Here is a thing, which I have thought for some time, that we need to talk openly about. I think we need to get the different views presented and discuss their pros and cons. Maybe an overall agreement will emerge, maybe not. But a debate is in my opinion needed. I hope we can keep it at an ethical level and not only (but maybe also?) just think of our craving and desire to have everything and pay nothing.
The thing I would like to discuss in this thread is releasing similar devices. What is ok to do (if anything)? And what is not ok to do (if anything)? Does it make a difference, who released the original device - if the person was a DP or an SDK owner? Maybe other questions will come up.
Dev. ethics discussion - re. cloning devices
I will give my own thoughts and questions and opinions here:
One thing, that concerns me is, that DP devs payed huge sums for their software. And they payed for being able to sell. SDK devs didn't. Does that mean, that we somehow should make an agreement to "protect" DP devices from cloning? And does it make a difference, if more or less similar devices have already been released by SDK devs?
Let me put up an example. Alfonso, who got SDK at a very early (pre, I believe) state released some nice little MIDI tools. These where free SDK devices. Some time later, DaDev released a bigger MIDI tool incorporating some of the functions, which Alfonso had already presented. The DaDev device is a payed device.
Personally I do not mind, that DaDev releases a device with already existing functions from an SDK device. The SDK device is still awailable for everbody to use for free, so noone lost anything. But would it be ok, if it was i.e. SpaceF and not Alfonso, who released the original device and it was a payed device too? Would this be considered (")stealing(")? I don't know. After all the new device includes more functions and frees the user from loading more small devices. In the past there has been an absence of such scenarios happening between DP devs.
But another question concerns me too. Now, that DaDev had released the bigger MIDI device. Does this mean that it would be (")bad("), if I developed a device with one or more functions similar to the ones from the DaDev device? Would this be considered destroying DP devs' chance to earn money on their expensive software? Shure, nothing but incompetence would stop me from developing it for myself, if I found the need strong enough. But if I did develop such a device, should I release it?
When is a device diferent (enough)? Recently, there has been released 2 big peak-meters. I have no problem in that, as they (as the first releaser (Shayne White) pointed out), have diferent strengths and weaknesses and therefor supplement eachother nicely.
Please add your thoughts to the discussion. I think we need it.
Immanuel
One thing, that concerns me is, that DP devs payed huge sums for their software. And they payed for being able to sell. SDK devs didn't. Does that mean, that we somehow should make an agreement to "protect" DP devices from cloning? And does it make a difference, if more or less similar devices have already been released by SDK devs?
Let me put up an example. Alfonso, who got SDK at a very early (pre, I believe) state released some nice little MIDI tools. These where free SDK devices. Some time later, DaDev released a bigger MIDI tool incorporating some of the functions, which Alfonso had already presented. The DaDev device is a payed device.
Personally I do not mind, that DaDev releases a device with already existing functions from an SDK device. The SDK device is still awailable for everbody to use for free, so noone lost anything. But would it be ok, if it was i.e. SpaceF and not Alfonso, who released the original device and it was a payed device too? Would this be considered (")stealing(")? I don't know. After all the new device includes more functions and frees the user from loading more small devices. In the past there has been an absence of such scenarios happening between DP devs.
But another question concerns me too. Now, that DaDev had released the bigger MIDI device. Does this mean that it would be (")bad("), if I developed a device with one or more functions similar to the ones from the DaDev device? Would this be considered destroying DP devs' chance to earn money on their expensive software? Shure, nothing but incompetence would stop me from developing it for myself, if I found the need strong enough. But if I did develop such a device, should I release it?
When is a device diferent (enough)? Recently, there has been released 2 big peak-meters. I have no problem in that, as they (as the first releaser (Shayne White) pointed out), have diferent strengths and weaknesses and therefor supplement eachother nicely.
Please add your thoughts to the discussion. I think we need it.
Immanuel
-
Shayne White
- Posts: 1454
- Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2001 4:00 pm
- Location: California
- Contact:
I've already been trying not to step on anybody's toes. I knew that nobody had made a 16-channel mixer with universal stereo bus sends, and I also knew that no one had made a 3-oscillator UKnow-based synth with freeform sync routing. Stephen Hummel had made something similar, but it wasn't exactly the same (I don't think it had any sync options). So I knew I wasn't making anything anybody else had made.
I agree that we free SDK people shouldn't make things that are exactly like the paid DP devices. I don't really have any other ideas for devices, so you probably won't see anything more from me.
Unless somebody comes up with a brilliant idea....
Shayne
_________________
Melodious Synth Radio
http://www.melodious-synth.com
Indieanna: Integrated Solutions for the Independent Musician
http://www.indieanna.com
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Shayne White on 2005-01-07 01:41 ]</font>
I agree that we free SDK people shouldn't make things that are exactly like the paid DP devices. I don't really have any other ideas for devices, so you probably won't see anything more from me.
Unless somebody comes up with a brilliant idea....Shayne
_________________
Melodious Synth Radio
http://www.melodious-synth.com
Indieanna: Integrated Solutions for the Independent Musician
http://www.indieanna.com
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Shayne White on 2005-01-07 01:41 ]</font>
well, as currently noone seems to have significant revenues from DP developements alone, it's easy to discuss.
But as Shayne already put it 'unless someone comes up with a really brilliant idea...' any ethics will be of few relevance once it gets to sales figures.
Someone will just do it. It's (to be accepted as) part of the evolution.
And I hope no free SDKler has his or her eyes that wide shut to assume CWA will just ignore the latest, most brilliant studio tool or even try to spread it as freebies...
You might be into serious business much faster than expected - didn't you want that ?
The 'contract' may read somewhat different, but finally it's the quality of (audio processing) tools that makes CWA survive.
The methods of the 'spanish inquisition' certainly aren't the most appropriate to deal with talented and smart persons...
I'd like to extend Immanuel's viewpoint somewhat in this direction.
Of course it takes time to get familiar with SDK (as with any tool), so currently the 'hobbyist' rules with 'easy ethics' may apply.
But (hopefully) very soon there's more to come - so better be prepared.
Some may renmember the EarlyFirst reverbs. One thatI have is called '2016' and it's a really good reverb imho.
Recently there was a native release of a 'Princeton 2016' emulation, which made me aware that my reverb might be modelled somewhat according to that hardware.
The native plugin got great reviews so I tried the demo. And guess what ? the native version wins.
Not because it had the better reverb tail or sound processing - it just was magnitudes easier to operate with a good audio result.
Assuming the fact (hypothetically) both programs were modelled after the same algorithms, there was a huge difference in market potential. One had scientific precision (controls), the other applied to the engineer under time pressure.
So it's not only about knowing how to process, but even more about useability.
To prevent the points Immanuel is concerned about, be sure what you release and in which form (for those interested in exploiting the results of their work). Always have a plan 'B' ready if you (want to) expect a significant resonance from the audience
cheers, Tom
But as Shayne already put it 'unless someone comes up with a really brilliant idea...' any ethics will be of few relevance once it gets to sales figures.
Someone will just do it. It's (to be accepted as) part of the evolution.
And I hope no free SDKler has his or her eyes that wide shut to assume CWA will just ignore the latest, most brilliant studio tool or even try to spread it as freebies...
You might be into serious business much faster than expected - didn't you want that ?
The 'contract' may read somewhat different, but finally it's the quality of (audio processing) tools that makes CWA survive.
The methods of the 'spanish inquisition' certainly aren't the most appropriate to deal with talented and smart persons...
I'd like to extend Immanuel's viewpoint somewhat in this direction.
Of course it takes time to get familiar with SDK (as with any tool), so currently the 'hobbyist' rules with 'easy ethics' may apply.
But (hopefully) very soon there's more to come - so better be prepared.
Some may renmember the EarlyFirst reverbs. One thatI have is called '2016' and it's a really good reverb imho.
Recently there was a native release of a 'Princeton 2016' emulation, which made me aware that my reverb might be modelled somewhat according to that hardware.
The native plugin got great reviews so I tried the demo. And guess what ? the native version wins.
Not because it had the better reverb tail or sound processing - it just was magnitudes easier to operate with a good audio result.
Assuming the fact (hypothetically) both programs were modelled after the same algorithms, there was a huge difference in market potential. One had scientific precision (controls), the other applied to the engineer under time pressure.
So it's not only about knowing how to process, but even more about useability.
To prevent the points Immanuel is concerned about, be sure what you release and in which form (for those interested in exploiting the results of their work). Always have a plan 'B' ready if you (want to) expect a significant resonance from the audience
cheers, Tom
If someone can improve a device, let them release it, why not? Great devices have their tricks built-in behind the GUI, only the original DP'er has the unprotected version and knows what it takes to make the device stand out.
What's more interesting are these tricks: how does one make a module for modular? How do you implement unison?
How do you make a sequencer? A filter, oscillator, a compressor? Then, once you find out about these basics, how do you make them better or different? There's loads of filter and oscillator types, which do you put to use where? If you know all that and you can implement it properly into a device, would you really make something that has already been released or put your effort in new stuff?
I'm not expecting any SDK user to release devices a la Minimax, Flexor, STW Compressor or WL's SparC soon. And even if one would know how to, wouldn't one make his own version that looks different and just uses similar tricks under the hood? I'm looking forward to see good tricks being discovered by SDK users.
My 2 cents...
What's more interesting are these tricks: how does one make a module for modular? How do you implement unison?
How do you make a sequencer? A filter, oscillator, a compressor? Then, once you find out about these basics, how do you make them better or different? There's loads of filter and oscillator types, which do you put to use where? If you know all that and you can implement it properly into a device, would you really make something that has already been released or put your effort in new stuff?
I'm not expecting any SDK user to release devices a la Minimax, Flexor, STW Compressor or WL's SparC soon.
And even if one would know how to, wouldn't one make his own version that looks different and just uses similar tricks under the hood? I'm looking forward to see good tricks being discovered by SDK users.My 2 cents...
more has been done with less
https://soundcloud.com/at0m-studio
https://soundcloud.com/at0m-studio
-
cannonball
- Posts: 344
- Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2001 4:00 pm
- Location: italia
Well i think ones intention is not rebuilding a device that already exists.
I think logics sometimes takes a simmilar path to developing a device. And may turn out to be simmilar in some functions with another device that exist (DP or SDK).
I'm using SDK and discover more and more each day. But i encounter more problems and limitations as well.
For new innovating devices , you wont use SDK, but use DP i guess.
greetz
Casper
I think logics sometimes takes a simmilar path to developing a device. And may turn out to be simmilar in some functions with another device that exist (DP or SDK).
I'm using SDK and discover more and more each day. But i encounter more problems and limitations as well.
For new innovating devices , you wont use SDK, but use DP i guess.
greetz
Casper
-
Shayne White
- Posts: 1454
- Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2001 4:00 pm
- Location: California
- Contact:
For what I've heard no, It's only a different (older)type of agreement and the program that we got with sdk has only some minor interface differences.On 2005-01-08 23:15, Shayne White wrote:
Does DP include more stuff than the free SDK?
As ReD MuZe said many times, almost all of the flexor stuff (osc.,filters, shapers, etc.) is made with available math modules....and some deep theorical knowledge, experience and nights spent on it, i'd add.
Hi All,
I haven't seen the SDK manual, but it's HIGHLY unlikely there's any better documentation in DP - if anything, the new SDK users have a more recent and up-to-date manual (or at least, the exact same), especially regarding algorithms and DSP module description. For most of us using DP, it's typically been trial-and-error to discover how the modules work!
I <em>have</em> been able to ascertain that the SDK seems to have a number of modules and new funtion windows which I don't have in DP.
peace,
I haven't seen the SDK manual, but it's HIGHLY unlikely there's any better documentation in DP - if anything, the new SDK users have a more recent and up-to-date manual (or at least, the exact same), especially regarding algorithms and DSP module description. For most of us using DP, it's typically been trial-and-error to discover how the modules work!
I <em>have</em> been able to ascertain that the SDK seems to have a number of modules and new funtion windows which I don't have in DP.
peace,
john bowen
bowen synth design
zarg music
bowen synth design
zarg music
-
roy thinnes
- Posts: 651
- Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 4:00 pm
- Location: Graz
- Contact:
...coming back to immanuel's question about "similiar" devices.I've just studied Clavias Nord Modular manual and was getting a little bit jealous sometimes - not because of quantity (NM has less Modules by far) and also not out of quality aspects (don't own one[yet]) but because Clavias developpers had done some things more clever and flexible (IMHO).Some things can only achieved with tedious workarounds in our beloved ModII/III.(easy example: the NM OSCs have pitchMod and (partly) AmpMod integrated).The CWScope Modular Synth is a mighty sound creation tool with lots and lots of modules the NM doesn't have - and will never have; and that's the point: with the free SDK some guys would have the chance to improve it even further.Which is already happening. And if rcaia creates a module based on the waldo and pulse OSCs, ok, you can say that is more or less a copy but it makes fun and is useful to work with.
Just my 2 Pfennigs.
Just my 2 Pfennigs.