How important is VST3 support for you as a customer

[koolkeys]

*sigh* It just became more obvious to me than before that you either haven't tried it, or just completely missed the point.

Please actually go try the thing out, or at least concede that you don't fully understand it. Because you don't, or you refuse to. It's not worth going back and forth with somebody who insists that two things are alike when they are not. NE is more flexible and easier than PA.

Some things above, you completely misunderstood me on, like saying that PA was "old". I wasn't saying it was bad because it's old, but that it's been around forever and still doesn't have large amounts of support, while VST3 has been around for a very short time and gets more popular every day.

But really, you obviously don't fully understand NE, whether by choice or just genuine not understanding it. You're a bright guy, I know you are. I've learned from your postings in the past on plenty of issues. But you missed the point here in a big way.

Normally, I would go back and forth about things like this, but I'll leave it be for now. I just don't have the energy lately(for good reasons, newborn in the house!).

Brent

[hibidy]

I dunno, it's more than anything else.

seriously, this thing had been dead and buried for a couple of months and now it's this "I'm right"......."no, I'm right" thing.

Why?

edit, btw...not directed at anyone/or group of people, just a general observation.

[AdmiralQuality]

But really, you obviously don't fully understand NE, whether by choice or just genuine not understanding it. You're a bright guy, I know you are. I've learned from your postings in the past on plenty of issues. But you missed the point here in a big way.

What's to understand? It's just yet another new name for control streams, there's just more of them, and with a COMPLETELY ambiguous, one-way relationship to the notes that the instrument is actually producing -- if it's even producing notes at ALL! Until now the host didn't record "notes", it recorded CONTROLLERS... what that controller activity meant WAS and SHOULD CONTINUE TO BE the sole realm of the plug-in. It's none of the host's business.

But seeing how you understand it so well, why not just answer some of my simple (and obvious) questions, above?

Remember, this comes from the same people who thought there should be an enforced distinction between "instrument" and "effect". Why have one thing when you can have two (and make half the things not work half the time)? Because they want your money, again and again and again for the SAME bloody thing...

And again I ask, since you obviously use it, and are soon going to start rejecting instruments for not supporting it... show us what you can do with it that's so amazing and necessary and that we couldn't do already. S'all I'm asking.

[contrast]

Honestly listening to developers whine about vst3 is like listening to users whine about presets being installed to OS-appropriate directories or whatever over obscure BS people like to complain about. Some of you guys have about as much of an idea what the people making the tracks are doing as your average user has about what you are doing.

Either do better yourself and get the Reaper people or whoever to implement your spec or shut up about it already. If you are not offering an alternative solution nobody cares what you think about it.

[hibidy]

^^^^^

Yeah!

[AdmiralQuality]

"The Reaper people"? "To implement your spec"? Who's spec? What are you even talking about?

Those developers who are against VST3 aren't against it because we don't want to do some bit of necessary work. We're against it because we don't want to charge our customers for UNnecessary work. This whole "buy it again for the first time" thing makes me sick, both as a developer AND a customer.

With VST 3.x you will be able to do NOTHING you couldn't already do in 2.4. This is simply a fact. (And again, if I'm wrong, I'd love for someone to demonstrate with an example.) Yes, you will do it differently (yay, a new learning curve!), and there are minor, esoteric differences in implementation (and arguably, even improvements -- sample accurate automation being about the only one I can think of), but nobody would be able to tell from a listening test.

You will however have a bunch of new bugs, poor adoption and support from the industry, and require more CPU power to do exactly the same processes you already did before. This isn't progress, it's pure marketing B.S. and we're trying to do you a favour by pointing it out.

[Elektrobolt]

if they couldn't implement polyphonic aftertouch, how do you expect them to pull off note expression?

It IS a choice, but to answer you question: learn how to do it.

Because there's a marketing machine behind VST3(.x), where MIDI is an innocent, non-proprietary, open standard. And what's wrong with older?

Nothing is *wrong* with MIDI or PA.

(I wasn't sure to which "older" you were refering to.)

This "new" stuff isn't new, and not only that, it's a REALLY bad idea.

PA is one specific controller type, and is rarely used.
NE supports many controller types.

Also, if it isn't new and it's a REALLY bad idea, then you found what is wrong with MIDI yourself.

And how is one controller stream "more flexible" than another?

Being able to send more than one specific type of controller data could be considered more flexible.

PA can do everything NE can do, AND be peformed in real time

NE can do many controller types simultaneously, AND be performed in real time.

PA does one controller type at a time.

Wait a second. I thought you were looking forward to editing per-note curves with a mouse.

NE can be performed using existing MIDI controllers and the host can translate to NE controller data.

And I'm a developer, so it's my job to be able to imagine how stuff will work (or in this case, not work).

You do realize that it exists in Cubase with HALion Sonic at this moment, working against all odds (and your imagination).

How do I edit curves for two or more notes at the same time?

You don't, with NE. It is for individual notes, hence the name.

Regular channel controller data still exist and can be done that way, if desired.

What if these notes only overlap for part of their total length? Where does the curve editor for a note begin or end?

Overlapping NE controller data can be merged, the same way that channel controller data from two tracks using the same channel can be merged.

The NE controller data starts at the beginning of the note and by default it ends at the end of the note, but can be extended beyond the end.

...

The last three paragraphs of incoherent questions... well, you have to understand that it's just a mess to quote and answer, so I am going to answer my way.

In terms of NE the host does not care about the sound itself, nor does it care about the polyphony or "note stealing" of an instrument.

The host transmits any note on and note off and whatever NE controller data that may exist. Just like other notes and channel controller data are transmitted.

NE is still performance controller data, just like the channel controller data is. But you now have the ability to influence the performance of a single note. (Yes, with many types of controller data.)

Just because NE influence single notes, does not imply a monophonic performance.

show us what you can do with it that's so amazing and necessary and that we couldn't do already.

When you move or copy a single note, the NE parameter data go with it.

---

NE is real, it exists, is being used and works just fine.

[hibidy]

is there really any reason why I can't use my present vst's???

x64, vst= whatever works with x64. Any other vote is irrelevant.

[contrast]

I'm not asking whether you think I want note expression or proper behavior with how Cubase decided to implement sidechains or sample accurate automation or whatever. I'm telling you that I've used those things and I do in fact want them. Note expression is awesome, better integration with the DAW is awesome, and sample accurate automation sure won't hurt anything.

You may well decide that it's not a sound business decision for you to spend time implementing whatever feature. That's fine, I'm surely not trying to argue with you about your business decisions. It may be that it doesn't make financial sense for anyone! But it's amazing to me that so many of you guys come in here and try to tell people that they don't really need feature X, or that if only host Y did something differently it's technically possible, or that it would make your life easier if only whatever, or...

Whether you like the way Steinberg has chosen to enable features that I want is not of much concern of mine, as an end user. If you can come up with something better than vst3 go for it. I don't care if it's VST3 or VST 2.4 or VST 5.5 or some interface you dreamed up yourself. Maybe I will even switch to some other host if you get someone to implement your spec and it does something I want.

But I remember when VST3 first came out and there was a big discussion in the dev forum about making some alternative, improved plugin format, getting out from under the thumb of steinberg, etc. This thread is ample evidence of where that idea went. So, VST3 it is, for the foreseeable future. Innovation is not happening anywhere else; you guys are only offering excuses as to why new features are not necessary... (And to wrap around to the start of this post - I understand that you think they are new features for the sake of new features, but in fact they are actually useful...)

[AdmiralQuality]

And how is one controller stream "more flexible" than another?

Being able to send more than one specific type of controller data could be considered more flexible.

But we're only talking about "ONE controller stream". Sure, more wouldn't hurt, but again... how to control them?

PA can do everything NE can do, AND be peformed in real time

NE can do many controller types simultaneously, AND be performed in real time.

How can I control multiple per-note controllers in real time? Except for poly-pressure, I really can't think of a way. Any knob or pedal I manipulate is inherently for ALL notes I'm playing, as there's no way to say "I mean this knob only for the D# and the second from lowest C right now, thanks".

PA does one controller type at a time.

Wait a second. I thought you were looking forward to editing per-note curves with a mouse.

NE can be performed using existing MIDI controllers and the host can translate to NE controller data.

How is that conceptually or practically any different than a MIDI CC or VST automation event?

And I'm a developer, so it's my job to be able to imagine how stuff will work (or in this case, not work).

You do realize that it exists in Cubase with HALion Sonic at this moment, working against all odds (and your imagination).

Right, so my request to hear it in use, doing something you couldn't do before, should be easy to satisfy.

How do I edit curves for two or more notes at the same time?

You don't, with NE. It is for individual notes, hence the name.

But what if I want the same pitch bend on every note in a chord? Not an unusual thing to want, probably the most typical case. And then say I want one note in that chord to bend somewhere different, but during the release phase. And all the notes-offs have already gone by in the piano roll. Where do I click to turn an event that was channel-global, into note-specific? And how do I change back the other way... make disparate note-events match each other?

Regular channel controller data still exist and can be done that way, if desired.

What if these notes only overlap for part of their total length? Where does the curve editor for a note begin or end?

Overlapping NE controller data can be merged, the same way that channel controller data from two tracks using the same channel can be merged.

Why would two tracks use the same channel? Why would they have to to merge the data? And what does this merged controller data look/sound like? Jumping between values? That would sound awful. Average of the two? Also useless.

The NE controller data starts at the beginning of the note and by default it ends at the end of the note, but can be extended beyond the end.

This is the thing, a note doesn't necessarily end when the key is released. (Poly-aftertouch is "blessed" by inherently not having to deal with this condition.) So, what if the release of one note is overlapping the start of the next (same) note? What if 10 of the same note are overlapping each other? How do I select the envelope I want to edit?

...

The last three paragraphs of incoherent questions... well, you have to understand that it's just a mess to quote and answer, so I am going to answer my way.

In terms of NE the host does not care about the sound itself, nor does it care about the polyphony or "note stealing" of an instrument.

The host transmits any note on and note off and whatever NE controller data that may exist. Just like other notes and channel controller data are transmitted.

NE is still performance controller data, just like the channel controller data is. But you now have the ability to influence the performance of a single note. (Yes, with many types of controller data.)

So, can you have more than one of the same note or is that anti-paradigm? (It's not for traditional-MIDI, though the choice is left to the instrument)/

Just because NE influence single notes, does not imply a monophonic performance.

Not saying it does, but just wondering how it deals with it when it is. How can it even know?

show us what you can do with it that's so amazing and necessary and that we couldn't do already.

When you move or copy a single note, the NE parameter data go with it.

That's nice, but I can already do that.

---

NE is real, it exists, is being used and works just fine.

So then can somebody plese post some awesome work done with it, and explain why you couldn't have just done it in VST 2.4 with separate tracks for each instrument? So far, paradigmatically, that's how I'd approach any example I've been given for what this is for (invariably, it's for arranging strings). If I was trying to record a cool fake-string part, I'd do a track for every instrument.

[AdmiralQuality]

is there really any reason why I can't use my present vst's???

Absolutely no reason. This is why I'm stunned to see some people saying VST3 support is a must. All the VST3 hosts take 2.4 plug-ins just fine, and will for -- I'm guessing -- about forever.

[bM3w]

Vote with your wallet!

I prefer buying from devs who show some sort of commitment to support newer standards/technology. If a certain dev/company is reluctant to support VST3 and/or x64 I simply won't buy from them.

@Admiral: Who says you have to charge your customers for VST3? Add something else to your product(s) that is worth an upcharge. That aside other companies don't charge their customers for x64/VST3 updates. Customer care and attracting new ones are also part of that mean marketing machine, right

From Woody Allen's "Annie Hall":

Alvy Singer: "A relationship, I think, is like a shark. You know? It has to constantly move forward or it dies. And I think what we've got on our hands is a dead shark."

[AdmiralQuality]

Vote with your wallet!

I prefer buying from devs who show some sort of commitment to support newer standards/technology. If a certain dev/company is reluctant to support VST3 and/or x64 I simply won't buy from them.

@Admiral: Who says you have to charge your customers for VST3? Add something else to your product(s) that is worth an upcharge. That aside other companies don't charge their customers for x64/VST3 updates. Customer care and attracting new ones is also part of that mean marketing machine, right

Yes, vote with your wallet. (And by this poll, 84% of wallets already understand.) But don't confuse new version numbers with new technology. x64, you got it (doesn't make anything any faster, but took less than a day to implement so, there you go).

On the other hand, porting a VST 2.4 plug-in to VST 3.x is not trivial. It represents a LOT of work (particularly to do anything useful with Note Events). Yes, the sleezy thing to do would be tack a new feature on there, increment the major version number, and charge 'em all again. But I don't ever want to see my company playing that game.

Also, you non-developers should see the problems developers are having with the new SDKs. By the time the bugs are worked out, VST4 will probably be out. (Actually come to think of it, that's exactly what happened with 2.4 -> 3.0)

But really, I'm just looking for a practical example. Impress me! What's this stuff FOR that's so vital that mankind has somehow been able to make music without it for the previous million years?

[ZINO]

But really, I'm just looking for a practical example. Impress me! What's this stuff FOR that's so vital that mankind has somehow been able to make music without it for the previous million years?

Great point! Now where's that update for my Atari? Then I can fetch my bone flute I forgot in the cave!

[bM3w]

Yes, vote with your wallet. (And by this poll, 84% of wallets already understand.)

False. By this poll 25% would PREFER VST3 over VST2.x, while it's not a deal breaker if VST3 is not available. That's a big difference and shows a tendency. You can't ignore that (ok, well, obviously you do).

But don't confuse new version numbers with new technology.

I don't.

On the other hand, porting a VST 2.4 plug-in to VST 3.x is not trivial. It represents a LOT of work (particularly to do anything useful with Note Events). Yes, the sleezy thing to do would be tack a new feature on there, increment the major version number, and charge 'em all again. But I don't ever want to see my company playing that game.

It doesn't have to be a game. Who says you have to use the mean marketing machine to sell that feature? Just advertise what it is. No need to blow bubbles. Also you could still offer both versions at different prices and leave the choice to your customers.

But really, I'm just looking for a practical example. Impress me! What's this stuff FOR that's so vital that mankind has somehow been able to make music without it for the previous million years?

You know, I'm the customer and I don't have to prove anything. I want technology that keeps up with the times. A dev/company who doesn't simply won't get my money. Again I'll vote with my wallet

I agree with you that newer is not always better than older, but I can guarantee you that the demand for VST3 will slowly, but constantly rise. Ignore VST3 as long as you can, but don't complain when you missed the train.