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

[beely]

Tried to update to versions 2.1 and Logic refuses to recognize them. I completely uninstalled the previous versions and went through all the motions to install the new versions: no luck. Anyone run into similar problems?

No problems with the current versions here in Logic 11.2.2.

[VariKusBrainZ]

Did you try renaming them, that usually works for me on Windows.i just stick a space in

[soundman007]

Thanks for the replies guys. I do not know what happened, but I just started all over again and now it is OK. This is not the first time that Logic refuses to recognise plugins for some strange random reason. I had the same with Soundtoys 6 free plugins from the holidays. A trick that helped is to open MainStage and do the reset and rescanning of the plugins there. After that Logic recognised them.

[xhunaudio]

Hello,

I just posted a question on the DSP Dev section, about Virus A /B factory demo songs and Osirus.

Anyone knows where the Control, Edit and Store buttons are on Osirus (if there are) ?

[Uncle E]

I asked the Discord for you.

- edit - Got an answer:

not currently, but TUS are aware of this and have it on their roadmap to add to all the plugins generally.

[xhunaudio]

Great news, thank you Eric.

[Lbdunequest]

I'm curious, which modern VSTi do you think sounds better than OsTIrus?

Dune, Spire, Massive X, Rapid

For me none, Massive X on par. This is for me, others might find different.

[xmstkvr]

I have a question on this. Say I am about to run the Virus TI emulator in my DAW. Does this mean I can connect some midi controller that has a device mapping from an actual Virus TI hardware synth already premapped?

Does this mean that the emu plugin in my DAW (assuming that the connection is set up correctly between emulation and my controller) will respond exaxctly like the hardware would? Like, if it were connected to the hardware instead.

Because it carries all the information from hardware (ROM) - is this correct to assume?

Like the plugin will respond automatically out of the box to the default MIDI CC chart from Virsu TI, thus consequently, my MIDI controller with pre-mapped CC from Virsu TI will also work the same with the plugin?

[conundrum]

I have to ask, what is it about these emulators that is prompting users to actually “add” restrictions to a companies EULA?

At least in the case of JE8086, the firmware is freely available from Roland, and the EULA, which must be agreed to, says nothing about needing the original hardware, or preventing use in 3rd party emulators.

Roland being Roland, they’re unlikely to change the terms, but like most old software, it may eventually be delisted.

[beely]

It’s to not give reasons for companies’ lawyers to decide to try to legally shut down the team making the emulators. The team have to maintain being squeaky clean, and the companies are watching them.

[conundrum]

Yes I get that, but why are *users* “adding” things to Roland’s EULA?

This has to be the first time I’ve seen something like that. Usually people wish those things were less restrictive, not more.

[Uncle E]

It makes perfect sense that people who want to see them survive and thrive would do that.

[beely]

Yes I get that, but why are *users* “adding” things to Roland’s EULA?

The legal situation isn't entirely clear, and no-one particularly wants to be the people paying for a legal team to test the cases.

This means you get a variety of views on the topic from different people. Some read the TUS statements of "You must only use this if you have a legal copy of the firmware - which means you own the hardware", without really understanding why TUS *have* to have that definitive stance, and assume therefore that is the truth/fact of the matter, and then parrot that to everyone else (which is the safest approach particularly if you want to absolutely be on the side of copyright respect).

Some people think "well if the company freely lets anyone download the OS from their site, without requiring a proof of purchase/ownership of the hardware, or registration, and the agreement I have to OK to let me download has zero restrictions about using using that firmware other the the usual do not modify/reverse engineer/distribute" stuff then I can't see a problem using it, and if the company were concerned about this use, surely they'd update the agreements to explicitly cover those use cases?"

And other people have other views, ranging from "this clearly seems illegal to me" to "I don't see a problem with this at all" and a bunch of cases in between that would take too long to type out. I think it's generally best and responsible to at least try to convey what we believe to be the case regarding the legality and let individuals make their own choices as to what they are comfortable with.

To be clear - test cases have shown that developing emulators isn't in itself problematic, but encouraging unauthorised use of software owned by a company with commercial interests in it may well be, so people skirt on the lines and decide for themselves where they think the line is, and which side they want to be on it. And at least in TUS's case, they generally try to contact/work with the manufacturer first, then if that doesn't work out they try to stay away from clearly conflicting products that could be argued to be economically damaging to the company, they do not monetise their emulators, they do not encourage uses of the IP/firmware that could be considered to be illegal, and from what I understand, no company has actively asked them, or threatened them, to stop what they are doing.

Note that where an individual thinks the line is, and what side they choose to be on, may have nothing to do with what the lawyers would argue, and the only way to be 100% clear from that is to stay away completely (even if you *do* own the hardware), and many people do have that view, which is 100% understandable too.

Note that the whole "you must own the hardware to use the software" doesn't seem to me to have much legal weight - I've never seen any firmware/software license agreements that stipulate that, and if companies had a problem with these emulators, they could fairly easily amend the usage agreements, restrict the downloads, or require proof of ownership, and send cease and desists to the emulator developers with legal threats, which would shut them down overnight as they do not have the resources to test their legal stance in court, even if they might win - it's simply an attitude that the emulators *have* to employ for obvious reasons.

But as none of us are lawyers either, how we think about the situation may have limited connection to the reality of the situation...

[emasters]

I'm not an attorney, but seems to me it would be hard for Roland to prove harm with the JP-8000 emulator, if a case went to court. The product has been discontinued for decades, Roland receives no revenue from the JP-8000 at this point (they don't even have a JP-8000 software synth available) and if the reverse engineering work was "clean" in its approach - what grounds would harm be based on? That said, if the emulation was for a current Roland synth (or if they at some point offer a JP-8000 software synth) where they do get revenue, then Roland might become more aggressive. I would have expected if Roland cared, they would have already taken action. At a minimum, they would have removed the free download for the original JP-8000 firmware. But last I checked, it's still available.

[vitocorleone123]

I'm curious, which modern VSTi do you think sounds better than OsTIrus?

“Better” in what way?

Just comparing the raw sound of the oscillators and filters? That’s not a short list.

While those aspects are critical to me, the total instrument has to be assessed. That’s where there’s still a place for the Virus.

It’s not a contest. It’s a bunch of instruments. Use what works best for you that you love the sound of.