Did KVR Scare the Reaper Peeps Away?

[jeffh]

In theory, you are completely correct, but I believe (though I don't know all the dirty little details) that steiny has something to do with why vst3 hasn't caught on as strongly as was once hoped.

Yeah, Steinberg did well with the initial VST versions because it was "good enough", and because it was just open enough of a standard to draw developer support back when softsynths were a new frontier... However, it still requires you to sign an agreement and register a developer account with Steinberg, and there are limits on how you may license your derivative works (especially that you can't open-source your works that use VST), which means that Steinberg still basically owns you, you are not free to do whatever you want with it...

VST3 was a fairly dramatic departure from previous VST versions that implements things other hosts had already implemented on their own to work-around limitations in those previous versions... So, it is somewhat non-trivial to implement proper VST3 support, and frankly, most people could already accomplish everything they wanted to with VST2.x, so there's not that much value in VST3...

But these days, most developers are smart enough to realize that any software standard should have a liberal open source license (BSD, MIT, LGPL, etc...), that allows them to do whatever they want and freely redistribute and make derivative works under a license of their choosing, even if software implementing the standards is going to be closed-source and proprietary. Developers don't want to be beholden to Steinberg, but there is no suitable open plugin format yet (please don't say LV2, LOL). I think Justin is smart enough to give his plugin format a proper open source license when/if it comes, but in the meantime, I expect VST2.x to continue to dominate, unless somebody else comes up with a proper plugin format...

[jancivil]

I don't know about you, but I don't necessarily use piano roll for composing, just for eventual fixes after the fact. I can play my parts in. I guess I'm in minority?

I wouldn't know. let's get it on Family Feud and see what the survey says.

the piano roll for me is a combination of entering things in live, which I absolutely require for feel, and a gigantic amount of editing if it's done from a keyboard controller because I am not a keyboard player.

as per VST3.5, 'note expression' it allows splitting of a chord in one part into smaller parts to apply expression to. it's a matter of a faster workflow potentially than the way I do it which will involve single line parts in these cases. it isn't a gigantic driver for me however because so often I compose contrapuntally with monophonic instruments, wind instruments for example.

If this feature is exotic to you, something other than 'necessary', that's your thing. I think what you say is odd, and coming off as snarky yet kind of ignorant.

[ULAS]

I've been DP and Logic user for a long time. They are both great softwares too. But their almost all implementations are built on old codes so i have to spend more time to finish my work.

Here we go with the "old code" argument again.

Have you seen the code? Can you DEFINE "old code"? I swear, people say this all the time and they really don't have a clue what the code actually is, or when it was written.

I mean, point to the workflow being unrefined or different or "unevolved". But for goodness sake, can we please stop with this old code nonsense?

FWIW, "old code" can be more efficient than "new code". It has nothing to do with when it was written.

Brent

I mean,

-Old code: We have only "+" and "2" so we can only do this in 2005:

2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2 = 40

-fresh code: then we invented "*" and "20" in 2013:


2*20=40

[glokraw]

In theory, you are completely correct, but I believe (though I don't know all the dirty little details) that steiny has something to do with why vst3 hasn't caught on as strongly as was once hoped.

Anybody in the DAW business, with ambition, would wisely reject the effort
of one single competitor to control a standard. Especially when re-writing
your product to meet that standard, is a game out of your control.
If vst3 was accepted industry wide, Steinberg could keep competitors in constant flux, by constantly modifying VST 'just enough' to keep competitors
focussed on implementing the standard,
rather than perfecting their DAW. Game on!

[koolkeys]

I've been DP and Logic user for a long time. They are both great softwares too. But their almost all implementations are built on old codes so i have to spend more time to finish my work.

Here we go with the "old code" argument again.

Have you seen the code? Can you DEFINE "old code"? I swear, people say this all the time and they really don't have a clue what the code actually is, or when it was written.

I mean, point to the workflow being unrefined or different or "unevolved". But for goodness sake, can we please stop with this old code nonsense?

FWIW, "old code" can be more efficient than "new code". It has nothing to do with when it was written.

Brent

I mean,

-Old code: We have only "+" and "2" so we can only do this in 2005:

2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2 = 40

-fresh code: then we invented "*" and "20" in 2013:


2*20=40

Except there are a couple of problems with this "theory":

1. You don't actually know which method each code team used. You can only guess, nothing more.

2. Reaper was actually first released in 2005, only one year after Apple released the first, completely rewritten version of Logic. Digital Performer rewrote a large portion of it's code for version 8(they switched the GUI 100%, in fact), including a Windows version that just saw it's very first release this week. The argument that the current code bases for each program are from completely different time periods is nothing more than a self-created history.

The truth is likely that Reaper has code in it that is older than much of the code in Logic and DP. Older doesn't mean slower, and newer doesn't mean faster. Each program is written with a certain set of functions using the best practices of those particular developers.

The whole 'old code' argument is not only based 100% on speculation, it's really a poor argument in general since only the developers actually KNOW what is in the code.

Does that mean that Logic and DP are more efficient, or less? I don't know. Common benchmarks can go either way in comparisons like this. I've seen benchmarks that place Studio One ahead of Reaper in terms of CPU usage on large projects, but others see opposite results.

I think the old code argument is just another silly made-up "reason" that Reaper users(and other modern host users) use to make their host seem more "hip". But it's really nothing of substance. Just like the argument of "bloat". Define "bloat". You can't, because there is no one definition of it that could ever be agreed upon by all users. One man's bloat is another man's delight.

Just silly arguments, in my book.

Brent

[hibidy]

In theory, you are completely correct, but I believe (though I don't know all the dirty little details) that steiny has something to do with why vst3 hasn't caught on as strongly as was once hoped.

Yeah, Steinberg did well with the initial VST versions because it was "good enough", and because it was just open enough of a standard to draw developer support back when softsynths were a new frontier... However, it still requires you to sign an agreement and register a developer account with Steinberg, and there are limits on how you may license your derivative works (especially that you can't open-source your works that use VST), which means that Steinberg still basically owns you, you are not free to do whatever you want with it...

VST3 was a fairly dramatic departure from previous VST versions that implements things other hosts had already implemented on their own to work-around limitations in those previous versions... So, it is somewhat non-trivial to implement proper VST3 support, and frankly, most people could already accomplish everything they wanted to with VST2.x, so there's not that much value in VST3...

But these days, most developers are smart enough to realize that any software standard should have a liberal open source license (BSD, MIT, LGPL, etc...), that allows them to do whatever they want and freely redistribute and make derivative works under a license of their choosing, even if software implementing the standards is going to be closed-source and proprietary. Developers don't want to be beholden to Steinberg, but there is no suitable open plugin format yet (please don't say LV2, LOL). I think Justin is smart enough to give his plugin format a proper open source license when/if it comes, but in the meantime, I expect VST2.x to continue to dominate, unless somebody else comes up with a proper plugin format...

Omg, just what plug devs need............ANOTHER format Hey, thanks for the explanation btw.

[Andywanders]

Let's see. Plugin alliance, FABfilter, and Izotope...

Add SSL to that list.

And U-he's Podolski (free) is VST3 too.


If I were in the market for a new host, VST3 (or the lack of it) would be one of the deciding factors. Not only because it's something I use, but also because it tells me something about the developer.

[hibidy]

Who are the vst3 hosts?

Cubey, Nuendo, S1..... EDIT, FL studio, audition (is that still around??)

LOLZ, bitwig

Oh yeah, plugs, I was just saying what I have. Waves is vst3 too.

[koolkeys]

Let's see. Plugin alliance, FABfilter, and Izotope...

Add SSL to that list.

And U-he's Podolski (free) is VST3 too.


If I were in the market for a new host, VST3 (or the lack of it) would be one of the deciding factors. Not only because it's something I use, but also because it tells me something about the developer.

Actually, I believe all U-He plugs are either now VST3, or going VST3.

Don't forget about Melda.

Brent

[woggle]

I think the old code argument is just another silly made-up "reason" that Reaper users(and other modern host users) use to make their host seem more "hip". But it's really nothing of substance. Just like the argument of "bloat". Define "bloat". You can't, because there is no one definition of it that could ever be agreed upon by all users. One man's bloat is another man's delight.

Just silly arguments, in my book.

Brent

'old code' is not interesting, it might be fabulously efficient or not - 'legacy code' is interesting as the structure of the legacy code influences future development through the constraints imposed by the initial design decisions.

[kritikon]

They are both great softwares too. But their almost all implementations are built on old codes

New code's a good thing? Being an old fart I personally know that anything built within the last 10 years is bound to fail quicker than real stuff made aeons ago. I was upset when Steinberg rewrote Cubase for SX, as Cubase v1 and v.3 were the best midi sequencers ever written, so Cubase became new code at SX1. So is Cubase now considered old code or old new code? Give me old old code any day. New new code is far too hyped. Although Reaper is so spanking new, there isn't a time-dependent phrase to describe it. As obviously it's so new it hasn't been written yet.

[LawrenceF]

Who are the vst3 hosts?

Oh god no ... don't open up that can of creepy crawlers.

[satYatunes]

Who are the vst3 hosts?

Oh god no ... don't open up that can of creepy crawlers.

That's alright. After 12 pages it's bound to be derailed anyway.

[chk071]

Let's see. Plugin alliance, FABfilter, and Izotope...

Add SSL to that list.

And U-he's Podolski (free) is VST3 too.


If I were in the market for a new host, VST3 (or the lack of it) would be one of the deciding factors. Not only because it's something I use, but also because it tells me something about the developer.

Actually, I believe all U-He plugs are either now VST3, or going VST3.

Don't forget about Melda.

Brent

All Novation plugins come in a VST3 version now too...

[ULAS]

Vari audio, elastic audio etc. are new codes. They are programmed after latest researches. So we called latest technology as "new technology". We can do time stretching process as online process with very good quality. We can not do that as online process 15 years ago. Because The way was not found. And our processors could not handle at that time. That's why we called some codes as "old".

Old codes were written for "old" configurations and does not include latest researches.