[sdiy] 1v /oct with ADC question

[Terry Shultz]

On 12/3/16 10:30 AM, rsdio at audiobanshee.com wrote:
> … and when Sequential Circuits did a complete redesign of the Prophet 5 between the Rev 2 and Rev 3, replacing all of the SSM devices with CEM chips, I think that's when SCI decided to stop paying E-mu. Does that fit your recollection, or were you privy to that phase?
>
> Brian
>
>
> On Dec 3, 2016, at 9:42 AM, Terry Shultz <thx1138 at earthlink.net> wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> The Early Oberheim 4voice/6/8 voice SEM1-A system keyboard design was also an early E-Mu design. Most people don't know it but Tom O. and Dave R.
>> had many design collaborations. The Matrix scanned Z-80 keyboard design was patented in 1976, I believe an 8080 prototype was built but the Z-80
>> based design was the final product. The Prophet 5 was designed at E-Mu for Dave Smith / Barb Fairhurst (Sequential Circuits) and many new
>> functions were invented along the way i.e. AutoTune, SSM series of devices and so forth. The Audity had autotune before the Prophet 5.
>>
>> The reference that SCI was paying a royalty is correct, and the amount for the ProOne was the same as the Prophet 5, which led to a bitter feud on Royalites in general.
>>
>
Hi Brian,

Actually the redesign for the rev2 to rev3 was not the issue but the 
ProOne point in time.

SCI desired to pay less royalties as it was not designed by E-mu and a 
much cheaper product retail wise.

The Royalty rate was too high for such a product and SCI and E-Mu did 
not do enough negotiations in advance to clear the path to a reduced 
royalty stream.

The royalty covered the design work and software work provided by E-Mu 
Research over specific design. It should have been re-negotiated / 
agreed upon
before assuming all SCI products would have to pay royalties.

Royalties are fine if a NRE is absorbed over a number of units, but 
becomes a burden unless re-negotiated going forward.

A lesson to be learned about agreeing to a royalty plan without a clear 
end point.

regards,

Terry