The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 All  This Thread  Reviews  Gear Database  Synths for sale     Latest  Trending
Waldorf Quantum
Old 4 weeks ago
  #10141
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by prophei View Post
They aren't "silver rotary encoders", they are encoders with silver knobs on them, and the similarity in knob doesn't mean the encoders are the same.
Okay, hopefully nothing to worry about, then.

I am always nervous about rotary encoders; if they have clicks to them, eventually those are going to wear down.

I hope the ones used here have millions of turns in them.

Last edited by realtrance; 4 weeks ago at 01:03 AM..
Old 4 weeks ago
  #10142
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by realtrance View Post
Okay, hopefully nothing to worry about, then.

I am always nervous about rotary encoders; if they have clicks to them, eventually those are going to wear down.

I hope the ones used here have millions of turns in them.
I know that when sitting on these boards, all we see are failures. It makes things feel scary. That said, I have no doubt that waldorf is building these things with solid parts. Encoders are generally built to last a very long time. I wouldn't sweat it too much.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #10143
Lives for gear
 
Coorec's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by realtrance View Post
Okay, hopefully nothing to worry about, then.

I am always nervous about rotary encoders; if they have clicks to them, eventually those are going to wear down.

I hope the ones used here have millions of turns in them.
I recently bought new ones for my S-760 and XP-50. These pieces are 25 years old and the parts are still available. Rotary encoders arent going to change in how they fit to a PCB and how they work.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #10144
Pip
Lives for gear
 
Pip's Avatar
We could take the teenage engineering model and ultimately replace them with Lego parts
Old 4 weeks ago
  #10145
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Coorec View Post
I recently bought new ones for my S-760 and XP-50. These pieces are 25 years old and the parts are still available. Rotary encoders arent going to change in how they fit to a PCB and how they work.
At least my temporary worries led me to read up on encoder mechanical/optical design. Quite an engineering field, actually!
Old 4 weeks ago
  #10146
Lives for gear
 
intuitionnyc's Avatar
Those that have loaded 2.0 Beta, how are you liking it?
Old 4 weeks ago
  #10147
Lives for gear
 
drockfresh's Avatar
It’s my birthday this week - how can I not buy a Quantum...?
Old 4 weeks ago
  #10148
Gear Nut
 
S h a w's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by drockfresh View Post
It’s my birthday this week - how can I not buy a Quantum...?
Shame on you for not having ordered one already!
Old 4 weeks ago
  #10149
Gear Head
Quote:
Originally Posted by intuitionnyc View Post
Those that have loaded 2.0 Beta, how are you liking it?
I loved the quantum before, but the new kernels oscillator engine is brilliant. There's so much new ground to be explored with this.

It's like an entirely new synth within a synth - and using macros to integrate with the existing modulation framework is a stroke of genius imo.

The other changes are very welcome too - the sample editing is something that makes it even more self-contained than it was before on that side.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #10150
Gear Nut
 
SandyS1's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by intuitionnyc View Post
Those that have loaded 2.0 Beta, how are you liking it?
Love it. I did a crazily accurate B3 patch with the additive mode. With some tweaking, I could probably get it more responsive, but as it is, it sounds like it comes from a different instrument or a sample.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #10151
Lives for gear
 

The Quantum really is my ultimate synth; the kernels addition is FM and so much more, I feel like I'll be taking as much time to explore it as it takes to familiarize with the entire rest of the instrument.

I've basically been wanting synths that include a wide variety of forms of synthesis that can be mixed in one instrument. V-Synth, Microfreak, Pigments, Reaktor. And Quantum, now.

For me, that's really the future of synthesis.

An instrument like that takes quite a bit of thought for interface; Quantum's keeps improving with every release.

Beta 2.0 is a big change for the OS, yet amazingly stable for all that.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #10152
Lives for gear
 
Westlaker's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by realtrance View Post
I've basically been wanting synths that include a wide variety of forms of synthesis that can be mixed in one instrument. V-Synth, Microfreak, Pigments, Reaktor. And Quantum, now.
I suppose it depends on definitions, but I'd add the Kronos to that list.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #10153
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Westlaker View Post
I suppose it depends on definitions, but I'd add the Kronos to that list.
The Quantum has been let down by the quality of its presets.

Which sadly is what most people judge it by.


Do your own thing with it and it sounds great, just ignore the ****e that is being made to"demo" it
Old 4 weeks ago
  #10154
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Westlaker View Post
I suppose it depends on definitions, but I'd add the Kronos to that list.
Yep I've often considered the Kronos, but it just doesn't appeal to me for some reason.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #10155
Lives for gear
 
Westlaker's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by realtrance View Post
Yep I've often considered the Kronos, but it just doesn't appeal to me for some reason.
Fair enough -- sometimes these things speak to us, sometimes they don't, and often it can't be explained...

As for the Quantum: yeah, wow. What a beast it's turning into.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #10156
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Westlaker View Post
Fair enough -- sometimes these things speak to us, sometimes they don't, and often it can't be explained...

As for the Quantum: yeah, wow. What a beast it's turning into.
In my case it was silly things: don't like the size of Korg mini knobs, touch screen a bit of latency, fan noise on the original, plus one thing has stuck out in my mind for forever since reading it in a Keyboard mag issue long ago: Triton review mentioned its particle board bottom. (!) I know, not on the Kronos, but still, everyone has a corner-cutting-too-far thing, that was mine.

It's still a monster of a synth Korg should be proud of. Certainly, like the Montage, a player's synth.

I just fit into a rare category of being on the boundary between sound design and playing. The Korg/Montage/Jupiter-80 all feel too "locked down" for me, in ways that lend themselves well to performance and composition for commercial purposes.

The Quantum by contrast is a huge playground. I start off each session with it planning just to play, but then since I always start up with Init, I'm tempted to start making a patch -- and it's so easy! So I find myself exploring that way, and I'm rapidly building my own from-scratch bank of sounds.

The presets and included content I can see would be a mixed bag for some; but over time you'll find all sorts of cool ideas that help you learn what does what. Howard Scarr's sound design is quite instructive; Peter Jung's sample content and sample-based patches really open up ideas on the sampling side; Reinhold Heil's are the most extensive in use of available features. BT at least uses the mod wheel.

All in all, well done, Waldorf!
Old 4 weeks ago
  #10157
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by intuitionnyc View Post
Those that have loaded 2.0 Beta, how are you liking it?
It is absolutely incredible. It is such a huge upgrade. You could build an entirely new synth around just the upgrades.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #10158
Lives for gear
 
intuitionnyc's Avatar
Curious if they addressed the Wavetable location indicator in 2.0.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #10159
Pip
Lives for gear
 
Pip's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by intuitionnyc View Post
Curious if they addressed the Wavetable location indicator in 2.0.
+1 I asked a while back?
Old 4 weeks ago
  #10160
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pip View Post
+1 I asked a while back?
I forget what this is referring to. If you can clarify, I can answer get the answer to the question... unless, of course, someone else here from the beta knows off hand.

If not, I'm happy to check.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #10161
Lives for gear
 
Coorec's Avatar
It was mentioned that Quantum would be able to import NAVE patches.

Does anyone know if and how that works?
Old 4 weeks ago
  #10162
Pip
Lives for gear
 
Pip's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by prophei View Post
I forget what this is referring to. If you can clarify, I can answer get the answer to the question... unless, of course, someone else here from the beta knows off hand.

If not, I'm happy to check.
As the wavetable is scanned do you see the red line reflecting what is happening ala iPad - thanks.

I think you could not nmae wavetables? Not sure if I'm right is that fixed?
Old 4 weeks ago
  #10163
Gear Head
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pip View Post
As the wavetable is scanned do you see the red line reflecting what is happening ala iPad - thanks.
While I'd like to see this and more visual feedback, it might be tough to do. You can have so many modulation sources affecting wavetable position and it can be a different position for each of the eight voices.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #10164
you do get visual feedback in granular mode though, so hopefully its possible for the wavetables too
Old 4 weeks ago
  #10165
Lives for gear
 

So here's a possibly useful question, relevant to the Quantum along with other things these days:

What are the parameters that are legal and fair in sampling other instruments, or using samples, or wavetables from other instruments?

I assume everyone knows that simply copy/paste of commercially released samples, whether from a sample set, a synth, or a softsynth, is illegal use. Same with wavetables (I saw someone said they copied Massive X wavetables to the Quantum; not legal, right?).

If you simply output an untouched sound of an oscillator, or a patch from another synth, you are not adding to nor changing the original "work" that has gone into making that sound; so is that not right, either?

I can see where an argument can be made that if you sufficiently change the sound of a patch on another synth, the results are now "yours" in part, and then those results, when sampled, would be considered "original work." But where's the cutoff point where you're not just copying other people's work and introducing a sufficient amount of your own for it to be original?

Then, finally, as another example: say you have Pianoteq, a modeled piano, no samples. A number of piano manufacturers have given license to Pianoteque to include (and sell) models of their pianos within Pianoteque. So, we can consider those models of the properties of the piano owned by the manufacturers originally, and Pianoteq subsequently or simultaneously, depending on their arrangements. Correct? So if you use Pianoteq's Grotrian, for instance, and sample it into the Quantum, are you stealing intellectual property by doing so? I would say yes.

I know this stuff has become really fast and loose in the music industry, but I think it would be useful to refresh thinking about appropriate and fair use; the whole point of copyright originally is not greed, but to reward the original maker of an original work the benefits of the labor they have put into making that work. To violate copyright is to feed on that person's effort, and profit from it yourself without having done the labor, so it is intrinsically parasitic, aside from the legal parameters. Aside from that moral fact, everyone else profiting from the "sale" of an original work is, basically, diluting the value of that work, often to the point where it can make the value of doing that work to the original creator zero. It can steal markets from the creator, basically.

This has all been true of copyright ever since it originally existed, all the way back to the 19th century. The question of original or facsimile in art goes back even further, and is another interesting story in and of itself.

What are your thoughts on the parameters, be they legal, moral or just plain practical?
Old 4 weeks ago
  #10166
Gear Head
I expect it boils down in large part to what you are paying for: a bare instrument vs an instrument that comes with a body of work (eg samples).

If what you buy contains a body of work then I'd expect it to come with an explicit license detailing what you can and can't do with that part of the purchase. Seems pretty common for a license to grant use of the content in music, but not to resell as a sample pack eg Omnisphere:

Quote:
The main limitation is that you are not allowed to use them to make a sample library or another kind of sample-based product. You are also restricted from giving away or posting online any loops or samples created using Spectrasonics Virtual Instruments. However, you are able to use them in all your musical recording applications without paying for any additional licenses.
and Native Instruments Massive X would come under this:

Quote:
The provided samples, instruments and presets can be used for commercial or non-commercial music and audio productions without the prior permission from Native Instruments under the terms of this Sound License Agreement. The usage of this Product (in particular samples, instruments and presets) for the creation of a sound library or as a sound library for any kind of synthesizer, virtual instrument, sample library, sample-based product or other musical instrument is strictly prohibited.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #10167
Lives for gear
 

I'm no lawyer but I have studied the subject a bit, in ways I probably would not have felt the need to if I didnt have a Quantum.

There are several large gaps between what is likely to be illegal technically, and what many people get away with many times, over sustained periods. So there is going to be a fair degree of variation between people, in terms of what sorts of risks they want to take, what they feel entitled to do, their understanding of the laws.

I suppose one way I might try to put it is by listing various things that reduce risk of not complying with the law or licence agreements. This is just a first stab at such a thing, listed in order of how big a difference to risk it makes, with biggest differences at the top:

Do not distribute the samples to anyone else for profit/commercially.
Do not distribute the samples to anyone else at all, even for free on the internet.
Do not use material from others that you think falls foul of the above (eg someone who naively shares omnisphere wavetables, which I believe has happened and not that long ago either)
Do not sample soft instruments, unless you understand the licence for that software and are confident it allows for this.
Do not sample instruments that are themselves based on samples.
Do not sample presets from instruments.
Do not sample raw oscillator sounds from hardware synths.

People break and get away with some of the above all the time. Especially if they arent going to be distributing the results in sample/wavetable/preset pack form themselves, which really alters the degree of risk. I also find my own personal moral position varies significantly depending on whether distribution and profit are involved.

Personally I like a simple life and so am sticking to most of the above list. There are exceptions, eg during the process of learning about wavetables, I feel absolutely zero guilt if I experiment on the Quantum with wavetables that came from other products which I have purchased. But I would not share them with others, and most likely I will not actually use them in this way for long, just to learn.

Also my decisions are influenced by wanting to keep my options open - I have no plans to distribute stuff for the Quantum at the moment but if I do one day, I dont want to have to worry about which of my material is 'clean' from a copyright point of view later, it will be much easier if I make it all safe from the start. And Ive got various hardware synths that I intend to sample. And I'm still hoping to get much better at making my own wavetables.

Of the items I listed, the one I am least likely to stick to myself is 'Do not sample raw oscillator sounds from hardware synths'. I dont know what my attitude to that one would be if I were in the sample or wavetable selling game, but I'm not. So I certainly feel it is my right to do that with analog hardware instruments I own, since nothing I intend to do with the results is going to make any difference to the sales of that hardware synth or feels like the manufacturer is being cheated in some way.

There are such large gaps between some of whats been established in legal theory and what many people have gotten away with over the years, that some of what I've said almost sounds absurd when viewed from some angles. But there we have it. People making music probably have far more to worry about from other sorts of samples! But people distributing things that are samples/wavetables should either take a little care over whether their stuff is a derivative work or a direct ripoff, or take the alternative approach of just taking the risk and banking on nobody ever caring. But software/sample companies will almost certainly care if they notice you are redistributing chunks of their work, especially in original form. Hardware much less clear, devil in detail, and certain companies may be more likely to have a go at you from a trademark point of view than copyright. Others are likely far more relaxed. eg I probably would not mess with Roland.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #10168
Lives for gear
 

All sensible statements so far! Thank you. I know I have no worries, as I don't distribute or redistribute anything. If I make patches for the Quantum and share them, they're from scratch and use the resources in the synth already.

Sample clearance is a big field, one hip hop and rap artists have to make themselves very familiar with, if they go commercial.

For me, the special cases would be what samples I'd be comfortable making to be used in a shared patch, and I'd find the guidelines described in the above posts sufficiently instructive.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #10169
Lives for gear
 
Lady Gaia's Avatar
Many good points covered by others. The reality is, as has been suggested, rather murky. Anyone can sue anyone else for any reason at all, whether or not there's any legal foundation for the claim. It's only in a court of law that the merits of the case are weighed and a decision comes down, so it's generally best to steer clear enough that you don't believe anyone would feel their case against you had the least bit of merit.

I did want to address one specific question you raised that I don't think has been well covered:

Quote:
Originally Posted by realtrance View Post
Then, finally, as another example: say you have Pianoteq, a modeled piano, no samples. A number of piano manufacturers have given license to Pianoteque to include (and sell) models of their pianos within Pianoteque. So, we can consider those models of the properties of the piano owned by the manufacturers originally, and Pianoteq subsequently or simultaneously, depending on their arrangements. Correct? So if you use Pianoteq's Grotrian, for instance, and sample it into the Quantum, are you stealing intellectual property by doing so? I would say yes.
It's ... complicated. The reason Pianoteque is under license likely has more to do with use of the trade names in question than anything else. You can't simply go out and promote something as a Grotrian, Steinway, Bösendorfer, etc. in order to sell your product. Those names have economic value and are owned by corporations, so they have a say in the use of the name. You could record a piece of music and note, factually, that it was recorded on a Steinway with little risk. On the other hand, you couldn't name your piece "the Steinway Song" without drawing unwanted attention.

Whether you can sample the result of something algorithmic like Pianoteq's output is another question. The license terms tell you what their opinion is on the subject, and are likely a good guide to what will and will not draw legal action. Whether they have the right to assert that you are bound to those terms is a much more complicated question that you'd only get an answer to in a court of law (and possibly a different answer in another court on appeal, etc.) In general it's much, much easier and cheaper to simply abide by the terms laid out than to challenge them.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #10170
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Gaia View Post
Many good points covered by others. The reality is, as has been suggested, rather murky. Anyone can sue anyone else for any reason at all, whether or not there's any legal foundation for the claim. It's only in a court of law that the merits of the case are weighed and a decision comes down, so it's generally best to steer clear enough that you don't believe anyone would feel their case against you had the least bit of merit.

I did want to address one specific question you raised that I don't think has been well covered:



It's ... complicated. The reason Pianoteque is under license likely has more to do with use of the trade names in question than anything else. You can't simply go out and promote something as a Grotrian, Steinway, Bösendorfer, etc. in order to sell your product. Those names have economic value and are owned by corporations, so they have a say in the use of the name. You could record a piece of music and note, factually, that it was recorded on a Steinway with little risk. On the other hand, you couldn't name your piece "the Steinway Song" without drawing unwanted attention.

Whether you can sample the result of something algorithmic like Pianoteq's output is another question. The license terms tell you what their opinion is on the subject, and are likely a good guide to what will and will not draw legal action. Whether they have the right to assert that you are bound to those terms is a much more complicated question that you'd only get an answer to in a court of law (and possibly a different answer in another court on appeal, etc.) In general it's much, much easier and cheaper to simply abide by the terms laid out than to challenge them.
I think that’s an excellent summary of what I consider one of the subtler scenarios, thank you.

It’s all just a good reminder to check, and use your own common sense, in the process; as with many things, the vast majority tend to do the right thing. It’s only a few who out of naïveté, enthusiasm or less palatable motives violate the spirit of copyright.
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump