MuLab & MUX UI Looks

[blackblooded]

I think current mutools gui is better,everones taste is different

[SparkySpark]

I like the looks Jo has come up with, I think he does a great job.

I agree. It is uncluttered and mentally relaxing; consistent and easy to figure out. Quite unique!

Exactly. Well put! ...and more importantly - great UI, Jo!

[mgiambro]

I think the last round of GUI updates were a big improvement. Prior to that, the graphics looked a bit dated. Now I think the MuLab interface is cool. Initially when I was looking at images of MuLab before buying, it was the 'mixer', which is really placeholder for racks rather than a mixer per se, that I found unusual. Obviously this is because it is unlike mixers on other DAWs. Once you download it and start using it, it makes sense. MuLab is unique. I think this is both positive and negative as it's 'uniqueness' may put those who are used to 'traditional' DAWs off giving it a shot.

[ssd2]

To be honnest it's a big question mark for me too why MuLab & MUX are not getting thru enough to a broader user base. Of course MuLab is not perfect, but the other DAWs aren't either. Checked them out again the last weeks. All DAWs can learn from eachother. But indeed MuLab is too much under the radar, if you compare it to the popular DAWs. Don't know why. Maybe cause i don't have the advertising capital to buy media?

... Why Mux Mod is too much under radar...? My guess regarding part of reason, is presented below:
[ALERT: Long description ahead!]

Hi All, I am joining late to this party, however wish to chip in with my opinion on this. Before I proceed, I wish to express my heartfelt gratitude to the developer for creating this wonderful software. I find it hard to believe that such a combination of wide ranging features and flexibility is available at such affordable price. I would like to see this among top 3 "Modular" DAWs.

The looks part of Mux Modular has been sort of underwhelming experience for me, probably because I am from the "Windows 95" era wherein the windows had chunky borders, buttons had 3D look, and the colour schemes were mostly around pastel greys and blue themes. However I have also liked the looks of subtle greys of latest offerings from Ableton Live and Dark theme of Bitwig... which is nothing like anything from "Windows 95" era. My aesthetic preferences would rate the Mux Mod 8.0 default color scheme (this is what I have) much lower than aforementioned DAWs. (Please don't troll me on this, we all know, aesthetic preferences are very subjective )

Why I bought Mux Mod despite looks not being upto my preference?
When I was looking around for "Modular Soft-synths" to purchase, I didn't have enough time to try demo-versions of all selected ones, Hence I just read thru the features-list on product websites, and compared prices to decide on which demo-version I will spend my time on. After demo-trial of Mux Mod, I was satisfied with it, and went ahead with purchase. It was the lesser price of Mux Mod that prompted me to select it for demo-trial, and accepted the "underwhelming looks" in favor of its pure technical depth. But this is me... my guess is many others, having my aesthetic preference, will rather opt for other DAWS at higher price, because they don't prioritize the value of technical-depth, over "their perception of underwhelming looks".

Though I have no exposure to market-psychology, I have this gut-feeling that if Mux Modular were to offer further more* (than the existing features and flexibility), to customise looks ... and also showcase this prominently on its website, then Mux Mod's sales would increase as it is (without adding any further features for an year).
*I will describe about "more", in next post, as a feature-request.

To show my preferred aesthetics, I have attached the "default look" of Basic Synth screenshot from my Mux Mod ver 8.0 (upper screenshot) along with "customised look" of same synth (lower screenshot) with different colours and Bit mapped background. The customised look reflects my preference of subtle pastel shades, and the richness of bit mapped textures (BTW that is brushed steel finish in background of Basic synth controls). I am quite sure there are others who would like such themes, but don't have time to create it. I think Having various theme options catering to different preferences, that are easily accessible in first level "Main-Menu" itself, (no need to dive deep in menu-layers) can help Mux Mod increase it's Market-base.

I hope I have not disturbed anyone's sentiments while posting my opinion above. I sincerely wish Mux Mod to reach much wider audiences. If my opinion helps in this direction, I would be very happy.

Regards,
SSD2

"Default look" of Basic Synth screenshot from my Mux Mod ver 8.0:


My preferred look of Basic Synth:

There are more "refinements" I would like to add to above, however I couldn't find features for "border-customisation" in Mux Mod ver 8.0

[Michael L]

I think Having various theme options catering to different preferences, that are easily accessible in first level "Main-Menu" itself, (no need to dive deep in menu-layers) can help Mux Mod increase it's Market-base.

Welcome!

I like this idea of offering a range of default themes for people who prefer other looks
Perhaps users can share LooksSetup.xml once M9 is released (as Dakkra did for M8)
(I prefer low-key with no unnecessary visual information to distract)

[ssd2]

Thanks for responding.
Regarding LooksSetup.xml file referred in above post... can anyone guide me where I can find information regarding this file and how to use this feature?
Thanks in advance!

[Michael L]

Thanks for responding.
Regarding LooksSetup.xml file referred in above post... can anyone guide me where I can find information regarding this file and how to use this feature?
Thanks in advance!

Its in the Mulab/User/Settings folder.
When you create your own GUI theme, your settings are saved in the readable LooksSetup.xml file.
You can zip it, attach it to a forum post, and upload it to the "Colour Themes" folder in MuLib:
viewtopic.php?t=483718

[ssd2]

Wow! That was fast... Many thanks!
I will follow your guidance and post my xml file shortly for review/comments by forum members.
Regards,

[sl23]

This is something I have mentioned a few times. But Jo has his reasons for losing the old theme method.

Now though, I still agree there are several areas where aesthetics could be improved, but I'm quite happy with it currently.

When it comes to sharing themes though, I think it should be kept to a single file. But that's just my opinion.

[humanboeing]

This is something I have mentioned a few times. But Jo has his reasons for losing the old theme method.

Now though, I still agree there are several areas where aesthetics could be improved, but I'm quite happy with it currently.

When it comes to sharing themes though, I think it should be kept to a single file. But that's just my opinion.

What was the old theming like?

[dakkra]

What was the old theming like?

Bitmaps instead of vectors and colors.

[humanboeing]

What was the old theming like?

Bitmaps instead of vectors and colors.

Aren't vectors superior because of scalability? What was the advantage of using bitmaps?

[pljones]

The advantage of it was it had been in place long enough to evolve over time to a point where it was highly themeable. The new system hasn't been in very long and, given the limited nature of Jo's time, its development has to fit around everything else, like any other feature.

[robert_p]

Look at the NI Maschine software - simple, no bitmaps, no flashy colours - yet, thousands of happy users;)

[dakkra]

Aren't vectors superior because of scalability? What was the advantage of using bitmaps?

Yes, vector graphics are vastly superior, especially when it comes to scalability.

The reason for using bitmaps back in the day were mostly these:
- Rendering complex (like 3d or many shapes) items would be very costly
- It was easy to hand a set of bitmaps to people and say "photoshop this" rather than building your own rendering/modeling system

Computers are much better (mostly faster, but also optimized) at handling vector graphics now, especially if you have a dedicated GPU. FLStudio is a shining example of vector graphics on the GPU done well (about the only thing it does well IMO).

I greatly prefer the new theming with vector graphics for knobs and sliders, and very deep and rich color customization. It yields not only scalable, but more professional looking results.