Help to start

[janamdo]

Further there must be by Mutools in the documentation rewritten the recording procedure for a MIDI or Audio track
Its look not clear enough..
Example

A audio track is ...
A midi track is ...

How Record to a AUDIO track ?
Steps + pics

How to record a MIDI track ?
Steps + pics


Additional Info:
Modulair session area is ...
More...

On this way is it is 100 % clear for the new user what to do
Realize that writing clear instructions is a profession(i know as B Ed mathematics )

[robenestobenz]

I think getting rid of the session modular area as a necessary step to setting up multi-track audio recording is a good thing. I love the session modular area, and use it a lot, but I imagine it's a bit technical for new users.

Heh, language barrier I think. I wasn't talking about getting rid of the session modular area at all. I love the session modular area! It's just not a fast, intuitive or convenient way to set up recording. I hope that wasn't what Jo was talking about

The most unfortunate idea.
The modularity and freedom are the landmarks of Mu.Lab. If you give up to those, Mu.Lab will be just another clone of Cubase or Cakewalk.
This would be like castrating a young man in love.

How would having a track based system reduce that (again assuming Jo is not talking about axeing the SMA altogether)?

One idea is that you could have the benefits of a track-based system by showing tracks as modules in the SMA. Could get rather crowded, but it's one way to have the best of both worlds.

[janamdo]

Heh, language barrier I think. I wasn't talking about getting rid of the session modular area at all. I love the session modular area! It's just not a fast, intuitive or convenient way to set up recording. I hope that wasn't what Jo was talking about

Ok .. i thought you want to remove the MSA ..and sorohanro thougt the same like me

The most unfortunate idea.The modularity and freedom are the landmarks of Mu.Lab. If you give up to those, Mu.Lab will be just another clone of Cubase or Cakewalk.
This would be like castrating a young man in love. How would having a track based system reduce that (again assuming Jo is not talking about axeing the SMA altogether)?

----------------------------------------------------------
Mulab has now a parts based system and a track parts system based looks like the well known DAW's
So i think a parts based sytem will be always easier, because it is a standard seguenzer lay out
for a new user it is more intuitive than Mulab now is

So a parts based system seems to me more userfriendly and intuitive, but how about the modularity when this gone be happen?

So to improve the current state of Mulab it is neccessary to rewrite the recording manual that easy recording i spossible and adding some templates for to start for the beginner

Further i suggest that MUlab opens with a Midi and Audio template and that the music examples can be listen by the user but afterthat he can go back to the template

[MuTools]

To record a single audio part from the default audio input, it's very simple:

1) Enable record audio (needed only once)

2) Click record.

That's all.

The SMA is only necessary when you want to setup a specific multi-track recording.

I understand that this might look complex, but currently it was the only way to add MT recording to MU.LAB. And once a MT recording has been setup, it's quite easy to make new recordings in the same session, no?

Besides these thoughts, i think that the 'traditional' way of recording audio tracks is a good way: Tell a track which audio inputs it must record from, arm the track and press record. Now how to do this in a part-based approach?

Maybe a track based system would simplify the whole concept?
To all: What do you think?

The most unfortunate idea.
The modularity and freedom are the landmarks of Mu.Lab. If you give up to those, Mu.Lab will be just another clone of Cubase or Cakewalk.
This would be like castrating a young man in love.

Mihai, can you please give some concrete arguments for this?
What's you practical workflow? Where would a track based system obstruct your current workflow? How many compositions do you have that use part-based targets? Are there compositions that would suffer from a track-based approach?
Curious for this.

These are just questions. There are no plans yet in any direction regarding this aspect. But i did receive multiple remarks that the track/part/target system is too difficult (at first). And so i want to streamline things so MU.LAB will become easier for new users, including advanced users that are new to MU.LAB.

[MuTools]

Further there must be by Mutools in the documentation rewritten the recording procedure for a MIDI or Audio track
Its look not clear enough..
Example

A audio track is ...
A midi track is ...

How Record to a AUDIO track ?
Steps + pics

How to record a MIDI track ?
Steps + pics


Additional Info:
Modulair session area is ...
More...

On this way is it is 100 % clear for the new user what to do
Realize that writing clear instructions is a profession(i know as B Ed mathematics )

But MU.LAB doesn't have audio tracks and MIDI tracks!
Maybe that's why makes it's more difficult to understand for new users.

Most people expect a track based approach!
That's really an important aspect.

[MuTools]

One idea is that you could have the benefits of a track-based system by showing tracks as modules in the SMA. Could get rather crowded, but it's one way to have the best of both worlds.

How do you mean?
And what if one works part-based?

[TheGuysanIdiot]

Hi All,

Due to the fact of the time I have spent using MU.LAB and my time spent using other DAWs in the past. I have to consider myself an experienced and advanced user.

So basically I can cope with any DAW finding my way around and reading the documentation etc.

For me MU.LAB works fine as is.

But a new user will see MU.LAB with different eyes than I. Some will be new to DAWs and some will be moving from other DAWs etc.

Whatever workflow is finally decided for MU.LAB both future and preset. I think the MU.LAB documentation should have an additional section something like:

Getting Started Guide.

or

Quick Start Guide.

or similar naming.

This new guide is a very step by step guide to get the user up and running as fast as possible and only includes the essential tasks a newcomer would need to get MU.LAB running. He or she can then spend time reading the other docs at their leisure and clicking about in the app.

Stuff like:

ASIO setup
MIDI recording
Audio Recording

It should be written as foolproof as possible with new users in mind.

It is just like when you buy a printer you get:

1) Quick start guide - So new users can get the printer up and running ASAP.
2) Reference manual - for all the in depth functionality

The current MU.LAB docs are already the Reference manual. You just need to make a small but easy to follow guide.

Then should a new user join the forum having problems you could then point him or her in the direction of the "Quick Start Guide".

The "Quick Start Guide" could then be updated as and when a new user has a problem that is not already covered.

Anyway just my thoughts for now.

OZ

[sorohanro]

Mihai, can you please give some concrete arguments for this?
What's you practical workflow? Where would a track based system obstruct your current workflow? How many compositions do you have that use part-based targets? Are there compositions that would suffer from a track-based approach?
Curious for this.

I usually make all the elements of my drums separately, routing each track to a single rack (drum machine). This allow me to have more control over dynamics and have a more clear image of each element.

On the other hand, sometimes I have way too many tracks but rather small. Something like just an effect here and there, so I prefer to put all on one track and every part is targeted to different racks.

Man, it's easy.
You made a very unique DAW. Mu.Lab have it's own flavor and it's own workflow.
New users come with expectations after trying other DAWs.
From the commercial point of view, to make the new users satisfied is to get rid of all what Mu.Lab is and transform it into a clone of a better known DAW, so people would have THAT DAW with a Mu.Lab look and a much smaller price.
If you want to have Mu.Lab, then the new users should be warned that this is a different tool and they have to adapt and use it for what it is.

[janamdo]

Further there must be by Mutools in the documentation rewritten the recording procedure for a MIDI or Audio track
Its look not clear enough..
Example

A audio track is ...
A midi track is ...

How Record to a AUDIO track ?
Steps + pics

How to record a MIDI track ?
Steps + pics


Additional Info:
Modulair session area is ...
More...

On this way is it is 100 % clear for the new user what to do
Realize that writing clear instructions is a profession(i know as B Ed mathematics )

But MU.LAB doesn't have audio tracks and MIDI tracks!
Maybe that's why makes it's more difficult to understand for new users.

Most people expect a track based approach!
That's really an important aspect.

There is a audio track recording and a Midi events track recording
A audio track is ...
A midi event track is ...


So than
How Record to a AUDIO track ?
Steps + pics

How to record a MIDI events track ?
Steps + pics

This gonna be a endless topic for me it is a fact that the recording documentations are not clear enough.
The aim of this documentation is to get a new user who has never recorded before this get done in Mulab

That is always a reminder for writing a manual : imagine you are the new user and know nothing about the subject
( there is no present knowledge of the subject )

[janamdo]

To record a single audio part from the default audio input, it's very simple:

1) Enable record audio (needed only once)

2) Click record.

That's all.

The SMA is only necessary when you want to setup a specific multi-track recording.

There was a new user who has struggling for 3 days (that poor soul) to get a a audio recording
Has he lost his mind?

[MuTools]

I usually make all the elements of my drums separately, routing each track to a single rack (drum machine). This allow me to have more control over dynamics and have a more clear image of each element.

On the other hand, sometimes I have way too many tracks but rather small. Something like just an effect here and there, so I prefer to put all on one track and every part is targeted to different racks.

I understand. I'm doing similar things myself. And, personally, i also like part targets. It's all about making MU.LAB easy to (almost) everyone.

Man, it's easy.
You made a very unique DAW. Mu.Lab have it's own flavor and it's own workflow.
New users come with expectations after trying other DAWs.
From the commercial point of view, to make the new users satisfied is to get rid of all what Mu.Lab is and transform it into a clone of a better known DAW, so people would have THAT DAW with a Mu.Lab look and a much smaller price.
If you want to have Mu.Lab, then the new users should be warned that this is a different tool and they have to adapt and use it for what it is.

The commercial aspect is very important and is directly related to the future development of MU.LAB! The less MU.LAB sells, the more i must take other jobs, the slower MU.LAB evolves.

I think it's about a balance: innovating / conservating.

I wish we could find a more traditional way of (multi-track) audio recording in MU.LAB. I.e. track-based audio recording. Will think of it some more. (though the main focus on the next MU.LAB X stays where it is: http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=290626 )

[MuTools]

Whatever workflow is finally decided for MU.LAB both future and preset. I think the MU.LAB documentation should have an additional section something like:
Getting Started Guide.
or
Quick Start Guide.

That's the function of the YouTube tutorials:

More basic tutorials to come in august/september.

[janamdo]

Hello,

I very tested and that still does not function. No the led, not of sound…

This software is unfortunately not simple to control. There are too many handling to make and options with notching for Juste to record a sound…

I do not say that the software does not function. It is surely a problem of handling… But after 3 days passed on this software for nothing to have, then there are things to re-examine in its ergonomics…

Moreover, this video: summarizes the situation very well. To click here, then there and still here…

I am not carrying a beginner in this kind of software, but there… It is incomprehensible and its logic is not mine (...).

I am sorry, I give up and pass to another… Damage but I do not have time to lose in interminable handling… : -)

Good continuation… and thank you ; -)

F.

You must try to record first you own voice via a mic as a mono signal as a start to get a hang of it how it works a a basic exercise

1) Setup recording
2) Recording

setup => go to the modulair session area

- set up the input signal ( mic) ( audio input module)
- set up the output signal (audio file recorder)
connect the audio file recorder (= output signal) to the audio output
( remember 3 basic conditions : input => output => connecting output )

Note: the audio output is used for audiofile recording ( audio tracks) and for midi events recording ( with Racks )

record...

this is a start for further soundprocessing ideas


-----------------------------------------------------------------------


Midi event recording
Think that a rack stands for a track as you want to record midi events ( not Audio)

[MuTools]

You must try to record first you own voice via a mic as a mono signal as a start to get a hang of it how it works a a basic exercise

1) Setup recording
2) Recording

setup => go to the modulair session area

No, not necessary.

For a simple audio recording you don't need the MSA.

Just enable record audio (only needed once) then simply hit record, that's all. Cfr http://www.mutools.com/mulab/docs/recording.html

Only when doing multitrack recordings, you need to MSA to create more recorders. I guess this should also be possible from the Audio Recording Setup panel. Then you won't need the MSA at all. (you could use it if you want to setup more complex routings). Added that to the wishlist.

[MuTools]

About track-part targets: Just an idea that pops up:

What about inversing the track-part target priority.
Now if a track has no specific target then it's the part which defines the target.

Inversed behaviour idea:

All tracks always use a target (i.e. more traditional way) and parts normally don't have a target. Then if you define a part target, it will have priority on the track target. Of course this means that you can have tracks which are routed to e.g. "Bass Synth" but containing parts that are targetting e.g. "Diffuse Pad". Of course this would only happen if the user chose to do so, so that's ok.

In this case, also the "Use Part Targets" function can be removed.