How important is VST3 support for you as a customer

[AdmiralQuality]

Otherwise of course there's still VST2.

[trimph1]

Otherwise of course there's still VST2.

He has a point...

[Angus_FX]

JFWIW, while I might not agree with AQ's debating style on the technical arguments he is spot-on.

And, at least for some customers, in the long run it does matter whether this stuff is good or bad for devs. Time that's spent on one thing is not available for another. Note Expression is cool, we get that, but the way it's been handled in terms of the whole wasteful, needless and still far-from-complete* VST3 wheel-reinvention is horrendous. I don't expect customers to consider a boycott, but it's wrong to think of it as a simple case of putting your interests (NE) ahead of ours (sane plug-in formats with sane licensing & sane process). If you don't have some involvement in coding, I'm not sure how easy it is to grok what's involved here, but I haven't seen a single coder speak robustly for the defence (Urs' "it doesn't seem like that much work for me to get something that looks like a working implementation" is not that. The hard part isn't getting a working Hello World, it's all the stuff that comes after).

If you refuse to take an interest in what's good for the industry that makes this stuff, don't complain when innovations don't happen or interesting indie firms go to the wall.

* the specification itself is complete, sure, but the devil is very much in the detail.. it can and does take years for all the wrinkles in a spec to become fully understood, really you need 5 or 6 fully-featured hosts (not just "implement a wrapper for lowest-common-denominator features from VST2 and tick the box") from different vendors, and 5x that number of plug-ins. Right now for all but the simplest stuff, or for a "Steinberg plug-in in a Steinberg host" scenario, it's an unknown quantity waiting to bite users and developers on the ass.

--> DXi in its 3 or so years of existence was never fully debugged at the spec level.. people could and did build DXis that worked in SONAR, but it would be entirely possible to build a nominally spec-compliant plug-in or host that was nonetheless deeply broken with existing plugs/hosts.

--> RTAS can only be considered stable because there's essentially only one implementation (apologies to the 3 people who still use Logic in DAE mode).

--> AU has a whole lot of features that basically nobody ever uses and which, as a result, have never been fully debugged. The lowest-common-denominator features (those that overlap with VST2 basically) are very well debugged by now, but stray from the well-trodden path at your peril! The de-facto reference host (Logic) had some pretty glaring bugs in its AU implementation prior to v8.1.. it only took 3-and-a-bit major versions to get it right, costing devs & endusers a ton of time & money in the mean time.

[AdmiralQuality]

I coulda sworn I already said that.

(Thanks Angus, well put. )

[Urs]

As I said, YMMV

Whether the world would be better with or without VST3, I don't really care. I have customers asking for it, and I have the resources to do it. That won't make VST2 go away. But it means that we won't do 64bit VST2 on Mac.

[Freaqpeak]

It all depends on what kind of plugins we are talking about.

The new VST 3.5 seems to rock with it's ability for Instruments to use Vst Expression 2.

Also, VST3 with sidechain is a must for compressors and such. Atleast for Cubase/Nuendo-owners.

[dreamkeeper]

Also, VST3 with sidechain is a must for compressors and such. Atleast for Cubase/Nuendo-owners.

So, because Steinberg is unable/unwilling to give access to "sidechain"* inputs of VST2 plugs, the plug-in devs should do the work for them by porting to VST3? And you'd be willing to pay for this? Yeah, thought so...


*) Just in case someone didn't get it by now: VST2 plugs can have any number of inputs, one of which of course can be used for sidechaining (or anything else).

[zvenx]

I am willing to pay for it, that's why I will support those developers who do..
My DAWS are Nuendo and Cubase and giving the choice between using them as my DAWS or switching because some developers will not support vst3 and some will, especially where it comes to side chaining, which choice would you make?

rsp

[zvenx]

Fortunately of those I am seeing protesting the only one I will regret is voxengo not going vst3.....the others don't matter for me....but as it is although I own many voxengo stuff I already use other plugins in place.
rsp

[Urs]

And you'd be willing to pay for this? Yeah, thought so...

We'll offer it as a free update... it's something that we as developers have to deal with... processor changes, os changes, api changes. It's a hassle. I can see why some will charge for that, but I'll file it under "customer support".

[dreamkeeper]

I am willing to pay for it, that's why I will support those developers who do..

That's OK then, Rich. However many people just seem to feel entitled to get VST3 without additional costs, because they think it'd be a win/win for users AND devs.

My DAWS are Nuendo and Cubase and giving the choice between using them as my DAWS or switching because some developers will not support vst3 and some will, especially where it comes to side chaining, which choice would you make?

Tough call. Though I'm not in such a situation (fortunately), I'd carefully ponder what I gain and what I lose. It's certainly not as cut and dried as some make it to be - there are always alternatives.

werner

[dreamkeeper]

And you'd be willing to pay for this? Yeah, thought so...

We'll offer it as a free update... it's something that we as developers have to deal with... processor changes, os changes, api changes. It's a hassle. I can see why some will charge for that, but I'll file it under "customer support".

Are you sure you won't have to put something else on the backburner to free the resources for that support? Btw: how's Uhbik X going?

[zvenx]

I am willing to pay for it, that's why I will support those developers who do..

That's OK then, Rich. However many people just seem to feel entitled to get VST3 without additional costs, because they think it'd be a win/win for users AND devs.

My DAWS are Nuendo and Cubase and giving the choice between using them as my DAWS or switching because some developers will not support vst3 and some will, especially where it comes to side chaining, which choice would you make?

Tough call. Though I'm not in such a situation (fortunately), I'd carefully ponder what I gain and what I lose. It's certainly not as cut and dried as some make it to be - there are always alternatives.

werner

which other forum are we on that you know my first name?
I digress.

For me there are two things that vst3 offer me in Nuendo and Cubase that are crucial for me.
sidechaining and multiple ports.

the only vst software that I use that I will gain from multiple ports are Kontakt and Maschine.......

For sidechaining the main ones are my compressors and eq's and filters and to a much lesser extent some spatial effects......I mostly use UAD, PSP and Soundtoys and DMGAudio.....

so if NI and UAD dont' ever go VST3 it will some point be a trouble to my workflow....currently sidechaining is.... but DMG has already made my EQ of choice and I am hoping compassion will be my compressor of choice then the others won't matter as much. And I seriously doubt NI or Soundtoys won't...

I do think it would be unrealistic to expect developers, especially the smaller ones to have to port with no way of getting back that investment...I expect if they do for them to charge me for it... what I have a serious problem with is some developers basically saying if you use Nuendo or Cubase, tough, we never making VST3.....it is their right to do so, yes, but they can guarantee I will not support those who I already don't and will seriously question supporting those who I currently support.

rsp

[Urs]

And you'd be willing to pay for this? Yeah, thought so...

We'll offer it as a free update... it's something that we as developers have to deal with... processor changes, os changes, api changes. It's a hassle. I can see why some will charge for that, but I'll file it under "customer support".

Are you sure you won't have to put something else on the backburner to free the resources for that support? Btw: how's Uhbik X going?

Well VST3 support is coded by my 2nd dev. He's got nothing to do with Uhbik-X.

We've put *everything* on hold because of the quality of spam filters nowadays and the threat of server blacklists. But that's a whole different story

[dreamkeeper]

which other forum are we on that you know my first name?
I digress.

Oops, sorry for "outing" then . NS - though I don't post much there.

For me there are two things that vst3 offer me in Nuendo and Cubase that are crucial for me. sidechaining ...

... which is possible with VST2...

... and multiple ports.

the only vst software that I use that I will gain from multiple ports are Kontakt and Maschine.......

Not sure what's crucial with having more than 16 channels in 1 instance, but you certainly know your own needs better than me.

For sidechaining the main ones are my compressors and eq's and filters and to a much lesser extent some spatial effects......I mostly use UAD, PSP and Soundtoys and DMGAudio.....

so if NI and UAD dont' ever go VST3 it will some point be a trouble to my workflow....currently sidechaining is.... but DMG has already made my EQ of choice and I am hoping compassion will be my compressor of choice then the others won't matter as much. And I seriously doubt NI or Soundtoys won't...

Only time will tell, but right now I'd prefer the greater freedom of choice, not having to look at the VST version number.

I do think it would be unrealistic to expect developers, especially the smaller ones to have to port with no way of getting back that investment...I expect if they do for them to charge me for it...

Sounds reasonable.

what I have a serious problem with is some developers basically saying if you use Nuendo or Cubase, tough, we never making VST3.....it is their right to do so, yes, but they can guarantee I will not support those who I already don't and will seriously question supporting those who I currently support.

Of course it's your choice (and right) to support only what you want and need. But often such sentences come off as some sort of "threat" - not saying it's intended as such. What I advocate is looking a bit further and try to consider the long term effects - at the end of the day we all want to live, right?