We have all tried to address concerns as they come up. It looks like we are currently doing that pretty well. If anyone is uncomfortable with participating because of whatever concerns, why not sit it out? There will probably be a second edition. 
Speaking as a forum member not a moderator. Anyone who has value to add to the LP is more than welcome. Lucky if you don't wish to be included on this one, no worries. At the moment we don't have any proprietary signals for the LP, just the place holder names for your acceleration tests - which can easily be removed from the track list if you wish.
If you do want your unique tests on the LP, the place is already there for them. All we need are the signals.
We've gotten so far off track with non-issues, we can't even make any technical progress. And there are financial hurdles to tackle. Those do need to be addressed.
Speaking as a forum member not a moderator. Anyone who has value to add to the LP is more than welcome. Lucky if you don't wish to be included on this one, no worries. At the moment we don't have any proprietary signals for the LP, just the place holder names for your acceleration tests - which can easily be removed from the track list if you wish.
If you do want your unique tests on the LP, the place is already there for them. All we need are the signals.
We've gotten so far off track with non-issues, we can't even make any technical progress. And there are financial hurdles to tackle. Those do need to be addressed.
The only suggestion of that has come from you as a member then Pano. I quite rightly feel upset by that, but hey.
I've invested significant time and effort on this thread trying to explore the rare opportunity to co-operatively define and make a proper test record available, addressing some of the more meaningful tests omitted over decades of historic oversight as to what really matters in vinyl playback.
I have every interest in taking the opportunity to get the test record right in the broadest sense. Or at least properly discuss that. And I consider getting it right and obtaining consensus agreement far more important than some phantom pressure to get 'something' or 'anything' done. I've never understood the apparent hurry to rush something through, even if its obviously wrong - perhaps you might kindly properly explain, Pano?
As already pointed out, many candidate test files you have put forward so far are impossible to cut. Generation of correct test files, once there's agreement the tests are right, is trivial.
What exactly is a 'proprietary' test? I had already upped suggestions in detail for at least a dozen test tracks, spanning all manner of performance. Which I downed again, pending resolution of what I don't understand but perceive as some personal hostility, to the point of apparently being singled out for exclusion from the thread?
These aren't my tests, the list is open for suggestion, and it's a matter for discussion and consensus to decide on the final set to be included. It's trivial to generate test files.
If it's you being a member Pano, rather than a moderator, I can live with that as a disagreement, but don't expect a Xmas card next year
As a member, Pano, you have the same status as me. This isn't your thread or test LP any more than it's mine or anybody's. You're apparently interested in timescale and I'm interested in getting the record right.
I really do hope this post doesn't offend the basic rule of not upsetting the moderators. Otherwise it was nice knowing you all and thanks for all the fish. I do feel insulted, but I'm interested in staying around on this thread and the forum if that's OK with you chaps?
And who else is going to tell you that your test files won't work, Pano ?
LD
Last edited:
Copyright requires some form of "creative work". That is why, for example, you cannot copyright the data in the phone book (facts are not copyrightable), but you can copyright the format of the phone book (layout, perhaps introducing fake data to track copying of the format). Similarly, look at typography: a type set can be subject to copyright (creative work) but the letter "J" (for example) cannot be copyrighted.
So for the LP, basically the order and the graphics and text will be subject to copyright. Test tones ... not so much by themselves, but yes, if the "work" is copied in it's entirety (say, the whole 3:20 sec of a 3:20 sec track).
Copyright in Canada is automatic ... it exists the moment the work is created, registration not required. Assuming the copyright owner is in any WTO country, then all WTO signatory nations agree to uphold and enforce it.
If push comes to shove, a simple non-profit society could be created to own the IP. I don't know what the regulatory requirements are everywhere, but they are essentially trivial where I live. They don't even need to persist; you could create it for the sole purpose of creating the LP, and disband it immediately thereafter, and failure to persist would not invalidate any copyrights.
Copyrights are "inalienable" which means there is no legal requirement to even enforce them; and they cannot be invalidated for failure to enforce the right by the copyright owner.
I am not sure the various open source licenses would apply as the LP will never exist independently in a data format, which would be necessary to apply a data license.
So for the LP, basically the order and the graphics and text will be subject to copyright. Test tones ... not so much by themselves, but yes, if the "work" is copied in it's entirety (say, the whole 3:20 sec of a 3:20 sec track).
Copyright in Canada is automatic ... it exists the moment the work is created, registration not required. Assuming the copyright owner is in any WTO country, then all WTO signatory nations agree to uphold and enforce it.
If push comes to shove, a simple non-profit society could be created to own the IP. I don't know what the regulatory requirements are everywhere, but they are essentially trivial where I live. They don't even need to persist; you could create it for the sole purpose of creating the LP, and disband it immediately thereafter, and failure to persist would not invalidate any copyrights.
Copyrights are "inalienable" which means there is no legal requirement to even enforce them; and they cannot be invalidated for failure to enforce the right by the copyright owner.
I am not sure the various open source licenses would apply as the LP will never exist independently in a data format, which would be necessary to apply a data license.
Last edited:
My take on Pano's commentary was that you were expressing dissatisfaction, without offering tangible solutions or a defined pathway to resolution... more repeating the same refrain over and over. I'm not above that, certainly, however I can understand his suggestion in light of that. I don't think it was meant to be cutting, but just matter of fact. I know for myself, interpreting innuendo on the internet is flawed at best.
Also, it wasn't just Pano who felt it was getting old. I just kept my mouth shut... and i'm not a moderator ;-) Either way, this is common in a workgroup, I wouldn't take it personally. I wouldn't if you responded similarly.
I'd like to make a formal suggestion to move this toward resolution:
License and Disclaimer:
(C) 2017 Loose and Factious Consortium of DIYAudio Curmudgeons
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this test record and associated documentation and additional files files (the "Test Record"), to deal in the Test Record without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Test Record, and to permit persons to whom the Test Record is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
The copyright above and permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Test Record.
The Test Record and accompanying content is provided "as is", without warranty of any kind, express or implied, including but not limited to the warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose and noninfringement. In no event shall the authors, contributors or maintainers of the diyaudio forum be liable for any claim, damages or other liability, whether in an action of contract, tort or otherwise, arising from, out of, or in connection with the Test Record or other dealings in the Test Record.
------
So, release to public, without warrantee, test files, art, documentation- everything. All contributors relinquish any individual rights.
Then, furnish the information to the DIYAudio Store to keep the LP in stock and for sale if they should choose after the initial group buy is over. Any reason why not? Any Golems out there really want to hold onto their precious that bad?
After all, this forum provides such a wealth of knowledge and expertise it would be nice to give back- our little Christmas gift to them. Of course, it would be nice in return if they could provide a permanent link / shortened url to the Test LP documentation and host the test files, etc. but I don't think that requires any kind of formal deal. I believe in the moderators here to shimmy our requests to the top in an effective manner.
Regarding future versions and modifications:
It would be wise to host master test files on: Github, this way changes can be tracked better should the Test LP see future versions. The GitHub this way can be updated outside of the diyaudio page / not reliant upon diva's dev. I will volunteer to set up the git and the page if no one else comes forward.
Comments? Suggestions? Opposing views?
Also, it wasn't just Pano who felt it was getting old. I just kept my mouth shut... and i'm not a moderator ;-) Either way, this is common in a workgroup, I wouldn't take it personally. I wouldn't if you responded similarly.
I'd like to make a formal suggestion to move this toward resolution:
License and Disclaimer:
(C) 2017 Loose and Factious Consortium of DIYAudio Curmudgeons
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this test record and associated documentation and additional files files (the "Test Record"), to deal in the Test Record without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Test Record, and to permit persons to whom the Test Record is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
The copyright above and permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Test Record.
The Test Record and accompanying content is provided "as is", without warranty of any kind, express or implied, including but not limited to the warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose and noninfringement. In no event shall the authors, contributors or maintainers of the diyaudio forum be liable for any claim, damages or other liability, whether in an action of contract, tort or otherwise, arising from, out of, or in connection with the Test Record or other dealings in the Test Record.
------
So, release to public, without warrantee, test files, art, documentation- everything. All contributors relinquish any individual rights.
Then, furnish the information to the DIYAudio Store to keep the LP in stock and for sale if they should choose after the initial group buy is over. Any reason why not? Any Golems out there really want to hold onto their precious that bad?
After all, this forum provides such a wealth of knowledge and expertise it would be nice to give back- our little Christmas gift to them. Of course, it would be nice in return if they could provide a permanent link / shortened url to the Test LP documentation and host the test files, etc. but I don't think that requires any kind of formal deal. I believe in the moderators here to shimmy our requests to the top in an effective manner.
Regarding future versions and modifications:
It would be wise to host master test files on: Github, this way changes can be tracked better should the Test LP see future versions. The GitHub this way can be updated outside of the diyaudio page / not reliant upon diva's dev. I will volunteer to set up the git and the page if no one else comes forward.
Comments? Suggestions? Opposing views?
Last edited:
As for liability, the old legal saw "you can't get blood from a stone" applies; anyone who sues a "record label" with a press run of 175 LPs is an idiot. On the other hand, the DIYAudio website does have assets worth (possibly) attaching. I suggest to leave them out of it entirely, and leaving the choice to generate any further production runs to be sold in the DIYaudioStore to them entirely. Craft the copyright notice in such a way that the decision, should the site make it, would not encumber them from doing so but does not mention the site specifically.
Alternately, and I am in favour of this, craft the copyright notice in such a way that ONLY the DIYAudio website can reproduce the LPs in that form. Or the group which owns the IP can assign a license to the site. What I would not want to see is another website or commercial enterprise profiting from it's creation while the DIYAudio site does not.
What I dislike about the proposed copyright notice is any label or record store could sell the album for profit (these disks sell for $35~60 each retail) and there would be no recourse or royalty due anyone.
Alternately, and I am in favour of this, craft the copyright notice in such a way that ONLY the DIYAudio website can reproduce the LPs in that form. Or the group which owns the IP can assign a license to the site. What I would not want to see is another website or commercial enterprise profiting from it's creation while the DIYAudio site does not.
What I dislike about the proposed copyright notice is any label or record store could sell the album for profit (these disks sell for $35~60 each retail) and there would be no recourse or royalty due anyone.
Last edited:
Whilst I still feel unable to contribute to the track list as many knows more than wot I do on this (although would like the rolling vector test to stay in if feasible) and I'm too overstretched with stuff in general to be much use as a cat herder I will re-iterate that, if we go back to the N people pay $50-100 for M LPs to cover a basic run I will be one of those N and take the risk. But if the consensus is to go for a different funding model I'm cool with that to. Then again I have no real investment of time or brain power in this as I am short of both right now .
I do still believe we can come up with something that moves the art forwards though.
.I do still believe we can come up with something that moves the art forwards though.
Yes we went over that. But, people want this covered- so we're covering it.
If you notice it just mentions removing liability of all those involved in diyaudio- us, them, whomever, everyone here. Doesn't imply, suggest they will sell anything or that they've had a hand in it's creation.
The copyright suggested that it was a loosely organized group from within the forum, not THE forum itself as an entity. Notice it's legal name was not used... legally you have to specify entities formally.
The store was just stated as an option, given the public license, should they choose. I never suggested engaging in any sort of formal arrangement.
Edit: I guess you changed your view while I was responding. I'll let you sort it out with yourself before I comment again.
Last edited:
No, the suggestion keeps coming from you, I just picked up on your reluctance.
What are we to think?luckythedog said:
Yes, and that's exactly why you should be involved. We have the opportunity to put some uniquely useful signals on this disk - if only we knew what they were.
You've said this a couple of times before and I have replied to it. There is no rush, but there is a risk of stagnation. We barley have a usable track list at this point.
What candidate test files have I put forward are impossible to cut? I don't remember any, but could have forgotten. This is important to know, so corrections can be made.
.
You said:
I see the acceleration tests as original and unique to you, for sure. You will need to be clear about what is your "original stuff."
Scott and I have not been able to figure out what you want and no one else has chimed in, so I've asked for clarification here in this thread and via PM to you. Scott asked in another thread. So far you've just said it's trivial or easy to do, but you haven't supplied any examples. You'll need to do so for them to exist. Why not give us some examples? I've also asked how these tests would be used or analyzed, but no answer. Tests that no one knows how to use aren't very useful. I've gone so far as to research and try to understand what you want, and posted some of the info here. Still no test signals or calculations.
You keep saying that, but I have never proposed a timescale or deadline. Not once. However I do know that a project like this can stagnate and die from inaction. What is your objection to progress?
Only bfg4wd, it looks like.
Thanks for checking.
Certainly the 4Hz-20Hz should not be heard on many speakers. I'll double check the others.Then you are both wrong, and moreover that's contradicted by what you now accept is a need to nail down a license limiting liability and terms of sale and use..........without perseverance on my part would never have happened
It's not until such things are defined that common understanding and proper agreement can be secured.
Anyways, let's move on.
This seems like an open licence which would permit unrestricted resale and distribution. Also permits copying and imitation. That's very different from the limited-buy members run made-by-members-for-members which we have converged on via the last few pages of discussion...........probably should be redrafted along the lines we've already thrashed out.
And all contributors relinquishing all rights in an unrestricted licence is unlikely to be palatable or sensible. There is some very good and original content proposed, not just from me (!). The rotating vector test, for example, with multiple contributors, is probably too good to simply give away. There are 3 or 4 other tests from various contributors, aside from about 4 from me. So some control over permissions would seem necessary to protect their reasonable interests. No fees in the scheme of limited run for members as invisaged. But if the test ever took off it would seem foolish to relinquish all commercial interest, methinks.
I do like the idea of giving back to the forum, and allowing for some reasonable profitability in the initial run, and subsequent small runs. We should identify the contributors and draft an arrangement with permissions for this, and controls in case it gets wildly successful, to negotiate a cut-in.
My 2p worth.......I sort of suspected this was coming, there was a buzz in the air.
LD
You quoted my posts out of context, Pano. I'm not responding beyond pointing that out.
Suggest try to understand the tests proposed, and playback physics behind them.
LD
No, I did not. Those are your statements and perfectly within context. You keep finding reasons not to continue to contribute. I simply said that if you don't feel confident about the project, perhaps you should chose not to continue.
I have, and have asked for clarification, have posted some good info from Neumann and have been keen to know how to calculate and generate them. The ball is in your court, Lucky.
Am I imagining it or did someone say a while back there were some people who had expressed interest in financing the project? If they are there, what about putting them all together to share finance it as their own donation to the forum and then put the LP's on the forum store, to further finance the forum? (This forum IS financed by its members isn't it?) Then everybody, financiers and purchasers all, are basically making donations to the forum and getting a thank you gift for their generosity.