KVR Audio

ghettosynth · Post by **ghettosynth** » Thu May 17, 2018 2:45 pm

farlukar wrote:
Dasheesh wrote:Who ever makes a new open code industry standard for virtual instrumrnt design will have a stature built for them and be immortalized.
*ahem*

LOL! Twice and you're still not waking the kids.

Klinke1 · Post by **Klinke1** » Thu May 17, 2018 3:05 pm

Time for VST4

Touch The Universe · Post by **Touch The Universe** » Thu May 17, 2018 3:14 pm

Interesting move I don't understand by steinberg, hinting devs to get with the program, but are they oblivious to their general consensus on it? This is important information regarding company foresight/mindset if they are still pushing it without addressing its shortcomings, or whatever reason why it has not take off since 10 years! Who's calling the shots? Is it steinberg and the devs must adapt or steinberg can improve vst from developers input?

How many developers are there, a few hundred? Why not send out a questionairre, gather some input.

AnX · Post by **AnX** » Thu May 17, 2018 3:32 pm

VST3 is a step backwards, but what do you expect from stainberg.

rollasoc · Post by **rollasoc** » Thu May 17, 2018 3:52 pm

Klinke1 wrote:Time for VST4

My first thought, when I saw the news on Facebook, was, "given it is 10 years since VST3 was announced, I would imagine VST 4 will be released with Cubase 10 in December".

So it makes sense to not ship the VST 2 SDK, when 4 will ship with 3.
Hopefully, 4 will sort out the issues with 3 and make porting from 2 easier for developers.

EvilDragon · Post by **EvilDragon** » Thu May 17, 2018 4:08 pm

VST4 would just complicate things much more than they already are...

Dasheesh · Post by **Dasheesh** » Thu May 17, 2018 4:10 pm

rollasoc wrote:
Klinke1 wrote:Time for VST4
My first thought, when I saw the news on Facebook, was, "given it is 10 years since VST3 was announced, I would imagine VST 4 will be released with Cubase 10 in December".

So it makes sense to not ship the VST 2 SDK, when 4 will ship with 3.
Hopefully, 4 will sort out the issues with 3 and make porting from 2 easier for developers.

This makes total sense actually. Hopefully they learned alot from 3 and it was an exception, not a rule... and hopefully devs have been given the heads up and already planning ahead.

Asuyuka · Post by **Asuyuka** » Thu May 17, 2018 6:31 pm

ghettosynth wrote:
farlukar wrote:
Dasheesh wrote:Who ever makes a new open code industry standard for virtual instrumrnt design will have a stature built for them and be immortalized.
*ahem*
LOL! Twice and you're still not waking the kids.

Huh? What's LADSPA and DSSI? I don't understand what you're saying!

Dasheesh · Post by **Dasheesh** » Thu May 17, 2018 7:10 pm

Ok, I’m familiar with the LADSPA through audacity. Thought that was an mp3 standard. This is where it gets beyond my knowledge base. I was trying to figure out what you were associating yourself with though.

ghettosynth · Post by **ghettosynth** » Thu May 17, 2018 7:13 pm

Asuyuka wrote:
ghettosynth wrote:
farlukar wrote:
Dasheesh wrote:Who ever makes a new open code industry standard for virtual instrumrnt design will have a stature built for them and be immortalized.
*ahem*
LOL! Twice and you're still not waking the kids.
Huh? What's LADSPA and DSSI? I don't understand what you're saying!

It's an open code standard for virtual instrument. The license for the standard is permissive. I would like to see migration to an open standard, Steinberg is not a good steward of standards.

Dasheesh · Post by **Dasheesh** » Thu May 17, 2018 7:16 pm

ghettosynth wrote:
Asuyuka wrote:
ghettosynth wrote:
farlukar wrote:
Dasheesh wrote:Who ever makes a new open code industry standard for virtual instrumrnt design will have a stature built for them and be immortalized.
*ahem*
LOL! Twice and you're still not waking the kids.
Huh? What's LADSPA and DSSI? I don't understand what you're saying!
It's an open code standard for virtual instrument. The license for the standard is permissive. I would like to see migration to an open standard, Steinberg is not a good steward of standards.

Lets go then... what’s holding everyone back?

pottering · Post by **pottering** » Thu May 17, 2018 7:20 pm

Steinberg pretty insistent on killing their greatest success ever.

Klinke1 · Post by **Klinke1** » Thu May 17, 2018 7:28 pm

ok
VST2 1999
VST3 2008

VST4..? 2038?

BlitBit · Post by **BlitBit** » Thu May 17, 2018 7:38 pm

Dasheesh wrote:
ghettosynth wrote:
Asuyuka wrote:[...]

Huh? What's LADSPA and DSSI? I don't understand what you're saying!
It's an open code standard for virtual instrument. The license for the standard is permissive. I would like to see migration to an open standard, Steinberg is not a good steward of standards.
Lets go then... what’s holding everyone back?

I think it's rather simple to create a new plugin standard. It's much harder to get most of the existing hosts to support it. Especially if there already is a successful existing one like VST2.

Is there any plugin standard that supports the developers with the hard technical stuff that's not related to audio by the way? I mean for example the communication between the plugin GUI and the audio thread, etc. Something like that would be really helpful. Of course that's something that might also be provided by frameworks like JUCE and IPlug. But as far as I know even the latter uses mutexes in some strategic places. But that's not really the recommended way. I guess it does so because implementing all that stuff safely and correctly is just hard.

chk071 · Post by **chk071** » Thu May 17, 2018 7:44 pm

ENV1 wrote:http://www.kvraudio.com/news/steinberg- ... -end-41324

Let the drama begin.

"Bye bye VST2" is exactly what they don't say. Nice clickbait though.

Steinberg wrote:VST 2 compatibility with Steinberg VST hosts will remain