How important is VST3 support for you as a customer

[AdmiralQuality]

And I still think SB pays their endorsers.

Yes. Visits.

[koolkeys]

Telling another developer that he shouldnt support VST3, or has been 'duped' if he chooses to, or saying that one of his customer's has been paid to request it of him, are not 'solid verifiable' points. Its bullshit, pure and simple.

Where have I said anything like that? I'm just trying to educate the few misinformed here who say things like "no VST3 support is a deal breaker", but have no idea why they actually think that.

If somebody uses a VST3 host, and that host relies on VST3 plug-ins to use it's full features(whether you like the decision to design the host that way or not), then it IS a deal breaker. Why assume those people have no idea why they think that? You just keep assuming that anyone who doesn't agree with you is misinformed or some sort of idiot. You're wrong.

Brent

[Urs]

And I still think SB pays their endorsers.

Yes. Visits.

Last time I visited HZ I just missed Arndt from Steinberg by a few hours or so. Hence I guess Steinberg pays their endorsers visits. As do I.

[whyterabbyt]

Telling another developer that he shouldnt support VST3, or has been 'duped' if he chooses to, or saying that one of his customer's has been paid to request it of him, are not 'solid verifiable' points. Its bullshit, pure and simple.

Where have I said anything like that?

erm, here, perhaps? :

http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic ... 86#4500386

Again, HZ is (I'm forced to assume) in SB's employ. Of COURSE he wants someone else to make a Note Expression capable plug-in, then he'll have two!

HZ isn't a developer.

Im aware of that; he's a customer of a developer. Maybe you should read what I actually wrote again.

[AdmiralQuality]

As far as I can see I have brought up my points as to why I'm supporting VST3, as a simple business decision. For which a couple of developers jump on me in unsurprisingly hostile ways.

Urs, I like you, and your work, so I don't want to fight. But exactly which of your products should I be demoing to see your VST3 support? Am I missing something?

[Urs]

As far as I can see I have brought up my points as to why I'm supporting VST3, as a simple business decision. For which a couple of developers jump on me in unsurprisingly hostile ways.

Urs, I like you, and your work, so I don't want to fight. But exactly which of your products should I be demoing to see your VST3 support? Am I missing something?

All of them of course. Once it's there. My second dev has a huge list of things to do, and VST3 is among that list (he basically has it going, just some gui stuff on Mac is missing, but I assigned him some more important tasks till next month or so)

[AdmiralQuality]

Brent. Most of us in this discussion, particularly the developers who actually know what they're talking about, are making solid, verifiable points. You're the one who's got the blinders on, beating the drum mindlessly, and insulting anyone who dares to disagree with your point of view that you refuse to explain with any actual examples other than "Urs says". Well Urs says above when cornered on the bundling issue... "use VST 2.4".

I never insulted you. You just take it all personally. I still disagree with you, and I absolutely know what I'm talking about. I don't really care if you believe me or not. I'm not discussing the deeper coding issues, nor have I disputed anything anyone has said with those issues, as I am NOT a coder. FWIW, I do code in some smaller formats, from web formats to some scripting, and I've learned a certain amount of C++ in the past, but I don't consider myself a coder. I do enjoy the conversation from a distance though. You can continue to want to make it personal if you wish, but I could care less.

And someone already pointed out, Urs is somewhat trivializing the effort required to port to VST3.x. Indeed, he has a minion doing it for him. 2 days? OK, where's VST3.5 ACE? (Heck, the website says it's VST 2.3!) Where's VST3.5 Zebra? Don't tell me what Urs says, tell me what Urs DOES. I'll even give him two more days...

Great, I'm sure he'll appreciate you doing that. You're such a nice guy.

I'll still trust Urs ANY DAY of the week over you, acidose, etc. Not because I don't think you know what you're talking about at all, but there are several good reasons behind that trust(no, I don't work for him, in case you felt like making that assumption).

I can only assume you know nothing about how software development works.

Another incorrect assumption. Though not a coder myself, I know far more than you think, and have been involved in virtually all other parts of the process in very involved ways.

But generally, developers fear change. It takes, literally, years worth of hundreds of users working with your product before you can be confident that it's reasonably bug-free. Move to an ENTIRELY new interface and all bets are off. The developer, AND THE USER, can toss out whatever confidence they had in the product and start testing at square 1 again.

I absolutely agree to an extent. It's always touch dealing with new interfaces and platforms. But it's done EVERY DAY, and many many devs have made the jumps, and done so successfully. No confidence lost. Nothing tossed out.

Brent

Once again, you're being argumentative without making a single point. You trust Urs over other devs for reasons you won't explain. You say things are done "every day" but provide no examples. Your argument (if it can even be called that) is meaningless fluff.

"You're talking a lot, but you're not saying anything."
- Talking Heads, Psycho Killer

[AdmiralQuality]

exactly which of your products should I be demoing to see your VST3 support? Am I missing something?

All of them of course. Once it's there.

Talk is cheap man. But I'm genuinely looking forward to seeing how you do with it.

I'll check back in "two days". (Your estimate, not mine!)

[aciddose]

my rebuttal was against the appeal-to-authority that urs knows what's best for me, or for anyone other than himself.

Where do I say such? I absolutely do not care for you, so I wouldn't ever tell you or even "order" you to do this or that.

As far as I can see I have brought up my points as to why I'm supporting VST3, as a simple business decision. For which a couple of developers jump on me in unsurprisingly hostile ways.

As I said, I couldn't care less, and I guess that your condescending ways to exprss your points are mostly meant as a joke or something.

uh, actually if you read more than the first paragraph you'll see that i was referring to what koolkeys said, and i specifically explained you haven't said it, two times.

actually "two times" is based upon the idea that you can't really "appeal to authority" when it's your own authority. you do that all the time though and that i assume is when you're talking about yourself, which is kind of like talking to yourself, which is fine. i do this as well, such as my comments about risks involved with signing contracts. this is a risk that affects me, and i assume could affect others too, but apparently you're perfectly happy with that.

so the first time is sort of based upon an assumed sub-context and relies heavily upon good comprehension of english; to me though it seems obvious what i'm stating in the first sentence. "someone appealed to urs' authority", not "urs appealed to urs' authority".

[AdmiralQuality]

Telling another developer that he shouldnt support VST3, or has been 'duped' if he chooses to, or saying that one of his customer's has been paid to request it of him, are not 'solid verifiable' points. Its bullshit, pure and simple.

Where have I said anything like that? I'm just trying to educate the few misinformed here who say things like "no VST3 support is a deal breaker", but have no idea why they actually think that.

If somebody uses a VST3 host, and that host relies on VST3 plug-ins to use it's full features(whether you like the decision to design the host that way or not), then it IS a deal breaker. Why assume those people have no idea why they think that? You just keep assuming that anyone who doesn't agree with you is misinformed or some sort of idiot. You're wrong.

Brent

How many audio plug-ins, of whatever format, do you know of that implement ALL features of the API? It virtually never happens, because not all plug-ins NEED all features.

It's like saying VST3.5 sucks because I can't use it in ProTools!

A VST2.4 plug-in can do EVERYTHING IT EVER WAS SUPPOSED TO DO in all the current VST3 compatible hosts. Sure, if you refuse to ever work with a plug-in that doesn't support Note Expression again, then your stance would make sense. But dear gawd man... what about EFFECTS? (Just for one example.) You've got blinders on!

[koolkeys]

Brent. Most of us in this discussion, particularly the developers who actually know what they're talking about, are making solid, verifiable points. You're the one who's got the blinders on, beating the drum mindlessly, and insulting anyone who dares to disagree with your point of view that you refuse to explain with any actual examples other than "Urs says". Well Urs says above when cornered on the bundling issue... "use VST 2.4".

I never insulted you. You just take it all personally. I still disagree with you, and I absolutely know what I'm talking about. I don't really care if you believe me or not. I'm not discussing the deeper coding issues, nor have I disputed anything anyone has said with those issues, as I am NOT a coder. FWIW, I do code in some smaller formats, from web formats to some scripting, and I've learned a certain amount of C++ in the past, but I don't consider myself a coder. I do enjoy the conversation from a distance though. You can continue to want to make it personal if you wish, but I could care less.

And someone already pointed out, Urs is somewhat trivializing the effort required to port to VST3.x. Indeed, he has a minion doing it for him. 2 days? OK, where's VST3.5 ACE? (Heck, the website says it's VST 2.3!) Where's VST3.5 Zebra? Don't tell me what Urs says, tell me what Urs DOES. I'll even give him two more days...

Great, I'm sure he'll appreciate you doing that. You're such a nice guy.

I'll still trust Urs ANY DAY of the week over you, acidose, etc. Not because I don't think you know what you're talking about at all, but there are several good reasons behind that trust(no, I don't work for him, in case you felt like making that assumption).

I can only assume you know nothing about how software development works.

Another incorrect assumption. Though not a coder myself, I know far more than you think, and have been involved in virtually all other parts of the process in very involved ways.

But generally, developers fear change. It takes, literally, years worth of hundreds of users working with your product before you can be confident that it's reasonably bug-free. Move to an ENTIRELY new interface and all bets are off. The developer, AND THE USER, can toss out whatever confidence they had in the product and start testing at square 1 again.

I absolutely agree to an extent. It's always touch dealing with new interfaces and platforms. But it's done EVERY DAY, and many many devs have made the jumps, and done so successfully. No confidence lost. Nothing tossed out.

Brent

Once again, you're being argumentative without making a single point. You trust Urs over other devs for reasons you won't explain. You say things are done "every day" but provide no examples. Your argument (if it can even be called that) is meaningless fluff.

"You're talking a lot, but you're not saying anything."
- Talking Heads, Psycho Killer

Well, I'm allowed to have my reasons and I really don't have to tell you them, do I? Is that alright with you sir? I would hate to actually list the reasons as somebody might get their toes stepped on, so I'll refrain. Cool with you?

I say "every day" because many devs have added VST3 support without missing a beat. Check the plug-in listings. VST3 plugs are all over the place. Fabfilter, Nugen audio, DMG Audio, VSL, Melda, Brainworx, Image-line, Presonus, and the list goes on. The database isn't even up to date and it shows there is support. Heck, Melda has almost 50 plug-ins and was able to add support to the whole lineup!

All the while, you resort to childish insults, arguments that are nothing more than dismissive and full of assumptions, and opinions not really based on any facts of their own.

And no, I'm not talking about the developer-level stuff. I'm not saying you don't understand coding, or that you're bad at it, or anything else. I actually think your synth is a great product and evidence that you know what you're doing to a certain extent. I'm not a huge synth guy, so I'm not a customer. But I can appreciate the work that goes into good products. So in this case, I'm talking about everything else, not anything related to the coding itself.

Brent

[koolkeys]

Telling another developer that he shouldnt support VST3, or has been 'duped' if he chooses to, or saying that one of his customer's has been paid to request it of him, are not 'solid verifiable' points. Its bullshit, pure and simple.

Where have I said anything like that? I'm just trying to educate the few misinformed here who say things like "no VST3 support is a deal breaker", but have no idea why they actually think that.

If somebody uses a VST3 host, and that host relies on VST3 plug-ins to use it's full features(whether you like the decision to design the host that way or not), then it IS a deal breaker. Why assume those people have no idea why they think that? You just keep assuming that anyone who doesn't agree with you is misinformed or some sort of idiot. You're wrong.

Brent

How many audio plug-ins, of whatever format, do you know of that implement ALL features of the API? It virtually never happens, because not all plug-ins NEED all features.

I never said they did or didn't. And why does it even matter? You must not be understanding my post.

It's like saying VST3.5 sucks because I can't use it in ProTools!

No, it's nothing like that.

A VST2.4 plug-in can do EVERYTHING IT EVER WAS SUPPOSED TO DO in all the current VST3 compatible hosts. Sure, if you refuse to ever work with a plug-in that doesn't support Note Expression again, then your stance would make sense. But dear gawd man... what about EFFECTS? (Just for one example.) You've got blinders on!

And you still are changing what I said. I never said that a VST2.4 plug couldn't function in a VST3 host. However, there ARE hosts that allow you a better workflow when using a VST3 plug-in, and there are hosts like Cubase, who like it or not have crippled the VST2.4 functionality in support of VST3, where having a VST3 plug-in DOES benefit the user. Again you don't have to like the way Cubase has done things in this area(I certainly complained enough about them in the past, and think it was the absolute wrong method), but for a Cubase user, it can and is a deal breaker for some if there is no VST3 version.

Brent

[aciddose]

well that seems an odd thing to bother with because although AQ tends to get emotional about things and throw side-swipes, while he's calm he stays mostly on topic.

we should probably all be able to agree any side-swipes are totally off topic and probably for the most part nonsense or incorrect in a lot of cases.

as for what's being argued though, i'm as far as i'm aware the only person who brought up a concern not related to programming, and that was the contract issues and my speculation about why on earth they decided to write code that forces you to sign a contract if they wanted an "open" interface, which by legal standards vst3 certainly is not. (come on, if you need a contract to use it, it isn't legally open to all then is it? in fact they could refuse anyone they want from entering into a contract with them, so it's not even remotely open. it's a barred gate with a guard..)

all the other issues are "user believes feature X can't be done with vst2" and either "vst2 already actually had that, just cubase didn't implement their own standard", or "vst2 could have that with less effort than it took to implement in vst3."

those i think are both extremely valid points, and i'm pretty tired of wasting time repeating them over and over because apparently nobody cares anyway. i just hope some non-programmers have read this thread without being scared off by technical or legal discussions and brought away from it that one, there may be some reason they actually did change the interface that isn't related to features, and two that all the features in vst3 are not exclusive to that format - and in fact the most popular ones like side-chaining already work fine in vst2, or even better!

[Urs]

exactly which of your products should I be demoing to see your VST3 support? Am I missing something?

All of them of course. Once it's there.

Talk is cheap man. But I'm genuinely looking forward to seeing how you do with it.

I'll check back in "two days". (Your estimate, not mine!)

Two days is what my dev needed to get it going with my framework, without knowing my framework at all. It isn't finished nor perfect, nor are the additional features implemented. I guessed that a skilled coder who knows his stuff would get it going in two days. In the end, it's a simple interface, much like AU but with an SDK not nearly as complicated.

LOL, I never said I wrote a single line of code for VST3. All I said is that we're going to support VST3, that's all there is. Yet I don't know what AD's often mentioned Fud is, and why would I ever eat it?

On the other hand side, it might be a good idea to get on Steinberg's list of VST3 developers as long as they all still fit on that page. Might be good for 5 or so sales a day. Might ask dev to hurry up with the more important shit and get back to VST3.

[AdmiralQuality]

there are hosts like Cubase, who like it or not have crippled the VST2.4 functionality in support of VST3, where having a VST3 plug-in DOES benefit the user.

And you're not offended by this tactic? Trust us devs, there's NO technical reason it had to be that way. Personally, I take great offense at it. And it's important for me to get the word out and debunk the myriad myths that they WANT you to believe. I'll say it again, "marketing B.S.". As someone who believes in being creative for a living, it makes me sick.

By the way, exactly what VST2.4 functionality is crippled in Cubase 6? Just curious.