No love for MUX Modular 7 ?

[fluffy_little_something]

Well, sooner or later every software maker selling their products in the EU will have to implement something like iLok so that reselling of licenses becomes possible in line with EU regulations, but without copies of the software "multiplying".

But in the case of Mux I don't think it is the resale issue that limits its success. At 49 euros it is not really expensive. I think the bigger issue might be appeal.

I don't know if I would use Mux if I had it as a plugin. I only have it as part of Mulab, but since I no longer use Mulab, I am without the integrated Mux as well. The things it does that are hard to find in other plugins are not things I really need. Nor am I a fan of the modular approach. I guess a lot of people appreciate the limitations of non-modular plugins. You can see, often at one glance, what they can and can't do and try to make the best of it. I suppose Mux is of interest to the same kind of people that are willing to make custom wavetables for Codex, Dune 2 etc., i.e. maybe 1% of users.

Mutools might also try to be a bit more present on KVR. They have their own sub-forum, but that only attracts people who already know Mutools stuff. You get a whole lot more attention when you present your software in the Instruments forum.

[Zombie Queen]

I have love for MUX, it's really cool extension to a DAW, it's a nice way to combine and automate VST you already have in new ways, especially hooking synthesizers to MIDI generating VST's like LFOs is easy in MUX. In the other hand built-in modulator system is not very handy and the whole thing is somewhat cryptic when you first approach it. Might be why it's not so popular.
I had the early version and I happily upgraded now, although for quite a long time (year or more) I thought the whole thing is broken since version 5 update, as it has been making some bad noises for me. I thought it's malfunctioning multi-core support, which is somehow incompatible with my setup, thought I just should let it go and move on. Now, quite by accidental forum conversation, I found out from the dev, that it's some files I didn't re-name right, that have triggered "copy protection noise"... What I said, too cryptic.

[Tricky-Loops]

Well, to get the most out of MUX, it needs much time. It's not so easy to understand like other modular environments (for example Bazille) and it doesn't have a stylish, shiny GUI, either. It's for those kind of people who are sitting for hours behind their computer in their cave-like studio, trying to get new, never-heard noises out of it by combining everything with everything...

[Gribs]

I would love to but still no Mac version.

Sort of like me with Audulus... the other way around, though. I run Audulus on my iPad Air, though.

[Compyfox]

Well, sooner or later every software maker selling their products in the EU will have to implement something like iLok so that reselling of licenses becomes possible in line with EU regulations, but without copies of the software "multiplying".

Sorry, but that comment is (IMO) nonsense.

But in the case of Mux I don't think it is the resale issue that limits its success. At 49 euros it is not really expensive. I think the bigger issue might be appeal.

I don't know if I would use Mux if I had it as a plugin. I only have it as part of Mulab, but since I no longer use Mulab, I am without the integrated Mux as well. The things it does that are hard to find in other plugins are not things I really need. Nor am I a fan of the modular approach. I guess a lot of people appreciate the limitations of non-modular plugins. You can see, often at one glance, what they can and can't do and try to make the best of it. I suppose Mux is of interest to the same kind of people that are willing to make custom wavetables for Codex, Dune 2 etc., i.e. maybe 1% of users.

IMO MuLab, or MUX for that matter, is so much more. It doesn't limit you to the conventional mix engines. You're free to route (with certain limitations), you can build your own plugin chains, etc. Personally I even see it as "more active developed" and on more "user friendly route" than old Energy XT. Though hosts like Bidule and Bitwig are the icing on the cake.

Mutools might also try to be a bit more present on KVR. They have their own sub-forum, but that only attracts people who already know Mutools stuff. You get a whole lot more attention when you present your software in the Instruments forum.

Don't think so. Especially since MuLab and MUX are initially not mainly advertised as VST/VSTi, but hosts or subhosts. And that belongs to the host section first and foremost. Then to the Instrument section due to the bundled synths and what have you, and then into the Effects section as well due to the routing capabilities. But it's still a host at it's core.

Though yes, I kind of have to agree with the fact that Jo (the dev) needs to be a slightly bit more aggressive in terms of advertising - I also miss KVR's news coverage Then again, he (the dev) hopes on the good old "word of mouth" propaganda. Look at U-HE for example - do they go the route of "double posts" in both the U-HE sub boards and the instrument section? No, because the fans do that for them.

And honestly, I like this attitude and thinking - not too prominent and still down to earth user interaction.

[fluffy_little_something]

I don't agree, on the Mutools site it says about Mux:

"The MUX is a high-quality and flexible modular synth and effect plug-in."
No mention of host or sub-host.

And yes, of course it is very flexible, which is exactly why I think a lot of people except freaks are deterred. Limitations can be rather attractive...

I don't really care about their marketing. At the end of the day they will have to change their ways if there are not enough customers (don't know if that is the case)...

[VariKusBrainZ]

I would love to but still no Mac version.

Sort of like me with Audulus... the other way around, though. I run Audulus on my iPad Air, though.

Coming to Windows at some point too

Mux is pretty underground and doesnt look sexy enough to attract attention

[MuTools]

Mulab 6 being for Windows and OSX , the Mac version of MUX 6 is probably scheduled for a very next week since Mulab 6 includes MUX 6 (exactly the same as the product MUX alone, the only difference being that in Mulab it is an internal feature while sold alone it is a VST plugin for any other DAW). So... it is probably a question of time to port it to AU.

Unfortunately MUX for Mac will take longer. Developing it is not as straightforward as one would expect.

[MuTools]

You would think so but MuLab has been available on Mac for years but not Mux, I asked about a Mac version when it first came out (2-3 years ago) and it was being 'worked on' then and still seems to be. I don't know what the obstacles are. I don't even care if there isn't an AU version, most of my hosts support VST just fine, I can wait for AU.

Judging from what other developers are saying, developing stuff for Mac must be a real pita because of the changes that occur with every new version of that OS. Windows seems to be much more consistent over time, making it much easier to maintain software.

That's indeed one of the main reasons. I've developed software on several OSes and OSX is the most undocumented, volatile and incompatible with itself of all. Every version introduces new incompatibilities. Anyway, i'll try to find a way thru these difficulties.

[MuTools]

Mux is pretty underground and doesnt look sexy enough to attract attention

So you think it would be better if i invest more dev-time to looks and thus less dev-time to creative sequencing and sound? If that's the case, then shouldn't i simply go for another job eg as painter or illustrator? Not meant cynical, it's really about an essential question. I know looks are important. That's why i invested a lot of dev time in polishing the looks from M5 to M6. M6 has a modest, subtle and functional nice looks, imho. Did you try MuLab or MUX 6, or are you talking about past versions? You still don't like the M6 looks?

[BlackWinny]

You would think so but MuLab has been available on Mac for years but not Mux, I asked about a Mac version when it first came out (2-3 years ago) and it was being 'worked on' then and still seems to be. I don't know what the obstacles are. I don't even care if there isn't an AU version, most of my hosts support VST just fine, I can wait for AU.

Judging from what other developers are saying, developing stuff for Mac must be a real pita because of the changes that occur with every new version of that OS. Windows seems to be much more consistent over time, making it much easier to maintain software.

That's indeed one of the main reasons. I've developed software on several OSes and OSX is the most undocumented, volatile and incompatible with itself of all. Every version introduces new incompatibilities. Anyway, i'll try to find a way thru these difficulties.

To summarize by a joke... OSX is like a polymorphic virus. Each time one thinks to have mastered it, it restarts with new characteristics which make the hunt endless!

[Tricky-Loops]

Mux is pretty underground and doesnt look sexy enough to attract attention

Yeah, it needs a Harmor girl with the name "MUXina":

[VariKusBrainZ]

Mux is pretty underground and doesnt look sexy enough to attract attention

So you think it would be better if i invest more dev-time to looks and thus less dev-time to creative sequencing and sound?

I don't think so, just what I feel a lot of users look for, based on my years of absorbing user feedback on the webs.

I have a license and the looks didn't put me off

[MuTools]

In the other hand built-in modulator system

Feel free to elaborate on this, here or in the MuTools forum

I had the early version and I happily upgraded now, although for quite a long time (year or more) I thought the whole thing is broken since version 5 update, as it has been making some bad noises for me. I thought it's malfunctioning multi-core support, which is somehow incompatible with my setup, thought I just should let it go and move on. Now, quite by accidental forum conversation, I found out from the dev, that it's some files I didn't re-name right, that have triggered "copy protection noise"... What I said, too cryptic.

If such protection would give an explicit alert like "hey something seems to be wrong" then that's much more easy to hack (by hackers) than these short noise bursts. But atoh i understand your remark. You're a true user and you suffered from the protection (as a consequence of renaming the file) so that's not ok, so taken note on the wishlist about doing a basic check which could result in an explicit alert, the the real check can still stay the same as now.

[MuTools]

I don't think so, just what I feel a lot of users look for, based on my years of absorbing user feedback on the webs. I have a license and the looks didn't put me off

I understand. Indeed MuLab and MUX Modular don't look as flashy/sexy as certain plugin editors, some of them indeed have a great wow factor, and sometimes that's (temporarily?) inspiring. But for good reasons i have chosen to use a modest, rather abstract yet functional UI. Glad to read you like it. General note for current and future versions: If something in the UI is obstructing your creative flow, pls let me know, preferably in the MuTools forum, as i'm not constantly watching all Kvr fora, just from time to time, but i do accurately follow the MuTools forum. Thanks.