Yep.
4 Likes
It’s as on topic as about 50% of the other stuff being said.
I’m doing my best.
4 Likes
Why it’s even a topic is beyond me. Elektron made their stance clear, yet this thread exists on their forum to argue with them.
It’s dumb and incredibly disrespectful!
5 Likes
Pretty sure this discussion has been of value to Elektron so they can gauge what their customer base actually wants, and to inform their future strategies.
6 Likes
The stance states that:
This leaves the modorators in a bind. Do they allow “general” discussion of this which will inevitably lead to people sharing positive opinions on the topic that could be seen as “actively encouraging people to install modifications”
I attempted to suggest an alternative in a comment I made up thread:
any animosity that is being generated by this thread is as direct result from that unclear ruling on what can and cannot be discussed. There is not a bright line. The fact that there is so much argument about this shows that there is not a bright line.
Edit: as this will be reviewed I’d like to add some more thoughts here. There needs to be a strict definition of what “actively encouraging people to install modifications” means.
I think we can break this down into several tiers:
- directly linking to a mod - I feel this is easily against the statement.
- mentioning a mod by name - It is currently unclear if this falls into the bucket of “encouraging” others to go seek out the mod. Does the fact that they need to find it themselves remove the “actively" modifier? Either way this needs to be made clear.
- talking about aspects/features that are possible now due to modding but not naming a specific mod - This is about as far removed as you can get without banning the topic outright. Some will still want this to be banned but depending on the ruling on “General discussion” they could be the ones in the wrong for doing so. This would go against the Elektron statement of “General discussion around the topic is one thing, and not something we seek to inhibit” as I feel that should extend to forum etiquette too, “General discussion” being allowed means nothing if any time it happens it gets mass flagged and cannot be seen anyway.
- Allowing the discussion as “3” but strictly segmenting it into it’s own thread, potentially per device, potentially a single thread, the same way that “Feature requests” are to prevent it from cluttering up the forum and provide a single place for people to discuss/ignore depending on their feelings on the topic. These are described elsewhere as “containment threads” for a reason.
- Not allowing discussion of features not already in released firmware for that specific device - This is clean and unambiguous as it gets. As stated above this would require the removal of “feature request” threads to not provide additional stress to moderators as this will only open the door for people to talk around the issue.
5 Likes
To the “just use a computer instead” - I think it a bit reductionist and a simplistic way to look at it, dedicated hardware without an underlying desktop operating system is inherently much simpler to maintain from a user standpoint, plus with these custom firmwares which seem to be user configurable you can pick and choose what features to add.
I personally can’t stand DAWs or DAW in a box gear like the modern MPCs which run linux under the hood, mainly because of all the bloat. So custom firmwares where I can add say Braids to Model Cycles or sample playback is nice and simple, gives me a useful feature and still doesn’t add stuff I don’t want or won’t use.
10 Likes
Apologies: The topic 'shape' is needing an administration review ..
This is obviously so off topic in a matter of hours on many fronts - what about posting responsibly and on topic ?!
One post on AI becomes a bunch of replies, one on where to find hacking discussions (really !!) becomes another bunch. .one on hardware … one on this/that … etc etc … it’s an absolute mess and very little really reflecting on the policy
There’s evidently no way to have the topic and keep it clean , there’s no way to not have the topic … but there’s an interesting point raised :
Maybe this topic is dumb (naive expecting any different) and possibly disrespectful (i hope not and doubt that) but what’s the benefit and at what cost ?
There will be a new moderator in place soon (possibly tomorrow), the moderation group really need to review the wisdom of this, whether it needs to be more open or just stays away from the hacking, but ultimately it’s possibly a moot point … if people are no longer actually discussing teh policy, but riding on the wave of drama about it by discussing secondary things maybe the topic has begun to run its course … i doubt this, so it’ll likely pop up elsewhere, but it needs another timeout to tidy the mess created this morning (someone else will need to do this) which was mostly just off topic.
Sorry, this is just taking too much management to go on as is - it needs a review.
The statement doesn’t make this an easy thing to be black/white on and previous requests up the thread have simply not been observed.
The fervour around this is akin to Elektron product teasers, it is likely to fizzle out in time. But as pointed out the statement is (mostly) clear, should we not just adapt to it … it’s clear there’s a variety of opinions, it’s divisive and that’s part of the issue.
With respect, it needs a pause and maybe needs us to ask if Elektron have any opinion (i doubt it, but it’s hard to know without asking … even if it’s only to address the issue of the amount of management it needs as it is currently framed)
A longer timer will be in place to allow those discussions and tidying to take place, it might open sooner, but it can’t until its shape is changed, it’s unworkable as it stands
This topic was automatically opened after 3 days.
A reminder to everyone that this is still the current Elektron policy on discussion of the topic as relates to this thread:
More general talk about LLMs / AI is currently being conducted (quite civilly now) over here:
4 Likes
I agree that this is exactly where the problem lies: there needs to be a clear distinction between linking to or distributing modified firmware, actively telling people to install it, and simply discussing what has been achieved with it.
A positive discussion of a modification is not automatically an instruction to install it.
Let’s be honest: if I willingly put an Octatrack on my desk and seriously learn how to use it, I’m probably not the target audience for “My First Groovebox by Magna Doodle.”
These machines already require us to understand complex states and saving structures, manage our own projects and data, deal with MIDI, audio and routing, consult manuals, forums and tutorials, and regularly make decisions whose consequences cannot always be undone with a single click.
So suggesting that this same audience cannot understand the sentence “Unofficial firmware — no Elektron support or warranty; install entirely at your own risk” feels incredibly paternalistic.
Of course, there are less experienced users too. That is what prominent warnings, backups, recovery procedures and unambiguous warranty terms are for. We don’t treat every discussion about calibration, repairs or hardware modifications as encouragement simply because somebody might slip with a screwdriver.
I completely understand why Elektron does not want to host firmware files, installation instructions or direct promotion. But suppressing factual discussion of what these modifications demonstrate is something different.
That is the real contradiction here: Elektron sells highly complex instruments to curious, experimental nerds, yet appears to assume that those same people cannot assess risk responsibly when firmware is involved.
That simply doesn’t fit the culture Elektron built its success around.
14 Likes
i completly agree. another weird thing is: thomann is writing about elekton mods in its shop magazin. recently a article about a model cycles mod praising it combined with a buy link for the cycles and links to the mod. this has to be greenlit or actively tolerated by elektron
Thomann wants to sell. Firmware mods attract buyers. That should actually also be a big advantage for manufacturers, but maybe warranty becomes a nightmare as you have to prove now that someone hacked the firmware.
2 Likes
No it doesn’t, so let’s not be projecting more unhelpful analyses of what is known
5 Likes
but drastically increasing the sales of the current DIGI lines even at the expense of the Analog’s flagship.
Clever move, it is business! and I bet they make a decent margin on the Outbox 8 too…
Who you calling a nerd?
2 Likes
I think Korg approached this smartly with their custom oscillator for the Minilogue xd (and the Prologues, IIRC), essentially saying “here’s the documentation, do what you want, just stay in this sandbox”.
Apparently it provided curious people with enough freedom to tinker without Korg having to open up the entire device for exploring and hacking.
But of course this was seven years ago. I don’t know if Korg would make the same decision now with frontier AI being able to dissect every technical detail and then possibly draw significant conclusions on the bigger picture from those details alone.
And then there’s the matter of how all this will affect second-hand prices. As hardware prices are going up, there will be more and more people to whom buying new might not be an option.
2 Likes
There’s always one who zeroes in on the one line they can make some noise about. Chillax—in my cosmos, that was entirely a compliment—and exactly the kind of mind I value.
But never anyone with a sense of humour, eh?
3 Likes
Fair point—apparently mine was still booting. Must be the unofficial firmware. 
10 Likes
Do you have a link to this article?