Synapse Audio Minimoog emulation "The Legend" for VST/AU and RE released!

[twal]

I was contemplating creating a patreon page where subscribers get X amount of Dune 3 presets each month- created out of genetics. But, I'm not sure if that would be ethical even if I disclosed I was using this technique and not programming them myself. Perhaps not unethical. But perhaps classless?

If you use presets created by other people in the genetics patch then charged money for that patch then it would most definitely be both unethical and classless and depending on the EULA quite possibly illegal.

Just put in a little time and effort to learn how to program patches of your own. It's much more satisfying.

Genetics is the synthesizer equivalent of training wheels on a tricycle.

How bout genetics with just your own patches?

I'm not trying to "cheat" by doing this, it's simply another method.

Someone could reverse engineer a genetic's patch and that's similar to training wheels in a way.

It (Genetics) also can produce interesting patches very quickly for my enjoyment.

[sqigls]

i wish every synth had genetics. I find it more satisfying than crating my own. Done that for 20 odd years, over it. I just wanna write songs, not re-invent the donk. If i can get an idea out of my head fast, then i'm generally all for it. I draw the line here though. AI writing my songs for me is never gonna happen. Probably.

[Seelachsfilet]

hey, I own Legend, havent been using it for a long long time though.
what is this genetics feature and why are people arguing about it (bla bla "cheating" "not ehtical" lmao).
is it just a patch randomizer? please explain. does obsession also have this feature? thanks

[kmonkey]

i wish every synth had genetics. I find it more satisfying than crating my own. Done that for 20 odd years, over it. I just wanna write songs, not re-invent the donk. If i can get an idea out of my head fast, then i'm generally all for it. I draw the line here though. AI writing my songs for me is never gonna happen. Probably.

But this is contradicting the whole premise of what you said "idea out of my head". If you have ideas about the song in your head then genetics is precisely on the opposite spectrum of things.

The idea of a sound in your head is most certainly a way that asks for patch creation later in the process.

Whereas if you use genetics to "inspire" ideas then this is not and was not your idea to begin with.

I am not against using genetics to create your own sounds which then can spark ideas in your head but a least be fair to yourself and not call them "your idea from your head" - it was a computer algorithm behind it.

Just saying.

That is a world of difference.

Sure you can say and argue "But hey I was the one making a decision on what was good or bad when genetics generated a sound so it's me" - but it's not. You only make cherry-picking - the algorithm was still doing the job for you.

This simply is not the same as you starting with the init sound and being a super duper sound designer ala Howard Scarr.

[carrieres]

hey, I own Legend, havent been using it for a long long time though.
what is this genetics feature and why are people arguing about it (bla bla "cheating" "not ehtical" lmao).
is it just a patch randomizer? please explain. does obsession also have this feature? thanks

From Obsession manual :
With the Genetics function, new sounds can be created from 2-3 already existing patches.
In doing so, properties from these patches are randomly thrown together

[carrieres]

Shouldn't patches ignore current Pitch/Mod wheel settings?

From The legend manual :
Note that the modulation wheel directly controls the amount
of modulation in The Legend, without any routing matrix in between. Therefore, the state of the
modulation wheel is saved with all patches, to ensure all presets sound just like the sound
designers intended it. The maximum amount of pitch bending, as well as the maximum amount
of modulation can be fine tuned on the back panel.

[PieBerger]

why are people arguing about it (bla bla "cheating" "not ehtical" lmao).
is it just a patch randomizer? please explain. does obsession also have this feature? thanks

Patching randomisation is not cheating or unethical but passing off other people's work as your own by using genetics to recombine existing presets, definitely is. If someone took three songs you wrote and mashed them altogether, randomly or otherwise, would you consider it to be original creative work or would you classify it as cheating and an unethical practice, especially if that person tried to make money from it?

[sqigls]

i wish every synth had genetics. I find it more satisfying than crating my own. Done that for 20 odd years, over it. I just wanna write songs, not re-invent the donk. If i can get an idea out of my head fast, then i'm generally all for it. I draw the line here though. AI writing my songs for me is never gonna happen. Probably.

But this is contradicting the whole premise of what you said "idea out of my head". If you have ideas about the song in your head then genetics is precisely on the opposite spectrum of things.

The idea of a sound in your head is most certainly a way that asks for patch creation later in the process.

Whereas if you use genetics to "inspire" ideas then this is not and was not your idea to begin with.

I am not against using genetics to create your own sounds which then can spark ideas in your head but a least be fair to yourself and not call them "your idea from your head" - it was a computer algorithm behind it.

Just saying.

That is a world of difference.

Sure you can say and argue "But hey I was the one making a decision on what was good or bad when genetics generated a sound so it's me" - but it's not. You only make cherry-picking - the algorithm was still doing the job for you.

This simply is not the same as you starting with the init sound and being a super duper sound designer ala Howard Scarr.

get out of your head

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

I disagree with the whole concept of "you can't use genetics to create new patches then sell them". I think it would be in poor taste to do so, but who would care or even know? The feature exists to create new patches. Sometimes you get good ones. Sometimes you get crap. Someone would still need to separate the wheat from the chaff to get the good ones, compile them, etc.

Preset designers don't own knob positions on synths. They're not going to be able to claim copyright by law. And the knob positions and sounds produced by genetics would be different anyway. So who would have a claim? You think any court in the world would be interested in hearing that case?

So from a legal standpoint, I can't imagine there's any issue at all. But don't come to KVR for legal advice, my own post included.

[Sawtooth Fairy]

I agree with that notion.
We will have such moral dilemmas in other fields due to AI.

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

I agree with that notion.
We will have such moral dilemmas in other fields due to AI.

Yeah, exactly. And let's be honest, MOST SYNTH PATCHES ALREADY SOUND LIKE OTHER SYNTH PATCHES WE'VE ALL HEARD BEFORE! Have you made a cool synth sound? Someone else already made a synth sound just like it. Maybe even on the same synth. Maybe with really close parameter positions to yours. Doesn't mean someone else has a copyright on that patch or that patches can even be copyrighted. Otherwise, every sound designer would constantly be suing and getting sued by every other sound designer with everyone claiming they own "two detuned saws with a slow attack and release and lots of sustain" or "saw bass with filter resonance". C'mon now!

In my mind, when I'm buying synth patches, I'm buying a curated collection of patches someone with good taste has compiled from their own skills and expertise. But I'm paying for their "taste and time" more than anything. Like, "oh, this person made a bunch of synth sounds I can do on my own, or maybe even heard before elsewhere, but this curated collection sounds good to my ear and having X patches of this done for me, that's worth something to me." If I could only buy "unique sounding" patches that I'd never heard before, there'd be no bread and butter/musical synth patches in any collection.

EDIT: I should note that it's a little different if someone is writing custom code (like for example .uhm wavetables for a U-he synth) or recording their own custom sounds for a patch (e.g. user-recorded wavetables or samples on a granular synth). Those elements are likely already covered by existing copyright law. But not applicable to this particular conversation about this particular synth.

[twal]

I agree with that notion.
We will have such moral dilemmas in other fields due to AI.

Yup there are people doing much much much in the area of AI to sell products, such as: generate kids coloring books and selling them on a site or generating songs using drake's voice instead of their own. Both of these seem to be more unethical then using Genetics to sell patches at first glance to me- at least in the former case, because anyone can generate a comic book for free but they don't know that.

If someone wants to cull Genetics patches consisting of their own patches they previously created; and were at least open about it (if subscription based, could provide a flow of new patches for people to enjoy; and if periodically, new patches were made then it would continuously be creative and different), then it doesn't seem TOO bad. I suppose if I took a bunch of Factory ones and did the same it would seem pretty tasteless and a classless way to make a quick buck.

[kmonkey]

get out of your head

Oh, at least one burst of the fantasy bubble has been broken. Got you!! You wouldn't post something like that if you didn't find yourself a preset cheater hahaha priceless!!!

[Teksonik]

I was contemplating creating a patreon page where subscribers get X amount of Dune 3 presets each month- created out of genetics. But, I'm not sure if that would be ethical even if I disclosed I was using this technique and not programming them myself. Perhaps not unethical. But perhaps classless?

If you use presets created by other people in the genetics patch then charged money for that patch then it would most definitely be both unethical and classless and depending on the EULA quite possibly illegal.
Just put in a little time and effort to learn how to program patches of your own. It's much more satisfying.
Genetics is the synthesizer equivalent of training wheels on a tricycle.

How bout genetics with just your own patches?
I'm not trying to "cheat" by doing this, it's simply another method.
Someone could reverse engineer a genetic's patch and that's similar to training wheels in a way.
It (Genetics) also can produce interesting patches very quickly for my enjoyment.

Of course using Genetics on patches you've created would be fine but then what's the point especially for a simple synth like The Legend? Anything Genetics could come up with would only be a few minutes of programming away and you'd learn synthesis in the process.

But again if you simply take the factory patches and hit Genetics then expect people to join Patreon for that when they could just hit the Genetics button themselves that makes no sense and again it brings up some moral issues.

To me Genetics is like the old "Give a Man a Fish/Teach a Man to Fish" parable. Hitting Genetics might give you a fish today but it's not going to teach you how to fish.

As for back engineering a Genetics patch be cautious with that especially with a complex synth like DUNE 3 because it's possible that some parameters don't really make sense or contribute equally to the resulting sound when you mash 2 or 3 patches together especially when the child patches have differing numbers of Voice Layers.

[twal]

I was contemplating creating a patreon page where subscribers get X amount of Dune 3 presets each month- created out of genetics. But, I'm not sure if that would be ethical even if I disclosed I was using this technique and not programming them myself. Perhaps not unethical. But perhaps classless?

If you use presets created by other people in the genetics patch then charged money for that patch then it would most definitely be both unethical and classless and depending on the EULA quite possibly illegal.
Just put in a little time and effort to learn how to program patches of your own. It's much more satisfying.
Genetics is the synthesizer equivalent of training wheels on a tricycle.

How bout genetics with just your own patches?
I'm not trying to "cheat" by doing this, it's simply another method.
Someone could reverse engineer a genetic's patch and that's similar to training wheels in a way.
It (Genetics) also can produce interesting patches very quickly for my enjoyment.

Of course using Genetics on patches you've created would be fine but then what's the point especially for a simple synth like The Legend? Anything Genetics could come up with would only be a few minutes of programming away and you'd learn synthesis in the process.

But again if you simply take the factory patches and hit Genetics then expect people to join Patreon for that when they could just hit the Genetics button themselves that makes no sense and again it brings up some moral issues.

To me Genetics is like the old "Give a Man a Fish/Teach a Man to Fish" parable. Hitting Genetics might give you a fish today but it's not going to teach you how to fish.

As for back engineering a Genetics patch be cautious with that especially with a complex synth like DUNE 3 because it's possible that some parameters don't really make sense or contribute equally to the resulting sound when you mash 2 or 3 patches together especially when the child patches have differing numbers of Voice Layers.

I was talking about Dune 3 not so much The Legend.

Maybe people don't want to hit Genetics hours per day to find a lot of good patches. Maybe they don't want to use their own patches to use Genetics with. Maybe they don't know anything about synthesis and want someone else to provide a large amount of patches for them. Have you spent any time with Genetics? I doubt spending large amounts of time just clicking is the most fun thing to do, and if someone else would do it for them, is that not worth a few bucks or so on a subscription? In theory what you are saying makes sense, but in actuality it is not.

Not all producers want to be taught "how to fish", a lot of them just want patches to produce music. Award winning producers find sound designers and ways of getting sounds outside of their own understanding.

I'm sure the Dune 3 complexity with the patches wouldn't be such an issue, how is that an issue, it's just a sound and if it sounds fine then it doesn't matter if some of the layers aren't doing much or am I missing something-

I'm not saying that the viability of this subscription endeavor would be a success, that's why I was curious to what people think. As far as it being immoral, using ones own patches, I'm not sold on that yet as along as you are UPFRONT about the process- if someone wants to hit Genetics for an hour or so a day and it's not worth the 3$+ to do that then that's up to them; or if they don't want to pay for the backlog of patches that would accumulate I understand that. But, I don't think it's up to you to decide what's best for everyone.