MuTools

sl23 · Post by **sl23** » Sun Oct 04, 2015 10:37 pm

Oh, and I use Led full HD TV.

EvilDragon · Post by **EvilDragon** » Sun Oct 04, 2015 10:42 pm

B is overall looking much better, here.

bibz1st · Post by **bibz1st** » Mon Oct 05, 2015 8:35 am

The time display is def better in B but still prefer letters in A here, I mostly use a laptop with 1366 x 768

sl23 · Post by **sl23** » Mon Oct 05, 2015 12:14 pm

+1 for B time display, much better than the digi display.

dakkra · Post by **dakkra** » Mon Oct 05, 2015 12:34 pm

sl23 wrote:+1 for B time display, much better than the digi display.

+1

MuTools · Post by **MuTools** » Wed Oct 07, 2015 9:20 am

Thanks everyone for your feedback! Indeed A is the current M6 font, B is a new font. Lets go for B now. You can test it when a first test version is available.

mgiambro · Post by **mgiambro** » Wed Oct 07, 2015 6:12 pm

sl23 wrote:+1 for B time display, much better than the digi display.

Initially I preferred the digi display (probably because I was familiar with it), but after a few more looks I think you're right. The digi display bits and the focussed module are clearer with B.

Mivo · Post by **Mivo** » Tue Oct 13, 2015 11:47 am

Of the two screenshots, I like the font in "B" better.

For what it is worth, I bought Mulab because of the GUI, not in spite of it. I like that it doesn't look like a typical Windows-GUI, because I spend all day every day working with typical Windows programs, and it helps me when my creative software doesn't look like my work-related programs. (I use Renoise and FL Studio a lot, and the latter chiefly for the canvas approach, and I find the color scheme of FLS very much a turn off).

I would disagree that Mulab's lack of popularity is really caused by GUI aspects. Marketing is the biggest reason, and functionality IS an aspect, even if we're not supposed to talk about it. :p Reaper costs the same as Mulab (or less even? definitely less with the update policy), and it has a lot more features, especially when it comes to recording. If all someone does is electronic music, especially synth stuff without vocals, and you don't work with external hardware, Mulab is great, and much more intuitive (to me) than most of the alternatives. But if you go beyond that, most DAWs are more capable. The really yummy part of Mulab is MUX, and you can use MUX in all DAWs and enjoy the best of all worlds.

So to me, GUI concerns are a bit of a red herring in the larger picture, though this thread shows that it also matters to people (one way or the other).

mgiambro · Post by **mgiambro** » Tue Oct 13, 2015 9:34 pm

Mivo wrote:I like that it doesn't look like a typical Windows-GUI, because I spend all day every day working with typical Windows programs, and it helps me when my creative software doesn't look like my work-related programs.

Never thought of it like that. Good point.

I would disagree that Mulab's lack of popularity is really caused by GUI aspects. Marketing is the biggest reason,

I agree about the marketing. Regarding the GUI, you could well be right. Now, I actually like the gui, but my initial impression when I saw it was that the product was a 'beginners' tool and maybe wouldn't have the features I needed. Maybe I'm alone in this, but it was a factor when I was choosing products to demo. With a few more customisation options, I'm sure some nice themes could be created.

and functionality IS an aspect, even if we're not supposed to talk about it. :p Reaper costs the same as Mulab (or less even? definitely less with the update policy), and it has a lot more features, especially when it comes to recording. If all someone does is electronic music, especially synth stuff without vocals, and you don't work with external hardware, Mulab is great, and much more intuitive (to me) than most of the alternatives. But if you go beyond that, most DAWs are more capable.

I don't think comparing MuLab to Reaper is worthwhile. They're completely different tools which cater for different types of musicians. For me, the fact that MuLab isn't packed with features I don't use is a plus. I think it's better to focus on it's strengths than try to make it a 'Jack of all trades'. You could use the argument about other daws being more capable with Ableton, but they aren't doing too bad focussing on electronic music. Sonar tries to be everything to everyone and I'm not sure it succeeds. I'm not saying adding more features like freezing, improved time-signature handling would go amiss, but I don't think bloating it out in attempt to compete with the likes of Reaper is the way to go.

The really yummy part of Mulab is MUX, and you can use MUX in all DAWs and enjoy the best of all worlds.

Agree about the MUX, but it depends on the daw you're using it in, it won't fix a bad midi editor.

Trancit · Post by **Trancit** » Thu Oct 15, 2015 1:46 pm

Hi there...

Long time not written anything

I didn´t went through the complete thread, just read a few postings here and there, so forgive me, if something was already discussed in detail...

For me, Jo already did a great job regarding the graphics if I compare it to older versions, it´s already a milestone and if I use the comparisons link with screenshots of all the different daws, I have to mention 2 things:

- leaving alone the fact, that MuLab lacks of nowadays important features, which are industry standard meanwhile (and therefore the GUI looks a lot more simple and much less crowded) I feel very good about the top and middle part of the GUI... especially the sequencer looks good and feels good (respond of the GUI by opening editors, moving clips around etc...)

- but, the part which brings it all into stoneage and gives a taste about being a toy is the mixer!!!
If I carefully compare the different competitors, they all have something in comon and this is a full featured and (more or less) professional looking mixer part/page... whatever...

Again, this is my personal feeling, but this is the part, where I would start working on...
- numeric readouts on the meters
- a bit more traditional layout with a bit more height than width
- scales (which look like scales) for buttons and faders
- a master chanel, which stays in place ...
- changing the concept from being mainly a "rack" into being mainly a "Mixer chanel"
just to name a few things...

When you come in a recordings studio, what impresses you the most???
Take a picture from a recordingstudio with a fat big console and cut out 80% of it...

Everything else, if necessary and wished can be improved (for me again it´s fine and a joy to work with), but the mixer is (sorry to say that Jo

) a no-go!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Trancit · Post by **Trancit** » Thu Oct 15, 2015 1:52 pm

Just to be complete:

A big part in comparison to the other Daws are of course the track headers /inspectors as well... but as having a different concept in MuLab, they could be a bit less simple, but they are fine for the task they have to fulfill

pljones · Post by **pljones** » Thu Oct 15, 2015 5:03 pm

- a master chanel, which stays in place ...
- changing the concept from being mainly a "rack" into being mainly a "Mixer chanel"

Those two together can be taken as "bin what's making MuLab's handling of mixing unique".

There is no "master" "channel" except for a rack with that name having its output set to the primary L/R audio outs. Any number of such channels could exist (and they could all be called "Master", too!). MuLab is about flexibility rather than about binding you to working a particular way. You do not have to take advantage of it but to ask for it not to be available to others who might want it steps a bit far in my view. (It's also nothing to do with UI Looks but fundamental functionality, btw

.)

You can also collapse the rack so you only have the meter and the fader, which is pretty much giving you what you want -- again, without taking anything away.

Trancit · Post by **Trancit** » Thu Oct 15, 2015 7:30 pm

pljones wrote: There is no "master" "channel" except for a rack with that name having its output set to the primary L/R audio outs...

That´s the same for many other programms as well... never the less, even if there are more possibilities, it´s quite handy for mixing, having one "master group fader/channel/rack/fx" where everything comes together... and it´s often very handy to have this piece of equipment always in view when working in the "mixer" and we are talking about making Mulab more attractive to a broader range of customers and discussing why it isn´t already...

Call me antiquated, but if one single piece is common for every single DAW outside (no matter which products you´re looking at , except perhaps very experimental ones) it isn´t very helpful to eliminate this from your feature set, especially not, when you don´t have the success, which you should have...

It is good and wished to find new ways, but some rules will remain...

But not to lead this here in a wrong direction... it´s not about having this stay in place option... for me it´s about this complete mixer/rack part, which for me looks wrong and behaves wrong and again for me is the real building lot in Mulab and not if font A or B looks more clear...

Just my 2 cents

Trancit · Post by **Trancit** » Thu Oct 15, 2015 7:34 pm

pljones wrote: You can also collapse the rack so you only have the meter and the fader, which is pretty much giving you what you want -- again, without taking anything away.

Sorry I overlooked this...

Yeah of course there is this option, but for me it´s the option to have too much in view or more or less nothing...

for me, I would like to work more with the collapsed view but I have to see, what "plugins" are on the mixer channel as well and still: it´s looking very ugly and for me toyish

mgiambro · Post by **mgiambro** » Fri Oct 16, 2015 7:46 pm

Trancit wrote: for me, I would like to work more with the collapsed view but I have to see, what "plugins" are on the mixer channel as well and still: it´s looking very ugly and for me toyish

When I first saw MuLab, the mixer was something that put me off a bit. I thought it looked too basic. However, since using it I find it does everything I need and in my view is as good as Abletons, if not better.

MuTools

KVR Audio

MuLab & MUX UI Looks