Steinberg: No more VST2 Development

[rockstar_not]

Why code and maintain three or four standards ?
All this makes software development expensive and time consuming.

One single plugin format is the only thing that makes sense.

If you make it and stop developing VST, AU or RTAS(AAX), soon
every host will adapt and take the new standard, or die out...!

The problem is you have it backwards. The hosts define the plugin standards, not the plugins.

The only way you have any power in this is to be the author of a host, and a host is a very large project compared to most plugins.

We could develop a plugin format, and have! There are many formats available.

The problems are:

1. Hosts with significant market share are not motivated to implement plugin formats with limited market share.
2. Plugin authors are not motivated to implement plugins in a format with limited support (VST3, etc) unless the ROI is there.

So we have a system of feedbacks which settle into the state things are now. This isn't a voluntary system, this is a forceful system.

If Cubase were to drop vst2x support it's doubtless that they will lose (or 'loose' if you work at stienberg) some sales. The real question is what motivates them to make this decision? What is really going on behind the scenes here? If they do make such a decision it is obvious that they believe it provides for their own interests, whatever they may be. Whether or not they are right is another question we will see the answer to in time.

Is it time for an uprising for plugin developers to develop the host that will support the developer driven plugin standard? Or perhaps, write THE bridge between the plugin standard you want, and the one foisted on you by Steenburg?

[HrastProgrammer]

That's correct. One part of it that I'm entirely content with is that all events are now (optionally) passed to the process() call. That's better than the separation between processEvents and process(Replacing) in VST2. All nice and tidy in one package, all nicely timestamped.

BUT they ripped standard MIDI processing apart; some parts of the carcass can be used in the form of special "events" (Note On / Note Off / Polyphonic Aftertouch / SysEx), while others aren't available at all (Program Change, all realtime messages), and Continuous Controllers / Channel Pressure / Pitch Bend are only available as parameter changes using a complex translation mechanism...

Thank you very much for the explanation.

This VST3 MIDI implementation is really a problem for a guy like me who is doing everything over MIDI. I implemented VST automation but I don't use it because I am controlling all my synthesizers (hardware ones + my own Tranzistow synthesizer, the only softsynth in the setup) from my own MIDI sequencer running on a separate computer.

Luckily, I am not doing this for the market so I can probably stay on VST2.x forever ...

[spirulence]

I'm not a VST developer, but as somebody who does a decent amount of programming for a living (IT Administration and occasional database stuff) and as somebody with an interest in someday writing my own software synthesizer from near-scratch, I am sorry to hear about this.

I once downloaded the VST 2.3 SDK with the idea that I could tinker, but back then I didn't have the zeal to learn. This announcement feels like the end of an era and also smells of a missed opportunity for Steinberg. Whether or not Steinberg is actually trying to snub small devs, it certainly feels that way.

I hope that devs in this thread will still find a way to have fun with their craft and have a beginner's mind despite these kinds of setbacks.

I just happened to build my first oscillator a few hours ago - the good feeling of getting something working is still with me! Link in case anybody is interested: https://gist.github.com/spirulence/7913320

[arakula]

[Edit: removed direct links]

Oh, BTW... just google for vst_sdk2_4_rev2.zip. It's not gone; the Internet doesn't forget. You just need to know what to search for. None of these got Steinberg's blessings, of course.

[mahaya]

Or perhaps, write THE bridge between the plugin standard you want, and the one foisted on you by Steenburg?

Frameworks like IPlug or JUCE do this already. I don't think there are many devs that support different formats who don't already have some kind of abstraction framework, either one of the mentioned or something developed by themselves. Beside VST there's at least AU if one wants to support OS X and also RTAS/AAX if Pro Tools should be supported.

All in all I don't understand most of the complaints here. Although the VST2 SDK isn't available any more, all necessary files are still available in the VST3 SDK (even with the same path structure). From a quick glance all that needs to be done is to use the vstsdk3 directory instead of the vstsdk2.4 as header search path.

What is "lost" are the examples (again, adelay...) and the documentation but there are still vst2 plugins floating around that can be used to start from (mda, vstgui tutorials).

[whyterabbyt]

Frameworks like IPlug or JUCE do this already. I don't think there are many devs that support different formats who don't already have some kind of abstraction framework, either one of the mentioned or something developed by themselves. Beside VST there's at least AU if one wants to support OS X and also RTAS/AAX if Pro Tools should be supported.

So what you're saying is that someone who could once have got into programming plugins via the fairly minimal VST2 API, now basically has to start off by building an abstraction framework. Oh well, that'll encourage people.

All in all I don't understand most of the complaints here.

Yes we got that when you called them 'whining' in your other post.

Given though that there seem to be a couple hundred man-years of serious VST development experience represented in the thread, you'd kind of suspect that there was indeed some larger issue beyond mere 'whining'

[mahaya]

So what you're saying is that someone who could once have got into programming plugins via the fairly minimal VST2 API, now basically has to start off by building an abstraction framework.

No. I'm saying that professionals who support different formats already use some kind of abstraction framework.

Given though that there seem to be a couple hundred man-years of serious VST development experience represented in the thread, you'd kind of suspect that there was indeed some larger issue beyond mere 'whining'

But what exactly has changed regarding VST2 plugin development?
There's no more again to start from but there are still lots of tutorials for vst2 development around. And they are most certainly better documented than the again example.

As I said in my other post, there's a lot of FUD about the VST3 SDK. I also think dropping the VST2 SDK wasn't a good idea and VST3 isn't the best plugin standard one can think of, but reading this thread one might come to think that Steinberg completely removed the possibility to create VST2 plugins for new devs which clearly isn't the case.

[AdmiralQuality]

Is it still the case that VST3 doesn't support MIDI?

Well, yes and no. One can use parameters for MIDI instead.

We add 2048 VST3 parameters to cover CCs 0-127 for all 16 channels

Not sure if we found a way to receive MIDI Program Changes.

See, customers? And you think you WANT this?

[AdmiralQuality]

Oh, BTW...

...
and so on.

... just a little 5-minute google result excerpt. It's not gone; the Internet doesn't forget. You just need to know what to search for. None of these got Steinberg's blessings, of course.

Dude, you just shared warez on KVR.

[ras.s]

Before this thread is locked for license infringement as due to KVR's rules,

I call on ye mighty developers to make the Host of Hosts, call it the Blue Kaviar, the fish-egg of the Internet's biggest catfish. In it, implement This Plugin, the Highest Standard of Standards of DSP and control SDKs; let it be open to all those deemed worthy, that is, to those of merit. It can be said, that it has been tried to be done, but alas, they have failed -- but if they indeed have failed, they have done so because it is not you who have designed and done it. The developers who hang out here in this very sub-forum are among the highest ranks of digital luthiers and your joint efforts have already fruitful, as seen in the education and discussions you share here.

It would take years and the road would be rocky, but the goal is worthy. You could implement the inner workings of audio and inter-process communication, the licensing schemes and the market place. For years upon years, you have had to cope with closed standards and the tyrant makers of them, adjusting to their whims - but it shouldn't be so. You have been working hard to add value to other developers works, the works of the sequencer makers, but it doesn't have to be so.



Let it be designed from the ground up to have everything you desire and then some, platform and hardware agnostic, fail-safe from the incubation stage forward.


Amongst thy own, appoint the council of benevolent dictators for life* and commence forth a new era of desktop music for all of us to partake in.



Ok, I'll get me coat.

(I have to say, I'm quite pissed with this Steinberg behaviour, not least because my favorite host doesn't support the new standard and thus isn't futureproof anymore.)


* I recommend considering the trinity of AdmiralQuality, the grudging seeker of perfection, Urs, the man born with the spoon of DSP in his mouth, and mystran, the rising star.

[JCJR]

I would like a plugin SDK that is stupid-simple for both hosts and plugin devs to write against.

[AdmiralQuality]

It's not that VST 3.x is too difficult for any of us to understand. It's that we don't WANT to develop under it because it is unsatisfactory compared to the feature-set we and our customers have come to expect under VST 2.4. We'd be doing a disservice to the customer to make certain products VST 3s, particularly MIDI enabled ones.

It doesn't WORK as advertised. You can't make a fully functional VST 2.4 with it, despite what Steinberg claim. And MIDI wasn't broken and didn't need to be replaced. We don't support VST 3 because we do support YOU.

[aciddose]

... So we have a system of feedbacks which settle into the state things are now. This isn't a voluntary system, this is a forceful system. ...

Is it time for an uprising for plugin developers to develop the host that will support the developer driven plugin standard? Or perhaps, write THE bridge between the plugin standard you want, and the one foisted on you by Steenburg?

I had this whole argument back in I think 2005 with Mike from REFX. The fact is he was right in his comments just as much as I was right in some of mine. He said "As much as that might be true, go right ahead. When you have a working plugin format and host to compete with Cubase there will no longer be any argument on this topic."

We've had years and years to do this and the fact is all the plugin formats came to be purely because they were the first. AU was the first major format available on macs with a host supplied as part of the OS, giving it a major advantage competing against VST. In fact much like DX plugins AU is tied to the OS and not just a little like DX, but a lot!

VST came first, period. There were other plugin formats in use at the time and other 'hosts', but nothing quite like Cubase or VST with the same wide set of features.

RTAS runs on its own specialized hardware and OS, enough said.

[aciddose]

Oh, BTW...

...
and so on.

... just a little 5-minute google result excerpt. It's not gone; the Internet doesn't forget. You just need to know what to search for. None of these got Steinberg's blessings, of course.

Dude, you just shared warez on KVR.

In the past I've linked Google results instead although with the crazy interpretations of law some places you're not far off the mark. Of course anyone involved turns a blind eye because at least we know a link is not facilitation. Personal responsibility

I do not think it would be bad advice in the future to provide people asking "where can I find the old VST SDK"; "Google it."

[AdmiralQuality]

If it's true that the VST 2.4 SDK is included in its entirety in the VST 3.6 SDK then that's fine.

Is this actually the case though?

(I don't care about the sample projects.)