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

[digitalboytn]

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.

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.

[SAGG]

And to think I actually considered at one point to save up cash and buy Discovery Pro.. makes me scratch my head now. For starters, reports from legit customers of being stripped of their rightful downloads and upgrade paths after having invested so much money in their product already... and if that wasn't plenty enough of a red flag (it was), we are now presented with this abomination and travesty..

No. Just no. I'm completely repelled by this shitshow. A few developers I have a lot more trust in, that need this money and they will get it.

[vitocorleone123]

Yes. Disco is dead (to me).

[Lbdunequest]

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.

You mean taking others work and developing on top of it for 25 years.

[george]

Old download links are retired over time, as is standard practice. Any customer can contact support and get access - it’s right there in our KB: https://www.discodsp.com/kb/.

Some people will hate no matter what you ship. Condescending posts making off-topic bad faith claims don’t add much here. Source is public, credits are clear, the work continues.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

[Danilo Villanova]

I gotta say, I do feel these old synths sound better than most modern VSTs. They're punchier, clearer and livelier somehow. The only exception would be Massive X, Waldorf Microwave 1 plugin, and maybe NI Super 8 (which is hugely underrated). UAD Opal is up there too.

Spire is a bit thinner, Viper is slightly less punchy and bright (but very close), Dune is a lot more mellow...

Are we moving backwards?

[Milkman]

Ive not heard any old synths that sound better than many of my new synths, but I hear this is a popular point of contention. They certainly sound LOUD and imprecise, but I hear this is what makes them "superior", like vinyl vs hires audio files. Vinyl is an imprecise, sometimes even *dishonest* reproduction format, depending on mastering and other factors, but some will stab you in the heart for suggesting the stable, precise hires playback is better. This discussion is a similar one.

Im not even going to name any brand names because this is the point of endless contention, but the science, the sound, and the practical expression of the art form are improved in almost every category across dozens of modern (last 25 years) DIGITAL synths. Of course if you get hung up on the 100s of poor quality, poorly developed, garbage that promises DA BESSST NEURAL MIND BENDING AI BASED ANALOGGGGG THE WORLD HAS EVER SEEN, you may get the idea that something else is afoot.

Maybe stop buying trash?

[osiris]

I have all these but more often than not I use them for backing. Nothing can beat DUNE, Massive X or Pigments 7. A curse also because I'll see a new synth and start jonesing to buy it, then think - wait, Massive can do that. Then I lose interest.

[Uncle E]

I gotta say, I do feel these old synths sound better than most modern VSTs. They're punchier, clearer and livelier somehow. The only exception would be Massive X, Waldorf Microwave 1 plugin, and maybe NI Super 8 (which is hugely underrated). UAD Opal is up there too.

Spire is a bit thinner, Viper is slightly less punchy and bright (but very close), Dune is a lot more mellow...

Are we moving backwards?

Sorry, super obvious take but if someone wants the Spire or Dune sound, they won't get it with the DSP563xx stuff. Those synths have been used on enough big albums that people are going to specifically be looking for those sounds.

[Danilo Villanova]

I gotta say, I do feel these old synths sound better than most modern VSTs. They're punchier, clearer and livelier somehow. The only exception would be Massive X, Waldorf Microwave 1 plugin, and maybe NI Super 8 (which is hugely underrated). UAD Opal is up there too.

Spire is a bit thinner, Viper is slightly less punchy and bright (but very close), Dune is a lot more mellow...

Are we moving backwards?

Sorry, super obvious take but if someone wants the Spire or Dune sound, they won't get it with the DSP563xx stuff. Those synths have been used on enough big albums that people are going to specifically be looking for those sounds.

I think the specific reasons I gave still stand . They're punchier and clearer. They also feel like a real instrument when you play them and blend better with other instruments. There's zero nostalgia for me personally about these synths. I'm more of an 70's-80's guy when it comes to sound preference.

Most soft synths feel like a bad CGI character in a live action movie. They just don't blend well. A few analog emus are close, but I'm talking about the digital plugins that were supposed to replace these oldies. They have a lot for features, but they're just not up to par in sound quality, presence, envelope snappiness, stereo image, etc.

My 0.02 third world pesos.

[Uncle E]

I think the specific reasons I gave still stand . They're punchier and clearer. They also feel like a real instrument when you play them and blend better with other instruments.

Sure, fair enough. Not all of the DSP563xx do it for me, personally, but I hear what you're talking about with the Nord.

[Danilo Villanova]

Ive not heard any old synths that sound better than many of my new synths, but I hear this is a popular point of contention. They certainly sound LOUD and imprecise, but I hear this is what makes them "superior", like vinyl vs hires audio files. Vinyl is an imprecise, sometimes even *dishonest* reproduction format, depending on mastering and other factors, but some will stab you in the heart for suggesting the stable, precise hires playback is better. This discussion is a similar one.

Im not even going to name any brand names because this is the point of endless contention, but the science, the sound, and the practical expression of the art form are improved in almost every category across dozens of modern (last 25 years) DIGITAL synths. Of course if you get hung up on the 100s of poor quality, poorly developed, garbage that promises DA BESSST NEURAL MIND BENDING AI BASED ANALOGGGGG THE WORLD HAS EVER SEEN, you may get the idea that something else is afoot.

Maybe stop buying trash?

I just gave a list of synths I think are up to par. Do you think they're trash?

[Milkman]

Ive not heard any old synths that sound better than many of my new synths, but I hear this is a popular point of contention. They certainly sound LOUD and imprecise, but I hear this is what makes them "superior", like vinyl vs hires audio files. Vinyl is an imprecise, sometimes even *dishonest* reproduction format, depending on mastering and other factors, but some will stab you in the heart for suggesting the stable, precise hires playback is better. This discussion is a similar one.

Im not even going to name any brand names because this is the point of endless contention, but the science, the sound, and the practical expression of the art form are improved in almost every category across dozens of modern (last 25 years) DIGITAL synths. Of course if you get hung up on the 100s of poor quality, poorly developed, garbage that promises DA BESSST NEURAL MIND BENDING AI BASED ANALOGGGGG THE WORLD HAS EVER SEEN, you may get the idea that something else is afoot.

Maybe stop buying trash?

I just gave a list of synths I think are up to par. Do you think they're trash?

I dont see it. I scrolled back a few pages but didnt see any list. Which?
I am honestly really trying to avoid specific brand discussions inside a thread like this one, lol, which is why the comment I made was semi-vague.