Motorola DSP563xx Emulator (BETA) (Access Virus, Nord Lead, Waldorf MW...)

[jamcat]

The DX7 emulator in Retromulator looks interesting. I’d rather see that by itself and fully fleshed out with a proper GUI, since the VDX7 source is Linux only.

[digitalboytn]

The DX7 emulator in Retromulator looks interesting. I’d rather see that by itself and fully fleshed out with a proper GUI, since the VDX7 source is Linux only.

Try Plogue OPS7....

[jamcat]

The DX7 emulator in Retromulator looks interesting. I’d rather see that by itself and fully fleshed out with a proper GUI, since the VDX7 source is Linux only.

Try Plogue OPS7....

I’m aware of OPS7, but it isn’t actually a DSP chip emulator that runs the DX7 system ROM, is it? And also, it isn’t free.

[Seafire Mk2]

Even though you are legally allowed to do this...

But you did come off as a parasite to some people, And that's why some people were (are?) upset with you.

FTFY

[george]

Speaking of building on other people's work — let's look at what gearmulator itself is built on:

• mc68k — Motorola 68K CPU emulator, forked from Musashi by Karl Stenerud (MIT license)
• JUCE — Audio plugin framework (GPLv3)
• RmlUi — UI rendering library (MIT license)
• FreeType — Font rendering engine (FreeType License / GPLv2)
• CLAP extensions — Plugin format extensions by free-audio
• cpp-terminal — Terminal library for C++

Nobody accused TUS of "stealing" Karl Stenerud's Motorola CPU emulator or when they built their entire project on top of MIT and GPLv3 code written by other people. Nobody started a mob thread about it.

That's how open source works. You build on other people's work, you credit them, you publish your source. Which is exactly what we did.

The double standard here is remarkable.

They didn't download a complete, end-user ready application and slap their name on it, then list it with a fee, on their commercial website with all their other commercial products either.

TUS took bits and bobs and made something vastly different with them. A whole new thing from those GPL'd libraries and the emu engine. Your initial release effectively looked like you went COPY then PASTE off the TUS application and claimed it as if you did the work.

Even if you are legally allowed to do this, the way you went about it didn't seem fair to many on how you handled it with TUS. Only after much blowback (on here and other social media sites) have you added more things (which mostly seem like other GPL'd code), offered the monetary 'apology', and generally tried to patch things up.

But you did come off as a parasite. And that's why people were (are?) upset with you.

Retromulator 1.0 launched with published source code on GitHub, credit to gearmulator, and a direct link to TUS — all from day one. The 4 new cores in 1.2 (OpenWurli, Nuked OPL3, VDX7, SFZero 3.0) were already in development before any “blowback” — porting 3,000 lines of Rust to C++ doesn’t happen overnight as a reaction to forum drama. As for “COPY then PASTE” — I’d invite you to actually look at the source and see for yourself. But I suspect facts won’t change your mind at this point, and that’s fine. Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one.

[VitaminD]

Speaking of building on other people's work — let's look at what gearmulator itself is built on:

• mc68k — Motorola 68K CPU emulator, forked from Musashi by Karl Stenerud (MIT license)
• JUCE — Audio plugin framework (GPLv3)
• RmlUi — UI rendering library (MIT license)
• FreeType — Font rendering engine (FreeType License / GPLv2)
• CLAP extensions — Plugin format extensions by free-audio
• cpp-terminal — Terminal library for C++

Nobody accused TUS of "stealing" Karl Stenerud's Motorola CPU emulator or when they built their entire project on top of MIT and GPLv3 code written by other people. Nobody started a mob thread about it.

That's how open source works. You build on other people's work, you credit them, you publish your source. Which is exactly what we did.

The double standard here is remarkable.

They didn't download a complete, end-user ready application and slap their name on it, then list it with a fee, on their commercial website with all their other commercial products either.

TUS took bits and bobs and made something vastly different with them. A whole new thing from those GPL'd libraries and the emu engine. Your initial release effectively looked like you went COPY then PASTE off the TUS application and claimed it as if you did the work.

Even if you are legally allowed to do this, the way you went about it didn't seem fair to many on how you handled it with TUS. Only after much blowback (on here and other social media sites) have you added more things (which mostly seem like other GPL'd code), offered the monetary 'apology', and generally tried to patch things up.

But you did come off as a parasite. And that's why people were (are?) upset with you.

Retromulator 1.0 launched with published source code on GitHub, credit to gearmulator, and a direct link to TUS — all from day one. The 4 new cores in 1.2 (OpenWurli, Nuked OPL3, VDX7, SFZero 3.0) were already in development before any “blowback” — porting 3,000 lines of Rust to C++ doesn’t happen overnight as a reaction to forum drama. As for “COPY then PASTE” — I’d invite you to actually look at the source and see for yourself. But I suspect facts won’t change your mind at this point, and that’s fine. Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one.

Instead of doubling down, maybe take a step back and self reflect how you came across.

I really think you should just step away from commercializing GPL'd software though, in how you approach it. Either develop brand new instruments from the ground up, or just become a contributor to one of the established GPL'd instruments out there.

Of course all the evidence of your behavior are now mostly gone as your website has been updated a few times already. And 3000 lines of Rust to C++ could potentially happen quickly in an AI prompt.

If you were already so deep into that addition, I suspect you would have waited the week to include that in your v1.0 release. So it seems more likely you hastily packaged it and a few other additions after you saw the massively negative feedback on social media about your initial release, in an attempt to make your product look more unique. If you did not, I hope you can at least see how it appears that way to those on this side of the story.

If money is tight, I can understand. But I think you can benefit the pro audio world more, especially GPL'd software, by approaching it less like easy fruit for the plundering and more like a gardener that wants to cultivate and grow.

[osiris]

One of these takes DX7 ROM sounds because I loaded it with them. (They are not exact) Dexed I think it was.

[mcbpete]

One of these takes DX7 ROM sounds because I loaded it with them. (They are not exact) Dexed I think it was.

Not technically the rom 'sounds' but yeah Dexed supports sysex import of the factory banks (and other third party DX7/TX7 sysex patches)

[bmanic]

The DX7 emulator in Retromulator looks interesting. I’d rather see that by itself and fully fleshed out with a proper GUI, since the VDX7 source is Linux only.

Try Plogue OPS7....

I’m aware of OPS7, but it isn’t actually a DSP chip emulator that runs the DX7 system ROM, is it? And also, it isn’t free.

It's indeed not free.. but have you ever checked just how deep the emulation goes?





Proper DAC emulation and everything. Plogue isn't messing around with their emulations.

[digitalboytn]

The DX7 emulator in Retromulator looks interesting. I’d rather see that by itself and fully fleshed out with a proper GUI, since the VDX7 source is Linux only.

Try Plogue OPS7....

I’m aware of OPS7, but it isn’t actually a DSP chip emulator that runs the DX7 system ROM, is it? And also, it isn’t free.

Apparently Plogue did a lot of work in developing a bit perfect emulation of the DX7...

I don't know the exact details,but it sure sounds like a real DX7 to me and it is the best emulation that I've come across in my travels...

It sounds great and feels just like the real thing....

It is true that OPS7 is not free...

But purchasing a license supports ongoing development and entitles you to priority technical support

[jamcat]

But isn’t running the real thing on a hardware emulator going to be better than a reverse engineered recreation?

Isn’t that the whole point behind the DSP563xx emulator as well?

[aMUSEd]

But isn’t running the real thing on a hardware emulator going to be better than a reverse engineered recreation?

Isn’t that the whole point behind the DSP563xx emulator as well?

Not if all that was modelled was the chip the software runs on but not the DAC

[digitalboytn]

But isn’t running the real thing on a hardware emulator going to be better than a reverse engineered recreation?

Isn’t that the whole point behind the DSP563xx emulator as well?

I don't know the exact details of what Plogue's bit perfect emulation involved...

They would be best to reply here...

But like I said...

OPS7 sounds and feels like a REAL DX7 to me ....

If it looks like a duck,quacks like a duck and walks like a duck,is it a duck ?

There are many pathways up the mountain

[tumface]

But isn’t running the real thing on a hardware emulator going to be better than a reverse engineered recreation?

Isn’t that the whole point behind the DSP563xx emulator as well?

DX7 doesn't have much software in it. The firmware for a DX7 handles the front panel buttons, some parts of MIDI, patch loading, the single LFO, and triggering notes+envelopes.

It's not like the DSP563xx based synths, where the firmware contains all the software synthesis algorithms that run on the DSP chip.

The DX7's synthesis is done with purpose-built chips. The hardware is "hard-coded" to do exactly what it needs to do.

The software part of the DX7 is (comparatively) easy to reimplement in your own code with identical results, so no factory ROM is needed at all.

Implementing the exact behavior of the synthesis chips is the hard part.

[george]

Speaking of building on other people's work — let's look at what gearmulator itself is built on:

• mc68k — Motorola 68K CPU emulator, forked from Musashi by Karl Stenerud (MIT license)
• JUCE — Audio plugin framework (GPLv3)
• RmlUi — UI rendering library (MIT license)
• FreeType — Font rendering engine (FreeType License / GPLv2)
• CLAP extensions — Plugin format extensions by free-audio
• cpp-terminal — Terminal library for C++

Nobody accused TUS of "stealing" Karl Stenerud's Motorola CPU emulator or when they built their entire project on top of MIT and GPLv3 code written by other people. Nobody started a mob thread about it.

That's how open source works. You build on other people's work, you credit them, you publish your source. Which is exactly what we did.

The double standard here is remarkable.

They didn't download a complete, end-user ready application and slap their name on it, then list it with a fee, on their commercial website with all their other commercial products either.

TUS took bits and bobs and made something vastly different with them. A whole new thing from those GPL'd libraries and the emu engine. Your initial release effectively looked like you went COPY then PASTE off the TUS application and claimed it as if you did the work.

Even if you are legally allowed to do this, the way you went about it didn't seem fair to many on how you handled it with TUS. Only after much blowback (on here and other social media sites) have you added more things (which mostly seem like other GPL'd code), offered the monetary 'apology', and generally tried to patch things up.

But you did come off as a parasite. And that's why people were (are?) upset with you.

Retromulator 1.0 launched with published source code on GitHub, credit to gearmulator, and a direct link to TUS — all from day one. The 4 new cores in 1.2 (OpenWurli, Nuked OPL3, VDX7, SFZero 3.0) were already in development before any “blowback” — porting 3,000 lines of Rust to C++ doesn’t happen overnight as a reaction to forum drama. As for “COPY then PASTE” — I’d invite you to actually look at the source and see for yourself. But I suspect facts won’t change your mind at this point, and that’s fine. Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one.

Instead of doubling down, maybe take a step back and self reflect how you came across.

I really think you should just step away from commercializing GPL'd software though, in how you approach it. Either develop brand new instruments from the ground up, or just become a contributor to one of the established GPL'd instruments out there.

Of course all the evidence of your behavior are now mostly gone as your website has been updated a few times already. And 3000 lines of Rust to C++ could potentially happen quickly in an AI prompt.

If you were already so deep into that addition, I suspect you would have waited the week to include that in your v1.0 release. So it seems more likely you hastily packaged it and a few other additions after you saw the massively negative feedback on social media about your initial release, in an attempt to make your product look more unique. If you did not, I hope you can at least see how it appears that way to those on this side of the story.

If money is tight, I can understand. But I think you can benefit the pro audio world more, especially GPL'd software, by approaching it less like easy fruit for the plundering and more like a gardener that wants to cultivate and grow.

Thanks for the unsolicited business advice and speculations. discoDSP has been developing and shipping products for almost 25 years, I think we'll manage.