General Discussion Forum.

Rules clarification requested for Round 72

Re: Rules clarification requested for Round 72

Postby gilli » Mon Mar 18, 2013 6:22 pm

organic io wrote:Also Re: Sunvox, I think plusminus is exaggerating the influence that Sunvox has around here. Pretty much Gilli and I are the only ones who use it regularly, along with one entry from Coolgreenapple, a Sunvox scener, back in round 65. Other than that I don't think anybody else uses it around here??? It's mostly Renoise, I would say Psycle and Sunvox tie for second place, and then the odd entry from others (aka Schism, etc)

Plus plusminus. His last entry was made with SunVox, too. :)

A little correction for the rules as I've been working with MadTracker in the early 2000s:
Madtracker is not a tracker, where you'd need to add external DSPs to have your sound processed. Before Renoise's birth Madtracker already had Filter Cutoff, mpReverb (the same as in Renoise), Distortion, Delay and Chorus DSPs. Later the Compressor and other DSPs were added.

If I may add my 2 cents to the idea of opening 'default effects' for every tracker (feel free to move it out of this thread):
If the intention is to offer equal capabilities for all trackers (which I welcome), there won't be no limit in gaining equality. Taking SunVox into consideration, people can build their own metamodules. If someone were to use a selfmade 'Multiband Gate' (allowed, because made of native DSPs), would we have to allow such a VST PlugIn for Renoise users then? I'm not against this sort of liberty but I think the administration would become too complicated, because you can't keep up with the new DSPs that people come up with. Just to find another 'default' plugin that would work in any other tracker. Or if a new DSPs is added to Renoise, would we have to search the net, so that further rounds will provide a new default plug-in for all the other trackers?
But what I'm afraid of most, is that allowing default VSTs for all trackers would lead to more external dependencies. Mac users would need the AudioUnit pendants, or you'd have to offer VSTs that are available for both systems. Still Linux users would have to do tricks (wine/vm/dssi-vst) just to be able to learn from a song. I fear the ability to learn from a song vanishes, if people prefer different DSPs than the native ones. Ultimately the difference between SDC and any streamed-music competition would become smaller, which might make people move to those streamed-music compos, because the value-added point of SDC (source files, learning) will be missing then. I might be wrong though and more people might come to SDC because they find it more attractive to use external plugins. From an earlier discussion I know that people like Knetter and tenfour share my thoughts and I know that people like Airmann, io, chunter and k303 see more chances than risks in allowing default VSTs. As I mentioned, I'm not a total enemy of this, especially because I like to see more entrants. But then I'd suggest to have occasinal strict rounds, where only the DAW's native capabilities (+ vox & natural performances) are allowed.
User avatar
gilli
Regular
Regular
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 8:08 am
Location: Germany

Re: Rules clarification requested for Round 72

Postby chunter » Mon Mar 18, 2013 6:47 pm

Special-case rounds should always happen; I was considering asking for a draw-tool/generative round with a pack that only contains a few drums. If we're going to test a "standard effects" idea, though, I suggest we iron that out over a few rounds first.
chunter
Insomniac
Insomniac
 
Posts: 258
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 10:37 pm
Location: United States

Re: Rules clarification requested for Round 72

Postby lossfizzle » Mon Mar 18, 2013 7:36 pm

Thanks, Scott, for those clarifications. Kinda surprising in some ways.

I know I'm the n00b who started all this but Gilli's argument is resonant with me - you are going to have a very, very hard time finding plugins that actually work (or at least work out of the box) on all three major desktop platforms at this point. I can suggest plenty that work on two of the three and meet both "free" and "CPU light" criteria (since REAPER has already been brought up, might as well mention that the ReaPlugs would certainly qualify as "two-outta-three-ers"). But all three - tough stuff.

Deciding what constitutes a "standard effect" is also going to be interesting, I bet. Surely most folks would consider delay a standard effect, but there are ways to simulate basic synced delay in a tracker, so purists might be upset if such plugins were allowed... and there are also lots of delay plugins that can mangle well beyond what most people think of when they think "delay." (Let me tell you about this Korg SDD3000 I had once...)

I am *very* glad to hear that hard-rendered external DSP is apparently allowed, that helps a lot. I'm just curious as to where the line is drawn. If I run a Fairlight pizzicato sample through a custom Pd patch and then a Supercollider patch or something on top of that, and end up with a screaming, speaker-shredding, ten-second, utterly unrecognizable sequence of glitch-flatulence...

...Well, what I'm taking away from this whole discussion is "just be reasonable and mostly use what the tracker offers, and hopefully that will work out for you most of the time."

Thanks also for allowing LGPT. I've ended up at the point where I was kind of looking forward to having to learn another tracker, but now I have another option to chew on. I will make sure the Piggy community knows we're actually welcome.
lossfizzle
Newb
Newb
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 7:10 pm

Re: Rules clarification requested for Round 72

Postby steve » Tue Mar 19, 2013 10:30 am

organic io wrote:we have had at least one instance of someone cheating in the past (submitting multiple entries under different aliases)


I didn't know about this :shock:, when did it happen and how were they caught?
steve
Newb
Newb
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2012 10:28 am

Re: Rules clarification requested for Round 72

Postby organic io » Wed Mar 20, 2013 3:03 am

steve wrote:
organic io wrote:we have had at least one instance of someone cheating in the past (submitting multiple entries under different aliases)


I didn't know about this :shock:, when did it happen and how were they caught?


Heh... I had to dig through some old rounds to find out.

It came to surface in round 27 - http://www.sdcompo.com/results.php?r=27
The way I figured it out was I noticed that 2 of the songs were both encoded at 96kbps mp3, which just seemed pretty odd to me (and also hurt my ears!). The third one may have not been 96k, I don't remember, but I also noticed all 3 of them were hosted on the same webspace! The dude used to go by the name "crosfire" but at some point started releasing under the name "steg". He entered 3 entries that round under the names: "steg", "getto_jumparound", and "al_signs_art_thou". He tried to make up some story about how steg and crosfire were actually separate people who lived near each other and used the same computer to upload, but it seemed pretty transparent and also didn't explain the third entry. Later on I realized also that he had double entered at least one other previous round as well (and maybe another one or two also?)

The most interesting place to read how the drama unfolded is here: http://www.sdcompo.com/entry.php?e=357

Just a side note, this all happened long before I was a compo admin, I was just kind of a private investigator in this case :wink:
User avatar
organic io
Compo Admin
Compo Admin
 
Posts: 1535
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 11:55 am

Re: Rules clarification requested for Round 72

Postby organic io » Wed Mar 20, 2013 3:04 am

Looking back on it now, he seemed to even be toying with us by talking to himself under different aliases, and dropping hints that they were really the same person... For example:

I don't know if you belong to me but I belong to you for sure (I proved it many times) ;P


wtf?? Haha, I'm glad that's over with...
User avatar
organic io
Compo Admin
Compo Admin
 
Posts: 1535
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 11:55 am

Re: Rules clarification requested for Round 72

Postby organic io » Wed Mar 20, 2013 3:06 am

lossfizzle wrote:Thanks, Scott, for those clarifications. Kinda surprising in some ways.

I will make sure the Piggy community knows we're actually welcome.


Awesome, it would be great to see some LGPT folks around here!

Edit, one more clarification:

lossfizzle wrote:I am *very* glad to hear that hard-rendered external DSP is apparently allowed, that helps a lot. I'm just curious as to where the line is drawn. If I run a Fairlight pizzicato sample through a custom Pd patch and then a Supercollider patch or something on top of that, and end up with a screaming, speaker-shredding, ten-second, utterly unrecognizable sequence of glitch-flatulence...


Rendering external DSP's is only allowed when those DSP's are part of the current round's allowed plugins... For example a round that allows vst effects.
But If you run stuff through some wacky puredata stuff, that wouldn't be allowed in any circumstances that I know of, unless we wrote it into the rules for a specific round or if there was a free for all any-samples-allowed round (which happens once in a blue moon)
(Or in the special case of plusminus or schism users who do cooledit style standard effect stuff)

...

But, I guess if the puredata stuff is similar to standard effects, then following the logic of allowing cooledit effects, then the puredata stuff should also be allowed?
See, there's the problem with making one exception, then you have to also make others to be fair. While I want to be fair to everybody, figuring out all the rules/technicalities for all this stuff can be a nightmare...

I don't know, it seems there are a lot of grey areas, now I'm just confusing myself.

Maybe there's just too many rules. Maybe I'm tired because it's 4am. I don't know. Before the next round and before the possible addition of the standard effects, I will take a look at simplifying/rewriting the rules as well.

But the discussion about the standard effects is good, I appreciate everyone's input. I'd like to be able to find a solution that is agreeable to everyone!


Also Edit 2: Gilli, I did read your concerns and I'm still processing and don't have a full answer yet. My intuitive response is that you probably don't need to worry about too many people creating their own special effects, you are pretty unique in that regard. :D

Edit 3: Now I'm seeing the problem you are talking about, if multiband gate/etc doesn't exist in Renoise...
On the one hand I would say: if you are smart enough to figure out how to create your own effects with metamodules, then you should go ahead and use them. But, since you have shared your metamodules, that leaves the possibility of other users using your metamodules.

Usually I stick a section in the rules prohibiting certain Sunvox modules that don't exist as standard effects in other trackers (such as vocal filter) , it seems I forgot to this round. So ............ This brings up the question of: Should these self made metamodules not be allowed?

But I think my answer to that is: Only Gilli should be able to use them because he was the one smart enough to figure out how to make them.

ha!

But for real, actually I'm not really sure.

My head's about to implode though, I'll have to sleep on it
User avatar
organic io
Compo Admin
Compo Admin
 
Posts: 1535
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 11:55 am

Re: Rules clarification requested for Round 72

Postby organic io » Wed Mar 20, 2013 3:38 am

My tired epiphany is this:

It is impossible to level the playing field because every software is different. Everybody realizes that certain softwares have advantages over others, and I think most people are willing to accept that fact, even if they are using a tracker that is "less advanced".... The choice of tracker is a very personal one, but if you are using schism and you're really upset that you don't have all the dsp's, why not switch to Renoise? And if you don't make the switch to Renoise, then it's your own decision not to and you need to live with the fact that schism doesn't have as many effects.

Therefore, I think that self-made Sunvox metamodules are a unique advantage of Sunvox, and should be allowed and there is no need to standardize the set for Renoise or any other software. If a Renoise user feels like Sunvox has an unfair advantage because of the metamodules, then he needs to switch to Sunvox, otherwise accept that Renoise is "disadvantaged" in this regard, exactly the same as a Schism user would accept this fact by not switching to Renoise.

Makes sense ? To me it does but I'm a little bit loopy right now :) All interested parties, please respond and tell me if you agree or disagree and the majority will win and that is what the rewritten rules will be based around.

(Also I realize the above doesn't really address standard/basic effects (by which I mean reverb, delay, distortion, EQ, filter), that is a separate discussion still, I think)

Edit: Gilli, you made my life a lot more complicated with your metamodules business!!! Hah :D I love you anyway man :mrgreen:

OK this is for real my LAST post tonight!!!!
User avatar
organic io
Compo Admin
Compo Admin
 
Posts: 1535
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 11:55 am

Re: Rules clarification requested for Round 72

Postby lossfizzle » Wed Mar 20, 2013 11:37 am

organic io wrote:
Rendering external DSP's is only allowed when those DSP's are part of the current round's allowed plugins... For example a round that allows vst effects.
But If you run stuff through some wacky puredata stuff, that wouldn't be allowed in any circumstances that I know of, unless we wrote it into the rules for a specific round or if there was a free for all any-samples-allowed round (which happens once in a blue moon)
(Or in the special case of plusminus or schism users who do cooledit style standard effect stuff)

...

But, I guess if the puredata stuff is similar to standard effects, then following the logic of allowing cooledit effects, then the puredata stuff should also be allowed?


Heh, here we go again. :)

If you're not familiar with the existence of Pd (which is basically the open-source equivalent of Max/MSP), yes, it is very possible to create effects / mangling that are well beyond what most folks would consider standard effects. Think the SunVox "modular" layout (here's a Pd patch by someone else - see what I mean?), but at a much lower level of construction, and with a LOT more power (SV's routing / modules are actually pretty restricted; as of SV 1.72, I can't patch the SunVox LFO module in to modulate anything I darn well please, or really very much at all - but in Pd, I can come up with a patch that has LFOs modulating literally every other parameter in the chain, even modulating each other).

The thing with Pd is, it's a) free and open source, b) totally cross-platform (Win/Mac/Linux/FreeBSD/even Android/iOS to a point), c) the patches created are tiny and can be shared with anyone.

The same goes for Supercollider, Csound, similar "mid-level"/ open-source DSP / synthesis environments. So that's why I used Pd as an example, rather than the CoolEdit (or Audacity, or Wavosaur, or etc etc etc) effects. I'd have to tell someone exactly what processing I used on what sample if I was using CoolEdit and wanted to prove replicable results. With Pd, I'd just have to include the tiny .pd patch in my archive and they could try it themselves.

You yourself mentioned the (apparently OK?) possibility of using REAPER to process files - which inherently requires VSTs, whether the VSTs came with REAPER or not. (REAPER itself is technically not free. The ReaPlugs are licensed differently, as are-- if I'm not mistaken-- the JS scripts and rendering engine that are built into REAPER. I think Justin has released those into the license-restriction-free wilderness, but I'd need to look.)

Of course, the issue with Pd is that it can also be used as a synthesis engine (and a lot more). So if something like that were allowed, there'd need to be rules about including the patch with the file *and* making sure the patch was only used for processing, not outright creation of new samples with no connection to the pack source files.

All of this is sort of for my own curiosity, because-- like I said-- one of my favorite workflows *in other idioms* involves hard-rendering a lot of effects onto a small number of source files, just to see how much mileage and range I can get out of just a few seconds of relatively innocuous audio. (I once built a ten-minute, speaker-torturing concert piece out of a couple meows from one of my cats.) Trackers are actually appealing to me these (belated) days because they offer so many interesting, dynamic sample-mangling options in and of themselves. But yeah, with some of them, I won't have so much as reverb (to say nothing of pitch-bent reverse reverb) to play with unless some external *something* is allowed.

So I guess I need to know whether or not I *can* do such things - it sounds like the pendulum is sort of wavering back and forth on this point, if CoolEdit effects etc. are still possibly on the table. For this entry I'll keep it simple but with so many possible approaches it seems like it does have to be nailed down more specifically by the community at some point.

Oh, and don't be afraid of metamodules. They are one of the coolest things that SV can do and they are actually VERY easy to use. (It is *the* major "unfair" advantage SV has over any other tracker I've seen. Allowing certain types of homemade Pd patches as hard-rendered sample manglers actually seems much more fair by comparison, from where I sit :) )
lossfizzle
Newb
Newb
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 7:10 pm

Re: Rules clarification requested for Round 72

Postby lossfizzle » Wed Mar 20, 2013 11:48 am

I know I've already rambled on too much about Pd but after a few more sips of coffee, it seems this could also be an answer of sorts to the "standard effects" problem:

1) Have someone concoct a set of "acceptable" Pd processing patches (reverb, chorus, exciter, etc.) with a built-in file writer at the end of the chain
2) Make said patches available and officially part of the "standard acceptable hard-rendered effects"

Voila - no confusion about what effects are allowed as applied to samples in the pack, and just about anyone could use them regardless of platform.

Who knows if this would appeal to anyone else, though :)
lossfizzle
Newb
Newb
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 7:10 pm

Re: Rules clarification requested for Round 72

Postby gilli » Thu Mar 21, 2013 11:15 am

That's about the best idea to offer the most possible equality for all trackers/platforms, lossfizzle!
I'd be perfectly fine, if someone had processed or generated his samples in any way with Pure Data, if he'd always provide his pd-patches. It's absolutely open source, anyone can access it. It's not about a certain software (Renoise or Sunvox or Buzz). It's about the audio knowledge an artist has put into his song and since it's provided with his song, anyone can learn it. SDC doesn't become a dependant from any commercial type of software. Open Source music with least limitations. Perfect.

@Scott: sorry man, you're absolutely right, it was all about default fx. But I'm kinda glad we had the discussion, because I think lossfizzle's suggestion would be a much better addition to SDC than any default VST. In my opinion you could build and apply the patches to any extend as the knowledge can be shared. Whaddyathink?
User avatar
gilli
Regular
Regular
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 8:08 am
Location: Germany

Re: Rules clarification requested for Round 72

Postby lossfizzle » Mon Mar 25, 2013 11:13 pm

Yeah, I think maybe I've caused enough trouble here already, but one more dumb question: What if one was to sew several of the samples in the pack together into one continuous file, or to sew several *incomplete parts* of the originally-issued samples into one continuous file, without ANY processing beyond selective copying / pasting from the original sources?

Thinking about some glitch options involving ongoing manually-defined and/or continually-randomized relocation of sample start position within such a creature.

I'm guessing this would be OK but it also sort of falls outside the boundaries of anything that's been asked / answered so far, so thought it best to ask. :)
lossfizzle
Newb
Newb
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 7:10 pm

Re: Rules clarification requested for Round 72

Postby organic io » Tue Mar 26, 2013 8:48 am

Yeah, that should be perfectly fine. Thanks for asking! :D
User avatar
organic io
Compo Admin
Compo Admin
 
Posts: 1535
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 11:55 am
Previous

Return to Compo Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests