Old 03-31-2013, 04:30 PM   #41
danfuerth
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,824
Default

I think the whole point of VST3 for me at least is to have the plugin actually do some work other than instead of it just being an effect

The VST plugin linking in VST3 is part of the plugin structure

But perhaps Avid has their new plugin format and Steinberg felt threatened...
More to the story than meets the eye....

Perhaps Cockos comes up with their plugin format

ReaEQ.cock
Reverb.cock


That would put some humor back in Plugins LOL
danfuerth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2013, 06:27 PM   #42
Lawrence
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,551
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by medicine tactic View Post
Again, they almost certainly don't do anything that VST2 can't do.
It's Deja Vu all over again. When it comes to the repeated "VST3" discussions it seems that people repeat the same things over and over in the hope (I suppose) that repetition will somehow make them true. I'm not personally pushing for VST3 in Reaper, but some of this stuff (in my experience anyway) simply is not true.

Here are the things I see and do with my VST3 plugs that none of my VST2.x plugs actually do. I ask the same question in every thread and nobody ever answers it ...

Question: If VST2.x can or could already do all that, why (for what reason exactly?) don't they actually do that?
Audio Plugins: Only need one plug to do stereo, mono, surround and the metering and outputs switch by themselves. VST2.x needs two or more sepatate plugs and (afaik anyway) no VST2 plug switches from stereo to mono or surround, in place, on the channel.

Instrument Plugins: Yes, those are plugins also. So if a VST3 instrument plug supports Note Expression, that would be something that VST2.x cannot do?

Automation: As far as I can tell, VST3 exposes automation parameters directly. No "last touched paramter" this and that. With VST3 I can directly expose or delete any automation parameter of any VST3 plug directly from the plugin UI, via right click on any control. None of my VST2.x plugs do that.
Now inevitably someone will always say... "But it's easy enough to do X the other way, no big deal...", which is irrelevant and out of context to the point of people repeatedly saying that a new plugin version literally has no capability beyond the older version, which would logically make it's entire development pointless, if it didn't add anything new?
Lawrence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2013, 06:49 PM   #43
danfuerth
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,824
Default

Agree VST 3 is indeed a step forward.
danfuerth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2013, 06:54 PM   #44
medicine tactic
Human being with feelings
 
medicine tactic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: central Texas
Posts: 962
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawrence View Post
It's Deja Vu all over again. When it comes to the repeated "VST3" discussions it seems that people repeat the same things over and over in the hope (I suppose) that repetition will somehow make them true. I'm not personally pushing for VST3 in Reaper, but some of this stuff (in my experience anyway) simply is not true.

Here are the things I see and do with my VST3 plugs that none of my VST2.x plugs actually do. I ask the same question in every thread and nobody ever answers it ...

Question: If VST2.x can or could already do all that, why (for what reason exactly?) don't they actually do that?
Audio Plugins: Only need one plug to do stereo, mono, surround and the metering and outputs switch by themselves. VST2.x needs two or more sepatate plugs and (afaik anyway) no VST2 plug switches from stereo to mono or surround, in place, on the channel.

Instrument Plugins: Yes, those are plugins also. So if a VST3 instrument plug supports Note Expression, that would be something that VST2.x cannot do?

Automation: As far as I can tell, VST3 exposes automation parameters directly. No "last touched paramter" this and that. With VST3 I can directly expose or delete any automation parameter of any VST3 plug directly from the plugin UI, via right click on any control. None of my VST2.x plugs do that.
Now inevitably someone will always say... "But it's easy enough to do X the other way, no big deal...", which is irrelevant and out of context to the point of people repeatedly saying that a new plugin version literally has no capability beyond the older version, which would logically make it's entire development pointless, if it didn't add anything new?

Yeah, I overstated that. My point was mostly that VST3 support isn't a black and white thing -- there's a spectrum from ranging from "VST2 in all but name" to "fully supports VST3 and is designed to take advantage of VST3's unique features". And that my guess would be that most third party plugins that claim to support VST3 are probably closer to VST3 builds of VST2 plugs.

Out of curiosity, which third party plugs are you referring to that support note expression and mono/stereo/surround, etc.?
medicine tactic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2013, 07:07 PM   #45
Lawrence
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,551
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by medicine tactic View Post
Out of curiosity, which third party plugs are you referring to that support note expression and mono/stereo/surround, etc.?
I don't buy a lot of third party audio plugs but all the demos I've tried of VST3 plugs do the things I mentioned above in my VST3 hosts. Obviously, some plugs don't support surround at all, but those VST3 plugs that do will switch by themselves if you put one on a surround channel. And (apparently) some VST3 hosts apparenty don't actually take full advantage of VST3.

If you try it in a VST3 host you'll see it. The same plug will show one meter on a mono channel and two meters on a stereo channel because the I/O is dynamic.

If a host is VST3, then so are (or at least they should be) all it's own plugs.

Anyway, some developers hesitant to implement it will say... "...that's already possible in VST2...", to which I usually reply... "Well... why haven't you done it there?" I never really get any answer to that question. Why don't all VST2 plugs have simple sidechaining like VST3 if it's already possible there?

Anyway, not a big deal. Just seems (to me) to be a lot of misinformation.

Last edited by Lawrence; 03-31-2013 at 07:17 PM.
Lawrence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2013, 01:49 AM   #46
corazon
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 125
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilDragon View Post
There are only TWO DAWs (AFAIK) which support VST3. Doesn't that tell you anything?
Are those two named Dumb and Worse, by any chance?
corazon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2013, 03:02 AM   #47
airon
Human being with feelings
 
airon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Berlin
Posts: 11,817
Default

Mmh. On the effects side I've had some small problems because of the lack of VST3 support in Reaper. Mostly its the plugins fault though, because VST2.4 does support the stuff I needed in some ways.

I skipped the plugin Filter Station by Audio Damage because the sidechain feature is VST3 only.

None of the Waves stuff does sidechaining without VST3 support. Bummer, but there you go.

That's about it for me and VST3.
__________________
Using Latch Preview (Video) - Faderport 16 setup for CSI 1.1 , CSI 3.10
Website
"My ego comes pre-shrunk" - Randy Thom

Last edited by airon; 04-01-2013 at 04:10 AM.
airon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2013, 03:12 AM   #48
musicbynumbers
Human being with feelings
 
musicbynumbers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: South, UK
Posts: 14,214
Default

Not using processing power when not active is a good bonus but I live with this by using item fx and having no tails (unless I draw the audio out.) This allows me to keep restraints on processing if needed.

I don't know if I trust this part of vst3 though as the logic plugins also do this and it use to cause problems with reverb tails suddenly getting cut off early only for logic to start playing them again when it realised what it did!
musicbynumbers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2013, 10:16 AM   #49
broken85
Human being with feelings
 
broken85's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Racine, WI
Posts: 32
Default

Sorry to resurrect this discussion. I'm sure some people are tired of hearing it.

But Justin's stance in the past on supporting VST3, as well as many remarks on this thread, make it seem like because there is some possible way to accomplish most things in VST2 that there is no reason to support VST3.

That is not a valid argument. The people using REAPER, the plugin users, don't get to control whether the plugin they use is built for VST2 or VST3, so there is an enormous reason to support VST3 in that, without it, you're locking your users out of a growing subset of plugins. We can't convince the plugin developers to stick with the older technology that's harder to build in the features they need, simply because REAPER's developer is satisfied with the capabilities of said older technology.

Even if you CAN do something in VST2, it doesn't mean that's the ideal place for it, and like almost any release of this nature, VST3 pushes the spec forward in a way that will be adopted more and more going forward. The ability to do something in VST2 does NOT mean we should hold the industry back from utilizing newer and better technologies that make building plugins simpler, better, or more standardized.

There's no point in arguing that it's possible to do sidechaining or other features of VST3 in VST2 unless you're the one who's going to rewrite any of the VST3 plugins out there, or convince the developers to rewrite them, so that we can use all of their features in REAPER. Without that, VST2.4 can offer all the capabilities in the world and it doesn't make a single difference.

If REAPER is not going to support VST3 in the foreseeable future, they're going to lose a subset of users who want to be able to use their favorite plugins and who want to be able to upgrade their existing plugins to support the new features that the developers are adding to them.
broken85 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2013, 10:18 AM   #50
EvilDragon
Human being with feelings
 
EvilDragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Croatia
Posts: 24,790
Default

VST3 is not yet "big enough" compared to VST2, so it's not like Reaper would lose thousands and thousands of users by not supporting VST3 RIGHT NOW.
EvilDragon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2013, 10:28 AM   #51
broken85
Human being with feelings
 
broken85's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Racine, WI
Posts: 32
Default

Can you clarify what the cutoff point for being "big enough" is?

I would call major VST developers only offering certain plugins or plugin features as VST3 plugins "big enough" to warrant supporting the technology in REAPER.

Is it really a matter of, "we're not going to lose enough users to make it worth it?" Because if so, that's truly an unfortunate stance. It's an enhancement to how REAPER works now, it wouldn't prevent it from still working the way it does, but it would support more use cases and far more plugins. It's where plugin development is heading. Even if momentum across the industry isn't as consistent, it's already preventing some people from being able to use REAPER to do the things they want.

Plus, REAPER to me has been this wonderful, leightweight product that can do everything I've ever needed a DAW to do. It's what you look to when your expensive, bloated DAW can't handle the thing you need, or starts crashing when you throw a larger song at it, and then you never look back.

Switching to REAPER doesn't mean taking a step back or making any compromises, until you start talking about VST3. Now it's the swiss-army-knife of DAW tools for every use case I've really ever had, except one, and it's a fairly big one that's only going to get bigger in the future.
broken85 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2013, 10:30 AM   #52
EvilDragon
Human being with feelings
 
EvilDragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Croatia
Posts: 24,790
Default

Doesn't only Steinberg offer SOME of their plugins as VST3 only? Please make me aware of any other plugins that are VST3 only and that aren't offered as VST2, because I can't recally any other manufacturer. Honestly.
EvilDragon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2013, 10:40 AM   #53
broken85
Human being with feelings
 
broken85's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Racine, WI
Posts: 32
Default

I could have spoken too soon about the first part of that sentence. Maybe there aren't any plugin developers that are offering certain plugins only in VST3 (yet), but that doesn't nullify the rest of my statement. There ARE plugin developers offering certain plugin features only in VST3.

The first one I ran into this year was Filterstation, whose internal sidechaining features I'd really like to use. Since then, I've been finding more and more plugin developers offering new VST3 versions of their plugins, often with features not available on other versions. Here's a list so far of developers who have adopted VST3 that I've compiled from a couple threads at Steinberg:

Audio Damage
Brainworx
Celemony
DMG Audio
FabFilter
Izotope
Molecular Bytes
Softube
SPL
SSL
Super Synths
Vienna Symphonic Library
VirSyn
Waves
broken85 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2013, 10:59 AM   #54
planetnine
Human being with feelings
 
planetnine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Lincoln, UK
Posts: 7,924
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by broken85 View Post
I could have spoken too soon about the first part of that sentence. Maybe there aren't any plugin developers that are offering certain plugins only in VST3 (yet), but that doesn't nullify the rest of my statement. There ARE plugin developers offering certain plugin features only in VST3.

The first one I ran into this year was Filterstation, whose internal sidechaining features I'd really like to use. Since then, I've been finding more and more plugin developers offering new VST3 versions of their plugins, often with features not available on other versions. Here's a list so far of developers who have adopted VST3 that I've compiled from a couple threads at Steinberg:

Audio Damage
Brainworx
Celemony
DMG Audio
FabFilter
Izotope
Molecular Bytes
Softube
SPL
SSL
Super Synths
Vienna Symphonic Library
VirSyn
Waves

There are Fabfilter plugins and Waves ones too, that won't work in REAPER because the functionality isn't built into the VST2 version.

I cant use external sidechains in my stereo Pro-C compressor because that's only available in the VST3 version. Now I know that it is possible to add sidechains in VST2.4, but that isn't necessarily going to persuade plugin vendors to do it when they have a VST3 version that already does it.


>
__________________
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 offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2013, 11:08 AM   #55
EvilDragon
Human being with feelings
 
EvilDragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Croatia
Posts: 24,790
Default

You can sidechain pretty much any automatable plugin parameter using Reaper's parameter modulation anyways, so what's the big deal?
EvilDragon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2013, 11:20 AM   #56
planetnine
Human being with feelings
 
planetnine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Lincoln, UK
Posts: 7,924
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilDragon View Post
You can sidechain pretty much any automatable plugin parameter using Reaper's parameter modulation anyways, so what's the big deal?
Workaround.

..and, I believe, not as reactive or repeatable as a dedicated sidechain, or even using the same facilities in the plugin.

That's a cop-out ED I'm not saying it's REAPER's fault that some plugin vendors choose not to implement sidechains in VST2.4, but as time goes on, the excuses will look more ridiculous.

Still what do you expect from a toy DAW? It hasn't even got dB marks on its faders because its userbase wouldn't know what they were...


>
__________________
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 offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2013, 11:47 AM   #57
broken85
Human being with feelings
 
broken85's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Racine, WI
Posts: 32
Default

We're not talking about the ability to sidechain parameters in REAPER. Maybe it would be sufficient for certain use cases, but when there is actual sidechaining functionality built into a plugin that is routed and handled a specific way, simply saying you can sidechain a parameter with REAPER doesn't necessarily replicate that.

We keep talking about the fact that you can use workarounds or special non-standard functionality to replicate the functionality of VST3, but that's not an answer to this issue for two reason:

1. Why would the preferred way be to use a workaround rather than offer the standardized technology that is now facilitating these features? And

2. You're making your case about VST3 not being necessary to the plugin consumers, who the argument doesn't apply to. Developers are using VST3, so whether it's necessary or not for certain functionality, it's becoming necessary to be able to use certain features or plugins at all.
broken85 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2013, 12:32 PM   #58
Lawrence
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,551
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by planetnine View Post
That's a cop-out ED I'm not saying it's REAPER's fault that some plugin vendors choose not to implement sidechains in VST2.4, but as time goes on, the excuses will look more ridiculous.
Naw. Just have every workstation vendor make their own proprietary version of all that stuff instead of updatintg to VST3. That's better.

We'll all have the functionality, but only in one application. Forget standards, who needs 'em?
Lawrence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2013, 12:50 PM   #59
planetnine
Human being with feelings
 
planetnine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Lincoln, UK
Posts: 7,924
Default

Behave yourself Lawrence...


>
__________________
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 offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2013, 12:58 PM   #60
Lawrence
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,551
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by planetnine View Post
Behave yourself Lawrence... >
Okay... since you asked nicely.
Lawrence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2013, 02:55 PM   #61
chucky5p
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Canada
Posts: 454
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilDragon View Post
...Please make me aware of any other plugins that are VST3 only and that aren't offered as VST2, because I can't recally any other manufacturer. Honestly.
Antares Auto-Tune Live comes ONLY in VST3. Very sad because I would actually use it in Reaper instead of being forced to use Studio One (which also has full ARA compatibility) BTW, I would use it for guitar FX, not vocals! (automatic vibrato modulation-it sounds really cool)

http://www.antarestech.com/products/...une_live.shtml

You can view Antares host compatibility here:

http://www.antarestech.com/support/hosts.shtml

Reaper is listed as a "Minimally Compatible Hosts". It sounds a bit unprofessional, doesn't it? Still, I love Reaper. I just wish it had VST3 and ARA

Chuck
chucky5p is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2013, 02:58 PM   #62
chucky5p
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Canada
Posts: 454
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by planetnine View Post
...Still what do you expect from a toy DAW? It hasn't even got dB marks on its faders because its userbase wouldn't know what they were...
LOL. I never noticed this before!

Chuck
chucky5p is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2013, 05:11 PM   #63
broken85
Human being with feelings
 
broken85's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Racine, WI
Posts: 32
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chucky5p View Post
LOL. I never noticed this before!
That's because you wouldn't know what they are, remember?

Quote:
Originally Posted by planetnine View Post
because its userbase wouldn't know what they were...
broken85 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2013, 07:59 PM   #64
Win Conway
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,826
Default

Lets be fair here
Synthedit x64 is currently only VST3, if that stays like that then you can damn well bet that 90% of x64 plugins in the world will be VST 3 only in the next few years, if you like Synthedit or not it has to be recognised that its plugins make up the bulk of plugins available.
__________________
Stop posting huge images, smaller images or thumbnail, it's not rocket science!
Win Conway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2013, 08:16 PM   #65
drumphil
Human being with feelings
 
drumphil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,738
Default

Sigh, the real problem here is that we're all stuck with the proprietary ASIO and VST systems. It shouldn't be necessary to be subject to any terms and conditions from one business in order to us audio interfaces or plugins.
drumphil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2013, 08:56 PM   #66
Win Conway
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,826
Default

I still find it majorly hilarious that people think of ASIO or VST as a problem, statements like "Sigh, the real problem here is that we're all stuck with the proprietary ASIO and VST systems" make me smile and sometimes even belly laugh, because you either where not around or you have a very short memory, because before ASIO and VST making/recording music on a computer was a complete and total joke where you where reliant on a single particular entities vision of said task, and lets just say most of their visions where complete and total nightmares and know where near the level of usability we have now.
Latency before ASIO = Lets not even go there
Near realtime effects before VST = Nevermind lets not go there, there was pretty much nowhere to go
Near realtime synths before VSTi = Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, wait. cough, hahahahahahahahaha

Steinberg should be thanked for ASIO and VST, not saying all bow down to the mighty VST3 but like it or not it is the next standard, it is just not taking off as fast as VST for the reasons all stated in this thread, however it is the next standard and WILL be in Reaper at some point, end of story, As soon as Justin has a VST 3 plugin he wants to use that does not work in VST 2, lets not kid ourselves here, if Justin wants VST 3 it will be in the very next build, yes he is that fast.
Steinberg should not be railed upon like some behemoth that tried to control everything......
Thank you Steinberg for allowing me to have whatever effect i ever wanted and as many instances of such as i ever wanted too, oh and thank you for letting me have it all in what amounts to my old ears as near to realtime as i could imagine, oh and thanks for not charging all the other companies to use those standards so that i could afford to do all this.

Another way to look at this..
Sigh, the real problem is that we are all stuck with the proprietary 19" rack systems, I mean come on seriously, every rack synth comes in this 19" size and also every cheap rack is in 19" size too, it is so stupid, why do these companies insist on making standards that make everything fit together, it is just so annoying....
__________________
Stop posting huge images, smaller images or thumbnail, it's not rocket science!

Last edited by Win Conway; 09-02-2013 at 09:10 PM.
Win Conway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2013, 09:22 PM   #67
Andywanders
Human being with feelings
 
Andywanders's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,113
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gpunk_w View Post
I still find it majorly hilarious that people think of ASIO or VST as a problem, statements like "Sigh, the real problem here is that we're all stuck with the proprietary ASIO and VST systems" make me smile and sometimes even belly laugh, because you either where not around or you have a very short memory, because before ASIO and VST making/recording music on a computer was a complete and total joke where you where reliant on a single particular entities vision of said task, and lets just say most of their visions where complete and total nightmares and know where near the level of usability we have now.
Latency before ASIO = Lets not even go there
Near realtime effects before VST = Nevermind lets not go there, there was pretty much nowhere to go
Near realtime synths before VSTi = Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, wait. cough, hahahahahahahahaha

Steinberg should be thanked for ASIO and VST, not saying all bow down to the mighty VST3 but like it or not it is the next standard, it is just not taking off as fast as VST for the reasons all stated in this thread, however it is the next standard and WILL be in Reaper at some point, end of story, As soon as Justin has a VST 3 plugin he wants to use that does not work in VST 2, lets not kid ourselves here, if Justin wants VST 3 it will be in the very next build, yes he is that fast.
Steinberg should not be railed upon like some behemoth that tried to control everything......
Thank you Steinberg for allowing me to have whatever effect i ever wanted and as many instances of such as i ever wanted too, oh and thank you for letting me have it all in what amounts to my old ears as near to realtime as i could imagine, oh and thanks for not charging all the other companies to use those standards so that i could afford to do all this.

Another way to look at this..
Sigh, the real problem is that we are all stuck with the proprietary 19" rack systems, I mean come on seriously, every rack synth comes in this 19" size and also every cheap rack is in 19" size too, it is so stupid, why do these companies insist on making standards that make everything fit together, it is just so annoying....
That was spot-on.

Plus 1 to everything you said.

It's been an interesting week. Both Reaper and Studio One have new versions and the forums are buzzing (almost).

And it's interesting to see this thread re-surface as VST3 is discussed (slightly) in a Studio One thread somewhere else.

If you don't mind, I'd like to quote myself from that said thread...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andywanders in another forum
VST3 is not just about plugin features/enhancments, it's also about progress, and when developers adopt it (or don't adopt it), it tells me a lot about them.

As far as I'm concerned, companies that embrace new technology - like VST3 - show that they're thinking about the future. They're planning ahead - which is good.

As for Companies that haven't got on board yet... well, I'm sure they have their reasons, but I'm not impressed.

More and more developers are adopting VST3 these days - it 'ain't going away - and I'm sure glad Presonus is into it.
__________________
Some of My Songs

Andy M. VST
Andywanders is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2013, 09:39 PM   #68
fwd0120
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 296
Default

I think the 'big deal' is very simple. Reaper has great routing possibilities, but it just can't solve the fact that Waves' phase-correcty-thingy (ahah, it's called 'InPhase') and the vocalrider, etc..
Waves plugs are a professional standard for many. And not supporting such highly regarded plugs makes reaper seem 'less' professional to many.
It wouldn't be such a big deal if there were a real work-around, but there isn't anything or any kind of wrapper available to use the routing the way the vst3 software was designed and intended to use (IE; Reapers' routing can't be used with in-phase).
fwd0120 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2013, 10:49 PM   #69
planetnine
Human being with feelings
 
planetnine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Lincoln, UK
Posts: 7,924
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gpunk_w View Post
Another way to look at this..
Sigh, the real problem is that we are all stuck with the proprietary 19" rack systems, I mean come on seriously, every rack synth comes in this 19" size and also every cheap rack is in 19" size too, it is so stupid, why do these companies insist on making standards that make everything fit together, it is just so annoying....
Nice one!

>
__________________
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 offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2013, 03:02 AM   #70
JamesMK
Human being with feelings
 
JamesMK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Sweden
Posts: 306
Default

This will probably change the landscape a bit: http://www.steinberg.net/en/company/...nt_ceases.html

In short, the VST2 SDK will become unavailable by the end of this year. So, it's quite likely that the majority of new plugin releases in the near future (1-2 years?) will be VST 3 only.
JamesMK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2013, 03:08 AM   #71
EvilDragon
Human being with feelings
 
EvilDragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Croatia
Posts: 24,790
Default

Unavailable to new developers, yes. All the old ones would still have access to the latest VST2 SDK...
EvilDragon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2013, 03:21 AM   #72
Banned
Human being with feelings
 
Banned's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Unwired (probably in the proximity of Amsterdam)
Posts: 4,868
Default

Afaik, with VST2.x, parameter automation can get updated only once every buffer, at the start of the buffer. With VST3 (and AAX), however, automation can be sent with higher update rates, and with sample accuracy for each event.
__________________
˙lɐd 'ʎɐʍ ƃuoɹʍ ǝɥʇ ǝɔıʌǝp ʇɐɥʇ ƃuıploɥ ǝɹ,noʎ
Banned is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2013, 03:27 AM   #73
moliere
Human being with feelings
 
moliere's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 2,261
Default

The page referenced above also mentions that the VST3 SDK can build to VST2 targets, so there's nothing stopping people from building VST2 plugins even without the VST2 SDK.
moliere is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2013, 08:39 PM   #74
broken85
Human being with feelings
 
broken85's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Racine, WI
Posts: 32
Default

It seems like every argument against VST3 is just picking apart some small piece of a much larger argument FOR it. Many good points for supporting it have been raised, the only negative one is that it isn't "big enough," but that's quite vague and not forward thinking at all, given that it's obviously the direction VST plugins are going.

The only other argument that continues to be brought up: that VST3 isn't necessary because you can use the custom features of REAPER to sort-of-roughly simulate some of the things that VST3 offers. This doesn't make sense.

So what if REAPER has tacked on some features that offer the same functionality as VST3 offers? It's useful for all the plugins that don't make use of those VST3 features, and it opens a world of routing possibilities in general--but it certainly shouldn't prevent VST3 from being supported in REAPER.

No developer (ever) would forego creating their commercial VST plugin for the VST3 spec in the future solely because REAPER can be used to achieve the same things that VST3 would give them. REAPER is not a solution for commercial plugin developers--it's a solution for consumers of those plugins. And you can bet most of those plugins will eventually be VST3, and some of them are heading there already.

It shouldn't matter what anyone's personal feelings are about the necessity of VST3 as a spec. It's inevitable that support for it will eventually be required. The question is how forward thinking you are, or rather want to appear.

Last edited by broken85; 09-03-2013 at 08:50 PM.
broken85 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2013, 09:01 PM   #75
BlackBart
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 808
Default

Just the fact that Stenberg is stopping development on VST2 is reason enough to get cracking on VST3.
BlackBart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2013, 02:28 AM   #76
drumphil
Human being with feelings
 
drumphil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,738
Default

Quote:
I still find it majorly hilarious that people think of ASIO or VST as a problem, statements like "Sigh, the real problem here is that we're all stuck with the proprietary ASIO and VST systems"
Hilarious, until you want to use or write open source software in an audio production environment, like at the radio station I'm responsible for.

Quote:
The ASIO technology was developed by German company Steinberg and is protected by a licensing agreement which prevents redistribution of its source code.

Audacity, as an open source program licensed under the GPL, is therefore currently unable to support ASIO, despite being ASIO-capable (providing the user's sound device is similarly capable). If ASIO support were distributed in Audacity builds this would either violate Steinberg's licence agreement if the code were included, or conversely would violate Audacity's GPL Licence if the code were withheld. There are persistent rumours of Steinberg opening up licensing, but without any apparent movement. Anyone who cares about this issue is invited to make their views known to Steinberg via their Contact page.

Quote:
make me smile and sometimes even belly laugh, because you either where not around or you have a very short memory,
Oh, I was definitely around, and I remember. Heck, there is an Ensoniq Paris rig about 3 meters from where I'm sitting right now.

Quote:
because before ASIO and VST making/recording music on a computer was a complete and total joke where you where reliant on a single particular entities vision of said task, and lets just say most of their visions where complete and total nightmares and know where near the level of usability we have now.
What, so because ASIO/VST was the standard that we happened to settle on means that we wouldn't be better off with an open standard?
drumphil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2013, 05:29 AM   #77
Klinke
Human being with feelings
 
Klinke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Berlin / Germany
Posts: 832
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesMK View Post
This will probably change the landscape a bit: http://www.steinberg.net/en/company/...nt_ceases.html

In short, the VST2 SDK will become unavailable by the end of this year. So, it's quite likely that the majority of new plugin releases in the near future (1-2 years?) will be VST 3 only.
Making the SDK unavailable is a really ugly move (and shows, that Steinberg itself isn't satisfied with the propagation of VST3). And this is a really good example, why standards like those should be open.
Klinke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2013, 05:45 AM   #78
Lawrence
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,551
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by drumphil View Post
What, so because ASIO/VST was the standard that we happened to settle on means that we wouldn't be better off with an open standard?
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.

Quote:
Being an open standard, the possibilities offered by VST are steadily growing. New virtual effect processors and virtual instruments are constantly being developed by Steinberg and other companies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Klinke View Post
Making the SDK unavailable is a really ugly move (and shows, that Steinberg itself isn't satisfied with the propagation of VST3). And this is a really good example, why standards like those should be open.
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.

I think people just like ranting against Steinberg just because they're Steinberg.
Lawrence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2013, 05:49 AM   #79
EvilDragon
Human being with feelings
 
EvilDragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Croatia
Posts: 24,790
Default

The difference is in SDKs themselves - the code is different and not completely backwards compatible, AFAIK. You HAVE to port your VST 2 code to VST 3 to be able to get it out as VST 2... which is ridiculous.
EvilDragon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2013, 05:50 AM   #80
Lawrence
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,551
Default

Software gets updated and old software stops being distributed. When has that ever not been the case?

They gave people 5 years to adapt and prepare for the change. Is that not enough time?

And what plugin developer doesn't already have the VST2 SDK? What are we whining about? Some new developer that will start making plugs next year and (being not that bright) won't be able to find a copy of the VST2 SDK or won't be bright enough to code with the VST3 SDK?
Lawrence 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 11:48 PM.


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