KVR Audio

djanthonyw · Post by **djanthonyw** » Thu Nov 19, 2009 9:36 pm

bM3w wrote: Geez, DJanth is probably the most deluded character on KVR. Where did you go to school, if at all? They apparently forgot to tell you what "commercial" means...

Really... so then what do you call studios that record major selling acts or produce for major motion pictures that cross over internationally?

Urs · Post by **Urs** » Thu Nov 19, 2009 9:39 pm

deraudrl wrote:No. What it forbids is (re)distributing VSTSDK itself:

Itself, and any derivates that expose the APIs used. Any open sourced VST violates the VST license no matter if shipping with the SDK or not, because it exposes the APIs.

The only parts of a VST that can be open sourced (under what license ever) are thus the parts that do not deal with the VST API at all. But then that's not quite a VST, is it?

VST and GPL are mutually exclusive because GPL'd code can not be linked to anything that is not GPL. So what you can put under GPL is something that could be loaded by a VST at run time. Which by definition isn't a VST in itself but something-loaded-by-a-vst.

I'm not confusing GPL with open source and vice versa. I'm just ranting about the strict license under which VST is put.

bM3w · Post by **bM3w** » Thu Nov 19, 2009 9:39 pm

djanthonyw wrote:Really... so then what do you call studios that record major selling acts or produce for major motion pictures that cross over internationally?

Of course commercial, silly. The point is that ALL studios with the intent of making money are commercial. You're running a business = you're commercial. That easy.

djanthonyw · Post by **djanthonyw** » Thu Nov 19, 2009 9:44 pm

Maybe you would be happier if I said "all major commercial studios..."

bM3w · Post by **bM3w** » Thu Nov 19, 2009 9:47 pm

djanthonyw wrote:Maybe you would be happier if I said "all major commercial studios..."

Correct.

djanthonyw · Post by **djanthonyw** » Thu Nov 19, 2009 9:52 pm

Thank you, I'm just happy that I could find your pacifier.

bM3w · Post by **bM3w** » Thu Nov 19, 2009 9:56 pm

djanthonyw wrote:Thank you, I'm just happy that I could find your pacifier.

You're welcome. Although I seriously doubt you really care (and you actually shouldn't)

deraudrl · Post by **deraudrl** » Thu Nov 19, 2009 11:06 pm

Urs wrote:
deraudrl wrote:No. What it forbids is (re)distributing VSTSDK itself:
Itself, and any derivates that expose the APIs used. Any open sourced VST violates the VST license no matter if shipping with the SDK or not, because it exposes the APIs.

I am mildly curious* as to what language in the license agreement leads you to this conclusion.

(*Mostly because I find delusions of this sort vaguely entertaining.)

strangedogs · Post by **strangedogs** » Thu Nov 19, 2009 11:17 pm

I got so tired of the PC guys getting all the great FREE amp sims (LePou, Acmebargig, Nick Crow, etc.) - I went out and bought a new Windows laptop. My G5 is PPC so I couldn't run Windows. I'm now running Windows 7 Ultimate and actually LOVE IT. I seem to be using my laptop more lately than my Mac. I have Logic Studio 9 on the G5 and am using Sonar Producer 8 and Reaper on the laptop. I'm actually impressed with Windows 7 so much I'm fixin' to build a new quad desktop

Hell - I may switch back!

mcnoone · Post by **mcnoone** » Thu Nov 19, 2009 11:25 pm

strangedogs wrote:I got so tired of the PC guys getting all the great FREE amp sims (LePou, Acmebargig, Nick Crow, etc.)

NI's Guitar Rig3 LE is free on the CM magazine dvd, it runs on mac ppc.
It's good too. I got it with the august issue. Not sure if it's in every issue though.

BONES · Post by **BONES** » Thu Nov 19, 2009 11:30 pm

planet trauma wrote:You use Orion and synthedit plugs but you need a "serious" workstation? Yer cheesy as effe, mai brotha....A dual quad-core i7 machine isn't fast enough for you? are you compensating for something else?

No-one needs a serious workstation for audio, it is a trivial matter for any modern computer. I need a serious workstation for doing visual effects for film, with multiple layers of image sequences at resolutions of 2k and above, with full float bit-depths [32bits per pixel]. CPU is hardly the bottleneck with this kind of data, drive-speeds and graphics are what count. That said, my laptop can take a quad-core CPU, unlike any Mac laptop. Also unlike any Mac laptop, it has eSATA [for serious drive throughput], serious workstation-class graphics [512Mb QuadroFX], with DisplayPort for use with 10-bit monitors, and both ExpressCard and CardBus slots to cover every PCMCIA card out there. The best Apple can do is put gaming graphics in a machine that can't play games and charge you a premium for the privilege.

djanthonyw wrote:Exactly... there is not one commercial studio that doesn't have a Mac.

I imagine that's because PC users don't need studios any more, they can do it all at home, so the studios rely on stupid Mac people to eek out a living. I bet if you go into the office though, you'll find them using PCs for everything non customer-facing.

djanthonyw · Post by **djanthonyw** » Thu Nov 19, 2009 11:34 pm

BONES wrote:I bet if you go into the office though, you'll find them using PCs for everything

No argument there.

Urs · Post by **Urs** » Thu Nov 19, 2009 11:47 pm

deraudrl wrote:(*Mostly because I find delusions of this sort vaguely entertaining.)

Uh, yeah, whatever.

Urs · Post by **Urs** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 12:02 am

Urs wrote:
deraudrl wrote:(*Mostly because I find delusions of this sort vaguely entertaining.)
Uh, yeah, whatever.

Just as a follow up, go to Steinberg's website. It's in English, black on white and pretty clear about the licensee not having the right to distribute any derivative work in source code form. So anything deriving from AudioEffectX and what not can't be open sourced. I'll give it to my lawyer if you want clearance and if you want to pay for it. On the other hand, simply GFY.

djanthonyw · Post by **djanthonyw** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 12:14 am

djanthonyw wrote:
BONES wrote:I bet if you go into the office though, you'll find them using PCs for everything
No argument there.

Also, if you go to NAMM you'll find all of the devs demonstrating their software on Macs... but there's little reason for you to go because Synapse doesn't go to NAMM.

Why don't more developers create AUs as well as VSTs?