MUX Vst : What do you need?

[fluffy_little_something]

A - What is the objective of the VST release?

B- Who is the consumer?

Here is what I think, a MUX VST will not swing many, if just a few existing host users to Mulab. The delight of Mulab is in its: integration, UI, routing capabilities, routing UI and workflow. I would rather the development move away from VST. VST has it limits and its drawbacks. In the future, Mutools needs to develop an API which allows the VST developer to take full advantage of Mulab/MUX gallery of possibilities (seamless integration). An API at this state is nearly impossible unless Mulab is developed from the ground up. This approach at this state is not practical.

*The development of a MUX VST does little for existing Mulab users.

I agree, I think it would be better to just keep optimizing Mulab as such. There are more than enough VSTs out there already, some of them very mature and sophisticated. I don't think many people will buy the MUX VST as there are better alternatives if you already have a DAW.
There is nothing wrong with having an all-in-one product that is not really compatible with the rest. Reason comes to mind. If the product is good enough people will buy it, like I did.
If Mulab were perfect already and its developers bored, then fine, do the VST. But Mulab is still far from perfect, frankly. And once it is, at its fair price it will make people switch to Mulab altogether, anyway. To get there, however the multi-core support is crucial, as currently there are limits to the simultaneous use of various sophisticated sounds...

[sl23]

I think the idea is to make money! Having a VST version of the MUX means reaching more users than just those who want a host. Many are happy with their current DAW, so the MUX VST gives those users the MUX experience.

[fedexnman]

I think the idea is to make money! Having a VST version of the MUX means reaching more users than just those who want a host. Many are happy their current DAW so the MUX VST gives those users the MUX experience.

Agreed ! I tried Mulab free and didn't really care for the audio recording part of it , it never clicked with me . It seemed more of a midi and add an existing audio file/loop type sequencer , than to record audio with. But I thought sampla , multisampla ,musynth , mux ,mudrum and muverb were really great sounding, and thought out effects and instruments . Something like mux , would be very affordable way for someone to have a modular environment and some cool added synth and sampler stuff , but could use with a traditional DAW ex. Reaper , Cubase , Podium , StudioOne2 .

[Tricky-Loops]

I think the idea is to make money! Having a VST version of the MUX means reaching more users than just those who want a host. Many are happy their current DAW so the MUX VST gives those users the MUX experience.

Agreed ! I tried Mulab free and didn't really care for the audio recording part of it , it never clicked with me . It seemed more of a midi and add an existing audio file/loop type sequencer , than to record audio with. But I thought sampla , multisampla ,musynth , mux ,mudrum and muverb were really great sounding, and thought out effects and instruments . Something like mux , would be very affordable way for someone to have a modular environment and some cool added synth and sampler stuff , but could use with a traditional DAW ex. Reaper , Cubase , Podium , StudioOne2 .

Me, too!

I use REAPER, because it's a much more powerful DAW than Mulab. I wouldn't give up REAPER and change to Mulab because of a MUX VSTi. But what I love at Mulab is the modular synthesizer MUX - because in REAPER there is no modular synthesizer. So I'm happy about the soon coming MUX VSTi, especially if it's available for an affordable and reasonable price!

[highkoo]

A - What is the objective of the VST release?
B- Who is the consumer?

A- Sales, publicity?
B- VST users, i.e. A larger community outside of just MuLab users.

Here is what I think, a MUX VST will not swing many, if just a few existing host users to Mulab.

You are absolutley right, obviously.
I am almost certainly a VST customer. I am almost certainly not never ever a MuLab customer, and that is nothing against MuLab at all. I just have no interest.

The delight of Mulab is in its: integration, UI, routing capabilities, routing UI and workflow. I would rather the development move away from VST.

You gotta recognize that that is likely a very minority opinion for various reasons to both users and the company.

In the future, Mutools needs to develop an API which allows the VST developer to take full advantage of Mulab/MUX gallery of possibilities (seamless integration). An API at this state is nearly impossible unless Mulab is developed from the ground up. This approach at this state is not practical.

So, just sit on it and grind out an API while doing nothing in the meantime?

*The development of a MUX VST does little for existing Mulab users.

Sure, in the very short term nuts and bolts sense. The company must thrive though.
No offense, but what is the motivation behind these posts?

You dont think that the sales/attention garnered from release of the vst will more than make up for the perceived loss of 'worktime' on MuLab itself? You dont think it would be a good thing for the company as a whole?
It doesnt make sense to me that they should dumb down in the face of what is likely a successful and, with work already put in, somewhat easy to create product.
They are a business. They have an opportunity to sell a product.
To me, it seems like a no-brainer for the company. Much less worktime needs to be invested, sales will likely be much bigger, and there will be publicity for the flagship product.

[liquidsound]

If, for example, I can save a MUX preset in MuLab with my favorite VST and then open StudioOne and import that preset in the MUX VST in S1 and have in there the same set up with those same VSTs as in MuLab, that shows you already an advantage for the MuLab users that need other DAWs for whatever reason and that they prefer to work in MuLab for the most part, like me.

BTW, will this be possible?

[MuTools]

Yes!

You'll be able to try it out yourself very soon!
(if you're on Windows)

[MuTools]

It's a must have plug for sure... but, will it be released initially for the Mac as well?

Not in it's 1.0 version.
Though i hope to release MUX Vst for OSX asap too.
It will depend on the success of MUX Vst and on how many people will want the OSX version. It may be that i'll implement multi-core support for MuLab before MUX Vst for OSX. That's not yet decided. It depends on several aspects, also technical ones.

[robenestobenz]

You dont think that the sales/attention garnered from release of the vst will more than make up for the perceived loss of 'worktime' on MuLab itself? You dont think it would be a good thing for the company as a whole?
It doesnt make sense to me that they should dumb down in the face of what is likely a successful and, with work already put in, somewhat easy to create product.
They are a business. They have an opportunity to sell a product.
To me, it seems like a no-brainer for the company. Much less worktime needs to be invested, sales will likely be much bigger, and there will be publicity for the flagship product.

Could't agree more.

I don't think there's anything quite as good for mid-level modular joy as MUX out there on the market, at this point. It's easy to use and has a good mix of high quality components for creating sensible to insane custom effects and instruments. I do think shoring up an excellent library of effect and instrument presets before release will be important though.

[MuTools]

I do think shoring up an excellent library of effect and instrument presets before release will be important though.

Ok, it's not yet a multi-gigabyte library and it's not yet covering all possible sound domains. It will grow step by step.

But when looking at the current MUX preset library, can you please elaborate and tell what's really missing in it before it's a worthy 1.0 release.

[liquidsound]

Yes!

You'll be able to try it out yourself very soon!
(if you're on Windows)

Awesome!

[Nielzie]

Hhmm I might install Reaper again, and buy the Mux vst to join best of both worlds.

Having the mux envionment available with all its power and effects, within a powerful 64-bit multicore environment


It might steer me away from using Mulab though..

Will the Mux Vst also be available as 64-bit? Will it have extra cpu-hit as vst outside MuLab?

[MuTools]

It might steer me away from using Mulab though..

I realize that this may be an option for some users.
Well it doesn't make sense to 'protect' you from doing so.
In the end i want happy customers & creative musicians!
It's up to MuLab to be the better tool for your needs.

There may also be musicians travelling from X to MuLab for its higher level of integration! And MuLab 5 will be another (big) step forward.

Will the Mux Vst also be available as 64-bit?

Not yet in its 1.0 version. But i'll do my best to setup a 64 bit dev environment asap after the MuLab multi-core implementation. Then both MUX Vst and MuLab will go 64 bit.

Will it have extra cpu-hit as vst outside MuLab?

No.

[Nielzie]

Well, I am pretty happy with MuLab actually, but I'm using quite CPU hungry plugins pretty often in my current projects and I'm starting to tax out my Intel Core i7 920 quad core cpu a lot these days. So I do have a problem there. On the other hand I wouldn't want to miss the Mux environment..

I've never used "freeze tracks" in a DAW before, but I think that function is also not yet available in MuLAB, or am I wrong?

[pljones]

You can do it:

Select the parts you want to "freeze".
Select Session->Mixdown Audio, say Yes to "Only mixdown selected part(s)".
Make sure "Create new part using result" is checked. (Either file or sample mode is okay.)
You probably want 32bit for production use, if you choose file.
Click OK.
Then mute the parts you mixed down.

==
I noticed when I chose Sample rather than file that the MuSampla has a possible graphical bug: to the left of the MuSampla window are a little square green button that mirrors the bypass function and a little square lined button that has a tooltip of "Options" but does nothing. I'm not sure either is meant to be there and the latter appears broken, if it's meant to do anything.