This PCB is available only as part of the CGS "B" board set (US$170).
What is this "B set"? Best of CGS? How do I find out more? _________________ Esoteric drones and nonlinear distortion
Custom/handmade experimental instruments
macumbista.net
Yes, a little bit late but I do my own panels, and I have most of those modules in some form or another already. Thanks for clarifying. _________________ Esoteric drones and nonlinear distortion
Custom/handmade experimental instruments
macumbista.net
That link doesn't work, and I was wondering the same thing...
It also seems very odd that the schematic has "deliberate errors"? So someone doesn't steal the design he isn't even selling? Imho, trying to build a module without schematics sounds like a recipe for trouble.
What's with the cloak and dagger? I've always admired Ken and his work, but this whole situation just seems weird.
There is another run of panels coming up soon, tho with different modules, not sure if it includes the DUSG.
Without wanting to debate the intricacies of copyright law, the design was created by Serge Tcherepnin, surely its up to him whether the schematic should be available for public consumption.
Without wanting to debate the intricacies of copyright law, the design was created by Serge Tcherepnin, surely its up to him whether the schematic should be available for public consumption.
Well, not trying to debate you or anyone else, but not exactly. Only the original schematic and PCB artwork can be copyrighted. A circuit can not. Anyone can legally reverse a vintage module and create their own schematic and PCB layout to distribute as they see fit, so long as it's not patented. (IANAL, etc.)
This horse has been beaten to death in the DIY guitar effects community (see the diystompboxes.com/freestompboxes.org split). It's about time the synth DIY community caught up IMO. Many people seem to be unsure what they are allowed to create and what information they are allowed to share. This makes for a lot of hurt feelings, unnecessary scarcity, duplicated efforts, backlog, and cloak-and-dagger BS. It also creates situations where a person produced a board with the help of the community, but then the community is unable to get boards or even files once they're gone. It doesn't help us understand these circuits better either.
In the case of the DSG, I think you can just order two (officially licensed) CGS VCSs and stack them up if you want a DSG. I might have to do this for a panel I'm planning. I sure don't mind paying a little extra for the licensing. I would rather get a DSG board (or 4) but that's life.
Without wanting to debate the intricacies of copyright law, the design was created by Serge Tcherepnin, surely its up to him whether the schematic should be available for public consumption.
I doubt anyone asked him anything. Regardless, why should his designs be treated any different? Just because it's Serge? Someone else designed the original Steiner and EDP VCF's as well. Most modules are directly based on previous designs. For example, I have a Blacet Mini-Wave. It's a great module, but it was based on a design by Grant Richter, based on a design by Dave Smith, based on a design by Wolfgang Palm. Which doesn't make John Blacet's work any less valuable.
grantb wrote:
It also creates situations where a person produced a board with the help of the community, but then the community is unable to get boards or even files once they're gone. It doesn't help us understand these circuits better either.
I agree with every thing you wrote.
Speaking for myself, I was mostly just curious in learning how the circuit worked. Afaik, it's at least 30 years old. That's thirty years of better parts and accumulated knowledge. Perhaps someone could look at it, and improve it, or use it as the basis for something new. Even Serge offered different panels of the same module with different features. Although I'm not saying I wouldn't be interested in a PCB designed to work with switched jacks and shielded cables, if it came with reliable information.
Again, nothing against Ken. How he wants to sell his PCB's -- which he designed and manufactured himself -- is completely up to him. This situation just seems strange because, afaik, up until now CGS has been completely open source.
from CGS VCS page:
"This is a licensed adaptation of the classic Serge DTG/DUSG"
Serge Tcherepnin sold the business almost 20 years ago.
If you want to reverse engineer a DUSG (or any Serge circuit) I guess you can go ahead. No one can stop you really. Chances are CGS wont sue you. STS may...
Serge never gave out schematics when you bought his modules as kits. It's totally up to him whether or not to make them available. Ken is obviously respecting Serge T's wishes. And if he is licensing the boards from Serge then Serge must retain some rights to his designs, weather or not Rex Probe is manufacturing synths based on those designs.
CGS is making modules available that can't be had for less than 1000s of dollars now. You don't have to buy an "M Class" synth just to get a DUSG. Or any of the other modules licensed from Serge T. Withholding schematics seems a small price to pay. Plus I like the idea of Serge making a few bucks off his designs. _________________ life in many forms...
http://clsound.com
Chances are CGS wont sue you. STS may...
It's totally up to him whether or not to make them available.
Oh for pete's sake, please pay attention to what has already been said. No one can sue anyone. Schematics are essentially "artwork". They belong to whoever drew them, not who designed the circuit.
STS has been making more than a few bucks off the same old designs for a very long time. They have done this by selling a finished product. Which, imho, is way different than selling PCB's.
Bitd, when we often drew schematics in ascii on an email list to figure things out, there was this guy who sold lots of PCB's. He was quite convinced people would try to steal his designs. Except almost all of "his" designs were poorly copied clones. And as it turned out, most of his boards didn't even work. Had he made his schematics available, that whole situation would likely have been avoided.
If someone was that intent on "stealing" a design, all he would have to do is follow the silkscreen on a bare board with a continuity tester. Then, he would have to do the real work laying out the PCB and getting it manufactured. But why would he if the boards are already available? Is there a problem with people doing this I haven't noticed? I haven't even see people do this where there might be some financial incentive, such as selling clones for modules in smaller formats where the original boards wouldn't fit.
clee wrote:
Chances are CGS wont sue you. STS may...
It's totally up to him whether or not to make them available.
Oh for pete's sake, please pay attention to what has already been said. No one can sue anyone.
I guess that's a little sarcasm that doesn't translate to a BB. No one will sue anyone.
Quote:
STS has been making more than a few bucks off the same old designs for a very long time. They have done this by selling a finished product. Which, imho, is way different than selling PCB's.
My point exactly. But we don't know what was involved in Serge selling the business to Rex, do we. Maybe Serge didn't sell all his rights to Rex.
Quote:
If someone was that intent on "stealing" a design, all he would have to do is follow the silkscreen on a bare board with a continuity tester. Then, he would have to do the real work laying out the PCB and getting it manufactured. But why would he if the boards are already available? Is there a problem with people doing this I haven't noticed?
As I said, if you want to reverse engineer a DUSG no one can stop you.
Quote:
I haven't even see people do this where there might be some financial incentive, such as selling clones for modules in smaller formats where the original boards wouldn't fit.
For an example of someone doing just that visit Build Your Own Clone. I'm sure there are others. The "cloning" issue comes up regularly on electo-music and Muffs.
I'm not going to get into a long argument about respecting intelectual property. It's a tired, stale argument that I long ago realized I can't win. I see no problem with individuals copying circuits and building copies of modules. Making a business out of it is a little more borderline. I think it's funny that the term Cloning has sort of been invented to not say copying, or stealing. BYOC has made an entire business out of selling designs he didn't create. Is it illegal, I guess not. But I'm not really arguing legality.
We lived through bootlegging, sampling, mp3 downloading, movie downloading. I guess there is nothing in the creative business where we can expect financial reward for our work...
Oh, except T-Shirt sales.
Rant done.[/quote] _________________ life in many forms...
http://clsound.com
I guess that's a little sarcasm that doesn't translate to a BB. No one will sue anyone.
I don't know about France or Australia, but in the U.S. they simply wouldn't have a tort. Not that it matters.
clee wrote:
As I said, if you want to reverse engineer a DUSG no one can stop you.
Except me with my complete lack of interest in doing such a thing. The point is that is that the absence of schematics would do little to deter anyone so inclined.
clee wrote:
For an example of someone doing just that visit Build Your Own Clone. I'm sure there are others. The "cloning" issue comes up regularly on electo-music and Muffs.
Oh, there are plenty of others when it comes to effect pedals, but I was referring to synth modules. Like I don't know anyone offering MOTM clones in Eurorack.
Regardless, very little of the diy stompbox building involves original designs that are still being made.
clee wrote:
I think it's funny that the term Cloning has sort of been invented to not say copying, or stealing.
I think the term was invented to mean an exact copy, and not just something similar. Stealing implies taking something away from someone.
clee wrote:
I guess there is nothing in the creative business where we can expect financial reward for our work...
There certainly is, if you actually produce a physical product. Last edited by PrimateSynthesis on Tue Mar 22, 2011 5:56 am; edited 1 time in total
I Have no interest in continuing this discussion. Like I said, it's a long tired stale argument that can't be won. I believe I have stated my views and you have stated yours.
We obviously come to the issue from very different perspectives. I believe my views are valid and I'm very familiar with the ones you have. I just personally don't agree with them.
People are now free to go back to discussing building a DUSG...
Joined: Aug 31, 2009 Posts: 92 Location: New Haven, CT, USA
Posted: Sat May 28, 2011 11:21 am Post subject:
Subject description: SMT pads on CGS114
Hi Folks,
Does anybody know the part type used for the two sets of surface mount pads on the solder side of CGS114? I am guessing a cap of some sort and value but can't find it on the schematic or in the build docs.
Also, what package size SMT would be best to use here.
Joined: Dec 29, 2006 Posts: 1176 Location: australia
Audio files: 4
Posted: Sat May 28, 2011 6:17 pm Post subject:
these SMD caps are always for decoupling on CGS boards, so anything from 10n to 100n will be fine.
The other CGS boards use 1206, so i assume the ones you have found will fit.
Joined: May 11, 2008 Posts: 136 Location: Australia
Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2011 12:57 am Post subject:
PrimateSynthesis wrote:
andrewF wrote:
from CGS VCS page:
"This is a licensed adaptation of the classic Serge DTG/DUSG"
Serge Tcherepnin sold the business almost 20 years ago.
Make sure your facts are facts, and not just assumptions.
According to SERGE, he did NOT sell the rights to his designs. He still owns them, and has every right to license them to others as he sees fit. How do I know this? Serge told me.
As to why that "deliberate errors" bullshit is on the DUSG diagram, I did that in the old days, with the idea of protecting Rex's interests, as it was mighty close to what he is still selling.
The only deliberate error on that diagram is the statement about there being any deliberate errors. To anyone with a PCB to hand, that would become very obvious.
For what it is worth, there are several commercial synths that have circuits in them copied from Serge's designs. These manufacturers make no mention of the fact, nor do they pay Serge any royalties.
And then there is this CGS fellow, who really does pay royalties, but see, he's an idiot because he wants to do the right thing.
So people, enjoy your builds.
Have fun all.
Ken
P.S. I'm not pissed off, or even mildly annoyed. Nor am I aiming these comments at anyone in particular. Heck, the posting I quoted is getting a bit old!
P.P.S. Yes those would be 1206 100n SMT caps. The original Serge design had no decouplers at all. When Serge did use decouplers, they were usually 10n. An 805 can usually be convinced to solder between the pads too. _________________ http://www.cgs.synth.net/
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum