MOTM

Just to add my VERY personal thoughts :

Once some ideas of J.Haible did "appear" in certain modules ( Morphing
Controller, Wasp Filter ).
But Juergen does seem to be a DIYer for hobby purposes only ...

Now Tony is being the target - he does make some living from selling boards
...

Paul does seem to be somewhat safe - You have to buy a kit to get the
schems - why invest a couple of 100 USD's ...

I now do UNDERSTAND e.g. Rehberg ( EMS Germany ) who is VERY reluctant to
share any type of schematic ...

I did sell my MAQ16/3 recently - I now have a FutureRetro Mobius - and will
buy a Frostwave, probably ...

Stay tuned and clone synths of the big enterprises (build Your own CS80) or
defunct ones (what about a Synclavier III) only !

Gert

----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Schreiber" <synth1@...>
To: "MOTM listserv" <motm@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2001 7:52 PM
Subject: [motm] Fw: [sdiy] Doepfer A-105 looks like Oakley Multiladder?


>
>
> > Gee, why does Doepfer's new A-105 VCF ( http://www.doepfer.de/ )  look
so

> much
> > like the Oakley Systems Multiladder?
> > http://www.techrepairs.freeserve.co.uk/ladder.htm
>
>
> Sigh. No Comment.
>
> Paul S.
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

seeing its a copy of the moog filter, could they of gotten from there?  : )
Itsnt the 4 pole 24db ladder Moog filter pretty much public domain now?
Just curious.
Jim

gjalass@... wrote:

> 
> Just to add my VERY personal thoughts :
> 
> Once some ideas of J.Haible did "appear" in certain modules ( Morphing
> Controller, Wasp Filter ).
> But Juergen does seem to be a DIYer for hobby purposes only ...
> 
> Now Tony is being the target - he does make some living from selling boards
> ...
> 
> Paul does seem to be somewhat safe - You have to buy a kit to get the
> schems - why invest a couple of 100 USD's ...
> 
> I now do UNDERSTAND e.g. Rehberg ( EMS Germany ) who is VERY reluctant to
> share any type of schematic ...
> 
> I did sell my MAQ16/3 recently - I now have a FutureRetro Mobius - and will
> buy a Frostwave, probably ...
> 
> Stay tuned and clone synths of the big enterprises (build Your own CS80) or
> defunct ones (what about a Synclavier III) only !
> 
> Gert
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Paul Schreiber" <synth1@...>
> To: "MOTM listserv" <motm@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2001 7:52 PM
> Subject: [motm] Fw: [sdiy] Doepfer A-105 looks like Oakley Multiladder?
> 
> >
> >
> > > Gee, why does Doepfer's new A-105 VCF ( http://www.doepfer.de/ )  look
> so
> > much
> > > like the Oakley Systems Multiladder?
> > > http://www.techrepairs.freeserve.co.uk/ladder.htm
> >
> >
> > Sigh. No Comment.
> >
> > Paul S.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

--- bigd@... wrote:
> seeing its a copy of the moog filter, could they of
> gotten from there?  : )

Nope. The basic transister ladder topology is Bob
Moog's, now in the public domain. The idea of tapping
each rung of the filter to provide a separate output
was actually Tony's idea. Doepfer has a well known
reputation of suddenly coming out with modules after
others have published the schematics - even if those
others have specifically placed restrictions on the
use of their circuits for commercial exploitation by
other companies. So how does one deduce whether
Doepfer actually had an original thought versus just
lifting the schematic? By their past behavior. If you
don't publish your schematic, no Doepfer clone. If you
do publish it, a clone appears. Form your own
judgement.

Moe



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
http://auctions.yahoo.com/

Hi all,

> Gee, why does Doepfer's new A-105 VCF look so much like the Oakley
Systems Multiladder?

Incredible. Its almost identical, even down to the break in the feedback
loop to put in non-linear effectors. He has added the BP output,
although he no doubt pinched that from my other SuperLadder filter. What
a shame that he has to do that.

However, I will not remove my circuits from the net. I want my stuff to
inspire ordinary people to build their own modulars and make music. If
they buy my PCBs to do it then all the better.

People like Doepfer are just thieves.

Its extremely ironic that he suggests using 'his' interpolator module to
get VC control of filter shape. The man has no decency!

Regards,

Tony Allgood  Penrith, Cumbria, England

Oakley Modular Synth and TB3030:
www.techrepairs.freeserve.co.uk/projects.htm
My music: www.mp3.com/taklamakan

I have to agree with Moe on this.  However, I do not think "restrictions on
the use of their circuits for commercial exploitation by other companies"
is legally binding. ie. Oakley has no authority over Doepfer.  So while one
could argue that Doepfer's alleged cloning is unethical, in the absence of
a patent, it isn't illegal.  Besides, there a ways of getting around
patents -- just look at the guy who invented television.  Lancaster,
Heinlein, and others have made the case that only way to truly protect a
design is to keep it secret by deliberately not publishing a patent.  Of
course, this strategy offers no legal protection against reverse
engineering.

Nor do I think that JH "does seem to be a DIYer for hobby purposes only"
has any relevance -- he's a design engineer whether or not he makes money
from it or not.  Whether or not I make money from a song has no bearing
whether its mine.

I would hate to see Synthesis Technology try to keep their designs secret
just to discourage Doepfer from selling a clone.  Then again, you can't
clone quality -- it would be like Hyundai trying to clone a 1976 Mercedes :)

Anyway, I love reading the schematics and the Theory of Operation that
comes with each module.  Knowing how it works is part of the fun :)


At 1:35 PM -0700 04/22/01, dave bradley wrote:

>
>Nope. The basic transister ladder topology is Bob
>Moog's, now in the public domain. The idea of tapping
>each rung of the filter to provide a separate output
>was actually Tony's idea. Doepfer has a well known
>reputation of suddenly coming out with modules after
>others have published the schematics - even if those
>others have specifically placed restrictions on the
>use of their circuits for commercial exploitation by
>other companies. So how does one deduce whether
>Doepfer actually had an original thought versus just
>lifting the schematic? By their past behavior. If you
>don't publish your schematic, no Doepfer clone. If you
>do publish it, a clone appears. Form your own
>judgement.

I was in error yesterday when I mentioned that Tony's (still brilliant 
though) idea of tapping off the individual poles and mixing them for unique 
timbres as being unknown in EM circuits before. My apologies to John Blacet 
(whose modules I also admire due to his unique approach), I don't know his 
old catalog of modules well enough it seems -- have I ever mentioned his old 
Event Arranger here<g>?

JB

In a message dated 4/23/2001 7:32:02 AM, blacet@... writes:

>If you have a novel idea, chances are it is not so novel. The current
>discussion about bringing filter stages taps out  for recombining is
>something that has been seen in the EM field for a long time. We used a
>similar technique 20 years ago for the Phasefilter, for one example.
>_