PCWorld review

[sl23]

@pljones: +1

[robenestobenz]

Good review, Jon! I think you hit all the key points (except for maybe extending the description of modular routing to include that it gives you a powerhouse synth/effect workbench -- but I understand you're given limits) in a balanced write-up. Hope it drives some business Jo's way.

[fluffy_little_something]

I think you must be understanding the word "con" differently from me, then. To me, "con" (a negative, "against"; "pro" being a positive, "in favour") is anything that could be seen as causing someone a problem. I'd actually call the four track limit a bigger con than a nag screen, even though it's only a soft limit. It's got nothing to do with the software being free or not, really. It doesn't mean you're being conned (fooled) about something - that's a different word. I really can't see how stating a fact can be interpreted as a slap in the face.

I know what con means, thank you I just don't agree that the limit is a con. The free version is a gift, a present. As long as you are better off with a gift than without it, con is just inappropriate. The only con with freeware I can think of is if it installs malware, which is obviously not the case with Mulab. In this case you would be worse off than without the freeware.

[pljones]

The free version is a gift, a present.

No, it's a piece of publicity material aimed at attracting paying customers. If it puts them off through having unpleasant negative aspects, its failing its job. So pointing out one aspect that could be perceived as a negative is perfectly valid in a review, surely?

[fluffy_little_something]

I totally disagree. Your argument would only apply if the most limited version of Mulab were not free. Then people had the right to expect something from the software and to be disappointed by aspects of the software. I don't think people have any reason to consider anything about free Mulab negative. People who do should compare it to not having any free DAW at all.

Even if the free version's purpose were to make people upgrade to a paid version, why would the free version of Mulab put anyone off? That would only be the case if people expected, say, 16 tracks from the free version, which would be brazen and stupid to begin with.

So, if people consider the free version a kind of trial version to see if the paid version is worth the money, how can they be disappointed by the limited number of tracks when they know the paid version offer many more tracks? What matters is that the tracks that are there in the free version work in a great way.

[pljones]

My argument applies in the case of the reviewer. It may not apply to you. Hence, there are people to whom it applies.

[fluffy_little_something]

Exactly, I don't think it is a good review...

[sl23]

So what wouldn't be a con then? Say, 8 tracks? 16? 32? Then it becomes self defeating as a commercial product. It's free so you can try it out, not as a gift.

[fluffy_little_something]

No, there are no cons with free products. The only exception would be if using such a product is worse than not using it. But I don't think that is the case with Mulab at all. I think we are just too spoiled by all the freeware out there that we forget any freeware is a sign of generosity. Especially in Mulab's case since not everyone needs 16 tracks, some people are happy with the free version as there is no nagging or anything.

[sl23]

I know what you mean about freeware. But commercial software often offers free to try versions. Some are limited by time, others by features, Jo chose the latter, understandably.

[fluffy_little_something]

For my job (not related to music at all) I use another software which is also available in two versions, a free one and a paid one. I know several colleagues who have been using the free version for years because it is enough for them. Just because this or that feature is not unlimited does not mean it is not enough for some people.

The Beatles recorded on 4 track recorders I read somewhere And back then it was not even possible to mix four tracks down and import them as one track without a loss in audio quality

[sl23]

I quite agree, I use some apps that are free, yet they have paid versions with more features I don't need. But my needs are simple with most apps, if not all actually. Even MuLab. I'm only a hobbyist but the track/VST count is still far too low for me to use the free version.

For those that play instruments primarily or those with other DAW's then it's not a con, a downside, a negative, but for those that use only MuLab, or need/want more than the free version offers it is a con. Because it doesn't offer what we want. But it's all relative, like everything.

I understand what you're trying to say, but as for the Beatles, if they were active today, would 4 tracks be enough? Of course not, you can't say that as it's not relevant. If we still lived in that era then 4 tracks would be enough for us too, it would have to be, as there'd be no choice as you said. Tech hadn't the power then to even contemplate what we do today.

[fluffy_little_something]

If free Mulab had, say, 8 or even 16 tracks, fewer people would buy paid Mulab versions. I.e. Jo would earn less and would have to raise the prices of the paid versions in order to make ends meet. If he did that, reviewers would complain that Mulab is too expensive

[Tricky-Loops]

I remember that there was a free version with 8 track limit some years ago. I've really made songs with it. However, I've never used the free version with 4 track limit...

But it's clear that there has to be a limitation, otherwise nobody would buy the "extended" version or the full version. I'm not sure if a limitation of a free version can be called a "con" of the (full) program generally.

[fluffy_little_something]

That's exactly my point.

Plus, MuTools does not try to force you to use MuLab exclusively and forever, for instance by using tricks like Mixcraft's, i.e. saving plugin patches in some weird proprietary format so that when you switch to another DAW you lose all your presets of any plugins which do not have a built-in patch manager.