KVR Audio

djsubject · Post by **djsubject** » Sat Apr 23, 2011 1:22 pm

the stat's in here are quite informative

currently 18 users say its a must have 172 dont care if its supported & 72 would like it but dont base there cash spending on it

& 23 users still like fish!

aciddose · Post by **aciddose** » Sat Apr 23, 2011 3:48 pm

it's pretty telling when fish gets more points than vst3.

i think the omission of the fourth choice, "if a plugin is only available in vst3 it's a deal breaker" is a real shame and would have shed even more light on the situation. i'd select that option.

the fifth choice "i'd prefer vst2 plugins but i'd buy vst3" is also missing now that i think about it again.

i voted fish.

the first option "i don't care" is actually invalid since it's already represented by the fish option.

fish should be reserved for only "i really don't give a damn because i don't buy or use plugins anyway", or "i voted fish because it's funny", or "i think this poll is stupid".

currently due to the errors in the selection of options for the poll, we can say that currently all portions of "don't care" actually belong with "wouldn't buy vst3 only", or "prefer vst2, but would buy vst3", or "fish". likewise, currently some elements of "fish" belong in one of the two missing options.

aMUSEd · Post by **aMUSEd** » Sat Apr 23, 2011 4:07 pm

djsubject wrote:the stat's in here are quite informative

currently 18 users say its a must have 172 dont care if its supported & 72 would like it but dont base there cash spending on it

& 23 users still like fish!

I don't think the 18 really means anything much - in fact I'm surprised anyone voted for that option for the simple reason that at the moment there are too few VST3 plugins for it to be particular realistic to limit yourself to them unless you are completely happy with that limited subset available - most people who want to see VST3 implemented more will still buy VST2.4 plugins too and so will vote for option 2. So 90 votes for people who would prefer VST3 if it was more available is not bad.

adydub · Post by **adydub** » Sat Apr 23, 2011 4:13 pm

Do AU's count as fish? VST3 seems to mainly catch up with some of AU's more desirable features such as being able to sidechain and key from other tracks. Not sure what other practical benefits there may be over VST2.n

aMUSEd · Post by **aMUSEd** » Sat Apr 23, 2011 4:20 pm

adydub wrote:Do AU's count as fish? VST3 seems to mainly catch up with some of AU's more desirable features such as being able to sidechain and key from other tracks. Not sure what other practical benefits there may be over VST2.n

If a person was choosing AU over VST 2.4 on those grounds I would say a vote for option 2 (prefer 3 over 2.4) would be more logical than "fish"

EvilDragon · Post by **EvilDragon** » Sat Apr 23, 2011 5:00 pm

nickb100 wrote:x64 is more important than vst3

The essence of this thread, right here.

x64 is MUCH more important than VST3.

b-pole · Post by **b-pole** » Sat Apr 23, 2011 5:46 pm

no use an an AU fellow

EvilDragon · Post by **EvilDragon** » Sat Apr 23, 2011 5:47 pm

Lotuzia wrote:I'd prefer NI to have VST3 versions, if only just to avoid the different xx outputs versions. this implies that you make choices at an early stage of the project ( How many outputs will this need in the end ? ) and could be avoided.

I only use ONE version of Kontakt 4 in Reaper - the 64-output one. If I load it on a 2-channel track, it uses only 2 outputs. If I declared a track with more outputs, Reaper automatically uses those. If I need more audio outputs from Kontakt to send on other tracks for submixing, I do it in mere seconds via FX browser's routing matrix. IT IS THAT EASY.

Same thing with sidechaining any f**king plugin in Reaper. IT'S PISS SIMPLE.

hibidy · Post by **hibidy** » Sat Apr 23, 2011 7:37 pm

Big Tick wrote:ok. I just clicked "Stop watching this topic"

It says I'm not watching any topics

pc999 · Post by **pc999** » Sat Apr 23, 2011 9:11 pm

Shouldnt we start a VST 3.5 thread?

AdmiralQuality · Post by **AdmiralQuality** » Sat Apr 23, 2011 10:15 pm

pc999 wrote:Shouldnt we start a VST 3.5 thread?

tman2k (Meathook Audio) · Sat Apr 23, 2011 10:32 pm

EvilDragon wrote:
nickb100 wrote:x64 is more important than vst3
The essence of this thread, right here.

x64 is MUCH more important than VST3.

+1000 on that!

Elektrobolt · Post by **Elektrobolt** » Sat Apr 23, 2011 11:34 pm

"When compiling a VST3, you get VST2.4 and AU plug-ins automatically" seems like an advantage, rather than not, for developers of any VST version.

aciddose · Post by **aciddose** » Sun Apr 24, 2011 1:43 am

not if you give up certain functionality to be compatible with vst3. this is a lowest common denominator approach.

Big Tick · Post by **Big Tick** » Sun Apr 24, 2011 2:38 am

EvilDragon wrote:x64 is MUCH more important than VST3.

Indeed. Which is why I don't understand why Microsoft, and even more so Apple, made sure the migration to x64 would be a major pain (by deprecating their UI stuff in the process)

KVR Audio

How important is VST3 support for you as a customer

How important is VST3 support for you: