KVR Audio

DaveSonalksis · Post by **DaveSonalksis** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 8:45 am

VST3 support is going to require a SPECTACULAR amount of work. Porting to VST3 is going to take months of work and test.

Do you think users would prefer we spent those months porting to VST3 or making new plugins?

Aleksey Vaneev · Post by **Aleksey Vaneev** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 8:52 am

After looking at the VST3 SDK I should say that Steinberg M.D.

They are paying bucks to wrong programmers, with wrong "component" ideas. SDK should not be like that.

I believe VST3 is dead born child. It's probably easier to support DirectX now.

Steinberg met Microsoft.

DaveSonalksis · Post by **DaveSonalksis** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 8:57 am

I was actually at the official VST3 SDK launch at NAMM today.

aMUSEd · Post by **aMUSEd** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 8:59 am

This is an interesting conundrum isn't it? I presume there are some limitations to 2.4 that every dev has to work with or around (I don't know what but say sidechaining or resizing for example). How much these shortcomings stand in the way of future development I don't know? Possibly not that much? On the other hand it seems if people are to move forward you can only do so by adopting VST3 - there is no alternative VST standard is there (since Steinberg own the whole thing)? So you can either stay where you are and stick with the limitations or go forward and live with those "wrong" ideas. Sort of caught between a rock and a hard place.

Unless someone develops an open source plugin standard - wouldn't that be interesting?

Aleksey Vaneev · Post by **Aleksey Vaneev** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 8:59 am

I think we - plug-in developers - should be more active spreading "the word", especially to non-Steinberg host developers to put them against VST3. We may stop this 'complexity' disease.

Aleksey Vaneev · Post by **Aleksey Vaneev** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 9:01 am

aMUSEd wrote:This is an interesting conundrum isn't it? I presume there are some limitations to 2.4 that every dev has to work with or around (I don't know what but say sidechaining or resizing for example).

VST2.4 has no 'shortcomings' I know of. You MAY resize windows, you MAY support side-chain. It all depends on the host support of these features.

aMUSEd · Post by **aMUSEd** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 9:02 am

Really? So is VST3 all hype then? It claims to enable things VST 2.4 "can't" do.

aMUSEd · Post by **aMUSEd** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 9:05 am

I suppose a better question would be - where would you (as devs) like to see the plugin standard going? I can't believe you would want things to just stand still forever?

DaveSonalksis · Post by **DaveSonalksis** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 9:05 am

aMUSEd wrote:This is an interesting conundrum isn't it? I presume there are some limitations to 2.4 that every dev has to work with or around (I don't know what but say sidechaining or resizing for example).

Not really. There are workarounds for both of these that are well-known and that work ok.
After all, VST is +ONLY+ the protocol for communication between the host and the plugin... except it appears to have forgotten that.

How much these shortcomings stand in the way of future development I don't know? Possibly not that much?

Not at all.
We can instantiate, we can create UIs, we can automate in both directions - we're basically set.
I just dont know why we need a new plugin standard that bears no relation to any existing standard?

On the other hand it seems if people are to move forward you can only do so by adopting VST3 - there is no alternative VST standard is there (since Steinberg own the whole thing)? So you can either stay where you are and stick with the limitations or go forward and live with those "wrong" ideas. Sort of caught between a rock and a hard place.

No, you're not stuck between a rock and a hard place. VST2.4 is actually a great spec. VST3 really is not. A VST2.5 would be fantastic, but we really can live without it. I guess we'll have to.

Unless someone develops an open source plugin standard - wouldn't that be interesting?

It's looking more and more like a necessity.

Sadly it's host adoption that drives these things.

Aleksey - laws are different where you live, aren't they? Is there some way you could develop an open-source plugin standard which happened to be identical to VST2.4?

DrGonzo · Post by **DrGonzo** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 9:07 am

I am no programming overlord as you guys, but after looking at the spec, I though vst3 sounded like a Quite Good Thing. What's wrong with it?

DaveSonalksis · Post by **DaveSonalksis** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 9:07 am

aMUSEd wrote:Really? So is VST3 all hype then? It claims to enable things VST 2.4 "can't" do.

Hehe, what made me laugh the most is that it claims to enable a load of things that 2.4 already does

aMUSEd · Post by **aMUSEd** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 9:09 am

Yes that was the conclusion I was coming to.

(edit - I meant with regard to an open standard to escape Steiny's clutches but actually both seem appropriate

)

DaveSonalksis · Post by **DaveSonalksis** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 9:09 am

DrGonzo wrote:I am no programming overlord as you guys, but after looking at the spec, I though vst3 sounded like a Quite Good Thing. What's wrong with it?

Other than its implicit requirement that I restructure the code for a long list of shipping plugins, and distribute a whole new set of binaries alongside my current ones, and maintain two sets of sourcecode forever?

DaveSonalksis · Post by **DaveSonalksis** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 9:13 am

aMUSEd wrote:I suppose a better question would be - where would you (as devs) like to see the plugin standard going? I can't believe you would want things to just stand still forever?

Well, these aren't my ideas, but they do bear repeating:
1) Move VST to an open-source licence - VSTGUI already is. It would be great to be able to open-source plugins.
2) Patch the 2.4 sdk to incorporate trivial fixes for the issues that we really do have. For instance, adding sidechains to 2.4 could be implemented in three lines of code.

To illuminate the mistake made here, please first enlighten yourself to the writings of Joel Spolsky (joelonsoftware.com). Once you're in touch with the fact that his word is close enough gospel, read this:

http://joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html

Dave.

BazzaTron · Post by **BazzaTron** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 9:13 am

Enhanced CPU efficiency: unique silence detection feature automatically switches off the plug-in if no audio signal is being received

This looks like a good feature - presumably only for FX with audio inputs. Ideally the same thing could be applied to instruments. You can actually do this yourself in any case.

Sample-accurate automation: Parameter changes can now be automated with extreme precision, including supported for 'ramped' data

This is one of the major shortcomings of the current SDK.

Resizable editing windows: The new SDK allows dynamic resizing of windows, allowing improved flexibility in the use of valuable screen space

I thought it did this already (kind of). I suppose they mean you can resize the container and have the VST inside it resize itself (if it supports this)

New Developer Tools: Designed to enhance the process of engineering VST3 products, VST3 offers a clearly structured, object-oriented C++ interface, an automated testing environment, an advanced preset system, a model test host application, sample source code and much more.

This sounds like a good idea - if these tools are any good that is.

I haven't looked at the new SDK itself but if they've put some complex "object model" around it then I will be pig sick.

Don't know if anyone noticed... VST3