prolly has been asked b4 : vst2 vs vst3

[Mister Natural]

I understand that vst v.2 is still a healthy format. Works great, sounds great, etc.
What is the advantage of v.3 vs v.2 ?
What am I supposed to hear : sounds better, sounds different, more accurate than the plugs I'm currently using ?

WIN10 - LIVE10 - 4790k i7 chip - ASIO thru Tascam u7000

[_al_]

nah, the king says jump, and we all jump.

i seem to remember reading some years ago that it makes sidechaining easier or something, but i dunno, i got no problems with my vst2.
just some annoying crap that we shouldn't have to be dealing with in 2018

[chk071]

What am I supposed to hear : sounds better, sounds different

Does ANY format make a plugin sound better, or different?

[Mister Natural]

^ this is unlikely, I agree
What is the benefit is my question ?

[chk071]

https://www.steinberg.net/de/company/te ... /vst3.html

Obviously, if you don't mind a bit of marketing bla as well, of course.

[_al_]

Managing large plug-in sets and multiple virtual instruments on typical studio computer systems can often be difficult because of CPU performance limits. VST3 helps to improve overall performance by applying processing to plug-ins only when audio signals are present on their respective inputs. Instead of always processing input signals, VST3 plug-ins can apply their processing economically and only when it is needed.

It says "can apply" rather than "apply". Does that mean that not all vst 3 actually implement this? Or is it hardcoded into everything?
Certainly a nice new feature if it is

[MogwaiBoy]

https://www.steinberg.net/en/company/te ... /vst3.html

[Mister Natural]

If I'm reading this correctly; a summary of the benefits
-more flexible inputs and outputs easing CPU loading, surround outputs, possible audio bus into an instrument
-multi MIDI controller inputs and outputs
-easier GUI resizing for VST developer
-easier access for developer to add additional levels of/more accurate automation
-improved controller access to control parameters

curious as to how long it might take the next generation of developers to fully exploit these added features . . .

[chk071]

The problem is that not even all DAW's support all those features for VST3's. At least those VST expression features are only supported by Cubase, i think.

https://www.steinberg.net/en/company/te ... ssion.html

[Mister Natural]

^ yes - I get that this is new tech
my DAW of choice is Ableton and they state ; "...We’re aware that some Live users are keen to see VST3 implemented, but we are unable to share specific plans until we have software that is ready to release. This is important to us as we seek to avoid misleading people by over or under-promising on what we will deliver"
which I would suspect that won't be until LIVE v.11 or 12

peace

[pottering]

If I'm reading this correctly; a summary of the benefits
-more flexible inputs and outputs easing CPU loading, surround outputs, possible audio bus into an instrument
-multi MIDI controller inputs and outputs
-easier GUI resizing for VST developer
-easier access for developer to add additional levels of/more accurate automation
-improved controller access to control parameters

"more flexible inputs and outputs", seems this is true, but the difference in flexibility is not that high as it is implied, VST 2.x has a decent level of flexibility already

"easing CPU loading", can be done with VST 2.x

"surround outputs", arguably true, depends on your workflow and target platform, can do surround sound with VST 2.x in many cases

"possible audio bus into an instrument", plenty of VST 2.x do this already

"multi MIDI controller inputs and outputs", VST3 is actually worse, Steinberg created their own standard "note expression", meant to replace MIDI (they believed MIDI was on the way out), so its MIDI support is worse than VST 2.x, no MIDI program change, for example.

"easier GUI resizing for VST developer", plenty of VST 2.x plugins with resizeable GUI, and I never read a dev state the lack of resizeable GUI was due to the VST 2.x format

"easier access for developer to add additional levels of automation", seems it is easier for devs to organize the parameters' internal IDs between versions, but not sure what "additional levels" means

"more accurate automation" is not true, devs said that in one of the recent treads about VST3

"improved controller access to control parameters", it is the opposite, MIDI learn/assign is worse on VST3

[UltimateOutsider]

For Cubase users the most common advantage of VST3 is native sidechain and aux audio input channels on the plugin. With VST 2, instrument plugins in Cubase that have sidechain/audio-in capabilities you have to do this weird "quadro trick" hack to get that stuff going, whereas VST3 plugs you just toggle a button.

This isn't as much of an issue in other DAWs, like Live, that have simpler audio routing than Cubase does.

A weird thing I've noticed, but only a couple of times, is that sometimes there is an enormous performance/CPU-usage difference between the VST2 and VST3 version of the same plugin. I did some tests with Steinberg's own Retrologue plugin a couple years back and the VST3 one was a total resource hog compared to the VST2. I don't think it's anything unique to the VST3 standard, just a weird implementation quirk on Steinberg's part. (Hopefully they've fixed it since then!)

[_al_]

For Cubase users the most common advantage of VST3 is native sidechain and aux audio input channels on the plugin. With VST 2, instrument plugins in Cubase that have sidechain/audio-in capabilities you have to do this weird "quadro trick" hack to get that stuff going, whereas VST3 plugs you just toggle a button.

This isn't as much of an issue in other DAWs, like Live, that have simpler audio routing than Cubase does.

So the main reason i'm having to swap out all my FL vsts is that steinberg fked up their own DAW?