reaper VST3 support.

[guitarans]

Hi i downloaded the Free Cool Softube Saturation knob for Free. But it dosnt seems that reaper wil eat it, why ?

[Xenakios]

Reaper doesn't support VST3 plugins at all. Is the plugin really a VST3-only plugin? (No VST2 version/installer available?)

[rictheobscene]

In fact, iirc, Justin made a comment in a post that he had no intention of adding VST3 support in the foreseeable future.

I am too lazy to search and find a link.

[heda]

what are the advantages of VST3?
is it something to worry about reaper not having VST3?

[Andywanders]

Originally Posted by heda

what are the advantages of VST3?
is it something to worry about reaper not having VST3?

Well for me, one HUGE advantage of VST 3 support would be that I could run my MOX VST editor from within Reaper. And believe me, that really is a biggie.

[Quest The Wordsmith]

Originally Posted by heda

what are the advantages of VST3?
is it something to worry about reaper not having VST3?

I believe VST3 has the inherent capability of internally routing plugins to other plugins - i.e. side-chaining. But Reaper's robust routing abilities allow this anyway, so we're not missing out on anything by forgoing VST3.

[Andywanders]

Isn't it just great when people who don't find a need for something, assume that nobody else needs it too.

"...we're not missing out on anything by forgoing VST3."

[Ollie]

Originally Posted by heda

what are the advantages of VST3?

http://www.steinberg.net/en/company/...gies/vst3.html

Many of these things were lacking in VST2.x and in particular some hosts for a long time, so some other hosts (including REAPER) implemented many of them their own way. Then VST3 came and declared that flavor of adding this functionality "standard". If I recall that correctly, that "standard" has a few shortcomings making it not very rewarding to ditch better implementations for that.

Originally Posted by rictheobscene

In fact, iirc, Justin made a comment in a post that he had no intention of adding VST3 support in the foreseeable future.

I am too lazy to search and find a link.

In fact, IIRC rictheobscene made a comment in a post that he had no intentions of improving his failing memory or laziness, but I'm too lazy to search and find a link.

From here : http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2913127

We've looked at VST3, and are not planning on supporting it in REAPER (at least unless a ton of third party plug-ins support and require VST3).

We have our VST2.4 extensions listed here: http://reaper.fm/sdk/vst/

And we also are excited about helping define a new, open plug-in API. Much of what Angus has written makes a lot of sense to us.

The biggest thing, though, I get excited about, is having a plug-in API that is compatible with open source licenses. The fact that VST effectively prevents LGPL or even BSD licensed plug-ins is completely ridiculous...

Justin Frankel
Cockos Incorporated / REAPER
www.reaper.fm

Well, the list of VST3 only plug-ins is growing slowly, but it's growing.

Originally Posted by Andywanders

And believe me, that really is a biggie.

It is a biggie for people who want to use a VST3 plug-in that doesn't come with a VST2 version or other alternative.

However the MOX editor comes in a standalone version which runs fine alongside with REAPER, the advantage of running the plug-in version would be that you can use "build 16 channels of MIDI to this track" on the track with the plug-in, but you can do the same by using a dummy/JS volume plug-in so you can use that function once before you remove the plug-in and save the tracks/project as a template. Or you just select the MOX as MIDI hardware output on the individual tracks.

Whether or not clicking the track insert to open it gives you (or me as I have a MOX too) an advantage over popping it up from the task bar/dock - no idea. However, the plug-in doesn't give you any additional functionality, it doesn't deal with audio routing beyond returning the 2 stereo outs on the one plug-in track, nor does that editor plug-in seem to actually use VST3 functions.

Edit: The one advantage is that the plug-in would probably recall performances saved with the project. This would be really great if the MOX had individual outputs for all parts/voices, since it doesn't I need to record each part anyway to process it individually in REAPER and so I just give the track the voice name so I can re-record the individual voices if needed or save the performance in the editor for manual recall.

[rictheobscene]

Originally Posted by Ollie

In fact, IIRC rictheobscene made a comment in a post that he had no intentions of improving his failing memory or laziness, but I'm too lazy to search and find a link.

From here : http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2913127

IIRC, Ollie left out all of the foul language and other crude remarks I included in my post about my abysmal memory and penchant for laziness

[Lawrence]

Originally Posted by Andywanders

Isn't it just great when people who don't find a need for something, assume that nobody else needs it too.

"...we're not missing out on anything by forgoing VST3."

Not this thread again. People say why we don't need it, that 2.x does everything 3 does, and yet, not many (if any) are doing the things in 2.x that 3 does like...

1. Having a single plugin instance switch mono / stereo / surround... including metering.
2. Easy direct sidechaining.
3. Using the automation accessibility features.
4. Using the UI resizing.

I ask the same question every time and nobody ever answers it. If 2.x can do all that, why aren't plugin developers doing it? Why do we need two plugs, one for mono and one for stereo?

You'll certainly see Bitwig Studio taking advantage of it with midi, but then again, it also will have it's own VST3 capable instruments.

[EvilDragon]

Originally Posted by Lawrence

Why do we need two plugs, one for mono and one for stereo?

Not necessarily. Kontakt has its own output management, for example. UI resizing is possible with VST2 as well.


The fact is that the rate of accumulation of VST3 plugins is still not fast enough that would warrant widespread adoption of the "standard". A lot of are not liking the changes in the SDK, too.

[Lawrence]

So what - audio plugs - do you personally own in VST 2.x that will follow channel switching by themselves, from mono to stereo to 5.1, including metering?

What commercial 2.x audio plugs do you own where you just click a button to open up the sidechain key input?
What commercial 2.x audio plugs do you own where you can just right click a knob and create or destroy an envelope?

I'm not making an argument about it ED, I'm just asking. If that can all happen in VST2 as is often the implication, why isn't it?

And sure, acceptance is slow for sure. One thing (potential value) may have very little to do with the other thing (rate of acceptance).

Anyway, it's moot for the reasons given, that Reaper has no plans for it, so... not a big deal. But any composer with a VST3 host looking for a sampler.... Halion looks awfully damn good, having all that additional midi note and expression capability... like Bitwig will have.

[EvilDragon]

Originally Posted by Lawrence

What commercial 2.x audio plugs do you own where you just click a button to open up the sidechain key input?
What commercial 2.x audio plugs do you own where you can just right click a knob and create or destroy an envelope?

Well, I have Reaper which provides me this basically via its "Param" menu in the FX window, so pretty much any VST2 plugin that has automatable controls can be sidechained to whatever I want (parameter modulation), added envelope just by tweaking a control in Write mode (there's a preference for that), MIDI learned, or whatever.

[PTRefugee]

VocAlign and Waves Vocal Rider are two VST3 plugins that I desperately need to work in Reaper but do not.

Here is thread an old thread on Vocal Rider: http://forum.cockos.com/showthread.php?t=110726

[danfuerth]

LOL indeed ED.

[Andywanders]

Originally Posted by Ollie

It is a biggie for people who want to use a VST3 plug-in that doesn't come with a VST2 version or other alternative.

Glad we agree on that

[pattste]

Justin's comment quoted above was on Jan 22, 2008. Five years later, hopefully, he has a different opinion.

[planetnine]

As one of the technically uninitiated here, could someone explain what the apparent problems with VST3 plugins is?

Can we not have VST2.4 and 3 compatibility?
Can we not have REAPER's routing and channel interfacing with plugins if 3 is implemented?

I'm not familiar with the spec, the SDK or the problems (not being software technical), could someone please outline what the issues are and what it might be incompatible with please?

I get the feeling there must be some deep-rooted issue with existing interface and structure for the devs to dig their heels in like that.

It would be appreciated.


>

[moliere]

Originally Posted by planetnine

I get the feeling there must be some deep-rooted issue with existing interface and structure for the devs to dig their heels in like that.

It's just a shit load of work to implement and maintain another new proprietary plugin 'standard', and they feel their time is better served with other enhancements I'd guess. I don't think there's any inherent issues with it.

[planetnine]

Originally Posted by moliere

It's just a shit load of work to implement and maintain another new proprietary plugin 'standard', and they feel their time is better served with other enhancements I'd guess. I don't think there's any inherent issues with it.

Ok, thank you. I felt there was some huge paradigm shift in its connection with the host, some massive incompatibility with REAPER's routing and/or the way we use it.


>

[Xenakios]

Originally Posted by planetnine

I'm not familiar with the spec, the SDK or the problems (not being software technical), could someone please outline what the issues are and what it might be incompatible with please?

The main issue with VST3 is that it's very complicated (overengineered by Steinberg) and just would take a lot of time and effort to implement in a host. (It's no picnic on the plugin side either but some plugin code examples and library code exists. Not so for hosts...For example, Steinberg doesn't provide even a minimal VST3 hosting example code. For VST2 they at least provided some kind of a starting point, albeit a crude one.)

Nothing is probably greatly incompatible as such with something like Reaper. And there shouldn't be any reason for VST2 and VST3 hosting to be able to exist and be developed in parallel.

[chammer]

Almost all the comments on VST3 involve audio processing. My desire for VST3 in Reaper is MIDI based. VST Expression and VST Expression 2 offer major advancements/breakthroughs in MIDI programming. I love Reaper and I am completely ignorant of what may be involved in supporting something like VST3, so I pass no judgement. Nevertheless, I feel it's a real shame that my DAW of choice is unable to utilize the power of the VST Expression technologies. As I see it, Reaper, at the moment at least, is very much behind the curve in MIDI capability in this arena. For more info on this great tool please see the following links from Steinberg and Vienna Symphonic Library:

http://www.steinberg.net/en/company/...xpression.html

http://www.vsl.co.at/en/211/1343/1348/2459/2116.vsl

[EvilDragon]

There are only TWO DAWs (AFAIK) which support VST3. Doesn't that tell you anything?

[bluzkat]

Originally Posted by EvilDragon

There are only TWO DAWs (AFAIK) which support VST3. Doesn't that tell you anything?

And one of them is Cubase...

[matv]

Originally Posted by bluzkat

And one of them is Cubase...

and FL Studio or Studio One?

[Lawrence]

Originally Posted by EvilDragon

There are only TWO DAWs (AFAIK) which support VST3. Doesn't that tell you anything?

Yep. It tells me you haven't done your research.

Cubase, Sequel, Studio One, FLStudio, Vienna Ensemble, Vienna MIR, Bitwig Studio, Adobe Audition, NTrack Studio, Plugin Update, Izotope RX, SaviHost, VR-Raxtor, VSTHost, Wavelab.

That's more like 15 apps that host plugins that are VST3 capable.

[EvilDragon]

I was talking about major DAWs. Alright, didn't know about NTrack really. Doesn't really float my boat anyways.

Bitwig is still vapourware

[Lawrence]

Originally Posted by EvilDragon

I was talking about DAWs period.

Bitwig is still vapourware

FLStudio, Adobe Audition and NTrack Studio are all DAWs. Not sure what you mean? There is certainly more than 2. Bitwig is (currently) vaporware, but it is a DAW, people (somebody somewhere ) are using it and I assume they'll release it before the next millineum.

BTW, that cool per note midi control stuff in the Bitwig vids is very likely VST3.

Everyone keep talking about how hard it is, but people are doing it... which means, it actually can't be that hard? Unless they're just better developers.

[EvilDragon]

Well, MAJOR DAWs. Whoever uses NTrack today, I literally know noone.

[Lawrence]

Originally Posted by EvilDragon

Well, MAJOR DAWs. Whoever uses NTrack today, I literally know noone.

Lol... I hear ya ED. The only point being that whoever the guy is coding it apparently didn't have very much trouble supporting VST3... he got it done.

I'm just saying, if Reaper doesn't want it, so be it, not the end of the world. But the reasons given (it's too hard?) seem kinda silly in light of other very small teams having already done it?

[Subz]

Originally Posted by Lawrence

Yep. It tells me you haven't done your research.

Cubase, Sequel, Studio One, FLStudio, Vienna Ensemble, Vienna MIR, Bitwig Studio, Adobe Audition, NTrack Studio, Plugin Update, Izotope RX, SaviHost, VR-Raxtor, VSTHost, Wavelab.

That's more like 15 apps that host plugins that are VST3 capable.

like he said! only 2 hosts!

Lool! i joke i don't use any of them and have never used many of them,

but vsthost is scrapeing the barrel a tad though?

[Lawrence]

Let me type this out clearly so it can be better read and understood.

The "major" DAWs we care about that support VST plugins are...

1. Reaper
2. Cubase
3. Studio One
4. Audition
5. Live
6. Sonar
7. Samplitude
8. FLStudio

That's the general "bunch" of major DAWs that most everyone uses, that actually support VST plugs. There are only 8. Logic and PT do not host VST natively afaik, PT only does with a wrapper.

Of those 8, 4 are already VST3...half. With one more coming, Bitwig Studio. Which literally means - among the group of major DAWs that support VST - there will soon be more "major daws who actually support VST" that do support VST3 than don't.

[EvilDragon]

I honestly wouldn't count Audition as a major DAW even if Adobe holds it. That's just me, though.

[Lawrence]

Originally Posted by EvilDragon

I honestly wouldn't count Audition as a major DAW even if Adobe holds it. That's just me, though.

I hear you ED. In any case even if you take away Audition, with Bitwig it'll still be half of the most popular major DAWs supporting it... and half not. Not exactly a majority either way... contrary to how its often portrayed.

Thanks ED.

[pattste]

Originally Posted by Lawrence

Lol... I hear ya ED. The only point being that whoever the guy is coding it apparently didn't have very much trouble supporting VST3... he got it done.

I'm just saying, if Reaper doesn't want it, so be it, not the end of the world. But the reasons given (it's too hard?) seem kinda silly in light of other very small teams having already done it?

Does the silly excuse come from the Reaper devs? The problem with Reaper feature suggestions is that the devs rarely ever respond but plenty of users are happy to provide their own opinions about why something is not needed or difficult or undesirable. If they say it often enough it sticks and people think it's officially from Cockos. For all we know the Reaper devs may think VST3 support is easy as pie yet undesirable because of some other reason or may be it's actually coming in the next PRE cycle. We just don't know.

As a software engineer myself I have never known "too difficult" to be an excuse for any serious developer. We just take the time to figure it out and get it done, which is what customers pay us to do and expect from us.

[medicine tactic]

I really hope VST3 stays marginal and insignificant. It would really suck if there was finally broad support for a protocol that meaningfully transcends some of MIDI's major limitations, only for it to be a proprietary plugin-in spec that's incompatible with open source licenses.

Honestly, I'd just hate to see Steinberg win this round. I get a distinct 90s Microsoft "embrace, extend and extinguish" vibe from them (or close enough anyway), trying to use VST2's broad adoption to rope everyone into their new proprietary standard before anyone realizes what's happening, or what other, healthier, more forward-thinking and more open options may be available. I can't blame them I guess, but I still don't want them to win.

I think they won round 1 through a combination of first-mover advantage, politics and luck. But that doesn't mean they get to win this round by default, and I don't think they should. The digital audio world is vastly different than it was back then. Why should it dance to Steinberg's tune again?

Edit: And before anyone points it out, I know there are already a lot of DAWs that "support" VST3. But (correct me if I'm wrong) don't most of those DAWs just support the subset of VST3's features that it has in common with VST2? Do they really all fully support VST3, per-note automation and all? If not, then IMO they don't go in the plus column yet.

[Xenakios]

Originally Posted by medicine tactic

Do they really all fully support VST3, per-note automation and all?

That doesn't only require the host to support it, but also the plugins. Are there actually any 3rd party (non-Steinberg/Yamaha) plugins available that support that...?

I am also wondering about the sample accurate automation of effects/instruments parameters (separate thing from the per-note expressions), has anyone done extensive tests how many VST3 plugins actually implement it properly?

[danfuerth]

Most plugins from big companies all come out with VST3 plugins

So the notion of "Only Steinberg" is no escuse

All most of the main VST effects companies all come with VST 3 now.

[medicine tactic]

There really should be an Open Plugin Standards Consortium, sort of like the W3C, made up of audio software shops, universities, individuals, etc., that can develop plugin specifications in a healthy, open way, and provide a center of mass for the unsure to gravitate toward.

[medicine tactic]

Originally Posted by danfuerth

Most plugins from big companies all come out with VST3 plugins

So the notion of "Only Steinberg" is no escuse

All most of the main VST effects companies all come with VST 3 now.

What does that mean, though? Somehow I doubt those third-party plugins are designed to take advantage of VST3 stuff, like per-voice automation.

Again, they almost certainly don't do anything that VST2 can't do. It's a chicken and egg problem. No third parties want to develop plugins that only live up to their full potential in one, maybe two DAWs, and are neutered everywhere else. Far better to develop VST2 plugins that speak juuust enough VST3 that they can slap that label on it, then watch and wait. Which is what everyone's been doing for a long time now.