VST3: Is it worth supporting?

[sqook]

I'm writing a specialized plugin host which currently supports VST2.4 plugins only. When I have a bit of time, I will also include support for AudioUnits on the Mac and LADSPA on Linux.

As one of the purposes of this host is to facilitate in plugin development, I was also considering VST3. However, a quick search at the host database here reveals that the only VST3-capable hosts are those made by Steinberg (though please correct me if I am wrong here). Though a handful of plugins support VST3, I haven't come across any plugins which only support this format and no others, while the reverse is certainly true for AudioUnits, RTAS, etc.

Without trying to start a big Steinberg dogpile here, is there any point to supporting VST3 in a host? Is this something that end users actually want? Or is everybody happy just using VST2.4 until the end of time?

[aMUSEd]

Studio One and FL Studio also support VST3

[aciddose]

Vst3 doesn't have too many features that you can't achieve with vst2.

The major difference is that the implementation in vst3 meets the aims of simplification and targeting the most demanded features rather than allowing for more complexity or diversity.

It shouldn't be too much about whether it's worth it. It should be about whether you want it and whether you're willing to implement it.

I'd rather see a host implement modular routing (such as reaper) than support vst3 "side-chaining". I'd rather see a full featured modulation capability using midi processing plugins and grouping than have vst3 per-note modulation features. I'd rather see an easy to use sequencer that can be put to efficient use to achieve the basics like composition rather than having a complicated, bulky sequencer that makes it easy to modulate individual notes.

[mkdr]

I don't see a point in Steinbergs odd per-note modulation scheme.. Hasn't there been polyphonic aftertouch for decades? My ASR-10 for example had that(1992).

But still, i'd go for the VST3.. it's a marketing gimmick. Use it to your advantage. Musicians are stupid after all

[Full Bucket]

But still, i'd go for the VST3.. it's a marketing gimmick. Use it to your advantage. Musicians are stupid after all

+1! And make it "VST4ready"!

[dalor]

But still, i'd go for the VST3.. it's a marketing gimmick. Use it to your advantage. Musicians are stupid after all

VST3 is like web 3.0 so yeah you NEED to jump on it!

[sqook]

But still, i'd go for the VST3.. it's a marketing gimmick. Use it to your advantage. Musicians are stupid after all

The software will be open-source, so I don't need to worry about bullet points on a feature sheet. I was more curious to know if there is a compelling technical reason to support VST3, as in my experience there aren't a lot of end users clamoring for host support for this.

Just looking at the Ableton support forums, for instance, people are much more concerned with 64-bit support than VST3.

[tungsten carbide]

I'm writing a specialized plugin host ...

..., I haven't come across any plugins which only support this format and no others, while the reverse is certainly true for AudioUnits, RTAS, etc.

Without trying to start a big Steinberg dogpile here, is there any point to supporting VST3 in a host? Is this something that end users actually want? Or is everybody happy just using VST2.4 until the end of time?

All WAVES plugins that support side-chaining only do so under VST3.
I would not buy a DAW that doesn't support it at this point (currently using Studio One V2, which I switched to because of that).

[yevster]

I've been a fervent Sonar user for years, but have been taking a close look at Studio One because I can't take full advantage of several Waves plugs in Sonar. Kinda starting to dig the workflow as well. If only S1 would catch up in MIDI, routing, and effect quality.

[AdmiralQuality]

[hibrasil]

steinberg distribute a nice command line unit tester with the VST3 sdk, and apple have auval. So I am not sure if your command line tool can help so much for debugging those formats. However Mrs watson is a very nice contribution to show other coders how to load plugins, so from an education perspective it would be cool.

[sqook]

However Mrs watson is a very nice contribution to show other coders how to load plugins, so from an education perspective it would be cool.

Probably the best argument I've heard so far.

[hokkaido]

I don't see a point in Steinbergs odd per-note modulation scheme.. Hasn't there been polyphonic aftertouch for decades? My ASR-10 for example had that(1992).

But still, i'd go for the VST3.. it's a marketing gimmick. Use it to your advantage. Musicians are stupid after all

I really disagree here. With VST3 you can have multiple event outputs and so some crazy things with it when it comes to traditional "midi" mangling. With note expression on top of this you could do some truly innovative new plugins.

[AdmiralQuality]

I don't see a point in Steinbergs odd per-note modulation scheme.. Hasn't there been polyphonic aftertouch for decades? My ASR-10 for example had that(1992).

But still, i'd go for the VST3.. it's a marketing gimmick. Use it to your advantage. Musicians are stupid after all

I really disagree here. With VST3 you can have multiple event outputs and so some crazy things with it when it comes to traditional "midi" mangling. With note expression on top of this you could do some truly innovative new plugins.

So where can I buy a "note expression" controller, again?

And I treat my customers like I want to be treated myself. I'm a user of this stuff too, and I know what I want. So feeding them marketing B.S. is right-out.

[CableChannel]

I as a Cubase user strongly vote for VST3 support. The easy sidechain setup alone is worth it. Whereever supported I use VST3 plugins, like Voxengo, Melda, Waves, etc...