OvertoneDSP DT-1 and other commercial options in store?

Plugins
#1

Hi,

I recall hearing some rumours that at some point there would be some commercial plugins available in the MOD Pedal store. I am a huge fan and supporter of open-source but I don’t have any political qualms about using some commercial applications as well. In my DAW recordings I make a lot of use of the linuxDSP (now OvertoneDSP) DT-1 plugin which is an LV2. This pedal is billed as a ‘distortion’ stompbox but truly it excels as a overdrive simulator when paired with a cabinet emulation, it is also very frugal and barely registers on CPU, . I’m a blues and rootsy music player and I’m looking for a natural sounding overdrive simulation and although the MOD has some excellent distortion and metal simulations I find for me (and this is just an opinion not a judgement) that the existing sims are either too clean, too dirty or don’t leave enough CPU for assembling a full Sim+fx pedalboard. If my tube amp were to die at a gig I could not at this point plug the MOD in directly to the PA and carry on, and I think that is an important function the MOD should be capable of fulfilling. In my opinion the DT-1 could scratch an itch and be a helpful addition and it’s CPU lightness and sonic ability to occupy that niche to go from ‘brown’ to full out Marshall ‘crunch’ would be a real complementary asset to the existing Sims which already cover many other sonic needs.

Is there a proposed timeline for commercial offerings in the plugin store, and is the DT-1 a possibility?

6 Likes
#2

I second the opinion of commercial plugins (or closed source plugins)

Some developers are not interested in sharing their code. I remember the discussions with the LinuxDSP / OvertoneDSP programmer in the Ardour forums. I hope these discussion are not starting again in this forum - but he really makes some great sounding plugins.

My favourite plugin would be the Molot compressor in the MOD Duo (for those not knowing the Molot: https://vladgsound.wordpress.com/plugins/molot/). But this is not even a LV2 plugin and I don’t think that this project is ever going to run on the MOD Duo. But one can dream :wink:

Maybe some other talented plugin developers would be interested in this platform if there was a commercial or at least closed source route for them.

#3

Totally agree with both sentiments: I’d love to have more low gain overdrive options and I would love more plugins (free or paid)!

1 Like
#4

You may be not completely out of luck, the molot lite, is open source, and already ported as LV2 plug. Just, now a “open source” developer needs to steep in, to port it to the MOD.
https://sourceforge.net/p/molot/code/ci/master/tree/

I don’t know if you have checked my latest LV2 plugs I’ve put on github, there is a couple of stuff which may fit your needs, as the Marshall Guv’nor


a OverDrive Pedal

or a saturator

beside with the Hyperion Fuzz Pedal from Devi Ever for bass

True, I’ve some trouble to get them running on the MOD, but they are in the pipe, and running smooth, with very little CPU footprint, on your x86 box, so you may try them in your favourite Linux Daw and let me know, if one of them is worse the work to work out a version for the MOD.

But, now, were Mike has skipped any support for Linux/Lv2, this forum may be the wrong place to ask, special for this plug. You know, the chicken and the egg. My guess is, you’ve to ask Mike, if he will provide a LV2 version for the MOD, maybe that will drive the development to work the frame out, by the open source people, indeed. :kissing:
(beside that the workload is full anyway)

1 Like
#5

@brummer

Thanks for the links, I will check them out this weekend and try them in Ardour. I realize from a programming perspective ‘overdrive’ is VERY difficult to digitally reproduce. I have found in the past that sometimes the sound of plugins used within a DAW on a x86 PC differ when on the MOD. For instance for a great clean Fender tremolo I LOVE and use your Vibro Chump which was ported to the MOD a while ago but the version on the MOD seems to have different characteristics than in a DAW.

I know the code is the same and the only difference is that it is compiled for ARM instead of x86 so it makes no logical sense that it would sound different, but my experience so far is that the same LV2 plugins when used in a DAW or in the MOD can at least seem to sound different even when used in the same order and combinations.

1 Like
#6

Hi guys

we indeed have in our roadmap the support for commercial plugins

work is quite advanced and maybe earlier than you expect some demos will be available at the Plugin Store :wink:

best

3 Likes
#7

any plans to support as well commercial open source plugs?

regards
hermann

1 Like
#8

Of course!!!

The Plugin Store will actually end up offering 4 kinds of plugins because there are two “dimensions”:

Paid x non-paid

Open Source x Closed Source

1 Like
#9

You guy’s really know how to cut the edge. :grinning:
Come together, tam, tam,tam, right now,tam ,tam, over , . . .
Applause!!

1 Like
#10

Great framework: two dimensions, four kind of plugins! I loved the idea of publishing the source code of closed source plugins after a certain amount of donations were reached [1]. And while it did not work out in the wild, maybe it would within the MOD ecosystem? I’d definitely pay! On the other hand … with the Duo’s current pricing expectations are higher and paid plugins might feel unfair to those who open their repositories.

[1] ArtyFX or the Infamous plugins… don’t remember exactly.

#11

From user’s or customer’s point of view:

  • gratis + free: all current MOD plugins; easy
  • gratis + proprietary: aka. Freeware is also easy just needs a flag for purists and free-software ideologists
  • commercial + proprietary: Those should have a demo, so that one can evaluate them before purchase
  • commercial + free: This is where it gets tricky:

The latter could be demo-limited: purchase is required, or it could be a full-version with optional donation.

This depends on the motivation of why the plugin-developer opted for free-software but also on marketing and is furthermore related to the “user-experience” of the MOD. Subdividing the choices even more will likely become a mess.

A GPL buyout (like ArtyFX) is IMHO not really an option. That’s like hoping 1% of the rich buys it for the 99%. Also the source is not initially free and a lot of free-software devs publish the source so that others can inspect (learn) or to involve the community (get help, re-use code from others, translations, testing,…). Marketing wise a buyout makes most sense if the money is invested further (compare e.g. Blender creating the foundation – million $) and not for paying for past work (couple of hundred $).

While optional donations are appealing, most users have little incentive to donate and those who are serious about supporting a project can donate to projects (which accept donations) already.

If the MOD is serious about building sustained community of plugin-developers, selling free/libre plugins just like proprietary ones makes most sense (demo version, purchase for full version).

Now, the best of both worlds would be a “pay as much as you want, but at least X” (compare to Ardour’s “price of a meal in your country of residence”). A busker can get away with the set price while a Starbucks-addict professional musician can throw in a couple of scones :slight_smile: Also with a minimum price is $0, that’d be like a donation.

Do you think this is a viable solution for the MOD?

Users who cannot afford a purchase, can learn how to compile from source or ask someone to do that for them.

PS. One possibility that hasn’t been included are “subscriptions” or elaborate marketing schemas “subscribers get a discount on purchases” or “gratis updates while subscription lasts”. That can not only keep a marketing dept busy but also has technical issues “need to be online to verify subscriber status” etc.

What do you think?

2 Likes
#12

Yes, just handle free commercial plugs the same way as proprietary. If a user prefer to build it by themself, so s/he is free to do so. Why not?

Exact,

I don’t think such a solution is needed for the MOD, but nice would be, if, some % from the purchase of all plugs will be redirected (as donation?) to some FLOSS audio projects.

2 Likes
#13

@brummer:
Wow - thank you for the link. I didn’t know that a lite version of this plugin was ported to LV2 !
Maybe I got some time over Christmas this year and have some time to check out the plugin…

#14

Wasn’t it Ardour’s lead developer who said that “developing software based on donations does not even generate enough income to support one person”?

#15

@eggsperde: I mentioned it as possibility for developers who do not want to sell but only accept donations, either for ideological reasons or because donations are taxed differently than sales/income.

#16

@x42: Thanks… all good! The four options indeed seem to cover all possible cases. (Although, admittedly, I have difficulties to see under which conditions “pay as much as you want but not less than x” could count as donation.)

#17

x = 0

#18

…as far as I can tell, the minimum amount is all you get taxed on, as everything above that is a donation, so if you find a community who are willing to support things over and above the minimum, but are wary of making everything completely free, that’s a way of making sure you get something, creating an interface in which the person downloading the plug-in has to think about the value in order to type in a figure, AND keeping your tax liability low (if you’re in a country that has a threshold, though in the EU, VATMOSS means you’ll have to submit a VAT return on any earnings made through selling digital product, if the vendor doesn’t work it out for you, which is something MOD may have to consider in setting up the sales interface…

3 Likes
#19

both actually

I’m personally in favor of handling all plugins the same way: when you install them it asks you to pay what you want with a minimum value set by the developer. This makes the user aware that they aren’t just getting freeware, but they can still decide not to donate if the plugin has a minimum amount of $0. Non-free (gratis) plugins have the option to add a DEMO version in the store for free (or for a price if they really want to and aren’t very good at buisness :wink: since all plugins would be handled the same way). Most mod users don’t want to go through the hassle of cross compiling and loading on plugins, even open source projects can fairly easily set their own prices on open source plugins and generate some funds. I understand though that this may be harder for MOD as a company since it gives the feeling that none of the plugins are free (gratis).

Many users don’t really care whether its open or not, but I like the idea of helping them become aware of open software, so its probably a good thing to tag open vs proprietary plugins. So if the store had tags visible when browsing a plugin that show the minimum price (or FREE!), and one when its open source I think that could work for everybody.

Personally I’d be fine with MOD skimming a little off donations for my plugins too, since their platform makes this model viable. But I’m only one of many developers.

2 Likes
#20

@solobasssteve: wow, that’s an interesting concept! I had no idea that splitting donations/payments like this was possible. Probably rather laborious to break down the generated income without the sales interface you suggested.

@ssj71: Fully agree with everything you wrote. Maybe the MOD team could include a “voucher” with each MOD Duo to buy plugins for a certain value. In this case the user could decide which plugins to spend their money/voucher on and the plugin developers could still receive some $$$ along the way.