Cytomic 'The Glue' Compressor

[Mercado_Negro]

If you are going to stop using it for tracking/mixing at the same time to save a hundred bucks, you may want to rethink your client rates

It does not have to do with clients rates. Here in my country we have restricted currency exchanges so we can only spend $400 per year over the net. As Andrew previously noticed I bought The Glue with my wife's paypal account because all my credits expired for this year, so in short terms I won't be able to buy another copy of the plug-in until 2010.

Have a nice day.

[timothyallan]

in my country we have restricted currency exchanges so we can only spend $400 per year over the net.

Wow, that's boggling on so many levels.

[andy-cytomic]

@Mercado_Negro: I really appreciate your honesty in this situation. Thanks for supporting Cytomic and investing in your copy of The Glue.

The license agreement is meant to support people collaborating to achieve a single goal of recording a track / album. Sometimes using two computers for this is really useful so I want to support that. I feel it's not fair to use the product for two different clients at once when you only have one license. If the client is recording an entire album then you are free to use it on different songs at once, but for different clients I really have to draw the line. This may seem a strange distinction to make, but that's how I feel.

I don't have a team of lawyers staking out peoples studios, in the end I trust your judgement as to what is fair. If you find using a copy for tracking and a copy for mixing for two different clients is useful to you then I will trust that you will support Cytomic as soon as you possibly can by buying two licenses.

Andrew Simper

[sureno]

Here in my country we have restricted currency exchanges so we can only spend $400 per year over the net. EDIT I won't be able to buy another copy of the plug-in until 2010.

F that, wow, thats hard man, id be screwing

sorry for going OFF TOPIC but just had to comment

[Mercado_Negro]

@Mercado_Negro: I really appreciate your honesty in this situation. Thanks for supporting Cytomic and investing in your copy of The Glue.

The license agreement is meant to support people collaborating to achieve a single goal of recording a track / album. Sometimes using two computers for this is really useful so I want to support that. I feel it's not fair to use the product for two different clients at once when you only have one license. If the client is recording an entire album then you are free to use it on different songs at once, but for different clients I really have to draw the line. This may seem a strange distinction to make, but that's how I feel.

I don't have a team of lawyers staking out peoples studios, in the end I trust your judgement as to what is fair. If you find using a copy for tracking and a copy for mixing for two different clients is useful to you then I will trust that you will support Cytomic as soon as you possibly can by buying two licenses.

Andrew Simper

Thanks for your response Andrew, really appreciated. I'll buy another copy of the plug-in next year then for tracking purposes. Take care and keep up the good work.

[Agreed]

The license agreement is meant to support people collaborating to achieve a single goal of recording a track / album. Sometimes using two computers for this is really useful so I want to support that. I feel it's not fair to use the product for two different clients at once when you only have one license. If the client is recording an entire album then you are free to use it on different songs at once, but for different clients I really have to draw the line. This may seem a strange distinction to make, but that's how I feel.
Andrew Simper

I know that buying software isn't really buying the software, that it's just a license to use it, but your particular scheme draws that into sharp, sharp relief. I know that you're in business to make money and it is entirely your right to set up the licensing terms you want, and I definitely respect you for being totally forthright about them even before the software is well and truly released. So I want you to understand that I am not trying to be hostile. It just seems absurd that you go as far as to allow two computers to run the software simultaneously (which is going further than, for example, IK Multimedia with T-Racks 3, which allows installation on up to 3 computers but only provided it is used on no more than one at a time), but it takes away the only real reason anyone would want to do that in the first place, doesn't it?

Maybe someone else can help me out with a use you'd have for two copies of the software running on two computers simultaneously, but limited to one client at a time.

I'm not attacking you because as I pointed out you're still doing one better than the industry standard, I just don't understand why the way you have chosen to innovate in that regard happens to be so limiting as to be essentially not any better than the first way.

Maybe if you had a tracking and a mixing computer and you wanted to run compression on input and then use it later in the mix, too, that's really the only way I could think that it would be handy, but I am not familiar with a lot of studios that run a setup like that? Correct me if I am wrong, please.

[andy-cytomic]

I have two computers, and I run songs on both, I can sequence midi over ethernet, and have a second computer playing vsti's, or triggering samples, or processing vocals.

If you are jamming with a friend who also has a computer it's nice to be able to use the same compressor on both your elements of the mix.

Someone doing a live set may have two computers and dj mixer between them.

If you are in a band and working on a track together you may want to give a mix your band member to have a play with, or record some vocals for.

Computers these days have multiple cpus, and you can also split processing across multiple computers - what's the difference between running on multiple cpus that are in one computer case or in two?

The difference is this: you won't be working on two projects at the same time for two different clients at two different bpms with two different melodies etc etc. For example you would not have two copies of logic open playing two entirely different arrangements at once.

I have to set a limit somewhere otherwise hundreds of people working working on a movie soundtrack and post production could all use a single license. So two it is.

Andrew Simper

[Jay-Producer]

I really like how natural it compresses my sounds. So great job at that Andy. I'm just really curious to hear the difference between this and the Vienna Compressor. I do still feel it sounds harsh and too digital when you really push the compressor to its limits. Not smooth at all and clicks digitally when pushed. But still I like how it doesn't colour my sound or saturate it.


09/10 for sound; just don't like the digital sound when really pushed.
09/10 for looks, simple and looks good.
09/10 for ease of use; I still cant figure out that range control.

[Jay-Producer]

Does anyone wana do a test on vocals with this compressor? it seems to be all drums.

[Agreed]

I have to set a limit somewhere otherwise hundreds of people working working on a movie soundtrack and post production could all use a single license. So two it is.

Andrew Simper

You make the license, another way to set the limit to avoid that horror story slippery slope would be to make the license "You can install it and use it on up to two computers simultaneously, regardless of the content for which it is being used." Which is what I was inquiring about, I don't know where this problem of hundreds of people doing movie tracks talk came from. I just wanted to know why two copies can be installed over two computers and used simultaneously but only if they are working on one client. That is within your power to authorize and I would like to know why that is a problem. I would never suggest you make your license "Up to three hundred people can operate this software simultaneously across as many computers as they own while working on as many projects as they can possibly physically do at once," that would be ludicrous. There's a big gap between my question and the question you answered there

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

You make the license, another way to set the limit to avoid that horror story slippery slope would be to make the license "You can install it and use it on up to two computers simultaneously, regardless of the content for which it is being used." Which is what I was inquiring about, I don't know where this problem of hundreds of people doing movie tracks talk came from. I just wanted to know why two copies can be installed over two computers and used simultaneously but only if they are working on one client. That is within your power to authorize and I would like to know why that is a problem. I would never suggest you make your license "Up to three hundred people can operate this software simultaneously across as many computers as they own while working on as many projects as they can possibly physically do at once," that would be ludicrous. There's a big gap between my question and the question you answered there

Think about the commercial studio market where you might have an "A Room" and a "B Room," if they run some dongled plugins you'll believe that each room will have it's own unique dongle with the plugins for that room installed. Popular plugins will end up in both rooms and therefore generate two licenses for the manufacturer. Now if Andy allows for two computers to install the plugin to be used on different projects then he's only made one sale, whereas a company like Waves would have made two. Now take the example above only this time make it a facility that may have 4 or more rooms. Then look at the cost of Andy's plugins versus Waves. Wouldn't you like Andy to keep making plugins?

The fact that one license would allow me and one of my buddies to use it for collaborative purposes makes this an extremely generous license IMO. Most license agreements (as I'm sure you know) are nowhere near as generous as this and tend to limit use to a single computer at any time.

[Agreed]

Man, I am explicitly not knocking him - I tried to make that as clear as possible in my initial post on the subject where I pointed out the market standard (as represented by IK's T-Racks 3 license) which is not as generous as his. But I do want a specific answer to my specific question while he's here engaging the public - he's chosen to go farther than the market standard, but not in the one way that would really make me care. This is not to say at all that it's the deciding factor in me buying this (I'm already planning on picking it up when he gets the site up and running and its officially out of beta, and I'd do it if you could only use it on one computer at a time like most other plugins). But he is answering customer questions and that's my big question. It isn't answering me to provide the most extreme example of what could happen in a possible world where people buying his plugins are dastardly studios making movie soundtracks on "hundreds of computers." I asked a much more limited question and I would appreciate it if he would address it rather than justifying it by pointing to a slippery slope. After all, he writes the license - and in fact his answer could be just that, "I write the license, you deal with it if you want to use my software." I'd be happy with that. Edit: Well, not happy, but I wouldn't feel like he was unjustified in saying it.

My philosophical training is like spidey-sense for an unjustified argument, though, and I would be happier if he would get around to my real question. That's all. Like I said, I'm almost certain I'll buy it coming up soon. I hope I'm not making an ass of myself on this point but it's what I want to know and this is the thread to talk to the man himself.

[rydan]

In all honesty I think the original hardware should sound best, it will have no aliasing from transient shaping, even though it should have the same type of distortion. So when people prefer The Glue over the original I'm sceptical. I'm happy if people find it difficult to tell which is which, since being a plugin I have other advantages over analog hardware, like the fact you can run 10 copies and have total recall and automation in your project.

Yes, I understood as much from your initial post. Of course, the goal for emulations/clones should really be to sound indistinguishable from the original, neither better nor worse (and, since people had a hard time deciding, that proves the Glue is really good, since it's really close). However, Gearslutz tend to be a tough crowd to please, especially when it comes to native software vs respected hardware, so most developers would be delirious if people there preferred their software to SSL hardware.

So, well, what I really meant was some praise, since I find your attitude, drive and strive towards perfection admirable (and probably exactly what it takes to create really good emulations).

[MuBa]

Last Night i've tested The Glue against Waves SSl
and the Precision Buss Comp (UAD) and bought it right after the Test.
Like the name said, this is the best Software- "Glue Buss Comp" I've ever heard.
Now waiting for it to replace the PBC and the Waves-SSL.

Andy you did a really really great job.

[rhythmtechnologies]

question for andy:

i finally got around to downloading the trial last night but havent unpacked it yet. im currently recording a project i'd like to test it on but it will be another 3/4 days before im at the stage of putting anything on the mix buss.

my question is this - when does the demo period start? is it from the moment i unpack the dll into my plugins folder or is it from the moment i open an instance in my DAW? thanks