How important is VST3 support for you as a customer

[aciddose]

the fud isn't for developers, it's for users. if the users eat it, which they tend to if they're cubase users, they demand that plugins in vst2 aren't good enough, because their favorite host is the best and implements it, but the plugin doesn't. which in fact is backward - the plugin probably already implements it in reaper, but in cubase they didn't bother to implement their own standard fully and never supported it.

although most users of other hosts like reaper tend to gag and see through it, i think newcomers are extremely affected by the FUD and it can lead them to buy cubase instead of another host. so other hosts are scrambling to support it so they can say "look, me too" and prevent loss of new customers. this is a very shrewd and manipulative practice for stienberg to commit to, and ultimately they're misleading customers although in an indirect way.

i can only hope it comes back to kick them in the ass in the near future, but anyone who knows anything about the business world or the typical customer's exposure to facts in marketing (non existent facts?) should know they'll probably get away scott-free with heaps of customers from other hosts.

[koolkeys]

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?

Actually, I sold Cubase 5 because of it(and other reasons, but it had something to do with it).

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 don't believe things just because Steinberg tells me. I believe them because of using the related products. Cubase is an excellent host, despite the decisions made by Steinberg on the plug-in implementation. And if I go back to Cubase(which I might, don't know), I will absolutely appreciate VST3 support from devs. I already have at least one other host that supports VST3 plug-ins, but it doesn't get heavy use so it's not an essential format for me at the MOMENT.

I'll say it again, "marketing B.S.". As someone who believes in being creative for a living, it makes me sick.

I'm very familiar with the marketing field, fwiw. I don't just believe things because I read them though.

By the way, there ARE benefits to VST3 functionality. Even if they are minor, or if the list isn't long. Heck, VST Expression(in general, not Note Expression in this case) was a big deal for me when I had Cubase. And I would have LOVED to have plug-ins automatically include expression maps in the plug-in, which you can't do in 2.4.

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

Well, we've talked about the sidechaining(though there is the quad workaround, of course). But to get real sidechaining, you need a VST3 plug-in. And Steinberg has crippled other things like fxb and fxp export(you can only import these formats, not save as). These, among some other things, are obviously not things they HAD to do, but they want to build support for VST3. I get it. But the truth is, Cubase is still a good enough host that it's worth going around these things to use it. Again, I say this not as a current Cubase user, but as somebody who is very much familiar with Cubase.

By the way, the intentional crippling was one small reason why I sold Cubase, as mentioned above. Unfortunately, I may not be gone for good for a variety of other unrelated reasons.

Brent

[AdmiralQuality]

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.

And sorry Urs, but I'm too disgusted with SB to play crony-ism with them. I didn't get invited to the "Beer Hall Putsch" like you did, so my original take on VST3 still stands. (Which you apparently shared before you were presumably indoctrinated with free beer, schnitzel and lap dances. ) I simply will not play their game, as I would like to maintain the moral right to call them out on their sleazy tactics.

If I do adopt VST3, it'll be because I see a benefit to my customers. (And a benefit to my development cycle or supported platforms is good for my customers too, so that as well.) Currently I see none, but again, I'm still evaluating the issue. So by all means, lead the way!

Three days then? I felt inadequate when I gut-estimated it would take me 2 or 3 months to port Poly-Ana to VST3, but that was my SERIOUS estimate. Murphy rules my world, so I've learned to take his law into account. Of course, then I'm back to square one for testing. I LIKE having a mature, stable product. As do my customers.

[koolkeys]

I would say that of all the devs who have done VST3 plug-ins, I have yet to notice one that any less stable than their VST2.4 counterparts. So I guess, despite what you seem to be implying, it IS possible to port to VST3 and remain stable, and to make the port in a relatively timely manner.

Brent

[AdmiralQuality]

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

Well, we've talked about the sidechaining(though there is the quad workaround, of course). But to get real sidechaining, you need a VST3 plug-in.

ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!

"Real" side-chaining!?! See, THAT'S marketing! We're talking about EXACTLY the same capability, but the quad solution is somehow tainted?

I'm going to have to count the mouse clicks between the old way and the new way, and see how much time VST3 actually saves you setting up a side-chain (for want of a better term AD! Forgive me! I like ring modulators too! )

[Big Tick]

AD, my estimates are in line with yours.
This said, assuming I would be starting to work on a new plug-in today, I would go with vst3.

[koolkeys]

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

Well, we've talked about the sidechaining(though there is the quad workaround, of course). But to get real sidechaining, you need a VST3 plug-in.

ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!

"Real" side-chaining!?! See, THAT'S marketing! We're talking about EXACTLY the same capability, but the quad solution is somehow tainted?

No, the quad solution is a WORKAROUND. Without it, you can't do sidechaining the way that some other hosts allow with VST2.4. They restrict that functionality to VST3 plug-ins.

I'm going to have to count the mouse clicks between the old way and the new way, and see how much time VST3 actually saves you setting up a side-chain (for want of a better term AD! Forgive me! I like ring modulators too! )

That will likely depend on the host. Studio One may do it differently then Cubase, for instance. But if you have a VST3 plug-in inside of Cubase, sidechaining will be faster than using the quad workaround.

Brent

[trimph1]

Wow. Did this thread take off!!

A question from this mere user...would these VST3's actually sit in a file location of my choosing or am I going to be stuck with them dribbling abouts wherever they get shoved ....?


Besides, I still think that 64x support is more important than all this hypola...

[koolkeys]

Wow. Did this thread take off!!

A question from this mere user...would these VST3's actually sit in a file location of my choosing or am I going to be stuck with them dribbling abouts wherever they get shoved ....?

I've seen some plug-ins that let you choose the location, IIRC. But you can't place them in your own folder structure inside the host as far as I know. I believe they get registered kind of like DX plugs used to, but I can't speak to the actualities behind the scenes.

Besides, I still think that 64x support is more important than all this hypola...

I agree with you, at least for me. 64-bit is very important to me, and is almost reaching dealbreaker status since I finally transitioned my second system to 64-bit.

Brent

[AdmiralQuality]

No, the quad solution is a WORKAROUND. Without it, you can't do sidechaining the way that some other hosts allow with VST2.4. They restrict that functionality to VST3 plug-ins.

You say "workaround" like it's a bad thing. Half of that word however, is "work".

I'm going to have to count the mouse clicks between the old way and the new way, and see how much time VST3 actually saves you setting up a side-chain (for want of a better term AD! Forgive me! I like ring modulators too! )

That will likely depend on the host. Studio One may do it differently then Cubase, for instance. But if you have a VST3 plug-in inside of Cubase, sidechaining will be faster than using the quad workaround.

Brent

Cubase5 or 6 with a VST3.x compressor plug-in with side-chain inputs, vs. Cubase 3.1 with a VST 2.4 compressor plug-in with quad inputs. Both hosts to be set up having one existing stereo audio track to compress, and one existing stereo track to use as a side-chain/modulator. Both tracks unmuted. No plug-ins loaded anywhere. From this starting point, count the mouse clicks (and keystrokes, if applicable) to compress the signal by the modulator's level (in stereo or mono, as long as both tests are the same), hearing only the compressed signal in the main bus. That's how I'd do it.

[koolkeys]

No, the quad solution is a WORKAROUND. Without it, you can't do sidechaining the way that some other hosts allow with VST2.4. They restrict that functionality to VST3 plug-ins.

You say "workaround" like it's a bad thing. Half of that word however, is "work".

Workarounds are generally never preferred to having the actual feature, is it? Not sure what you're trying to say here, but I can see no benefit of a workaround over the actual feature.

Cubase5 or 6 with a VST3.x compressor plug-in with side-chain inputs, vs. Cubase 3.1 with a VST 2.4 compressor plug-in with quad inputs. Both hosts to be set up having one existing stereo audio track to compress, and one existing stereo track to use as a side-chain/modulator. Both tracks unmuted. No plug-ins loaded anywhere. From this starting point, count the mouse clicks (and keystrokes, if applicable) to compress the signal by the modulator's level (in stereo or mono, as long as both tests are the same), hearing only the compressed signal in the main bus. That's how I'd do it.

Yes, but even just inserting the quad bus plug-in is an extra step. Doesn't matter how many clicks it takes after you've inserted that, as you still have to put it in there every time you want to sidechain a VST2 plug-in inside of Cubase. With VST3, no quad needed.

Brent

[EvilDragon]

as you still have to put it in there every time you want to sidechain a VST2 plug-in inside of Cubase

Oh dear, no track templates in Cubase?

[shamann]

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

In past Cubase versions, and I assume it's the same with VST2.4 in v6, variable i/o configurations used to cause project recall problems (e.g. if the number of outputs changed from the last saved config, loading the project would cause a crash). It's why Battery 3 no longer lets you assign how many outputs you want, because Cubase couldn't handle it. Which is a shame, because using a connect-the-lines modular host, you now have all those outputs taking up screen space.

[koolkeys]

as you still have to put it in there every time you want to sidechain a VST2 plug-in inside of Cubase

Oh dear, no track templates in Cubase?

I didn't say that. Regardless of how you do it, it has to be inserted. It's still a workaround, and not even one actually put in there for that purpose.

Brent

[aciddose]

uh.. technically "vst3 side-chaining" is a work-around for implementing proper extended routing features that lots of other hosts already do with vst2.