31–40 of 44 posts
I don't get the spectral warping part: is it similar to nonlinear distortion (e.g. Casio CZ-series)? Or is it a different concept? How does it work under the hood?
https://ibb.co/y0TL3SS https://ibb.co/Hn945Q0 You get multiple choices on 2 dropdowns with associated bipolar knobs. Best way to explain them all would be to just listen to a demo.
You can support with a subscription, but it's not a scammy "we hope you forget to cancel this", you literally get the credit from your subscription to buy the full thing.
You don't have to buy anything! The code is free as in speech and in beer, but if you actually use the software for what it is used for, you get a lot of amazing benefits from doing so (ie; I'm a programmer, but if I'm making music I don't always want to be making presets, sometimes I just want to hear a bunch)
There's (less) danger of the company just going backrupt and being locked into their bitrot because the code can be forked and maintained (can is not will, but makes me feel better)
Great synth! Huge sound possibilities and the visual aspect is great for visual learners who are learning synths for the first time! I love seeing this stuff posted here. Does anyone have any other similar plugins for synths/effects. I know that Valhalla does amazing work and there is VCV or whatever but I remember there being a bit of community issues with that one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't look OSS to me. I haven't registered and downloaded the software from their website but I doubt it would come with any licensing or OSS mention. The marketing doesn't mention OSS either. There's at least one thread asking for clarification on the subject which, as far as I can tell, is not formaly answered. The repo you linked is 13 months old but it's informative nonetheless: > Do not distribute the prese…
It's universally accepted that aggregating free software with non-free data does not make the software non-free. The explanation in the repo about the licensing is correct and perfectly okay from an OSS perspective. The software's copyright holder cannot infringe his own copyright by distributing the software from his own website, even if he also offers a GPL license. If he were accepting contributions from other peo…
The GP is saying that author is distributing that software as unfree with a different license since as copyright holder, the author can do whatever they wish. QT, for example, is distributed as GPL or with a commercial license.
Which is to say the GP is correct this is possible and it's a sleazy maneuver.
Which is unfortunate since I actually am playing with Linux audio software and I'd love to find a good free software synthesizer. LMMS is OK but this does seem pretty impressive.
I had no idea this was open source. Vital is an amazing synth, and really gives Serum and Pigments competition.
It's apparently been open source for less than 13 months under GPLv3: https://github.com/mtytel/vital As recently as the end of 02020 (two months earlier!) they were planning to not open-source it: https://forum.vital.audio/t/is-vital-actually-open-source/13...
https://github.com/DISTRHO/DISTRHO-Ports/tree/master/ports/v...
There's a big difference between "Free" and demo versions. I've personally found that most music software makers always have an angle or strategy to up-sell when they say their tools are free, and that's simply NOT free. Now even demo versions of software give you no accurate indication of what happens behind the scenes. Free plug-ins often install additional software, security tools (digital dongles) and drivers tha…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's universally accepted that aggregating free software with non-free data does not make the software non-free. The explanation in the repo about the licensing is correct and perfectly okay from an OSS perspective. The software's copyright holder cannot infringe his own copyright by distributing the software from his own website, even if he also offers a GPL license. If he were accepting contributions from other peo…
The GP isn't saying that the author is making the software unfree by mixing it with commercial software. The GP is saying that author is distributing that software as unfree with a different license since as copyright holder, the author can do whatever they wish. QT, for example, is distributed as GPL or with a commercial license. Which is to say the GP is correct this is possible and it's a sleazy maneuver. Which is…
What do you think of Vitalium? I don't know enough about synthesizers to have an informed opinion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's apparently been open source for less than 13 months under GPLv3: https://github.com/mtytel/vital As recently as the end of 02020 (two months earlier!) they were planning to not open-source it: https://forum.vital.audio/t/is-vital-actually-open-source/13...
Vitalium is the fork that removes the store etc. https://github.com/DISTRHO/DISTRHO-Ports/tree/master/ports/v...
I'd consider open sourcing, but I also feel like I've put in a crapload of work (and still have lots to do before I'd release, mostly UI work which I hate doing).
I had in mind perhaps I would create a fairly cheap commercial project and attempt to sell and market it myself. But it seems like this one has an interesting alternative models. Open source core, free basic version, pay for content? I wonder how successful it is in bringing in $$.
Looks like a boatload of work went into the instrument, too.
(The thing I'm making is a mix of additive + frequency-modulation synth. Uses a variant of frequency modulation [Modified FM] not present in anything else I've seen based on some papers I read some years ago [from Victor Lazzarini and Joe Timoney @ Maynooth University university]. A more regular linear pattern to the sideband amplitude during modulation. Sounds less "nasal" and "tinny" than classic Yamaha DX FM.)
I'm two months into writing a VST instrument, and I'm curious about business models and how much success this product is having. I'd consider open sourcing, but I also feel like I've put in a crapload of work (and still have lots to do before I'd release, mostly UI work which I hate doing). I had in mind perhaps I would create a fairly cheap commercial project and attempt to sell and market it myself. But it seems li…