Plugin formats? This is the end...

[b-pole]

seems we all here have not really influence about new coming plugin standards

we can only use them or not.

[highkoo]

I see the point but I am only worried in the short term.
It makes sense that devs will put a hold on until the dust settles on this.
But does Reason really control enough marketshare to have that kind of power over the whole plugin economy?
It boggles my mind to think that they have retained enough of a paying following to be able to jump into what is basically an untapped market for them a decade late and shake the whole thing up.
Were I a dev Id definitely wonder the same thing before dedicated ANY resources to porting.

Sure, somehow, Reason still has a lot of users. But first, how many of them are not already deep down the rabbit hole with another daw, hosting VSTs they own? Second, how many of those that havent done that actually care about plugins at this point? Id think many of them wouldve been swayed to at least a minimal host after ten years.

seems we all here have not really influence about new coming plugin standards

we can only use them or not.

Is that a 'knowing' wink?
Cuz thats what comforts me; "The market will decide".
The plugin market is small and finicky and operates on small margins.
If no one is buying Props REs, then they arent selling. If they arent selling, no devs jump in. If no devs jump in, no one cares, and theres no money.
And safe to say, if it is not doing absolutely stellar devs will think twice about hurting their VST business. I dont think REs can get away with limping by. Its either a hit, or dead.

So, hold off on that Reason update for a few months and buy some VSTs off of your fav small dev.

[VitaminD]

Each host can do just about everything else the other can (in general, yes I know some have a niche) for the large part.

So perhaps we are seeing the result of this..

and maybe, now, (DAW/host) companies are feeling threatened and thus are reacting by trying to stand out through 'proprietaryness.' Perhaps this is a way to continue to grow?

Puzzled you ask 'WHAT did he say??'

Why not though? If you sell a sequencer platform that records MIDI, records Audio, hosts plugins, etc then yours does the same thing as the next guy's platform. What else are you going to do?

One way to add value to your platform is to add more features. 'Well you just said they are all the same!' of course I did.. one of the last remaining options is to add more sound generators and effects to your platform.

See this with Logic, Cubase, Studio One, etc.. each has proprietary plugins, locked to host. They seem to be adding more effects and plugins to each.. what more can you do to sequence MIDI or record audio?

I suspect we will see more of this in the future.. Each company wants their sequencing/recording platform to stay alive... give em more cookies is the plan. Once you buy into the Host, you've bought into a system.. then you can charge for extra cookies.

[highkoo]

give em more cookies is the plan.

Oh, hey that sounds good...

charge for extra cookies.

Holdon a minnit.
Stick to the plan man.

[VitaminD]

give em more cookies is the plan.

Oh, hey that sounds good...

charge for extra cookies.

Holdon a minnit.
Stick to the plan man.

NEW and IMPROVED.. 25% more cookies in every box.


But if you like triple chocolate delight flavored cookies.. ultimate white chocolate macadamia nut cookies... or supreme peanut butter and chocolate cookies.. that will be 150 dollars please... each.

[munchkin]

When I owned Sonar I never used most of the proprietary plugins. I mainly used VST's which I chose to buy. The same with ACID and Reaper. A lot of the plugins that ship with DAWS are not as good as independent plugins IMO.

In the video world the plugin market seems to be converging so that plugin developers ensure their plugins work cross platform and with as many NLE's as possible so it's a shame if in the audio world the reverse happens.

But despite the creation of new proprietary plugin systems there has been significant movement in the other direction with DSP developers either dropping their platforms altogether (TC Electronic) or moving to native VST. Waves have dropped the hardware dongle so in some ways having closed systems or plugins linked to some sort of hardware is changing too. Native VST's that are activated online seems to be a growing phenomenon.

I'm surprised that Props have taken the proprietary route for plugin support. Even if I was interested in Reason this would certainly not induce me to buy into their closed system. Nor would I be remotely tempted to use Sonar again just because it used a proprietary plugin system. Why would anyone buy duplicates of VST plugins adapted for these platforms unless they have never used VST's in the first place? It's a huge risk because if Cakewalk and Props can't get developers on board then it'll stall. It reminds me of those hardware boxes that were meant to run plugins and take the load of the computer - even when they were designed to run VSTs with a bit of tweaking not many developers climbed on-board.

Also I think the issue of VST plugin stability is being exaggerated to market these closed systems. I rarely have a problem with any of the plugins I buy for Reaper but perhaps a closed system is easier for a developer. I'm not convinced that this is a trend with any longevity in it.

[VitaminD]

I agree.. I was hoping this would be an open plugin format. One would only get the benefits of the rack wiring in Reason, but otherwise they would function as normal 'VST'-like plugins in other hosts..

That would make the plugin more useful. If I buy the plugin in 'Rack Extension' format to use in say Sonar or Reaper.. then maybe I will be intrigued enough to buy Reason for the extra features. If not, oh well, it would still function as a typical plugin in my host of choice.

What I'm really wondering is when we'll see significant improvements to the MIDI format.. or some other control format that will talk to our hardware.. 128 steps of resolution/values is pitiful!

[highkoo]

I agree.. I was hoping this would be an open plugin format. One would only get the benefits of the rack wiring in Reason, but otherwise they would function as normal 'VST'-like plugins in other hosts..

That would make the plugin more useful. If I buy the plugin in 'Rack Extension' format to use in say Sonar or Reaper.. then maybe I will be intrigued enough to buy Reason for the extra features. If not, oh well, it would still function as a typical plugin in my host of choice.

That would be perfect. That seems like a way this might actually work.
And munchkins post makes me wonder- How does this do anything to attract new users? By doing some intermingling with VST users they might catch a few.

The thing is, you wouldnt be buying the RE without Reason. Youd be buying the VST, which could have an RE 'bundled'. And that seems like it makes for a more complicated relationship between all the devs and the Props.
Props should totally bundle the VST with the RE though. Is this confirmed to not be the case? I havent looked for all the details yet...

[VitaminD]

I agree.. I was hoping this would be an open plugin format. One would only get the benefits of the rack wiring in Reason, but otherwise they would function as normal 'VST'-like plugins in other hosts..

That would make the plugin more useful. If I buy the plugin in 'Rack Extension' format to use in say Sonar or Reaper.. then maybe I will be intrigued enough to buy Reason for the extra features. If not, oh well, it would still function as a typical plugin in my host of choice.

That would be perfect. That seems like a way this might actually work.
And munchkins post makes me wonder- How does this do anything to attract new users? By doing some intermingling with VST users they might catch a few.

The thing is, you wouldnt be buying the RE without Reason. Youd be buying the VST, which could have an RE 'bundled'. And that seems like it makes for a more complicated relationship between all the devs and the Props.
Props should totally bundle the VST with the RE though. Is this confirmed to not be the case? I havent looked for all the details yet...

I, too, don't see how this would be exciting for all musicians.. if one has to buy Reason to use the new format (even as a 'dumb' VST). I would enjoy writing in the RE format if the SDK was a lot easier to understand/learn than VST AND if it meant I could compile once and run 'anywhere' (Reason, Sonar, Reaper, etc)

I'm hoping they just haven't announced this part yet... will get it working in Reason first.. then let the other part out of the bag.. but maybe not.

[bmrzycki]

Open and multi-platform.

How is "open" defined as locked away in a login area requiring you to agree to licensing agreements before seeing any APIs or SDK code?

Truth is all the formats the OP posted are proprietary and are driven by a single company. Steinberg might listen to users and might even change the standard accordingly, but it's their standard. Apple -> AUs, Propellerhead -> REs, RTAS/AAX -> AVID and so on. The only reason (IMO) VSTs are popular is a bit of luck, market timing, other DAWs supporting the format and developers making enough money off of users to keep doing it.

Here's a real open plugin standard: LV2. No one uses it except a few open source projects.

[bmrzycki]

What I'm really wondering is when we'll see significant improvements to the MIDI format.. or some other control format that will talk to our hardware.. 128 steps of resolution/values is pitiful!

It's not the speficication's fault, there's already a HD-Protocol MIDI draft standard.

Development of a version of MIDI for new products which is fully backward compatible is now under discussion in the MMA. First announced as "HD-MIDI" in 2005 and tentatively called "HD Protocol" or "High-Definition Protocol" since 2008, this new standard would support modern high-speed transports and allow device discovery and enumeration, provide greater range and/or resolution in data values, increase the number of Channels and Controllers, support entirely new kinds of events, such as Direct Pitch in the Note message and a Note Update message, and at the same time decrease the complexity of messages.

The problem is one of uptake by vendors, both software and hardware.

And finally, 14-bit NRPN/RPN and CC MSB/LSB messages exist today. Again, too few vendors implement it.

[justin3am]

What I'm really wondering is when we'll see significant improvements to the MIDI format.. or some other control format that will talk to our hardware.. 128 steps of resolution/values is pitiful!

It's not the speficication's fault, there's already a HD-Protocol MIDI draft standard.

Development of a version of MIDI for new products which is fully backward compatible is now under discussion in the MMA. First announced as "HD-MIDI" in 2005 and tentatively called "HD Protocol" or "High-Definition Protocol" since 2008, this new standard would support modern high-speed transports and allow device discovery and enumeration, provide greater range and/or resolution in data values, increase the number of Channels and Controllers, support entirely new kinds of events, such as Direct Pitch in the Note message and a Note Update message, and at the same time decrease the complexity of messages.

The problem is one of uptake by vendors, both software and hardware.

And finally, 14-bit NRPN/RPN and CC MSB/LSB messages exist today. Again, too few vendors implement it.

The more I work with MIDI at the SYSEX level, the more I realize that MIDI could be relevant for a long time yet. When transmitting MIDI via USB, not only can you combine multiple CC streams to get MSB/LSB messages, you can also use multiple bulk end-points that are combined by a driver to achieve higher speed communication, higher resolution and all sorts of other benefits. If we adapt the way MIDI is used to fulfill our needs, then we don't need a new standard.

[justin3am]

I won't get into all the plug-in format politics. I don't have a horse in that race.

[aciddose]

The more I work with MIDI at the SYSEX level, ...

midi is a standard 8-bit uart protocol. we've been using variations of this since it was implemented for telegraph.

the transport doesn't need to change, you're right. we do need to change the standards for data though.

as for plugin formats, the time when "vst is good enough" isn't true anymore is fast approaching. don't assume there are no plans for this. plans that have existed and been worked with for a decade...

[hibidy]

x64 vst 2.x works fine here.