Fathom Synth Development Thread
-
- KVRian
- 1434 posts since 21 Nov, 2005 from The Netherlands
No, he's not. It will be a seperate version of Fathom. Read it again.
-
- KVRAF
- 3735 posts since 17 Sep, 2016
From what I have read, the "developer edition" will be a separate product from the main synth, for those interested.
Apparently Fathom is more than "skin deep", and having all of the internal parameters accessible to a developer would permit one to completely redesign the UI, not just change color schemes and buttons for a cosmetic facelift.
Apparently Fathom is more than "skin deep", and having all of the internal parameters accessible to a developer would permit one to completely redesign the UI, not just change color schemes and buttons for a cosmetic facelift.
Windows 10 and too many plugins
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 1579 posts since 25 Mar, 2017
Yes, that's correct.
Fathom Elite will be a completely separate product. The price of Fathom Pro will not change.
Fathom Elite will have the GUI Skin Editor and GPU processing.
Sorry, I can't negotiate on the price. If you want to make your own Fathom skins and sell them for profit you will just have to bite the bullet and come up with the money.
Why? First of all, every other synth on the market with the same features of fathom is between $160 and $225. The only reason I don't charge that much for Fathom is because currently the CPU efficiency is not as good. Second, Fathom Elite will enable you to make your own Fathom skins and sell them so you will make back the investment very quickly. Third, this is only for serious users who view Fathom as a world class synth, if you are looking for a bargain then keep looking! No other synth on the market gives user access to the GUI, so yes you will have to pay for that privilege. Also, Fathom Elite will be challenge response machine lock license protected, so please get use to that idea also. You are welcome to voice objections as always, and I'm happy to read them, but these policies for Fathom Elite will not change for any reason.
Here are the prices of the top world class synths:
$129.00 Synthmaster Standard
$150.00 DSAudio Thorn
$179.00 Synapse Audio Dune
$190.00 XFer Serum
$190.00 u-he Diva
$220.00 VPS Avenger
$225.00 u-he Zebra2
$499.00 Spectrasonics Omnisphere
So as you can see, $125 for Fathom with GPS processing + the GUI Editor is still a bargain.
Fathom Elite will be a completely separate product. The price of Fathom Pro will not change.
Fathom Elite will have the GUI Skin Editor and GPU processing.
Sorry, I can't negotiate on the price. If you want to make your own Fathom skins and sell them for profit you will just have to bite the bullet and come up with the money.
Why? First of all, every other synth on the market with the same features of fathom is between $160 and $225. The only reason I don't charge that much for Fathom is because currently the CPU efficiency is not as good. Second, Fathom Elite will enable you to make your own Fathom skins and sell them so you will make back the investment very quickly. Third, this is only for serious users who view Fathom as a world class synth, if you are looking for a bargain then keep looking! No other synth on the market gives user access to the GUI, so yes you will have to pay for that privilege. Also, Fathom Elite will be challenge response machine lock license protected, so please get use to that idea also. You are welcome to voice objections as always, and I'm happy to read them, but these policies for Fathom Elite will not change for any reason.
Here are the prices of the top world class synths:
$129.00 Synthmaster Standard
$150.00 DSAudio Thorn
$179.00 Synapse Audio Dune
$190.00 XFer Serum
$190.00 u-he Diva
$220.00 VPS Avenger
$225.00 u-he Zebra2
$499.00 Spectrasonics Omnisphere
So as you can see, $125 for Fathom with GPS processing + the GUI Editor is still a bargain.
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 1579 posts since 25 Mar, 2017
MT is the statically linked build.
Windows C++ libraries are statically linked into the plugin.
It is only needed on Windows systems which are missing stuff.
If the normal build works on your system then you don't need the MT build.
Windows C++ libraries are statically linked into the plugin.
It is only needed on Windows systems which are missing stuff.
If the normal build works on your system then you don't need the MT build.
-
- KVRist
- 377 posts since 21 Mar, 2012 from Slovakia
So I found it is about number of voices - polyphony. I use a lot of detune feature (aditional voices per osc) so for example load my Slow Stings 2 patch and adjust envelope to have fast attack. Then create 3 chords progression (4 notes per chord) and create fast 16th note ostinato at 120bpm. This push my CPU to 100% with single instance. Disabling detune voices lower CPU to 40%. I just trying to build fast ostinato in my track with 5 chords progression and it kills my computerFathomSynth wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 8:28 pmTrojak, Something does not sound right. In the demo I just posted I have over 20 tracks of Fathom all playing at the same time and over 100 tracks total in Ableton. Which host are you using, PC specs, and could you email me the Fathom preset?
. So it is my fault because I'm trying to make too fast repeating junk.My crap computer is i7-4970, 16gb RAM running Win 7 64bit and FLstudio.
-
- KVRAF
- 2802 posts since 31 Aug, 2011
So what about those of us who arent interested in any profit and always give away our work for free? From what i have seen over the years there are very few people who actually want to take money for their skins, i.e. most people who do skinning work are simply doing it for fun and 'the community', if you will. Hard to imagine that they would pay for the ability to make new skins which they intend to then give away for free?FathomSynth wrote: If you want to make your own Fathom skins and sell them for profit you will just have to bite the bullet and come up with the money.
First of all, this is completely incorrect. There are in fact tons of synths and other plugins that have their UI resources externalized so that users can come up with new designs. (In fact im working on one as we speak.) It is of course true that some allow you to do more than others, (sometimes you can only change GFX but not their sizes and/or the layout, Cakewalk plugins spring to mind), but still there are many that allow you to do a complete redesign including object sizes and positions because the actual UI definition file, wherein all of this stuff is contained, is externalized/editable too. (u-he plugins even provide a built-in WYSIWIG UI editor that allows you to create and place objects 'visually' rather than having to do it textually/manually via the UI definition file.)FathomSynth wrote: No other synth on the market gives user access to the GUI, so yes you will have to pay for that privilege.
Second of all, im not sure how giving users the ability to make new skins is a 'privilege'. (Frankly this is the first time i see it interpreted that way.) Because personally i think its exactly the other way around; making the UI resources accessible/editable is only in the best interest of the dev since he might be getting lots of alternative designs for his plugin(s) for free. Thus making people pay for that ability is a bit like shooting yourself in the foot because all the people who might otherwise have created new designs for free wont do it because it would cost them to even be able to. Im sure you see what i mean.
Your choice of course, but i can tell you right now that this wont serve to enlarge your userbase. Many of us are completely fed up with being dependent on 3rd party external factors that decide whether our plugins will function or not. Because too many things have gone wrong way too many times, so we simply wont go for it anymore. That said, obviously there will still be a lot of people who couldnt care less, and it may even be the majority. But those that do will look elsewhere on principle because they have had enough of the problems this can cause, in other words they might have become paying customers but wont because of the CP. (Just saying.)FathomSynth wrote: Also, Fathom Elite will be challenge response machine lock license protected, so please get use to that idea also.
-
- KVRAF
- 2265 posts since 30 Aug, 2004 from Lancaster, UK
ENV1,
I think you misunderstand what Everett tries to say. It's not primarily about creating new color schemes or so. Rather, what he offers (if I'm correct) is a way to create new synths based on Fathom (so you can see Fathom as a framework, much like MUX or Blue Cat Audio's under-recognised equivalent). If I understand correctly, you should then be able to sell your synth based on the "Fathom framework". Thus, this is a totally different beast and targeted for a different audience than Fathom itself, for which the pricing and C/R-license is not a biggie.
...at least this is what I understand from the discussion (note that Everett presented this very idea, pricing and all, a year ago in this thread).
I think you misunderstand what Everett tries to say. It's not primarily about creating new color schemes or so. Rather, what he offers (if I'm correct) is a way to create new synths based on Fathom (so you can see Fathom as a framework, much like MUX or Blue Cat Audio's under-recognised equivalent). If I understand correctly, you should then be able to sell your synth based on the "Fathom framework". Thus, this is a totally different beast and targeted for a different audience than Fathom itself, for which the pricing and C/R-license is not a biggie.
...at least this is what I understand from the discussion (note that Everett presented this very idea, pricing and all, a year ago in this thread).
Thu Oct 01, 2020 1:15 pm Passing Bye wrote:
"look at SparkySpark's post 4 posts up, let that sink in for a moment"
Go MuLab!
"look at SparkySpark's post 4 posts up, let that sink in for a moment"
Go MuLab!
-
- KVRAF
- 2802 posts since 31 Aug, 2011
Well that would certainly be different.SparkySpark wrote: I think you misunderstand what Everett tries to say. It's not primarily about creating new color schemes or so. Rather, what he offers (if I'm correct) is a way to create new synths based on Fathom (so you can see Fathom as a framework, much like MUX or Blue Cat Audio's under-recognised equivalent). If I understand correctly, you should then be able to sell your synth based on the "Fathom framework".
But at least in the post i just quoted he expressly said "If you want to make your own Fathom skins and sell them for profit", so to me it seemed that he was/is in fact talking about skins / UI redesigns.
(If thats not what he really meant to say im sure he will clear that up next time he drops by.)
-
- KVRAF
- 2265 posts since 30 Aug, 2004 from Lancaster, UK
Ah, great we're on the same page. 
Thu Oct 01, 2020 1:15 pm Passing Bye wrote:
"look at SparkySpark's post 4 posts up, let that sink in for a moment"
Go MuLab!
"look at SparkySpark's post 4 posts up, let that sink in for a moment"
Go MuLab!
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 1579 posts since 25 Mar, 2017
ENV1, Hi. I hear what you are saying.
I did not realize any major synth developers like the ones I listed had exposed their UI file. u-he does not mention this anywhere on their web site that I can see. I'm aware of the fact that many freeware experimental synths do this. But I was talking about the major world class synths, the ones which you would choose as your primary synth for sound quality, not ones we just experiment with. I would be interested if you could provide a list of web sites for major synths that show them giving free access to their UI file so I can take a look.
If I'm wrong about the fact that generally companies don't do this, then I stand corrected and of course I will admit I was wrong about that.
I also understand your point about most people being generous enough to create skins for free. That's great, and I applaud them for it.
But that would apply to people who do graphics as a hobby, not those who do graphics professionally to put a roof over their head. Also, I'm not sure I actually agree in the first place that they should be giving away their skins for free. There has been a disturbing trend in the last couple decades related to the philosophy of "freeware" that because software is made of zeros and ones that it somehow is like oxygen or water and should be free for everyone. Anyone who believes this has never worked as a software engineer for 14 hours a day in order to make software possible. If Gimp was better than Photoshop I would be using it, but I don't, I use Photoshop and there's a reason for that. Same applies to my car (a 1994 Honda Prelude). Of course I could find a car on craig's list and drive it for free, but my guess is that it would not have 285,000 miles on it and be running as smoothly as the day I bought it. There is a reason that people who strive for excellence, like Honda, BMW, Spectrasonics and u-He, charge money for their product. It's not because they are rapacious, but simply because they want to achieve excellence and that requires time and resources. Also, in some cases, lol, they may simply want to feed their children.
You make some great points, but I'm not seeing any logical connection between these points and a reason that I should charge less for my product than other products with the same features, especially if my product has significantly more features then the others, which Fathom Elite will.
Last night I got NVIDIA CUDA up and running inside Fathom and I verified that I could do a 1024 thread calls on my gpu CONCURRENTLY! That is a multiply factor of 1024 on a four year old graphics card. The fastest synths on the planet using SIMD have a multiply factor of 8. Fathom Elite will have a multiply factor of 1024. So if $250 for this is not a bargain I don't know what is.
Don't worry about the challenge response. I wrote my own license software server, and the client side is one button press. It will be the simplest license system ever created. If your computer can access the internet then there will not be a problem.
The lowest price of any of the synths listed above is $129, despite some of the good points you made I'm not seeing the reason why you think Fathom Elite should be any less, given the fact that it will have X1024 GPU processing, and generally high sound quality, and has drawable waveforms, and has modular signal flow, and has UI skin access, and has two dimensional wave tables, and has, ... anyway, you get the picture ...
Keep in mind, I do welcome your opinion and others here can vouch for the fact that I do pay very close attention to user feedback when I do my pricing. I'm just being honest about the fact that the price of Fathom Elite will not be negotiable and will be set according to what can sustain the project not according to what people think is fair philosophically.
I did not realize any major synth developers like the ones I listed had exposed their UI file. u-he does not mention this anywhere on their web site that I can see. I'm aware of the fact that many freeware experimental synths do this. But I was talking about the major world class synths, the ones which you would choose as your primary synth for sound quality, not ones we just experiment with. I would be interested if you could provide a list of web sites for major synths that show them giving free access to their UI file so I can take a look.
If I'm wrong about the fact that generally companies don't do this, then I stand corrected and of course I will admit I was wrong about that.
I also understand your point about most people being generous enough to create skins for free. That's great, and I applaud them for it.
But that would apply to people who do graphics as a hobby, not those who do graphics professionally to put a roof over their head. Also, I'm not sure I actually agree in the first place that they should be giving away their skins for free. There has been a disturbing trend in the last couple decades related to the philosophy of "freeware" that because software is made of zeros and ones that it somehow is like oxygen or water and should be free for everyone. Anyone who believes this has never worked as a software engineer for 14 hours a day in order to make software possible. If Gimp was better than Photoshop I would be using it, but I don't, I use Photoshop and there's a reason for that. Same applies to my car (a 1994 Honda Prelude). Of course I could find a car on craig's list and drive it for free, but my guess is that it would not have 285,000 miles on it and be running as smoothly as the day I bought it. There is a reason that people who strive for excellence, like Honda, BMW, Spectrasonics and u-He, charge money for their product. It's not because they are rapacious, but simply because they want to achieve excellence and that requires time and resources. Also, in some cases, lol, they may simply want to feed their children.
You make some great points, but I'm not seeing any logical connection between these points and a reason that I should charge less for my product than other products with the same features, especially if my product has significantly more features then the others, which Fathom Elite will.
Last night I got NVIDIA CUDA up and running inside Fathom and I verified that I could do a 1024 thread calls on my gpu CONCURRENTLY! That is a multiply factor of 1024 on a four year old graphics card. The fastest synths on the planet using SIMD have a multiply factor of 8. Fathom Elite will have a multiply factor of 1024. So if $250 for this is not a bargain I don't know what is.
Don't worry about the challenge response. I wrote my own license software server, and the client side is one button press. It will be the simplest license system ever created. If your computer can access the internet then there will not be a problem.
The lowest price of any of the synths listed above is $129, despite some of the good points you made I'm not seeing the reason why you think Fathom Elite should be any less, given the fact that it will have X1024 GPU processing, and generally high sound quality, and has drawable waveforms, and has modular signal flow, and has UI skin access, and has two dimensional wave tables, and has, ... anyway, you get the picture ...
Keep in mind, I do welcome your opinion and others here can vouch for the fact that I do pay very close attention to user feedback when I do my pricing. I'm just being honest about the fact that the price of Fathom Elite will not be negotiable and will be set according to what can sustain the project not according to what people think is fair philosophically.
-
Distorted Horizon Distorted Horizon https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=392076 - Banned
- 3882 posts since 17 Jan, 2017 from Planet of cats
IMO your pricing is more than perfect. More for those who need/are willing to pay more and enough options for everyone to choose.
-
- KVRian
- 537 posts since 31 May, 2015 from the Iberian Peninsula
I'm very curious about your CUDA implementation, I just keep reading this thread for that. I thought it was pretty hard/impossible to move audio processing to the GPU, so I'm interested on how this ends up working 
(I'm a computer science/software engineering student so I can more or less see how things are, not clueless either).
(I'm a computer science/software engineering student so I can more or less see how things are, not clueless either).-
- KVRAF
- 2802 posts since 31 Aug, 2011
Hi,FathomSynth wrote: ENV1, Hi. I hear what you are saying.
I did not realize any major synth developers like the ones I listed had exposed their UI file. u-he does not mention this anywhere on their web site that I can see. I'm aware of the fact that many freeware experimental synths do this. But I was talking about the major world class synths, the ones which you would choose as your primary synth for sound quality, not ones we just experiment with. I would be interested if you could provide a list of web sites for major synths that show them giving free access to their UI file so I can take a look.
Listing all the websites would take too long now as i would first have to get them all together myself, but from the list you posted i think the only 3 that arent directly reskinnable are Thorn, Avenger and Omnisphere, but i could be wrong even about those. DUNE 2 and 3 definitely are, so are all u-he plugins, (so theres Zebra and DIVA), and as far as i know Synthmaster and Serum are too. And there are tons more. For instance all Roland plugins, all Arturia plugins post the introduction of the new UI framework, Alchemy and other Camel Audio plugins, FXpansion plugins, Audio Realism plugins, Sylenth i believe is skinnable now too, and thats only off the top of my head. So theres no shortage there even in payware land, and so far as im aware no dev has ever charged extra for it. (Little anecdote since we are on the subject; Admiral Quality recently added a skinning system to his Poly-Ana synth because so many people couldnt stand the 'factory' UI and wouldnt buy the synth for that reason. When he released it he put out a permanent offer to give anyone who comes up with a decent skin a free license, i.e. rather than wanting to be payed for adding the skinning system he is actually paying skinmakers with free licenses for making good use of it. Of course this is rather unusual too, but its one example of where a dev is doing it exactly the other way around.)
I dont think these things are mutually exclusive. I could imagine that many who do graphics work as their dayjob have made skins in their free time, after all they already have the necessary tools and skills. (Cant prove it of course, but it seems likely to me.)FathomSynth wrote:But that would apply to people who do graphics as a hobby, not those who do graphics professionally to put a roof over their head.
I didnt say that. What i said was that from what i have seen over the years most people do give away their skins for free, i.e. theyre just doing it. Those who do want to be payed are of course perfectly welcome to it, i would never presume to criticize that because its not my business.FathomSynth wrote:Also, I'm not sure I actually agree in the first place that they should be giving away their skins for free.
Not sure what you mean because i never said anything about the price or how high it should or shouldnt be.FathomSynth wrote:You make some great points, but I'm not seeing any logical connection between these points and a reason that I should charge less for my product than other products with the same features, especially if my product has significantly more features then the others, which Fathom Elite will.
The lowest price of any of the synths listed above is $129, despite some of the good points you made I'm not seeing the reason why you think Fathom Elite should be any less...
What i did say was that it is unusual to see a dev charging for the ability to make new designs (because it is unusual), and that there are probably not very many that will pay for the ability to make new designs that are to be given away for free. (Bit like having to pay an admission fee before someone is allowed to enter somebody elses house to bring them a gift. Well, something like that.)
Anyhow, please dont take any of this as criticism aimed directly at you or what youre doing. I just happen to be into skinning myself so i took an interest and thought i add some comments.
-
- KVRist
- 168 posts since 26 Apr, 2018
Hi Everett,
Congrats on Fathom CM. Subscriber issue has arrived and you have a 3-page tutorial, although I've only had chance to skim through it and the mag so far. I really hope it drives more sales for you.
With what you are saying about testing CUDA in Fathom, does this mean that it will require an Nvidia GPU, or is it just CUDA for proof of concept, and you're going to use something more agnostic, like OpenCL? Also, you're talking about CUDA in Fathom Elite, does this mean that there won't be support in Fathom Pro? Because a few weeks ago you were saying "Also, I've started work on Fathom 3.0. This will include GPU CUDA processing and a complete reorganization of the oscillators." which I'm not sure people were expecting to be such a jump in price. I'm not arguing that it will offer massive upgrade in performance, but will Fathom Pro at least have a skimmed-milk version of GPGPU compute performance, even if it's not the full-fat of Fathom Elite?
Congrats on Fathom CM. Subscriber issue has arrived and you have a 3-page tutorial, although I've only had chance to skim through it and the mag so far. I really hope it drives more sales for you.
With what you are saying about testing CUDA in Fathom, does this mean that it will require an Nvidia GPU, or is it just CUDA for proof of concept, and you're going to use something more agnostic, like OpenCL? Also, you're talking about CUDA in Fathom Elite, does this mean that there won't be support in Fathom Pro? Because a few weeks ago you were saying "Also, I've started work on Fathom 3.0. This will include GPU CUDA processing and a complete reorganization of the oscillators." which I'm not sure people were expecting to be such a jump in price. I'm not arguing that it will offer massive upgrade in performance, but will Fathom Pro at least have a skimmed-milk version of GPGPU compute performance, even if it's not the full-fat of Fathom Elite?
