The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
The Modular Thread 2017 Modular Synthesizers
Old 19th January 2017
  #691
Lives for gear
 
depulse's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derp View Post
I think it was tactical: All four of them fill up 84hp. You get that one oddball of theirs, and the first thought is to get a second to at least get an even number, but now that rack looks lopsided, so why not go ahead and get the other two?

Also, I think Roland went into this thinking people would have systems that consisted of only their modules (which I have seen done, so it's not so far-fetched an idea.) It's kinda 'convenient' that all of the modules that they make come up to an even 3x84hp, don't you think?
It just that the System-500 and the Aira modular don't mix well in a case.

I've already got two Airas, the Demora and the Torcido. The rest seem impossible to get anymore, at least the Scooper is sold out everywhere. The Bitrazer seems a bit boring.
Old 19th January 2017
  #692
Lives for gear
 
ngarjuna's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by cane creek View Post
I don't know how privy you are to the DIY scene, but I buy PCBs & Panels regular from the groups I'm involved in and see the lists, the figures amaze me...
[secretz]
...I'll leave this post the thread for a few hours then ill delete it as I don't want to upset the underground DIY scene, so please don't quote it.
Not sure what from the section I didn't quote is much of a secret but ok, let me know if I quoted too much...

Not very familiar but...I still don't see the issue at all. Everything you've described is within Olivier's power to either allow or not allow. He made the explicit choice to do it that way not you, not me, not Magpie. So why is it wrong for someone to make money from a project? If the person who created the project set it up in such a way to allow for people to do just that?

Also to be fair...it seems like in the example you quoted you have to just take their word(s) for it that they are not profiting. I mean even if they posted receipts (I've popped in on enough of those threads to know that doesn't usually happen) I could crank out a receipt in Photoshop (in about 5 seconds) which says absolutely anything I want it to. There's no more guarantee in that kind of group buy that you aren't paying part of some dude's car payment than from Magpie; but unlike Magpie/MI a lot of those guys don't have permission to use the IP they're selling around.

I'm just confused about what's offensive about this scenario, I don't get it.
Old 19th January 2017
  #693
Lives for gear
 
subdo's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by ngarjuna View Post
I know this has come up before on MW but I have to say...if this was such a huge concern then Oliver could very simply not open source his work. The fact that he does in spite of companies like Magpie existing suggests to me that he probably doesn't care nearly as much as you do. In fact I'm pretty sure I remember him saying that explicitly. Has he even asked Magpie not to? Or to pay a license? Do we know any of these details?
I remember a thread where he basically told them they have to open source panel designs or they would be violating the license. IIRC they then did put up the vector graphics files they were using. Open source means more than just "free". It may also require that any derivative work also remains open source under the same license. MI's software uses the MIT License. I can't recall if that license has that restriction. The open source hardware is a different license that's I've never look into but I would assume is similar.

As software developer by profession, I'm really happy that MI's work is open source. It means that if Oliver ever gets hit by a bus, these awesome modules will still live on. Also as the chips used in them become obsolete there will be ways to port the software to new chips. Same goes for maintenance and repairs. And IMO one of the most interesting aspects of open source are things like O&C that are essentially developed through a communal effort. The O&C thread on muffs from last year when it was being developed is almost a case study in OS development.
1
Share
Old 19th January 2017
  #694
Lives for gear
 
Derp's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by ngarjuna View Post
I know this has come up before on MW but I have to say...if this was such a huge concern then Oliver could very simply not open source his work. The fact that he does in spite of companies like Magpie existing suggests to me that he probably doesn't care nearly as much as you do. In fact I'm pretty sure I remember him saying that explicitly. Has he even asked Magpie not to? Or to pay a license? Do we know any of these details? Because they seem pretty relevant to the case you're trying to make.

This also seems to imply the common (but totally wrong) notion that time has no value in DIY. Which is simply not the case. Paying someone to construct a module is not abusive of the DIY system; for some of us it is far more cost effective than building something (trust me, MW DIY'ers charge a lot less per hour than I do). Paying a guy a lump sum to cover build time, parts and R&D (I believe Magpie does all of his own panels; and, at least with uBraids, sometimes requires a total redo in the layout [as it is a different size]). I get that there are people in the DIY community who just do stuff like this as a favor and then release it for free (I wouldn't, personally, but some do); but I wouldn't begrudge someone for trying to recoup some costs after making a sizable time donation to a DIY project for others. You can be sure the Magpie guy isn't driving around in his Ferrari laughing at you (my bet would be he has to have a day job actually and that Magpie is probably a slight money loser over the long haul).
Oliver's been on this forum before talking about it. (It's somewhere in last year's modular thread if you're really curious about it.) He stated that making it open source was intended to let people get in and play around with the OS and such i.e. what the guys at Parasites have been doing, or take his designs and add their own twists to them (like the guy that came up with the uBraids). He was even a bit condescending toward me when we figured out that the secondhand Elements I bought was actually a DIY job, and he wouldn't help with getting me an original faceplate (I f**king hate Grayscale) because it wasn't his work. It was then that he expressed his displeasure that this dude took it upon himself to start pumping out PCB's of his designs without a single alteration done to them. Oliver talked the guy into at least taking his name off of the board and changing the name so to distinguish an original from a clone (hence why the Elements in question actually says 'Elephants' on the back.)

Honestly, at the time I was bitter about it and antagonized him a bit (I really f**king hate Grayscale panels!), but now I feel bad for him. Here's all his hard work and he's all liek "Hey guise! Let's share this design and see what comes about!" Instead you get this dude on MuffWiggler selling his PCB's unaltered, a company building the same modules to undercut Mutable, another company doing the same thing with his discontinued modules, another company making money supplying panels for these DIY jobs that he's now not even getting credit for, and people that were turned off by the complexity of his modules looking at modified OS's and thinking that's the standard way of operating them, and so either buying these modules and being sorely disappointed, or just not buying them at all.

If I were him, I'd stop the open-source thing just so he can reign in the craziness a bit, but now he's kinda done the same thing himself with Ears using Mikrophonie designs, so I don't know what the hell to think anymore.
1
Share
Old 19th January 2017
  #695
Lives for gear
 
ngarjuna's Avatar
Aha, I see. Well thanks for that extra information, Derp. So more or less Olivier setup this system to make his own developments and DIY platforms and then people took that ball and ran with it...maybe a lot farther than Olivier intended? And he doesn't want to totally upend the way he does things (making it some squirrelly third party license that nobody knows about) so he just lives with the (negative) consequences?

I guess it's still Olivier's choice and I can see that maybe there's no perfect solution for him; but I think I understand the objection at least.
Old 19th January 2017
  #696
Lives for gear
 
subdo's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derp View Post
If I were him, I'd stop the open-source thing just so he can reign in the craziness a bit, but now he's kinda done the same thing himself with Ears using Mikrophonie designs, so I don't know what the hell to think anymore.
I think ears was a collab with the Mikrophonie guy. I can't remember for sure. Anyways I think it's perfectly in the spirit of OS. I would love a MI branded O&C. I'm sure it would come in much cheaper than the DIY builds and I would trust the build quality more. As far as sellers of derivative stuff, MI moves a lot of modules. They are all over modular grid and peoples modular beauty shots. I would be surprised if DIYers and people selling replacement panels are significantly cutting into his business but what do I know.
Old 19th January 2017
  #697
Gear Maniac
The Ears/Mikrophonie thing was quite a different situation –*the Music Thing man is in on this thing, I understood it's a collaboration.
Old 19th January 2017
  #698
Lives for gear
 
Derp's Avatar
You know who could sort this all out? I'll pray to him and see if I can conjure him from the void. I just need for you all to focus your energy on this post so that we can transmit it across the euroverse.

@pichenettes we pray that you reveal yourself! As has been decreed in the ancient texts (the modular thread 2016, chapter 118, verse 23), we shall now proceed to blaspheme your most honorable name! We have been misspelling your name, Oliver! The DIY'ers have been forsaking your wondrous designs with affordable clones! Elements alternate modes takes too much work to switch modes on! Braids is overrated garbage! Clouds is too complicated! Frames doesn't make any sense as a design! Why can't I access the Turing Machine on my Peaks!? Olivier, we call to you into the deep, come and defend thyself!

I shall now read to you in the native tongue of your people:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Google Translate
¿¡Donde estan mis pantalones!? ¿¡Donde estan mis pantalones!? ¡No puedo hacer nada sin mis pantalones! Debo tener unos pantalones limpios colgando en el armario, pero todo lo que puedo encontrar son los que están cubiertos de mierda! Maldita mujer, ¡te dije que volvieras a la cocina! ¡Pikachu nos salva a todos !!!
@pichenettes if you can hear our prayers, please respond! Respond to the questions that your loyal followers have posed to you! Come to us! Come to Butthead!
1
Share
Old 19th January 2017
  #699
Lives for gear
 
ImNotDedyet's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by ngarjuna View Post
Not very familiar but...I still don't see the issue at all. Everything you've described is within Olivier's power to either allow or not allow. He made the explicit choice to do it that way not you, not me, not Magpie. So why is it wrong for someone to make money from a project? If the person who created the project set it up in such a way to allow for people to do just that?

I'm just confused about what's offensive about this scenario, I don't get it.
I've been developing and designing software systems for years. Open source software has been around for years. I'm not sure how it differs from hardware open source, but I can tell you that the decision of open source software licensing is to allow for people to modify the original source code, make enhancements and in general allow for the evolving of a good idea into potentially an even better one. One thing I can't recall ever seeing in the software world is a company that makes it's money on a design, but also puts it out there as open source for others to modify. Most of the time, there are inclusions in the software license that state that it cannot be used in future for-sale items, or that any future use in for-sale items must give original credit to and list the original developers. What I've never seen however is someone taking anything open source, re-packaging it completely as their own and selling it. Of course, software's a bit different than hardware in this regard, but still...

I'm assuming that's what Olivier's original intention of making these open source was - an intent to put this out there and see if people can improve or morph this into something even more interesting, and Derp's comments seem to confirm that as well.

One can make the argument you're making and many have, and with good reason. But again, the truth of the matter is, many with experience with open source deem this, while perfectly legal, to also be pretty uncool.
2
Share
Old 19th January 2017
  #700
Lives for gear
 
Derp's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by josker View Post
The Ears/Mikrophonie thing was quite a different situation –*the Music Thing man is in on this thing, I understood it's a collaboration.
It is a collab, and an understandable one. For a while there, Mikrophonie was hard to get a hold of in the states, and we non-DIY'ers couldn't really do much about it if we did get one. Some folks took it upon themselves to buy up a few panels, build them, and sell them here at a 'premium' price (premium being relative as in yeah, there was a huge markup, but being able to buy one for $100 was better than not buying one at all.)
Old 19th January 2017
  #701
Lives for gear
 
ngarjuna's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by ImNotDedyet View Post
I've been developing and designing software systems for years. Open source software has been around for years. I'm not sure how it differs from hardware open source, but I can tell you that the decision of open source software licensing is to allow for people to modify the original source code, make enhancements and in general allow for the evolving of a good idea into potentially an even better one. One thing I can't recall ever seeing in the software world is a company that makes it's money on a design, but also puts it out there as open source for others to modify. Most of the time, there are inclusions in the software license that state that it cannot be used in future for-sale items, or that any future use in for-sale items must give original credit to and list the original developers. What I've never seen however is someone taking anything open source, re-packaging it completely as their own and selling it. Of course, software's a bit different than hardware in this regard, but still...

I'm assuming that's what Olivier's original intention of making these open source was - an intent to put this out there and see if people can improve or morph this into something even more interesting, and Derp's comments seem to confirm that as well.

One can make the argument you're making and many have, and with good reason. But again, the truth of the matter is, many with experience with open source deem this, while perfectly legal, to also be pretty uncool.
Gotcha. As my last post indicates I am not indifferent to the "uncool" part. I didn't really realize people were selling unaltered PCBs; I read that in the thread but it didn't mean anything to me at the time. But yeah I can see how that's sketchy and probably something I wouldn't want to support (which was really all Cane Creek was saying when I was pestering him about why).
Old 19th January 2017
  #702
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derp View Post
a company building the same modules to undercut Mutable, another company doing the same thing with his discontinued modules, another company making money supplying panels for these DIY jobs that he's now not even getting credit for
DEFINITELY not good.
Old 19th January 2017
  #703
Lives for gear
 
subdo's Avatar
New Intellijel revealed.



Quote:
■ Resonator section models strings, beams, marimbas, drumheads, membranes, and plates with additional synthesis methods (including non-modal) planned for the future.

■ Exciter section comprises a realistic mallet model and flexible noise source.

■ Two Voice Polyphonic at full resolution (24-bit 44.1Khz).

■ Pseudo multitimbrality via CV selectable presets recalled on each new trigger/gate.

■ Full parameter randomization possible.

■ All synthesis parameters can be assigned to the X and Y controls.

■ 128 presets that can be imported and exported via USB

■ 12 HP

■ MSRP $309

■ Release date Q2 2017
1
Share
Old 19th January 2017
  #704
Lives for gear
 
cane creek's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ngarjuna View Post
Not sure what from the section I didn't quote is much of a secret but ok, let me know if I quoted too much...

Not very familiar but...I still don't see the issue at all. Everything you've described is within Olivier's power to either allow or not allow.
Oliver has asked everybody not to use the names of his modules on Panels or PCB, he has had many instances of people asking for support for modules he didn't even make, dropping the names would solve this and Oliver has asked this.

Magpie are very aware of this but you only have to visit the magpie website to see not only are they selling PCBs with the modules name on they also have Olivers name on (exact clones)

With that many people preferring to change their panels nowadays people sell on their mutable panel that then somehow gets married to one of these clone Magpie PCBs.

Then what happens is people get in touch with Oliver for support for a module they think is mutable because it had a mutable panel & PCB when really it is a DIY and nothing to do with Oliver.

The other problem is yes the fake works fine but if you look at the SMD soldering it will be very shoddy thus giving Oliver a bad reputation when its not his product.

I don't think @Derp will mind me mentioning that he bought a Elements thinking it was Original only to find out it was fake, and faulty, and he a few heated discussions with Oliver on last years modular thread over this issue.

So when you say "i don't see the issue"

Bottom Line is Magpie are not doing the very reasonable thing Oliver has asked and that is the issue.

if you keep pi$$ing him off then it is reasonable to think eventually he may remove his creations from open source, and thats a dam shame.
4
Share
Old 19th January 2017
  #705
Lives for gear
 
ngarjuna's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by cane creek View Post
Oliver has asked everybody not to use the names of his modules on Panels or PCB, he has had many instances of people asking for support for modules he didn't even make, dropping the names would solve this and Oliver has asked this.

Magpie are very aware of this but you only have to visit the magpie website to see not only are they selling PCBs with the modules name on they also have Olivers name on (exact clones)

With that many people preferring to change their panels nowadays people sell on their mutable panel that then somehow gets married to one of these clone Magpie PCBs.

Then what happens is people get in touch with Oliver for support for a module they think is mutable because it had a mutable panel & PCB when really it is a DIY and nothing to do with Oliver.

The other problem is yes the fake works fine but if you look at the SMD soldering it will be very shoddy thus giving Oliver a bad reputation when its not his product.

I don't think @Derp will mind me mentioning that he bought a Elements thinking it was Original only to find out it was fake, and faulty, and he a few heated discussions with Oliver on last years modular thread over this issue.

So when you say "i don't see the issue"

Bottom Line is Magpie are not doing the very reasonable thing Oliver has asked and that is the issue.

if you keep pi$$ing him off then it is reasonable to think eventually he may remove his creations from open source, and thats a dam shame.
See posts 694-695. If you had just said all that to begin with there probably would have been no discussion; your whole initial issue was with "starting a company" (profiting, I guess? but I still don't see the problem with this) not ignoring explicit wishes of the creator (which I totally get and also don't like).
2
Share
Old 19th January 2017
  #706
Lives for gear
 
Derp's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by cane creek View Post
I don't think @Derp will mind me mentioning that he bought a Elements thinking it was Original only to find out it was fake, and faulty, and he a few heated discussions with Oliver on last years modular thread over this issue.
HOW DARE YOU!?!?!?!?

In all fairness, I'll admit I was overreacting and quite a bit out of line. (Also, full disclosure: I did kinda start just trolling him for the sake of me being an asshole toward the end.) I was upset, but it really shouldn't have been directed at him. I get where he's coming from with making it open source, but it's backfired and the consumers have ended up being the victims as well as Oliver himself to an extent.

I've been lucky in that my 'Elephants' works fine, but there is one loose knob and you can feel it's the pot itself coming loose from bad soldering. I kinda see that one as being on a countdown to dying out. If the soldering job was bad on one pot, I can only imagine what the SMD soldering is going to turn into in a few years. I ought to pull the same move pulled on me and sell it on as if it were original and buy a replacement.

...but seriously, I'm still looking for an original panel if anyone's got one they want to trade for my f**king Grayscale.
Old 19th January 2017
  #707
Lives for gear
 
Derp's Avatar
Snagged a new rack frame last night, but thought I'd try something different. Instead of TipTop ears and rails, I got the Synthrotek set with the sliding nuts and a set of these:



Never bought anything from LMNTL before, so this should be interesting to see how well it works out.
Old 19th January 2017
  #708
Lives for gear
 
cane creek's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ngarjuna View Post
See posts 694-695. If you had just said all that to begin with there probably would have been no discussion; your whole initial issue was with "starting a company" (profiting, I guess? but I still don't see the problem with this) not ignoring explicit wishes of the creator (which I totally get and also don't like).
Yes that's me assuming you might of knew the history on this thread.

As for O&C no issues what so ever it has always been open source and not commercially available.
Old 19th January 2017
  #709
Lives for gear
 
ngarjuna's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by cane creek View Post
Yes that's me assuming you might of knew the history on this thread.

As for O&C no issues what so ever it has always been open source and not commercially available.
Well that's fair since I did actually read and participate in the thread (apparently with less retention than I thought).

Anyone seen any of the new Intellijel modules other than the resonator?
1
Share
Old 19th January 2017
  #710
Lives for gear
 
cane creek's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by subdo View Post
New Intellijel revealed.

Brilliant, looks like an alternative to Rings/Element.
Old 19th January 2017
  #711
Lives for gear
 
subdo's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by cane creek View Post
Brilliant, looks like an alternative to Rings/Element.
Yeah everyone seems to be coming out with KPS/physical modeling stuff. AD just came out with the Proton. Guess it was only a matter of time for Intellijel
Old 19th January 2017
  #712
Lives for gear
 
WozNYC's Avatar
My friends over at Studio Electronics sent this over to me

3
Share
Old 19th January 2017
  #713
Lives for gear
 
ngarjuna's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Wozniak View Post
My friends over at Studio Electronics sent this over to me

Ooo another semi? Smart, I've heard nothing but raves about the Tonestar.
Old 19th January 2017
  #714
Lives for gear
 
void23's Avatar
Well, I seems to have hit a few nerves. As far as O&C goes, I paid roughly double what the parts would have cost me, and a hell of a lot less than what I paid for my Turing Machine to be built. Definitely a fair price to cover cost of labor. I'll stay out of the MI thing, know nothing about it at the time that I bought the O&C, but there is a letter on the Magpie site where it seems that he's trying to clear the air.

I'm just not a DiY guy, I'm a software guy. I've tried even the simplest of things and just create a mess. Back when my daughter was 9 or so, we both did a soldiering class at the Maker Faire... she was so much better at it than I. There's definitely a place for makers or builders out there to support the needs of idiots like me.
1
Share
Old 19th January 2017
  #715
Lives for gear
 
Derp's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Wozniak View Post
My friends over at Studio Electronics sent this over to me



Same layout and looks like the same knobs from what's in the picture. SE doesn't do limited editions, so it's not just going to be a Tonestar with a different color scheme. Knowing his history, I'm guessing a Tonestar with a different filter. Probably either SEM, Moog, or 303-based. With that color scheme, I'd love for it to be Juno-based, and I'd buy one in a heartbeat, but he's never tried a Juno before. I do see a knob there instead of a Freq/Resonance modulation switch, so maybe SEM and that's for the balance between low and high pass?
Old 19th January 2017
  #716
Lives for gear
 
WozNYC's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derp View Post

Same layout and looks like the same knobs from what's in the picture. SE doesn't do limited editions, so it's not just going to be a Tonestar with a different color scheme. Knowing his history, I'm guessing a Tonestar with a different filter. Probably either SEM, Moog, or 303-based. With that color scheme, I'd love for it to be Juno-based, and I'd buy one in a heartbeat, but he's never tried a Juno before.
No need to guess. I have it right here. It's based on the Juno-106, complete with HPF.
5
Share
Old 19th January 2017
  #717
Lives for gear
 
ngarjuna's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Wozniak View Post
No need to guess. I have it right here. It's based on the Juno-106, complete with HPF.
A mono synth with a Juno-106 filter would be more or less a 101+, no? That would be exciting to a lot of folks I think (me included).

It's actually kind of amazing to me that as much reverence as the 101 gets that there aren't really any 101 clones/clone modules out there.
Old 19th January 2017
  #718
Lives for gear
 
Derp's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Wozniak View Post
No need to guess. I have it right here. It's based on the Juno-106, complete with HPF.
Any word on if it's VCO or DCO? SE's never done DCO, but since he's doing a Juno clone, I guess there's a first for everything.
Old 19th January 2017
  #719
Lives for gear
 
cane creek's Avatar
 

Because of how long Rings has been available I can't imagine Plonk being inferior, so is this going to be a better module with smaller HP, let's hope they get the price right.
Old 19th January 2017
  #720
Lives for gear
 
Derp's Avatar
Also, does this new Tonestar have the Juno chorus or is that asking for too much?
2
Share
Topic:
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump