KVR Audio

Aleksey Vaneev · Post by **Aleksey Vaneev** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 9:55 am

Crandall1 wrote:If Ableton supports VST3 quickly, it's game on, and we all have to shut the f**k up and build VST3 plugins.

It's more important to get support from FL Studio staff. It's obvious they are getting less money from each user than Steinberg or Cakewalk, but their userbase is huge. Host's userbase is much more important to independent plug-in developers than the amount of money host developer makes: users may share money with us while host developers won't.

stefancrs · Post by **stefancrs** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 10:16 am

If there would be a new, alternative (with being non-alternative as a goal, I guess

) plugin/host API/SDK created by 3rd party devs, I think that COULD be great.

However, it's in my opinion of highest importance that the ones drafting the design etc (a committee?) are humble developers. Most of us have quite strong wills, and that just won't work. The insight that doing it the other way is usually about as good as doing it MY way is highly needed.

I'm fairly sure I'd advocate for a very (VERY!) simple design, and I do not think many others would agree with me, so for instance I would not belong in there

Supplying views and opinions to the community / committee is another thing though, which I can do

z_old_account · Post by **z_old_account** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 10:30 am

Aleksey Vaneev wrote:Anyway I do not plan to adopt VST3 soon. Steinberg is no way a dominant host producer now while I do not think many hosts will adopt VST3 soon. Beside that VST3 does not offer anything worth dropping VST2.4 support, or making it a worthwhile thing to offer VST2.4 and VST3 downloads to plug-in users just to confuse them more.

Totally agree with Aleksey. Just a marketing hype in my eyes...

JonHodgson · Post by **JonHodgson** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 10:58 am

ttoz wrote:and regarding the quote, that's what Fredo of steinberg said. I am only going by what they said themselves.

Wasn't it Fredo who also told you that all developers had invited to join the Beta program a year ago?

From private conversations I suspect that there is only one developer here who had prior access, and despite being a significant presence in the market he was never invited, he had to go through a lot of effort with some pretty high power Yamaha contacts to get hold of it.

joeykusack · Post by **joeykusack** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 11:12 am

Aleksey Vaneev wrote:
Crandall1 wrote:If Ableton supports VST3 quickly, it's game on, and we all have to shut the f**k up and build VST3 plugins.
It's more important to get support from FL Studio staff. It's obvious they are getting less money from each user than Steinberg or Cakewalk, but their userbase is huge. Host's userbase is much more important to independent plug-in developers than the amount of money host developer makes: users may share money with us while host developers won't.

that just blows me away. Clearly you have serious insight into this, but I JUST was not aware FL had that kind of pull. Though of course, the other info DOES start to make "it" make more sense.

What a frustration it is to have the (can I say tier) of BS all of you have to go through!

Seems by the time it gets down to us poor twerps that buy it, way way too much "uggg" has happened.

z15 · Post by **z15** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 11:21 am

Ableton is crossplatform though, FL isn't, so I guess any decisions the Abes make are going to affect both OSX and Win crowd, whereas FL "just" has a damn big userbase on the Windows side.

Live might actually be counted as the most popular / high-profile cross-platform host aside Cubase these days? No idea.

Rock Hardbuns · Post by **Rock Hardbuns** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 12:37 pm

Here's a crazy thought..

How hard would it be to create an object file format that can be dynamically linked on all three platforms?
I.E a binary x-plat format.

Nah, it's crazy talk.

ObsoleteAcc99 · Post by **ObsoleteAcc99** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 12:45 pm

[DELETED]

JonHodgson · Post by **JonHodgson** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 12:49 pm

ttoz wrote:
JonHodgson wrote:
ttoz wrote:and regarding the quote, that's what Fredo of steinberg said. I am only going by what they said themselves.
Wasn't it Fredo who also told you that all developers had invited to join the Beta program a year ago?

From private conversations I suspect that there is only one developer here who had prior access, and despite being a significant presence in the market he was never invited, he had to go through a lot of effort with some pretty high power Yamaha contacts to get hold of it.
same Fredo, but again, not my fault.

Sure not you're fault, but considering his history when it comes to accurate statements don't you think it's probably a good idea to be a little wary of what he says?

tomax · Post by **tomax** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 12:57 pm

don't drink Kool-Aid! decouple! decouple! Ein-Welt-Plugin-Ordnung!

Dr. Bronner

ObsoleteAcc99 · Post by **ObsoleteAcc99** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 1:09 pm

[DELETED]

ObsoleteAcc99 · Post by **ObsoleteAcc99** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 1:13 pm

[DELETED]

Aleksey Vaneev · Post by **Aleksey Vaneev** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 1:16 pm

Rock Hardbuns wrote:Here's a crazy thought..

How hard would it be to create an object file format that can be dynamically linked on all three platforms?
I.E a binary x-plat format.

Nah, it's crazy talk.

I guess, it does not have to be done that way. Each 'format' - AudioUnits, VST, RTAS - has its own way to the final DLL/package binary file. So, wrappers for each format should be maximally independent of each other, they even link to different libraries. Where they can met is via the 'new API'. So, each wrapper should include a basic header file for a new API (which is an ANSI C/C++ without any dependencies), and should be able to receive a pointer to object of derived class that implements this new API from plug-in developer's side (the actual implementation may reside in a .c file invisible to the wrapper code).

This is a bit less effective (all calls will be done via a proxy object) than to use multiple inheritance (e.g. AudioEffectX class combined with developer's own class), but this will allow a full level of abstraction. For example, I can't build my project 'as is' with R**S spec headers included because they place some #define directives (tied to windows.h) incompatible with my framework.

In the case of VST3, we can build the wrapper around AGain example (we just need to have a place in code to supply wrapper a pointer to our own object), and do not worry about anything that much.

Anyway, we are going too deep here discussing details - let's keep this for a later time, when the correct forum is open and everyone involved invited.

JonHodgson · Post by **JonHodgson** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 1:17 pm

ttoz wrote:and i hardly constitute that to him haveing a "history" of misinformation. I mean then you could read all the things he said are coming with nuendo updates, that do happen, and say he has an excellent history. Who to believe, he said one thing, you said another, simple as that. I believe neither

So, my fellow developers... were any of you invited to join the VST3 Beta program?

Aleksey Vaneev · Post by **Aleksey Vaneev** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 1:17 pm

ttoz wrote:So FL users are more likely to buy your plugins than users of Cubase or Live or SOnar? There might be more of them, but I doubt the demand for those sort of pro plugins would be as high.

It all depends on the business model. Of course, it's not a market for Waves with $7000 products - you get the idea I hope. Keep on rolling your eyes

Don't know if anyone noticed... VST3