How important is VST3 support for you as a customer

[Richard_Synapse]

The problem isn't VST3. The problem is the failure of vendors other than Steinberg to create a viable alternative and open standard.

The problem is not to create such a standard, but for devs to agree on/use it.

An open standard that is conceptually close to VST 2.4 is rather easy to do. If VSTGUI can be integrated (iirc it is open source), the transition is even trivial. To replace or extend MIDI, OSC (Open Sound Control) could be used. The actual effort going into such a standard could be as little as a week and handled by a single developer (but noone would care).

Richard

[ericj23]

Has anyone heard of developers using this ?

"As a direct result of the modular interface design of VST3, the Steinberg Kernel Interface (SKI) can be combined with VST3 plug-ins. SKI is an additional SDK that allows extremely close integration of a plug-in with a Steinberg host application, and allows functions to be carried out almost from within the application. This extends to the ability to create tracks, copy, cut, paste or process events in the Steinberg host application. SKI is provided to selected industry partners upon request."

I can't think of too many roles other than audio editor plugs that work off line but it is an interesting idea - open plug ins to do mcu more than just process audio and midi

[Richard_Synapse]

Sure it's interesting, I use such techniques for my internal plugins in Orion too. For instance, the plugins step sequencers are always linked to the piano roll (as it should be).

An open standard having such features might bloat the standard substantially, however. I think a much better idea for a new, open standard would be to start as simple as possible, and provide only the bare minimum needed. From there it could gradually evolve.

Richard

[omissis]

Hi everybody
Bumping this thread up for a naive question: let's say that I want a synthesizer where a single instance can provide more than one synthesizer layer, and I want for each layer to have an independent patch manager, I know that VST 2.x can't afford this, would VST3.x help me in any way?
Thx for replying!

[omissis]

Anybody could tell me if VST 3.x would support an advanced patch management?

[AdmiralQuality]

Anybody could tell me if VST 3.x would support an advanced patch management?

I never understand this request. What's wrong with the file system?

[omissis]

Anybody could tell me if VST 3.x would support an advanced patch management?

I never understand this request. What's wrong with the file system?

Hi AQ

Ok, I'll try to explain: I would like to design a synthesizer featuring two synth lines running independently (Super JX anybody? DX1? Proph10?), so I can have a layer of sounds *without* having lots of instances; problem is, each synthline's preset should run under a hierarchic rule (e.g. one preset is made of two layers) but I want to avoid it and make the layers able to save their own presets so I can freely mix and change them without changing the layer preset; somebody suggested that it could be better to run under a kind of a fixed 'init' patch being able to switch among layers: true but I can't save anything; now I'd like to know if VST 3.x could give me better chances to make the synth able to manage the patches like that, being able at the same time to let the controller send separate PC and CC to each layer....

[AdmiralQuality]

Anybody could tell me if VST 3.x would support an advanced patch management?

I never understand this request. What's wrong with the file system?

Hi AQ

Ok, I'll try to explain: I would like to design a synthesizer featuring two synth lines running independently (Super JX anybody? DX1? Proph10?),

...a multitimbral instrument...

so I can have a layer of sounds *without* having lots of instances; problem is, each synthline's preset should run under a hierarchic rule (e.g. one preset is made of two layers) but I want to avoid it and make the layers able to save their own presets so I can freely mix and change them without changing the layer preset; somebody suggested that it could be better to run under a kind of a fixed 'init' patch being able to switch among layers: true but I can't save anything; now I'd like to know if VST 3.x could give me better chances to make the synth able to manage the patches like that, being able at the same time to let the controller send separate PC and CC to each layer....

Why not just run two (or more) instances of the synth? This is why you hardly ever see split or layer functions on VSTi's. There's little if any advantage (I suppose you could make splits a bit easier to set up than in the host/controller, depending on what host/controller you use).

You could implement your own file format for saving/recalling your partial patches. You could also rig something so it would only load the lower or upper part of any patch (which would always contain both parts, even if you don't load both).

Anyway, sorry. I thought you meant patch management like a librarian function. (Where, again, I prefer to use the computer's file system.)

[omissis]

...a multitimbral instrument...

Yup; I suppose I could tell it with two words...nevermind

Why not just run two (or more) instances of the synth? This is why you hardly ever see split or layer functions on VSTi's. There's little if any advantage (I suppose you could make splits a bit easier to set up than in the host/controller, depending on what host/controller you use).

You could implement your own file format for saving/recalling your partial patches. You could also rig something so it would only load the lower or upper part of any patch (which would always contain both parts, even if you don't load both).

Anyway, sorry. I thought you meant patch management like a librarian function. (Where, again, I prefer to use the computer's file system.)

[edit] well the layer is part of the charm [/edit]
Thx for pointing me to a proprietary file format, haven't thought about it, anyway I don't need a specific split function but I'd like to find out how can I manage a layer; for example you have synths like the old CS80 where you could change the (hardwired) presets through two separate rows of switches, being able to switch just on one row or switching on both while freely choosing among the avaliable factory/user presets...also the core of my question is: is VST3 and the new file format able to support this kind of embedment?
Thx

[Angus_FX]

Trying to define that kind of 'advanced' (read 'complicated') behaviour as part of a plug-in standard is a recipe for disaster. Because everybody has their own ideas about what the exact details should be. Much better for plug-ins to deal with that kind of thing via a proprietary (or better yet semi-proprietary - particular to the plug-in but published by the dev) file format.

Interface formats like MIDI or indeed 1/4in jack i/o are successful in part because they're no more complex (and specify no more) than is needed to get the job done. Much better IMO to think of plug-in formats as a simple interconnect between peer devices, rather than some kind of top-down "operating system" defined by the host.

[arkmabat]

I don't care about VST3 is at 61% haha

[hibidy]

Sorry arkmabat

[osiris]

I hate it. I have VST/VST2 and VST3 plugins in FL now. So, I have duplicates of duplicates of 32 bit and 64 bit and VST2,3 and I guess whatever else Steinberg wants to throw up. They ALL work.
I just don't understand why SB didn't make these builds like software. Just VST version 2, etc.
IT'S BECOMING RIDICULOUS GUYS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Elektrobolt]

I don't care about VST3 is at 61% haha

I think one would have to say "was" at this point.

At the time of posting this, that 61% accounts for exactly 238 votes (out of 393). I.e. less than 400 people in a world of 7 billion people, of which I presume contain a lot more than 400 people use a DAW and plugins. So it's not a terribly large fragment of the music population.

30% *prefers* VST3, which is a little less than half of the 61% that don't care about VST3. That does not mean that the 61% actually are against VST3, they just don't care one way or another. Some of them could even be using it.

9% don't even know what VST3 is, or is that one we write off because it was a sarcastic choice to begin with?

I am curious however, why this 61% is at all a "funny" matter to you? I mean, are you seriously getting off on the fact that Steinberg is struggling with VST3, or that VST3 is being suppressed by a fair chunk of the music industry? Is it perhaps the fact that a technology appears defeated or failed? Do you perhaps see it as a personal triumph to have sided with a few in a public forum and "won" some argument of opinion? Geez Louise, no wonder humanity isn't getting anywhere.

Einstein said, "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former", and I think he was right. (Hmm, maybe we should have a poll to see if I am right about him being right...)

[chk071]

I don't care about VST3 is at 61% haha

I think the result would become different, if Steinberg forced VST3 further, by, say, totally removing VST2 support from Cubase or Nuendo. Which one day, if VST3 gets a bit more popular, and every developer develops VST3, couldn't be so unrealistic anymore...