How important is VST3 support for you as a customer

[aciddose]

not to butt into your lovely discussion about the cons of open standards and their lack of being a standard - but i've noticed all the vst3 implementations have wild variations in functionality and some even seem to have bugs or implement shared functions in different ways. curious.

[Elektrobolt]

You think VST3 requires some changes? Wait till there is a completely new standard, not grounded in anything previous.

Not if it were one based on a fork of vst 2.4....

And if Steinberg were to release VST3 as an open standard?

[Big Tick]

And if Steinberg were to release VST3 as an open standard?

To me the most important point is that there should be some kind of control and industry consensus about any proposed change to the standard.

[trimph1]

I suppose some of why a lot of us do not really give a darn about VST3 is because we do not feel the 'need' to suddenly rush out of our way to upgrade everything simply to satisfy whatever the latest thing is .... Now we are on VST3.5? Then it'll be 4.5 then 6.5 next?

How about 64x? Why is that not pushed with the same vim, vigor and enthusiasm? Since we are talking about standards like it is the new religion ....

[Big Tick]

How about 64x? Why is that not pushed with the same vim, vigor and enthusiasm? Since we are talking about standards like it is the new religion ....

It is, at least on my side. The fact that my plugins are not x64 yet, doesn't mean that I'm not enthusiastic about it - it simply means that making a x64 version involves a lot more than changing a few compilation flags and removing potential assumptions about the size of internal types.

[ninedayswonder99]

I want it. I use Cubase. VST expression is great.

[noiseboyuk]

I'm about to move from Sonar to Cubase and the overwhelming reason is VST3. It totally depends on what you use it for, but I'm using a very large orchestral template with VE Pro. Using VST3 massively simplifies the whole operation, and makes it really efficient in use.

If you're just using a basic synth - even a multitimbral one - there's not a huge reason to look for VST3. Not much broke with VST2. But some applications really need the extra space VST3 gives.

[AdmiralQuality]

If you're just using a basic synth - even a multitimbral one - there's not a huge reason to look for VST3. Not much broke with VST2. But some applications really need the extra space VST3 gives.

That's it exactly. Some applications need it. But the poll doesn't specify a certain type or application of plug-in.

[Elektrobolt]

not to butt into your lovely discussion about the cons of open standards and their lack of being a standard - but i've noticed all the vst3 implementations have wild variations in functionality and some even seem to have bugs or implement shared functions in different ways. curious.

W3C standards for the web, talk about wild variations. EVERY single browser has their "flavor" and rarely do web documents work or look as intended in all of them without special code for one or another. This has been the case for years and years.

---

People will disagree, that is inevitable. But at some point an understanding has to be reached and a compromise emerge. Whether that solution fits all, is irrelevant, or an "open standard" is meaningless.

NOT supporting something on principle, certainly displays a lack of the vital attitude suited and needed for large scale open standards collaboration, with many involved parties.

I have never stated that VST3 is in any way "perfect" (nothing ever is) but it is, for what it does, a better choice than anything out there. There are enough stakeholders backing it now. More would be better, so if you do have the ability, start cracking. I will personally buy and promote an official VST3 product that you make, to support your effort! VST3 will break through, sooner or later.

In the meantime, anyone has the ability to plead with Steinberg to release a future version of VST3 as an open standard.

BTW, I bought two new plug-ins just this last week, Stutter Edit (http://www.iZotope.com) and COMPassion (http://www.DMGAudio.com). Appears to be very nice plugs. Check them out!

[AdmiralQuality]

NOT supporting something on principle, certainly displays a lack of the vital attitude suited and needed for large scale open standards collaboration, with many involved parties.

But VST 2.4 plug-ins work in ALL VST3 hosts. So you're are supporting that target platform with a 2.4 plug-in. 2.4 makes a completely reasonable, lowest common denominator, target for plug-ins that don't require the few new features.

[trimph1]

OK..which new standard are we on? VST3, 3.1 or 3.5....or are there other ones too?

[Elektrobolt]

NOT supporting something on principle, certainly displays a lack of the vital attitude suited and needed for large scale open standards collaboration, with many involved parties.

But VST 2.4 plug-ins work in ALL VST3 hosts. So you're are supporting that target platform with a 2.4 plug-in. 2.4 makes a completely reasonable, lowest common denominator, target for plug-ins that don't require the few new features.

But why deliberately aim for a lower version, when compiling a VST3 plug-in would automatically create a VST2.4 and AU plug-in, supporting any hosts without VST3 support.

One would think that the target is to support as many customers as possible, as well as the "lowest common denominator". You can still use the VST2.4 version, if VST3 bothers you that much. But some customers (like me) want 64-bit VST3 plug-ins.

[AdmiralQuality]

NOT supporting something on principle, certainly displays a lack of the vital attitude suited and needed for large scale open standards collaboration, with many involved parties.

But VST 2.4 plug-ins work in ALL VST3 hosts. So you're are supporting that target platform with a 2.4 plug-in. 2.4 makes a completely reasonable, lowest common denominator, target for plug-ins that don't require the few new features.

But why deliberately aim for a lower version, when compiling a VST3 plug-in would automatically create a VST2.4 and AU plug-in, supporting any hosts without VST3 support.

Less complexity, less to test, less to go wrong, less to debug, and more of the actual code in your own control instead of being dependent on Steinberg's wrapper.

One would think that the target is to support as many customers as possible, as well as the "lowest common denominator". You can still use the VST2.4 version, if VST3 bothers you that much. But some customers (like me) want 64-bit VST3 plug-ins.

Right. And you support ALL VST3 host owners when you release a VST2.4. VST3 doesn't bother me at all. People thinking they NEED it, when the few new features of offers don't or even can't apply, bothers me.

And there are x64 VST 2.4 plug-ins. I make them. But I don't know why that issue keeps leaking into this debate, 64 bit, whether instruction set or audio bit depth, is part of VST2.4.

[trimph1]

But those proselytizers of the new religion have to gain new converts!!!

Actually all this is doing is confirming some people's suspicion that there was something about some new guy coming in who had this idea of a completely new system and imposing it on everyone...really, how many NEW features are there and why could they NOT be implemented in VST2.4?

What so completely combimbulated everyone into thinking that they had to go into VST3 to do these things?

[koolkeys]

And there are x64 VST 2.4 plug-ins. I make them. But I don't know why that issue keeps leaking into this debate, 64 bit, whether instruction set or audio bit depth, is part of VST2.4.

I think people are just saying them together to represent what they feel would be the ideal format. I don't think anyone is implying that 2.4 can't do 64-bit. Or at least I don't recall anyone saying so?

Brent