[sdiy] 1v /oct with ADC question
thx1138 at earthlink.net
Sat Dec 3 21:55:57 CET 2016
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?
> 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.
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
The royalty covered the design work and software work provided by E-Mu
Research over specific design. It should have been re-negotiated /
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
More information about the Synth-diy