selling patches?

[MightyMouse]

Is it okay to sell my original mutools patches?
Is there away to lock it from editing?

[MuTools]

It's ok to sell them. (i'm obliged to add that this is a non-exclusive and revokable permission)

No there is no way to lock them yet.
But that may become a need as MuLab grows.
I'd love to support MuLab preset creation and exchange. (free and paid)

[hope4ever]

Mulab has a lack of presets / patches for each of its instruments (Usually one only).
Please allow the mulab community to send mutools their presets / patches and integrate them all into future releases of mulab, for free as long as users agree.
Thereby each mulab instrument could potentially have 100's of patches / presets and mulab will not seem as limited as it currently is.
It should take mulab to the next level.
You could even run a competition for the users who submit patches / presets, giving away free user keys, upgrade keys or some other prizes like gift cards, money off vouchers idk.
I do not like the idea of paying for patches / presets, since we just need more patches / presets out ofthe box after installing mulab.
I want this as the number one feature request.

[hope4ever]

You could then have each unique instrument (layout) name selectable in mulab and then the patches / presets would be moved into each unique instrument panel by clicking at the top within the instrument and a drop down box shows the available patches / presets to select from. Much like other vst instruents do it.

[hope4ever]

Please add to feature request.

[humanboeing]

Mulab has a lack of presets / patches for each of its instruments (Usually one only).
Please allow the mulab community to send mutools their presets / patches and integrate them all into future releases of mulab, for free as long as users agree.

You could share your presets in the mulib thread, if you share a lot and they are very good they will eventually end up in the mulib itself and from there they have a chance to be shipped with mulab package I think.

There are many great presets there, take a look if you haven't already.

Speaking of the devices containing presets, I agree it's a good idea. The way I see it is once you are done with your modular area editing and front panel building you can save the mux preset as a mux device (just like muecho, musynth etc.) and these would have an additional preset browser.

[sl23]

You could then have each unique instrument (layout) name selectable in mulab and then the patches / presets would be moved into each unique instrument panel by clicking at the top within the instrument and a drop down box shows the available patches / presets to select from. Much like other vst instruents do it.

This is something I've wanted also for a long time. I think it was discussed several years ago, but with the amount of patches for the handful of vst's I have, I never pursued it.

But tbh, I do agree 100% with hope4ever's comments. A library of presets grouped per instrument would make a huge difference to those new to MuLab or those wanting to get away from VSTi's.

The MuLib is great but far from the best way for sharing patches as they get outdated. A library included with MuLab would be maintained.

[pljones]

A library included with MuLab would be maintained.

Thus taking up development time and being a good reason for keeping the library that's included as neat as possible: excellent examples of what MuLab can do.

The way I see it is once you are done with your modular area editing and front panel building you can save the mux preset as a mux device (just like muecho, musynth etc.) and these would have an additional preset browser.

That would be nice - at the moment, the lack of being able to do this, other than saving the entire device with the new patch, does make it cumbersome. Some way to say "this is the main patch and default parameters" and "here's some more parameters that can be used with that patch" and having MuLab show that relationship would be good.

[humanboeing]

It would also decrease clutter in the library, instead of having 10 presets for MuVerb with different names you'd have a single device and all of the saved parameters inside of it.

[sl23]

Thus taking up development time and being a good reason for keeping the library that's included as neat as possible: excellent examples of what MuLab can do.

Not at all. What's required to maintain any patch? Simply use the next major version to update it so it becomes compatible with that version as we all do currently with all patches, and, no doubt, Jo does anyway.

So, realistically, it's hardly adding anything to dev time.

Yet for users to manage presets of unknown origin, meaning which version they are from, is a pain in the ass! Not only do you have to figure out the version, you then have to download and setup older versions of MuLab to 'convert' them to the next major version. There are a lot of presets made from M5, M6 and M7, making that a problem for users.

Whereas if Jo kept a library for MuLab, it becomes a button click on every major update. Yes, I understand there may be instances where features change and cause a patch to 'break', but how often is that likely? Even then, it will be users who point out the issue and may sometimes even be able to find solutions.

So, I think the small dev time required is worth it. Plus it helps newbies or wouldbe's get stuck in quickly with minimal setup, able to see what they can achieve with a this great DAW.

Just my opinion

[pljones]

"Not at all" is not equal to "hardly adding anything". It's taking up development time. That's a limited quantity.

[sl23]

That's just splitting hairs now, picking at words. I really don't need to spell out what I meant, especially to you now, do I?

If you read the rest of the message I wrote you'll see what I mean. Sorry, I posted before I'd finished writing.

[robert_p]

I downloaded the entire community library and batch-converted it with Mux8/MuLab9.

Community Library.JPG

There is some good stuff out there:))

[Michael L]

It would also decrease clutter in the library, instead of having 10 presets for MuVerb with different names you'd have a single device and all of the saved parameters inside of it.

If I save my own preset in a Factory instrument, its added to the User library with its folder.

For that reason, I organised my User Library so the top level folders have the same names as MuLab's browser, with more specific names under them (some User Mux are unique).

I can open a preset and use the arrows < > next to the Preset File Name to skip through all presets in that folder, or click on the name to go to an entirely different folder.

When MuLib was created people voted to have their own folders. For M9+ it might be better to update them all, re-organise using standard names (eg. not High Shelf & Hipass), and add either a 3-letter 'creator' code (as some synth banks do) or the creator's name on the front panel (as some Mux creators do) which gives a nice vibe.

[sl23]

Does anyone here know of the Rainmeter app? The metadata section of a skin contains all info needed about it.

This would be extremely useful for MuLab patches.

Author, Version, Description and Date would be the main things of use. Even if just placed as a comment in the text file, if that's possible with the mux format, haven't checked yet. This data could then be read by MuLab and shown in the browser area.

I wonder, Robert_p, how much of your time did it take to convert all those patches? Couple minutes or so? Not including downloading and organisation into MuLab's folder. Because this would be the only action required by a default library in order to update it.

The main reason I don't bother with the MuLib at all is that although it is organised into patches by author, it would be far far better to be organised into patches by type of fx (chorus, delay, etc) and sound (bass, string, etc).

Anyway, just some thoughts to share