is a closed group of plugins, then you cannot access the individual plugins in the rack from the Composer. Unless extra efforts.

If a rack is an open group of plugins, then there's in fact almost no difference with the pure modular concept. I mean: what's the specific function of a rack then?

My conclusion for now:

Having Racks in LUNA Modular is certainly a nice option to think more about as it can make the modular concept even more practical.
But these racks are not the same as the racks in LUNA Classic.

Hope this clarifies things.

[muzycian]

The "dummy" is a relay or patch point. I think "patch point" would be a reasonable name

Like that

(more than patch anchor)

I like the modular concept, conceptually, but will have to play a bit. Looking at the screenshot, a couple of thoughts come to mind:

1) At least in this picture, there's no visual indication at all of the connections between MIDI parts and VSTi players, so it's hard to see what part triggers what player.

Yes, there is:

1) In the Part Property Panel at the top-right in the main window, you can see the target for a part.

2) When a part is selected, the relevant target plugin is focussed (thick border (for now)) in the Plugin Setup Editor.

2) Since a mixer strip is reduced to level and pan in the modular concept, maybe it should be called a "Fader/Pan" rather than "Audio Mixer Strip". I think that would be especially the case if you adopt the suggestion to have both the modular and the rack system available within LUNA since a rack system mixer strip would then be something very different from a modular "Audio Mixer Strip".

a) It does more than vol + pan: vol + pan + mute + levelmeter. So that's why it deserves that name imho.

b) A "Rack" is a Rack, and will not be called "Rack Mixer Strip" or alike.

I understand your initial confusion because you're on the LUNA train, and we have seen different evolved concepts already. And some names are now used for other things...

But within the context of this tryout version, i'm confident that there is no ambiguity between terms. But i'll give it a second thought.

Ah, luna modular is still so young...

[muzycian]

I'd also like to see sequence and audio parts in the modular view, so I can connect them to plugins and audio outputs at will. The same sequence part could easily be connected to more than one plugin, and audio parts to more than one mixer channel.

And what's the timeline then?

I mean: when should such part play?

[DaveL60]

Now the bottleneck is: if you would be able to freely edit the connections between the plugins of this rack (via the Plugin Setup Editor), how should that be reflected in the rack editor?

For example, via the plug setup editor, you can easily create connection graphs that are far beyond a rack's possibilities, or don't match the structure of a rack.

It seems to me that the part of this I made bold is the key point. Maybe the solution is to have both, but limit switching between the two options to be a one-way thing: you can convert a rack-structured session into a modular session, but you can't go back.

DaveL

[muzycian]

Yes, technically that's an option, indeed. I've been thinking about this too. Not yet convinced of it as a concept though, because it makes the app more complex to understand, as you have to learn more about it. And that's not the goal. Prefer to keep everything simple / uniformous. Anyway, breeding on it...

[pljones]

I've yet to play with it but I'm inclined to be positive...

First: I want to see live MIDI as well as audio in the system. Your picture shows Audio In, Audio Out and MIDI Outs; I cannot understand why it couldn't include MIDI In.

Second: I agree with keeping sequenced parts on the composer window. However, a label on the patchwork with the partname connecting to its target might be extremely useful, particularly if it copied the part's colour.

Third: I tend to agree with DaveL on the racks - I think it's worth having a "basic mixing desk" and "modular mixing desk" with a "make musession modular" option (but no way back). If it were me, I'd be looking to make the "rack" desk just a constrained version of the modular desk - i.e. pre-wired with assistance for plugging stuff in. Don't try to present it as behaving "differently" from the modular desk.

[Branis]

I'd also like to see sequence and audio parts in the modular view, so I can connect them to plugins and audio outputs at will. The same sequence part could easily be connected to more than one plugin, and audio parts to more than one mixer channel.

And what's the timeline then?

I mean: when should such part play?

I'll have to read your previous reply a couple of times to get my head around it, so I'll first answer to this one

The timeline shouldn't be specified in the modular window, but in the arrangement window as it is now. The sequence/audio parts in the modular window would be there just for audio/midi connections, like in the picture below (top left of the modular window):

[pljones]

Yeah, what Branis drew is what I meant in my "Second" comment .

If I use a dummy to merge MIDI parts with different channels, does the event output have all the channels on..?

The drawing lines is a bit tricky... The target area is very small... If I drop onto the plugin strip, and there's more than one possible target, could it pop up a list and let me pick?

[MattmaN]

Wow! This deffinantly has potential.
It will be interesting to see how this concept develops.
Mutools Modular could be solid competiton for other modular hosts.

[muzycian]

I've yet to play with it but I'm inclined to be positive...

First: I want to see live MIDI as well as audio in the system. Your picture shows Audio In, Audio Out and MIDI Outs; I cannot understand why it couldn't include MIDI In.

Don't worry, it will be included when things get more definite & detailed.

This Luna Modular Tryout 1 is just a prototype to see a proposal in action.

Second: I agree with keeping sequenced parts on the composer window. However, a label on the patchwork with the partname connecting to its target might be extremely useful, particularly if it copied the part's colour.

One target can be used by many parts and sequences. So which part should be used then..?

Third: I tend to agree with DaveL on the racks - I think it's worth having a "basic mixing desk" and "modular mixing desk" with a "make musession modular" option (but no way back). If it were me, I'd be looking to make the "rack" desk just a constrained version of the modular desk - i.e. pre-wired with assistance for plugging stuff in. Don't try to present it as behaving "differently" from the modular desk.

Continued breeding... ideas always welcome...

[muzycian]

The timeline shouldn't be specified in the modular window, but in the arrangement window as it is now. The sequence/audio parts in the modular window would be there just for audio/midi connections, like in the picture below (top left of the modular window):

Oops, but doesn't that mean that each part in the Composer also has its twin brother in the Plugin Setup?!

I'm already concerned about the Plugin Setup getting too heavily loaded when you do a big project -> lots of synths and effects.

If then also all parts would be there, then that is definitely not workable.

Right?

Anyway, i'll continue thinking about how the relationship between parts and plugins can be as obvious as possible.

For now:

* clicking a part shows the target in the Part Property Panel
* clicking a part also focusses the related plugin in the Plugin Setup Editor
* drawing a new part uses the focussed plugin
* midi in plays the focussed plugin

edit: maybe if the focussed plugin is graphically more explicit, then things also get more obvious because of the graphical emphasis.

[muzycian]

If I use a dummy to merge MIDI parts with different channels, does the event output have all the channels on..?

A dummy just thrus its input data, so if it receives events on multiple channels, it also transmits them on these multiple channels

The drawing lines is a bit tricky... The target area is very small... If I drop onto the plugin strip, and there's more than one possible target, could it pop up a list and let me pick?

That's a cool idea

[pljones]

Second: I agree with keeping sequenced parts on the composer window. However, a label on the patchwork with the partname connecting to its target might be extremely useful, particularly if it copied the part's colour.

One target can be used by many parts and sequences. So which part should be used then..?

How is this different from anywhere else where multiple sources meet one target? Each source is discrete and arrives at the same target.

In the patchwork (;)), each part appears just once. It has one or more links from its audio out or its event out to the appropriate targets. Just like that target will have links to its targets.

Or am I missing something?

[Branis]

The timeline shouldn't be specified in the modular window, but in the arrangement window as it is now. The sequence/audio parts in the modular window would be there just for audio/midi connections, like in the picture below (top left of the modular window):

Oops, but doesn't that mean that each part in the Composer also has its twin brother in the Plugin Setup?!

I'm already concerned about the Plugin Setup getting too heavily loaded when you do a big project -> lots of synths and effects.

If then also all parts would be there, then that is definitely not workable.

Right?

Anyway, i'll continue thinking about how the relationship between parts and plugins can be as obvious as possible.

For now:

* clicking a part shows the target in the Part Property Panel
* clicking a part also focusses the related plugin in the Plugin Setup Editor
* drawing a new part uses the focussed plugin
* midi in plays the focussed plugin

edit: maybe if the focussed plugin is graphically more explicit, then things also get more obvious because of the graphical emphasis.

You're right, that would be pretty messy.
Maybe the parts could be invisible in the modular window until you click on one in the arrangement window, and then the selected part would appear with all the connections visible. Edit the connections, click away, and the part gets invisible again.

[DaveL60]

Done a wee bit of playing now. I like this a lot -- it seems very intuitive to wire things up. Some (possibly obvious) FRs if you continue down this path:

1) I think there will need to be some zoom in/out on the plugin setup area, so that it's easier to concentrate on wiring particular bits up. I'm finding the "grab points" for connecting and deleting cable rather touchy to find because they seem to be very small -- maybe they could grow as the mouse passes over/near them to make them easy to hit and shrink back otherwise?

2) If the lines in the plugin area are analogous to cables, then it would be nice to be able to re-route a signal by grabbing the destination end of a cable and dragging it to a different input. You could possibly use a left drag to move the cable and a right drag to create a new connection from the existing cable's source to the new plugin's input.

3) A highlight mode, enabled and disabled through the plugin area's context menu, so that as you mouse over things, they "light up" along with their connections to nearest neighbors. A variant would be that mousing over a dummy would light up all of the paths from that to the audio output. Something like this would make it easy to trace signal paths and, especially, to locate unintended connections you'd forgotten about in a complicated setup.

4) A possible approach to clutter control would be to allow a user to group a set of plugs and "box them up", then be able to toggle between "box closed", where you couldn't see the details or edit the connections, and "box open" where all of the bits are there to be fiddled with.

5) The ability to color the plug-in boxes like you can parts in the Composer, or

6) The plug-in's representation in the plugin setup area could be an iconic view of it's GUI (I think EnergyXT does something like that).

Also, I have two BRs:

1) I loaded CM-101, double-clicked on it to get to its GUI, then hit the Open button at the bottom to browse for a patch bank. The file browser window opened behind the CM-101 window, which made it hard to use. Clicking on the file browser did not bring it to the front and, while I could move it I quickly ran into screen real estate issues.

2) When I renamed a dummy to "Dummy 1", blue box didn't resize properly to display the name, which made the renaming kinda pointless.

DaveL