Very soon (when I know the purpose of 2 or three parameters of the manual) I will free my editor for the Sub-37.
They lack the sysex implemtnation (only working read patch name of the current patch when you changes patch ) because I can get the sysex expecification.
Moog unfortunately say:
“…our Sysex implementation is considered confidential intellectual property…”
I will free too my Litlle Phatty editor.
Both are for personal use, but I think somebody can be interested…
That looks fantastic. I would love to use it. I hope the official Sub 37 editor won’t be miniature and Windows 95 looking like the Little Phatty and Voyages editor’s.
This is ridiculous. We, as owners of the Sub 37, should demand that this be made public. It’s only a data format and I can pretty much guarantee you there is nothing magical or groundbreaking about the data format for their SysEx. All that protecting this format does is hinder their paying customers.
They should do that with all their hardware devices. Moog were about to release a software editor for the Multi-Pedal but finally it never saw the light. If we had the SysEx specifications, we could develop our own editor using third party tools like TB MIDI Stuff for example.
Sorry, but could not agree MORE with MOOG!!
You people come across as self-entitled children than anything else. You apparently do not grasp what the word “proprietary” means. Open Source is not a common practice with any self-respecting instrument maker. Buy a Mutable Instruments device then.
People here crying for Moog to release data as open source sound like the self-entitled tweens on Elektron forum. Get over yourselves and enjoy the instrument and use the damn KNOBS and KEYS to make some music. That’s all you need. May not be what you WANT…but adults usually can differentiate between the two.
@namnibor – we’re not asking for the firmware source code or hardware schematics. We’re asking for the external interface specifications, the SysEx format, that was designed for interfacing musical devices and software. The only thing developers can do with it is to communicate with Moog devices, making a better use of it, that’s it. Essentially, create patch librarians and editors. Hardly a harmful act for Moog, IMO.
Well, sysex and midi was made to comunicate and exchange patches, secuences, etc over devices.
For that reason every new device in all factories I know (this is the first time the sysex is not writed in the manual, maybe this is my first moog device ) published that information: make more easy the exchange, save, edit their patches.
For me is easy: I have a short (very short) memory, like a fish. So when a load a patch on Sub-37 want to see-remember when is the cursor in every pot.
Today I have on computer the complete panel in my editor with lights showing me the position of every parameter of every patch maided for me or no.
And for that (receive a sysex with the front panel) the sysex implementation is needed.
That cost me a lot of time, but I NEED IT!!!
In my work, I have time to TWEEK BUTTONS, time to compose music, and time to EDIT, SORT and STORE patches.
First one I make over Sub 37, last one over the computer (Never over the sub37)
The only viable reason to not to release sysex specs publicly that I can think of is to preserve the ability to freely change the sysex format whenever firmware engineers feel like that without fearing to break some external products that may rely on it. This desire is very understandable, however it could be achieved by requiring those who are granted access to sysex specs to sign a NDA document that will totally regulate how they use those sysex specs and what they could expect from Moog. Or by designing the sysex in a backward compatible or extensible way. Or by just versioning it. Lots of options. Why restrictions?
Pardon my ignorance on the matter (I’ve never written an editor/librarian) but can’t you accomplish the same the with the published CC’s? It would seem easier to me than parsing a sysex string anyway. What am I missing?
You need to understand the difference between data, software and hardware if you are going to blast us for our opinions on the matter or our approach to making music. I, for one, have a thorough grasp of “proprietary”, open source, data formats and everything in between because I have been a software developer for over 25 years.
As for the crap about using the knobs and keys to make music, it just shows your ignorance about how some people use SysEx. People have been using SysEx to extend the functionality of instruments and organize patches for years. Almost all synths have publicly documented SysEx. I’m 99.9% certain there is nothing a competitor could leverage from that format spec if it was made public.
Would it be acceptable to you if they made the MIDI spec private? There is really little difference.
If you want to load all patch parameters into a computer, you need SysEx. If you want to edit SysEx you need to know the format (or spend time hacking it).
Both an editor and a librarian can benefit from knowing the SysEx format.
You apparently do not grasp what the word “proprietary” means. Open Source is not a common practice with any self-respecting instrument maker. Buy a Mutable Instruments device then.