Korg updates its Legacy Collection with a new Arp Odyssey emulation

[Cinebient]

Oh is that true that the latest update like the Arp Odyssey needs always an online connection?

I've not seen any indicator that Korg software needs to be constantly online. Only to authorize the plugins.

I mean if i once activated the licence online could i use it still as long and often i want without further internet connection.
I hear reports that it always need a internet connection everytime you would start the plug-in.
I hope that is not the case.

I only activated once, my music computer has been offline ever since. They all work fine.

Arcvidean.

Thank you!
One voice less in my head

[HiEnergy]

Seemingly the activation works as long as the network device used while activating is present.
As soon as I remove the network device (a GSM/SIM USB stick), the activation is gone until I plug it in again (plugging in is sufficient, it seems, no connection needed).
Still not usable for me.
Hope the Korg support answers my problem report, otherwise I'll have to look for alternatives.

[Cinebient]

Seemingly the activation works as long as the network device used while activating is present.
As soon as I remove the network device (a GSM/SIM USB stick), the activation is gone until I plug it in again (plugging in is sufficient, it seems, no connection needed).
Still not usable for me.
Hope the Korg support answers my problem report, otherwise I'll have to look for alternatives.

Uh, the voice is back.
That would be a no-go for me as well.
Lol, their iOS versions are better in any way.
They should invest more in this platform instead.

[fluffy_little_something]

Waves also use the network adapter.

[Arcvidean]

Seemingly the activation works as long as the network device used while activating is present.
As soon as I remove the network device (a GSM/SIM USB stick), the activation is gone until I plug it in again (plugging in is sufficient, it seems, no connection needed).
Still not usable for me.
Hope the Korg support answers my problem report, otherwise I'll have to look for alternatives.

I used a temporary 40m ethernet cable run through the house and upstairs to the computer rather than wireless. I don't know if that makes any difference. Actually the computer doesn't have a wireless adaptor only ethernet.

[sin night]

The wifi adapter of my studio Mac Mini is always turned off, I use the ethernet interface through a powerline to connect to my modem/router (which is in another room, far from the studio) and I never had a problem with any authorizations. The computer can permanent access to internet (but I try to avoid surfing on that machine, it's dedicated to music production), but I don't recall any problem when internet is down (it happened often untill less than two months ago) or the connection to my modem/router is unavaible (because sometimes I forget to connect the powerline to the mains).

For Waves plugins, I use an usb memory stick instead of the system drive, so I think the network adapter is ruled out in this case (if I remember the old threads on the subject).


Anyway, I think this kind of activation based on the network adapter should look at the ethernet adapter of the system (virtually every computer has one... maybe some macbooks are the exception, featuring only wifi) and default to that as identifier, regardless of what's being used to connect while activating the product (and even if the ethernet adapter is not connected to anything); any different adapter (such as wifi, gsm/usb sticks) should be used only when there's no ethernet adapter on the machine.... it should be doable, I think...

[chk071]

I always used the offline activation method for that reason, for the old KLC plugins, dunno if it is still possible now. But, it really, really sucks when the hardware detection detects an activation and deactivation of your network adapter as "new" hardware... i really don't know what they're thinking, but, it's a totally normal thing to activate and deactivate the network adapter, as is for other hardware. That really shouldn't detect as "new hardware".

[ENV1]

I saw the direct response to my last post and subsequent posts and was going to respond. However I think sin night's response covers everything I wanted to say, and then some and does it way more eloquently than I ever could.

Except its full of self-serving assumptions, suppositions, speculations, viewpoints, opinions, selective logic, and all the rest of it.

As far as i can see, pretty much all of his 'points' could be responded to with one of 3 questions:

1) Where is your proof

2) How is that relevant

3) You didnt mind when it concerned 64bit did you

(Dont worry, i wont do that.)


But i have to say that especially the No.3 stuff really ticks me off. Because when i think about how the 64bit crowd as a whole behaved ever since they began wanting stuff in 64bit i find it rather hypocritical of them to say such things with respect to 32bit now. Because lets not forget that there was a time when 64bit was used only by a minority of people while the entire rest of the planet was using 32bit PCs. Yet nobody seems to have had a problem pestering developers again and again to PLEASE make a 64bit version of the software even though 32bit software ran perfectly fine on their machines. Not a single word about all the alleged 'extra resources' it would take to 'develop for a minority platform'. (I wonder why?) Not a single word about how it would 'take precious time away from serving the majority' and crap like that. (And i have yet to see any credible proof that 64bit really even IS the worldwide majority at all.) Not a single word about all these other things that are suddenly so immensely important, only ever wanting and insisting in trying to get their wishes granted.

In other words they sure didnt mind any of these things when the stuff they wanted was concerned. Yet 32bit users are supposed to listen to all this garbage now. In fact im willing to bet that none of these things even crossed their minds at the time, yet now it is suddenly of such all-encompassing importance that some would think it perfectly justified to tell all 32bit users to go to blazes. (Well thanks a lot.) Dont know about you, but double-standards like that make me madder than hell, especially when its coming from the very same group of people who didnt give a SHIT about any of these things when they were the ones who couldnt get what they wanted. (And im deliberately using the word 'wanted' here because unlike 32bit users they didnt necessarily NEED the software to be 64bit.)


But anyway, enough about that. Ive said my piece, sorry if i caused any cognitive dissonance by reminding everyone of the fact that 64bit users started out as a minority and that they would still BE the minority if everyone would have had the same attitude towards 64bit that some of them are having today towards 32bit.

[wagtunes]

I saw the direct response to my last post and subsequent posts and was going to respond. However I think sin night's response covers everything I wanted to say, and then some and does it way more eloquently than I ever could.

Except its full of self-serving assumptions, suppositions, speculations, viewpoints, opinions, selective logic, and all the rest of it.

As far as i can see, pretty much all of his 'points' could be responded to with one of 3 questions:

1) Where is your proof

2) How is that relevant

3) You didnt mind when it concerned 64bit did you

(Dont worry, i wont do that.)


But i have to say that especially the No.3 stuff really ticks me off. Because when i think about how the 64bit crowd as a whole behaved ever since they began wanting stuff in 64bit i find it rather hypocritical of them to say such things with respect to 32bit now. Because lets not forget that there was a time when 64bit was used only by a minority of people while the entire rest of the planet was using 32bit PCs. Yet nobody seems to have had a problem pestering developers again and again to PLEASE make a 64bit version of the software even though 32bit software ran perfectly fine on their machines. Not a single word about all the alleged 'extra resources' it would take to 'develop for a minority platform'. (I wonder why?) Not a single word about how it would 'take precious time away from serving the majority' and crap like that. (And i have yet to see any credible proof that 64bit really even IS the worldwide majority at all.) Not a single word about all these other things that are suddenly so immensely important, only ever wanting and insisting in trying to get their wishes granted.

In other words they sure didnt mind any of these things when the stuff they wanted was concerned. Yet 32bit users are supposed to listen to all this garbage now. In fact im willing to bet that none of these things even crossed their minds at the time, yet now it is suddenly of such all-encompassing importance that some would think it perfectly justified to tell all 32bit users to go to blazes. (Well thanks a lot.) Dont know about you, but double-standards like that make me madder than hell, especially when its coming from the very same group of people who didnt give a SHIT about any of these things when they were the ones who couldnt get what they wanted. (And im deliberately using the word 'wanted' here because unlike 32bit users they didnt necessarily NEED the software to be 64bit.)


But anyway, enough about that. Ive said my piece, sorry if i caused any cognitive dissonance by reminding everyone of the fact that 64bit users started out as a minority and that they would still BE the minority if everyone would have had the same attitude towards 64bit that some of them are having today towards 32bit.

Blame the developers. Seriously.

Look, I don't really have a dog in this race as I didn't even start PC recording until 2013, which was well into the 64 bit lifespan.

When I was researching what kind of PC to get, not having a clue between 32 or 64 bit nor even caring, I looked to see what software I needed in order to do the job I set out to do, which was making soundtracks. I wanted to get into the movie scoring business. Yes, that's how this all started.

Anyway, I researched all the stuff I needed in order to make these soundtracks, which was mostly orchestral libraries. So I looked them all up and when I found the ones that I could afford and sounded "decent enough" for me, I then looked at the required system specs.

64 bit

End of story.

I had no choice. If I wanted to do the things that I wanted to do, I had to get a 64 bit PC. Period.

Now I'm sure there was a time when people doing this kind of work were doing it on 32 bit PCs. But I'm sure those libraries also didn't sound as good as what we have now. The 64 bit allows for more memory, which in turn allows for larger libraries with more articulations and so on and so on.

But now, if you want top of the line stuff, you need a 64 bit machine. You give people more processing power and the devs are going to push that envelope. And when we go to 128 bit, the devs are going to push that envelope too, to the point where, if you want the top of the line stuff, you'll need to get a 128 bit machine.

That is the way this damn business has worked since day one. Every time I'd think to myself "Yeah, I finally got a real kick ass machine" it wouldn't really matter. Why? Because the next piece of software I got pushed THAT machine to the max.

So really. Blame the developers for continually pushing the envelope to the point where no matter how damn good your machine is, it's never good enough.

Bottom Line: Had I got a 32 bit machine, I couldn't do a lot of the things that I do now. At least not at this level.

[zvenx]

But that time when 64bit was a niche is gone, and there will probably be a time when 64bit has been surpassed by newer technology and we too will have to move on. And not belly ache about our once 'beloved' old format.

The proof? apart from kvr's own poll, is what the major developers and plugin developers are slowly doing, only supporting 64bit technology: Steinberg, Apple (logic), Ableton Live10, isn't pro tools 12.8.3 as well? etc etc etc. 32 bit is dead or dying, if you want to keep using it fine, but don't expect valuable development time wasted on an older format that is not coming back in vogue, ever!!!

If you want support forever support in 32bit, go buy a software company and let them make 32 bit software to your hearts content, or develop your own plugins.
Anyway, you can hope for 32bit to continue...

As someone asked what was your line in the sand? Should Windows 98 still be supported? How about DX plugins.

Developers develop for the future not the past.
I don't think you are making much sense quite frankly. Your example is of us advocating for the future not the past as you are here. If you used examples of us wishing for Windows XP support then I would understand your point better.

rsp

[ENV1]

Now I'm sure there was a time when people doing this kind of work were doing it on 32 bit PCs. But I'm sure those libraries also didn't sound as good as what we have now. The 64 bit allows for more memory, which in turn allows for larger libraries with more articulations and so on and so on.

Yes, and i think its great that 64bit exists. In fact im a 64bit user myself because my Linux machines are all 64bit.

So its not like im a '64bit hater'. Not at all. 64bit was/is an important step towards progress, only a fool would deny that. All im saying is that at the same time we shouldnt lose sight of the fact that there are still millions of 32bit users who dont want to be thrown under the bus by an over-zealous 64bit crowd that thinks they are the only ones who count anymore. Thats all im saying.

Just always ask yourself this: If the situation was reversed, what would i want?

Tolerance and understanding or a bunch of 'f**k this if it doesnt concern me' attitudes?

[wagtunes]

Now I'm sure there was a time when people doing this kind of work were doing it on 32 bit PCs. But I'm sure those libraries also didn't sound as good as what we have now. The 64 bit allows for more memory, which in turn allows for larger libraries with more articulations and so on and so on.

Yes, and i think its great that 64bit exists. In fact im a 64bit user myself because my Linux machines are all 64bit.

So its not like im a '64bit hater'. Not at all. 64bit was/is an important step towards progress, only a fool would deny that. All im saying is that at the same time we shouldnt lose sight of the fact that there are still millions of 32bit users who dont want to be thrown under the bus by an over-zealous 64bit crowd that thinks they are the only ones who count anymore. Thats all im saying.

Just always ask yourself this: If the situation was reversed, what would i want?

Tolerance and understanding or a bunch of 'f**k this if it doesnt concern me' attitudes?

No, there's no excuse for that. As long as we both understand that the day is going to come when devs will totally abandon 32 bit because there is no money in it.

Also, in addressing your comment about people "demanding" 64 bit. Well, there was a good reason for that. They saw the writing on the wall. They knew, because of past experience with this crappy industry, that 64 bit was going to make 32 bit a dinosaur one day and they didn't want to have to upgrade all their 32 bit plugins to 64 bit all at one time. In short, they didn't want to buy even one more 32 bit plugin because they knew the time was coming that they'd have to dump it.

The problem is, the cycle never ends. You're only delaying the inevitable anyway. What are all us 64 bit users with tons of 64 bit plugins going to do when 128 bit comes out and eventually makes US dinosaurs? I'm already dreading the day. But I've been doing that for over 30 years now, so it's getting to the point where I almost just accept it, curse under my breath, and move on.

I mean what else are you gonna do?

[zvenx]

If it was mac users advocating for developers to drop windows support, or vice versa.
Or au users advocating for developers to drop vst support or vice versa, or even vst 3 users advocating for dropping vst2 support or vice versa, I would agree with you about selfishness label.
I beta test for quite a few companies for quite a few products and the more formats, the more daws they have to support requires significant amount of time and headaches for developers.

And to add to the mix continued support of both 64 and 32bit technology, when the die has long since been cast where the industry is currently at and won't ever be going back to, it makes no sense to advocate for 32bit in 2018.....

Quite frankly the selfishness I see is on those who stay on older platforms (that's their choice, its stable for them and does everything they want it to do, and I have no issue with that) AND (this is to me the selfish part) expect continued support for those older platforms with newer products and newer versions.....
rsp

[HitEmTrue]

The problem is, the cycle never ends. You're only delaying the inevitable anyway. What are all us 64 bit users with tons of 64 bit plugins going to do when 128 bit comes out and eventually makes US dinosaurs? I'm already dreading the day. But I've been doing that for over 30 years now, so it's getting to the point where I almost just accept it, curse under my breath, and move on.

I mean what else are you gonna do?

128-bit operating system could be a long-time away.

[Cinebient]

The problem is, the cycle never ends. You're only delaying the inevitable anyway. What are all us 64 bit users with tons of 64 bit plugins going to do when 128 bit comes out and eventually makes US dinosaurs? I'm already dreading the day. But I've been doing that for over 30 years now, so it's getting to the point where I almost just accept it, curse under my breath, and move on.

I mean what else are you gonna do?

128-bit operating system could be a long-time away.

If you need trillions+ GB´s of RAM (but you can do that already with 64 bit and could add more RAM than data available on the earth.
But maybe 128bit makes us aliens.