VST3: Is it worth supporting?

[Juanjo]

I don't think you know what proprietary means. They can't stop us from using the VST 2.4 SDK for perpetuity. And like I said, even if they stop distributing it, it's out there. My copy was obtained legitimately, and will be forever valid for me to use forever. As for those who will eventually get their copy through illegitimate channels, there's no way for Steinaha to know who those developers are. So even if it was enforceable (which it's not) they wouldn't know who to attack.

Sure, by all means, let's argue semantics

Well, I would think the moment Yammy stops distributing vst2.4 at all (including the obscured version within the vst3 sdk), ANY new dev that signs the agreement after that doesn't have legal grounds to develop vst2.4 plugins, and it should be easily enforceable... you just look at agreement signing date, format of plugins released, and boom... what am I missing?

(Btw, don't want to argue for arguments sake, just want to understand better)

[AdmiralQuality]

Now, you seem to be on a crusade with VST3. Being less prickish about your dislike about VST3 might bring you more converts imho.

So I should be cynical and lie to my customers in order to gain sales? That's Steinberg's game. Again, I do this for the love of it, and because I use these products myself. I'm not going to f**k people over because I perceive a possible buck in it.

And I'm only being forced to make this case to the non-developers who've come to join us in our Development thread. The other plug-in developers all get it. (If any of you are loving VST 3, please speak up and prove me wrong.)

[fmr]

I don't really like VST and wished there was a truly open standard. Wouldn't it be cool if there was such a standard, with a working group, a bug tracker, github repo, good documentation and a FOSS compatible license? Unfortunately this will probably never happen.

There was a moment where this could have happened. When Apple created OS 10.2, the Core Audio and the AU format. If they had chosen to open conversations with Steinberg back then (and even include Avid/Digidesign), they could have created a consortium much like what happened with MIDI, and come up with an open, non-proprietary format that would be cross-platform and independent.

They chose not, because it's not their philosophy, and I suspect this attitude, and the arguments expended to defend AU format were the basis for the creation of VST3.

Now, we have the mess we all know: RTAS, TDM, AAX, AAX Native, VST2, VST3, AU, MAS, 32-bit, 64-bit and, like this wasn't enough already, we now have new contenders, like the Props, with RE, and Cakewalk, with their own extensions. This is going nuts

No wonder developers are feeling abandoned and persecuted.

[AdmiralQuality]

Now, we have the mess we all know: RTAS, TDM, AAX, AAX Native, VST2, VST3, AU, MAS, 32-bit, 64-bit and, like this wasn't enough already, we now have new contenders, like the Props, with RE, and Cakewalk, with their own extensions. This is going nuts

No wonder developers are feeling abandoned and persecuted.

I've been chasing this platform schism for so long I can't remember the last time I wrote any new DSP code. Even if you just stick to VST and AU, that's 6 platforms. (Win 32, Win x64, OSX VST 32, OSX VST x64, AU 32, AU 64.) And just because your code compiles and/or works for one platform, doesn't mean it will for another.

Then multiply that 6 by the number of hosts you need to test in. It gets ridiculous mighty fast.

[tony tony chopper]

don't listen to the admiral, he loves MIDI

(I opened this thread by curiosity as I was 100% sure he would be there within the first 10 replies to bash VST3)

[AdmiralQuality]

don't listen to the admiral, he loves MIDI

(I opened this thread by curiosity as I was 100% sure he would be there within the first 10 replies to bash VST3)

Don't listen to tony tony. He's an ecstasy addled dance kiddie who couldn't play his way out of a wet paper bag.

[hokkaido]

So I should be cynical and lie to my customers in order to gain sales? That's Steinberg's game. Again, I do this for the love of it, and because I use these products myself. I'm not going to f**k people over because I perceive a possible buck in it.

And I'm only being forced to make this case to the non-developers who've come to join us in our Development thread. The other plug-in developers all get it. (If any of you are loving VST 3, please speak up and prove me wrong.)

No, you shouldn't lie to your customers and I applaud you for not doing that.

The original question of the thread was whether somebody should support VST 3 with their plugins and the ultimate utilitarian argument is obviously NO. VST3 clearly has failed when it comes to adoption rates.

"The other plug-in developers all get it. ". This is an argument from authority and as such ultimately meaningless. Often time the ultimate argument boils down to "it's not the same as VST 2.4". It's a much more interesting discussion when people, like Urs from u-he does, provide their findings and specific pain points when it comes to implementing a VST3 plugin.

Looking at the overall architecture of VST3, this is my impression:

The overall API looks cleaner than VST 2.4. To me at least.

Abstracting away midi events into a more generic event interface looks like a good thing because it allows for more flexibility and ultimately easier support for multiple protocols. Just from a pure software engineering perspective this doesn't look bad at all.

Multiple Event / Midi Inputs /Outputs: Ok, what's not to like about this?

Note Expression: Ok, you might not need it, but this allows for interesting new ideas, not limited a classical composition context. I'd suggest looking at the Bitwig Studio videos (they have their own native version of note fx / note expression).

[fmr]

don't listen to the admiral, he loves MIDI

(I opened this thread by curiosity as I was 100% sure he would be there within the first 10 replies to bash VST3)

Hi tony tony. Aren't you Gol, the author of Sytrus and Harmor?

I would like to know your view regarding this subject, since you are a Windows only develioper, AFAIK.

[AdmiralQuality]

"The other plug-in developers all get it. ". This is an argument from authority and as such ultimately meaningless.

No it's not. It's consensus among the people who are qualified to have an opinion. (If I said VST3 sucked because the Ayatollah said so, that would be appeal to authority.)

Often time the ultimate argument boils down to "it's not the same as VST 2.4". It's a much more interesting discussion when people, like Urs from u-he does, provide their findings and specific pain points when it comes to implementing a VST3 plugin.

Looking at the overall architecture of VST3, this is my impression:

The overall API looks cleaner than VST 2.4. To me at least.

Abstracting away midi events into a more generic event interface looks like a good thing because it allows for more flexibility and ultimately easier support for multiple protocols. Just from a pure software engineering perspective this doesn't look bad at all.

Again, it means we're limited to Steinberg's imagination of what MIDI is FOR. (Which is VERY limited.) All this stuff sounds great on paper. It's when you try to use it that you find out it's a bunch of bullshit.

Multiple Event / Midi Inputs /Outputs: Ok, what's not to like about this?

I've been doing that since VST 2.3 days.

Note Expression: Ok, you might not need it, but this allows for interesting new ideas, not limited a classical composition context. I'd suggest looking at the Bitwig Studio videos (they have their own native version of note fx / note expression).

You don't understand. They didn't ADD features to MIDI. They TOOK THEM AWAY. I'm not even sure at this point what, and I shouldn't need to be. MIDI already IS the abstraction for what you want. But the host has no business knowing (or even worse, ENFORCING) what I'm using a particular control for, if it even allows me to use that control at all!

And yes, tony tony lives in an insulated little Windows only world with their host that reduces the music making process to programming a big drum machine. The f**king mod wheel doesn't even work in FLS! Of course he doesn't miss MIDI, he clearly can't even play an instrument.

[tony tony chopper]

don't listen to the admiral, he loves MIDI

(I opened this thread by curiosity as I was 100% sure he would be there within the first 10 replies to bash VST3)

Hi tony tony. Aren't you Gol, the author of Sytrus and Harmor?

I would like to know your view regarding this subject, since you are a Windows only develioper, AFAIK.

well, I too have my own plugin API, and it has been evolving since year 2000 and since it's kinda private, I've been able to make it evolve just as I like & how I think it makes the most sense, something that Steinberg doesn't have the luxury to do. Some things in VST3 apparently went in the same direction so I'm happy with it.

To me the main advantage is that you don't need crap MIDI to automate events anymore, you can automate properly published parameters (which FL was already able to do because tick-based, but not every sequencer could, and that was a major problem). And per-note automation is the second most important feature. FL has always had 2 "free" ones, they took it further with full automation.
When the admiral tells you "So where can I buy a "note expression" controller, again?", it's stupid for 2 reasons:
1. no one is gonna sell a "note expression controller" before "note expression" exists
2. music can & is also made by crafting on a screen, using a mouse. Those who know FL already know the power of per-note slides of mod X & Y, so should understand the power when it won't be limited to FL plugins anymore.

What I can totally understand is that no one wants to learn a new API. I hate it as well, and we don't have the time to update everything either. If that was the argument given, then I'd agree. But on the paper it's how it should be, an update/revamp of a too old API.

[tony tony chopper]

MIDI already IS the abstraction for what you want.

MIDI was designed in 1980. This alone should be the best argument against it.

[AdmiralQuality]

To me the main advantage is that you don't need crap MIDI to automate events anymore, you can automate properly published parameters (which FL was already able to do because tick-based, but not every sequencer could, and that was a major problem).

No, MIDI only provides a STANDARD INTERFACE for automating AND PERFORMING events. Why would someone who doesn't own or know how to play a keyboard want THAT?

And per-note automation is the second most important feature. FL has always had 2 "free" ones, they took it further with full automation.

MIDI has always had one "free" one (poly pressure, which you'll note doesn't dictate to the instrument what that pressure is used FOR). And another, the MIDI guitar method, of running a channel for each voice, gives you potentially 16 voices with 128 continuous controllers each and one high res pitch bend control each.

When the admiral tells you "So where can I buy a "note expression" controller, again?", it's stupid for 2 reasons:
1. no one is gonna sell a "note expression controller" before "note expression" exists
2. music can & is also made by crafting on a screen, using a mouse. Those who know FL already know the power of per-note slides of mod X & Y, so should understand the power when it won't be limited to FL plugins anymore.

No, it's actually a joke to point out that there is no such thing as a "note expression" interface. It only exists inside the Steinberg host.

And no, music is made by men and women, with a lot of talent, on a stage, playing instruments, in front of entertained and grateful people. Something you clearly don't understand. Your shit bloop-bloop robo-music is made with a f**king mouse.

[AdmiralQuality]

MIDI already IS the abstraction for what you want.

MIDI was designed in 1980. This alone should be the best argument against it.

Spoken like a classic dumb kid with no perspective on history.

And again showing what you know. MIDI was 1983, not 1980. I was there. A very early adopter with a JX-3P. There are 3 MIDI keyboards sitting next to me. 2 of which are from the 21st century. The other, a 1986 Ensoniq ESQ-1 is actually my preferred MIDI controller as it still has a great action and properly sized and positioned pitch and mod wheels (those things that you don't know what they do). Would be a shame if I had to throw it out because it doesn't send "note expression". (Again, nothing does. Note expression is not an external interface. It's imaginary.) But this is my point, it doesn't work that way. Yamaberg may think they're being "disruptive" but they're actually just being douchebags, and will pay the price for it soon enough.

[fmr]

To me the main advantage is that you don't need crap MIDI to automate events anymore, you can automate properly published parameters (which FL was already able to do because tick-based, but not every sequencer could, and that was a major problem).

No, MIDI only provides a STANDARD INTERFACE for automating AND PERFORMING events. Why would someone who doesn't own or know how to play a keyboard want THAT?

And per-note automation is the second most important feature. FL has always had 2 "free" ones, they took it further with full automation.

MIDI has always had one "free" one (poly pressure, which you'll note doesn't dictate to the instrument what that pressure is used FOR). And another, the MIDI guitar method, of running a channel for each voice, gives you potentially 16 voices with 128 continuous controllers each and one high res pitch bend control each.

When the admiral tells you "So where can I buy a "note expression" controller, again?", it's stupid for 2 reasons:
1. no one is gonna sell a "note expression controller" before "note expression" exists
2. music can & is also made by crafting on a screen, using a mouse. Those who know FL already know the power of per-note slides of mod X & Y, so should understand the power when it won't be limited to FL plugins anymore.

No, it's actually a joke to point out that there is no such thing as a "note expression" interface. It only exists inside the Steinberg host.

And no, music is made by men and women, with a lot of talent, on a stage, playing instruments, in front of entertained and grateful people. Something you clearly don't understand. Your shit bloop-bloop robo-music is made with a f**king mouse.

OK, seems like opinions are becoming radical, and that doesn't give advantage to any. As someone who was trained to play (teo) instruments, and that was also taught composition (my major in college), I have both approaches. I can't accept music is "made" on stage. It is "played" on stage, but it is "made" in our heads, with our hearts and brains, emotions and feelings, knowledge and experience.
As a composer with classical training I have the level of abstraction needed to be able to understand both the "improvisatory" approach that is apparently defended by Admiral and the more rational approach defended by Gol. Both can and should cohexist.

That said, I agree that MIDI has a level of control that was never explored in deep: The Continuous Contyrollers, between them the Poly Pressure, or Poly Aftertouch (CS-80 anyone?), and the even more exoteric RPN and NRPN, which allow basically EVERYTHING. I don't agree when Gol argues with the age of MIDI. That, per se, is not an argument. Actually, the fact that MIDI survived for so long is an argument in favour of it, not against.

But I am not against other protocols, as long as they do not imply loosing functionalities. If Admiral is right, too bad. If not, then say where he is wrong. I, personally, find it hard to believe that Steinberg would be so stupid as to cur functionalities. I respect their skills as developers, and their vision (after all, ASIO and VST were created by them - if they didn't, we would still be paying thousands for DSP cards to do what our computers were able to do alone).

[tony tony chopper]

As a composer with classical training I have the level of abstraction needed to be able to understand both the "improvisatory" approach that is apparently defended by Admiral and the more rational approach defended by Gol. Both can and should cohexist.

I too said that both should coexist, what I wrote is
"music can & is also made by crafting on a screen, using a mouse."

and the even more exoteric RPN and NRPN, which allow basically EVERYTHING.

you can make anything out of NRPN's when you -agree- on a protocol. And this is then exactly like.. a new API.. but with all the hassles of 7-bit crap & limited messages.
Even what IS standard in MIDI is very poorly adopted by software. You wanna send a pitch bend range RPN to VST's? Count how many will properly interpret it (none?) vs how many will think it's just CCs automating something else.

Besides, things have changed a lot, there are many peripherals out there, that should be the #1 reason for plugins not to know about controllers that are attached to the sequencers, & thus not MIDI because MIDI is clearly not the best abstraction protocol.
Other non-MIDI instrument protocols, mice, Joysticks, Leap Motion, touchscreens.. they're all valid peripherals & plugins shouldn't know/have to know about them (but that's an old discussion)