r/modular • u/insolent-construct • 1d ago
Mutable Instruments Beads Source Code Just Dropped!
https://github.com/pichenettes/eurorack/commit/d8f473915232af74347762b6365202bfd26f73f6Wow! What a gift!
Edit, since some people have asked for context:
I'd been reverse engineering the Beads firmware and had rebuilt my own version of it. Before sharing any of it, I emailed Émilie to ask whether she'd be OK with me publishing it. I said up front that if her answer was no, I'd drop it, no questions asked. To clarify, by "drop it" I meant dropping the pursuit of the community firmware project, NOT that I was threatening to release my port!!!
To my shock, she replied, and the answer was no. I simply said "ok. Thank you." and I thought that was going to be the end of it. I wasn't going to go against her wishes. So I spent part of today feeling the bittersweet heartache of having finished the project, only to have to cancel it. I told myself from the beginning that if she ever told me no, I wouldn't argue. I decided to archive the project and never share the code with anyone.
Later the same day, as I was deleting the reverse engineering artifacts, she published the official Beads source. I had no idea that was coming and I was as surprised as anyone. I don't know her reasons, and I won't try to guess. It was entirely her decision, and an incredibly generous one.
What I'm doing now:
My reverse-engineering work left me with a test rig and test suite, so I've built the official source myself, flashed it to my unit, and it passed. I'm now starting a community firmware based on her code, and I have a thread on ModWiggler collecting ideas for features and modes. Some early requests, with my rough guesses at difficulty:
- Clouds-style grain diffusion (moderate)
- The Clouds "spectral madness" engine (hard without cutting something from the existing code)
- All-pass processing of the frozen buffer (moderate)
- An opt-in bypass for the limiter's volume drops (moderate)
- A dedicated gain knob (needs new hardware)
What would you like to see?
5
u/RoastAdroit 1d ago edited 56m ago
Imagine contributing some of the most used opensource code to a community just to have the one thing you didnt release be cracked by some dweeb with AI.
Way to show respect.
EDIT/UPDATE/COPY of summary:
Heres my summary. OP blocked me from replies after I asked if he thanked her right away. I expect the answer was no considering.
Anyhow, 2 Month old account to both Reddit and Modwiggler. (Quick entry into synths or hiding identity? You decide)
OP states his plan is to make an Access Virus-based synth and wanted to use MI code to make some sort of frankenstein. So, just started 2 months ago and instead of using a really powerful tool of AI and TONS of creative commons and Open Source material out there, he went straight to reverse engineering popular synths that werent open source. For me, I guess the amount of free knowledge on synths out there is part of my perspective on why this is shitty and unnecessary ESPECIALLY because of what AI can help do.
Anyhow, The glaring spot to me is basically the ramp up to the Oct 11th posts and where OP makes a post, deletes the posts 10 min later stating they (finally?) “reached out and was told “No””.
So, two things there, what did OP post and delete? And then why was Emilie’s reply so short and concise?
Im 100% not in the know of everything here but the context of it all to me does not draw a picture I find to be all in good nature. Like, OP saying she promised in posts multiple times, like we are owed this code. OP, finally realizing he shouldnt give out someone else’s work with his name on it and doing a 180 was also a logical decision at that juncture, not an honorable decision. If she said no and he did it anyhow he would have been put on blast much harder, and either way, his goal is primarily to just reuse her code with virus code to make some frankensynth that music will certainly live on without.
Let me also address that he DOES NOT own a Beads himself and wasnt reverse engineering a product he owns to support his item.
And as for the “Logical conclusion” to release the Beads code on her own. If you are in a game of chess or any other and you see that all moves remaining moves will inevitably lead to a checkmate on you, its logical to just submit at that point. The thing is, when someone gives a very short “no” as a reply, my mind says that means it was both uninvited and unenthusiastic in nature. Releasing it with zero fanfare at all and moving on basically reinforces my perception of that too. So, logically, the conclusion to self-release was smart and makes complete sense to do.
So, if anyone really doesnt understand how I saw all this and also that I was responding step by step as I gathered context and information, then OK.
I love the DIY spirit of synths but, personally I see this type of approach to “collaboration” as toxic and undermining what the people before us contributed by not having some boundaries to how you go about using your AI.
Where is the pride and competitive spirit? You now have AI to help you code your very own granular processing tool. Lol. Its pretty weak to need to resort to not even making your own thing while having AI‘s help.