[Sticky] Making Unified patch libraries

@getdunne - I've completed the first draft of the Unify Patch Naming Structure doc I volunteered to do during last Saturday's live stream.  Posting it here in PDF format.  I have it in Word and Pages as well if needed. LMK your thoughts. Glad to be of assistance.  Hands together, head bowed. Klight143 

Can not upload - what file types are allowed?

klight

Here are the missing files

What happened to this post? https://forums.pluginguru.com/unify-share/labs/

@klasus

The wpForo software has some weird quirks:

• If a user decides to delete a post, the entire post disappears, along with any comments that were added.
• If a user decides to delete their Forum account entirely, the same thing happens to every post they ever wrote.

Posted by: @klight

@getdunne - I've completed the first draft of the Unify Patch Naming Structure doc I volunteered to do during last Saturday's live stream.  Posting it here in PDF format.  I have it in Word and Pages as well if needed. LMK your thoughts. Glad to be of assistance.  Hands together, head bowed. Klight143 

This is just what I was wanting to try and figure out as I am starting to try and UNIFY some of my Spitfire and Kontakt Libraries. This is a great help. Thanks so much!

So looking through the doc and spreadsheet, I see UNIFIED - "Virtual Instrument Name" under the Library Column.
So if I was working on Spitfire Audio's Abbey Road ONE would I need to name the library; UNIFIED - Abbey Road ONE, and then go from there with the individual patches and categories?

Also, another issue with Abbey Road ONE is that their Film Scoring Selections are rolled into the AR1 instrument and an instrument category is added; SELECTIONS. So would the right direction be to name those that were not in the original release SPITFIRE AUDIO - Abbey Road ONE Selections, then the patch/preset name?

Thanks for the help, just want to get started in the right direction.

@praisetracks

As far as I understand it, you can name a library what you want as long as all the patches in the library are your own original patches and NOT copied  patches of the original manufacturers' work.  See Rule # 2 in the following link. If you are "Unifying" the original manufacturers' patches you must get permission from them first as that is copyrighted work.

https://forums.pluginguru.com/unify-patchbook/unified-libraries-how-to-sign-up/#post-4677

Hope this clarifies for you. 

@dirk

No, you didn't make a mistake, and no, this is not off-topic at all. It's a very important issue, for two reasons.

First, there is the patch-file size issue. Each plug-in developer decides the size and format of its "state data blob". Unify just saves the blob it is given---this determines the size of the patch file---and blob sizes vary tremendously from one plug-in to another. If the blob size is large enough, you may decide that the lost disk space overwhelms the mix-and-match convenience of making a Unify preset.

Second, this naturally raises the question of why Zampler is saving so much data. If it's because Zampler saves the actual samples in its state-blob, rather than just the locations of the sample files, then distributing or sharing the unified presets could be a violation of copyright.

I will have a quick look at what Zampler puts into its state-blob.

@dirk

I looked into this. Zampler is an old-fashioned VST plug-in, whose state contains an entire "bank" of 128 "programs" (sounds/presets). Unify saves and recalls the entire bank, which does not make sense for Unified libraries, where you only need one at a time.

I will give some thought to how we might to optimize this in a future Unify update.

Posted by: @klight

@praisetracks

As far as I understand it, you can name a library what you want as long as all the patches in the library are your own original patches and NOT copied  patches of the original manufacturers' work.  See Rule # 2 in the following link. If you are "Unifying" the original manufacturers' patches you must get permission from them first as that is copyrighted work.

https://forums.pluginguru.com/unify-patchbook/unified-libraries-how-to-sign-up/#post-4677

Hope this clarifies for you. 

So, looking at the newly released Unified LABS Patch Library was this something that Spitfire had to grant permission to do?

For the most part, there are not really any Patches per se, only Preset sounds or articulations. This looks the same with Originals , Abbey Road One, etc..

BTW having LABS Unified is really nice, especially John's Bonus Patches.

All the best!

So, looking at the newly released Unified LABS Patch Library was this something that Spitfire had to grant permission to do?

This is a bit of a special case, because (a) the LABS libraries and plug-in are free, and (b) it's very clear that there is no proprietary content in the Unified patches. (See attached file, which is a manually-formatted version of the state-data of the LABS plug-in for one of the Synth Pads patches. There is nothing there but a generic set of parameter values---certainly no sample data.)

Posted by: @getdunne

So, looking at the newly released Unified LABS Patch Library was this something that Spitfire had to grant permission to do?

This is a bit of a special case, because (a) the LABS libraries and plug-in are free, and (b) it's very clear that there is no proprietary content in the Unified patches. (See attached file, which is a manually-formatted version of the state-data of the LABS plug-in for one of the Synth Pads patches. There is nothing there but a generic set of parameter values---certainly no sample data.)

 LABS-Synth-Pads-0001.zip

Thanks so much.

I reached out to Spitfire concerning permissions to Unify some of the libraries I owned and they responded in the negative. I am wondering if you or John might be able to approach them from the developer side instead of a user. It would be great to be able to officially have more of their libraries available inside of Unify.

I so appreciate all of the work that all of you are putting into this.

I am not sure of a direct "Yes you have our permission" from Spitfire in regards to LABS, but I told Christian (multiple times via email) and even sent him videos of what we were doing for the BBC Symphony Orchestra and while brief in his replies, he has always been supportive and enthusiastic.

As I said, I didn't mention LABS to him because I don't need to and this was a very out of the blue occurrence when these arrived 8 days ago. Our "UNIFIED" libraries are equivalent to the NKS format from Native Instruments except we're doing it ourselves instead of us telling companies they can create the content and pay a license fee to us in order to do so. There is nothing illegal that I am aware of by freely distributing the factory patches supplied by a retail plug-in in different file format. You still MUST own the actual plug-in, we're only saving the current state of these plug-ins. Otherwise, these companies should all be upset at every DAW manufacturer. We're doing exactly what they do except we let you play the parts in realtime.

Posted by: @pluginguruforums

I am not sure of a direct "Yes you have our permission" from Spitfire in regards to LABS, but I told Christian (multiple times via email) and even sent him videos of what we were doing for the BBC Symphony Orchestra and while brief in his replies, he has always been supportive and enthusiastic.

As I said, I didn't mention LABS to him because I don't need to and this was a very out of the blue occurrence when these arrived 8 days ago. Our "UNIFIED" libraries are equivalent to the NKS format from Native Instruments except we're doing it ourselves instead of us telling companies they can create the content and pay a license fee to us in order to do so. There is nothing illegal that I am aware of by freely distributing the factory patches supplied by a retail plug-in in different file format. You still MUST own the actual plug-in, we're only saving the current state of these plug-ins. Otherwise, these companies should all be upset at every DAW manufacturer. We're doing exactly what they do except we let you play the parts in realtime.

 

John,
I guess I was confused in not fully understanding Rule #2 in creating a Unified patch Library, as I agree that just Unifying the factory patches would not seem to pose any sort of problem, especially since you do have to own the library/plugin.

Thanks so much for the immense hard work everyone is doing, it is so appreciated.

All the best,
Simeon

The whole copyright issue is very complex. With some synth plug-ins, saving a Unify patch effectively saves the entire current patch, which presents a problem if it was part of a paid patch library for that plug-in. This is why we advise caution when creating unified libraries.

This is clearly not the case with the LABS plug-in. All that is saved are a few very basic parameter values, which aren't sufficient to re-create the original sound unless the samples have also been installed.

Posted by: @getdunne

The whole copyright issue is very complex. With some synth plug-ins, saving a Unify patch effectively saves the entire current patch, which presents a problem if it was part of a paid patch library for that plug-in. This is why we advise caution when creating unified libraries.

This is clearly not the case with the LABS plug-in. All that is saved are a few very basic parameter values, which aren't sufficient to re-create the original sound unless the samples have also been installed.

*l-i-g-h-t-b-u-l-b*

OK, that is making a lot more sense to me now. So in my case just saving a Unified Bank from Originals Cimbalom, I am not taking any of the sample material along for the ride, just the instructions to tell Unify to LAUNCH the Originals CIMBALOM instrument and load a patch, nothing nefarious about that 😎

Thanks Shane, believe me, I never want to be a pain, as I respect this team very much.

All the best,
Simeon

Posted by: @praisetracks

Posted by: @getdunne

The whole copyright issue is very complex. With some synth plug-ins, saving a Unify patch effectively saves the entire current patch, which presents a problem if it was part of a paid patch library for that plug-in. This is why we advise caution when creating unified libraries.

This is clearly not the case with the LABS plug-in. All that is saved are a few very basic parameter values, which aren't sufficient to re-create the original sound unless the samples have also been installed.

*l-i-g-h-t-b-u-l-b*

OK, that is making a lot more sense to me now. So in my case just saving a Unified Bank from Originals Cimbalom, I am not taking any of the sample material along for the ride, just the instructions to tell Unify to LAUNCH the Originals CIMBALOM instrument and load a patch, nothing nefarious about that 😎

Thanks Shane, believe me, I never want to be a pain, as I respect this team very much.

All the best,
Simeon

We really appreciate you, Simeon. These are wonderful questions that it's important to know the details so we all do things legally. Some plug-ins DO save samples int their patches (Serum saves the Noise Oscillator sample in the patch which can be problematic). But for the vast majority, only set up data is stored in the patch - the patch data in Unify NEVER replaces a plug-in. That is why the plug-in has to be made known to Unify so when asked for a specific plug-in, Unify has access to it.

Posted by: @dirk

John asked in his last video for user patches for Spitfire Labs. Is there any place to post those patches? I made a few.

I have forwarded this to John and asked him to answer directly.

Posted by: @dirk

John asked in his last video for user patches for Spitfire Labs. Is there any place to post those patches? I made a few.

Hi there - thanks for contributing!

A few guidelines:

Please add a z to the beginning of the name - for zPAD or zBPM SYNTH so that the patches are at the end of the list.

Please save the patch to the Unified - Spitfire LABS library.

Please write your name as the Author.

Please write in the comments what LABS libraries are required to play the patch.

Please only send new patches - not the entire LABS Patches folder with all of the Unified patches. Just the ones you created.

Please include any MIDI Files or the 96x96 image if you create those for your patch.

Send any patches to unifysupport@pluginguru.com.

Sounds like a lot but it's just the basics.  😀

Thank you again for contributing!

- John

Here is the updated Unify Naming Structure v0.2.

v0.2 Changes: Included Spitfire LABS naming info, John’s LABS Naming recommendations from the forum and BPM-SONG definition. 

Please send any feedback to @klight at this forum thread.  

@pluginguruforums and @getdunne - when you have a spare moment please search the doc for ??? (3 question marks) and let me know how to clarify those questions.  Thanks!!!

-Kevin

@klight   Would there be any chance of having the guide in pdf format.  Thanks so much!

@patrick-smith - Whoops!  Thought I did that.  Must have grabbed the wrong file. Here it is.

Here is the updated Unify Naming Structure v0.3 updated with a few things the John mentioned in today's (March 20, 2021) live cast. 

v0.3 Changes: New category added - STACK and new suffix - Plus. 

Please send any feedback to @klight at this forum thread.  

@pluginguruforums and @getdunne - when you have a spare moment please search the doc for ??? (3 question marks) and let me know how to clarify those questions.  Thanks!!!

@klight

• GRV = Groove
• WS = Wave Sequence
• I'm not sure about the "Dance" vs. "EDM" distinction; perhaps John can answer that
• KEY PAD is probably redundant, but might indicate a sound that has both "key" and "pad" properties
• SEQ and ARP are different:
  • SEQ (sequence) means: hold down ONE NOTE and a series of notes will be played
  • ARP (arpeggio) means: hold down A CHORD and the notes of that chord will be played in some kind of programmed sequence
• CPU = reduced CPU version of another patch which is very CPU-intensive (I THINK; must ask John if this is the right way around)
• DUCK - sorry, I have no idea about this one - John?
• END = ending; for use at end of song?

Patch-file formats:

• .unify patch files are essentially XML, but with a byte-count header at the start and a single zero byte at the end.
• .upf patches are encrypted. so they won't open unless you have purchased the library

Here is the updated Unify Naming Structure v0.4 updated with a few things the Shane clarified in the forum post above. 

v0.4 Changes: Updated with answers to ??? from Shane - .unify and .upf file formats, GRV, WS, KEY PAD, SEQ and ARP, and CPU.  

@getdunne - Thanks for responding so quickly!!!  I verified the CPU suffix is for a CPU intensive patch. Of the libraries I have, most of the patches with CPU suffixes are BreakTweaker based.  Also verified that KEY PAD refers to patches that are KEY based with PADS.  

Please send any feedback to @klight at this forum thread.  

@pluginguruforums - when you have a spare moment please search the doc for ??? (3 question marks) and let me know how to clarify those questions.  Thanks!!!

PS - The live cast from yesterday (3-20-21) was Awesome!!!

@getdunne

Posted by: @getdunne

@dirk

I looked into this. Zampler is an old-fashioned VST plug-in, whose state contains an entire "bank" of 128 "programs" (sounds/presets). Unify saves and recalls the entire bank, which does not make sense for Unified libraries, where you only need one at a time.

I will give some thought to how we might to optimize this in a future Unify update.

I am considering unifying SonicProjects OP-X II Pro libraries. Those are also old-fashioned multiple banks, should i wait until you have adapted your process??

Edit: these are not samples, so different case? (not much overhead from loading full bank)

@erik-van-wees

If you're interested, just go ahead. I am planning changes to our patch format, but not in the short term. Disk space is not so much of an issue today as it was even a few years ago, and sometimes it's best just to get on with things.

One option to consider: make one unified patch per BANK, instead of one per SOUND. Quicker and very efficient.

With "pure synthesis" plug-ins like OP-X PRO-II, the unified patch may actually capture all the data for a sound, or even a whole bank, and hence could be used by someone who has the plug-in, but not the original patch/bank files. This is not an issue for factory patches, because if the user has bought the plug-in, they own the patch/bank files already, but could be a substantial issue for patch banks that are purchased separately.

In such cases, we (PlugInGuru) would hesitate to distribute the unified library, as this would violate the original sound designers' copyright, but this does not mean all is lost. There are three options:

1. Do not distribute. You are free to use the unified library yourself, because you bought the original.
2. Ask the copyright holder's permission to distribute. This what we do, whenever there is any doubt. So far, no one has refused.
3. Ask the copyright holder to distribute. This will probably become the most common approach in future.

While it's wonderful for PlugInGuru to be able to offer a few dozen free unified libraries, a few hundred would be impractical. The most encouraging development we've seen so far is third-party sound designers like Stefano Maccarelli, Jaap Visser, and Jason Schoepfer starting to include unified versions of their custom libraries in their own downloads. I foresee a a cottage industry of Unify users creating and submitting these unified libraries, and receiving nice product discounts (and public recognition) in return.

Thanks Shane,

Wasn't expecting a reply from you on a Sunday ... 😉 , appreciated none the less; OP-X is a lovely beast, still consider it my best softsynth (Lion, Vital & Knif close). All patch-libraries can be freely downloaded from their site afaik. Thanks for the per bank solution ... started this afternoon per sound, that's as tedious as can be expected. Unfortunately no .fxb but their own bespoke derivative .opx

Read about your connection with Hermann Seib the other day, I wonder what experience he could bring to the table conc. library conversion ... 😉

@erik-van-wees

I have owned OP-X PRO II since 2016, and while it's a great synth, the Mac versions are marred by numerous bugs. I just now downloaded and installed the very latest 1.2.6 version, and tested the VST3 (there is no VST for Mac) in Unify. Although it's better than the version I had before (1.2.2), it crashed several times. I wouldn't consider it stable.

I also tested the 1.2.6 VST3 in Unify on Windows 10 just now. It works OK in a release version of Unify, but when I try running it in the debugger it repeatedly throws memory access-violation exceptions; this is not a good sign. Also, there is an OP-X PRO-II.sem file installed next to both the .dll (VST2) and .vst3 files, indicating that this synth is (at least in part) built with SynthEdit; also not a good sign. (This would explain why no Mac VST is available; recent versions of SynthEdit don't make them.)

Since SonicProjects provides this plug-in only in VST3 and AU formats on the Mac, VST3 is your only choice if you want to create a unified library which can be used on both platforms. Furthermore, you ought to test Mac compatibility with just a few patches (post a couple of zipped .unify files here and I'll check them) before going further.

SonicProjects does provide utility apps to convert between .fxb and .opx file formats; check their web site user area for download links.

As to what Hermann Seib might "bring to the table", the answer may be "nothing". Hermann stopped responding to my emails years ago, without explanation.

Thanks Shane,

Had some crashes myself today in Unify on Win10 (only OS I have currently). It seemed like a good idea, I am glad Eight Voice (and OB-E if Win10) are there as potential replacement. Will save us the aggro and no longer pursue this, shame ...

@erik-van-wees That would be AMAZING if you Unified the OPX ProII. In my opinion, this is THE BEST Oberheim emulation of the OB-X/OB-Xa - I have all of the different plugins (OB-Xd. Obsession, OB-Xa-V, etc) and this just sounds the best, and I have owned an OB-X, an OB-Xa, and an OB-8

Please keep us posted, and if I'm the only other one here using an OP-X, would you at least consider sharing your Unified library?

Hi @Hexabuzz (checked your nick, that's a mighty fine "axe", sir 😉 )

Glad to have found someone with a similar passion for this fine sounding machine; I could only use the OB-X comparison videos, have never even seen one up close. It was at that time (2015) about $100 more affordable than anything UHE or Sylenth, and after reading many raving reviews, it became my first ever purchased VA softsynth. I never really took the time to learn to program it properly; a shame. I recently purchased Cherry Audio Eight Voice, not too shabby a sound either (for only $29!!)

Unfortunately OP-X II Pro seems to crash Unify, (have had no problems in Mulab and my other DAWs that i can remember) Have to test better if crashes also occur when using single presets instead of banks (banks are not recalled when opening a saved UNify patch anyway, so that route seems to be blocked)

I will check if this can be avoided, but I am guessing Unifying the preset banks will be a lenghty, manual labour of love for the both of us ...

I did a little experiment yesterday and found that Unify patches created using the OP-X II VST3 on a Windows PC will open correctly on a Mac using the OP-X II VST3 for Macintosh.

However, I had a lot of crashes on the Windows side along the way, so as Erik says, unifying OP-X II may be a lengthy process.

Are there directions anywhere (or a particular livestream video) that covers how to unify a library--I tried making a new folder under libraries and saving the patch there, but it doesn't show up under Libraries in Unify.

Thanks!

@artturnermusic

Please don't mess with the folders manually. When you save a new patch, choose "New Library..." from the Library pop-up, enter the new library name, and the required folders will be created automatically.

@hexabuzz

Just a heads-up: Bx Oberhausen for sale at PA. I am comparing it with OP_X Pro II and EightVoice, and am impressed by the sound.

@erik-van-wees Thanks! I've had that one for a while. I like it a lot, but I still think the OPX is the best - it's too bad the interface is so old and I still find it annoying with the presets.

I don't know if you have Synapse Audio's Obsession, but that's another awesome Obie Clone. Eight Voice from Cherry Audio is really nice, and so is G-Force's OB-E, but it's very expensive.

@hexabuzz

It's too bad that it (OP-X Pro II) is now also crashing Studio One, a DAW i am considering and liking a lot,  I am on win 10 so I have to wait for the OB-E ... i don't know if you own Knifonium, that has a sound as well. One that i would like your opinion about is Exonic Megahertz, i have it and am very pleased with it, UI could be more sexy, but ... if you don't know that one, its worth checking out.

I ran into an issue with macro knobs when Unifying VSTis. It’s somehow hard to explain but I try:

I think the main issue is that macro knob values are not getting updated when changing presets inside VSTi.

For the purpose of simplicity, I’m only talking about macro knobs with a single parameter link inside.

1) load a synth & load a preset
2) link a macro knob to a parameter (eg Env Attack)
[3) save as Unify patch]
4) open synth UI & select different synth preset inside plugin (macro knob state is NOT UPDATED - WHY?)
5) close synth UI & save as new Unify patch (= link parameter value and knob state does not match)
6) reload new patch (parameter value and knob display value DOES NOT MATCH!)
7) open “Linked Parameter”-window of the knob
8) window (horizontal line & value display in the middle) displays correct value of synth parameter
9) BUT w/o touching anything in the “Linked Parameter”-window, closing it changes synth parameter value to knob value and as a result the
10) SOUND HAS CHANGED !!!

I don’t understand why
1) the macro knob state is NOT UPDATED when changing a preset inside VSTi
2) the plugin-parameter is getting changed to the knob state without touching anything inside the “Linked Parameter”-window

So, I don’t know how others are doing this, but when I want to create new Unified-library
starting from a Unify patch with macro knob assignments,
then changing the VSTi-preset and
saving as new Unify patch
= issue above.

Unify 1.7.2, OSX

Hope I could have made myself clear - best regards & thanks for reading
Rob

@robkastler

I asked a similar question several months ago.  Since you can have multiple assignments per knob and different curves, it makes it difficult to automatically handle this. Check out this thread: https://forums.pluginguru.com/unify-feature-requests/macro-knob-feature-to-snap-knobs-to-current-patch-settings

Or maybe you are asking something different.

I have been working to Unify a library and was working to get each knob's starting position to exactly match the selected patch, but after ten or so patches, I finally gave up.  It's a lot of work when you have multiple macro pages.  I looked at other Unified libraries and I found knobs didn't match up either.  A small turn of a knob can have a startling affect on the sound.  For example, a slight turn could cause a heavily filtered sound to immediately open.  So I decided to leave macro knobs alone.

@robkastler

@ssquared is correct. The connection from Unify macros to plug-in parameters is one-way.

Thank you @Ssquared

@getdunne: Thanks but I think that does not answer my question

2) why the plugin-parameter is getting changed to the knob state without touching anything inside the “Linked Parameter”-window

which alters Unify patches unintentionally.

Improvement suggestion IMO to the fact that knob display is not reflecting parameter values at

https://forums.pluginguru.com/unify-feature-requests/macro-knob-feature-to-snap-knobs-to-current-patch-settings/

Regards

Rob

Posted by: @robkastler

... that does not answer my question

2) why the plugin-parameter is getting changed to the knob state without touching anything inside the “Linked Parameter”-window

which alters Unify patches unintentionally.

It took me some time to find where you had asked that question. I couldn't understand it out of the original context. When referring to one post or comment within a later one, it helps if you include a link:

1. Locate the original post or comment, click the link button at top right, and choose the short link to copy to clipboard.
2. In the new post, use the link button in the editor to attach the link to some text. (You can also just paste the link directly, but unfortunately the forum software will mess up the link URL if you type a period directly after it, so it's better to attach to text.)

I did some investigation, and for now the only answer I have is "it's complicated". I agree the behavior is not ideal, but to change it will require very careful analysis.

The way John and I have been thinking about macro parameter linkage is:

1. Linking parameters to macro knobs is a "finalizing" step, to be performed after you have the basic sound correct.
2. Once parameters are linked to knobs, it's better to consider them "off limits", to be adjusted only via the macro knob.

Not everyone will agree, of course, but that was the thinking that led to the way Unify works at the moment.