# Are all Spitfire Legato NKI's now locked with the COG instead of having the WRENCH? (Please no!)



## SoundTravels (Jun 11, 2014)

Has anyone noticed this? I really hope the wrench functionality is still there, or else we can't do the cool tricks that Blake Robison talked about on his blog: http://syntheticorchestra.com/blog/?6 or turn off any Kontakt EQs, adjust the levels of the release tails, extend the range by dragging zones, etc. 

I know that Spitfire must have good reason if they locked these NKIs, but if they are all going to be locked for future releases, is there any way to get unlocked versions? Can we pay for a special edition? 

It may seem like a tiny thing, but being able to tweak even the littlest thing can make all the difference (to me) and that's part of what makes Kontakt so GREAT! 

(fingers crossed)

ST


----------



## mk282 (Jun 11, 2014)

Yes, legato patches are all locked down. I assume it's definitely for a good reason, but raising a support ticket with Spitfire might be the best way to find out more about why they did it.


----------



## MA-Simon (Jun 12, 2014)

> I really hope the wrench functionality is still there


Wah... I used that all the time...


----------



## Sid Francis (Jun 12, 2014)

I also used it all the time, since I found a lot of issues that I could (and did) solve myself in my Sable libs. I am glad that someone tells about the locking since this will be my "I am out" for spitfire libraries. No offence meant, Paul and Christian, and I even understand your point to protect your scripting ideas. Just telling you that the disadvantages will be to big on my side.


----------



## Synesthesia (Jun 12, 2014)

Only the legato patches are locked. All the other patches are open.

Sorry to hear thats a deal breaker for you Sid. 99.99% of our users find the COG sufficient and indeed one significant benefit of locked patches is that its pretty easy for even an experienced Kontakt user to mess things up. Believe me, I have answered enough support requests on this matter to know this..!

Its become vital to us to protect our hard work and ideas in these patches. Its years and years of work, research, experimentation.


----------



## Diffusor (Jun 12, 2014)

Synesthesia @ Thu Jun 12 said:


> Only the legato patches are locked. All the other patches are open.
> 
> Sorry to hear thats a deal breaker for you Sid. 99.99% of our users find the COG sufficient and indeed one significant benefit of locked patches is that its pretty easy for even an experienced Kontakt user to mess things up. Believe me, I have answered enough support requests on this matter to know this..!
> 
> Its become vital to us to protect our hard work and ideas in these patches. Its years and years of work, research, experimentation.



You are not really protecting anything if your library is pirated as they can open locked nki's and scripts. It's just giving your customers less functionality and tweakability.


----------



## kb123 (Jun 12, 2014)

Diffusor @ Thu Jun 12 said:


> You are not really protecting anything if your library is pirated as they can open locked nki's and scripts. It's just giving your customers less functionality and tweakability.



That may have been true in the past, it doesn't mean that it still holds true. Developers will always explore newer techniques to protect their IP


----------



## dryano (Jun 12, 2014)

If someone uses a cracked Kontakt, he/she can access locked patches and password-protected scripts anyways. So if someone wants to find out your secrets, he/she can.


----------



## Diffusor (Jun 12, 2014)

kb123 @ Thu Jun 12 said:


> Diffusor @ Thu Jun 12 said:
> 
> 
> > You are not really protecting anything if your library is pirated as they can open locked nki's and scripts. It's just giving your customers less functionality and tweakability.
> ...



If your library is pirated it still holds true and locking a nki or script is not a new protection technique. The only thing your are protecting yourself from is your legitimate customers.


----------



## uselessmind (Jun 12, 2014)

Good to know , thanks for your honesty.
This is a deal breaker for me as well.




Synesthesia @ Thu Jun 12 said:


> Only the legato patches are locked. All the other patches are open.


----------



## d.healey (Jun 12, 2014)

dryano @ Thu Jun 12 said:


> If someone uses a cracked Kontakt, he/she can access locked patches and password-protected scripts anyways. So if someone wants to find out your secrets, he/she can.



There are other ways to protect scripts that don't rely on NI's provided methods and that are not effected by using a cracked version of Kontakt. - I don't know about the cog icon thing though.


----------



## Diffusor (Jun 12, 2014)

TotalComposure @ Thu Jun 12 said:


> dryano @ Thu Jun 12 said:
> 
> 
> > If someone uses a cracked Kontakt, he/she can access locked patches and password-protected scripts anyways. So if someone wants to find out your secrets, he/she can.
> ...



Cool if that's the case on the script protection. No one needs to be able to edit a script anyway. But still doesn't make sense to lockdown the other part of the nki so you can't edit stuff like releases.


----------



## SoundTravels (Jun 12, 2014)

Synesthesia @ Thu Jun 12 said:


> Only the legato patches are locked. All the other patches are open.
> 
> Sorry to hear thats a deal breaker for you Sid. 99.99% of our users find the COG sufficient and indeed one significant benefit of locked patches is that its pretty easy for even an experienced Kontakt user to mess things up. Believe me, I have answered enough support requests on this matter to know this..!
> 
> Its become vital to us to protect our hard work and ideas in these patches. Its years and years of work, research, experimentation.



Thanks for the response! I'm a huge Spitfire fan, and I totally understand that you'd want to protect the work. I want you guys to make as much $ as possible so you can keep turning out amazing libraries!!! Just bummed that some of the tweaks I've found useful (just for my own idiosyncratic use of the tools) won't be available moving forward. I may also be the 0.01% but it does factor into my next Spitfire purchase. Is there any way to get vetted in some way, like sign an NDA? I wouldn't want to look at the scripts so those being locked I agree with. It's just some of the built-in Kontakt stuff. I personally turn off all the Kontakt EQs as I don't like the way they sound, and even if the other NKIs are unlocked, they won't match with the legatos... 

Again, huge love for Spitfire, and I get protecting the work, just bummed that the tweakablity that made your products such a perfect package is going to be gone. Too bad that people steal stuff and others end up paying for it, but I guess that's the sign of the times...

ST


----------



## Synesthesia (Jun 12, 2014)

SoundTravels @ Thu Jun 12 said:


> Synesthesia @ Thu Jun 12 said:
> 
> 
> > Only the legato patches are locked. All the other patches are open.
> ...




Hi ST -- 

Are these tweaks specifically to the legato patches? Or to the libs in general?

I find it incredibly hard to believe that loads of people want to tweak the legato patches as I know how insanely hard they are to program, and how easy it is to immediately make it sound rubbish.

ie: no-one has ever contacted us on support to say ' hey I wanted to open up the legato patch and xxxxx' - - i can understand tweaking the longs, shorts, RTs, whatever.

(** that is -- beyond the already pretty comprehensive tweakability on the front panel.**)

a BMW engine comes in a sealed unit from the factory precisely because you aren't supposed to mess with it yourself, as you'll mess it up -- unlike say a Cortina, where you can happily swap out the spark plugs. 

Paul


----------



## alextone (Jun 12, 2014)

I guess this means we won't be able to access simple Kontakt functionality, like switching from DFD to Sampler, turn off EQ, etc?

Alex.


----------



## Synesthesia (Jun 12, 2014)

alextone @ Thu Jun 12 said:


> I guess this means we won't be able to access simple Kontakt functionality, like switching from DFD to Sampler, turn off EQ, etc?
> 
> Alex.



Specifically -- 

switching to sampler mode on our legato patches would uselessly tax your machine, and also cause technical problems due to quirks in Kontakt -- and there's no EQ to turn off as we record everything right in the first place. :D


----------



## sin(x) (Jun 12, 2014)

Count me out. Locking down patches for editing is a kick in the face of Kontakt power users. Lock your samples and scripts all you want, but leave me the Instrument level at least – you have no idea what I might want to do with the patches to make them suit my workflow. Sorry, but claiming business-critical intellectual property over a bunch of mapping and modulation tables sounds really far-fetched to me.

Seriously disappointed here. :cry:


----------



## synergy543 (Jun 12, 2014)

sin(x) @ Thu Jun 12 said:


> Count me out. Locking down patches for editing is a kick in the face of Kontakt power users. Lock your samples and scripts all you want, but leave me the Instrument level at least – you have no idea what I might want to do with the patches to make them suit my workflow. Sorry, but claiming business-critical intellectual property over a bunch of mapping and modulation tables sounds really far-fetched to me.
> 
> Seriously disappointed here. :cry:


+1 - I completely agree with what Jan says as there are many times I like to make edits and adjustments at the Instrument level for performance and mixing purposes.


----------



## kb123 (Jun 12, 2014)

Funny, I've never seen a post complaining that sample modelling instruments cant be edited or threats not to buy and they have been doing it for years


----------



## sin(x) (Jun 12, 2014)

kb123 @ 2014-06-12 said:


> Funny, I've never seen a post complaining that sample modelling instruments cant be edited or threats not to buy and they have been doing it for years



Dunno about SM specifically, but I for one have spoken out against this practice a dozen times around here. I wish NI had never introduced this stupid anti-feature.


----------



## SoundTravels (Jun 12, 2014)

Synesthesia @ Thu Jun 12 said:


> Hi ST --
> 
> Are these tweaks specifically to the legato patches? Or to the libs in general?
> 
> ...



I do them throughout all artics, but there are some specific to legatos, mostly in regards to RTs volumes. Just a matter of personal taste, but what I saw as one of the amazing strengths or Spitfire products vs other products on non-tweakable players, like Play.

The car metaphor is an apt one, I'm just the kind of person who'd like to be able to change the sparkplugs or put in a performance muffler :D and I get really miffed when I have to take my car in to change some simple part I should be able to change, or when Apple makes a computer I want, but you can't swap out the drives/ram/etc :twisted: 

I'm guessing that no one has ever contacted you guys for support because the only people who are tweaking really specific things like this are people like me who are very comfortable inside Kontakt. I would never contact you guys about how to use Kontakt, just if there were a technical problem with one of your instruments. 

With that said, I'd love to see the wrench come back!


----------



## SoundTravels (Jun 12, 2014)

Synesthesia @ Thu Jun 12 said:


> alextone @ Thu Jun 12 said:
> 
> 
> > I guess this means we won't be able to access simple Kontakt functionality, like switching from DFD to Sampler, turn off EQ, etc?
> ...



Wait.... Paul, there are EQs in the NKIs. I turn them off all the time. Like in Sable Vln I, depending on the group, there's an EQ loaded up on the Group Inserts, and the Insert Effects. I'd agree the samples are recorded brilliantly, but there's nothing wrong with EQ, it's almost always part of a mix. I love EQ, I just don't like the KONTAKT EQ when I have MUCH better EQs that do a better job. Don't mean to be contrary, but there are definitely EQs there, unless you took them out when you went to the locked versions? 

Thanks!

ST


----------



## RiffWraith (Jun 12, 2014)

*FOR PAUL:*

Here is why one might need/want to tweak the patch:

http://www.jeffreyhayat.com/sfcelli.mp3

All the transitions sound good, save for the F1 > E2. Which, let's be honest, sounds pretty bad, especially if you listen to it several times in a row. Now, one argument is, "well, real players are not perfect, so..." and that is a valid point. And I suppose if the rest of the orch were playing , you could get away with that. But if the celli are playing by themselves, or with very little else - that's not too good. Especially if you have that F1 > E2 several times, and you keep hearing that. Now, this is not a knock on the lib; I understand that not every single little detail can be perfect - and that's fine. However, the inability to go and fix that is a little irritating.

Cheers.


----------



## JT3_Jon (Jun 12, 2014)

+1 RiffWraith! I thought it was possible to lock just scripts, so I'm still confused as to the need to lock the rest of the instrument?


----------



## Ah_dziz (Jun 12, 2014)

Scripts can also be written in a way that makes them impossible/extremely difficult to decipher which is what Orange Tree Samples does. I don't personally see how this move by spitfire is beneficial to anybody. Not a deal breaker for me though.


----------



## mk282 (Jun 12, 2014)

RiffWraith @ 12.6.2014 said:


> However, the inability to go and fix that is a little irritating.



So, it's great that you've showed Spitfire which transition needs some fixing. They will do it in an update I'm sure. And their updates are free. Win-win - you get the iffy transition fixed, and SF protects their years of hard work in programming their legato patches.

I see no problems at all here. Keep the cogs, guys.



JT3_Jon @ 13.6.2014 said:


> +1 RiffWraith! I thought it was possible to lock just scripts, so I'm still confused as to the need to lock the rest of the instrument?



Maybe because it's not JUST the script that matters for the way Spitfire is doing legato?


----------



## RiffWraith (Jun 12, 2014)

mk282 @ Fri Jun 13 said:


> RiffWraith @ 12.6.2014 said:
> 
> 
> > However, the inability to go and fix that is a little irritating.
> ...



You aren't wrong, but it is not as simple as that. And this is definitely not win-win. Here is an ex. of the problems:

1) Sometimes it takes months for an update (this is not a knock on them in any way; it is completely understandable that some updates take that long)

2) Many of these things are discovered by accident, and I can not be responsible (nor should anyone else be) to go through each and every note to see if anything is in need of being fixed. Say they release a large update on 4/1, and I discover this type of issue on 4/2... are they going to go back and issue another update or hotfix for just one bad leg transition? I don't think so. This is something I would be able to fix myself.

3a) Mural was updated on (I think) 5/11. One of the issues I initially reported with a legato patch was not fixed. Ok, it happens - that's fine. But as I can't fix it myself, I now have to wait for the next update; it's already been over a month.

3b) With that update comes a new bug - some of the leg transitions in the some of the leg patches have incorrect pitches.

I get that not everything in a lib can be perfect. Some flaws are completely acceptable. But again, this is stuff I can fix -_ if I have access to the zones_. 

I respect any dev's choice to try and protect themselves and their work. However, when the end user dos not have the ability to fix things - at least temporarily - this can render some of the lib completely useless.

Cheers.


----------



## synergy543 (Jun 12, 2014)

mk282 @ Thu Jun 12 said:


> RiffWraith @ 12.6.2014 said:
> 
> 
> > However, the inability to go and fix that is a little irritating.
> ...


I often like to re-route MIDI cc controllers, or scale the response of a controller, or add a filter, adjust a note volume, or any number of others customizations. I customize patches on a regular basis for my own performance purposes. This is one of the great benefits of using Kontakt as opposed to locked engines. Granted only legato patches are locked and others are still accessible, so its not the end of the world, but certainly the trend is disturbing. And is it really necessary to throttle what might users wish to harmlessly tinker with inside Kontkat?


----------



## Sid Francis (Jun 12, 2014)

"_I often like to re-route MIDI cc controllers, or scale the response of a controller, or add a filter, adjust a note volume, or any number of others customizations. I customize patches on a regular basis for my own performance purposes."_

Exactly that. Another example are the release tails which are often way too loud at least for MY taste. Up to now I successfully just turned them down (NOT making them shorter!) and continued playing. 
Please Paul: consider what has been said: there are ways to lock your script alone. I see it everyday in other products where the script is locked and the normal functionalities are left open.


----------



## ProtectedRights (Jun 13, 2014)

Hm... for me the main reason to tweak stuff is out of tune notes. Albion I is really bad, out of tune notes constantly bugging me. But honestly I would rather like these issues fixed with an update rather than going into COG or going into the nki and fix all that myself.

Still I also think it is good practise to leave the instrument level open so you can mess with the ranges, with the effects, etc. That is a big plus for almost any Kontakt instrument I own.


----------



## mk282 (Jun 13, 2014)

synergy543 @ 13.6.2014 said:


> I often like to re-route MIDI cc controllers, or scale the response of a controller



This is done on Kontakt's Auto tab, not within patch edit mode. You just need to select the instrument header you want to edit, and you can edit that. Wrench or no wrench.



synergy543 @ 13.6.2014 said:


> or add a filter



Add it in the Output pane, then.


I think this all is completely unfair towards Spitfire. Let the guys protect their work. How come nobody ever whined this much regarding SampleModeling Kontakt libraries that are locked in much the same way?


----------



## midi_controller (Jun 13, 2014)

Synesthesia @ Thu Jun 12 said:


> Hi ST --
> 
> Are these tweaks specifically to the legato patches? Or to the libs in general?
> 
> ...



Coming out of lurking to post real quick. I e-mailed you guys about this many months ago, and while I didn't specify what I wanted to do, I guess I should have expanded. I'll echo that I'd like to tweak the releases as well, but also I'd love the ability to turn down the immediate attacks that were added in the latest Sable update. I love the idea, they are just sticking out a bit too much for the lines I'd like to use them for.

Protect your scripts, sure, if you feel the need, but locking instrument editing is only hurting your paying customers. Will your techniques be used by other developers? Perhaps. Of course I'll point out that all developers, even Spitfire, use techniques that were not invented by themselves, such as recorded legato transitions, round robin samples (either real or the TK method, which are both in Sable), multiple microphone positions with mixing panels, crossfading dynamics and/or vibrato, and on and on. The question is whether another developer using your new techniques will result in lost sales for your products. Based on that alone, I highly doubt it. 

I buy Spitfire because of the quality and depth of the libraries, the sound, the room (that room!), the royalties paid to the actual musicians, the quick and prompt customer support, and your dedication to improving and updating your libraries. I can figure out how you did most of the legato stuff without even looking in the instrument, so I'm not really sure what you are trying to hide, but whatever it is, I can tell you it's probably not very high on the list of why I buy libraries from you.

However, as we have seen in this thread, there most certainly does appear to be at least a few sales lost from locking the instruments down, so at least this you know for a fact. It may not be very many, but one certain lost sale is far more than one possible lost sale. Just sayin'.

@mk282: You have to understand that tweaking instruments can get very complicated depending on what you are doing. Some of my tweaks for Cinesamples stuff have required a ton of adjustments both within the main instrument _and_ multi-scripts to get around the initial programming. If they were locked, I probably wouldn't use them, since the workflow they are set-up for just doesn't work for me. I haven't done anything that extensive with my Spitfire libraries, but there are definitely some tweaks I'd like to do if given the opportunity.

As for Samplemodelling, I'm not a customer of theirs, but I am a Spitfire customer. This thread is a Spitfire thread. Not sure why we need to talk about every developer that uses this "anti-feature" (great word there!). I'd have the same criticism for any developer that uses it, however.

Back to the shadows for me. :D


----------



## mk282 (Jun 13, 2014)

midi_controller @ 13.6.2014 said:


> @mk282: You have to understand that tweaking instruments can get very complicated depending on what you are doing.



You're telling that to the man who basically lives by developing for Kontakt for the past several years?  Sure I know tweaking can get complicated! That's the very reason I believe Spitfire guys are locking their legato patches. Because it is easy to cock it up completely as you try and find what to do to and where to fix what you find iffy. The risk of messing things up is higher than being able to fix them. So leave it to the guys who made the patch to do the actual fixes. I really see nothing wrong with that approach.


----------



## sin(x) (Jun 13, 2014)

> That's the very reason I believe Spitfire guys are locking their legato patches. Because it is easy to cock it up completely as you try and find what to do to and where to fix what you find iffy. The risk of messing things up is higher than being able to fix them.



Sorry, but no. No. If that's the reason it'd be a pile of BS (I don't believe it is, though). You don't remove access that's useful to people who know what they're doing in order to protect those that don't from themselves. If someone renders their patch unplayable in the process of messing around with it, it's neither Spitfire's problem, nor a huge problem for the user – just reload the original. We're not exactly talking about heavy machinery that will kill someone when operated improperly here.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jun 13, 2014)

In the long run, the developer can decide how to release/protect/price their products and the end user can decide if limited tweakability is a dealbreaker. I doubt SF will lose a substantial portion of sales with this decision, but one hopes there is some solution. Apple, for example, voids warranties if the end user decides to upgrade hardware rather than have a certified technician do it. Maybe SF could void tech support at that stage?

I don't mean this disrespectfully, but I haven't heard SF described as the be all, end all legato solution. Opinions seem to vary. Is there really something so proprietary in the technology SF feels they need to protect that would give the competition a serious edge? Between Air studio, fabulous instruments, talented samplists, Andy B's demos, outstanding musicians and a pristine analogue signal chain, wouldn't it be pretty prohibitive for others to match the quality of SF?


----------



## SoundTravels (Jun 13, 2014)

mk282 @ Fri Jun 13 said:


> I think this all is completely unfair towards Spitfire. Let the guys protect their work. How come nobody ever whined this much regarding SampleModeling Kontakt libraries that are locked in much the same way?



Hey mk282! Thanks for providing the counter-point to this discussion on the COG/WRENCH. Since I started this thread I feel like I should respond. I certainly didn't start this thread to be unfair to Spitfire. If you read my posts you'd see that I'm saying how much I love their libs. And that I'd sign an NDA, pay extra, whatever to get the wrench back. That, to me, is in the spirit of fairness. Also, myself and others have said that we understand Spitfire probably did it for good reasons, that we want them to protect their work, and we're bummed that they had to, but we wish the functionality was still there. I don't think that's unfair either.

Also, I'm not sure that saying I hope the wrench functionality is still available in future releases is "whining"... It's just a functionality I really, really like and was hoping wasn't gone. And the reason I've never "whined" about Sample Modeling libs is that I don't have any! (yet)  but if I had purchased their Kontakt versions that had the wrench and then they went to the cog, I probably would post about it. I have about PLAY, which is really un-tweakable, and I've posted about it here as a reason that I no longer use it. 

Thanks!

ST


----------



## Ah_dziz (Jun 15, 2014)

mk282 @ Fri Jun 13 said:


> synergy543 @ 13.6.2014 said:
> 
> 
> > I often like to re-route MIDI cc controllers, or scale the response of a controller
> ...



For the record I whined about the sample modeling guys doing this ( directly to them) as far back as the Garritan libraries they did because they were the first locked libraries I had ever seen and I wanted to be able to insert third party scripts ahead of their scripts.


----------



## wpc982 (Aug 3, 2015)

Glad I found this thread. I wish all sample library reviewers would mention this 'feature' in their reviews of products. I hate the cog thing and will never buy a library with it. Broadway Big Band is the only library I have with the Cog, and it really really annoys. Would not have bought that library at any price had I known in advance. And the notion that I should hunt up a cracked version of my legit copy of Kontakt in order to circumvent protection in a legit copy of a sample library is ... well ... self-explanatory.


----------



## EvilDragon (Aug 4, 2015)

It's called protecting the IP. Any developer should absolutely have the right to do that.


----------



## antoniopandrade (Aug 4, 2015)

absolutely abhor this change. I work in a professional environment where i don't have time to wait for 2-6 months for an update that may or may not fix the problem that I can fix in 2 minutes by going behind the front end. If I screw up I load the original version of the patch and start again. I can't not use Spitfire instruments simply because there are no better sounding alternatives, but right now, I really wish I could go elsewhere for samples.


----------



## wpc982 (Aug 4, 2015)

And as to the "protect the IP" issue: it doesn't. A thief can steal if they are going to steal; with a "trade secret" IP, it's lost when no longer secret. With copyright, even if out in the open, it's protected. And regardless, all my post said was I'd like to know in advance so I don't buy such libraries. Their free choice, my free choice.

And just incidentally, having looked at a number of 'professional scripts' in kontakt instruments: for the most part they are the crudest kind of programming, completely childish in programming terms. Very little to "protect" about them; and if some of the ways developers use regular old edit functions in the open are used behind closed doors: again, it's pretty simple stuff, the only complexity I've ever seen is in sheer magnitude, number of groups and combinations.


----------



## brett (Aug 5, 2015)

I'm no fan of locked patches but I understand why devs make this choice. 

@paul, I respect the decision but here are a couple of reasons in defense of unlocked patches...

1 - removing unwanted microphones - can save a massive amount of RAM. I'm not overstating this. This is not hard to do on unlocked patches. Just follow Blake's instructions on his blog!

2 - locked patches are next to useless in Kontakt Banks. Can't see the GUIs

3 - having access to Kontakt FX is handy from time to time to keep the number of a Kontakt stereo outs manageable

These are just the big ones for me. But let's not get carried away guys. It's the devs decision. I and others petitioned the ProjectSAM guys when they locked their patches for a bit a number of years ago and they dropped it. Sample modeling wouldn't budge. It is what it is. (Although why the hell NI allow locked patches that when loaded in banks can't even have the GUIs displayed let alone edited is the most nonsensical thing ever. I've had to completely change my workflow for that piece of genius)

B


----------



## EvilDragon (Aug 5, 2015)

brett said:


> (Although why the hell NI allow locked patches that when loaded in banks can't even have the GUIs displayed let alone edited is the most nonsensical thing ever. I've had to completely change my workflow for that piece of genius)



Those two things are like apples and oranges. The only reason why instrument banks are in Kontakt is to keep compatibility with Bandstand banks. That's it. They are useful for live performance, too, so it is kinda implied that you would tweak your instruments before you put them in a bank.

NI allowed locked pathes simply because *developers* requested so (AFAIK), to protect their IP (which, in SampleModeling's case, is entirely justified). There was never any intention to have instrument banks show the scripted GUI. That might change, though, but who knows when.


----------



## jtnyc (Aug 5, 2015)

Seems to me if NI would implement a system that would allow developers the ability to only lock certain areas i.e. scripts and samples/mapping, all would be happy.


----------



## EvilDragon (Aug 5, 2015)

Except sometimes the part of IP is not in either scripts or samples entirely, but some other ways of cleverly using Kontakt's internal engine features in a different way.


----------



## wpc982 (Aug 5, 2015)

I've spent many thousands of dollars on sample libraries; not a single dollar has gone to Sample Modeling. And from the tone of earlier comments, it is not users who are likely to be interested in copying any intellectual property, it is the developer peer community -- and generally a technically savvy peer group is going to get the tools to follow out nearly any secret some other peer uses. So: the Spitfires, the Sample Modelings, the Fable Sounds try to hide things, they succeed in annoying or limiting the use of their paying customers, and it is very very likely that all their peer competitors know all there is to know about their "secret sauce" anyway.


----------



## d.healey (Aug 5, 2015)

Do cog locked libraries have to be sent to NI for encoding and activated through the service centre?


----------



## EvilDragon (Aug 5, 2015)

d.healey said:


> Do cog locked libraries have to be sent to NI for encoding and activated through the service centre?



Yes.


----------



## EvilDragon (Aug 5, 2015)

wpc982 said:


> So: the Spitfires, the Sample Modelings, the Fable Sounds try to hide things, they succeed in annoying or limiting the use of their paying customers, and it is very very likely that all their peer competitors know all there is to know about their "secret sauce" anyway.



Everything you REALLY need to use as an user is right on the front panel. Leave the back end to developers. Simple as that.


----------



## rJames (Aug 6, 2015)

I'm not so sure that everything is right on the front panel.
I was using Horns a2 the other day when I heard a very loud breathing sound.
Turns out it was in the release of the notes. Luckily, the horns a2 are not locked yet so I was able to go in and look at the waveforms.
I think it was just shoddy work on the part of the waveform editor or the person who sets the Endpoint for the wav file within Kontakt.
I was able to move up the endpoint on quite a few wav's so that the breathing sound didn't sound.
Thank goodness that I could go in and edit.
Truly, the complexity of the Groups was enough to make me wary but I was able to find the culprits.
Ron
PS Specifically, I am looking at the waveform in the Combination patch for Horns a2. 
Group is; Rls End cuiure ::rls:: This is the release that they are using on more patches than just the "cuiure," patch.
The note I happen to be playing is Eb3 but it is apparent in all notes around that range (and probably more but I'm working on a cue not testing software right now)
In this patch you can SEE the extra windy, breathy noise at the end of the release. It is after the release is done so it could be edited away.


----------



## RiffWraith (Aug 6, 2015)

EvilDragon said:


> Everything you REALLY need to use as an user is right on the front panel.



Dude - with all due respect - that simply is not true.

If there is an out of tune sample, you REALLY need access to the zones.
If there are several rr samples that are too loud or too low, you REALLY need access to the zones.
If you need to fix the start and/or end times of zones due to poor editing (I see this quite often), you REALLY need access to the zones.
If there is a legato transition that doesn't work quite right (I have a few libs with a few of these), you REALLY need access to the zones.
If you want to stretch a zone for pitch purposes (tracking), you REALLY need access to the zones.
If you want to change the relationship between on notes and rts, you REALLY need access to the zones.
If you want to EQ an instrument - or a specific group (or add any FX) - and the dev has not included this functionality on the GUI, you REALLY need access to the instrument.
If you want to change the volume(s) or pan of specific groups, and the dev has not included this functionality on the GUI, you REALLY need access to the instrument.
If you want to change any part of the ADHSR, you REALLY need access to the instrument.
If you want to change from DFD mode to TM mode, you REALLY need access to the instrument.
If you want to duplicate groups and make more rrs by using EQ and vol., you REALLY need access to the instrument.
If you want to change the velocity sensitivity for the zones, you REALLY need access to the instrument.
If you want to alter or add any modulator features, you REALLY need access to the instrument.

Should I go on? I understand that some of that stuff is a bit more advanced, but there is just so much you can not do when the instrument is locked.

Cheers.


----------



## stonzthro (Aug 6, 2015)

TomiLobosK said:


> I'm afraid that I must support this cause. Editing instruments it's a must.
> I'm not interested on stealing scripts or anything like that.
> I bought Hollywood Brass like a year ago, and the number of bugs that I could perfectly have solved by myself is HUGE, and sadly updates are very rare. Waiting for PLAY PRO now.


I've been waiting since 2005 (I think)... it may be a few decades


----------



## Ozymandias (Aug 6, 2015)

I only really have one problem with this: It prevents you from putting groups into sampler mode to fix the DFD loop bug. Running into that on a locked instrument would be no fun at all.


----------



## EvilDragon (Aug 6, 2015)

RiffWraith said:


> If there is an out of tune sample, you REALLY need access to the zones.
> If there are several rr samples that are too loud or too low, you REALLY need access to the zones.
> If you need to fix the start and/or end times of zones due to poor editing (I see this quite often), you REALLY need access to the zones.



Spitfire covers at very least these edits with its COG functionality. There's also other things you listed possible (like per articulation volumes, or fake RRs), directly on the interface. So...

For other things you listed, they largely don't apply for Spitfire instruments since they sound great and very playable right out of the box. And IMHO, a lot of those things are not something the end user is supposed to be faffing about with, really. The end user is supposed to just play the damn thing and not think about technicalities. In that regard, Spitfire instruments are executed superbly, as far as front panel features are concerned.


As for others, I didn't notice any badly tuned samples in SampleModeling locked libraries, either. Nor was there ever a need to do any of the edits you listed there. It just plays, and it plays beautifully. Case in point.


----------



## rJames (Aug 6, 2015)

You know, I think SampleModeling was a bad example to include in this discussion. SampleModeling is a whole different kind of beast. Some people may want access to the guts, but its just a whole different thing.


----------



## FriFlo (Aug 6, 2015)

rJames said:


> You know, I think SampleModeling was a bad example to include in this discussion. SampleModeling is a whole different kind of beast. Some people may want access to the guts, but its just a whole different thing.


I would not agree with that. While Sample Modeling certainly pushed the envelope towards physical modeling, it is still a sample based Kontakt instrument. Other developers have learned from the pros and cons of this approach and did increasingly use similar techniques in their products.
On the other hand, I am totally fine with any developer locking their patches, if they do their job right. I actually don't want to be in the position to "improve" their patches!  I want them to do it right.


----------



## RiffWraith (Aug 6, 2015)

EvilDragon said:


> For other things you listed, they largely don't apply for Spitfire instruments since they sound great and very playable right out of the box.



Disagree again. I am not going to get into it here, but there are several SF instruments that are absolutely far from playable right out of the box. Things like non-looping strings, RRs at different levels (something articulation volumes and fake RRs can NOT fix), legato transitions at differing levels... Those are in the minority, but they exist. True - the end user IS supposed to just play the damn thing and not think about technicalities - but when some of the instruments are not programmed at a high level, the end user is forced to make alterations.

Cheers.


----------



## EvilDragon (Aug 7, 2015)

RiffWraith said:


> RRs at different levels (something articulation volumes and fake RRs can NOT fix)



The COG can, though.


----------



## guitarman1960 (Aug 7, 2015)

Synesthesia said:


> Hi ST --
> 
> a BMW engine comes in a sealed unit from the factory precisely because you aren't supposed to mess with it yourself, as you'll mess it up -- unlike say a Cortina, where you can happily swap out the spark plugs.
> 
> Paul



Firstly, I've nothing against Spitfire, great products and I am soon to purchase Albion and Iceni, but with respect your car analogy works in exactly the opposite way to your intention. Everyone knows car manufacturers make their products impossible to work on in order to force customers to use their rip off main dealers for even the slightest thing, where useless mechanics on poor wages get charged out at £90 plus an hour, and standard parts are marked up by a zillion percent in order to preserve a useless 'warranty' stuffed full of get out clauses. The nearest thing to legalised blackmail and robbery you could think of. If I were a developer I would not be comparing myself with the business ethics of the car industry.
Just my two cents!
Personally, I have no interest in scripting or tweaking Kontakt, and prefer to just load up and play, but that's just me. I can see why others like to get their hands dirty though.


----------



## guitarman1960 (Aug 7, 2015)

I can totally understand Devs wanting to protect their work from pirates, just the same as artists or composers do, that's obviously fair enough. The trouble is, its often the legit paying customer who gets penalised. This may come across as unfair, but in some respects some Devs seem to want it all ways. They want to use the Kontakt platform which everyone knows is not secure and unlocked versions of which are easily available, because its much cheaper and easier than developing their own standalone and secure products, but then they complain about piracy?


----------



## sin(x) (Aug 7, 2015)

EvilDragon said:


> And IMHO, a lot of those things are not something the end user is supposed to be faffing about with, really. The end user is supposed to just play the damn thing and not think about technicalities.



That's a disturbing attitude, both from a developer and a user, and I cannot for the life of me figure why anybody who's paying their premium prices would submit so willingly to being told what they're "supposed" to do. The _developer_ is supposed to deliver tools that are fit for professional use and leave the rest to me, and in my book that includes customizability beyond how they think I'm "supposed" to use their product. It's as much about being able to fix glitches myself as fitting libraries into a unique workflow or getting creative with the source material in ways the developer could never have anticipated.

<rant>
You're not _supposed_ to get your Toyota™ repaired anywhere but at a certified Toyota™ shop, let alone fix it yourself. You're not _supposed_ to rip an album from Sony Music™ onto your computer. You're not _supposed_ to use anything but original Epson™ brand ink cartridges in your printer, or anything but original Keurig™ capsules in your coffee maker. You're not _supposed_ to replace the dying battery in your Apple™ MacBook™ yourself. You're not _supposed_ to read non-Amazon™ ebooks on your Kindle™. See a pattern? Once you submit to letting companies tell you what you may or may not do with their products, they'll gladly use it to shape you into a low-maintenance, maximally profitable consumption drone. I can't even really blame them, it's what makes the most business sense. It'd be our duty to be vigilant about not letting that happen.
</rant>

To get back on topic, I still have yet to hear an argument for locking down the capability of editing Kontakt patches that makes even remote sense to me. If they're doing it to protect dumbass users from their own ineptitude, it's arrogant. If they do it to protect their oh-so-precious programming secrets, it's paranoid. If the success of your company relies on the attack time of your volume envelopes or the cutoff frequency of your filters remaining trade secrets, you're having much bigger problems.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Aug 7, 2015)

I have no dog in this hunt as I don't own any Spitfire libraries but to me it is simple:

A developer releases a product with however much or little access as they see fit for _whatever_ reasons. As no library is without competition, the customers vote with their wallet as to whether the access level is acceptable.

All the rest is yadda yadda.


----------



## stonzthro (Aug 7, 2015)

EastWest Lurker said:


> A developer releases a product with however much or little access as they see fit for _whatever_ reasons. As no library is without competition, the customers vote with their wallet as to whether the access level is acceptable.



Sometimes that vote is extremely blind, with no return/resale policies, and no way to REALLY know what you are buying, but in the end, you are correct.


----------



## antoniopandrade (Aug 7, 2015)

EastWest Lurker said:


> I have no dog in this hunt as I don't own any Spitfire libraries but to me it is simple:
> 
> A developer releases a product with however much or little access as they see fit for _whatever_ reasons. As no library is without competition, the customers vote with their wallet as to whether the access level is acceptable.
> 
> All the rest is yadda yadda.


Absolutely, but if you have a great product and start pissing your customers off with things like restricting usage that existed before, amongst other things, they will get annoyed, then frustrated and finally, when a competitor comes along with a product of equivalent quality, they'll just leave. This is a small industry and these small interactions are SO important to keep your customer base satisfied and loyal. There are not that many of us out there buying these instruments.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Aug 7, 2015)

They will, or they won't. Either way, the developer makes their choice and lives with the consequences.

It is taking responsibility for making what you believe is the best choice for your company and not pandering to those who threaten to leave you.


----------



## guitarman1960 (Aug 7, 2015)

Well, thats true, the developers make choices, as do the customers. It's always a trade off on both sides. There's no such thing as the perfect product with the perfect sounds, perfect functionality, and perfect buying experience. I've been considering buying Spitfire Albion and Iceni for a long time, I don't have a massive disposable budget, so f I know the product forbids resale I'm going to take extra time and do extra research as much as I possibly can to be sure the product is what I want. In spite of my hatred of the no resale policy, if I'm happy enough with the sound etc to go ahead I will still purchase the library, even though morally I'm against their policy. Maybe that's being hypocritical, but maybe its just being realistic. Everyone has to compromise to get want they want, including developers. They need to weigh up pissing off actual loyal paying customers against some mythical losses that may or may not come about by being more consumer friendly.


----------

