How important is VST3 support for you as a customer

[AdmiralQuality]

I forgot one of the things vst3 offers us Cubendo users I believe.... vsti's to have audio inputs so I can router a bus to a sampler and sample from within Nuendo......could this be done in the vst 2.4 spec?
rsp

Of course. Insert your plug-in on your mic's audio track, and there's your mic signal going in the plug-in input. Pretty crazy stuff, eh?

[aciddose]

i know XT does. i'm not a fan of most daws because they're all crap in one way or another.

if you want to do complicated routing you really need a modular system.

it doesn't need to have "wires", it can just have drop menus that let you route your signal to a named channel which is way easier in my opinion. (internally, in the code it's the same thing anyway)

so you can use XT in your daw of choice for complicated routings.

ah, i think reaper supports modular routing also, but it's hard to use with it's default settings until you really get used to it.

i've used a few others that support it, but i can't remember their names - may have been logic, or live?

the fact anyway that cubase doesn't support that is retarded. it's absolutely impossible to think of any reason other than they intentionally limited it just to piss off users and developers. either that or they have always been too stupid to implement it and by stupid i mean really, really stupid. it's easy to implement.

[rob_lee]

What the heck is VST3 and also fish

Vote submitted, what a boring subject Make some music FFS

[koolkeys]

By the way, to answer the question of how important VST3 is to me: I'm indifferent. I don't personally need it in my main host, though I do own at least one host that supports it(not Cubase). HOWEVER, I do see the benefit, and I do think having support for it is a plus. If given two plug-ins that are mostly identical, I'll many times go with the one that supports more formats.

I don't care what any particular dev has against Steinberg or the VST spec. As a customer, that's irrelevant to me. What I DO care about is if a dev chooses to support formats I can use. And in at least one host I own, I can benefit from it. Argue all you want about the benefits, real or otherwise, of VST3. People DO want VST3. Maybe not a majority, but a good portion.

And many devs have jumped on board. There are dozens of VST3 plug-ins already, and that's great. And three or four hosts as well. So if a dev chooses to ignore a format simply because they are being stubborn or because they don't see any benefit, that's their decision. Chances are, they will still get sales. But to ignore the segment of the user base that DOES want a particular format means they may just be missing out on sales.

So while I'm done arguing with those who insist on making themselves look foolish instead of having a real conversation, I think there is a definite benefit to supporting VST3 and VST3.5. I absolutely believe and trust Urs when he talks about the benefits, and I know he's not the only one to see it by far, and I find it sad that another dev would assume he's been "duped" instead of thinking that Urs knows what he's talking about.

Brent

[zvenx]

I forgot one of the things vst3 offers us Cubendo users I believe.... vsti's to have audio inputs so I can router a bus to a sampler and sample from within Nuendo......could this be done in the vst 2.4 spec?
rsp

Of course. Insert your plug-in on your mic's audio track, and there's your mic signal going in the plug-in input. Pretty crazy stuff, eh?

well as that is described cubase already does that. for instance maschine comes as fx version to do that precisely. In Cubendo you can only use vst effects as inserts, do other DAW allow you to use vst instruments as inserts as well?

rsp

[Urs]

I forgot one of the things vst3 offers us Cubendo users I believe.... vsti's to have audio inputs so I can router a bus to a sampler and sample from within Nuendo......could this be done in the vst 2.4 spec?
rsp

Of course. Insert your plug-in on your mic's audio track, and there's your mic signal going in the plug-in input. Pretty crazy stuff, eh?

Put the same synth plugin ony track in Logic 5.5 on PC

[aciddose]

if urs signed a contract he has been duped partly, it depends upon what the contract takes from you vs. what you gain. if you only gain the "right" to inter-operate with the interface then you've gained nothing since you already had that right. so it comes down to how much has been given up in return for this artificial grant of "right".

of course that might not matter, but time will tell. it all depends again on what rights were given up in return for essentially nothing and how those might be used to negatively influence him in the future.

what happens when yamaha decides they're going to force out vst developers and like apple, starts to refuse to allow competing products in the "vst app store" ?

this is only a theory, but it isn't impossible for it to happen. it's easy for it to happen.

in which case sure you haven't lost that much, assuming you still support vst2 and other formats. if you're entirely depending upon vst3, you'll be locked in and you can be made to be yamaha's bitch.

[koolkeys]

I think Urs is able to make intelligent decisions on his own, and he's been very successful doing so. What you think or assume about his decision is irrelevant, don't you think?

Brent

[Urs]

what happens when yamaha decides they're going to force out vst developers and like apple, starts to refuse to allow competing products in the "vst app store" ?

Uhm, like, they forbid the usage of the VST trademark for anyone who is still stuck with VST2?

[aciddose]

except the problem for them in that case is that vst doesn't need to be used as a trademark. since it's an interface it can be used in a description without any issue.

for example, if the product's name is "vst effect", that's a problem. that's use of the trademark. for example "cubase vst".

if the product's name is "effect", and in it's description it explains "available for vst, au, rtas, dxi, ..." this isn't a trademark use.

have you bothered to see a lawyer about this stuff? since you know if you haven't seen one, it puts you at greater risk because you haven't even bothered.

do you think that the markers of truck parts have huge issues writing "compatible with ford f150" without a trademark license? this is also again all represented in existing case-law.

[Urs]

have you bothered to see a lawyer about this stuff? since you know if you haven't seen one, it puts you at greater risk because you haven't even bothered.

Who do you think you're talking to? A lawyer is on my payrole.

I'd recommend you get one too, should you ever decide to professionally create VST plugins.

[AdmiralQuality]

ok.........out of curiosity which daws support it?
rsp

ALL of them. (At least any of the real hosts, don't ask me about Audacity or the Sony crap.) But if you can record mic input, you can obviously insert an effect on that track and grab the input with it.

This is the thing, we're not exaggerating. Almost everything they claimed was "new" in VST3, you could do before in VST2.4.

Note expression is the one notable exception, that's certainly new. But, personally, I can't imagine ever WANTING to do that. Particularly when I watch a demo like this: Listen to how crappy those mouse-drawn curves sound.

We throw away MIDI because it supposedly lacks resolution, then replace it with non-performed, after-the-fact controller curves drawn with a shaky mouse in a 40 pixel high box?

And can you imagine going through a long polyphonic brass part like this one, and having to select and pan each and every single note to the place you want it? The "old" (aka proper) way would be to record your brass section as however many mono synth performances on separate tracks. (This technique will also sound a lot more authentic than playing it as chords in one pass, piano style. You can even give each instrument its own "personality" in how you perform it.) Then you pan each track to its appropriate position ONCE! DONE! With the MIXER! Like audio engineers have been doing since the dawn of time. The plug-in doesn't need to know if it's being panned or faded, that's what MIXING is for!

And as I mentioned already above, then you can place the instruments in different parts of the same room. You'd need to have separate outputs for each voice to do it VST3 style, which you certainly could like most any sampler, but who's to say which note of the chord gets which voice/output? The sampler's note assigner, which is making decisions the host is not aware of and neither you or it can control. So you can't control your arrangement. By using the new feature that's supposedly so powerful, you're actually LOSING capability, and moving further from the real-life orchestra analog -- apparently a holy grail as it's the only example anyone ever mentions of what NE is meant to be used for.

Then, in the second half of the demo, the instrument and line are purely monophonic. So good old MIDI style controllers would do FINE there, no NE needed. (Inherently, as a monophonic part can only have one note at a time. But does the editor know your instrument is playing a monophonic patch? Nooooooo... Watch the fun begin when you play legato and notes from the controller appear to overlap in time, when the monophonic output obviously cannot.)

[dreamkeeper]

[audio-inputs for instruments]

ok.........out of curiosity which daws support it?
rsp

All modular hosts like energyXT, Usine etc, semi-modular like Reaper and Sonar - probably more (Podium maybe?)

In Cubendo you can only use vst effects as inserts, do other DAW allow you to use vst instruments as inserts as well?

See above. In earlier Sonar this was even the regular way to use VSTi, and still possible.

[EvilDragon]

Reaper does it beautifully.

[zvenx]

ok. was just curious.
rsp