Again,NO M.O.S.S.

X-Trade · Post by **X-Trade** » Mon Feb 07, 2011 10:27 pm

danatkorg wrote:
X-Trade wrote: Furthermore, it is a shame, but MOSS-like physical modelling just isn't favourable commercially because the technique has to be licensed from another company.
This sounds like a misconception. Korg has a Sondius-XG license for the use of Stanford University's physical modelling patents (something which some other companies seem to use, in my personal, unofficial and non-legal opinion, without bothering to license). The MOSS synths, OASYS PCI, OASYS, and now KRONOS all are covered by this license.

- Dan

Thanks for the insight. I find the licensing and patents somewhat confusing at times. There are technologies that are blatantly used without and sign of licensing at times in fairly high profile products. Other times I can't quite understand what is so special about it and the concept seems straightforward to me, yet someone has managed to 'put a price on it' so to speak.

Zeroesque · Post by **Zeroesque** » Mon Feb 07, 2011 10:53 pm

X-Trade wrote:
danatkorg wrote:
X-Trade wrote: Furthermore, it is a shame, but MOSS-like physical modelling just isn't favourable commercially because the technique has to be licensed from another company.
This sounds like a misconception. Korg has a Sondius-XG license for the use of Stanford University's physical modelling patents (something which some other companies seem to use, in my personal, unofficial and non-legal opinion, without bothering to license). The MOSS synths, OASYS PCI, OASYS, and now KRONOS all are covered by this license.

- Dan
Thanks for the insight. I find the licensing and patents somewhat confusing at times. There are technologies that are blatantly used without and sign of licensing at times in fairly high profile products. Other times I can't quite understand what is so special about it and the concept seems straightforward to me, yet someone has managed to 'put a price on it' so to speak.

Software patents are a mess at best. Personally, I find them absurd.

billysynth1 · Post by **billysynth1** » Mon Feb 07, 2011 11:20 pm

Dan wrote

jemkeys25 wrote:
10 brass model
11 reed model
4 resonance
13 bowed string model

These last four techniques are not included in the KRONOS.

I'm wondering why Korg did not further develop these last four techniques? Are they too complex from a technical perspective, is no one capable enough to develop them? Is it too costly?

I love my Z1 and have it sitting atop my O...i use it a lot for the brass/Reed models: Trumpets, Muted Trumpet, Classical Trumpet, all the Sax programs: Alto Sax, Blues Sax, all unbelievable in sound, and using the X/Y pad brings an extra deminsion to the sounds.

This is something that really and truely is required...Brass/Reed and, Strings are a significant requirement in music production and i cant understand why these models are not available?

Regards
Billy

jemkeys25 · Post by **jemkeys25** » Tue Feb 08, 2011 12:14 am

hey thanks dan at korg, thanks for shedding some light on the comparison between kronos and moss, believe me i'm not hot under the collar, I just really enjoyed the moss, its also nice to hear that ep1 isn't all samples, i can't help that i'm a synth first, sample second when it comes to sounds,the more pure synth(one that generate thier own sounds) engines i have the better, so basically I do have moss only better.

thats awesome!

no dice on moss keymaster, I traded my triton classic for M3.

danatkorg · Post by **danatkorg** » Tue Feb 08, 2011 12:17 am

billysynth1 wrote:Dan wrote
jemkeys25 wrote:
10 brass model
11 reed model
4 resonance
13 bowed string model

These last four techniques are not included in the KRONOS.
I'm wondering why Korg did not further develop these last four techniques? Are they too complex from a technical perspective, is no one capable enough to develop them? Is it too costly?

There have just been many other things to do, higher on the list of priorities.

SpIdErWeB · Post by **SpIdErWeB** » Tue Feb 08, 2011 1:56 am

Bachus wrote:I think an improved version of MOSS would help a lot, espescially the Brass and read models come to mind...

+1000

Even if it's not really modeling, if you can bring me something as good (or better) as the WIVI in the Kronos... I will have my wish/hope #4 done, and should be happy for long time then

Phil

peter_schwartz · Post by **peter_schwartz** » Tue Feb 08, 2011 4:44 am

Zeroesque wrote:Software patents are a mess at best. Personally, I find them absurd.

Absurd? Interesting... Could you elaborate?

jemkeys25 · Post by **jemkeys25** » Tue Feb 08, 2011 5:08 am

there you go, MOSS = 13 synth types - 4 synth types = 9 or kronos

thekeymaster · Post by **thekeymaster** » Tue Feb 08, 2011 8:31 am

jemkeys25 wrote:
no dice on moss keymaster, I traded my triton classic for M3.

ahhh right ok. I'm sure when you give Kronos a demo you'll be impressed,you will probably end up trading in your M3.....

vEddY · Post by **vEddY** » Tue Feb 08, 2011 8:43 am

I know that some of you might not like this, but... you do realize that Triton rack with MOSS would cost you something like $800? Which would be pretty competitive pricing considering the fact that MOSS card - when it came out - did cost something like that by itself?

I agree, it's not the same to have something "outside" vs having it "inside" and that MOSS card would offer some serious sound-making options bundled with all of the other engines in the Kronos. But - this is better then nothing?

Kontrol49 · Post by **Kontrol49** » Tue Feb 08, 2011 8:59 am

vEddY wrote:I know that some of you might not like this, but... you do realize that Triton rack with MOSS would cost you something like $800? Which would be pretty competitive pricing considering the fact that MOSS card - when it came out - did cost something like that by itself?

I agree, it's not the same to have something "outside" vs having it "inside" and that MOSS card would offer some serious sound-making options bundled with all of the other engines in the Kronos. But - this is better then nothing?

When I was looking to purchase a Moss board for the Extreme a few years ago,Secondhand Z1's were actually going cheaper than the retail price of the Moss,so I opted for a full blown synth rather than a Moss circuit board....

StephenKay · Post by **StephenKay** » Tue Feb 08, 2011 9:25 am

Zeroesque wrote:
X-Trade wrote:Thanks for the insight. I find the licensing and patents somewhat confusing at times. There are technologies that are blatantly used without and sign of licensing at times in fairly high profile products. Other times I can't quite understand what is so special about it and the concept seems straightforward to me, yet someone has managed to 'put a price on it' so to speak.
Software patents are a mess at best. Personally, I find them absurd.

This is a favorite quote of mine, from Douglas Adam's "Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency": (if you like his Hitch Hiker's series, you'd like this series as well...)

"It is a rare mind indeed that can render the hitherto non-existent blindingly obvious."

You can apply this to any case of "but that is so obvious, why did it get a patent?" It's always "obvious", in hindsight. The paperclip, the staple, they were obvious in hindsight. We've progressed a bit since those days.

Software patents are absurd? What's absurd about someone spending years developing some innovative software that does something unique, that doesn't exist, and then patenting it, after which everyone else can go "but...but....but...sputter....that's so obvious!" ?

Megakazbek · Post by **Megakazbek** » Tue Feb 08, 2011 10:21 am

One thing is software doing something that was never thought of before, and another thing is solving problems that everyone in the field knows about.
Here is another quote, from John Carmack, programmer of the Doom/Quake series computer games:
"The idea that I can be presented with a problem, set out to logically solve it with the tools at hand, and wind up with a program that could not be legally used because someone else followed the same logical steps some years ago and filed for a patent on it is horrifying."
I am pretty sure that anyone who would create a physical modeling synth engine from the ground up, will eventually end up with something at least part of which will be blatantly similar to those Sondius patents. And to pay for the solution that I derived completely myself just because I faced the problem later than someone else seems quite absurd to me.

peter_schwartz · Post by **peter_schwartz** » Tue Feb 08, 2011 10:28 am

Don't you know, Stephen? The work you do, and that of other software engineers, shouldn't be for your own self-serving interest or benefit, like, making a living. You work, perhaps unbeknownst to you, is the entitlement of all mankind. Your wares are our muse, and we, as free citizens of the world must be able to pick freely from the music of the spheres and call it our own. Therefore, in the Name of the Arts, we lay claim to anything you create. And our thanks (and occasional criticisms) should be enough to keep your soul satisfied.

And by the way, I've got a copy of the Communist Manifesto and a few other books on Utopian societies laying around somewhere if anyone's interested. Oh, and another book -- a favorite of mine, actually, called "The Natural History of Nonsense".

StephenKay · Post by **StephenKay** » Tue Feb 08, 2011 10:39 am

Megakazbek wrote:One thing is software doing something that was never thought of before, and another thing is solving problems that everyone in the field knows about .
Here is another quote, from John Carmack, programmer of the Doom/Quake series computer games:
"The idea that I can be presented with a problem, set out to logically solve it with the tools at hand, and wind up with a program that could not be legally used because someone else followed the same logical steps some years ago and filed for a patent on it is horrifying.".

If you solve the problem first, you win. Surely, the inventor/developer of a computer game should be able to understand that.