How important is VST3 support for you as a customer

[dreamkeeper]

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

game! set! match!

[koolkeys]

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

*sigh* talk about completely missing my point, not reading, and trying to use it to prove an argument that isn't even going on.......maybe go back and READ what I'm talking about?

EDIT: In case you missed it, nobody ever said anything contrary to what you just said. You're making an argument that doesn't need made.

[bduffy]

I probably shouldn't butt in here, but I just wanted to say that, for me, it's been great to have internal sidechaining and automatic channel-input-detection for VST3 effects. I love that my old favourite Waves FX have quick, easy sidechaining and that I can disable all my annoying "Mono" versions, un-cluttering my VST menus. For me, it's worth it (why does that sound like Madeline Albright?)

However after reading (still reading) this thread, I understand the problems facing developers. I'm really surprised they didn't just go "VST 2.7!" instead of 3. Kind of shocking anyone bothers developing VST3 after reading this, but I'm glad they do. I've kind of gotten used to using VST3 now and surrendering my categorization choices to the VST Gods. But I started conforming my folders to Cubase's names a long time ago, to avoid gigantic menus.

Anyway, great thread (vitriol excepted), thanks guys.

[dreamkeeper]

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

*sigh* talk about completely missing my point, not reading, and trying to use it to prove an argument that isn't even going on.......maybe go back and READ what I'm talking about?

EDIT: In case you missed it, nobody ever said anything contrary to what you just said. You're making an argument that doesn't need made.

Maybe... still is the essence of what SB did.

[aciddose]

i'm rebutting your "it's a work-around" argument. it's cubase's fault that it needs a work around. why don't they just implement proper routing features, then we wouldn't need any work-arounds at all.

actually no - everyone just don't use cubase, please try to find another host that isn't managed by people who are clearly incompetents. they're trying to swindle customers and convince them via misleading claims that they shouldn't use other hosts. use other hosts.

the official cubase workaround is: make everyone write new versions of plugins with new interface formats, make customers in some cases buy new plugins, and make everyone use a particular hand-picked method of operation rather than giving them the freedom to do what they want.

it's one thing when limiting functionality to what's practical, but when intentionally disabling natural functionality rather than hiding it away in an "advanced route" button or something it's just idiotic.

i can say this: i can stop the execution of cubase, copy data or change some pointers and route channels to another plugin at will as it stands now. that is the ultimate work-around. why isn't there a simple menu on the gui for this? why should you need to be a hacker to accomplish such a simple task.

[koolkeys]

i'm rebutting your "it's a work-around" argument. it's cubase's fault that it needs a work around. why don't they just implement proper routing features, then we wouldn't need any work-arounds at all.

But there is NOTHING to rebutt. You aren't making any point that disagrees with any point I made, or anyone else. I already mentioned multiple times exactly what you said, that Steinberg intentionally crippled it. You're making an argument that doesn't need made because nobody is actually arguing anything. The statement about being a workaround is absolutely, 100% accurate, and not an argument.

actually no - everyone just don't use cubase, please try to find another host that isn't managed by people who are clearly incompetents. they're trying to swindle customers and convince them via misleading claims that they shouldn't use other hosts. use other hosts.

Who said that everyone uses Cubase? Not me. But a LOT of people DO use it, and for good reasons. It's an excellent host, despite it's shortcomings and sometimes boneheaded moves by Steinberg.

the official cubase workaround is: make everyone write new versions of plugins with new interface formats, make customers in some cases buy new plugins, and make everyone use a particular hand-picked method of operation rather than giving them the freedom to do what they want.

All irrelevant. Cubase is chosen by people all the time for good reasons. And because of that, they have to live with needing VST3 for full benefit. It's worth the hassle for many.

it's one thing when limiting functionality to what's practical, but when intentionally disabling natural functionality rather than hiding it away in an "advanced route" button or something it's just idiotic.

Where did anyone say anything different? Again, you're making an argument where none is needed. Do you just like arguing?

Brent

[gdev1981]

I'm looking forward to it. VST3 would make my life much easier if I could at the same time ditch VST2 altogether. Unfortunately latter is gonna be around for a while...

VST3 would be good because it has is a multi-plugin-in-a-single-binary thing which on VST2 is known as shell. While the shell stuff never really worked except for one company who supposedly did it wrong (cause? effect?), it does seem to work fine in VST3. So in VST3 I could ship a single binary for all my bundled plugins just like I do for AU and RTAS. This saves hassle, resources and it even eases communication between different plugs. Would be great to have.

Urs

Yeah!

I really like VST3 because you don't need to have lots of verions (e.g. mono, stereo, surround) of the same plugin cluttering up your menus and also Automap supports VST3 now so that's good too.

It's not a deal breaker but it is a big benefit for the customer I reckon!

[koolkeys]

I probably shouldn't butt in here,

Go away STOOGE!

[trimph1]

i'm rebutting your "it's a work-around" argument. it's cubase's fault that it needs a work around. why don't they just implement proper routing features, then we wouldn't need any work-arounds at all.

But there is NOTHING to rebutt. You aren't making any point that disagrees with any point I made, or anyone else. I already mentioned multiple times exactly what you said, that Steinberg intentionally crippled it. You're making an argument that doesn't need made because nobody is actually arguing anything. The statement about being a workaround is absolutely, 100% accurate, and not an argument.

actually no - everyone just don't use cubase, please try to find another host that isn't managed by people who are clearly incompetents. they're trying to swindle customers and convince them via misleading claims that they shouldn't use other hosts. use other hosts.

Who said that everyone uses Cubase? Not me. But a LOT of people DO use it, and for good reasons. It's an excellent host, despite it's shortcomings and sometimes boneheaded moves by Steinberg.

the official cubase workaround is: make everyone write new versions of plugins with new interface formats, make customers in some cases buy new plugins, and make everyone use a particular hand-picked method of operation rather than giving them the freedom to do what they want.

All irrelevant. Cubase is chosen by people all the time for good reasons. And because of that, they have to live with needing VST3 for full benefit. It's worth the hassle for many.

it's one thing when limiting functionality to what's practical, but when intentionally disabling natural functionality rather than hiding it away in an "advanced route" button or something it's just idiotic.

Where did anyone say anything different? Again, you're making an argument where none is needed. Do you just like arguing?

Brent

I think the point here is that VST3 is not necessary period. It is making more work for everyone else so that SB can basically use its customer base as cash cows...

I've had to do workarounds with 5.5 for awhile now then I found out that I did not need to do all that nonsense with X1. All VST3 is is another way to foist everything over on top of everyone else....

[aciddose]

i'm not trying to argue with you, just rebutting the comment you're making about where AQ describes "another" work-around solution. if you agree that vst3 is a work-around, then how could you claim it's better or worse than any other work-around that requires identical effort?

so we do in fact agree that vst3's side-chain "feature" is a stupidly implemented work-around for the lack of proper functionality.

i'd still like to know why on earth they don't just bite the bullet and implement proper routing - ah, but it's related to forcing vst3 on customers, which is where the anger comes from.

hey, if they wanted to play a con and implement proper routing with vst3, but not vst2, i'd even jump in on that if my legal concerns could be relaxed by them releasing a bsd-style licensed version of the interface or something similar. it would suck, the code is far worse than even vst2, but i'd still deal with it if they had to change the style so much for whatever reason. that only applies though if they'd relieve me of the legal burden, which is something they won't do; which for obvious reasons leads to obvious conclusions about why not.

[koolkeys]

I think the point here is that VST3 is not necessary period. It is making more work for everyone else so that SB can basically use its customer base as cash cows...

Well, hard to say how much money they are actually making on it since the spec itself is free, so one can only guess.

But really, "necessary" is a very subjective word. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Maybe they had some major changes they wanted to make to the general structure of VST(some of which are beneficial, even if not completely impossible in VST2), and decided to bundle that in with all the new "features". And hey, there ARE features that are not available in the previous specs, such as the Expression Map bundling, etc. Not important to everyone, I agree. But it's at least arguable that VST3 does hold benefit for a segment of the population, and it's something that several devs have already jumped in with.

Many things were possible in VST2 that were supposedly 'new' in VST3, which is no secret. However, as mentioned previously by Urs and others elsewhere, there are some benefits depending on what you need as a dev or a customer.

Brent

[koolkeys]

i'm not trying to argue with you, just rebutting the comment you're making about where AQ describes "another" work-around solution. if you agree that vst3 is a work-around, then how could you claim it's better or worse than any other work-around that requires identical effort?

Of course you're trying to argue. THERE IS NOTHING TO REBUTTAL. If you would have READ the entire conversation, you would see why I brought up the quad workaround, and you would see that I ALREADY MULTIPLE TIMES stated what you are supposedly stating in your "rebuttal". Nobody is disagreeing with you, but you still seem to think they are.

so we do in fact agree that vst3's side-chain "feature" is a stupidly implemented work-around for the lack of proper functionality.

Stupidly implemented, who knows. Probably down to a matter of opinion. Unnecessary? Probably. But in a general sense, yes, we agree.

i'd still like to know why on earth they don't just bite the bullet and implement proper routing - ah, but it's related to forcing vst3 on customers, which is where the anger comes from.

Actually, I don't think the routing has anything to do with VST3. I think it's an entirely other issue.

hey, if they wanted to play a con and implement proper routing with vst3, but not vst2, i'd even jump in on that if my legal concerns could be relaxed by them releasing a bsd-style licensed version of the interface or something similar. it would suck, the code is far worse than even vst2, but i'd still deal with it if they had to change the style so much for whatever reason. that only applies though if they'd relieve me of the legal burden, which is something they won't do; which for obvious reasons leads to obvious conclusions about why not.

Not getting into that issue, as I haven't looked at the documents involved. Not saying you're right or wrong, though I do take it with a grain of salt, if I'm being honest, because as far as I know, you're going by your own non-legal expertise interpretation. Honestly, I could care less about that part of it for the most part.

Brent

[aciddose]

you don't need a whole lot of legal expertise to know that to use a copy-protected work you need a license, and to get a license you need a contract, and that the contract in this case is available on the website and isn't only a grant, but also restricts your rights in return.

(for example, bsd or gpl licenses are also contracts, but they're simple enough that they're included in the source-code. why not a 'vst' license?)

the only thing you'd need legal expertise for would be my claim that you don't need a license in the first place, which as i said is the important part. anybody would need to hire a lawyer to ask this, and i'd bet the lawyer would say "don't risk it" because i bet there isn't any specific case-law. example, look at the other formats which all used this method to protect themselves. vst was the only free format with major support, until now. now, there is a fud campaign against vst2 which is trying to decrease it's support.

by the way, i know you already said those things but my point still stands about how you suddenly argued "but that's a work-around" against what AQ had been saying. if i misread that or wasn't in-context of some larger point you were making where you were not implying anything wrong with his method, ok. i must have missed out on why you'd say it in the first place.

[koolkeys]

you don't need a whole lot of legal expertise to know that to use a copy-protected work you need a license, and to get a license you need a contract, and that the contract in this case is available on the website and isn't only a grant, but also restricts your rights in return.

the only thing you'd need legal expertise for would be my claim that you don't need a license in the first place, which as i said is the important part. anybody would need to hire a lawyer to ask this, and i'd bet the lawyer would say "don't risk it" because i bet there isn't any specific case-law. example, look at the other formats which all used this method to protect themselves. vst was the only free format with major support, until now. now, there is a fud campaign against vst2 which is trying to decrease it's support.

I understand copyright law. But as I said, I really don't care about the rest in this case. I still take it with a grain of salt.

by the way, i know you already said those things but my point still stands about how you suddenly argued "but that's a work-around" against what AQ had been saying. if i misread that or wasn't in-context of some larger point you were making where you were not implying anything wrong with his method, ok. i must have missed out on why you'd say it in the first place.

I didn't "suddenly" argue anything. I said that it was a workaround from the beginning. He asked what parts of VST2 that Steinberg crippled that they let you do with VST3. Sidechaining is one of the big ones, along with other things(a couple that I mentioned). I stated that in order to do sidechaining with a VST2 plug-in inside of Cubase, you needed to do a workaround since the actual functionality wasn't built in.

And that was really it. All 100% true and irrefutable. Which is why I said you were arguing for no reason.

Brent

[aciddose]

well the only issue seems to be the consideration of whether the "built in" side-chaining feature is really a feature, or just another work-around.

since we both agree it's a kludge, a work-around and doesn't do everything a proper implementation of routing would do, then you're right, there is nothing to discuss.