MuLab & MUX: What's Next

[Trancit]

I tested Alchemy (no, no, no), Absynth (no, no, no,no)

Why so many noes? They're both extremely capable synthesizers, and they both approach granular synthesis from a different perspective, which is perfectly feasible - and they both sound splendid in their own way. So, why all the hate?

There is no hate and you are right, these are both extremely good and flexible synths...

The "noes" and the amount of them correspond only to the ability to produce such dense pads like Padshop and M4L Granulator do!!!!
And fact is, they can't... while Alchemy is a bit better than Absynth (that's why Absynth got one "no" more ) but both a miles away from a for me suitable sound...

[MuTools]

You can already do that by creating a rack preset in your user library. When you added a new rack, load/drop that rack preset in/on that new rack.

Yes but I have to do that every time I create a new rack. It does get annoying. Maybe a way to set a rack preset as a default?

You can also drop a rack preset directly on the [+] track button. This creates new track and rack with the rack preset loaded

[fluffy_little_something]

Some things that would not hurt, just a couple of things I noticed over time:
- presets for important effects such as compressor and limiter, not just for reverb and delay
- maybe one or more preconfigured mastering effect racks
- I seldom use it, but I noticed that the virtual keyboard seems a bit loud, maybe velocity should be set to, say, 90 (of 128)


(Some issues, don't feel like opening threads...
- the vertical bar should automatically stop when nothing more was recorded beyond a given point in time, and when clicking the record button again to stop the recording
- when recording sequences in the same track, the metronome sometimes makes a little pause, which makes the first beats of the metronome a bit redundant as the rhythm/timing is broken
- when recording to an existing track and picking the merge option, the part is not extended to show the notes added)

[sl23]

It just isn't the same, sorry I'm not being picky, it's just that with WaitNote, soon as you start playing it records from the first note and is easily performed without pressing a button in time with first note.

With or without countdown?

Thanks for your consideration on this Jo.

I prefer without countdown as that tends to put me off! Though others may like it? I'm not a keyboard player as you can probably tell

Btw, the issue I have using a button is that pressing a button and playing the first note can sometimes cause the first note to be missed. This is annoying and means having to go back and program it in. I had this problem with Electribes too, they'd always miss the first note when recording 'live.' Perhaps it's my timing that's out

Am I the only one that uses this? It always appears on Roland sequencers and I've grown accustomed to it, not sure about other hardware.

Thing is, at the price you offer MuLab, it's a great entry level product. But, unlike most entry level products, it's very powerful and doesn't hold back on features. This means it's suitable for beginners and part time hobbyists, like me! As MuLab is so easy to use and learn I would say certain beginner friendly features would be useful. Genuinely, this is about making MuLab a better product for YOU to sell. I'm not just giving a load of 'flannel' so you'll implement my request, be nice if you could though. Just the way I see it, not sure if I'm right just something to consider.

[Juan Mendoza]

Since it's not allowed to post 3 FR for MUX and 3 for Mulab, please let me cheat a bit and not post specific FRs but "concepts" that i think would need further development. Those "concepts" need a bunch of FRs put toguether to work

In order of importance

1- Mulab/MUX: Expanded midi editing/manipulation/sequencing capabilities:
By far my most desired FR. I really miss lots of tools that let me create and play with sequences, inspiring tools that invite me to make music, things like step sequencers, step drum sequencers, arpeggiator, Chorder, midi FX, midi loops (be able ro record the output of a midi plugin like a VST arp or something) a Muzys style playroom but actualized to nowadays workflow....

2-A Device-->Patch architechture for the MUX:
That is the hability to store parameter presets for the mux creations, so we can design a synth and save patches for it, that are self enclosed into the device.

3-Expanded synthesis (aka: oscillators):
People requests FM, others Wavetable, PD etc... well, i really dont care about one method or the other, but i really miss more ways to shape the waveforms and sounds in general. Perhaps also improove the quality by making oscs sound more analog (if wanted)

[Juan Mendoza]

Hey guys an objective question in order to understand things better:

FM/PM seems to appear on many top 3 wishlists. Why do you want that so much? I mean there are many VSTIs that do that so in fact it's easily usable already in MuLab/MUX, right? So why do you guys put that in your top 3? Aren't there other more workflow-related wishes that are more important for you and which are not solvable using a 3rd party tool?

Pls don't interprete my question as me being rejective against FM/PM, certainly not, it's just for proper analysis of what's needed most.

One advantage of having FM and other synthesis methods implemented in Mulab is that we would be able to mix those synthesis methods with the current VA in ways that very few (if any) soft or VST has ever done. So imagine an hibryd VA/FM/PM bassline, pad synth, drumsynth or whatever... the frequency of an oscillator modulating the frecuency of a filter... things like that would open a sonic range that's not possible with mulab or with the VSTs i know (not many i admit).

[Nielzie]

Since it's not allowed to post 3 FR for MUX and 3 for Mulab, please let me cheat a bit and not post specific FRs but "concepts" that i think would need further development. Those "concepts" need a bunch of FRs put toguether to work

In order of importance

1- Mulab/MUX: Expanded midi editing/manipulation/sequencing capabilities:
By far my most desired FR. I really miss lots of tools that let me create and play with sequences, inspiring tools that invite me to make music, things like step sequencers, step drum sequencers, arpeggiator, Chorder, midi FX, midi loops (be able ro record the output of a midi plugin like a VST arp or something) a Muzys style playroom but actualized to nowadays workflow....

2-A Device-->Patch architechture for the MUX:
That is the hability to store parameter presets for the mux creations, so we can design a synth and save patches for it, that are self enclosed into the device.

3-Expanded synthesis (aka: oscillators):
People requests FM, others Wavetable, PD etc... well, i really dont care about one method or the other, but i really miss more ways to shape the waveforms and sounds in general. Perhaps also improove the quality by making oscs sound more analog (if wanted)

Very good points, I agree on each of them 100% and now I think of it.. even at the same order of importance too

[sl23]

I have to agree with those points too, even though I used my 3 requests

[Hermu]

1. DAW/MIDI controller device with fader, knob, switch and button modules.
a switch has two different switch values and a button has only one.
this DAW/MIDI controller device should represent a real MIDI controller
and it should be possible to assign modules
e.g.
DAW/MIDI controller device switch 1 (CC115) to Play/Stop
DAW/MIDI controller device fader 1 (CC48) to Rack 1 Gain
DAW/MIDI controller device knob 1 (CC28) to Rack 1 Stereo Panning
DAW/MIDI controller device button 1 (CC38) to Rack 1 Mute
this would make MuLab more flexible for different DAW and MIDI controllers

2. MIDI event recording: to record result of arpeggiator track to a new midi track.
enhancement MIDI recording setup like Audio recording setup
http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=388048

3. USABILITY: more shortcuts to control MuLab via keyboard: eg. select next track or select previous track
http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=392857

[MuTools]

Ok, thanks to all for your feedback! It's good to stay tuned and see what are the most common wishes. I've made a design for the next MuLab & MUX version and am already working on it. Will keep you up to date about it!

[secretkillerofnames]

1-A 64bit audio unit version of Mux that I can use in Logic X please
2-6op FM with user selectable waveforms
3 - Wavetable sequencing similar to Zebra with diy single cycle waves

[? ? ?]

1. Insert/delete "x" amount of bars within the loop brackets.

2. Create an automation sub track for any parameter by directly right clicking on the parameter and having the option available on the right click menu. This makes for easier workflow.

3. Have the multi sample player's virtual keyboard keys light up with every "note on" so that it makes it a bit easier to find what sample is assigned to what key. Actually this would be great if applied to the sequencer's virtual keyboard keys as well.




EDIT: Changed my third feature request since i feel it would really improve workflow.

[Trancit]

Hi Jo,

because this topic exists for making MuLab/Mux more easy to use and more capable I have again (and this time (I am sorry) more forceful) to protest against the new layer system replacing the old one...

The more I am working with the new one and even I am no novice at all, the more I find it too overwhelming and "workflow destructive" dialing in the right amount of unison voices and detuning...
And I can only imagine, how a newbie must suffer with it... must be a PITA...

Don't get me wrong!! For certain and more complex sound, it's a godsend to have this detailed access but for the most unison sounds it's impossible to tune in the right sound...

Honestly, if you want to create a unison sound "from scratch", what do you do???

I can only tell you, how I do it (or was used to do it): You set a certain amount of unison voices, hit a note and change the detuning amount till the point you're happy with the result and the stereo spread...
From that point in time on, you start finetuning ... that's how it is done in every synth I know, which has unison and this is for me the only meaningfull way to do it...

It's done in a minute or perhaps less...

Now??? Set the number of voices... ok, no problem... but then????

For the main work, ok, you can load a preset, but what, if you are not happy with the result of the presets available???
If you are starting to experiment with different tunings and stereo spreads you have to do it theoretically... the amount of time needed for changing all the parameters for 7-11 unison voices lets you loose the reference to the sound, you want to create... you cannot work in realtime anymore... and sound is meant to be in realtime as well as sound design is!!!

Is the new system more powerful??? Yes it is for sure!!!
Is it easier/better to use respectfully more suitable to do the job???
To be honest, for me it absolutely destroys the ability/fun/joy I loved before.

This is no "short-circuit posting" ... I took my time to try getting in the new system, just because it is of course very powerful and can offer creations, which where not possible in a single oscillator before, but it is a real PITA to work with seriously...
If you are used to dial in sounds by ear (which is the "normal" way, I believe), it's close to be unusuable...

Do you got an older version for me available for download???
I didn't kept the older ones, because it wasn't necessary up to now, but till you can find a better way, I give up at this point, pass on the new graphic goodies, but can continue my work...

I am sorry to post this here officially, but I am curious, if I am the only one, having this problem...

[MuTools]

First of all, no prob to discuss it here, that's what the forum is for.

On topic:

If you are starting to experiment with different tunings and stereo spreads you have to do it theoretically... the amount of time needed for changing all the parameters for 7-11 unison voices lets you loose the reference to the sound, you want to create... you cannot work in realtime anymore...

Why not?? It's equally editable in realtime than the previous system. Ok, the new one is more detailed which is good, and bad as you say. But the badness (details can be time consuming) can easily be bypassed by using presets imo.

Is the new system more powerful??? Yes it is for sure!!!
Is it easier/better to use respectfully more suitable to do the job???
To be honest, for me it absolutely destroys the ability/fun/joy I loved before.

Thing is that the previous system and the current one cannot work together. Remember you the 3 parameters we had before: Fatness, Detune and Spread. Now imagine you create a super layer setup using the detailed editor, and then want to use those parameters again, what values must they show?? It's not possible because the detailed setup is not matching those 3 parameters (99% of the time). So then when the user would tweak one of those 3 parameters, the sound could suddenly change unexpectedly! Do you see what i mean? How would you solve that?

[MuTools]

MUX reports "outgoing latency" to the host!!!

I forgot to say: Do you know that you can tell MUX Vst which latency to report to the host? It's in the deep editor options menu. Ok, it's manual, but at least there is a way.