MuLab 10

[TorresBob88]

I just realized that you can drag and drop VST2 presets into the navbar slot and load them.

So as long as my presets are clearly labeled, IE: Blooo - Pad Sweep Brass.fxp, or D50 - Running Late.fxp, I can keep all my favorite saved presets in one preset folder, load a VST, and then grab any presets for it from the presets folder, like a favorites folder.

Whatever preset solution you decide is best, I would at least keep that functionality.
Doesn't seem to do the same thing for VST3, but it would be a workflow option if it did.

[tryphon4]

I have been using MuLab since version 8 and am currently considering the possibility to buy a M10 licence (or even a MuLab For Life Upgrade licence), hence I would like to know the features that will be implemented in M10. It would be useful to open a dedicated thread containing only future features (Alternatively, it could be implemented in the MuLab site).

[MuTools]

It's unknown which features will be implemented in M10.1, M10.2, ...M11, M12, ...
That's an organic process.

Currently working on M10.0 and in this topic you can find everything what's already new in M10.0:
viewtopic.php?t=611292

More news & updates will follow.

[TorresBob88]

So MuLab doesn't have an cabinet/IR loader, as far as I can tell.
Thats the new trendy thing, everybody is having fun with that.

IRdust, is very tiny, 1meg. Presumably would be nice to resources.
But everything is tiny, you cant see anything. And little rudimentary on features.
NadIR and FenrIR seem to be the nicest ones I can find, under 7 megs.
But a MuLab native loader could beat them all. You could even make it NAM compatible.

[BELVD]

This is my first post here in this forum, I’ve been a lurker for little over a year now. So I’ve been looking for an opportunity to share my thoughts and wants about Mulab.

So where do I start, coming from using Reaper and Logic getting into Mulab has been a slow process for me. Like it’s been stated before, Mulab needs to be polished out in many areas. Compared to other DAWs it sometimes doesn’t feel like a finish product. Also for someone like me who is more familiar with a more “traditional” DAW workflow it doesn’t feel very intuitive. The lack of tutorials is somewhat daunting at times when I want to figure how to do something. I mainly play/record guitar and make arrangements/beats around that.

I Love what you can do with samples and what’s possible with the modular aspect of Mulab. The sound engine inside of Mulab is one of if not the best sounding of any DAW out there. Like I dont know what it is but every project I start inside Mulab sounds great and if I try to recreate the same project in Reaper it sounds uninspiring to say the least. I just wish I was more proficient when it comes to use Mulab, but learning a DAW while being inspired or in a creative state doesn’t help.

So here are some things I would like to see implemented in Mulab 10:

1. A Project settings menu where you can choose the project bit depth from 16, 24, and 32 float. Be able to change the block/buffer size and also be able to change the sample rate of the project. Be able to choose the main audio source from the same menu. I use Apple Silicon and not being able to do this as straight forward like in other DAWs is frustrating to me.

2. Having a better render/bounce options, like being able to export audio files or project as a WAV and AIFF. Offline or Online export, dry run, sample rate, dither and such.

3. Better CPU performance for Apple Silicon, I get drop outs and other issues the more I add 3rd party plugins. These dropouts and issues don’t happen when I’m using other DAWs.

4. A selection of mouse tools to do audio editing straight from the timeline, without the need to convert a recording into a sample or stream. This selection of tools could also work with midi or sequence clips in the timeline.

5. A “normal” set of stock MUX plugins. I know that the whole thing about Mulab it’s that you can basically build FX and Instruments from scratch because of the modular aspect of it. But for the people that have never messed with modular, having a selection of pre-made MUXs like Compressors, Saturators, EQs, and so forth could be more appealing for people coming from other environments.

6. Better metering, like input and output metering. Being able to see rms and peak levels.

Jo I really love many of the things you’ve done with Mulab. Im impressed by how great the audio engine sounds every time I create or open a project and I want Mulab to become my only if not one of my main DAWs. But like many others have stated, it needs a UI/UX overhaul. Mulab still has great potential for growth. I’m caught up with what you have added to the M10 betas and I like where this is heading.

[nenneb]

In my opinon the MuLab's GUI IS one of it's main-advantages, as is leaves lot of space for the musical content.
I use Cubase too from time to time, but it's a hassle. For sure Cubase offers way more features, but the clinky-clunky GUI makes it hard for me, to find what I search for. MuLab is much more inspiring for me.
I was on Logic years ago, while it was on PC and really loved it then. Later I tried almost every DAW and only MuLab came close to Logics usablity (although it misses features Logic offered 20 years ago).
Maybe you have to use MuLab for a while to get comfortable with it! Enjoy!

[MuTools]

Hi BELVD,

Thanks for your honnest and constructive feedback on MuLab 10, much appreciated.

Like it’s been stated before, Mulab needs to be polished out in many areas. Compared to other DAWs it sometimes doesn’t feel like a finish product.

Besides the points you already listed, can you make this feeling more concrete?
What are the things in MuLab that feel the most unfinished to you? And i rather mean UX-wise, less feature-wise, though there obviously are overlaps between those aspects.

Also for someone like me who is more familiar with a more “traditional” DAW workflow it doesn’t feel very intuitive.

I understand that for new MuLab users the difference in feel between a more traditional DAW and the more unconventional nature of MuLab can be challenging at first. As well as the intentionally playful, somewhat childlike (in good sense) vibe i try to put into MuLab. The reason for that: Children have the highest degree of creativity! MuLab tries to support that playful part of heart, mind & soul as much as possible, whatever the user's age. So it certainly is not my ambition to make MuLab a traditional DAW. I want MuLab to specialize in creativity, organic musical fun, with also high priorities to sound quality and stability of course.

The lack of tutorials is somewhat daunting at times when I want to figure how to do something.

Whenever you have such user questions, feel free to post them here on the forum.
By the way i've planned to add several new tutor videos after MuLab 10 release.

2. Having a better render/bounce options, like being able to export audio files or project as a WAV and AIFF. Offline or Online export, dry run, sample rate, dither and such.

Did you find the Composer Export To Audio File functions? There are in the composer's context menu which is accessible via the options button a bit at the right of the tempo display. There you can export to WAV, AIFF, FLAC, OGG with options.
Not all options you mentioned (eg. dithering) are included but luckily there are many (free) apps that can take a high-resolution audio export from MuLab and convert it to any other format you want. Of course ideally all options would be inside MuLab, but i'm just a sole dev and need to make choices, and so that's why optionally using a specialized app to post-process exported audio files is a practical solution. Feel free to elaborate if i missed something.

4. A selection of mouse tools to do audio editing straight from the timeline, without the need to convert a recording into a sample or stream. This selection of tools could also work with midi or sequence clips in the timeline.

Can you please be more specific?
What audio editing from within the composer are you missing most?

6. Better metering, like input and output metering. Being able to see rms and peak levels.

That's on the wishlist.

But like many others have stated, it needs a UI/UX overhaul.

It indeed sounds like common user feedback. But i don't know what "a UI/UX overhaul" means, it's too abstract for me. It would be helpful to me if you guys would put your heads together and consolidate a concrete shortlist of top prio common UX improvement requests.

Let me finish by thanking you again for your post.

[audiojunkie]

I have a serious question........ How many libraries and frameworks would you have to change to achieve a true cross platform release of the Mulab software packages? I'm referring to creating Linux native binaries... TX16Wx and n-Track just moved to Linux. Plogue just announced that all of their plugins will be ported to Linux. Sinevibes just ported everything to Linux. It would be REALLY nice to have all of the MuTools products supportng Linux natively. I know you think it would be a lot of work, but it would be greatly appreciated by many, many people, I believe. So how many libraries and frameworks would you have to change to truly achieve true cross platform support?

[MuTools]

I can't answer your question atm. But that doesn't mean i'm not thinking about such related things, i am.

[BELVD]

Hi BELVD,

Thanks for your honnest and constructive feedback on MuLab 10, much appreciated.

Like it’s been stated before, Mulab needs to be polished out in many areas. Compared to other DAWs it sometimes doesn’t feel like a finish product.

Besides the points you already listed, can you make this feeling more concrete?
What are the things in MuLab that feel the most unfinished to you? And i rather mean UX-wise, less feature-wise, though there obviously are overlaps between those aspects.

Also for someone like me who is more familiar with a more “traditional” DAW workflow it doesn’t feel very intuitive.

I understand that for new MuLab users the difference in feel between a more traditional DAW and the more unconventional nature of MuLab can be challenging at first. As well as the intentionally playful, somewhat childlike (in good sense) vibe i try to put into MuLab. The reason for that: Children have the highest degree of creativity! MuLab tries to support that playful part of heart, mind & soul as much as possible, whatever the user's age. So it certainly is not my ambition to make MuLab a traditional DAW. I want MuLab to specialize in creativity, organic musical fun, with also high priorities to sound quality and stability of course.

The lack of tutorials is somewhat daunting at times when I want to figure how to do something.

Whenever you have such user questions, feel free to post them here on the forum.
By the way i've planned to add several new tutor videos after MuLab 10 release.

2. Having a better render/bounce options, like being able to export audio files or project as a WAV and AIFF. Offline or Online export, dry run, sample rate, dither and such.

Did you find the Composer Export To Audio File functions? There are in the composer's context menu which is accessible via the options button a bit at the right of the tempo display. There you can export to WAV, AIFF, FLAC, OGG with options.
Not all options you mentioned (eg. dithering) are included but luckily there are many (free) apps that can take a high-resolution audio export from MuLab and convert it to any other format you want. Of course ideally all options would be inside MuLab, but i'm just a sole dev and need to make choices, and so that's why optionally using a specialized app to post-process exported audio files is a practical solution. Feel free to elaborate if i missed something.

4. A selection of mouse tools to do audio editing straight from the timeline, without the need to convert a recording into a sample or stream. This selection of tools could also work with midi or sequence clips in the timeline.

Can you please be more specific?
What audio editing from within the composer are you missing most?

6. Better metering, like input and output metering. Being able to see rms and peak levels.

That's on the wishlist.

But like many others have stated, it needs a UI/UX overhaul.

It indeed sounds like common user feedback. But i don't know what "a UI/UX overhaul" means, it's too abstract for me. It would be helpful to me if you guys would put your heads together and consolidate a concrete shortlist of top prio common UX improvement requests.

Let me finish by thanking you again for your post.

Hey Jo, I’m more than grateful that you took the time to reply back and also truly engage with my post.

I’ll get back to you as soon as possible and try to the best of my ability to be more concrete/detailed or concise about the things that I feel need more “polishing” or feel “unfinished”. Also talk more in depth about what I feel would be a UX/UI improvement from my point of view and hopefully see if others feel the same or may have way better ideas than I do. Talk to ya soon.

[4u610h346]

So where do I start, coming from using Reaper and Logic getting into Mulab has been a slow process for me. Like it’s been stated before, Mulab needs to be polished out in many areas. Compared to other DAWs it sometimes doesn’t feel like a finish product. Also for someone like me who is more familiar with a more “traditional” DAW workflow it doesn’t feel very intuitive. The lack of tutorials is somewhat daunting at times when I want to figure how to do something. I mainly play/record guitar and make arrangements/beats around that.

I have no argument against what has be said here. I would like to present an alternative view point.

The more polished out areas, of other systems, may seem like forced work flow. Otherwise stated as, what could be viewed as lack of work flow, could also be viewed as permissive freedom.

Traditional might sometimes just be intuitive, by habit.

In contrast to your request(s), I have wishes that are probably less reasonable than yours (not that yours are unreasonable).

I much prefer the simplicity of earlier MuLab versions. I initially scoffed at the fact that there was no way to monitor audio from live a live input (again, older versions). Traditionally, there is a monitor button. I then realized I could route monitoring on my own. This one thing, by itself, could have sold me on MuLab. The feature bloat and clutter was replaced by my own ability to do things how I wanted. This reduced how much I needed to concentrate on the particularities of the UI, and more on what it is I wanted to accomplish.

These days, the UI is "slowly" becoming a bit more of a distraction. With that in mind, consider the different meaning(s) that could be derived by "UI overhaul".

I can't imagine how difficult it would be to please my taste, while at the same time keeping the majority userbase pleased. If I had it my way, MuLab's UI complexity would unfold as you needed it. But, this means any serious "traditional" DAW user will initially feel (at a glance) that MuLab is too basic. All of the advanced functionality would seem unavailable.

As it is, I highly doubt I would prefer using an older version. Nothing has changed so much, that I can't use MuLab how I like. It is indeed better, than older versions.

Out of curiosity, what is one thing you would prefer, in MuLab, existing in another DAW?

[sl23]

From reading the above, I think one thing that may help would be to have templates set up that can mimic a traditional workflow. That will then show those used to that way of working that MuLab can be that. Initially, they will feel more comfortable, but as familiarity creeps in, they'll see the uniqueness and possibilities MuLab provides.

So I suggest making templates with a traditional workflow and setting one as default.

Whatever MuLab is missing from traditional workflow may be worth adding to facilitate this process.

Perhaps that's the way to go? As that way people aren't put off, feel uncomfortable or struggle to understand mulabs structure on first use. I know I was one of those. But now I can't be bothered to use another daw as MuLab is just so much easier, portable, powerful, configurable, etc.

Mulabs selling point has always been it's uniqueness, maybe try a different approach and sell it as a traditional daw with those unique abilities built in that go beyond other daws?

[Scrubbing Monkeys]

In a world where folk use multiple DAWs, I dont see the need for 'traditional' anything. I like Mulab being a simple DAW with respect to many aspects. It is what makes it fast n fun for creation. Now given.....I would export my stems to mix in Reaper. But I would do that for Ableton also. I think Mulab fits a niche. It just needs to reach more folk in they way it was intended and have folk embrace it. There is literally no need to purchase 3rd party vsts to make a complete song in any genre. I love the portable aspect as well. Very stable is a plus. I want to like Waveform for its uniqueness but cant keep it up n running. Anyway....blah blah. As always I think Jo has the right vision. Folk just need to embrace it.

[MuTools]

I much prefer the simplicity of earlier MuLab versions.
These days, the UI is "slowly" becoming a bit more of a distraction.

Which UI aspects in MuLab 10 are distractive for you, and thus less good than earlier MuLab versions?

[sl23]

In a world where folk use multiple DAWs, I dont see the need for 'traditional' anything. I like Mulab being a simple DAW with respect to many aspects. It is what makes it fast n fun for creation. Now given.....I would export my stems to mix in Reaper. But I would do that for Ableton also. I think Mulab fits a niche. It just needs to reach more folk in they way it was intended and have folk embrace it. There is literally no need to purchase 3rd party vsts to make a complete song in any genre. I love the portable aspect as well. Very stable is a plus. I want to like Waveform for its uniqueness but cant keep it up n running. Anyway....blah blah. As always I think Jo has the right vision. Folk just need to embrace it.

Very true. I was only saying to try and make people see that MuLabs flexibility allows traditional aspects. Why? Because what I gathered from the above posts is that users coming to MuLab struggle with it being different. Which can be off-putting for newcomers.

Potraying MuLab in that light would allow these users to see that it is more accessible if it "appears" that way. Not that it should be that way, well, it already is, but a lot of mulabs uniqueness is it's right click menu system that does away with most menu ar functionality and places it at the area you're working on.

Anyway, just an idea