# IR's for SpaceDesigner / GigaPulse / Kontakt2 etc......



## SvK (May 14, 2007)

Hi all,


Go here and click on "Scoring_Stages2.zip" (8th from bottom) .............enjoy

SvK

*removed*


----------



## ThomasL (May 14, 2007)

Thanks!


Best
Thomas


----------



## nadeama (May 14, 2007)

Thanks from me too!


----------



## tgfoo (May 14, 2007)

Cool. Thanks.


----------



## musicpete (May 14, 2007)

Steve, you rock! Thanks again and again!


----------



## midphase (May 15, 2007)

Are these different from the ones you had posted on Sonikmatter?


----------



## SvK (May 15, 2007)

yes


----------



## midphase (May 15, 2007)

Awesome! Can you give us some info on these...like about the venues and how were they captured?


----------



## Marsdy (May 15, 2007)

These are Altiverb IRs aren't they?

In which case they are the property of Audio Ease regardless of whether they've been "re-sampled."


----------



## Synesthesia (May 15, 2007)

Yes, these do look like Altiverb IRs..

I'd take these down asap Steve, they are AudioEase's copyright..

Paul >8o


----------



## Frederick Russ (May 15, 2007)

Sorry about this Steven but I had to remove your link due to copyright issues.

Later,

Frederick


----------



## midphase (May 15, 2007)

Well....you all sure jump to conclusions awful quick!

It's as if I offered my sampled oboe for free use and everyone started accusing me of having resampled the VSL oboe without giving me a chance to confirm or deny the rumor.

I say let Steven explain before you all cast your stones!


----------



## Marsdy (May 15, 2007)

When I asked, "These are Altiverb IRs aren't they?" it was a rhetorical question.

The IRs are from Altiverb.


----------



## José Herring (May 15, 2007)

The idea that one can copyright the recording of a space seems kind of silly to me. Like anybody is going to be able to prove that this is a distinctive recording of anything other than reverberation.

But, in truth SVK at least change the file names buddy.


----------



## Moonchilde (May 15, 2007)

Well, they did make the recording so they have rights to the recording they made. No different than copyrighting a recording of someone making jokes, or a live music session... whoever does the recording owns it.


----------



## Marsdy (May 15, 2007)

josejherring @ Tue 15 May said:


> The idea that one can copyright the recording of a space seems kind of silly to me. Like anybody is going to be able to prove that this is a distinctive recording of anything other than reverberation.
> 
> But, in truth SVK at least change the file names buddy.



So it's OK to pirate other people's intellectual property if you change the filenames?


----------



## sevaels (May 15, 2007)

Some very uptight people around here :roll: 

Probably just an innocent mistake.

o-[][]-o


----------



## José Herring (May 15, 2007)

I never said it was ok. Personally I'd never do it or use it.

But let's get real here. Has any sample developer ever paid any instrument maker? Has any sample developer ever paid any musician royalties? Does Audio Ease have a copyright on the sin wave they used to sweep the halls. Actually any recording made in any hall I know of has to hire a union crew. I wonder if they did that? I doubt it. Why? Because they aren't actually making a musical recording. As a matter of fact they cut the sound source out of the recording.

So is it right? No. Is it illegal. Doubt it.

Jose


----------



## SvK (May 15, 2007)

Well Bite my head of, and feed me to the fishes, why dontcha 



SvK


----------



## Ed (May 15, 2007)

If it isnt wrong and illegal for Peter Roos to sample Lexicons, why is it wrong and illegal to sample a real space IR off Altiverb?


----------



## synthetic (May 15, 2007)

Interesting question. This whole sampling business is fraught with legal bugaboos.


----------



## Frederick Russ (May 15, 2007)

synthetic @ Tue May 15 said:


> Interesting question. This whole sampling business is fraught with legal bugaboos.



Exactly my point albeit perhaps not in the same light. If there is a legal argument, let the defendant with the case to argue regarding resampling and sharing that with others be with the one who deals with the legalities of it. 

I think it was an honest mistake and I hold absolutely no malice towards Steven. In my understanding of it however, the license one signs with Audio Ease binds that one not to share their product with others - resampled or otherwise. Resampling for your own purposes if you own the product is one thing. Sharing that with others is quite another even if there is no monetary gain for doing so - courts adjudicating a lawsuit may view it as piracy and award the plantiff with monetary compensation for loss of business. 

Personally I don't want VI to be in the middle of it. Probably not a popular decision though. We generally use light moderation if at all and let members do what they will. It works most of the time but not all. Removing the link was a judgment call on my part primarily so if the tomatoes must fly, hurl them in my direction - it won't be the first time its happened.


----------



## Hannes_F (May 15, 2007)

Ed @ Wed May 16 said:


> If it isnt wrong and illegal for Peter Roos to sample Lexicons, why is it wrong and illegal to sample a real space IR off Altiverb?



Good question. I have the Peter Roos IRs and the more I think about it the more I am in doubt. And have decided towards Altiverb now since they came up with the convolution idea afaik and are still the best.

The whole legal situation in regards to resampling does not feel right for me at the moment. Only devices that rely on samples are protected, not those that work with analog circuits or algorithms. So to make a ripoff of a cheap library would be prosecuted but not a resampling of WIVI. That simply does not make sense since a ripoff is a ripoff.


----------



## Marsdy (May 16, 2007)

sevaels @ Tue 15 May said:


> Some very uptight people around here :roll:
> 
> Probably just an innocent mistake.
> 
> o-[][]-o



Screw you dickwad.

Some of you guys are missing the point.

It is not in VI Control's interest to be seen to be facitlitating the downloading of illegal software. 

You'd have to be a little naive, maybe even a little dumb not to consider that these IRs may have come from a commercial source. The Disney Hall, Berlin Phil, Clinton Soundstage..... c'mon people!

Audio Ease spend a LOT of money and time travelling all over the world creating their IR's. It also takes a lot of skill making IRs that work. Are some of you really saying that investment in time, money and skill shouldn't be protected under copyright law. Bullshit.

AE are also a company that REALLY look after it's customers. They are constantly adding new IRs at no cost to the end user and deserve better than this.

So does Fred.


----------



## wqaxsz (May 16, 2007)

Ed @ Wed May 16 said:


> If it isnt wrong and illegal for Peter Roos to sample Lexicons, why is it wrong and illegal to sample a real space IR off Altiverb?



Hi,

Lexicon and TC electronics are selling digital reverberation algorithms (in hardware boxes), 
an impulse is not a digital reverb algorithm 
and
certainly not a copy of their algorithm,
so it will never be the same thing as what lex and tC are making and selling.

For the rest i will say that,
the entire human species is a "mistake", a "coincidence" of Nature, Life
(or whatever you want to call it),
while copying its life algorithm,
so we can make mistakes.

:D 

Regards

Laurent


----------



## José Herring (May 16, 2007)

Marsdy @ Tue May 15 said:


> sevaels @ Tue 15 May said:
> 
> 
> > Some very uptight people around here :roll:
> ...



You have a lot of balls for a chick from Albania


----------



## Marsdy (May 16, 2007)

josejherring @ Wed 16 May said:


> You have a lot of balls for a chick from Albania



Funny and true.


----------



## midphase (May 16, 2007)

> Screw you dickwad.



Marsdy,

I don't know what's in the water in your neck of the woods...but you seriously need to chill out. There is absolutely no need to personal name-calling, and afaik...the post who got you so worked out about this might not even have been referring to you.

I think Fred can fend for himself without you needing to resort to hostile posts.


----------



## Marsdy (May 16, 2007)

Fine whatever.


----------



## zareone (May 16, 2007)

Marsdy @ Wed May 16 said:


> josejherring @ Wed 16 May said:
> 
> 
> > You have a lot of balls for a chick from Albania
> ...



A lot? I think having more than two is a bit of a problem.


----------



## Hannes_F (May 16, 2007)

I think Steven just wanted to test how honest we are :mrgreen:


----------



## Ed (May 16, 2007)

Marsdy @ Wed May 16 said:


> sevaels @ Tue 15 May said:
> 
> 
> > Some very uptight people around here :roll:
> ...



Of course, the same thing could be said of Peter Roos ripping off Lexicon and TC reverbs that those guys spent a lot of time and money developing. 

Ed


----------



## Ed (May 16, 2007)

wqaxsz @ Wed May 16 said:


> Ed @ Wed May 16 said:
> 
> 
> > If it isnt wrong and illegal for Peter Roos to sample Lexicons, why is it wrong and illegal to sample a real space IR off Altiverb?
> ...



True, but its not so different that its not a good point. Not that I dont think it was silly to post Altiverbs IRs on here, just that people should be more consistent with their judgements. 



> For the rest i will say that,
> the entire human species is a "mistake", a "coincidence" of Nature, Life
> (or whatever you want to call it),
> while copying its life algorithm,
> so we can make mistakes.



:D


----------



## José Herring (May 16, 2007)

It is a matter of decency. The only thing that really gets me is that guys in large companies have literally made a fortune selling samples of instruments that are copyrighted, then turn around and use copyrighted names (like Steinway and bosendorfer) to sell copies of their product.

I'm not naming names here but how many companies do we know that do this. Yet if pressed I bet not one of them has paid as they should instrument makers like Buffet clarinet or Loree or Conn or any of these instrument manufactures for use of their product. Not to mention Marshall, Ziljin, or Crown. Yet these same guys will freely print in ads that these products where used in the creation of their products.

Furthermore I've never even heard of a musician getting any royalty moneys for distribution and sales of sampled based instruments. Yet these guys probably spent a lot of time in studios recording these "musical" recordings.

Sample companies will claim that their products are musical recordings to scare those from copyright infringement, but if they were musical recordings then said players should receive royalties from their respective unions barring right to work states like Seattle. The consequences are of course far reaching and would not only impact developers but end users as well.

So why are copyright infringers not pursued? For one reason--any pursuit on legal grounds of copyright infringers of sampled based products would call into questions the issues just mentioned as to how legal it is and was for developers to obtain said products in the first place. So everybody keeps quite and mums the word. Threats abound but no action really taken. 

This entire industry is in need of much reform. The ethic and legality on all sides is quite questionable and personally with ever shrinking music budgets due to sampled products I've been contemplating driving the point home myself. It really wouldn't be too hard to do. Though I've been quite afraid to do so as I make most of what I make in music from the fact that I don't have to hire real players. 

I'm usually pretty torn as I'm both a live musician and a sample musician so I have loyalties to both camps. But I will admit that it really gets under my skin when I see the kinds of blatant exploitation that goes on in this industry without much thought as to the future that we have in store for us. Mostly that future is already here with droves of musicians out of work and small as hell music budgets which are shrinking every year in Hollywood's TV and lower budget end. Yet ballooning in the upper end where live players are expected and demanded.

I thought Steinway would catch on and it seems as if they may have but they've been really slow to move. Seems like the little guy has been clobbered by instrument makers like Rhodes but they don't really touch the big guys with big pockets.

Garritan got the word from Steinway to sample the official Steinway VI. I was thinking that he'd make a move to out law other developers from recording Steinways, but he won't. It would open a can of worms that would impact this business forever. Killing it in the meantime. But once instrument makers catch on they themselves can forbid unofficial VI's of their instruments and name usages and the game is up. It will happen. Though not sure if I want it to.

Personally I'm secretly hoping that players just start saying no to sample sessions. It would solve a lot of the issues.

Mostly a rant.

best,

Jose


----------



## re-peat (May 16, 2007)

Again: it doesn't matter what everybody else does or doesn't do and it doesn't matter whether there's an accurate, just and sensible law governing this issue or not ... the only thing that matters here is _(individual) ethics_: you don't steal and you don't distribute someone else's property without permission. That's it. The rest of the world may steal all they want, sample developers' motives may be dubious or not, musicians (who participate in sampling sessions) may receive royalties or not ... none of that matters one bit here. It's not even relevant in this discussion. Seriously.
People seem to like to make this a very complicated issue, full of clever arguments in order to shift the guilt somewhere else, but ultimately this is the most simple matter there is: you're either honest or you're not.


----------



## José Herring (May 16, 2007)

I think you missed my point a bit. I'm not saying that stealing is right. I don't even have one bootleg copy of anything on my system

But the issue is much deeper than people care to look. And since nobody is looking it's actually hurting the business.

There needs to be some reform on all sides.


----------



## midphase (May 16, 2007)

> People seem to like to make this a very complicated issue, full of clever arguments in order to shift the guilt somewhere else, but ultimately this is the most simple matter there is: you're either honest or you're not.



I'm not sure I'd call you're either honest or not a simple matter. Ask anyone in the Bush administration if they're honest and they would probably reply with a solid "yes"....ask someone like Nick or Nick (Phoenix or Batzdorf) the same question are you're bound to get a completely different answer.

Is it honest for me to use or share a piece of software that is no longer sold or manufactured (Unity, Vision, etc.)?

Is it honest for me to use a sample library which was not commercially available but has been widespread through many composers to allow me to keep up with the competition (Hans Zimmer London Symphony)?

Is it honest for me to carry more than 10 items to the express checkout register?

Don't answer....just ponder!


----------



## hv (May 16, 2007)

Ed @ Wed May 16 said:


> Of course, the same thing could be said of Peter Roos ripping off Lexicon and TC reverbs that those guys spent a lot of time and money developing.
> Ed


And Steinway and Bosendorfer spend allot of time building their pianos. The difference as Laurent pointed out is that the Altiverb contains a recording which is copied when you sample it.

Howard


----------



## JohnnyMarks (May 16, 2007)

Two companies that appear to have a firm opinion on the subject.


----------



## José Herring (May 16, 2007)

JohnnyMarks @ Wed May 16 said:


> Two companies that appear to have a firm opinion on the subject.



The guy is making it complete simple but it's not really that black and white of an issue I'm afraid. Is McDSP paying McDonalds royalty for capitalizing on a play on names? Are they paying for all the EQ's they "emulate" in their filter bank? Doubt it big time. It's this duplicitous sanctimoniousnesses that these guys display that kills me. 

_Analog Channel emulates the sounds of high-end analog tape machines, tape, and channel amplifiers.
_


I'm sure they cut a check to all these high-end analog gear companies they're "emulating" (ehem stealing the sound of).




Jose


----------



## midphase (May 16, 2007)

Jose,

I actually totally agree with you!


----------



## Moonchilde (May 16, 2007)

But the issue here isn't that. It is about either a: distributing copyrighted samples or b: distributing samples of samples. There is an enormous difference between sampling samples (which are copyrighted recordings) and sampling hardware or real spaces.

Sampling something like a hardware unit is not the same as the actual hardware unit. The results might be similar, but they are not one and the same. Sampling a sample is basically a near exact replica that functions exactly the same since it is a recording. A recording is different from a hardware FX unit. You can't compare the two. They may produce similar results, but the way you achieve those results is a totally different experience.

Lets look at it this way. I take a picture of an apple. I name the picture and copyright it, and publish it in an art book. Is this plagiarizing the apple? No, it is just a picture of an apple. IRs of real spaces is just a picture of those spaces. People who record them made those recordings. They own the recordings. The usage of the recordings as an IR is different than the usage of a real hall or space with real instruments in it to produce a reverb, even though the outcome is similar.

Now someone takes a picture of my apple picture with a high quality camera. Then they put it in their photo album and publish it. Big difference! They are taking all my work and using it themselves. Yes, work goes into taking a picture of an apple. You have to decide what angle, what lighting, whether or not it will be alone or have other fruit near it. That takes work and creative ideas to make. Taking a picture of a picture steals that other person's personal creativity. Now, lets look at it from a sample perspective. Making a sample of a sample is stealing the original sampler's hard work. Stealing that person's personal touch that you, no matter who you are, can't replicate. You could take a picture of the same apple, but it will still be different. You take a picture of a picture of an apple, and it is nearly identical.

Did the people who made the hardware unit put a lot of work and effort into it? Yes. Did the guys who recorded and programmed samples of it put work and effort into that? Yes. Are they different tools? Yes. Since they aren't the same, the samplers are not stealing the hardware maker's product. Both are used differently to achieve a similar purpose.

If people reproduce a hardware unit and manufacture the same thing without a license and selling it to make money, then yes, they are stealing. What they should be doing is cutting checks to the original creators as a royalty to pay for a license to use the hardware and manufacture replica models. Since the replica and the original are the same and used exactly the same to produce the same exact result, then we can talk about stealing sound 

Software and hardware are not the same, they both function differently, are used differently, even if both reproduce a similar result. Two entirely different things here.


----------



## Moonchilde (May 16, 2007)

josejherring @ May 16th 2007 said:


> JohnnyMarks @ Wed May 16 said:
> 
> 
> > Two companies that appear to have a firm opinion on the subject.
> ...



This is really a flawed argument because McDSP is not copying McDonalds. How is it a play on their name? Is Scrooge McDuck a play on McDonalds too simply because they both have McD in their name?

Are we supposed to pay everyone who creates a tool money if we create another tool that produces similar results but is a completely different tool? Does this mean that I'll have to pay the guys who built the Colosseum in Rome royalties if I create a virtual 3D model of it to be used in a movie or game to virtually put actors into? I'd be shit out of luck man, the Romans who built it have been dead for centuries!


----------



## José Herring (May 17, 2007)

You're proving my point exactly. Just because somebody does a sin wave sweep of some pre-exisitng hall doesn't automatically mean that you can get a copyright on it. If you could then you could just turn around and make the argument that Audio Ease should pay the architects for designing the acoustics in the first place. Or better yet, perhaps the management of Disney Hall should come after all Altiverb users for illegally making a recording in their space!

These arguments are ridiculous. But no more ridiculous in my mind from somebody sampling a clarinet and then claiming it's a original recording. Or somebody sin sweeping a hall and claiming that that is some how a copyrighted recording. Please. Reminds me of that guy on Electric company that use to sell bottled air for a nickel.


----------



## Marsdy (May 17, 2007)

josejherring @ Thu 17 May said:


> You're proving my point exactly. Just because somebody does a sin wave sweep of some pre-exisitng hall doesn't automatically mean that you can get a copyright on it.



This is not the case.

They make a recording (with permission,) of a swept sine wave in the Disney hall. They own the copyright to that recording. Period. 

They then process that recording with their proprietary software to make an IR and it adds value to their product. Considerable value actually, otherwise nobody would buy Altiverb. 

And even if your argument did hold any water, you've still got to factor in that if you use Altiverb you've signed up to their licence agreement.


----------



## wqaxsz (May 17, 2007)

Hi,

there is a new software coming out soon,
i hope,
which can "sample" any fx,
hardware or software.

I don't know how accurate it will sound
(more than classical convolution it seems)
but
i can tell you one thing:

I am really impatient to try it out.

regards. 

Laurent


----------



## re-peat (May 17, 2007)

josejherring @ Thu May 17 said:


> (...) But no more ridiculous in my mind from somebody sampling a clarinet and then claiming it's a original recording.



So, Jose, if I read that correctly, you're implying that there's no particular effort, skill or artistry involved in recording a instrument/sound, right? Or, more accurate: whatever effort, skill or artistry there might be involved, it has not enough 'original value' to be claimed as 'original work' and thus can't be protected by some form of copyright?

Excuse me, but that's a somewhat bizarre statement coming from a guy who's often among the first to mercilessly point out the flaws in sample libraries. Or praise their merits. You, of all people, (and I really mean: we, all of us here) should be more than a little appreciative of the work, dedication, talent and craft involved in recording sounds - be it instruments, sine waves or reverberations or whatever.
If recording and processing audio is as impersonal and uncreative as you make it out to be, than why is everybody on the hunt for these Altiverb IR's? And why are Altiverb's results almost unanimously considered to be far superior to most other convolution reverbs?

Recording a clarinet is as much an art and a skill as playing a clarinet. Both have intrinsically the same artistic value, the same claim to copyright and should be approached and treated with the exactly the same respect.

_


----------



## Moonchilde (May 17, 2007)

Guys the key here is that the recording itself is copyrighted and not the instruments. Recording a recording is not the same as recording a real, live, non-copyrighted instrument.

Sampling a clarinet is most certainly an original recording. Many recording engineers have their own way of recording things which is why some people search out certain engineers instead of others because they want a particular sound.


----------



## José Herring (May 17, 2007)

I hear what you guys are saying very clearly, but you're missing some important information here:

Firstly the processes that Audio Ease goes through to create their IR's if it's unique can be patented, but the final product doesn't represent a distinctive musical recording so therefore isn't subject to copyright. Sorry...

Here's the legal definition of a sound recording:

_“works that result from the fixation of a series of musical, spoken, or other sounds, but not including the sounds accompanying a motion picture or other audiovisual work.” Common examples include recordings of music, drama, or lectures. _

In the case of Audio Ease they cut the sin wave from the recording and leave only the reverb. There's no musical, spoken or other sounds other than the reverb which btw can't be heard until another sound source activates it. So it's not really even a sound but a result of a sound.

So while I feel for the companies and see all your points ,legally this thing cuts both ways. An individual sample is not a series of sounds so don't qualify legally as sound recordings therefore sample sessions aren't covered by unions and therefore musicians aren't paid recording royalty's ect... Trust me Audio Ease couldn't afford to record a real sound recording in these halls. Sound recordings are expensive. you have to pay union pensions and everything. There's a minimum crew, ect...I'm sure they get around all this by saying that they're not really making a sound recording, legally.

So my point is that resampling is not illegal because an individual sample doesn't constitute a sound recording. If it did, then the common practices and techniques for creating modern music would all be illegal.

But that's enough of this topic for me. 


Jose


----------



## midphase (May 17, 2007)

> So my point is that resampling is not illegal because an individual sample doesn't constitute a sound recording. If it did, then the common practices and techniques for creating modern music would all be illegal.



Well, once again we're threading in grey areas. When I posted my hypothetical questions a few posts ago, I wanted to point out that it can be quite difficult to define what is right and what is wrong.

Truth of the matter is that developers themselves sometimes thread on grey areas, and in many cases they are able to get away with it since the technology involved is so new and some of the original manufacturer's pride/ego so big to not see it as threatening. When Line-6 released their famous POD (and when software developers released virtual versions of guitar amps), you can bet your ass that manufacturers of guitar amps and cabinets are going to see a chunk of their profits diminish. How many of you have recently bought a hardware reverb unit? I figure not many, and the few who still use them are probably due to them having had them from way back when.

Many times developers can skirt legal infringements issues by changing the names of presets to soundalikes (anyone play through a twin silverface or a british dual stack emulation lately?) but ultimately is that any different than if SVK would have changed the names of his IR's? You could make a valid argument that an IR does not Altiverb make....and simply resampling an Altiverb IR is not as good as owning the actual Altiverb plugin in the same way that "sampling" a Lexicon is not as good as owning one!


----------

