u-he

tboulette · Post by **tboulette** » Wed May 08, 2013 1:59 am

I hope this isn't a dumb question, and I've tried searching the KVR forum to find out:

What's so great about VST 3? All of u-he's plugins having been "upgraded" (I assume) to VST 3, but why is that better than the old 2.x? Should I update to the VST 3 versions? (I run Ableton Live 9 in Windows 7.)

TIA for any help.

JJBiener · Post by **JJBiener** » Wed May 08, 2013 2:06 am

I don't believe you get any benefit from VST3 unless your host program supports it. As far as I know only Cubase and Nuendo currently support it. I was hoping that Sonar X2 would support it, but I don't believe it does. I don't know about Abelton support.

ezelkow1 · Post by **ezelkow1** » Wed May 08, 2013 2:15 am

ableton doesnt do vst3 either

can add studio one to the list that does though

evo2slo · Post by **evo2slo** » Wed May 08, 2013 2:34 am

Here's a summary of VST3 features:
http://www.steinberg.net/en/company/tec ... /vst3.html

arachnaut · Post by **arachnaut** » Wed May 08, 2013 3:37 am

Few support it. Good stuff: 64-bit audio, multiple MIDI I/O ports, and audio bus support.

Jafo · Post by **Jafo** » Wed May 08, 2013 4:05 am

It makes all the rich jerks feel smug and superior.

Urs · Post by **Urs** » Wed May 08, 2013 5:14 am

Our motives:

We can do 64-bit support on Mac without patching the binary. We need to put effort into making our VST2s work as 64-bit on Mac.

VST3 has a well defined shell functionality. Like our AUs, all plug-ins of a bundle (e.g. all 9 Uhbiks) reside in a single binary. We don't need the installers to do endless copies of all the same plug-in like we do in VST2.

We might at some point do Note Expressions and use the better I/O configuration options.

Nevertheless, our VST3 support is young and leaves room for improvement - e.g. we still haven't figured out why we can't display the preset name with saved project.

evo2slo · Post by **evo2slo** » Wed May 08, 2013 1:10 pm

Jafo wrote:It makes all the rich jerks feel smug and superior.

Don't know 'bout you, but this is how I roll..

Numanoid · Post by **Numanoid** » Wed May 08, 2013 6:08 pm

JJBiener wrote:I don't believe you get any benefit from VST3 unless your host program supports it. As far as I know only Cubase and Nuendo currently support it.

The big selling point of the latest version of Sequel is that it got VST support, but only VST3 support. So add that to the list.

In their infinite wisdom the engineers/coders at Steinberg decided that Sequel should have VST3 32 bit support, but not VST3 64 bit support.

I would be tempted to do as Bronski Beat and ask why? But I guess those boffins must have their reasons

Photontic · Post by **Photontic** » Thu May 09, 2013 1:38 pm

JJBiener wrote:As far as I know only Cubase and Nuendo currently support it.

Studio One (at least version 2+) does as well.

Breeze · Post by **Breeze** » Sat May 11, 2013 2:13 pm

Urs wrote:...Nevertheless, our VST3 support is young and leaves room for improvement...

Does the current implementation include the CPU-saving mode where no processing takes place if there is no input? Or is that a given when something is "VST3"?

Urs · Post by **Urs** » Sat May 11, 2013 2:24 pm

Breeze wrote:
Urs wrote:...Nevertheless, our VST3 support is young and leaves room for improvement...
Does the current implementation include the CPU-saving mode where no processing takes place if there is no input? Or is that a given when something is "VST3"?

That's more of a marleting blurp IMHO. All our stuff saves cpu if possible, unless it's too cheap to even bother.

standalone · Post by **standalone** » Sat May 11, 2013 2:40 pm

TBAAV wrote:
JJBiener wrote:As far as I know only Cubase and Nuendo currently support it.
Studio One (at least version 2+) does as well.

Studio One supported Vst3 from the beginning.

FL Studio supports it since some time ago, too.

u-he

KVR Audio

Why VST 3