KVR Audio

soundmodel · Post by **soundmodel** » Sun Jul 09, 2017 11:37 pm

I have a new idea for a plug-in standard, what should I do with it?

I won't give out the details, but it builds on top of existing plug-in architectures.

I'm just wondering, should I perhaps contact Steinberg or something or work it out using some kind of open source path?

It's not just some simple extension, but rather quite technical.

Miles1981 · Post by **Miles1981** » Mon Jul 10, 2017 6:21 am

https://xkcd.com/927/

Don't think you will replace Apple standards. So in the end, don't bother. We don't need yet another plugin standard.

deastman · Post by **deastman** » Mon Jul 10, 2017 7:12 am

Miles1981 wrote:https://xkcd.com/927/

Don't think you will replace Apple standards. So in the end, don't bother. We don't need yet another plugin standard.

Kraku · Post by **Kraku** » Mon Jul 10, 2017 8:05 am

If you want people to start using your standard, first make a DAW software that becomes really popular and has your standard in good use in it. Then make the API open for everyone.

stratum · Post by **stratum** » Mon Jul 10, 2017 8:14 am

That picture at xkcd.com/927 reminds of microsoft's new 'universal crt'.

soundmodel · Post by **soundmodel** » Mon Jul 10, 2017 11:24 am

Miles1981 wrote:https://xkcd.com/927/

Don't think you will replace Apple standards. So in the end, don't bother. We don't need yet another plugin standard.

But it's an extension that I think many would find worthwhile (although I cannot reveal it).

But my question was, whether to ask Steinberg or someone about it or develop it myself somehow?

It could be demoable as a VST plug-in to some extent, but a real implementation would perhaps need to alter the framework.

Also, it could also _perhaps_ be realized using the source code of already existing platforms that "extend" the VST platform considerably. Like Reaktor, Sensomusic Usine (which does offer an SDK) and such. I mean they're still VSTs, but they do a bit unconventional things in VSTs.

fmr · Post by **fmr** » Mon Jul 10, 2017 11:33 am

stratum wrote:That picture at xkcd.com/927 reminds of microsoft's new 'universal crt'.

AU, VST3, AAX...

ghettosynth · Post by **ghettosynth** » Mon Jul 10, 2017 11:38 am

While there are exceptions, it being worthwhile is incompatible with you asking questions like this.

fmr · Post by **fmr** » Mon Jul 10, 2017 11:44 am

ghettosynth wrote:While there are exceptions, it being worthwhile is incompatible with you asking questions like this.

I think a good idea for a new plug-in standard would be something like MIDI: sitting EVERYBODY at the same table, discuss what should be kept, what should be thrown away and what what should be developed new to be included and then come with a new standard that would be TRULY independent of ANY company and kept by an independent consortium, just like MIDI.

What made MIDI work was not its technical superiority but the fact that it was available to everyone, was not proprietary (therefore independent) and was adopted be virtually everyone. So, if that's what you are thinking about, go for it. If you are just thinking that you found something that is "technically" superior to the other "standards" already available, just forget it. We really don't need "another" standard. We already have MORE than enough

mgw38 · Post by **mgw38** » Mon Jul 10, 2017 11:48 am

ghettosynth wrote:While there are exceptions, it being worthwhile is incompatible with you asking questions like this.

Wow, that is a statement of utter passive aggressive beauty.

But seriously, it depends a lot on how it is implemented. There are companies creating de facto standards for their plugins through wrappers that add functionality (Hofa System, Kilohearts Multipass, Cableguys Shaperbox, etc). In the end, it would need to be backward compatible with current plugin standards and that probably beats the purpose unless there is something very specific that this new standard adds.

ghettosynth · Post by **ghettosynth** » Mon Jul 10, 2017 11:55 am

rasmusklump · Post by **rasmusklump** » Mon Jul 10, 2017 12:21 pm

yeah, we don't have enough plugin standard already...

Gamma-UT · Post by **Gamma-UT** » Mon Jul 10, 2017 12:29 pm

Realistically, it's hard to say which path is better without knowing more about the nature of the extension. I'm not writing to that simply to find out what it is but to underline the point that how Steinberg might react will depend on what it is. The most likely outcome in all reality is that they will ignore it. But to get to a reasonable position for negotiation you'll need to come up with an NDA and IP-protection contract for "talks about talks" that prevents them simply copying it later and all the legal costs that entails. If their decision to reimplement in their own way isn't a problem, you don't have to worry about the legal stuff.

The open-source route may make it difficult for Steinberg or someone else to adopt later if it is successful, though you can take the Qt dual-licence approach to avoid that or avoid GPL3. (This might not be practical for an API rather than running source code, however.) OTOH it's a good way of finding out if anyone cares if, again, you have a working implementation and some way of running it – an extension to LADSPA, for example, might make sense as people on that platform are more likely to be open to an extension, particularly if it helps Linux start to pull ahead. Obviously, if your idea is to address a VST-specific shortcoming, that won't apply.

whyterabbyt · Post by **whyterabbyt** » Mon Jul 10, 2017 12:46 pm

Is this a 'hey Ive got a working implementation of my idea' idea or a 'someone should make my idea work' idea?

soundmodel · Post by **soundmodel** » Mon Jul 10, 2017 1:36 pm

I'm a programmer so I could at least demonstrate it.

But I was asking about the "channels" for presenting my ideas.

I have a new idea for a plug-in standard/extension, what should I do with it?