M3 Tests

[MuTools]

About the grid : I understand the 2 points of view. Perhaps, you can have a menu in the mouse cursor display to change the grid settings ?

That's a nice suggestion. Added to the whishlist.

[MuTools]

Why?

Here is what's happening from what I see so far:

The Context Menu without 3rd party plug-ins shows:
+ Synths

When collapsed it shows:
+ Patches Category Sounds Folders > Patches
+ Template Folder > MuLab Synths
Other (Unclassified?) Patches

BUT

When a third party Plug-in is added then we have:
+ Synths

When collapsed it shows:
+ MuSynth > containing All of the above (Changed from above)
+ VST > Third party Plug-ins (New. Not above)

1] Why, in the second scenario, all the MuLab synths are inside a folder called MuSynth?

There is just a neat separation of all Mu-Synths and all VST-Synths.

Also, if such grouping wouldn't be there, the VST group could be way down, which is not comfortable. Now you can immediately choose whether to go the MuSynth way or the VST way.

The VST group is not there as long as there are no VST plugins. And in such case the MuSynth subgroup can be skipped as it would be redundant.

I'm surprised all this isn't clear.

2] Maybe leaving the +Template folder outside the patches directory could clarify some of the confusion because it will keep the MuLab synth as in 2.7 and the Patches still all together.

I can only think that the confusion comes from the fact that you're used to something else.

One of the solutions could be:
+ Synths > MuLab Synths (Same as in Templates)
+ Patches > MuLab Synths's Patches (as of now)
+ VST > Third Party Plug-Ins
Win/Win

Win?

I still didn't hear any argument why it would be an advantage to group patches per device.

I don't see any advantage. Someone?

[robenestobenz]

It is strange that the actual module itself is a subset of the preset library (either as in the templates folder or the modules modestly hidden amongst the list).

I think the only reason why it's strange is because we're not used to it.

Hah, your comments are very very similar to mine... a week ago:

I like the approach to the in-module preset list -- the first time I was pretty surprised when I picked a different preset and the module itself changed because it's such unexpected behaviour. But I think that's just because we get used to conventions whether they are a smart way of doing things or not. Your way is smarter - at the end of the day, if you're looking to browse bass sounds, are you really bothered if it's module x or module y making the noise?

Being able to use VST presets in this way would be an awesome feature. I don't know about anyone else, but I'd use this a hell of a lot.

Back to the rack slot list:

The point me and liquidsound (I think), are making is not about the patch library system (which I think we both like) but that to have the Synthia/Musynth modules themselves at the same level in the hierarchy feels weird. Liquid's suggestion of moving templates the top level with the MuSynth and VST nodes might be better.

Also, I think having the parent nodes called MuSynth and MUX will make many users initially think there is only one in-built module with a lot of patches. I think the layout below would give people a better idea of what to expect:

MuSynths (contains modules)
MuSynths Presets (contains current patch stuff)
VST

MuFX
MuFX Presets (contains current patch stuff)
VST

I use the word "preset" as, unlike with the word patch you don't have to have prior knowledge to understand what it means.

Other usability bits:

- I'd like to see some visual clues as to whether a list item is a branch parent or not in the in-module preset list, like you do elsewhere in the program.


- All in-built instruments -- one usability thing that confused me quite a bit when I first used MuLab is the amount of controls that are in floating windows. It makes the GUIs smaller, but it also makes them feel more complicated. I'm sort of used to them now, but tabs, or an expanding panel would be more user friendly I think. (not one for M3 though, of course)

By the way, the virtual keyboard is great. As I quite often use Mulab away from home (and will do even more with the new relative part support) without MIDI controllers, to have this feature without having to resort to MIDI loopbacks or special plugins is especially welcome. The idea of using the F keys is particularly awesome and surprisingly playable! Nice going.

[Branis]

Another thing:
File, Edit and Help popup menus should "appear" under File, Edit and Help...they shouldn't hide those...something like this:

I'd agree with gemada, it would be better if the File, Edit and Help menus popped up just below the buttons, instead of obscuring them.

Les J.

I just wanted to post about the same thing, good I read this thread first
It's not happening only in the main menu, but everywhere where there's a button with a drop down menu. I think the menu should always appear bellow the button.

One other thing:

could the miniature send knob (in Racks) be 16x16 pix instead of 12x12 pix? I always thought that this knob was too small, and there is enough space for a bigger one.

[Branis]

I forgot another thing

I really like the new way MULAB shows Patches instead of Synths, but I think there should be a graphical difference between a patch and a patch folder. I think there should be a symbol in front of the patch folder name like the one in menus with submenus (a + symbol in the default skin).

[MuTools]

The point me and liquidsound (I think), are making is not about the patch library system (which I think we both like) but that to have the Synthia/Musynth modules themselves at the same level in the hierarchy feels weird. Liquid's suggestion of moving templates the top level with the MuSynth and VST nodes might be better.

Ah, yes, i see, sounds like an interesting idea. Will think of it some more.

Also, I think having the parent nodes called MuSynth and MUX will make many users initially think there is only one in-built module with a lot of patches.

If that would be the case, then let them think, no problem.

But i doubt it.

I think the layout below would give people a better idea of what to expect:

MuSynths (contains modules)
MuSynths Presets (contains current patch stuff)
VST

MuFX
MuFX Presets (contains current patch stuff)
VST

Not sure, could be confusing too, imho.

I use the word "preset" as, unlike with the word patch you don't have to have prior knowledge to understand what it means.

So you think "Preset" is more common than "Patch"?

What do others think?

Other usability bits:
I'd like to see some visual clues as to whether a list item is a branch parent or not in the in-module preset list, like you do elsewhere in the program.

I don't understand. Could you please post a screenshot.

[MuTools]

could the miniature send knob (in Racks) be 16x16 pix instead of 12x12 pix? I always thought that this knob was too small, and there is enough space for a bigger one.

It's a pure skinning thing. You can edit the skin files if you want.

[bpblog]

One of the solutions could be:
+ Synths > MuLab Synths (Same as in Templates)
+ Patches > MuLab Synths's Patches (as of now)
+ VST > Third Party Plug-Ins

Win/Win

that's it, i think liquidsound summed it up here. since there are obviously two schools of thought, why not have both choices available?

only thing to change in liquidsound suggestion is that 'synths' should be renamed to 'MySynths' or something, because it's already filed under the 'Synths' menu. 'Patches' should also probably be renamed to 'MuPatches'.

Why?

well, here's my take on it:
i rarely work with finished patches. instead i prefer starting with a basic synth setting and then tweak on. so, to me, and anyone else with similar preferences, a perfect setup would be click slot >> synths >> musynth. that's reason number one. the second reason is that the patch names are not very informative (even though some of them are very cool ), so if i'm following your logic, and i want to quickly choose an fx sound before opening synthia for example, i would come in a situation similar to this one:

umm, ok, let's see, click slot >> synths >> fx >> ok now, wait a second, which on earth do i want, Ohoowuw or Space Chicks?!

and then you have to click Ohoowuw for example, which will open the synth, and from that point it's the same as if you clicked MuSynth in the first place and then browsed the patches.

anyway, my lack of skills in english doesn't really allow me to explain things exactly the way i want to, but the point is that, this new setup, while probably great for patch-lovers, is a total turn-off for tweak-lovers. and because we're all equally important, liquidsound's compromise is imho the best possible solution.

another note:

once MuSynth is open, folders like Bass, Pads, etc. are missing a little + sign in front.

[gemada]

Ok, assuming we keep things as is in M3 but just trying to finetune things, then i think that to have comfortable and consistent behaviour the trackheader interaction should be like this:

Leftclick on icon or name = Focus target (cfr racks)
Doubleclick on icon or name = Edit target (cfr racks)
Rightclick on icon or name = Track context menu (cfr everywhere)

Now how to choose a target for a track? Use the context menu.

It seems great to me, less "messing up"

I've been playing with a smooth redesign which includes a drop-down icon to the track header which could do the "choose target" on leftclick:



But it looks a bit weird no? I think i would rather stick with the current layout but doing the interaction as mentioned here above.

What do you think?

I agree with you...i would rather stick with the current layout but doing the interaction as mentioned here above...until something better comes maybe in MU.LAB "3.5"

[liquidsound]

Win?

I still didn't hear any argument why it would be an advantage to group patches per device.

I don't see any advantage. Someone?

Misunderstanding here...

I love the Patch library or Preset (better name) as robenestobenz calls it.
Very much needed indeed.
My argument is about hierarchy. To put the very Synths that created the Preset inside the Preset Folder is unusual and for a beginner and some of us a little confusing at first. But after the confusion there is another factor.

When we add a third party Plug-In a folder named MuSynth is created together with the VST.
Now the confusing part is that MuLab HAS a synth called MuSynth and so one is lead to think that all the preset belongs to the MuSynth plug-in and not to the MuSynth(s) of MuLab.

My rePoint is to leave the Preset folder as you have it but promote the Template Folder so to reside together with the VST, Out of the Presets.

[MuTools]

I forgot another thing

I really like the new way MULAB shows Patches instead of Synths, but I think there should be a graphical difference between a patch and a patch folder. I think there should be a symbol in front of the patch folder name like the one in menus with submenus (a + symbol in the default skin).

I must be missing something because this remark is coming from different people.

Isn't it looking like this on your system:



?

As you can see, on my system the patch groups do have the default + or - group icon before their name.

[gemada]

1) You have to right click - composition - grid (it's a long way)...
And the mouse cursor display just shows up a limited information about grid (snap on/off) for a second...i can't see any useful information there about grid size and if it's on/off...i'm i missing something?

You can know whether grid is on or off by looking at the mouse info box. When moving the mouse you see its position. If it's snapped, grid is on, else not.

Which grid? You can deduct that from that same mouse info, and from the grid lines.

Thanks for the tips
But i still don't find this intuitive...i'd really like to see some simple grid options in the gui like this:


or this:

[MuTools]

that's it, i think liquidsound summed it up here. since there are obviously two schools of thought, why not have both choices available?

Because i don't yet see any advantage.

i rarely work with finished patches. instead i prefer starting with a basic synth setting and then tweak on. so, to me, and anyone else with similar preferences, a perfect setup would be click slot >> synths >> musynth. that's reason number one. the second reason is that the patch names are not very informative (even though some of them are very cool ), so if i'm following your logic, and i want to quickly choose an fx sound before opening synthia for example, i would come in a situation similar to this one:

umm, ok, let's see, click slot >> synths >> fx >> ok now, wait a second, which on earth do i want, Ohoowuw or Space Chicks?!

and then you have to click Ohoowuw for example, which will open the synth, and from that point it's the same as if you clicked MuSynth in the first place and then browsed the patches.

Yes, i know, that's true.

But it doesn't hurt imho. If it's not the right sound, you can easily scroll further within the editor.

Anyway, when choosing a new synth for a rack, i could live with removing all the patches from the list and only show a single "MuSynth" item. Then a MuSynth is plugged in and you can start choosing a patch from there.

But hey, i already had lots of occasions where i started a new session, and quickly plug in a "Stand In Piano". It spares me clicks. I don't think it hurts that the patches are listed in front.

another note:

once MuSynth is open, folders like Bass, Pads, etc. are missing a little + sign in front.

Ooow, here it is

That's a bug, sssooorrryyy

Will be fixed of course.

Maybe that's also what is causing some confusion?

[Branis]

I forgot another thing

I really like the new way MULAB shows Patches instead of Synths, but I think there should be a graphical difference between a patch and a patch folder. I think there should be a symbol in front of the patch folder name like the one in menus with submenus (a + symbol in the default skin).

I must be missing something because this remark is coming from different people.

Isn't it looking like this on your system:



?

As you can see, on my system the patch groups do have the default + or - group icon before their name.

Sorry, I wasn't precise enough, I ment in the plugin's patch browser



BTW I can't find the property for the knob size, is it in the FullRack.xml?

[MuTools]

I love the Patch library or Preset (better name) as robenestobenz calls it.

"Presets" = ok with me

Will wait a bit for other opinions too.

My argument is about hierarchy. To put the very Synths that created the Preset inside the Preset Folder is unusual and for a beginner and some of us a little confusing at first.

Yes i understand this argument. Guess you're right.

But after the confusion there is another factor.

When we add a third party Plug-In a folder named MuSynth is created together with the VST.
Now the confusing part is that MuLab HAS a synth called MuSynth and so one is lead to think that all the preset belongs to the MuSynth plug-in and not to the MuSynth(s) of MuLab.

I understand your point.

My rePoint is to leave the Preset folder as you have it but promote the Template Folder so to reside together with the VST, Out of the Presets.

Yes understood. I guess that's a good idea. Will reflect a bit more on this.

Thanks!