Re: Virtual Repeater

[Kevin Cheli-Colando <kevin@minds-eye.org>]

I think it has something to do with the pitch shifting algorithms.
They are part of a larger line of processors and the owners are kind
of proprietary about them and didn't want that code loose in the world
for anyone else to use.  Something like that but its early, I could be
totally wrong making all of that up.

Kevin

On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 12:31 AM, mark francombe <mark@markfrancombe.com> 
wrote:
> Stephen, you can't say things like     1, 2, and 3, are way off base.
> without offering some insight into the situation... were you there? I
> respect that you do seem to know something about Peter Toms role than I 
>did
> (actually I was disapointed to hear that he has no stake - coming back to
> this point****) It seems like that from the outside, which is where we 
>are,
> what Jeff described is EXACTLY how it looked.. I know noting of 3 
>different
> owners (well I do - but it hardly excuses them from a customer point of
> view) They have a very great product but its is a very poor brand, or 
>BECAME
> a very poor brand I should say.
>
> I can see that as a real lover of Repeater Stephen, you want to applaud
> their achievements rather than trash them, and I agree.
>
> *** So who DOES have any stake inthe remains, who currently owns the
> software, either the Hardware OS... Or Any virtual Repeater...?
>
> Does ANYONE have the answer to this??? Who OWNS the software??? It must 
>be
> someone who wants to earn back a bit of cash surely?
>
> Mark
>
>


-- 
Till now you seriously considered yourself to be the body and to have a
form. That is the primal ignorance which is the root cause of all trouble.

- Ramana Maharshi (1879-1950)

Sound and Vision:  http://www.minds-eye.org NEW SITE 3/01/09