KVR Audio

Aleksey Vaneev · Post by **Aleksey Vaneev** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 1:23 pm

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

Forget it, I doubt Steinberg will give you any company names. Plug-in spec is not any of our business they'll say. We should obey and be grateful for VST.

ObsoleteAcc99 · Post by **ObsoleteAcc99** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 1:24 pm

[DELETED]

ObsoleteAcc99 · Post by **ObsoleteAcc99** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 1:24 pm

[DELETED]

Aleksey Vaneev · Post by **Aleksey Vaneev** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 1:41 pm

ttoz wrote:How often do i see in your own forums and forums here, using "voxengo with cubase" questions.....

i think you underestimate your market, but then again, it's your plugins and your choice. Do what you want.

Of course, it's my business, and I do not have anything against Cubase users: VST2.4 is supported in existing Cubase 4 - both 32-bit and 64-bit. However, it is incorrect to take Cubase customers into consideration exclusively (not to say Nuendo which is a pricey niche product). The biz math is simple: it's better to sell a dozen plug-ins for $40 than a single plug-in for $200 (or $40 - just to compare userbase sizes for the same plug-in). It can't be otherwise.

JonHodgson · Post by **JonHodgson** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 1:42 pm

Aleksey Vaneev wrote:
JonHodgson wrote:So, my fellow developers... were any of you invited to join the VST3 Beta program?
Forget it, I doubt Steinberg will give you any company names. Plug-in spec is not any of our business they'll say. We should obey and be grateful for VST.

But how can this be??? Fredo said

"All 3th party manufacturers were invited *almost a year ago* to joing the betatesting of the VST3 SDK.
I can't tell you who is actually participating in creating and testing this SDK, but virtually every important VST manufacturer can release their plugins according the VST3 standard around this time of the year. For the reasons why they didn't participate in the SDK3 beta, or why their plugins are not available for VST3 yet, you'll have to ask them.

Fredo"

So it must surely be just bad luck that GForce wasn't invited (and another significant company that I won't name since it was a private conversation), mustn't it?

This is an example of the customer relations problem we face. Not only are Steinberg telling everybody that VST3 is the best thing since sliced bread, but it seems that at least one of their representatives is also effectively saying that the only reason we don't support this wonderful new standard RIGHT NOW, is that we just couldn't be bothered.

Chris Walton · Post by **Chris Walton** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 12:53 pm

I can confirm that another significant company wasn't invited either (most likely not the same Jon is referring to). That makes three already.

arakula · Post by **arakula** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:06 pm

The "Me, Inc." insignificant company here hasn't been invited, either

... but I wouldn't have expected to be.

I can try to find an informal invitation "to all interested parties" in that big bulk of Steinberg VST mailing list digests on my hard disk, but I don't recall having read anything in this direction.

Angus_FX · Post by **Angus_FX** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:13 pm

I guess, it does not have to be done that way. Each 'format' - AudoUnits, VST, RTAS - has its own way to the final DLL/package binary file.

True, but you do know it's possible to make an 'all in one' AU, VST, RTAS, standalone binary package that will work in all hosts and as a standalone via a RunDll32-style stub loader? We've been doing that for some time and it saves a ton of headaches!

I would expect that the supporting SDK for any new API would allow similar things with the addition of the appropriate 3rd party headers and libraries (VST, AU, RTAS SDKs, PortAudio and PortMidi). You would have to set the SDK template project up so that linking those was entirely optional though, as not everybody would have access to all of them (especially RTAS).

Rock Hardbuns -- it's not really feasible to do that cross-OS, Windows code looks too different to MacOSX code in a number of ways (I spent a bunch of time last year looking at VST Win -> MacIntel wrappers.. despite the obvious commercial win for somebody that could pull that off, the compatibility issues are horrific). Basically the compiler assumes much about the C/C++ runtime, and the C/C++ runtime assumes much about the OS.

(That said.. there are whisperings that Apple may include support for Windows "W32PE" executables and some kind of WINE port in a future OS X, but if it's real, and whether it will work for plugins or only at process-global level like Rosetta, is anybody's guess. And presumably it won't be til 10.6).

However, it's certainly very much feasible to do a cross-format binary on a specific OS platform. In fact, if you use Guru or BFD2, you're already using one!

Urs · Post by **Urs** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:14 pm

JonHodgson wrote:
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?

I was encouraged to ask for it. I then received an NDA that was addressed to Access. I asked to have it addressed to me and never heard back. Neither have Access as I was told on NAMM.

However, AudioEase ("VST is the most important plugin format next to Pro Tools") and Sonnox ("We went native processing only one year ago") might have had access to it because they were invited to show off their products on the VST3 showcase (the quotes are from their showcases, as accurate as I remember).

Cheers,

Urs

Aleksey Vaneev · Post by **Aleksey Vaneev** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:25 pm

Angus_FX wrote:True, but you do know it's possible to make an 'all in one' AU, VST, RTAS, standalone binary package that will work in all hosts and as a standalone via a RunDll32-style stub loader?

Of course, it's possible, but I'm personally a bit hesitant to do it that way since if you do it that way you still have to put 3 DLLs into different folders, under different extensions (at least on Mac OS X). It is also much more user-friendly to offer separate downloads saying "it's AU", "it's VST", "it's RTAS", than to offer a single bundle saying "put it in any place, but do not forget to change the extension". The problem of RTAS license accessibility should not be also avoided. Beside that, at some point we may unable to add more specs into a single package due to some incompatibility with that spec's framework: you never know such things in advance.

whyterabbyt · Post by **whyterabbyt** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:29 pm

ttoz wrote:anyway, i'm entitled to my opinions.

and you'll probably be leading the howls of protest, erm opinions, when developers start to charge for VST3 versions of their existing plugins....

djex · Post by **djex** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:43 pm

Urs wrote:However, AudioEase ("VST is the most important plugin format next to Pro Tools") and Sonnox ("We went native processing only one year ago") might have had access to it because they were invited to show off their products on the VST3 showcase (the quotes are from their showcases, as accurate as I remember).

Correct. We did more or less by coincidence get a copy of the VST3 SDK about two months ago, when 99.9% of it was done already--so no, we weren't asked any input on what it should look like.

Urs wrote:AudioEase ("VST is the most important plugin format next to Pro Tools")

Would you mind explaining what exactly it is that you're implying here?

-- dj!

Urs · Post by **Urs** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:57 pm

djex wrote:
Urs wrote:AudioEase ("VST is the most important plugin format next to Pro Tools")
Would you mind explaining what exactly it is that you're implying here?

-- dj!

Well, as I aid before, me and everybody I spoke to found it funny how AudioEase and Sonnox were used by Steinberg to hail VST3. So much so that they didn't look good and havn't had their facts straight. One could even hear a bit of laughter from the audience every now and then.

Seriously, it was embarrassing. They were trying to praise their own products in front of their competition. I guess they got a pretty weird briefing from Steinberg.

As far as the representative from Audioease goes, saying that the market for Pro Tools is bigger than the one for VST was just laughable. Same as putting Sonnox into it who are a VST newbee. Latter probably don't have to port a code base that's grown over a decade.

Urs

djex · Post by **djex** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 2:04 pm

Urs wrote:As far as the representative from Audioease goes, saying that the market for Pro Tools is bigger than the one for VST was just laughable.

Laughable just because not enough PT users buy your plugins? Our PT customer base is far bigger than the VST one--would you care to explain the joke in that to me?

-- dj!

nollock · Post by **nollock** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 2:12 pm

djex wrote: Laughable just because not enough PT users buy your plugins? Our PT customer base is far bigger than the VST one--would you care to explain the joke in that to me?

You doing a demo for Steinberg and saying Pro Tools is more important? Kinda like doing the best mans speech and saying his previous wife was much pretier.

Or perhaps people thought you were saying that the pro tools market is larger in general, rather than just larger for you?

I dont know tbh, but both seem plausible reasons for a little mirth.

Don't know if anyone noticed... VST3