Old 09-04-2013, 05:51 AM   #81
EvilDragon
Human being with feelings
 
EvilDragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Croatia
Posts: 24,790
Default

Low adoption rate should have said something to Steinberg...
EvilDragon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2013, 05:56 AM   #82
Lawrence
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,551
Default

Nobody has to adopt VST3.

Developers can continue to develop with the VST 2 SDK they already have. They just won't get any support for it and sooner or later users will be asking for features in VST 4. Times change. We adapt with them.

These are - IIRC - some of the same plugin devs that took years just to port their wares to 64-bit, some who still haven't.

I wonder... can you still get a two version old AU SDK from Apple? Dunno.

The problem is that people confuse Steiny's move to improve their own product by updating the VST standard with some - actual need - for Steiny to want everyone to accept the new standard. Frankly, why would they even care? Their products use it to good advantage so if nobody else builds in note expression, that's good for them no?

All they're saying is... "Here it is if you want to use it, your choice, and we will no longer distribute and support the old SDK."

They're not saying ... "Stop using the VST2 SDK you already have."

Last edited by Lawrence; 09-04-2013 at 06:09 AM.
Lawrence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2013, 06:30 AM   #83
Xenakios
Human being with feelings
 
Xenakios's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oulu, Finland
Posts: 8,062
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Banned View Post
With VST3 (and AAX), however, automation can be sent with higher update rates, and with sample accuracy for each event.
However, the plugin developer will have to explicitly write all supporting code for that in the plugin audio processing. It might be a pretty temptating option to just come up with some hack that leaves the automation working pretty much as it did in VST2.
__________________
I am no longer part of the REAPER community. Please don't contact me with any REAPER-related issues.
Xenakios is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2013, 07:05 AM   #84
Lawrence
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,551
Default

For the record, I do understand some developers not wanting to bother to move to VST3 just yet. What I actually don't understand is all the drama about them announcing that they'll stop distributing the SDK after this year.

I'm not sure what that's all about... other than "ranting against the man".

Given the public announcement, anyone developing (or considering developing) VST plugs that doesn't already have the VST2 SDK (????) should probably just go get it now ... while they're still distributing it? Or duplicate some safety backups of it since they've warned you months in advance that you will no longer be able to get it from them anymore after this year.
Lawrence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2013, 09:42 AM   #85
The Telenator
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Oud West, NL
Posts: 2,335
Default

Yeah, VST3 is indeed the future all right. I think it sums it up quite aptly: A whole lot of extra hard work resulting in very minimal gains.
The Telenator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2013, 12:18 PM   #86
Klinke
Human being with feelings
 
Klinke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Berlin / Germany
Posts: 832
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawrence View Post
VST - is - an open standard. It's free to use and many developers have actually extended it to their benefit, and freely shared those extensions.
I see a big difference between an open standard, and a free to use standard where all copyright and control is owned by a single company. A sentence like "Steinberg is the holder of all copyrights, rights of ownership, and other rights concerning the Licensed Software Developer Kit." from the licensing agreement doesn't sound like an Open Standard for me, and "The Licensee has no permission to sell, licence, give-away and/or distribute the VST PlugIn Interface technology or parts of it in anyway, on any medium, including the Internet, to any other person, including sub-licensors of the Licensee or companies where the Licensee has any involvement. This includes re-working this specification, or reverse-engineering any products based upon this specification" neither.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawrence View Post
If the VST 3 SDK can also compile VST2 devices, what is the point of distributing two SDK's? Anyone that needs the VST2 SDK already has it.
Do you really think, that no new person will start to develop plugins in the future? And as far as i know still different frameworks exist, that need the VST2 SDK (but can't distribute it with the framework due to the licence).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawrence View Post
I think people just like ranting against Steinberg just because they're Steinberg.
In general I have a neutral position to Steinberg, but what would be the problem just to say: "We stop to maintain the SDK but you can still download it from our webside", or even better "We stop to maintain the SDK but change the licence so, that it can be distributed from everybody"?
Klinke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2013, 02:23 PM   #87
Lawrence
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,551
Default

I think the licensing agreement is for liability issues and other legal issues... and the other part is just dropping support for what has become - for them - old tech.

I really don't get this griping ... at all.

Who here in this discussion wants the VST SDK but either doesn't already have it or can't get it? What are people complaining about exactly... that some as to be named guy next year who wants it won't be able to get it? I seriously doubt that.

Is there a plugin development shop on the planet that doesn't already have it?

Seems to me it's much ado about nothing at all. If someone wants a fully open standard with no licenses... go make one?

Last edited by Lawrence; 09-04-2013 at 02:32 PM.
Lawrence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2013, 03:40 PM   #88
Klinke
Human being with feelings
 
Klinke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Berlin / Germany
Posts: 832
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawrence View Post
Is there a plugin development shop on the planet that doesn't already have it?
Read my last post again, especially the sentense: "Do you really think, that no new person will start to develop plugins in the future? And as far as i know still different frameworks exist, that need the VST2 SDK (but can't distribute it with the framework due to the licence)."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawrence View Post
If someone wants a fully open standard with no licenses... go make one?
Didn't you told us in one of your previous post, that VST is an open standard? Or is VST an open standard, but not an fully open standard?

And also, please answer my question why in your opinion Steinberg doesn't keep the SDK downloadable. To save bandwidth?
Klinke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2013, 04:37 PM   #89
broken85
Human being with feelings
 
broken85's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Racine, WI
Posts: 32
Default

I have not seen a single valid argument against VST3 support in REAPER.

I've seen several arguments that, while I don't necessarily agree with them, are valid arguments against personally developing plugins for the VST3 SDK. But that is completely irrelevant to this discussion, and the overall concept of supporting the technology in REAPER.

And there is absolutely nothing wrong with deprecating, and eventually stopping support for a previous SDK. That's basically what always happens.

It's not ridiculous AT ALL that you have to port old code to the new SDK before being able to export it as a VST2 plugin. Why would you expect the VST3 SDK to simply work with code written against an older SDK? It's unfortunate, sure, but it's the norm and if you've been developing software for any length of time you know that's the way things generally work.

And low adoption rate is also irrelevant. The fact is it's being adopted, and that adoption will only continue to gain momentum. There are already good, commercial plugins that are unable to be used with REAPER at all because they're written for VST3.

There are already users switching to other DAW software both because of the lack of VST3 support, and even more-so because of the poor response this request has gotten in these forums.

The stance that "VST2 works, so there are no plans to implement VST3" simply makes REAPER look bad. It puts it in a category of software that is too resistant to change and eventually will get left behind in favor of something that doesn't hold its own innovations so dear that newer, standardized technologies don't get implemented.
broken85 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2013, 04:39 PM   #90
broken85
Human being with feelings
 
broken85's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Racine, WI
Posts: 32
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Klinke View Post
And also, please answer my question why in your opinion Steinberg doesn't keep the SDK downloadable. To save bandwidth?
I'm fairly certain this would be an attempt by them to increase the adoption rate of the new spec. While they continued to support the old spec, and offer it for download, people comfortable with that SDK might not be inclined to switch.
broken85 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2013, 04:52 PM   #91
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 29,260
Default

Quote:
The fact is it's being adopted, and that adoption will only continue to gain momentum.
I can agree that VST3 is gaining momentum but the above statement doesn't reflect reality as good as it should AKA adoption never guarantees momentum. Meaning there are thousands of products that are being "adopted" that eventually fall short and die. If enough developers develop VST3 for long enough everyone will follow.

If it is worthy and enough adopt it will become the norm, if not it won't, end of story. So the best message would be to champion a proper feature request and let it take it's natural course.

Quote:
There are already users switching to other DAW software both because of the lack of VST3 support, and even more-so because of the poor response this request has gotten in these forums.
But you don't know that number so its irrelevant in this thread. For example if 20 people left but it took $50,000 in labor and expense to implement the 20 who left isn't justifiable financially. Again, we don't know who is/isn't leaving so it's a meaningless statement. If VST3 becomes the norm, I'd expect it to appear at some point but that is simply my speculation.

Also don't forget much of the contention in some of these threads concerning VST3 are Wave's poor excuse concerning side-chaining. That being such an inaccurate statement does more harm than good.
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like.

Last edited by karbomusic; 09-04-2013 at 05:01 PM.
karbomusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2013, 05:04 PM   #92
Klinke
Human being with feelings
 
Klinke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Berlin / Germany
Posts: 832
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by broken85 View Post
I'm fairly certain this would be an attempt by them to increase the adoption rate of the new spec. While they continued to support the old spec, and offer it for download, people comfortable with that SDK might not be inclined to switch.
Yep, IMHO this is the most likly reason. But Lawrence thinks, that Steinberg doesn't care about the adoption rate of VST3. So i'm curious about his belief regarding this move from Steinberg.
Klinke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2013, 05:11 PM   #93
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 29,260
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Klinke View Post
A sentence like "Steinberg is the holder of all copyrights, rights of ownership, and other rights concerning the Licensed Software Developer Kit." from the licensing agreement doesn't sound like an Open Standard for me, and "The Licensee has no permission to sell, licence, give-away and/or distribute the VST PlugIn Interface technology or parts of it in anyway, on any medium, including the Internet, to any other person, including sub-licensors of the Licensee or companies where the Licensee has any involvement. This includes re-working this specification, or reverse-engineering any products based upon this specification" neither.
I agree with the spirit but the spirit isn't what the license agreement says. It basically says write every plugin you ever dreamed of in anyway you wish, just don't try to make the underlying plumbing yours. Big difference there. It might sound fancy to keep lawyers happy but there should be and I think is a clear distinction between the underlying technology (the part that is protected) and the software that uses the technology, the VST written on top of it.

Its really not much different than writing an app for Windows or Mac, your app is 100% yours and the license agreement is for the OS itself and so on.

Quote:
Do you really think, that no new person will start to develop plugins in the future? And as far as i know still different frameworks exist, that need the VST2 SDK (but can't distribute it with the framework due to the licence).
Yea, probably the same new person getting into programming looking for a Windows 98 machine. It would be silly if not kinda stupid to decide to begin one's career using something that is clearly and ultimately deprecated. Same reason you can't go buy a 66 mustang at the Ford dealership.

Quote:
In general I have a neutral position to Steinberg, but what would be the problem just to say: "We stop to maintain the SDK but you can still download it from our webside", or even better "We stop to maintain the SDK but change the licence so, that it can be distributed from everybody"?
Support, even when it isn't supported making available implies support including constantly saying "it isn't supported"... "Well I got it directly from your site" and so on. Doesn't have to be conspiracy or big business hurting the little guy scenario, just simply moving on with the new and weaning off the old. I'd much prefer they or anyone say... We are going to move on in the future, here's your fair warning. It doesn't always go down that way.


EDIT: As far as others distributing etc, I'd imagine that is a legal dept. saying no. Again, it comes down to what actions imply and any legal cracks that things can fall through. That doesn't mean they couldn't do it but we already know they are pretty tight assed with their code aka the dongles and stuff.
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like.

Last edited by karbomusic; 09-04-2013 at 05:23 PM.
karbomusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2013, 05:23 PM   #94
Lawrence
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,551
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Klinke View Post
VST is an open standard? Or is VST an open standard, but not an fully open standard?
Not sure what we're arguing about. In my mind, and you can disagree, it's an open standard that can be and has been modified by third parties, extended. Now if you mean "open source", no. Steinberg and some others call it an open standard.

Quote:
And also, please answer my question why in your opinion Steinberg doesn't keep the SDK downloadable. To save bandwidth?
How would I know? You claim to know but like any answer I would give it would be a guess?

Why are people complaining about something they don't even need? If a guy shows up here next summer complaining that he can't get the VST 2 SDK, we'll revist this. As it stands now... nobody is inconvenienced by it.

Last edited by Lawrence; 09-04-2013 at 05:33 PM.
Lawrence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2013, 05:28 PM   #95
Lawrence
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,551
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Klinke View Post
But Lawrence thinks, that Steinberg doesn't care about the adoption rate of VST3.
I did not say that. I asked a question... "Why would they care?" ... since there is no financial advantage to them for people adopting it. So answer the question... what do they stand to benefit from greater adoption?

The - only - thing I can imagine is selling more copies of Halion if more hosts get on board with some of it's VST3 features like note expression. No clue how Waves or some plugin vendor going VST3 benefits Steinberg directly. They're not selling it so... I don't see the benefit.

OTOH, maybe it's mostly a personal thing, they care because they made it. No clue.

P.S. Why are we wasting time on this when we should be mourning the passing of the Cockos Llama with Justin & ED ... ...


Last edited by Lawrence; 09-04-2013 at 05:40 PM.
Lawrence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2013, 05:40 PM   #96
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 29,260
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawrence View Post
I don't see the benefit.
As much as I don't care for Steinberg I can't think of many VST2 licensing horror stories. It appears to have done just fine for over a decade. Furthermore, its in their best interest to keep it as open "but still ours" as possible because the 1st time any DAW maker of any size at all gets screwed, everyone else is going to get nervous. Therefore, they have to keep it trouble free and not micromanaged or it will go away. Also, like I mentioned they are so overly protective IMHO of all their other code, maybe this is the one that helps them feel better.

The only thing I can think of though is scenarios where the smaller company gets told FU because we don't like something else you did. That's the one thing this type of licensing can do such as the rift I remember between reaper and one of the control protocols which I currently can't recall the name of. Different particulars but same fear.

That and there are so many plugins written to VST specs, Steiny holds some cards no one else does. As in no competition can properly challenge them because in order for the existing plugin base to work, those plugins all have to be rewritten because making them compatible with the competition likely violates the Steinberg licensing.
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like.
karbomusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2013, 05:50 PM   #97
Lawrence
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,551
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by karbomusic View Post
That and there are so many plugins written to VST specs, Steiny holds some cards no one else does. As in no competition can properly challenge them because in order for the existing plugin base to work, those plugins all have to be rewritten because making them compatible with the competition likely violates the Steinberg licensing.
True. But that's because nobody but Apple has bothered to create another standard. AU and VST, that's pretty much it unless you go to Linux. Without VST we'd all be using DX on Win.

People have been whining for a truly open source plugin standard for at least a decade. The only problem is they're all waiting for someone else to do it... and whinging about the only good one we have on Windows all along the way.

As if Steinberg are the worlds best coders and only they can make a plugin format. If it's so critical somebody should make a new "fully open" one. The other problem is that few will do that much work for free... and good luck getting the major hosts to adopt it... and if they don't, the plugin devs won't either.

I wonder how many people will be coding RTAS going forward?

Last edited by Lawrence; 09-04-2013 at 05:55 PM.
Lawrence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2013, 05:53 PM   #98
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 29,260
Default

Actually, after rambling above multiple times, here is what I think is most likely...

In the early days when all of this was evolving, someone such as Steinberg and others included their own FX as plugins. Even when not available to the outside, its still an API or set of classes built to serve the purpose of "plugging in" an effect.

At some point anyone in their right creative minds will eventually realize that they can make the ability to "plug in" to the DAW publicly available. Smart move, now they can concentrate on the DAW and let the other 7 billion people create plugins that during that time wasn't an adopted standard yet. Guess what happens then? Its easy to write plugins for Cubase, lets write plugins for Cubase guys, yea. They get way ahead of the game very quickly because it makes their flagship product much more adopted much more quickly.

By now VST3 probably serves some of a similar purpose but on such a smaller scale that I'm assuming that they are simply publishing their own advancements into a new API but in 2013 its probably much more to do with keeping current than master plan. Sometimes simply being most popular is enough to want to keep something.

Quote:
True. But that's because nobody but Apple has bothered to create another standard.
That's what I mean, current base is incredibly difficult to overcome, its not because someone didn't bother its because they have to convince millions to start from scratch, that's a huge advantage. So the above is where my money is on the subject, very clear long term advantage. Microsoft tried, but failed since DX was being everything to everybody AKA buggy in DAWs, VST had an advantage there me thinks. Its not really about VSTs its about Steinberg's for pay products and what it has done for those.
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like.

Last edited by karbomusic; 09-04-2013 at 05:59 PM.
karbomusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2013, 06:04 PM   #99
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 29,260
Default

Quote:
As if Steinberg are the worlds best coders and only they can make a plugin format.
Its not that at all and as I said above it is completely sensible business strategy. Microsoft built much of their riches on providing stuff that allows you to write programs on their OS. I think both are very similar where the only difference is the length of time between closed and open.

When Steinberg made VST open, I'm pretty sure they had all the plumbing done in their products, hell they knew it best, they wrote it, not only that but everything that made VST possible came from testing in their software, by the time it was public it helped all DAWs but I can't believe that didn't give Steinberg a big boost and head start. It doesn't have to be anything other than that. If I had the choice of owning something open yet most used on the planet or not having it at all, I'd be real tempted to have it vs. not because that makes the most sense.
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like.
karbomusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2013, 06:09 PM   #100
Lawrence
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,551
Default

For sure. I get that historical context and how those technologies added to the general product branding.
Lawrence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2013, 07:54 PM   #101
fwd0120
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 296
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawrence View Post
P.S. Why are we wasting time on this when we should be mourning the passing of the Cockos Llama with Justin & ED ... ...
OT, but did it really pass away??!?!?!?! That would be so sad!!!!!
fwd0120 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2013, 08:41 PM   #102
Lawrence
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,551
Default

I was looking over some of the extension examples of Studio One which are all public domain. Here's the one for embedding a plugin UI into the app window (Melo ARA). No clue if VST 2 is even capable of that.

The other extensions are here... http://www.presonussoftware.com/en_U...p?id=developer

Code:
//************************************************************************************************
//
// PreSonus Plug-In Extensions
// Written and placed in the PUBLIC DOMAIN by PreSonus Software Ltd.
//
// Filename    : ipslviewembedding.h
// Created by  : PreSonus Software Ltd., 05/2012
// Description : Plug-in View Embedding Interface
//
//************************************************************************************************
/*
	DISCLAIMER:
	The PreSonus Plug-In Extensions are host-specific extensions of existing proprietary technologies,
	provided to the community on an AS IS basis. They are not part of any official 3rd party SDK and
	PreSonus is not affiliated with the owner of the underlying technology in any way.
*/
//************************************************************************************************

#ifndef _ipslviewembedding_h
#define _ipslviewembedding_h

#include "pluginterfaces/base/funknown.h"
#include "pluginterfaces/base/falignpush.h"

namespace Steinberg {
class IPlugView; }

namespace Presonus {

//************************************************************************************************
// IPlugInViewEmbedding
/** Support for plug-in view embedding, to be implemented by the VST3 controller class. */
//************************************************************************************************

class IPlugInViewEmbedding: public Steinberg::FUnknown
{
public:
	/** Check if view embedding is supported. */
    virtual Steinberg::TBool PLUGIN_API isViewEmbeddingSupported () = 0;

	/** Inform plug-in that its view will be embedded. */
    virtual Steinberg::tresult PLUGIN_API setViewIsEmbedded (Steinberg::IPlugView* view, Steinberg::TBool embedded) = 0;

    static const Steinberg::FUID iid;
};

DECLARE_CLASS_IID (IPlugInViewEmbedding, 0xda57e6d1, 0x1f3242d1, 0xad9c1a82, 0xfdb95695)

} // namespace Presonus

#include "pluginterfaces/base/falignpop.h"

#endif // _ipslviewembedding_h
Lawrence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2013, 09:00 PM   #103
broken85
Human being with feelings
 
broken85's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Racine, WI
Posts: 32
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by karbomusic View Post
I can agree that VST3 is gaining momentum but the above statement doesn't reflect reality as good as it should AKA adoption never guarantees momentum. Meaning there are thousands of products that are being "adopted" that eventually fall short and die. If enough developers develop VST3 for long enough everyone will follow.
But this is not akin to the risk of adopting a new product or technology, this is an updated spec to an existing technology, which is already deeply ingrained in the production community on PC.

There is much precedent for this sort of thing occurring with a low adoption rate at first, when eventually adoption picks up because the industry starts moving forward. Sometimes it's slower than others, and sometimes it doesn't happen at all, but that's more often with newer technologies that just never catch on as opposed to updates to existing well-established ones.

Quote:
Originally Posted by karbomusic View Post
If it is worthy and enough adopt it will become the norm, if not it won't, end of story. So the best message would be to champion a proper feature request and let it take it's natural course.
Can you define "the norm"? It seems many people are using very vague statements as arguments against its support--it's not "big enough", and it's not "the norm". Neither is any other update to a spec, until it eventually overtakes the previous spec. Waiting until that happens to support the technology seems a bit foolish--you could capture an even larger audience by being one of the platforms they can go to when their DAW doesn't support VST3, rather than being a late adopter with the negative stigmas associated with that.


Quote:
Originally Posted by karbomusic View Post
But you don't know that number so its irrelevant in this thread. For example if 20 people left but it took $50,000 in labor and expense to implement the 20 who left isn't justifiable financially. Again, we don't know who is/isn't leaving so it's a meaningless statement. If VST3 becomes the norm, I'd expect it to appear at some point but that is simply my speculation.
But you're the one discussing numbers and financials and giving examples. I'm saying THAT'S what's irrelevant. I'm not trying to speculate on that. It's not going to be cheaper to implement support for VST3 later--in fact, it'll probably cost more because they'll have already lost those 20 users (but come on now, I would assume it'll be some multiple of that by then).

The fact is, the man-hours will be the same now or if they wait until later when they've lost some of the goodwill of their user base, and they're going to need to implement VST3 at some point, because more plugins and more DAWs are going to implement it and I highly doubt anyone's just going to let REAPER fall through the cracks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by karbomusic View Post
Also don't forget much of the contention in some of these threads concerning VST3 are Wave's poor excuse concerning side-chaining. That being such an inaccurate statement does more harm than good.
I don't know anything about Wave's plugins to be honest. But the sidechain argument is 100% irrelevant to the argument for adding VST3 support to REAPER. The fact that you can sidechain any effect in REAPER has no bearing on VST plugin development what-so-ever, nor does it make any less significant the new features of VST3 which allow developers of said plugins to standardize these features regardless of the DAW their users are utilizing.

That's one of the primary points of these specs in the first place. No developer in their right might would create a plugin relying on features that only one DAW implements, or maybe multiple do but it's not necessarily against the same spec or handled the same way. But when such features are implemented in a standardized way (I don't care if it's VST or something open-source, as long as the plugin developers I like are willing to use it), then developers can start actually taking advantage of these features and creating more interesting plugins easier in a way that can work in more environments.

But it takes adoption by DAWs to get the confidence of developers to create the plugins. Right now a developer would financially be better off creating a VST2 plugin, because their VST3 plugin would work in 3 or 4 DAWs. The REAPER community seems to be waiting for the plugins, but that means they're just piggybacking onto whatever happens as opposed to thinking forwardly and being one of the products that helps to push the technology ahead.

Last edited by broken85; 09-04-2013 at 09:11 PM.
broken85 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2013, 09:08 PM   #104
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 29,260
Default

Quote:
I don't know anything about Wave's plugins to be honest. But the sidechain argument is 100% irrelevant to the argument for adding VST3 support to REAPER.
Right, it is 100% irrelevant. If you are unfamiliar with the waves part of the discussion then it makes sense that you didn't know what I meant.

Quote:
Can you define "the norm"? It seems many people are using very vague statements as arguments against its support--it's not "big enough",
Whatever the norm is that makes it considered accepted enough that everyone else jumps in and threads like these wouldn't be needed. You know, when its officially adopted enough that the question of adopting it doesn't come up any more? Whatever that happens to be. If it is worthy it'll get there, if not it won't, time will tell. Hope it does.

Quote:
But you're the one discussing financials (and giving an example that is heavily weighted toward your side of the argument). I'm saying THAT'S what's irrelevant.
No that isn't a very good rebuttal. My financials was in reference to your people are leaving and costing those without VST3 lost sales reasoning. That reasoning is missing details thus sort of meaningless. Btw, that's why I quoted it but I digress.

The last two quotes above... I have no argument. I simply noted reasons it may or may not fly or conditions thereof. You appear have a big argument/passion about it which is fine but for me its just examining what I see and commenting. If you read all my posts you'll see I'm covering BOTH sides of the pissing match.
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like.

Last edited by karbomusic; 09-04-2013 at 09:19 PM.
karbomusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2013, 09:18 PM   #105
broken85
Human being with feelings
 
broken85's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Racine, WI
Posts: 32
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by karbomusic View Post
Right, it is 100% irrelevant. If you are unfamiliar with the waves part of the discussion then it makes sense that you didn't know what I meant.
I only saw a few discussions about the Waves plugins and VST3, I'm not sure I know what you're referencing. But I know it's been brought up a lot--mainly because it's one of the reasons developers are switching to VST3 and locking us out of using those features in REAPER currently.

Quote:
Originally Posted by karbomusic View Post
Whatever the norm is that makes it considered accepted enough that everyone else jumps in and threads like these wouldn't be needed. You know, when its officially adopted enough that the question of adopting it doesn't come up any more? Whatever that happens to be.
I updated my last post too late I think, but it takes early adopters to make something like this the norm. And it would be great for REAPER in general to be an early adopter in this case. Even on the off-chance that VST3 doesn't pick up more steam, they'll still be supporting a new technology that there are already developers creating plugins for, and there isn't a downside to that. It's certainly not going to just disappear.

Quote:
Originally Posted by karbomusic View Post
The last two quotes above... I have no argument. I simply noted reasons it may or may not fly or conditions thereof. You appear have a big argument/passion about it which is fine but for me its just examining what I see and commenting. If you read all my posts you'll see I'm covering BOTH sides of the pissing match.
I don't mean to be attacking you directly, or anyone in particular, it's just frustrating to me because, while I have no personal stake in the matter other than wanting to use some VST3 plugins, one of the things I love about REAPER is that it supports everything I want to use, it's updated often, and they seem to listen to the users. But that's not happening with this request, and none of the comments that have been made against VST3 that I've seen have seemed like valid or convincing reasons why it shouldn't be supported, or at least planned for an upcoming version.

I apologize for my run-on sentences. Apparently that happens when I get passionate about a topic
broken85 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2013, 09:20 PM   #106
Lawrence
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,551
Default

It's a simple cost/benefit analysis. Is it worth the trouble now? For some, no, for others, I guess so.

Again, every new host created after Reaper (and one existing host that has been rewritten since then) are VST3 hosts. Presonus, Bitwig & Adobe didn't see the logic in building a new product on (only on) what is eventually most surely going to be an outdated plugin standard.

Bottom line... the VST 2.x line has - ended - it's development cycle. There is only one path forward for the plugin format, VST 3. Most plugin developers may have to deal with that eventually.

Of course, nobody needs VST3 to make music so nobody (no major hosts) seem to be in any great hurry.

Last edited by Lawrence; 09-04-2013 at 09:25 PM.
Lawrence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2013, 09:23 PM   #107
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 29,260
Default

Quote:
I apologize for my run-on sentences. Apparently that happens when I get passionate about a topic
Its all good and passion is good. The positive way to think about my earlier statement is that VST appears to be on a good path, if it continues down that path on its way to replace VST2, I don't see how it wouldn't end up in Reaper. However, it probably needs to get closer to that norm, or they are silently working on it a little at a time as we speak, time will tell.
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like.
karbomusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2013, 09:26 PM   #108
broken85
Human being with feelings
 
broken85's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Racine, WI
Posts: 32
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawrence View Post
Bottom line... the VST 2.x line has - ended - it's development cycle. There is only one path forward for the plugin format, VST 3. Most plugin developers may have to deal with that eventually.
Agreed. And some plugin developers are dealing with that. But a huge portion of their user base are still using software that hasn't adopted VST3, which is a problem. That means they either:
(a) have to release two different versions of the plugin with different features (which takes longer),
(b) create a VST3-only plugin which would lock out some of their user base because more DAWs haven't adopted it yet, or
(c) create a plugin that can't utilize the features of VST3 because they want it to be supported in the most DAWs.

Unfortunately option C seems to be what's happening most often--it's the cheapest way to get to the most users. But this is only because more DAWs haven't implemented this standard yet. Why does REAPER need to be in this group?
broken85 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2013, 09:31 PM   #109
Lawrence
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,551
Default

What some are apparently doing is "motivating" host devs by actually not including some functionality in the VST 2 version.

Not that it's working. But some people are already starting to complain that their new version of X plug with Y feature only does the useful thing as a VST3 plug. If anyone wants to see fast adoption, it's probably the plugin devs already on board, so they can eventually stop making VST2 versions completely.

But it's gonna be awhile...

Anyway, Sonar went 64-bit in 2005 and we still don't have all 64-bit plugs... almost ten years later. Who are the plugin developers blaming for that one?

P.S. Here's an example of - one - VST3 plug doing what it takes - four - VST 2 plugs to do. Rather than thinking about which of the 4 VST2 plugs to load, I load the VST3 plug... and/or don't even install the VST 2 versions...


Last edited by Lawrence; 09-04-2013 at 09:57 PM.
Lawrence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2013, 11:02 PM   #110
planetnine
Human being with feelings
 
planetnine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Lincoln, UK
Posts: 7,924
Default

Actually, I prefer being able to choose mono or stereo plugin.

I hope Cockos will allow us to control what routing view is presented to VST3 plugins (if the type is automatically selected without user control); it would be good to be able to choose whether we put a stereo plug or two mono plugs on two channels of a four-channel track, for example. How does this work in other DAWs with VST3 support? Does cubase still not have audio routing like REAPER?


I hadn't realised that all four versions of the Pro-C comp were available on VST2, I don't think I have them all -time for an update methinks...



>
__________________
Nathan, Lincoln, UK. | Item Marker Tool. (happily retired) | Source Time Position Tool. | CD Track Marker Tool. | Timer Recording Tool. | dB marks on MCP faders FR.
planetnine is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2013, 11:46 PM   #111
electricthing
Human being with feelings
 
electricthing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 242
Default

All this talk about VST3 and what does Steinberg do?

In the news today, on KVR;

Steinberg Media Technologies has announced that they will no longer continue to develop and maintain the VST 2 software interface but focus efforts entirely on the Software Development Kit (SDK) development of VST 3. All Steinberg host applications will remain VST 2 compatible.
"After introducing the SDK of version 3 to the VST community five years ago, we believe it's time that VST 2 slowly comes to an end," remarks Timo Wildenhain, product marketing manager at Steinberg. "VST 3 reflects today's technological advancements and meanwhile a considerable number of VST hosts and plug-ins support VST 3."

What the *******
What will it mean for all those great VST2 plugins? Or doesn't it make a difference?
electricthing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2013, 11:57 PM   #112
EvilDragon
Human being with feelings
 
EvilDragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Croatia
Posts: 24,790
Default

It doesn't mean anything for VST2 plugins. They are still alive and well and will continue to work as long as there is a DAW that opens them.

It only means that if somebody in 2014 wants to start doing VST2 plugins, he won't be able to do it with VST2 SDK, he will have to download the VST3 SDK, because VST2 SDK won't be available anymore.
EvilDragon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2013, 12:10 AM   #113
electricthing
Human being with feelings
 
electricthing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 242
Default

thanks Dragon,

that seems to me a significant change. No more new vst2's? Or can you make vst2 with VST3 SDK ('eye-no-nottieng' about programming).
electricthing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2013, 12:13 AM   #114
EvilDragon
Human being with feelings
 
EvilDragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Croatia
Posts: 24,790
Default

You can make VST2 plugins from VST3 SDK - but the SDK itself is very different from VST2, there's been a lot of changes internally.
EvilDragon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2013, 02:10 AM   #115
drumphil
Human being with feelings
 
drumphil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,738
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawrence View Post
VST - is - an open standard. It's free to use and many developers have actually extended it to their benefit, and freely shared those extensions.
Unless the software you use or write is open source. Audacity for example will never have ASIO support because of the restrictive license conditions.

This completely locks open source software out of the professional audio world as most audio interfaces require you to use the ASIO system if you want access to all the devices channels and/or achieve low latency operation.

This is a point that Justin has mentioned, as quoted earlier in this thread. Why should such an arbitrary restriction exist on what types of software can use modern audio devices and plugins?

If you go open source you are shit out of luck, because steinberg said so.

Last edited by drumphil; 09-05-2013 at 02:18 AM.
drumphil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2013, 04:21 AM   #116
The Telenator
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Oud West, NL
Posts: 2,335
Default

This thread was brain dead two pages ago. Look at the logic and tactics used by some of the proponents of VST3: 'Oooh, better switch over! The VST2.x kit isn't supported after this year, so you're all going to be in big trouble!'

Take that rubbish over to the 64-bit DAW and VST plugin thread, will you? It's the same type of scare tactics we saw over there. Push, push, push for VST3 so you can fiddle about with note expression and have another distraction and excuse from getting work done. Meanwhile, VST2 isn't going anywhere. Why? It works just fine. It does all the majority of users need it to do. I actually have nothing against those who desire VST3 and would like to use it, really, but don't try to strong-arm devs and other users into acceptance.

How about some facts? Devs already have to kiss everybody's arse by porting to the Mac minority, the Pro Tools mafia, the Reason Rack fanatics, make a version for the kids that have the iPhones and iPads glued to their noses 24/7 (can always tell an American tourist -- they're the ones constantly fiddling with their phones!). Then you have to release it in both 32- and 64-bit ... and now, because Steinberg finally got off its butt and has got around to VST3, you expect everyone to drop everything to accommodate YOU. Well, I got news for you: The world does not revolve around you.

Of all the arguing going on in this thread, not one of you pro-VST3 sorts have spelled out exactly what the benefits are for using this format. I expect several of the readers couldn't state what they are. I looked it up soon after it was first mentioned a couple of years back, and I came away rather surprised that it just doesn't offer all that much. Further, it doesn't offer anything I can't live without quite happily. I'd be willing to bet the majority of DAW users don't need the features either. But, who knows, it might help your argument to at least spell it out for everyone, instead of arguing against VST2, the SDK and the licensing. Why don't I see anyone here expounding the virtues and wonders of the newer format? The argument I have read here amounts to little more than threats: 'you won't have/can't get support, can't get a kit; VST2 is old and unhip -- users of it will be uncool', etc. ...

So, if you have anyone worried by now, let us assure that VST2.x will be available and still released for years to come. I'm hearing lots and lots of devs saying they are not keen about incorporating 3. Even over at u-he, one of the first to go toward VST3, Urs has recently stated that he will not be including all VST3 features in his plugins. I hear enough DAW makers saying, Screw It, also.

Steinberg certainly deserves full credit and appreciation for bringing us ASIO and VST, but I think it's way past due that they let the licensing GO. I am not 'neutral' about Steinberg, as one poster here was saying. I think they have been deliberately obstructionist and manipulative ... and it is high time this behaviour stops. I really think everyone should refuse to adopt VST3 until Steinberg changes its ways.
The Telenator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2013, 05:09 AM   #117
EvilDragon
Human being with feelings
 
EvilDragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Croatia
Posts: 24,790
Default

http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewto...er=asc&start=0

Have a read from developer's point of view. VST 3 is MESSY.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aleksey Vaneev
VST3 is hard to streamline for professional plug-in production. It's simply not designed for us professional plug-in developers, and Steinberg never asked for 3rd party approval of their approaches. They designed a thing which works for them, their simple plug-ins, not for plug-in developers.

Last edited by EvilDragon; 09-05-2013 at 05:14 AM.
EvilDragon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2013, 06:04 AM   #118
Lawrence
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,551
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Telenator View Post
Of all the arguing going on in this thread, not one of you pro-VST3 sorts have spelled out exactly what the benefits are for using this format.
??? First of all, nobody is arguing, we're discussing.

Secondly, people actually have laid out some benefits, including not being able to use some of some of the features of plugs they own.

Why not talk about the thing itself instead of ranting against the people discussing the thing? It's not personal, nobody is making it personal but you.
Quote:
I hear enough DAW makers saying, Screw It, also.
Here's the list of the so-called popular "major" hosts and editors that support VST...

Supporting VST 3...

S1
FL Studio
Cubendo
Bitwig Studio
Audition
Wavelab

Not yet supporting VST3...

Reaper
Sonar
Samp
Live
DP (although, the MOTU Masterworks plugin collection is VST3)

Did I miss any? PT and Logic don't count since they don't support VST at all.

Last edited by Lawrence; 09-05-2013 at 06:58 AM.
Lawrence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2013, 06:12 AM   #119
Lawrence
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,551
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by drumphil View Post
Unless the software you use or write is open source. Audacity for example will never have ASIO support because of the restrictive license conditions.

This completely locks open source software out of the professional audio world as most audio interfaces require you to use the ASIO system if you want access to all the devices channels and/or achieve low latency operation.

This is a point that Justin has mentioned, as quoted earlier in this thread. Why should such an arbitrary restriction exist on what types of software can use modern audio devices and plugins?

If you go open source you are shit out of luck, because steinberg said so.
Not really. What happens is that you cannot redistribute the source code for ASIO so ASIO support has to be compiled by the user or another party, it cannot be distributed with open source code, like any other proprietary code on the planet cannot believe shared via open source unless the owner gives permission.

And again, I'm not arguing for VST3 support in Reaper, just discussing it in general. Nobody needs VST3 to make music.

Last edited by Lawrence; 09-05-2013 at 06:55 AM.
Lawrence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2013, 07:57 AM   #120
The Telenator
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Oud West, NL
Posts: 2,335
Default

Lawrence, I'm using the word 'argument' or 'arguing' in the classic sense. You know, from a time when people had civil discussions and held passionate views without becoming complete animals. You know what I mean.

Yeah, I saw a few things mentioned, but a lot more effort went into DAW lists and such than any detailed list or explanations of those 'messy' benefits.

Cheers!
The Telenator is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.