Custom Firmware on the OP-1

OP-1
102

Can someone post some idiot-proof instructions on how to decompile the OS so that the artists amongst us can start creating custom graphics? :slight_smile:


Pretty surprised about the Filter effect never being implemented considering using a filter is a big part of sound synthesis / modular synths / moog etc

103

@spacetravelmadeeasy I don’t know if this can be made fully “idiot-proof” but @wavi already has a small tool that might develop into something in the direction of "idiot-proof"

As for instructions right now. Which OS does your computer run?

104

Running on Windows 10.

105
I can see how this might not be TE's idea of a good thing happening but I don't see how it would hurt any sales.
Edit - also would be kind of awkward tor TE to be publicly super pissed about people tweaking their OS considering that the OP-1 has a built in radio to facilitate taking other people's work and doing something new with it ;)

It’s not solely a question of hurting sales for people wanting to customize their OP-1. You also have to consider the competitive advantage of having something unique on the market that no one else is able to emulate. Now if it becomes straightforward for anyone with access to this forum (which is anyone) to peek under the hood and find out how the FW is written, then that certainly becomes an issue for TE. If it were one person in their home hacking into it and making modifications, that would be one thing. But when it is clearly posted with a “how can anyone with a computer modify this file in as clear of instructions as possible” then it becomes a public issue.


I know TE seems like a set of cool dudes making cool things (both of which are true), but they are also designers with a high sense for details who don’t want their flagship product being dragged through the mud. I’m sure their FW releases aren’t few and far between because they are too busy goofing off. It’s because they don’t want some ham-fisted attempt at an OS for the OP-1 to be out and about.

106

You need to download a hexeditor (e.g. https://mh-nexus.de/en/hxd/) and delete the first 4 Bytes (the first 8 numbers/characters) of the .op1 file.
Then you need some decompression program that handles LZMA files (I guess www.7-zip.org should do)

then you can unpack the files

107

@GCF agree on TE’s likely position in this, disagree on “how the firmware is written”. We haven’t touched the actual firmware yet and it is compiled, so finding out how it is actually coded will likely never happen (if the source never gets leaked…)

I don’t have any illusions that TE is going to have a party because we are able to mess about with their FW, but first of all it’s only a small amount of people (even if all of this forum would use custom FW, what % of OP-1 owners is that?) and because we are only messing with the stuff that is there. We can’t do much more. For now…

108

To everyone who may be concerned about the consequences of creating custom firmware.

Keep in mind that there are only a few “basic” things that we are able to modify currently: graphics, presets, default presets, the databases, and possibly enable some disabled features (mainly fx) by changing the database. Thinking about this the only “new” features we might get are the things that exist but are disabled. Ofcourse new graphics and sounds are fun, but that doesn’t actually change the capabilities of the OP1 in any way. For example If TE didn’t want us to enable the Filter effect they should have removed it from the official firmware. It’s been in there for a few years.

Creating entirely new synths/effects/sequencers etc will need real reprogramming of the firmware, and that’s currently so difficult that it might as well be called impossible (like @TabascoEye said). We don’t even know how to decode the actual code that runs the OP. It would take a very long time to do it. Recompiling the code would probably be as difficult and even then it might be too difficult to create any meaningfull features.

So don’t worry. We are just hackers who want to mess around with our personal devices and push them to their limits. Creating new features in the way that TE does it is currently far out of my skill set. Also we probably won’t be releasing any custom firmware for others to use. If someone want’s the same stuff that we do they can do it themselves.

PS. I have great respect to TE for creating the OP and everything it can do. For me modding the firmware is just an extra bit of fun to play with. No harm intended.

109

The blackfin uses a weird format for files and documentation isn't that easy to find.

ftp.analog.com and maybe pub/dsp/blackfin and then there’s more stuff in pub/dsp/tools and some juicy stuff in e.g.pub/dsp/210xx/code_examples/65l-ezlab or apps_handbook, admittedly for a different chip but , additionally you can find VisualDSP on the Analog Devices site, as well as a library of software modules and more software and tools for the blackfin. i’m sure some of the binary output of these will give you recognisable patterns to munch on… the official dev kit is $$$


How much $ are we talking about? Within realistic range of a kickstarter?

110
We haven't touched the actual firmware yet and it is compiled, so finding out how it is actually coded will likely never happen (if the source never gets leaked...) [...] We can't do much more. For now..

I understand that, and know that you and @wavi understand that. But “For now” is continuing the impression that “much much more” is available. I think it is best to make it really clear, as @wavi did, that the two current (and foreseen) possibilities are 1) hacking the current OS(s) to change images, enable features that are disabled, and not much more, and 2) completely writing an OS from the ground up, which you have mentioned is a huge undertaking that a team of skilled engineers took years to accomplish originally. We are on the same page, and I don’t think TE would be upset (or shouldn’t be) about possibility 1 quickly becoming a reality.

111

i wouldn’t be too surprised if they put these things hidden in there on purpose for someone to maybe find one day

112
i wouldn't be too surprised if they put these things hidden in there on purpose for someone to maybe find one day
me neither. and right now that's proving to be rewarding. read into that whatever you will.
113

Agreed with GCF. I’m a bit concerned where this is heading. Yesterday we were talking about editing graphics, and already someone has created a custom firmware with a hidden effect. I doubt TE ever thought someone would enable that, and probably not too happy that their in-progress work is suddenly out there for everyone to see and now people will pester them to enable it officially.


Yeah, TE is cool and has a good relationship with the community at large. But when someone starts affecting your business, things start becoming not cool quickly.

I think anyone involved with hacking the OP-1 should really ask themselves, “If TE was my business, how would this affect it? Is this going to cause me extra problems or cost me money?” before they release tools or firmware or even information. Maybe that sounds extreme, but I don’t want TE to drop support or stop releasing updates because this stuff is causing them too much hassle.

If this was a big company like Korg, I wouldn’t care at all. But TE is a small company and I think we have to show them respect and some deference to their wishes. I think TabascoEye has the right idea by asking them what they think first.

114
But when someone starts affecting your business, things start becoming not cool quickly.

@petsounds Call me naive, but I genuinely can’t see the present thread affecting their business but in a good way.

I mean, if someone bricked his OP-1 bith a wild firmware => they are not involved, simple as this.
And if anyone buy a new OP-1 because of the late videos of customized firmware => cool for them.

I can’t see how this whole thread could have another impact that getting some life back in a synth that is 7 years old… I guess they don’t sell that many nowadays…

Anyhow, this beast cannot be stopped now, the info is released and there will only be some added. I wonder how awesome would TE reaction be to such hacking… They seem to be rather open-minded, don’t they ?

Now thank you, I hadn’t seen the filter FX yet :slight_smile:
I was really looking forward to such simple FX on OP-1, this reason alone will have me trying to put my hands in this :smiley:

115

@LyingDalai It would still generate support churn with people sending back their OP-1 and then TE finding out it’s custom FW. Who knows if it’s even possible to totally brick an OP-1 with custom stuff. The more likely scenario is not bricks, but just custom FW introducing bugs that people complain about (and not telling them they aren’t stock) and TE going on wild goose chases and having their time/money wasted.


My main point was just to keep the interests of TE in mind when doing all this stuff. Let’s just all be like three little Fonzies.

p.s. I think they still sell well, apparently they’ve already sold out of their recent batch. And the new update, whenever it turns up, I think it’ll increase interest again with Slump and the other features.

p.p.s. Yeah the filter does look like it’d be useful, but then again I think TE tends to go with things that inspire creativity and out-of-the-box experimentation rather than a checklist of must-have features.

116

@petsounds

In the end I just don’t see how the small OS customisations that people are saying are possible would in any way harm TE so I think it’s all kind of moot. If anything they’d sell more units to curious buyers. Obviously if you install a custom OS you give up the right to have TE support you if have problems. That’s a given. People have been asking for option to delete factory presets for a lonnnng time. If TE don’t have time/inclination to address it due to resources etc then users can’t be blamed for being interested in the recent developments.

TE are great. Op is great. Users are great. Can’t see harm in any of what’s being discussed unless someone starts making money out of TE’s coding etc.

117
If this was a big company like Korg, I wouldn't care at all. But TE is a small company and I think we have to show them respect and some deference to their wishes.

so you would stick it to Korg but not to TE? I’m not sure I agree. A few sound logical arguments for pursuing this are above in the thread, if you would care to reason, not judge.

118

What is the difference between the OP-Issue and the Behringer Zaquencer Hack? The guy totally changed the controller and Behringer even allows him to sell the sequencer software, I cannot see any problem here.

119
full os history here: http://oper8.free.fr/op1_os/

Awesome, thx

120
What is the difference between the OP-Issue and the Behringer Zaquencer Hack? The guy totally changed the controller and Behringer even allows him to sell the sequencer software, I cannot see any problem here.

Exactly.


A similar example is the JJOS for Akai MPC’s.
If that software wasn’t created then I doubt Akai would have went on selling MPC’s at the volume they did because people were not impressed with the factory OS and it’s restrictions/limitations.

121

Even the possibility of a custom firmware would have helped my original decision to buy one!