Sorry about asking a general question of you folks, but since you are plug-in makers, I think your opinions count a good bit . . .
I recently read a CM post by someone there named Dave who claimed that Fruity Loops had a strange way of dealing with plug-ins . . . something that could cause problems with various plugs. He also mentioned that Cubase/Cubasis was the most stable for VST usage.
What I want to know is how stable some of these other programs like N-Track, Orion, Muzys, Sonar, etc. are with plug-ins. Since you folks write the software with different hosts in mind, I figured you might know better than the average computer muso.
Thanks . . .
Plug-In Host Stability
-
- KVRist
- 317 posts since 13 Oct, 2001 from Mars
No offense, Filthy K. But you obviously have fallen for the myth of The Ultimate Sequencer. (I think we all do...or have been there) <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="biggrin.gif" />
Fruity, the one you bought and disliked, in matter of fact, is a state of the art in its own way, just like many other audio programs; it has something that still should be improved, just like all other audio programs.
Accept this reality with hope for a better future, or don't use sequencer at all. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="biggrin.gif" />
*just realized you're asking Muon ppl's comment...sorry. But according to your recent posts, I still think my post is sort of valid. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />
<small>[ 11 July 2002, 17:56: Message edited by: TheWall ]</small>
Fruity, the one you bought and disliked, in matter of fact, is a state of the art in its own way, just like many other audio programs; it has something that still should be improved, just like all other audio programs.
Accept this reality with hope for a better future, or don't use sequencer at all. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="biggrin.gif" />
*just realized you're asking Muon ppl's comment...sorry. But according to your recent posts, I still think my post is sort of valid. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />
<small>[ 11 July 2002, 17:56: Message edited by: TheWall ]</small>
-
- KVRer
- Topic Starter
- 6 posts since 1 Jul, 2002 from Pgh, PA, USA
Yes, not very long ago, I thought there existed the Ultimate Sequencer. But then I came down to Earth a bit and realized that I just needed the perfect one for me.
I realize there is give and take with these apps . . . like I would gladly sacrifice advanced midi control for better plug-in stability . . . or slick GUI for better sound quality. I believe that there is a sequencer out there for everybody, regardless of work style. It's just a matter of finding the right one for me, which is why I quiz so much about sequencers.
Really, though, how many posts do you see where someone says, "I started out with Brand X audio editor, but once I found Brand Y, I dropped X and never looked back"? I see tons of them. When you finally find the proper tools to do the job, you can worry about the music and not the tools.
And that is all I am on about. I am looking for the features I need, not the ones someone else wants to give me.
Layyyter . . .
I realize there is give and take with these apps . . . like I would gladly sacrifice advanced midi control for better plug-in stability . . . or slick GUI for better sound quality. I believe that there is a sequencer out there for everybody, regardless of work style. It's just a matter of finding the right one for me, which is why I quiz so much about sequencers.
Really, though, how many posts do you see where someone says, "I started out with Brand X audio editor, but once I found Brand Y, I dropped X and never looked back"? I see tons of them. When you finally find the proper tools to do the job, you can worry about the music and not the tools.
And that is all I am on about. I am looking for the features I need, not the ones someone else wants to give me.
Layyyter . . .
-
- KVRAF
- 1651 posts since 14 May, 2002 from Earth
I've never had any problems with the Fruity Warpper. As a matter of fact, what was already working wonderfully - has been improved.
FruityLoops 3.5 has been released today and the Fruity Wrapper has been improved - along with many other things. Check it out, maybe it'll make you a bit happier <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="biggrin.gif" />
FruityLoops 3.5 has been released today and the Fruity Wrapper has been improved - along with many other things. Check it out, maybe it'll make you a bit happier <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="biggrin.gif" />
-
Muon Software Ltd Muon Software Ltd https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=89
- KVRian
- 1461 posts since 21 Nov, 2000
In my post on the CM forums I was talking about what consitutes a reference-quality VST2 hosting implementation. Since every VST2 host program on the market does things slightly differently this is a question of some concern for plugin developers who want to write one lot of code and have it run properly everywhere.
Now, as to whether or not any of this affects the *user* experience in any way is another question entirely. Do you need to have a "reference quality" host at all if all you want to do is make some noize? I think that all depends on how VST plugins develop from now in to the future.
We've all seen how things have gone from simple analog emulations to complex samplers like DS404, and to be honest the VST2 paradigm is getting more and more stretched as time goes on. If developers like us have to put a little frig in the code for X host's problems, and another little frig in the code for Y host's problems and so on this is going to make stability problems for all concerned when we need to be moving the capabilities of VSTi's forward.
Be aware that at the moment, your choice of host alone will determine just what features you get out of the VSTis that you purchase - don't forget to check the specs carefully!
Cheers
Dave
Now, as to whether or not any of this affects the *user* experience in any way is another question entirely. Do you need to have a "reference quality" host at all if all you want to do is make some noize? I think that all depends on how VST plugins develop from now in to the future.
We've all seen how things have gone from simple analog emulations to complex samplers like DS404, and to be honest the VST2 paradigm is getting more and more stretched as time goes on. If developers like us have to put a little frig in the code for X host's problems, and another little frig in the code for Y host's problems and so on this is going to make stability problems for all concerned when we need to be moving the capabilities of VSTi's forward.
Be aware that at the moment, your choice of host alone will determine just what features you get out of the VSTis that you purchase - don't forget to check the specs carefully!
Cheers
Dave
-
- KVRer
- 1 posts since 6 Jul, 2002
"...claimed that Fruity Loops had a strange way of dealing with plug-ins . . . something that could cause problems with various plugs. He also mentioned that Cubase/Cubasis was the most stable for VST usage."
From what I've read on the fruity forums, Gol, the main FL programmer, follows the VST standard closely. The fact is that many plugins do not strictlly follow the standard. When this happens there may be compatability issues. This is usually true with the "bigger" plugins like Reaktor. I'd say that the fruity host is as good as any other. If you don't choose Fruity as a host, you can open Fruity IN another host, because as of version 3.55 fruity is a vsti.
From what I've read on the fruity forums, Gol, the main FL programmer, follows the VST standard closely. The fact is that many plugins do not strictlly follow the standard. When this happens there may be compatability issues. This is usually true with the "bigger" plugins like Reaktor. I'd say that the fruity host is as good as any other. If you don't choose Fruity as a host, you can open Fruity IN another host, because as of version 3.55 fruity is a vsti.
-
Muon Software Ltd Muon Software Ltd https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=89
- KVRian
- 1461 posts since 21 Nov, 2000
Possibly a correct statement, but nothing at all to do with what I'm talking about :-)
The fact is - Fruity has a way of dealing with presets that can break sophisticated plugins. It also doesn't handle multiple outputs. Therefore it is not and cannot be a reference-quality VSTi host.
You should be aware that I personally use Fruity extensively when testing our VSTi's because it loads the fastests and behaves itself under a debugger. I also have close contact with the development team and I talk to them about issues such as this one.
However despite all of this, the question remains - does it matter to a user if their VSTi host is not reference-quality? no, it probably doesn't....until they get a plugin that won't work in their host for one reason but works properly everywhere else. At the moment, plugin developers jump through hoops to make things work as well as possible in as many places as possible, but if host designers make decisions for legacy reasons or whatever we can't *always* code around it and there is going to be some loss of functionality or potential instability for the user.
'nuff said on this, topic closed.
Dave
The fact is - Fruity has a way of dealing with presets that can break sophisticated plugins. It also doesn't handle multiple outputs. Therefore it is not and cannot be a reference-quality VSTi host.
You should be aware that I personally use Fruity extensively when testing our VSTi's because it loads the fastests and behaves itself under a debugger. I also have close contact with the development team and I talk to them about issues such as this one.
However despite all of this, the question remains - does it matter to a user if their VSTi host is not reference-quality? no, it probably doesn't....until they get a plugin that won't work in their host for one reason but works properly everywhere else. At the moment, plugin developers jump through hoops to make things work as well as possible in as many places as possible, but if host designers make decisions for legacy reasons or whatever we can't *always* code around it and there is going to be some loss of functionality or potential instability for the user.
'nuff said on this, topic closed.
Dave