Initial version coded and seems to work. I'll hold off on posting anything, until I confer with John and test it. It may need refining.
Trust me - the source is ugly, except for the very first line.
-cap
How to extract patch names from preset files?
Actually the code is fine. Better than fine because it works. But there is a problem with the decompression, and only 39 of the 177 files in my Scope preset folder could be read. Mostly just the effects, no synths at all.
So we have some progress, but the job isn't done. We need to find out how to unlock those encrypted or compressed files. then the good work capacitor has done can be put to use.
So we have some progress, but the job isn't done. We need to find out how to unlock those encrypted or compressed files. then the good work capacitor has done can be put to use.
Of course you do realise that 1. you're breaking the end user licence agreement i.e reverse engineering .2. Mr john dunn will most probably need to deal with Creamware/Sonic Core at some point and 3. you're putting all this information up on a forum which could of course help real crackers and not hobbyists.
As you may have gathered I like my working platform and the Idea of any Tom, Dick or Harry abusing it doesn't please me.Obviously anybody wanting to Crack the Scope platform would come here first.
As you may have gathered I like my working platform and the Idea of any Tom, Dick or Harry abusing it doesn't please me.Obviously anybody wanting to Crack the Scope platform would come here first.
my name in the list up there is just a typo, isn't it ? 
actually I found this pretty interesting to watch - not exactly the content, but the form of publishing and the reactions.
I agree with H-Rave 100% - things like this are called stirring up the dogs
the correct way would simply be to request the format from SonicCore, who have always been very cooperative in technical questions
if there'd be any reason not to publish details of the file format, then it would just be like that.
cheers, Tom
actually I found this pretty interesting to watch - not exactly the content, but the form of publishing and the reactions.
I agree with H-Rave 100% - things like this are called stirring up the dogs
the correct way would simply be to request the format from SonicCore, who have always been very cooperative in technical questions
if there'd be any reason not to publish details of the file format, then it would just be like that.
cheers, Tom
That would apply to the software, but not the patches. There is no non disclosure on patch formats as far as I know, nor should there be. Patches are user created.H-Rave wrote:Of course you do realise that 1. you're breaking the end user licence agreement i.e reverse engineering .2. Mr john dunn will most probably need to deal with Creamware/Sonic Core at some point and 3. you're putting all this information up on a forum which could of course help real crackers and not hobbyists.
As you may have gathered I like my working platform and the Idea of any Tom, Dick or Harry abusing it doesn't please me.Obviously anybody wanting to Crack the Scope platform would come here first.
Besides, Creameware from whom I bought my hardware and software is out of business. The EULA does not survive them. I'm very happy someone bought the remains and is trying to revive a great audio system, and I wish them all the best. But trying to make the patches more useful is hardly something to get in a snit about.
I don't know the people at SonicCore, but I'm guessing some of the people here do, and I would hope they could get the patch format from them.
well, if there's a legitimate successor to aquire a company's intellectual property, then it doesn't transfer the former code into the public domain ... nor does it allow reverse engineering.
A data format may well apply for protection, something which is generally covered by formulations like 'any part of the system' etc.
I don't understand the problem to drop an email to SC and ask if there is any documentation available about this and that file format.
They either will give you the information required or they will answer that they'd prefer the information to be disclosed.
btw in a former company we needed the M$ Word file format (for a specific project)
we asked M$, they sent us an NDA - ok, that read frightening, but what did you expect then...
we signed it and received the information in question.
cheers, Tom
A data format may well apply for protection, something which is generally covered by formulations like 'any part of the system' etc.
I don't understand the problem to drop an email to SC and ask if there is any documentation available about this and that file format.
They either will give you the information required or they will answer that they'd prefer the information to be disclosed.
btw in a former company we needed the M$ Word file format (for a specific project)
we asked M$, they sent us an NDA - ok, that read frightening, but what did you expect then...
we signed it and received the information in question.
cheers, Tom
NDAs may survive a company's assets being liquidated, but I'm pretty sure an EULA does not. EULAs are murky territory anyway, I don't know of a single one that has ever prevailed in a court case; I'm sure no EULA cases from a bankrupt company or one that bought the assets ever prevailed in court.
Even so, presets are user generated, they are not code. So they wouldn't be included in any EULA that would hold up. In any event, I just looked at the CW Scope v4.0 EULA, and it defines the delivered Hardware, Software, media and manuals as part of the product, but it does not include work product (nor should it, or everyone's music would be at risk). Patches are work product, created by end users. So it's not a breach in any way to discuss them openly on this forum.
Attempting to get information from SonicCore is a good suggestion, something of a no brainer really. But 1. I didn't know the patches were compressed when I started this thread, I was just looking for information; and 2. I've not been lucky so far getting information from them. Like many small overworked companies requests from people they don't know get low priority. So while I wait for my request for information to be answered by someone who can actually provide it, I'm hoping someone on this board will be able to expedite things.
BTW, capacitor gets his ArtWonk key, but I've got another for whomever can get that decompression information and can actually show how to decompress the files.
For those of you who are looking out for the interests of SonicCore - good for you. I also very much hope they live long and prosper. But keep in mind I'm trying to help Scope by making it more useful, not harm it; and I've already said I'd make any patch name extractor utility freely available to others. So relax...there is no harm here, no foul.
Even so, presets are user generated, they are not code. So they wouldn't be included in any EULA that would hold up. In any event, I just looked at the CW Scope v4.0 EULA, and it defines the delivered Hardware, Software, media and manuals as part of the product, but it does not include work product (nor should it, or everyone's music would be at risk). Patches are work product, created by end users. So it's not a breach in any way to discuss them openly on this forum.
Attempting to get information from SonicCore is a good suggestion, something of a no brainer really. But 1. I didn't know the patches were compressed when I started this thread, I was just looking for information; and 2. I've not been lucky so far getting information from them. Like many small overworked companies requests from people they don't know get low priority. So while I wait for my request for information to be answered by someone who can actually provide it, I'm hoping someone on this board will be able to expedite things.
BTW, capacitor gets his ArtWonk key, but I've got another for whomever can get that decompression information and can actually show how to decompress the files.
For those of you who are looking out for the interests of SonicCore - good for you. I also very much hope they live long and prosper. But keep in mind I'm trying to help Scope by making it more useful, not harm it; and I've already said I'd make any patch name extractor utility freely available to others. So relax...there is no harm here, no foul.
A most humble apology to anyone I offended. I'm here to make friends & not cause potential problems. 
I figured the unencrypted patch names were fair game. I've not seen the EULA (got my board secondhand) but if anyone from SC could chip in, that would be awesome. If they already have such a utility, that would be even more awesome, well kinda...no it would be way awesome
It was a fun mental excercise, but it really didn't involve any encryption breaking. I'll not post the algo or code in the thread, just to be on the safe side. It is actually a pretty dumb little algorithm
I saw the threads where folks were being accused of cracking the Scope device's protection system.
After reading them through, I now totally understand what's going on - I hope you folks don't think I'm trying to stir up the pot.
I used to admin another gear related forum. I got tired of people doing the same stirring (although in a different manner). So, having a whippersnapper come in and tread on sensitive ground - I've been on the other end of that!
I have a ton of respect for both SC and yourselves. This platform rocks. Not trying to subvert it in any way.
Edit: saw Astroman's post and agree. Hopefully, SC can open up the preset format, but totally understood if they can't or won't. I do think that the preset names should be fair game (I assumed this), but it ultimately is their call.
Edit #2: I won't be pursuing this ANY further without an ok (and NDA & detailed tech info) from SC. If they are busy with Scope 5, Xite and all the other stuff they've got on their plate, I'd be happy to help take it the rest of the way.
-cap
I figured the unencrypted patch names were fair game. I've not seen the EULA (got my board secondhand) but if anyone from SC could chip in, that would be awesome. If they already have such a utility, that would be even more awesome, well kinda...no it would be way awesome
It was a fun mental excercise, but it really didn't involve any encryption breaking. I'll not post the algo or code in the thread, just to be on the safe side. It is actually a pretty dumb little algorithm
I saw the threads where folks were being accused of cracking the Scope device's protection system.
After reading them through, I now totally understand what's going on - I hope you folks don't think I'm trying to stir up the pot.
I used to admin another gear related forum. I got tired of people doing the same stirring (although in a different manner). So, having a whippersnapper come in and tread on sensitive ground - I've been on the other end of that!
I have a ton of respect for both SC and yourselves. This platform rocks. Not trying to subvert it in any way.
Edit: saw Astroman's post and agree. Hopefully, SC can open up the preset format, but totally understood if they can't or won't. I do think that the preset names should be fair game (I assumed this), but it ultimately is their call.
Edit #2: I won't be pursuing this ANY further without an ok (and NDA & detailed tech info) from SC. If they are busy with Scope 5, Xite and all the other stuff they've got on their plate, I'd be happy to help take it the rest of the way.
-cap
Last edited by capacitor on Fri Apr 11, 2008 10:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
I just can't stay away from making this comment, even if something tells me to stay away...
I just can't see how the activities in this thread could hurt SC in any way. Sure, it is reverse engineering of file formats which may or may not be prohibited by their user agreements. If I stretch my imagination It could potentially threaten a patch manager tool that SC plans to offer their users commercially. Apart from that, I just can't think how SC could ever be hurt by this.
Hackers with the intention of breaking the license system of the plugins won't be helped one single bit by this information.
On the contrary, if these activities end up creating a tool for listing or even indexing all patches it would be a big fat plus for SC and its user community. I even see the possibility of reorganizing patches between preset files...and think about the possibilities if the single parameter values could be extracted as well!
I actually sent a suggestion on an open preset format several years ago to CW but I guess they were over their heads with other problems at that time (it also contained a step two suggestion with an open interface of changing parameter values via an open API - this should be possible to do without having to expose the inner secrets of SC software and hardware).
However, I guess the best thing would be to get a short comment from SC on this. I would be (negatively) surprised if they had any problems with this.
btw, happy weekend to all of you!
I just can't see how the activities in this thread could hurt SC in any way. Sure, it is reverse engineering of file formats which may or may not be prohibited by their user agreements. If I stretch my imagination It could potentially threaten a patch manager tool that SC plans to offer their users commercially. Apart from that, I just can't think how SC could ever be hurt by this.
Hackers with the intention of breaking the license system of the plugins won't be helped one single bit by this information.
On the contrary, if these activities end up creating a tool for listing or even indexing all patches it would be a big fat plus for SC and its user community. I even see the possibility of reorganizing patches between preset files...and think about the possibilities if the single parameter values could be extracted as well!
I actually sent a suggestion on an open preset format several years ago to CW but I guess they were over their heads with other problems at that time (it also contained a step two suggestion with an open interface of changing parameter values via an open API - this should be possible to do without having to expose the inner secrets of SC software and hardware).
However, I guess the best thing would be to get a short comment from SC on this. I would be (negatively) surprised if they had any problems with this.
btw, happy weekend to all of you!
Obviously a person with better social skills than I possess....but I agree with all he said.capacitor wrote:A most humble apology to anyone I offended. I'm here to make friends & not cause potential problems.
.....
I have a ton of respect for both SC and yourselves. This platform rocks. Not trying to subvert it in any way.
Edit: saw Astroman's post and agree. Hopefully, SC can open up the preset format, but totally understood if they can't or won't. I do think that the preset names should be fair game (I assumed this), but it ultimately is their call.
Edit #2: I won't be pursuing this ANY further without an ok (and NDA & detailed tech info) from SC. If they are busy with Scope 5, Xite and all the other stuff they've got on their plate, I'd be happy to help take it the rest of the way.
-cap
I did send an email to SC about this. It was my 2nd attempt to get information. Understandably they are very busy and requests from people they don't know has got to be low priority with all they have going on now.
I was hoping to release the ability to list and change Scope patches by name in the upcoming new release of my software. I do this with other synths, such as Emu (where I once worked and do get information when I ask for it), but in light of people's feelings here, I suppose that will now have to be put on hold.
omg - you really waded through all this ?capacitor wrote:... I saw the threads where folks were being accused of cracking the Scope device's protection system.
After reading them through, I now totally understand what's going on - I hope you folks don't think I'm trying to stir up the pot. ...
honestly, even if I happened to be someone's favourite target in those threads, my comments above are in no way related to that 'affair'.
It's just about the proper and respectful handling of these items.
I never assumed that you or John intended any damage, but even if you think it's an advantage for the platform, in the end it's up to the decision of the owner.
Regarding abuse (what I called stirring up the dogs) any tiny bit of information may contribute under certain circumstances, even if it doesn't look relevant at a quick glance. I wouldn't overestimate this special case, though
@devo: it's only my personal estimation, your original suggestions to Creamware may have been ignored, as any 'foreign' involvation wasn't much appreciated (at least it looks like that in retrospective)
SonicCore on the other hand seems to be very open minded in that domain, as you can see by the number of recent software releases.
On the other hand, you shouldn't mess SFP presets with the parameters of a (say) DX7.
Just guessing from the original way presets were handled (if memory doesn't betray me...) they contained more or less the complete device.
it may be called 'preset' but the actual content may have a broad range of data, some probably not supposed to be documented.
cheers, Tom
no, if you're just a user, it's rather unlikelystardust wrote:...If I look into the preset lists and write the patch names into a text editor then it is not a 'violation'
When I am able to extract the same information in an automated way to the same format I am comitting a 'violation'...
but the writer of the tool may violate someone else's rights
if I put a collection of my personal pictures into an Oracle database, then this doesn't entitle me at all to decipher their file format to give my friends free and simplyfied access to the data collection
cheers, Tom
Totally agreed.astroman wrote: On the other hand, you shouldn't mess SFP presets with the parameters of a (say) DX7.
Just guessing from the original way presets were handled (if memory doesn't betray me...) they contained more or less the complete device.
it may be called 'preset' but the actual content may have a broad range of data, some probably not supposed to be documented.
I was going to comment about the feasibility of reverse engineering the actual presets (not technically practical) for a random patch generator.
I like what devo suggested (are we not men?). Crossing fingers that SC will consider that plan of action.
-
John Cooper
- Moderator
- Posts: 1182
- Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2001 4:00 pm
- Location: Planet Z
- Contact:
Gentlemen,
I contacted Sonic Core and asked their opinion on this thread.
Their response was the expected one -- just contact them directly with your question! They'd prefer to come up with a common solution, rather than have people hacking the file formats.
While they have not yet requested that I remove any information here, I will do so if they ask.
Cheers,
John
I contacted Sonic Core and asked their opinion on this thread.
Their response was the expected one -- just contact them directly with your question! They'd prefer to come up with a common solution, rather than have people hacking the file formats.
While they have not yet requested that I remove any information here, I will do so if they ask.
Cheers,
John
Thank you, John!
I was going to offer to edit my posts for the same reason. I'm not sure people really want to see my in-process ramblings anyhow.
If anything, this thread shows that the Scope community would like access to this kind of stuff.
Open invite to SC: if this is something I can help with - without being a Sonic Core employee - let me know.
I was going to offer to edit my posts for the same reason. I'm not sure people really want to see my in-process ramblings anyhow.
If anything, this thread shows that the Scope community would like access to this kind of stuff.
Open invite to SC: if this is something I can help with - without being a Sonic Core employee - let me know.
Last edited by capacitor on Fri Apr 11, 2008 2:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
hmm, maybe I should dig up that ol' mail from the archives and make a new try...astroman wrote: SonicCore on the other hand seems to be very open minded in that domain, as you can see by the number of recent software releases.
You are right...I am really assuming that presets only consists of values corresponding to what can been seen and changed in the device UI - if that is not the case, then it is a different ball game. But I cannot think of a reason for storing any other information in a preset...astroman wrote: On the other hand, you shouldn't mess SFP presets with the parameters of a (say) DX7.
I just think that an open preset file format could be very useful for managing and exchanging presets.
Well, OK, it's been a month since I sent two emails to SonicCore about this, one on April 11, and one on April 16. Both of which were ignored. Simply ignored. These were sent to support@soniccore.de - I know this is a working email address because an enquiry about buying something from them was answered promptly. Here is the email I sent:
I think Scope and the boards and probably (hopefully) the Xcite box have a great future because they are like fine musical instruments. The sound quality is the best, and as long as they are treated well, given lots of ventilation so they don't overheat and fry, these cards will last a very long time. So I would not hesitate to purchase, or to recommend purchasing, the Scope platform in any of its incarnations.
But I don't have similar expectation for SonicCore as a company - at least at this point they are showing all the paranoia and arrogance that buried CreamWare.
A couple years ago, I was prepared to put a great deal of my time into developing for Scope - but the unprofessional manner in which they treated developers - not giving needed information, ignoring email requests for information, and perhaps worse of all, treating developers as an income source instead of as a product enrichment resource. So far, I have not seen any indication that SonicCore is going to do any better - and that, historically, is the mark of doom for a computer peripheral maker that produces a niche product that requires a strong offering of 3rd party applications.
I really hope SonicCore proves me wrong, and starts treating developers and potential developers and even customers who want to extend the platform such as this Patch Names thread was about, starts treating them like the resource they are, and not as at best a bother and at worse a potential threat. I hope but I don't expect.
Still, Scope is the best, and it will continue to be a great system whether SonicCore survives or not.
Now, I realize the people at SC are going crazy trying to get their new products out the door, so I wouldn't expect a lot of time spent in answering me. But to ignore a request like this from someone who is only trying to make the product more useful is - well, it's something the old CreamWare people would do.Hello,
I am the author of "ArtWonk," an algorithmic music program that can be used with Scope. My program has a feature that allows automated patch changing by MIDI control, and it has the ability to list the patch names if a text listing of them can be extracted. For example, you can use my software to change patches by name from Emu synths, smaplers and software.
I wish to support Scope patches, however most are encrypted. The ones that are simply compressed, which mostly are the effects patches, are no problem and I can extract the patch names from them without problem. What I need is a way to access the text information in other patches, specifically the synthesizer patches.
Can you kindly provide me with the information I'll need to extract the text names of Scope synthesizer device presets?
Thanks much,
John Dunn
Algorithmic Arts
http://algoart.com
I think Scope and the boards and probably (hopefully) the Xcite box have a great future because they are like fine musical instruments. The sound quality is the best, and as long as they are treated well, given lots of ventilation so they don't overheat and fry, these cards will last a very long time. So I would not hesitate to purchase, or to recommend purchasing, the Scope platform in any of its incarnations.
But I don't have similar expectation for SonicCore as a company - at least at this point they are showing all the paranoia and arrogance that buried CreamWare.
A couple years ago, I was prepared to put a great deal of my time into developing for Scope - but the unprofessional manner in which they treated developers - not giving needed information, ignoring email requests for information, and perhaps worse of all, treating developers as an income source instead of as a product enrichment resource. So far, I have not seen any indication that SonicCore is going to do any better - and that, historically, is the mark of doom for a computer peripheral maker that produces a niche product that requires a strong offering of 3rd party applications.
I really hope SonicCore proves me wrong, and starts treating developers and potential developers and even customers who want to extend the platform such as this Patch Names thread was about, starts treating them like the resource they are, and not as at best a bother and at worse a potential threat. I hope but I don't expect.
Still, Scope is the best, and it will continue to be a great system whether SonicCore survives or not.