(why not) sell samples of vst instruments?
-
weeddigger
- Posts: 1013
- Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2008 3:48 am
ok j, sorry if I did, I don't want to do that ...
but,
forget about "cheesy", that's subjective.
let's focus on if this is _legal_ or, if it falls into that gray-legal zone, maybe let's talk about this being _doable_.
No I wouldn't do it, because _I_ think it could be counter-productive to my favorite software companies: In the art of making my favorite synth's presets available as samples, maybe I could seriously hurt my favorite synth's maker enough, that it'll eventually have to stop selling the product ... or lock-it down some more, or make it more expensive, etc. The case of Lucifer comes to mind.
But still, in reality owning such samples wouldn't compare all that well to owning the instrument that produced it. There would most probably be artifacts introduced, be it in the way they're used, recorded, tuned, formatted, etc. The case of the Mellotron "refill" comes to mind. But apparently there was a market for that, since the originals are kind of hard to find and acquire.
And, I'm guessing if someone was pushing a single-cycle package thing, it could be that they were actually pushing the original instrument's imperfections in producing such basic waves: i'm thinking the famous ways famous vintage synths could deform their basic oscilator footprints, etc. I'm not a crazy-synth man, yet, so I couln't tell you before the 90's. The Covert Ops, come to mind, both of them.
but this is not a controversy,
and we are buddies,
you can use my waves, when I release them ok.
just share some of your profits with me, ok
Here you go peeps:
______________________
_ _ _ _ _ _
...| / .. | / .. | /
--|--/---|--/---|--/--
...| / .. | / | /
__|/_____|/___|/____
but,
forget about "cheesy", that's subjective.
let's focus on if this is _legal_ or, if it falls into that gray-legal zone, maybe let's talk about this being _doable_.
No I wouldn't do it, because _I_ think it could be counter-productive to my favorite software companies: In the art of making my favorite synth's presets available as samples, maybe I could seriously hurt my favorite synth's maker enough, that it'll eventually have to stop selling the product ... or lock-it down some more, or make it more expensive, etc. The case of Lucifer comes to mind.
But still, in reality owning such samples wouldn't compare all that well to owning the instrument that produced it. There would most probably be artifacts introduced, be it in the way they're used, recorded, tuned, formatted, etc. The case of the Mellotron "refill" comes to mind. But apparently there was a market for that, since the originals are kind of hard to find and acquire.
And, I'm guessing if someone was pushing a single-cycle package thing, it could be that they were actually pushing the original instrument's imperfections in producing such basic waves: i'm thinking the famous ways famous vintage synths could deform their basic oscilator footprints, etc. I'm not a crazy-synth man, yet, so I couln't tell you before the 90's. The Covert Ops, come to mind, both of them.
but this is not a controversy,
and we are buddies,
you can use my waves, when I release them ok.
just share some of your profits with me, ok
j2j wrote:mesmer, i think you are misinterpreting what I said....
maybe...
I think it is cheesy to sell a sample set, " firebird vst " presets, or " massive vst " presets...
A single cycle waveform, could be like... a sine wave, or a saw wave... and you can build em in max.msp for example, or you can take em from the raw oscillator of a synth, or whatever... but basically, what we are talking about is the difference between a synth preset, and a wave form...
and yes, all sounds can be broken into sine waves, according to Forier... arrg ( sp )
Here you go peeps:
______________________
_ _ _ _ _ _
...| / .. | / .. | /
--|--/---|--/---|--/--
...| / .. | / | /
__|/_____|/___|/____
http://www.mesmero.net
---
---
---
---
Hidden Driveways wrote:This doesn't answer your question at all, but I said it anyway simply for the joy of making a post.
I think sampling hardware is not cheesy because the hardware is 1. More expensive and 2. Does not yet exist in software. Software synths tend to be less expensive, and the sounds already exist in the software; they don't need to be recorded.
I guess the point is in one case you're converting something "hard" into something "soft", so it's OK, and in the other you're converting something "soft" into something still "soft" so it's pretty cheesy.
I guess the point is in one case you're converting something "hard" into something "soft", so it's OK, and in the other you're converting something "soft" into something still "soft" so it's pretty cheesy.
i didnt read most of the longer posts here, but this about sums up what i think.agargara wrote:I think sampling hardware is not cheesy because the hardware is 1. More expensive and 2. Does not yet exist in software. Software synths tend to be less expensive, and the sounds already exist in the software; they don't need to be recorded.
I guess the point is in one case you're converting something "hard" into something "soft", so it's OK, and in the other you're converting something "soft" into something still "soft" so it's pretty cheesy.
people sell sample CD's of HARDWARE synths to they make their sounds accessible to people who are 1. getting started, and/or 2. would probably not be able to afford the real thing.
To sample something as relatively easily accessible as a VST or AU instrument is a little ... i dont know... not cheesy as they're saying, and not morally wrong (not sure about legally)... but its just... i dont know... not very convincing or credible. Kind of makes one think "what's the point?"
I think you'd be better off just making your own sounds and selling a collection of original PATCHES for owners of the specific soft synths in question.
Or if you're hard set on sampling the soft synths, once again, come up with your own sounds, sample them, and just sell them as "generic" synthlines, basslines, etc... without mentioning what synths were used... and make sure they don't come even close to sounding like any factory presets.
-
pepezabala
- Posts: 3503
- Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 4:29 pm
- Location: In Berlin, finally
the main point is that a softsynth allow totally different ways of tweaking than a sampler. Therefore a softsynth-preset will be a different thing than a sample-set of that same sound.
To use the sample-set of a synth-preset is as "cheesy" (to me) as using the tension-instrument instead of a real fender rhodes. It just doesn't matter. Some stupid purists will say it is cheesy to use 909-samples instead of the real drum-machine. I personally just don't care.
For example, lots of Peaches and M.I.A.-tracks have been made with preset-sounds of Korg-grooveboxes and for me they still rock harder than anything. Although most people here will agree that Korg-groovebox-presets are "cheesy".
To use the sample-set of a synth-preset is as "cheesy" (to me) as using the tension-instrument instead of a real fender rhodes. It just doesn't matter. Some stupid purists will say it is cheesy to use 909-samples instead of the real drum-machine. I personally just don't care.
For example, lots of Peaches and M.I.A.-tracks have been made with preset-sounds of Korg-grooveboxes and for me they still rock harder than anything. Although most people here will agree that Korg-groovebox-presets are "cheesy".
-
Lo-Fi Massahkah
- Posts: 3604
- Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 2:57 pm
- Location: The south east suburbs of Malmö, Sweden.