KVR Audio

stratum · Post by **stratum** » Mon Jul 10, 2017 1:38 pm

Nobody likes specification written by others, that's why there are so many "standards", so don't add another even if you were capable of.

soundmodel · Post by **soundmodel** » Mon Jul 10, 2017 1:45 pm

But what I'm sort of looking at has these things that fmr pointed out.

I also would want an open extensible standard that's not owned by a private company.

fmr wrote: I think a good idea for a new plug-in standard would be something like MIDI: sitting EVERYBODY at the same table, discuss what should be kept, what should be thrown away and what what should be developed new to be included and then come with a new standard that would be TRULY independent of ANY company and kept by an independent consortium, just like MIDI.

What made MIDI work was not its technical superiority but the fact that it was available to everyone, was not proprietary (therefore independent) and was adopted be virtually everyone. So, if that's what you are thinking about, go for it. If you are just thinking that you found something that is "technically" superior to the other "standards" already available, just forget it. We really don't need "another" standard. We already have MORE than enough

fmr · Post by **fmr** » Mon Jul 10, 2017 1:58 pm

Fluky wrote:But what I'm sort of looking at has these things that fmr pointed out.

I also would want an open extensible standard that's not owned by a private company.

Personally, I would enthusiastically welcome that, although I'm sketical about its potential to succeed.

The point is that to achieve this goal you would need to be a skillful politician and negotiator (not necessarily a good technician). Having the connections to open you the right doors would be also necessary (but I guess that's exactly what you are asking here)

soundmodel · Post by **soundmodel** » Mon Jul 10, 2017 2:03 pm

With the internet also, I don't think it's difficult. I've actually done contacting like this before and I've found that if the idea is truly good and genuine, then "doors" will open rather easily.

soundmodel · Post by **soundmodel** » Mon Jul 10, 2017 2:07 pm

I'm probably going to ask from Sensomusic first, because Usine is so advanced that even if he cannot help me with the specs, then I still think the Usine SDK is "related" to my ideas.

Kalamata Kid · Post by **Kalamata Kid** » Mon Jul 10, 2017 2:14 pm

Fluky,

Seems like you are very excited about your idea. If you are looking for a financial gain best to protect the idea with a copyright or patent so that will free you to openly discuss this with potential buyers.

They say if an expert tells you something will work it will very likely work but if an expert tells you no way it will work you may consider trying to make it work.

PurpleSunray · Post by **PurpleSunray** » Mon Jul 10, 2017 2:41 pm

Just my two cents:
> I'm just wondering, should I perhaps contact Steinberg or something or work it out using some kind of open source path?

You can try, but I don't think there is much of a probability that they actually use it.

> I also would want an open extensible standard that's not owned by a private company.

So, who owns it?

The major reason why companies come up with their own standards, is the lack of an open standard, or because it is too much huzzle to work with the one managing the open standard.
Why does Google keep to invent new video codecs (AV1)? Because it needs ~10 years to get from spec "draft" to "published" when working with MPEG-LA and there are tons of other companies part of MPEG-LA that all want royalty fees.
Why are there about a million of linux kernel forks arround? Because it is a pain in the ass to work with Linus and it is very unlikely your change will be accepted if you are not a well known guru dev already.
...
Or the other way arround, why is the X11 protocol on Linux such a huge mess? Because nobody "owns" it.

Even on an open standard you need someone that maintains it.
So when you propose this to Steinberg, their first thought will be: how will this be managed? Will Apple be part of that mangement group? Can they block/veto our ideas to keep their platform ahead? What if that new standard needs 3rd parents, who is managing that? ect pp....

If I would be Steinberg and get an email from a single developer that has an idea for a new open audio plugin standard, I would reply with "many thanks, but we have a 2 plugin interface standards already - no need for us to make things even more complex by adding a 3rd" (they won't dropt VST2/3 just because of your new idea).

PurpleSunray · Post by **PurpleSunray** » Mon Jul 10, 2017 3:16 pm

Kalamata Kid wrote:Fluky,
Seems like you are very excited about your idea. If you are looking for a financial gain best to protect the idea with a copyright or patent so that will free you to openly discuss this with potential buyers.

Just to add this on list from above.
If you want to protect you ideas, you are the commerical part on that.
So you already failed on the "I also would want an open extensible standard that's not owned by a private company". Companies will need to negotiate with you, so the question is: why should they want that? Especially when looking at companies like Steinberg or Apple, which already have solutions in place.

If you want to make it open, first step is to publish your darft and get reviews / feedback.
Your chance to get heard at Steinberg will increase if you send a spec draft that "is in public review since 6 months, 99% of KVR users that reviewed it think it's awesome, Ardour added experimental support for it and Soundtrap devs submitted a list of change-requests to be done so they can also use it .... ".
Open source / standards either need a company, or a community behind that drives it. You don't want a company, so you should try to build a community instead.

soundmodel · Post by **soundmodel** » Mon Jul 10, 2017 3:50 pm

I have no commercial interest in this, because my idea is based on "openness" pretty broadly. Because I think it benefits musicians most (as well as DSP developers).

soundmodel · Post by **soundmodel** » Mon Jul 10, 2017 3:51 pm

Steinberg is giving out their technology for free since there are no licensing costs.

Also, given the widespread of VST, it be difficult to introduce yet a new format. Also, it could be pointless.

fmr · Post by **fmr** » Mon Jul 10, 2017 3:52 pm

PurpleSunray wrote:
If you want to make it open, first step is to publish your darft and get reviews / feedback.
Your chance to get heard at Steinberg will increase if you send a spec draft that "is in public review since 6 months, 99% of KVR users that reviewed it think it's awesome, Ardour added experimental support for it and Soundtrap devs submitted a list of change-requests to be done so they can also use it .... ".
Open source / standards either need a company, or a community behind that drives it. You don't want a company, so you should try to build a community instead.

I also agree this could be a viable first step.

But yes, something like MIDI has to start from an approach by one of the "biggies" to the other "biggies" in the field, trying to arrange a meeting to discuss the common platform.

Since one of these "biggies" is Apple, I sincerely doubt this would ever happen. Why would they even started AU, instead of having approached Steinberg and trying to arrange something like that back then?

Xenakios · Post by **Xenakios** » Mon Jul 10, 2017 3:55 pm

I think Celemony and Presonus did the ARA-extension to VST2/3 without Steinberg being involved. Of course the end result so far has been that Cubase does not support it...

soundmodel · Post by **soundmodel** » Mon Jul 10, 2017 4:00 pm

How's Apple a big player? Sure they have broad user base in pro audio, but their AU standard is surely "secondary" to VST. VST is the "base standard"? Also, since VSTs run also on mac what AU is is mostly a "dongle", eventhough I believe it has few technological advancements over VST.

soundmodel · Post by **soundmodel** » Mon Jul 10, 2017 4:05 pm

I think a good path might be to ask Sensomusic, Audulus or similar first.

Then see if a tech demo can be worked through those.

Then if required approach bigger players, if it has viable features for e.g. new VST versions.

fmr · Post by **fmr** » Mon Jul 10, 2017 4:11 pm

Fluky wrote:How's Apple a big player? Sure they have broad user base in pro audio, but their AU standard is surely "secondary" to VST. VST is the "base standard"? Also, since VSTs run also on mac what AU is is mostly a "dongle", eventhough I believe it has few technological advancements over VST.

Since Logic Pro has a huge user base (I would risk to say it is the biggest user base in Mac OS), and it only supports AU, Apple is a big player, like it or not. Besides, many other hosts support AU (actually, I think the only Mac OS hosts that doesn't support AU are the Steinberg ones).

And you also have Pro Tools and AAX

If you would achieve something like a unified standard to replace the mes that is VST2, VST3, AU and AAX, you would be regarded as a god by developers, IMO

I have a new idea for a plug-in standard/extension, what should I do with it?