CSR Classik Studio Reverb vs P100/A100

voidar · Post by **voidar** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 11:56 pm

On 2006-04-16 03:42, astroman wrote:

ps: the only point Warp didn't mention (see his response further up) is that he will effectively have to do 'the courseware' for free, due to the low number of customers on this platform
maybe 10k copies sold could change his mind, but according to experience this will not happen

So, given he actually has an income from IK these days, over time he might consider releasing these on the platform, as the coursework would already have been paid for?

No-one likes having their work "stolen", but it will eventually happen. And with all respect, this work as I understand it is based on this.

So, over time it would make sense to release these on this platform as well, because:

- They sound better (20% better?

)
- Platform ovners would like having them integrated
- Platform version is usally cheaper and better than integrating outboard hardware that needs an additional D/A/A/D-conversion for its use with the system

hifiboom · Post by **hifiboom** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 12:45 am

No-one likes having their work "stolen", but it will eventually happen. And with all respect, this work as I understand it is based on this.

nice viewing....

but I think you are right....

And at least I am sure that it is more likely that the VST version gets hacked and cracked and whatever than the scope version....

voidar · Post by **voidar** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 1:08 am

In regards to sales, for sure. But I think Warp69's original concern was in his hard work in reverse-engineering and coding the algorithms being stolen from big-time developers.

Having already established a deal with IK Multimedia I am sure those concerns are a bit outdated.
Surely, if some other company (like i.e. Waves) would choose to steal Warp69's design if he chose to release a "STW H100", there might be some competition in the distant future. But there will always be an original, and that has sales-value.

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 1:40 am

On 2006-09-23 00:56, voidar wrote:
...So, given he actually has an income from IK these days, over time he might consider releasing these on the platform, as the coursework would already have been paid for?
...

Warp69's point was that the mathematical flow of the plugin could be deciphered (with the 'right' tools).

In this context the 'coursework' is in no way covered by whatever IK paid him - unless he sold the devices including all rights.
The latter obviously wasn't the case as it would restrict him from using parts of that work again, which he certainly would have mentioned.

You may cr*ck a VSTi, but that doesn't tell you it's internal operation, nor does the disassembled machine code - unless a developer was careless enough to choose informative routine labels and leave them in the release code (ther's an option to turn the feature off).
It's amazing how often that stuff is left in - for example to name the expiration check (of a demo) 'timebomb' makes it a snatch to patch the respective code

According to Warp there's (at least one) a tool that can list which atoms have been used in which sequence in a plugin - and since the processing context is pre-known (a reverb does what a reverb does...) it's fairly easy to guess the algorithm from that structure.

Afaik it took some time, but it didn't remain a secret that certain modulations of the reverb tail 'made' the Lexicon sound - and the Lexichip is a custom item...

Almost every license (for arbitrary software) excludes peeking at the code ('disassemble'), yet it is broken without hesitation.
Where do you think they get all those 'security holes' with potential buffer overflows from... ?

It's a matter of fact that once you release a piece of code to public, people will want to see it pants down...

cheers, Tom

Bifop · Post by **Bifop** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 2:55 am

First time I read a good explanation on the reverse engineering and Warp's fears..
Thanks Astroman.

On the bottom line, Warp69 stole somebody else's design and fear to be stolen back !!!
Haha, good one.

He can keep his Hal algo as far as I'm concerned. I really wanted this Hall algo, but :
no one can force him to do so ;
it's released under vst native plug ; computer are becoming increasingly fast and cheap ;
and yes, the hardware Lexicon is becoming cheaper, looks good on a rack and IS the original algo/sound.
Ciao Warp. THanks for the PLate and A 100.

hifiboom · Post by **hifiboom** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:19 am

You may cr*ck a VSTi, but that doesn't tell you it's internal operation, nor does the disassembled machine code - unless a developer was careless enough to choose informative routine labels and leave them in the release code (ther's an option to turn the feature off).

so I do not see a big difference between your plug-in being cracked and available for "free" through the i-net and a stolen recreation of an algo that is sold through another label...

result is the same: sales will drop...

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: hifiboom on 2006-09-23 04:22 ]</font>

voidar · Post by **voidar** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 4:56 am

On the bottom line, Warp69 stole somebody else's design and fear to be stolen back !!!
Haha, good one.

Yes, that seems to be the bottom line.

And I think that over time this will be less important as:

- IK sell his VST-plugins
- Someone will most likely try to top it

Releasing a 'H100' _might_ help someone in that regard, but given the obscure nature of our platform I doubt it.
I ask, can someone point to reverse-engineered versions of A100/C100/I100/P100??

Native possiblities will grow, of course, but at this stage the general consensus is that 32-bit floating point processing is sufficient while we really should talk of 64-bit floats in this regard.

IMHO, single-precision floating-point sucks for audio. There are good reasons why you wouldn't trust your accounting using floats. The same applies to our beloved audio.

I don't want unprecise infinite headroom, I want precise finite headroom.

Warp69 · Post by **Warp69** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 4:37 am

Hi All,

Im not afraid of any reverse enginnering or disassembling (itherwise I wouldnt release the reverbs on vst) - both require substantial amount of work. Everyone does it - TC, Lexicon and many others (including me) - http://www.lydmaskinen.dk/viewtopic.php ... sc&start=0

Look for Dandan - the developer of TC6000 reverbs - Sorry danish board.

But what Im against is the possibility to reopen a protected module on this platform - you dont need any knowledge about reverb design - its just copy and paste. I think verything changed around the timer when the demo hack was found. I wouldn't hesitate if we got a new and secure DSP platform - that would be great.

All other DSP platforms have highprofile 3rd party developers..........

Cheers

katano · Post by **katano** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 5:31 am

On 2006-09-24 05:37, Warp69 wrote:
But what Im against is the possibility to reopen a protected module on this platform - you dont need any knowledge about reverb design - its just copy and paste. I think verything changed around the timer when the demo hack was found. I wouldn't hesitate if we got a new and secure DSP platform - that would be great.

warp,

do you have a statement from creamware concerning this? will they do something, so that we could keep "our" highend developers?

it's a shame

greez
roman

hifiboom · Post by **hifiboom** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 6:15 am

I wouldn't hesitate if we got a new and secure DSP platform - that would be great.

so CW keep these words in mind when constructing a new ScopeII board or whatever....

a plattform without good developers. is like having a good hifisystem without the music to play ....