Bad MuLab 5 review from Music Radar...

[Tricky-Loops]

I've read a very bad review about MuLab 5 in the Computer Music Magazine (only 3 points which is the worst rating they ever make; I've rarely seen 2-point-ratings):

http://www.musicradar.com/reviews/tech/ ... -ul-575581

I cannot understand at all why they rate MuLab THAT bad. It was one of my first DAW's and I still appreciate the simple user interface without an overload of features and overwhelming pull-down-menus.

Instead of MuLab they recommend REAPER. While I'm a REAPER user, I never would recommend it for beginners. REAPER is great but it's not everybody's darling. Many people prefer simpler DAW's like MuLab.

And REAPER doesn't contain any (usable) synth while MuLab contains MuSynth & MUX with outstanding sounds! You can buy MuLab and start making music with it right from the start - you don't have to download free synths or buy some synths like in REAPER.

Furthermore, I have bought MUX and I love it! It's a modular environment like REAKTOR...

So, I'm really disappointed by their review & rating. What do you think of it?

[EvilDragon]

I do think that the review brings some good points: lack of standardized keyboard assignments, over-reliance on menus (also one thing that's terribly annoying to me - always popping up that dialog when I want to extend the MIDI item length!!!). Now, "outdated design", not really. It's a clean and simple GUI. And while it's lacking flexibility, it does look well and soothing. That is one point I would not agree with this review. They also give high points for MUX, which is alright.

However, Reaper is definitely a looooot more capable (not to mention flexible) overall than MuLAB - MuLAB's high point is the modularity, whereas Reaper can be absolutely a speed demon when you warm up to it. Nothing can beat Reaper for fast audio editing with those mouse modifiers and macros and Python scriptability.


It's an OK review - IMHO MuLAB is not yet 5/5 stars software... But, to bring more balance to my (perhaps obviously biased) comment - MusicRadar guys DO love Reaper and that's quite obvious too.

[Nielzie]

They don't like the GUI/menu's so they give it a low overall score. Typical. More like a quick "first impression" than a thorough review imo. Most of their reviews seem to be like that. Especially with the lesser known/smaller dev products.

I'm glad I cancelled my subscription over a year ago.

I hope Jo will not be discouraged or demotivated by this He's doing a GREAT job, all on his own.

[JoeCat]

They like Ableton too - no mention there of Live's broken PDC (not to beat a dead horse, just that, to be fair, they make the point of noting it's absence in Mulab; a missing feature is arguably better than a broken one). I'm guessing Mulab had automation curves before Live also?

I like the MR/CM guys overall, but you do really have to live with something as complex as a DAW to review it fairly. There's always KVR for perspective!

[Tricky-Loops]

What I cannot understand is why they compare MuLab with REAPER. They're 2 completely different workstations. That's like comparing dogs with cats, and then saying: "If you need something to secure your house, a dog is far more effective than a cat..." (But there may be people who rather would buy a cat because it's easier to take care of!)

Imagine someone is coming to you, asking you "Oh, I've played some guitar in my life, I've never made music with my computer, now I want to go digital, what program should I buy?"

Would you really recommend him REAPER? Would you say to him "First you have to learn to customize it, then after some years you can start to plug in your guitar!"

Or would you say: "Boy, come on, buy Pro Tools right from the start, then you can use it your whole life..."

Or would you - like me - recommend him a beginner-solution like MuLab EXACTLY because of its simple & usable interface and the included synths & effects?

[robenestobenz]

What I cannot understand is why they compare MuLab with REAPER. They're 2 completely different workstations. That's like comparing dogs with cats, and then saying: "If you need something to secure your house, a dog is far more effective than a cat..." (But there may be people who rather would buy a cat because it's easier to take care of!)

Imagine someone is coming to you, asking you "Oh, I've played some guitar in my life, I've never made music with my computer, now I want to go digital, what program should I buy?"

Would you really recommend him REAPER? Would you say to him "First you have to learn to customize it, then after some years you can start to plug in your guitar!"

Or would you say: "Boy, come on, buy Pro Tools right from the start, then you can use it your whole life..."

Or would you - like me - recommend him a beginner-solution like MuLab EXACTLY because of its simple & usable interface and the included synths & effects?

I agree on some points, like the audio recording implementation and overreliance on menus. Disagree on the interface or being hard to get to grips with though. I found MuLab very easy to get up and running with.

As for the write up on stuff like the shortcuts system or the drag and drop support -- sounds like they just copied features from the changelog rather than really trying them out much. In any reasonable article, Mulab's clever drag and drop implementation and the way it can boost your workflow is hardly a one-line feature.

[plutonia]

this reads like the reviewer hasn't bothered to take the time to get to know the software. for instance, menu's can be bypassed by user defined key commands and this is more than is possible in many DAW's i've used (ableton and reason for instance) not much said about the quality of the synths either which is one of its strengths; compare them to those in reason and or ableton and you really start to appreciate the sonic capability of mulab. the gui is clear and easy to use so i don't see it as an issue either.

the audio recording is an issue and may have been what put the reviewer off though.

ultimately, the speed of workflow and the end result is what matters, and on both points mulab does extremely well in my experience, so not a fair review in my opinion.

[dakkra]

I'd have to agree the APDC and a better GUI are things Mulab needs work on. However, that's only two items compared to ALL the awesomeness of Mulab. The MUX is great for putting together sounds. The pre-built devices are MORE THAN good enough to make a steady track. About the only things I add VST wise is a couple of synths and some vocal stuff. Mulab pretty much covers everything else.

WHY DO SO MANY PEOPLE HAVE A PROBLEM ON MENUS? I don't get it! Menus are a great way to display your options. If you want to set keys for specific functions then go and make your own shortcuts! It takes all of three minutes!

About manually setting VSTs and Audio input/output: Sure they're not automatic but again takes all of three minutes. Plus you get to be specific on what you want instead of Mulab guessing at what you want.

"Our overriding impression of MuLab 5 is that it feels like a product of another, simpler era". Have you seen Mulabs capabilities or did you just dump it after you reviewed the interface? You take a good hard look at those menus and tell me those options are outdated.

"One of v5's big new features is multicore processor support - pretty much all other DAWs have had this for years" FlStudio (Number 1 ranked DAW) didn't have multicore until recently.

Reaper? Really? Sure it looks a bit nicer, but where does it come in with the "Ready To Use" area? No good synths built in. No good samples. I fail to see how it is superior to Mulab.

Back to the "Mulab is outdated" problem. Routing is a HUGE thing in electronic music. Because Mulab is modular routing is easy and more flexible than any other DAW I have used. If you ignore the interface problems Mulab is VERY well suited for making music.

Sure the interface could be better and yes, APDC and some small things should be added. However, Mulab is not outdated or fallen behind. Many things such as automating VSTs is much easier in Mulab than in other top DAWs. Go and play with Mulabs deep end and give us a review on sound and technology. Not colors and first impressions

[dakkra]

I'm guessing Mulab had automation curves before Live also?

It had a basic curve system but they were curves and they did their job

[LunaTech]

Just posted a comment about the bs review. I for one love the DAW and am going to stick with it. I mean come on.... think about the first few logics and abletons that came out.

[LunaTech]

Forgot to mention that I switched from Ableton.

[EvilDragon]

WHY DO SO MANY PEOPLE HAVE A PROBLEM ON MENUS? I don't get it! Menus are a great way to display your options. If you want to set keys for specific functions then go and make your own shortcuts! It takes all of three minutes!

One big problem for me - sub-menus actually NEED a click to unfold. This is very uncommon and reduces speed of work.

Reaper? Really? Sure it looks a bit nicer, but where does it come in with the "Ready To Use" area? No good synths built in. No good samples. I fail to see how it is superior to Mulab.

It is not superior in "ready to use area" (EXCEPT in case of direct audio recording, where it's as ready to use as any other, perhaps somewhat faster too). But at least it doesn't force its own plugins on you, you can use whatever plugins of YOUR OWN choice with it. (BTW I am definitely not discounting the value of MUX here.)

Reaper is superior in bit-bridging too. Saves you from purchasing jBridge, and Reaper's bridging actually works better than jBridge. MuLAB has nothing of the sort here.

Back to the "Mulab is outdated" problem. Routing is a HUGE thing in electronic music. Because Mulab is modular routing is easy and more flexible than any other DAW I have used.

And yet MuLAB cannot do feedback routing AFAIK, while Reaper CAN.

[aMUSEd]

Would you really recommend him REAPER? Would you say to him "First you have to learn to customize it, then after some years you can start to plug in your guitar!"

I found Reaper much easier to get my head around than MuLab, no customisation necessary, and at that time I'd come from Tracktion which I chose because I was not hugely familiar with DAWS at that point. I really don't think Reaper is as complex as is made out, or muLab as simple. They both have their relative learning curves depending on what you want from them.

[pljones]

It does depend where you're coming from. I found Traktion impenetrably difficult to use. Of course, having started on Computer Muzys, Jo's way is pretty much what I've "grown up" with. Reaper is cumbersome for doing things I find very simple in MuLab. But Reaper and MuLab are very different tools. I'll switch between them depending on where their strengths lie for me.

A review is only ever one person's view of a tool, based on their own experience - even if they say they're considering whether it's suitable for other people, they can't really make that judgement for you. Both Reaper and MuLab have free, full-featured trials so the only cost to finding out for yourself is time. A review should really focus on letting you judge whether a particular tool might be worth spending time with. In my experience, most don't, so I no longer bother reading them - if I can try for myself, good, if not, the product usually gets overlooked.

[LunaTech]

It does depend where you're coming from. I found Traktion impenetrably difficult to use. Of course, having started on Computer Muzys, Jo's way is pretty much what I've "grown up" with. Reaper is cumbersome for doing things I find very simple in MuLab. But Reaper and MuLab are very different tools. I'll switch between them depending on where their strengths lie for me.

A review is only ever one person's view of a tool, based on their own experience - even if they say they're considering whether it's suitable for other people, they can't really make that judgement for you. Both Reaper and MuLab have free, full-featured trials so the only cost to finding out for yourself is time. A review should really focus on letting you judge whether a particular tool might be worth spending time with. In my experience, most don't, so I no longer bother reading them - if I can try for myself, good, if not, the product usually gets overlooked.

May I say, I agree with you 100%