Ableton Forum

after a fun music night I have the first major problem .

do I overlook something or is it not possible to do small modulations and chose the start point from the modulation free?

example:

- modulate a knob
- deepness 1%
- the modulation starts at ~50% and I don't see a way change the start value
- what does this mean: small modulations from a filter to make some micro variations for a hi hat are not possible for example

do one understand what I mean? otherwise would be happy to write more detailed.

best regards,
mr.ergo

mr.ergonomics wrote:after a fun music night I have the first major problem .

do I overlook something or is it not possible to do small modulations and chose the start point from the modulation free?

example:

- modulate a knob
- deepness 1%
- the modulation starts at ~50% and I don't see a way change the start value
- what does this mean: small modulations from a filter to make some micro variations for a hi hat are not possible for example

do one understand what I mean? otherwise would be happy to write more detailed.

best regards,
mr.ergo

it sounds like an improvement request

dear julienb,

i now have two problems with your lfo device:

1. to sell a device which is so simple and basic to make oneself is quite pathetic. and the way you released it in a not-very-good-state and then upped the price as you made improvements which should have been there in the first place was really childish.

2. number one above is not very important really, lots of people have been doing similar, and i did not bother mentioning it until now. but, now it comes to light that, if emajcher is correct, you have wholesale stolen against a non-commercial license. this is completely disgraceful. whether or not the abstraction / sub-patcher / code you copied was 'original' or not is completely irrelevant. and then you rudely and callously try and fob off the complaint with drivel such as "this kind of (a bit jealous) comment". i mean GROW UP. no-one wants to be like you julien. i do not care that you are "making A LOT for communities" - it does not make stealing against a license right. i use code inspired by others all the time, but NEVER would i have the indecency to SELL something that contained exact code copy.

people have to be really careful about this in the current max / m4l climate. it is a very serious issue. if i found out that someone had stolen my code exactly, without asking, in order to sell something, i would pursue them as if my life depended on it. not because i am callous and lack friends and objectives in life, but because of the principle.

if emajcher is wrong, i have egg on my face, but the principles i express remain.

if emajcher is right, the LEAST you could do is make a public apology and donate all the money you made to a good cause and release the device for free with a credit to emajcher.

my 2 cents.

oh and my last two ones...this is really all "bad" I have noticed. ...but I guess you noticed it as well.

1.
an offset for the LFO wave form. at the moment a sine always starts at a value of 1 ( assumed the sine has a range from -1 to 1). at fast modulation speed this is not so important, but when one use a slow rate.

2. not only shorter (1/8 1/16) but also longer modulation values, it's nice to modulate a parameter over 2,4 bars!

I am not sure what are you saying, are you actually denying copying, renaming my module exactly line for line into your code? Every single parameter, same exact layout, same exact font (which doesn't appear anywhere in your patch except in my module) and the identical name of 20+ variables, even the same abstractions of lower level code? Are you actually denying it? The JSON code doesn't lie and even if you think exactly like I do in every respect when coding, you somehow magically placed all of the objects into the same exact spots made the same exact connections as the patch I placed them in July? You didn't even mimic the code, you literally pasted the exact module and removed my name from it. What does someone copying and re-selling your proto-whatever code have anything to do with the fact you copied my code and pasted it into your patch when it was explicitly marked NON-COMMERCIAL (which is how I think all m4l patches should be)? I am not guessing on this, I bought your plugin and actually looked because I suspected when I saw the screenshot.

And how am I jealous, I made mine for FREE back in July of 2010, I would never have imagined selling a m4l patch after I learned so much from the community and message boards. While the functionality of my modules were not inherently unique, at the time, there was not a single object that persisted track/device/parameter because pattr objects were so buggy, it took a lot of effort to make it work, something you obviously couldn't pull off so you copy and pasted my object, despite the explicit license.

mr.ergonomics wrote:oh and my last two ones...this is really all "bad" I have noticed. ...but I guess you noticed it as well.

1.
an offset for the LFO wave form. at the moment a sine always starts at a value of 1 ( assumed the sine has a range from -1 to 1). at fast modulation speed this is not so important, but when one use a slow rate.

2. not only shorter (1/8 1/16) but also longer modulation values, it's nice to modulate a parameter over 2,4 bars!

currently improving it.
- offset improvements are done
- actually working on the modulation interval in tempo synced mode.

I would just like to comment on the license issues, because I agree that it's very important.

If emajcher is right, than LFO everything shouldn't be sold and people who already bought it should get a refund.

Julien, no matter how much you are doing for the community, things like this are unacceptable and above all ILLEGAL. Your weak argumentation on this matter really doesn't help. It seems like you're really not concerned with licensing. Ask yourself this question: would you be happy if people bought your LFO everything, renamed it and gave (parts of) it away for free?
If you cannot convincingly defend what you did, then I will help spreading the word. I'm sorry, but that's just the way it works...

Seppe

Or perhaps someone who's already bought it should make some small alterations or improvements and then post it for free on maxforlive.com ?

XPM wrote:Or perhaps someone who's already bought it should make some small alterations or improvements and then post it for free on maxforlive.com ?

you're the smartest one by saying that.
but not the first one






@all
it would be my last post about all of this "all over him, come on" campaign, because I don't have time for this and I apologize for this lack of debate involved my lack of time.


1/ about stealing its thing.
I didn't do that.
today, we all have ideas and it is VERY pretentious to think my idea, its idea, your idea is UNIQUE.

I ALREADY collaborate with many programmers, coders, designers.
Maybe, the man who did the freeware located on maxforlive.com would have had a better idea like that: contacting me, telling me "hey man, I create LFO too, can we collaborate?"
It would have been greater, smarter (stronger) than this idea of "kill design the media, kill julien bayle"
I LOVE collaboration. it was what I tried to say about "I give a lot to communities" even if other have replied it doesn't matter.
BTW, it won't kill me.
wow! we're safe!

2/ about selling stuff.
yes, I'm seeling stuff.
I'm a professional because I chose this way of life.
It isn't incompatible with supporting open-source, knowledge spreading etc.
I give A LOT of free workshops about arduino, midibox, and ableton live
So it is a bit strange those attacks about me + money + free + opensource.
BTW, for a lot of people, money is taboo. I respect that. but without money, it is a bit hard no? I know that. I'm not rich.


3/ about selling m4l patch
Puremagnetik does it too.
They are selling m4l patches and tried (hard) to hide/encrypt them.
on this particular point, I don't agree with them even if I respect their choice.
as a lot have seen, my patch (and the following others) aren't crypted, hidden, masked etc.
a LOT of people thanked me about keeping it open. and I'll do that in the future too.

BUT indeed, the little julien bayle / Design the Media isn't Puremagnetik.
so "kill him!"


really, guys, don't talk too much without knowing me.
I'm not the one several persons here (nice to discover them too) are trying to paint.

all the best

hey folks, I understand that this is a delicate problem and that there are strong emotions involved.

But maybe we should give julien and emajcher some time to sort things out in a good civilised way? I know this is difficult, but I believe in sanity and reason, at least in a small and creative community with intelligent people. And that we are. C'mon...

I don't think that anyone has an advantage when we start a war here. In contrary I think we all have an advantage when this difference is solved.


edit: just spelling..

mr.ergonomics wrote:hey folks, I understand that this is a delicate problem and that there are strong emotions involved.

But maybe we should give julien and emajcher some time to sort things out in a good civilised way? I know this is difficult, but I believe in sanity and reason, at least in a small and creative community with intelligent people. And that we are. C'mon...

I don't think that anyone has an advantage when we start a war here. In contrary I think we all have an advantage when this difference is resolved.

no war with only one who wants to fight.
I just wanted to end the thread for me.
I'm "denotifying" me of this post. too much bad words here. and my last words will be: I didn't sell anything. basta.

Only one way this can be resolved. Someone post the code.

mr.ergonomics wrote:hey folks, I understand that this is a delicate problem and that there are strong emotions involved.

But maybe we should give julien and emajcher some time to sort things out in a good civilised way? I know this is difficult, but I believe in sanity and reason, at least in a small and creative community with intelligent people. And that we are. C'mon...

I don't think that anyone has an advantage when we start a war here. In contrary I think we all have an advantage when this difference is solved.

+1

julienb wrote: 1/ about stealing its thing.
I didn't do that.
today, we all have ideas and it is VERY pretentious to think my idea, its idea, your idea is UNIQUE.

Amazing, you must be a politician, you directly avoid responding to an specifics about the code I identified ... the mystery of how you and I somehow created the same bpatcher object, identical in every fashion, with the same physical positions in the patch, with the same 3 layers of patcher object that abstract the 3 different functions. The font matching my code only in the one abstraction unlike the rest of your patch (you don't even use abstractions in your main LFO, it is one big mess) and how the id's, inlet's number of outlets and the patching rectangles are all identical!!!!! What are the chances of 2 people using max creating even one single patcher object, with identical attributes across the board yet alone having it occupy the same position in a patch (patching_rect)? Even if we lucked out on all of the above similarities, objects with the same name and patching rectangle somehow ended up with the same id, id's which are auto generated by max? You try and turn this around and say I am being pretentious!!

If you would have just manned up and apologized I really would have dropped it, I don't need nor want any money. It is a shame you didn't copy the rest of the patch in it's entirety, then your LFO wouldn't run when the transport is stopped in non-sync mode; you would have zeroed out the other waveforms when they were not in use to lower the overhead of the LFO (which is probably why you can't sync the LFO to anything over 4nt without the CPU overloading).

There was no reason for me to offer to collaborate, I solved all of these problems back in July and made it available free to the community for non-commercial use, a license you didn't respect.

Hi everyone - I'd like to echo mr. ergonomics' suggestion and ask Julien and Edward to resolve this issue privately. This forum is not the right place, and sentiments are getting very negative.