KVR Audio

zvenx · Post by **zvenx** » Wed Jan 31, 2018 1:28 pm

Yes but that technically is a work around, how it still works well to this day.

It's in a sense like when developers found workarounds in apple's OS to allow their apps to work without following apple's guidelines then surprise surprise their app breaks at some point in an apple OS upgrade.
Yes not all apple os breaking is caused by this, but some are. And yes Vst2 specs won't be changed so the likelihood of this work around (to get sidechaining in vst2.4) in all probability will not be broken.

rsp

chk071 · Post by **chk071** » Wed Jan 31, 2018 1:33 pm

There are certain features in VST3's, which are not present in VST2, see here: https://www.steinberg.net/de/company/te ... /vst3.html

Sadly, Cubase seems to be about the only DAW which supports all this. And, i have a feeling that, despite the devs' claim that it is so difficult to implement, the "industry" is also slow to adopt, because it has always been that way, otherwise we wouldn't still have deprecated technology like MIDI, when there's better alternatives available already. If DAW devs really would want to support all those features (and plugin devs would spend more effort doing VST3 versions of their plugins), they could probably easily do it, but, like with the above mentioned Linux support, why do it, when the consumers simply don't ask for it frequently enough? I frankly wouldn't mind seeing VST3's more and more, and DAW's implementing all the features they offer.

EvilDragon · Post by **EvilDragon** » Wed Jan 31, 2018 1:38 pm

Here's a good example of how Steinberg works:

* they mention that VST3 supports sample-accurate automation
* then they DON'T provide an example on how to actually do sample-accurate automation in the plugin
* consequence: VST3 plugins that are out there mostly don't support sample-accurate automation

LOL.

This might've changed in the meantime (doubt it), but when VST3 was being worked on for Reaper, one of Reaper devs mentioned the above. Everybody laughed. Then facepalmed.

chk071 · Post by **chk071** » Wed Jan 31, 2018 1:42 pm

I understand that, but, at the same time i know how stubborn, and unwilling to adapt to something some devs are.

And there ARE VST3's out there, which are virtually bug free, so, it's definitely possible, if the people coding them want to.

EvilDragon · Post by **EvilDragon** » Wed Jan 31, 2018 1:46 pm

Why adapt to something that is implementation-wise not as solid and clear-cut as the current most widely spread "standard"?

Let's not forget that VST3 effectively ruined MIDI learn for plugins, forcing devs to find workarounds (yet again).

chk071 · Post by **chk071** » Wed Jan 31, 2018 1:52 pm

EvilDragon wrote:Why adapt to something that is implementation-wise not as solid and clear-cut as the current most widely spread "standard"?

I guess the question should rather be "Why adapt to something whose additional features are only available in a single host?". If all hosts would support all of the VST3 features, i'm sure we would see many more developers developing VST3's.

Anyway, the way i see it, more and more developers actually do (it's still only a few, but, better than nothing).

dreamkeeper · Post by **dreamkeeper** » Wed Jan 31, 2018 1:52 pm

zvenx wrote:Yes but that technically is a work around, how it still works well to this day.

It's in a sense like when developers found workarounds in apple's OS to allow their apps to work without following apple's guidelines then surprise surprise their app breaks at some point in an apple OS upgrade.
Yes not all apple os breaking is caused by this, but some are. And yes Vst2 specs won't be changed so the likelihood of this work around (to get sidechaining in vst2.4) in all probability will not be broken.

rsp

Just to clear up some possible confusion (to the best of my knowing):

Sidechaining of VST2 in other hosts is NOT a workaround. It's simply proper implementation of a regular VST2 feature, i.e. providing the connection to multiple inputs - which is all that sidechaining actually is.

Steinberg just failed (or didn't find necessary) to fully implement their own standard. But they did a very good job on making people believe in fairytales, obviously...

zvenx · Post by **zvenx** » Wed Jan 31, 2018 1:56 pm

dreamkeeper wrote:
zvenx wrote:Yes but that technically is a work around, how it still works well to this day.

It's in a sense like when developers found workarounds in apple's OS to allow their apps to work without following apple's guidelines then surprise surprise their app breaks at some point in an apple OS upgrade.
Yes not all apple os breaking is caused by this, but some are. And yes Vst2 specs won't be changed so the likelihood of this work around (to get sidechaining in vst2.4) in all probability will not be broken.

rsp
Just to clear up some possible confusion (to the best of my knowing):

Sidechaining of VST2 in other hosts is NOT a workaround. It's simply proper implementation of a regular VST2 feature, i.e. providing the connection to multiple inputs - which is all that sidechaining actually is.

Steinberg just failed (or didn't find necessary) to fully implement their own standard. But they did a very good job on making people believe in fairytales, obviously...

the word of steinberg developers delivered first hand or some nameless person on the internet....hmmmm who do I believe?

rsp

rasmusklump · Post by **rasmusklump** » Wed Jan 31, 2018 2:02 pm

Surely not Steinberg.

Its not the case that VST2 is not sidechain capable. Its Steinberg that prevents this in Cubendo on purpose.

chk071 · Post by **chk071** » Wed Jan 31, 2018 2:06 pm

And yet another meaningless rumour.

zvenx · Post by **zvenx** » Wed Jan 31, 2018 2:08 pm

rasmusklump wrote:Surely not Steinberg.

Its not the case that VST2 is not sidechain capable. Its Steinberg that prevents this in Cubendo on purpose.

Let's go with this.
Why?
The Cubendo work around existed before vst3 came out.
Why would SB deliberately prevent it.
What would the financial or other gain in doing so?
I am curious.

rsp

EvilDragon · Post by **EvilDragon** » Wed Jan 31, 2018 2:15 pm

Their only gain would be trying to get VST3 more widely adopted. Yet, it failed.

LawrenceF · Post by **LawrenceF** » Wed Jan 31, 2018 2:17 pm

This old chestnut.

Whether the VST2 spec "allows" certain things to happen technically speaking or not, the things I find benefit in for VST3 are - not - happening in VST2 plugins. If plugin developers want to whine that those things were already possible in VST2 then my question to them would be... "Well, if that's the case... why didn't you ever do it?"

Some of the benefits are even obvious to Stevie Wonder, like having a single plugin that does mono, stereo, surround and actually changes it's channel configuration to match the host channels, in real time, or being able to (at least in the host I use) create and destroy automation envelopes directly from the plugin UI, and as mentioned, the much easier side-chains.

zvenx · Post by **zvenx** » Wed Jan 31, 2018 2:24 pm

EvilDragon wrote:Their only gain would be trying to get VST3 more widely adopted. Yet, it failed.

Except, like I mentioned other hosts started doing vst2 sidechaining long before vst3 ever saw the light of day.
Your theory would make sense if and only if the first host do do vst2 side chaining occurred just on around the time vst3 came out..
It wasn't afaik......vst2 side chaining started happening long before vst3.
rsp

EvilDragon · Post by **EvilDragon** » Wed Jan 31, 2018 2:28 pm

Yes, which makes it even crazier that Steinberg wouldn't want to adopt that way of doing sidechaining even with VST2. No, they had to tout VST3 instead.

So, VST 3...