ASB, what´s the current OS Version?

Discuss the Creamware ASB and Klangbox hardware boxes

Moderators: valis, garyb

Simatik
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 4:00 pm

Post by Simatik » Thu Dec 01, 2005 3:56 am

Hello,

it seems that the CW Support is sleeping.
I have registered my ASB for over 7 weeks.
No reply, and no answers of my questions...
Really not Fine.

- What´s the current OS Version?

- The Editor doesent respond bidirectional
to the preset namens.

- Some of the effects are crackling a lot.

thanks in advance!

Regards

Lars

User avatar
Mr Arkadin
Posts: 3199
Joined: Thu May 24, 2001 4:00 pm

Post by Mr Arkadin » Thu Dec 01, 2005 6:08 am

Contact Ralf here

rb(at)creamware.de

in the first instance. There are links to the ftp site in some threads in the ASB forum for the latest OS, but you need a code before installing them. Ralf will give you that code.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Mr Arkadin on 2005-12-01 06:09 ]</font>

Guest

Post by Guest » Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:33 am

The latest OS can be found on the FTP site.

you need to have your software key to update.

also make sure you get the instruction.

ftp://ftp.creamware.com/Software/ASB-Bo ... OS-Update/

Guest

Post by Guest » Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:36 am

BTW: it is a crunch time at creamware and the team is mighty busy in Dec trying hard to ship the pro-12 on time for X-mas ans also the havoc of the online X-mas Special.

Also you email may have not been received due to SPAM. You can always resend the email after few days.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: antar on 2005-12-01 10:37 ]</font>

Simatik
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 4:00 pm

Post by Simatik » Tue Dec 06, 2005 6:50 am

Hello,

and THX for your postings!

- The question is, why register?

- Is it not possible like all other companys, to tell the ASB users..."Hey there is an Update for your Unit".

- Really a nice german company :smile:

Rock on

SIM

User avatar
Mr Arkadin
Posts: 3199
Joined: Thu May 24, 2001 4:00 pm

Post by Mr Arkadin » Tue Dec 06, 2005 1:53 pm

The question is, why register?
The question is, why not?

Hope you ASB is behaving how you want now.

Guest

Post by Guest » Tue Dec 06, 2005 2:58 pm

Since your ASB runs a remote software then a software key is required to do any type of upgrades in the future.

So if you register your SN you get to see a Software Key for the ASB or any CreamWare products that run on software.

If you don't register, then you have to contact CW for a software key for your SN when there is any type of upgrades.

Simatik
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 4:00 pm

Post by Simatik » Mon Feb 20, 2006 7:56 am

Hello,

i sold my unit.

Have phun with the update rules this company has.

Greetz

SIM

User avatar
Mr Arkadin
Posts: 3199
Joined: Thu May 24, 2001 4:00 pm

Post by Mr Arkadin » Mon Feb 20, 2006 8:22 am

Not sure why registering was such a big deal, but someone else will be happy with your ASB i'm sure.

User avatar
Septic
Posts: 88
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: Holland

Post by Septic » Fri Feb 24, 2006 12:57 pm

Well if this is not fixed soon I think creamware can make a restart soon, again.

People dont want that pulsar/scope reg hassle when they buy a hardware synth. Shame creamware dosnt understand this. A ASB cannot be cracked, so why this policy. Not very smart imo. Look at topicstarter wrote, i can clearly understand his feelings.

mos6581
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 4:00 pm

Post by mos6581 » Fri Feb 24, 2006 3:58 pm

As I understand it by reading about the other products from Creamware, namely Scope, there is a SDK available for developing plugins which would probably be sufficient to reverse engineer the Minimax ASB BIOS if left unencrypted. I believe that the registration procedure and the code required for the upgrade is an encryption key that decrypts the BIOS prior to installation. And selling a unit because its required to register to get the key is a bit silly in my opinion.

User avatar
astroman
Posts: 7964
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2002 4:00 pm
Location: Germany

Post by astroman » Fri Feb 24, 2006 3:59 pm

of course it can - people have been making memory snapshots since the days of the C64... :wink:
:lol: ... and a SID beats me for a minute
btw that SDK doesn't allow reverse engineering at all, as the encryption module is NOT included - and no unencrypted piece of code is allowed to pass the loader

cheers, tom

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: astroman on 2006-02-24 16:03 ]</font>

User avatar
Mr Arkadin
Posts: 3199
Joined: Thu May 24, 2001 4:00 pm

Post by Mr Arkadin » Fri Feb 24, 2006 5:28 pm

Anyway, both of you took the time to register here, so why not at CWA? It's not like they're asking for your DNA or anything (unlike the British Government).

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Mr Arkadin on 2006-03-02 03:35 ]</font>

User avatar
Septic
Posts: 88
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: Holland

Post by Septic » Sat Feb 25, 2006 1:06 am

On 2006-02-24 15:58, mos6581 wrote:
As I understand it by reading about the other products from Creamware, namely Scope, there is a SDK available for developing plugins which would probably be sufficient to reverse engineer the Minimax ASB BIOS if left unencrypted. I believe that the registration procedure and the code required for the upgrade is an encryption key that decrypts the BIOS prior to installation.
And why is that bad? There are many hardware synths that are modded....OFC you lose any guarantees when modifying an ASB. Creamware should just put the reginfo within the box when shipped. My Supernova dont need it, my Nord3 not, my Spectralis not etc etc. Without a hardware unit cracking is useless, the hardware is the dongle. But nevermind, if creamware doesnt change this policy, well look at what TopicStarter did. And I surely think many will follow. Not everybody is a computer geek.
My 2 cts...

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Septic on 2006-02-25 01:10 ]</font>

User avatar
Septic
Posts: 88
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: Holland

Post by Septic » Sat Feb 25, 2006 1:11 am

BTW, I love my Minimax and Pro12 ASB :wink:
I wished only that the notes woudnt stuck as much as they do now hehe

User avatar
astroman
Posts: 7964
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2002 4:00 pm
Location: Germany

Post by astroman » Sat Feb 25, 2006 1:49 am

On 2006-02-25 01:06, Septic wrote:
...And why is that bad? There are many hardware synths that are modded....
... Without a hardware unit cracking is useless, the hardware is the dongle...
well, I think the reason is much simpler...
the code is just build this way - they do not even have any versions which run without that (obscure) module imho :razz:
It IS a port from the SFP versions and the protection is an integral part at the lowest level possible.
But nevermind, if creamware doesnt change this policy, well look at what TopicStarter did. ...
look at his original complaint
I have registered my ASB for over 7 weeks.
No reply, and no answers of my questions...
Really not Fine.
'Why register ? should most likely be read with the extension '... if nobody cares ?'

without knowing any details of the case one should ALWAYS consider that email is anything but a safe way of communication (in several meanings...) today.
If one mail doesn't reach it's destination it may be due to network overload (some worm or spam), if several attempts fail then it's not unlikely that the sending server (or even it's domain) may be blocked.

CWA are notoriously unresponsive at the 'more details, please - when will it be...' type of questions, but Ralf has always been very quick with the registration process.
not to excuse them, but just to consider...

cheers, Tom

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: astroman on 2006-02-25 01:51 ]</font>

mos6581
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 4:00 pm

Post by mos6581 » Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:34 am

I agree with both of you on most of what you say. I don't have the knowledge to debate about how the SDK actually works but if it is like you say, that the encryption is an integral part of the SFP/ASB and hence the SDK, then it must be possible to exploit it if someone put the time and effort to it. That the hardware is a key in the encryption scheme doesn't necessarily make it impossible to crack.

There are several reasons why this is bad. I doubt CW would like people to do hardware clones, just different enough not to infringe on the copyrights, and pour their BIOS into it. And if people build on their software and alter its functionality they would possibly have to deal with morons demanding support using someone elses software on their products.

From what I've read on this forum it seems that CW have some work to do on their customer relations. I'm hesitant to buy any of their products since I get an ominous feeling about the health of the company. I might be wrong but thats what shines through to me.

I sat down with a Minimax ASB for a few hours about a week ago and I can't understand that a product that is pitched for its superior sound quality still has crackles and pops under certain conditions (you can hear it on the demo songs as well). Why they don't fix things like this makes me weary.

User avatar
astroman
Posts: 7964
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2002 4:00 pm
Location: Germany

Post by astroman » Sat Feb 25, 2006 11:52 am

On 2006-02-25 10:34, mos6581 wrote:
...but if it is like you say, that the encryption is an integral part of the SFP/ASB and hence the SDK, then it must be possible to exploit it if someone put the time and effort to it. ...
this is a false assumption (no problem if you don't know the background - it's not something like a C++ SDK)

There is definetely NO EXPLOIT possible in context with CWA's SDK.

Noone but CWA has access to that encryption thing and afaik there is not a single bit of DSP assembly that you could watch at any moment with any SFP device or even SDK.
All(!) executing building blocks are encrypted - that's why I called the protection 'integrated at the lowest level'.

The point is that if you could dump the executing DSP code from the Sharcs (or view it at the end of a developement process - like in other systems), you could upload the binary to ANY Sharc based DSP board ... :wink:

For the reasons above THIS is not possible, but it's out of question (imho) that once information about that 'core module' (or the way it operates) leaks, you can wave good-bye to protection.
Imho that explains their extremely restrictive information policy (and response to offers of volunteers) regarding open source, linux and macosx developement.

The SFP system and it's ASB deviants are a tremendous value in developement resources.
You can safely assume that it represents more than 200 man years - absolutely no kidding.

People may have complained over this or that, but NEVER ever about sound quality (you'll also find Sharcs in high-end consumer audio gear... for good reasons)
Now go ask yourself why didn't any other company like Yamaha, Korg, Roland etc came up with a similiar system ?
It is not possible - not even with unlimited financial resources to rebuild that knowledge within a time-schedule that market(ing) requires - that simple :wink:

imho you can safely invest in that company - at least I don't regret any of my purchases.
Even if they'd close down tomorrow noone could take that sheer amount of usability (the flexibility is still(!) unmatched) and sound from me :grin:

cheers, Tom

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: astroman on 2006-02-25 11:57 ]</font>

mos6581
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 4:00 pm

Post by mos6581 » Sat Feb 25, 2006 5:53 pm

On 2006-02-25 11:52, astroman wrote:

All(!) executing building blocks are encrypted - that's why I called the protection 'integrated at the lowest level'.
How come you know so much about this? :wink:
People may have complained over this or that, but NEVER ever about sound quality (you'll also find Sharcs in high-end consumer audio gear... for good reasons)
I just did and I know there was another guy on this forum doing so. I think they have done a great job with making the Minimax sound the way it does but there are still some artifacts that needs to be polished off. Of course, "sound quality" is a very subjective term. I also believe that its not primarily the DSP itself but the programming and external components that makes a unit sound good.
Now go ask yourself why didn't any other company like Yamaha, Korg, Roland etc came up with a similiar system ?
Because they are slow mega corporations that have mass production and not quality on their focus and they don't listen to their customers which one would hope that a small company as CWA would do.
Even if they'd close down tomorrow noone could take that sheer amount of usability (the flexibility is still(!) unmatched) and sound from me :grin:

cheers, Tom
It would definately be a thorn in my side if they never got to fix the last bugs of their products before they close down. Since there is a huge time pressure on delivering new products these days they leave the factory not entirely finished.

And related to the above discussions it would be a shame if the company shuts down and noone ever would fix the last bugs. Not to mention the credits and respect they would gain, from me atleast :smile:, if they made them as unscrutinizable as humanly possible.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: mos6581 on 2006-02-25 17:57 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: mos6581 on 2006-02-25 17:58 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: mos6581 on 2006-02-26 01:02 ]</font>

User avatar
astroman
Posts: 7964
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2002 4:00 pm
Location: Germany

Post by astroman » Sun Feb 26, 2006 3:33 am

On 2006-02-25 17:53, mos6581 wrote:
On 2006-02-25 11:52, astroman wrote:
All(!) executing building blocks are encrypted - that's why I called the protection 'integrated at the lowest level'.
How come you know so much about this? :wink:...
well, as an astroman you just have to... :razz:

but seriously - I'm a developer myself (though not in the audio domain) and I've had tons of developement systems and always watched the market regarding interesting concepts.

I do not even have SDK myself (sorry, that NDA isn't my cup of tea), but counting bits and pieces together isn't too difficult.
Forexample see Nikko's post at the end of this <a href=http://www.planetz.com/forums/viewtopic ... >thread</a>...
The SDK (more or less identical to the former DP) was introduced in detail by C. Hain in German Keyboards mag with the 'making of the Saturn synth' as an example project (9/99).

Labview from National Instruments uses a similiar paradigm and in fact I'd consider it Scope's (grand)daddy, or at least inspiration... (it's almost 10 years older).
I've worked with integrated GUI based developement systems long before M$'s VisualBS showed up (and drowned the world in a brown substance)

It's like cooking - everyone's boiling with water, so after some time you just know how things run.
Yet I do have a very high respect for the content of Scope SDK. It's a so-called meta level programming tool (something M$ will try to attempt with it's F# thing - not sure how far that has grown), which means the actual processing is completely hidden from the design process.

Those tools which auto-generated application code and event loops first appeared at the end of the 80s last century (how pathetic...), but compared to what's going on in a Scope routing window their sophistication is just plain boring lame.
Sidenote: Later these tools (for application programming) were replaced by huge collections of pre-fabriced blueprints from which you modded the 'best fitting one' accordingly.

Anyway, whoever designed SDK must have been top notch - and I'm not even sure if it's an original Creamware product (they may have licensed it for infinite use).
The degree of complexity is so high that it's almost impossible to imagine that a company of CWA's size got this thing together - but that is just a personal estimation and could as well be completely wrong, so don't take my word for it.

Bottom line is that this tool makes things possible that just wouldn't work in any other way - because the developement process would be too complex and time consuming.
It IS understandable that CWA protects this (their only) asset by all means.

Anway, my statement about them 'closing tomorrow' was only to demonstrate which high value any of their systems represent (imho) - regardless if it's a Scope board or an ASB box.
Of course I do not wish in any way that this happens and they seem to be on the right way - most companies DO NOT survive what CWA is through :grin:

cheers, tom

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: astroman on 2006-02-26 03:39 ]</font>

Post Reply