slartabartfast

https://customer.focusrite.com/sites/customer/files/downloads/Focusrite Control 3.2.1 Release Notes - Windows.pdf

Group Registration of Unpublished works revisited: As a correction to my previous post here. I was quoting from an explanatory circular that I downloaded 8/23/19 from the US Copyright Office website, and misread the policy. Keni seems to have it right that the new Group Registration policy has replaced the previous policy of registering an unlimited number of individual unpublished works under one registration as a collective work. The final rule, and the rationale for the change, is published in the Federal Register here: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-02-13/pdf/2019-02185.pdf and the updated Code of Federal Regulations here: https://www.copyright.gov/title37/202/37cfr202-3.html https://www.copyright.gov/title37/202/37cfr202-4.html The Copyright Office has made an administrative change that does not permit registering unpublished work as a compilation of an unlimited number of individual works and has tightened the restriction on the types of work that may be registered together under the new group registration categories. A collective work could be a group of works that would normally fall in dissimilar categories, but under group registration, most of the works must be of the same type/administrative class or closely related. So now the effective limit to individual unpublished songs under a single registration is ten. Since you can still opt to register both the phonorecord/master recording/audio deposit and the underlying musical composition and lyrics using the single application, some people are counting that as twenty registrations for the price of one--but it is still just ten songs per application/claim. The Office claims that this limit will allow more effective verification of authorship of individual works, but admits that, "To maintain reasonable fees for this service, this requires an appropriate limit on the number of works included in each claim." One potential benefit of the group registration is that the registration for the grouped songs is considered to grant each individual song its own registration. Under the collective works option, the registration had been interpreted to cover only the whole compilation as a single protected work. That would in practice matter if someone infringed several songs from the compilation, in which case the copyright owner could only claim one infringement of the compilation giving him the potential to claim statutory damages on only one copyright. If the courts see it the way the Office expects, then each individual song of a group that is infringed would be eligible for separate damages, since they were not registered as a collective work, but each is individually registered under special rules for the group registration. Following that logic, the group registration does not provide a registered copyright claim to the work as a whole, ie the selection arrangement of the songs etc.that is separate from the individual songs. So you are not really registering an album here, but just a group of songs. In addition to the limit on the number of songs that can be claimed under one application, the new rule requires that group registrations must be submitted online and not on paper applications with a few exceptions. In addition: (c)Group registration of unpublished works. Pursuant to the authority granted by 17 U.S.C. 408(c)(1), the Register of Copyrights has determined that a group of unpublished works may be registered in Class TX, PA, VA, or SR with one application, the required deposit, and the filing fee required by § 201.3(c) of this chapter, if the following conditions are met: (1) All the works in the group must be unpublished, and they must be registered in the same administrative class. (2) Generally, the applicant may include up to ten works in the group. If the conditions set forth in § 202.3(b)(1)(iv)(A) through (C) have been met, the applicant may include up to ten sound recordings and ten musical works, literary works, or dramatic works in the group. (3) The group may include individual works, joint works, or derivative works, but may not include compilations, collective works, databases, or websites. (4) The applicant must provide a title for each work in the group. (5) All the works must be created by the same author or the same joint authors, and the author and claimant information for each work must be the same. (6) The works may be registered as anonymous works, pseudonymous works, or works made for hire if they are identified in the application as such. (7) The applicant must identify the authorship that each author or joint author contributed to the works, and the authorship statement for each author or joint author must be the same. Claims in the selection, coordination, or arrangement of the group as a whole will not be permitted on the application. (8) The applicant must complete and submit the online application designated for a group of unpublished works. The application may be submitted by any of the parties listed in § 202.3(c)(1). (9) The applicant must submit one complete copy or phonorecord of each work. Each work must be contained in a separate electronic file that complies with § 202.20(b)(2)(iii). The files must be submitted in one of the electronic formats approved by the Office, they must be assembled in an orderly form, and they must be uploaded to the electronic registration system. The file size for each uploaded file must not exceed 500 megabytes; the files may be compressed to comply with this requirement. (10) In an exceptional case, the Copyright Office may waive the online filing requirement set forth in paragraph (c)(8) of this section or may grant special relief from the deposit requirement under § 202.20(d), subject to such conditions as the Associate Register and Director of the Office of Registration Policy and Practice may impose on the applicant. So if you are trying to register a group of songs that have not been published yet, you need to follow the new rules including the limit of ten songs per application, and the use of the new online form. Of course registration of unpublished work is not the usual course of events with copyright, which generally applies to published work. If you want to copyright an album of twenty songs under a single title, you still have the opportunity to do that on publication. So waiting until you are ready to publish may save you a little money. Otherwise you are going to pay at least $5.50 per song if you can register them in groups of ten at a time.

Actually the only included product mentioned on the linked web page is the Waldorf Edition 2 LE, which is a limited version of the Waldorf Edition 2. https://waldorfmusic.com/en/waldorf-edition-2-software/product/35-waldorf-editionle

Unfortunately, given your admirable goal and generous character, you have indeed copyrighted everything you have ever authored. Anyone wanting to pay your work forward (steal it forward?) is going to face uncertainty about the consequences. Since your work is under a copyright you (or someone else) will own for your lifetime plus seventy years, it will not enter the public domain until at least the year 2089 and hopefully much longer. You might think you can be sure that no one will enforce your copyrights so long as you are alive and competent, but anyone who might want to publish a cover that might reach an audience will likely not know that. Certainly anyone who could offer mass distribution will be reluctant to handle your work unless it is under license granted by you, or by your heirs, or by the greediest lender or litigator who might claim ownership of your intellectual property as the result of an unpaid debt or award of damages. If you want to license your work to the world at large, then you should take the extra step and use something like the Creative Commons licenses.

The ten song limit seems to apply to the newly created category of "Group Registration of Unpublished Works." That category differs from the previously (and as near as I can tell still available) category of "Collective Works." The reasons for the new category are discussed in the Federal Register entry below, and appear to be an extension of the protections extended to an album's individual works under a single application, primarily in that the authorship/copyright ownership can be by more than one author/owner and still extend to the individual works. In other words it lets you register an album with contributions by several authors, and still claim independent copyright for each of the individual songs. Previously that pass through individual copyright was only available as a collective work if the copyrights of each individual work were all owned by the same individual or group of co-authors. It differs from the "Registration by Unit of Publication" in that it can apply to a digital work, while the unit of publication must be a physical object like a CD. If you are the sole author (or all of the co-authors on each individual song are the same), you should still be able to protect individual songs without limit by registering as a collective work if you meet the criteria: "Under the Copyright Act, a collective work is considered one work for purposes of registration. A registration for a collective work covers the copyrightable authorship in the selection, coordination, or arrangement of the work. A registration for a collective work also covers the individual copyrightable works that are contained within the collective work if (1) the collective work and the individual works are owned by the same party, (2) the individual works have not been previously published or previously registered, and (3) the individual works are not in the public domain. Accordingly, an applicant may use one application to register a number of musical compositions and sound recordings as a collective work if the applicant owns the musical compositions and sound recordings, selected and arranged the musical compositions and sound recordings into a collective whole, and the musical compositions and sound recordings have not been previously published or previously registered." https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/05/20/2019-10166/group-registration-of-works-on-an-album-of-music https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ56a.pdf

Something of a pig in a poke, unless someone can point me to a list of included applications. The last time I bought something like this it was a collection of mostly effectively abandoned stuff with a few quality products that I had already downloaded for free over the years. Much of it was unusable, and documentation was largely missing in action. Still maybe worth the price just to have someone else dredge the content out of the depths of the web--but maybe not worth my time to puzzle through the catch.

You can get Modular plus the PSP collection for $112.48 here: http://everyplugin.com/catalogsearch/result/?q=cherry

In fact, you have to ask yourself why they would even want to create a new MIDI-fluent DAW. This seems to be the inexorable pattern with Big Audio Software; it starts out being focused on a limited number of useful functions and then starts adding new "features" until it is a monster that may not be all that good at everything. Cakewalk started as a sequencer, the over time added so much audio processing that MIDI became almost vestigial by comparison. Other DAW's started as audio recording studios and then added MIDI that was, as in Harrison's case, pretty lame. Hence the endless discussions over which DAW is best for what, and users who are learning to use a few features of each of several DAW's to get something done. In the meantime, the market is getting massively crowded to the detriment of everyone's bottom line. What users save in price competition (imagine a world where the only choice is ProTools), they lose in time and money by amassing a collection of applications in the search for the perfect DAW.

It looks to me like the Nucleus modules are pretty much duplicates of the Ignite included modules, with the possible exception of Attenuverter. So if you somehow got hold of Ignite with fewer modules at some early point the Nucleus freebie may give you some new modules--maybe look at it as a free upgrade to Ignite from something less. On the other hand they are offering the upgrade from Voltage Ignite to Voltage Core (in spite of the odd name Core is the more complete full version) for $25 on their site. Which gives you an additional 47(?) modules if you already own Ignite plus Electro Drums (ED)--whatever the heck that is. And if you do not own any version of Voltage, the Core version +ED is on sale for $50 on the Cherry Audio Store site and less at some distributors. If you want to go insane jiggering with modular synthesis without spending thousands on analog modules, this is definitely the way to do it.

This does appear to be the full Voltage Modular Core plus Electro Drums at a price (42.49) that is less than the upgrade to Modular from Modular Ignite on the Cherry Audio site (49.00), and the full version (99.00). Not exactly a giveaway but very impressive price reduction. Apparently they are moving to using the program as a platform to play the (often pretty pricey) modules they are now marketing. https://cherryaudio.com/voltage-modular/support/module-comparison

+1

I am not sure what the holiday is. Halion 6 is apparently available as a crossgrade from Kontakt / Komplete, Falcon, Machfive, Omnisphere for $125. Does anyone have experience with Halion?

Not even with symbolic links? https://www.howtogeek.com/howto/16226/complete-guide-to-symbolic-links-symlinks-on-windows-or-linux/

It looks to me like the "installers" that download from Humble Bundle are just stubs that download the full content from the server when running. If so there may not be much point to archiving them, or are you saying the full downloaded programs and content are stored on the host computer somewhere?

I doubt I would use the rest of the bundle, but $25 to upgrade from Sound Forge Pro 11 to 12 seems pretty reasonable, and puts me only one version behind. Thanks for the tip.

So how does the full EP4 differ from the Session version?

&

OK I'll bite. What is OTS? What is slide bundle?

Looks like they are willing to give me Ozone 8 Advanced as an upgrade from Ozone Elements (version not specified) for $99.00. Since I got my copy of Elements free, that would seem to be a good deal indeed. https://www.jrrshop.com/izotope-ozone-advanced-upgrade-ozone-elements

I have to agree that rewire is a can of worms, and I suspect this is not just a Cakewalk issue. For someone who does not have any instruments except what comes free with Cakewalk, the effort and cost might be worth it, but for those of us poor suckers who have acquired far more VST's than we have expected lifetimes to learn how to use effectively, it is not worth the additional effort.

Well Cakewalk can certainly do what you apparently want, and do it for free, but unfortunately not without your intellectual engagement in order to sort out what it can do from what you need. There are now literally dozens of DAW's/sequencers that will blow away anything that was available on the Atari platform, but most of them suffer from the problem (from your perspective) that new hardware platforms with free software can do far more than what a half million dollar hardware studio could do in the Atari days. Since you are considering Cakewalk, we can assume that you do not want a Mac solution. Because hardware overkill has led inevitably to software bloat, most commercially available sequencers are part of a suite of recording/MIDI/production/mastering applications tightly integrated into a single program. I have no experience performing live with MIDI backup, but likely someone will come along who does. In any case, your best bet is to start with something new, bite the bullet and learn how to use the parts you need, and ignore the rest.

Can you post it without infringing their copyright? 👮‍♂️

What do people mean by Cakewalk is "running slowly?" I assume this is some issue about the reaction of the user interface with a slow response to commands, rather than an issue with dropouts. The latter would not be noticeable to the user except as corruption/distortion of the audio. A more precise description of the issue might help. What is showing in the performance tab of Windows task manager and in the processes tab when sorted for memory or CPU usage? You can also do a quick review of what is running at startup, as Promidi suggests, under the startup tab.

The issue with misplaced posts goes back decades, and is largely the result of people who think about it realizing that not all forums are equally well attended. One can ask a well placed question or place a comment in the correct forum and watch the vast majority of potentially interested visitors completely miss it because they do not routinely visit the more focused forums. Maybe the best we can hope for is that someone with a less than burning question will post it first to the forum it best fits, and only link to it from one of the well traveled forums when it is obvious that it has died in its proper environment. Short of that we could encourage draconian moderation with all of the disgruntlement that entails. I personally do not find the traffic here so massive that I have to spend an undue amount of time ignoring the posts that I do not find interesting.

So is reverb an effect to ornament/mangle sound creatively, or is it a method of creating the illusion of space/localization in the mix? If the former, then there is no need to worry about the spatial confusion that you may create by using different reverb settings on different tracks, although you still may end up getting some unwanted interactions from a gaggle of mismatched warbles stepping on each other. If you are using reverb to simulate a live performance in a defined space, then very definitely you can mess up that spatial definition by mixing different reverbs on different tracks. No one's nervous system was evolved to interpret the location of a horn playing in a cathedral standing next to a guitarist playing in a trash dumpster. In current practice, it sounds like much of the work being done with reverb is in the ornamentation camp, which would explain why almost every synth on the market has the ability to add its own, and often to add a different reverb setting to each of several voices simultaneously. We appear to have moved well beyond the point where the goal of a recording is to be realistic, or even high fidelity, except in the classical genre, and even there things are getting pretty "creative" at times.