Well this is a kick in the nuts: VST2 plug-ins

DSP, Plug-in and Host development discussion.
User avatar
KVRAF
10976 posts since 24 Jun, 2008 from Europe

Post Wed Apr 21, 2021 3:15 pm

The fact that Steinberg tries to force the death of VST 2 proves the current weakness of VST 3. At least it gives that impression. Aggressively killing VST 2 will definitely hurt many many users. There are still millions of projects out there made with (legacy) VST 2 plugins. This aggressive kill of VST 2 only radiates negativity. And this negativity will radiate to Steinberg. Better that Steinberg chooses positivity: Further improve VST 3 where necessary and let VST 2 peacefully live in public domain. Maybe as 'read-only' (eg. no modifications allowed) so that the Steinberg stamp will forever be in the VST 2 headers and will forever be a prove of Steinberg's innovative role in the music tech industry. It's about positivity. And about loving music creation. Important assets.

Rad Grandad
33181 posts since 6 Sep, 2003 from Downeast Maine

Post Wed Apr 21, 2021 3:18 pm

mutools wrote:
Wed Apr 21, 2021 2:36 pm
Urs wrote:
Wed Apr 21, 2021 11:17 am
Therefore, I think this needs to end. I think Steinberg's best option is to place VST2.4 in the public domain.
Brilliant idea :tu:
+1
Image :tu:

KVRAF
12700 posts since 13 Oct, 2009

Post Wed Apr 21, 2021 3:27 pm

mutools wrote:
Wed Apr 21, 2021 3:15 pm
The fact that Steinberg tries to force the death of VST 2 proves the current weakness of VST 3. At least it gives that impression. Aggressively killing VST 2 will definitely hurt many many users. There are still millions of projects out there made with (legacy) VST 2 plugins. This aggressive kill of VST 2 only radiates negativity. And this negativity will radiate to Steinberg. Better that Steinberg chooses positivity: Further improve VST 3 where necessary and let VST 2 peacefully live in public domain. Maybe as 'read-only' (eg. no modifications allowed) so that the Steinberg stamp will forever be in the VST 2 headers and will forever be a prove of Steinberg's innovative role in the music tech industry. It's about positivity. And about loving music creation. Important assets.
I didn't say that I disagreed that it was in their best interest, only that I think that they do. Of course, there's no such thing as public domain with restrictions, so I assume that one means open source? My guess though is that anything short of permissively licensed at this point is too little too late.

User avatar
KVRist
115 posts since 24 Jan, 2021

Post Wed Apr 21, 2021 4:22 pm

ghettosynth wrote:
Wed Apr 21, 2021 2:55 pm
mutools wrote:
Wed Apr 21, 2021 2:36 pm
Urs wrote:
Wed Apr 21, 2021 11:17 am
Therefore, I think this needs to end. I think Steinberg's best option is to place VST2.4 in the public domain.
Brilliant idea :tu:
+1
Well that idea is pretty obvious, no? I mean I'm pretty sure that it has occurred to a a few people at Steinberg. I'm also pretty certain that they disagree about it being their "best option."
They can be persuaded that they have miscalculated their options, and incentivized to consider a change of plans. Maybe not with a fountain of bodily fluids, but something a little scarier: Collective bargaining. Set up an organization representing a whole bunch of smaller shops, outlining a pact to (for example) withdraw VST3 support over ethical concerns if Steinberg continues to threaten the industry with its monopolistic behavior. Offer to disband the organization if Steinberg donates VST2 to the public domain (or releases it under the GPL or MIT or whatever libre license). Keep lawyers on standby to take them to court for a class action lawsuit and/or an antitrust investigation.

This cannot be done except by industry insiders, and I'm not one myself, so that's as far as I can take this idea. I don't really expect anyone to try it, either, because it will be less of a hassle to let Steinberg do whatever it pleases. Larger developers will quietly take it in the shorts as a cost of doing business. Smaller developers will switch to LV2 with all its problems. VST2 will wither and disappear.
I hate signatures too.

User avatar
KVRAF
2763 posts since 15 Oct, 2017 from U.S.

Post Wed Apr 21, 2021 4:27 pm

Game of Proprietary Codes

User avatar
KVRian
881 posts since 31 Dec, 2008

Post Wed Apr 21, 2021 4:34 pm

mutools wrote:
Wed Apr 21, 2021 3:15 pm
The fact that Steinberg tries to force the death of VST 2 proves the current weakness of VST 3.
Absolutely.

KVRist
166 posts since 12 May, 2012

Post Wed Apr 21, 2021 5:20 pm

Hink wrote:
Wed Apr 21, 2021 1:05 pm
kamalmanzukie wrote:
Wed Apr 21, 2021 11:04 am
Hink wrote:
Wed Apr 21, 2021 10:21 am
well I guess you told us huh? This place has some amazing people, a ton of talent, the best devs in the world gathering her, incredible knowledge base...but yeah your trolling right there isnt trifling :roll:
when in rome baby.

honestly all i was trying to do was drum up some testosterone about the situation, but since the mood seems to be 'shut up, we like it' i'll just see myself out
by calling people dorks? That's right, it's all of us and not you...gotcha.

"when in rome baby. " and "since the mood seems to be 'shut up"


when in rome baby :lol:
you're right of course. i blew off the steam and thought about it all again. i decided that my reaction to this situation was not unjustified, but i definitely could have avoided being rude a bit better. i was seeing red

KVRist
166 posts since 12 May, 2012

Post Wed Apr 21, 2021 5:46 pm

Urs wrote:
Wed Apr 21, 2021 11:17 am
Well, you know, I think it's pretty clear that a de facto industry standard must not be subject to a license that can be revoked unilaterally by one of the players in that industry.

Many of us are heavily invested in this, musicians, host developers and plug-in developers. The lesson to learn here is that ownership of a proprietary format is threatening that investment, for what we can only assume is shareholder value of no benefit to anyone's sacrifice.

Therefore, I think this needs to end. I think Steinberg's best option is to place VST2.4 in the public domain.
if they don't understand that as an unavoidable concession something is very wrong with that company and their grip on reality. what else is for there to happen? im not a lawyer or anything but if they think railroading everyone like this is the way to go, that sounds like the basis for one hell of a class action lawsuit. maybe they're not a monopoly technically, but acting like one for however many years in good faith only to pull this strong arm stuff that will leave a lot of people high and dry no matter what

idiots probably wouldn't even see it coming. i bet they're doing cocaine

User avatar
KVRAF
3927 posts since 8 Mar, 2004 from Berlin, Germany

Post Wed Apr 21, 2021 10:13 pm

Urs wrote:
Wed Apr 21, 2021 11:17 am
Therefore, I think this needs to end. I think Steinberg's best option is to place VST2.4 in the public domain.
this is what i have been thinking for many years. it would certainly be the best option for the audiosoftware community and it would give a huge positive image boost to steinberg. they could make themselves the heroes of the industry. apparently, for whatever reasons that i don't understand, steinberg seems to think otherwise. if only they could be persuaded

User avatar
KVRian
1304 posts since 10 Oct, 2018

Post Wed Apr 21, 2021 10:30 pm

Steinberg=Yamaha
There you have your reason. Watch Jordan Rudess' latest home studio video (from last week). No cigar for Yamaha!

User avatar
KVRian
922 posts since 2 Jul, 2018

Post Wed Apr 21, 2021 10:35 pm

S0lo wrote:
Wed Apr 21, 2021 4:34 pm
mutools wrote:
Wed Apr 21, 2021 3:15 pm
The fact that Steinberg tries to force the death of VST 2 proves the current weakness of VST 3.
Absolutely.
100% agreed. After more than a decade VST3 still has not replaced VST2. And there are serious reasons for this. Steinberg should just accept the reality. Instead of investing money into threatening developers with legal issues Steinberg should just:

- fix the badly designed VST3 SDK or replace it with VST4 (lightweight and simple)
- leave VST 2.4 to public domain to restore the reputation amongst developers and customers

Since Steinberg is a German company we developers could also refer to the Bundeskartellamt. It cares about abuse of monopoly:

https://www.bundeskartellamt.de/DE/Miss ... _node.html
Tone2 Audiosoftware https://www.tone2.com

User avatar
Urs
u-he
25635 posts since 8 Aug, 2002 from Berlin

Post Wed Apr 21, 2021 10:42 pm

Music Engineer wrote:
Wed Apr 21, 2021 10:13 pm
if only they could be persuaded
Honestly, I don't think they can. They're probably too hung up on shareholder value and they cling to the paradigm that 3 companies control all relevant standards, the top spot being the icing on the cake.

But things can change quickly if only someone was gonna take any of the existing open source APIs and create an example implementation that allows for a quick transition. Like, a step-by-step guide on how to throw out the VST2 SDK and make an *implementation* of VST2 independent of VST2. Something that takes no longer than half a day, from throwing out the VST2 SDK to compiling the thing.

Then, all you need is an adapter to VST2 and you're set forever. Also, why not throw in an adapter for VST3 under GPLv3, too, for good measure and as a hosting example, and be done with signing those license agreements.

User avatar
KVRian
881 posts since 31 Dec, 2008

Post Thu Apr 22, 2021 7:48 pm

Urs wrote:
Wed Apr 21, 2021 10:42 pm
But things can change quickly if only someone was gonna take any of the existing open source APIs and create an example implementation that allows for a quick transition. Like, a step-by-step guide on how to throw out the VST2 SDK and make an *implementation* of VST2 independent of VST2. Something that takes no longer than half a day, from throwing out the VST2 SDK to compiling the thing.

Then, all you need is an adapter to VST2 and you're set forever.
Probably many here want this but are afraid to be the one to do it. I guess its the unknown details of legality that is the most deterrent for most of us.

May be if a good lawyer is involved in the process. After all, so called "clean room" reverse engineering has been already done before for things that are much much more sophisticated than mere VST 2. (example, IBM's BIOS, or even ReactOS)

User avatar
KVRian
799 posts since 25 Sep, 2014 from Specific Northwest

Post Thu Apr 22, 2021 8:27 pm

S0lo wrote:
Thu Apr 22, 2021 7:48 pm
Urs wrote:
Wed Apr 21, 2021 10:42 pm
But things can change quickly if only someone was gonna take any of the existing open source APIs and create an example implementation that allows for a quick transition. Like, a step-by-step guide on how to throw out the VST2 SDK and make an *implementation* of VST2 independent of VST2. Something that takes no longer than half a day, from throwing out the VST2 SDK to compiling the thing.

Then, all you need is an adapter to VST2 and you're set forever.
Probably many here want this but are afraid to be the one to do it. I guess its the unknown details of legality that is the most deterrent for most of us.

May be if a good lawyer is involved in the process. After all, so called "clean room" reverse engineering has been already done before for things that are much much more sophisticated than mere VST 2. (example, IBM's BIOS, or even ReactOS)
There was a project where the programmer who had never even seen the VST headers black boxed a VST and recreated the whole shebang. However, I can no longer find it, nor did I download a copy of it, as far as I can see.

Pity as it would have been an excellent starting point. I can only guess that they received a takedown notice and didn't feel like fighting it.

KVRAF
12700 posts since 13 Oct, 2009

Post Thu Apr 22, 2021 8:38 pm

...
Last edited by ghettosynth on Sat Apr 24, 2021 8:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Return to “DSP and Plug-in Development”