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

[Music Engineer]

Anyway I'm still unsure if LV2 is the answer to the issue VST2/3 issues raised on this thread.

why not? what would be the alternative? trying to convince steinberg to set vst2 free? ...probably futile. switch to an reverse engineered api? risky (and the only available ones are gpl anyway). coming up with something entirely new? probably won't work out. so what else is on the table? i think, lv2 is the best bet at the moment.

[Urs]

I remember a conversation with the lead on a proprietary DAW who told me in no uncertain terms that plugins were their worst nightmare (too), and that if it would be possible to just stop supporting them (it isn't) their entire time gladly would.

Part of the issue is certainly that plug-in formats were never really defined in an unambiguous manner. Calling sequences, thread contexts, even lengths of strings or arrays were up to interpretation and somehow that has never changed.

Example code for common features was missing, and stupidly licenses were too permissive to change that. Discussing AAX in a public forum? - Impossible! Making an example VST2 host open source? - Impossible! Making an open source library that binds to VST3 and one can link to in a closed source project? - Impossible!

Also, documentation... in the beginning someone (Tobybear?) was nice enough to write a "how to make a VST2 plug-in" guide. This was helpful, it certainly was for me. But that should come from the guys who make the specs. But they don't. They don't even document the dos and don'ts, really. They're not licensing a spec, they're licensing riddles and pitfalls. Developers become monks who study Doxygen pages as if they were some kind of bible, piecing together some kind of picture of what could have been meant.

Hence, the situation quoted above.

[EvilDragon]

Take a look at VCV Rack - every module's GUI is drawn with SVG and scales to any size or resolution. Why would you not want this?

Because vectors have their limitations as well - cannot really get very photorealistic with them, without an awful lot of effort, and then I bet performance suffers because all those squillions of vectors needed to render your skeuomorphic GUI (this is not a thing that is going to die, apparently), you might as well just render rastered images at multiple sizes and that's it.

If you take the approach that I described (reinstantiating all plugins), you're not going to unload dynamic objects at all. You're just reinstantiating plugins.

This is not an option for something like Kontakt where you load gigabytes of samples in a project.

[mystran]

Meanwhile if you fully teardown and reinstatiate plugins, you might end up tearing down and reloading things like wavetable mipmaps, cached GUI images, preset databases, even thread pools.

cached GUI images ... oh dear. You mean pixel-based graphics that won't scale correctly? C'mon people, it's 2021. Vector graphics is the only sane thing right now. Take a look at VCV Rack - every module's GUI is drawn with SVG and scales to any size or resolution. Why would you not want this?

Oh come on. I'm not talking about what I think is the best thing to do. I have a custom vector path rendering pipeline thank you very much.

Rather I'm just trying to point out that the idea that changing the sampling rate is somehow comparable to the stuff that a plugin might have to do when it is reloaded indicates a total disconnect with the reality of what is actually going on in the plugin market.

[FigBug]

I'm changing my opinion on configurable sample rates. Seems like in practice, plugins don't implement it correctly, therefore DAWs can't depend on it working, so they don't allow sample rate changes easily.

I tested the DAWs I have:

Ableton Live - Samplerate can be changed without reloading plugins. Render at any sample rate >= 44100 without reloading plugins.

Ardour - Sample rate is part of the project when created. I don't see where you can change this, if possible. Render is at project sample rate only.

Logic Pro - Sample rate is part of project settings. Changing sample rate reloads all plugins. Render is at project sample rate.

Reaper - Sample rate can be changed. Plugins don't appear to reload. Render has a checkbox "Use project sample rate for mixing and FX/synth processing" which is always checked and can't be unchecked.

FL Studio - The current project must be closed to change the sample rate. Render is at project sample rate.

BitWig - Render at project sample rate only. Sample rate can be changed, plugins are reloaded.

Pro Tools - Sample rate is project setting, I don't see if it can be changed.

Waveform - Sample rate can be changed without reloading plugins. Render at any sample rate.

[S0lo]

Take a look at VCV Rack - every module's GUI is drawn with SVG and scales to any size or resolution. Why would you not want this?

Because vectors have their limitations as well - cannot really get very photorealistic with them, without an awful lot of effort, and then I bet performance suffers because all those squillions of vectors needed to render your skeuomorphic GUI (this is not a thing that is going to die, apparently), you might as well just render rastered images at multiple sizes and that's it.

I agree here . As much as I love the flexibility of SVG. Almost no professional artist can match 3D rendered graphics with his vector graphics skills. I've tried it with a very good artist. It's very difficult to say the least. (That ofcourse if you want photo realistic graphics, and many vintage emulations do).

In order for vector graphics to almost win hands down, someone has to create a 3D rendering vector format that can work in plugins, or something like that. But even then, you'd have to care about high CPU issues because of the heavy 3D renders. Probably won't work.

May be if someone creates a 3D renderer that outputs SVG !! then your talking.

[fese]

Anyway I'm still unsure if LV2 is the answer to the issue VST2/3 issues raised on this thread.

why not? what would be the alternative? trying to convince steinberg to set vst2 free? ...probably futile. switch to an reverse engineered api? risky (and the only available ones are gpl anyway). coming up with something entirely new? probably won't work out. so what else is on the table? i think, lv2 is the best bet at the moment.

For what? How do you rate the chances of Apple, Digidesign and Steinberg (and very likely most other host developers) adopting LV2? Even if you convinced all other DAWs to switch to LV2, you’d still have a fragmented market.
Realistically, I see only one option: if the “big” three DAW vendors lose enough market share that plugin devs can afford not to develop in their proprietary formats and all other DAWs support LV2 (or whatever open source/open standard). I can imagine that happening for ProTools, maybe for Cubase, Logic not really (more likely: Apple just drops it).
But then I’m no expert in this business, so I could be complete wrong

[Urs]

Only one company needs to make an adapter for LV2-to-AU/VST3(Mac/Win/Linux), then no-one has to deal with any other format anymore.

Obviously, this won't work for Avid, but I doubt they'll ever figure out what their dependency on PACE costs them.

[syntonica]

Because vectors have their limitations as well - cannot really get very photorealistic with them, without an awful lot of effort, and then I bet performance suffers because all those squillions of vectors needed to render your skeuomorphic GUI (this is not a thing that is going to die, apparently), you might as well just render rastered images at multiple sizes and that's it.

I don't mind skeuomorhphism, per se, but the photo-realistic part really needs to die a flaming death and a rain of pixels into the bit bucket in the sky. I have GBs of different sized JPGs and PNGs from a certain manufacturer, from 50 to 300% in size littering my hard drive. Definitely the wrong way of catering to high-rez monitors.

It's very possible to create vector graphics that look 3D, don't look like they were from a early 90s TV show, but draw and shade quickly. I just do a flat look because I'm an awful artist/designer and I don't think making my plugin look like a 70s analog synth with wood cheeks and pesky shadows improves my user experience. Usually, these types of designs annoy me since they are difficult to wrap my eye around and grok quickly.

While the ubiquitous JUCE* look is ugly and boring, it's very readable and understandable.

*I think these widgets are coming from JUCE. I'm sure somebody will correct me if I'm wrong.

[Urs]

Oi, they've taken the termination of the existing VST2 License Agreements out of the new VST3 SDK License Agreement.

This certainly gives us more time to figure things out.

[syntonica]

Obviously, this won't work for Avid, but I doubt they'll ever figure out what their dependency on PACE costs them.

I never understood that. I thought that their hardware was their dongle.

I can understand Apple's, Avid's, and Steinberg's desire to keep control of their ecosystems, thus each having their own proprietary format for plugins, but I don't understand why the iron-fisted control. I would think plugins sell DAWs and DAWs sell plugins. I've never seen the RTS/AAX SDK (like I've never seen Bigfoot), but the VST and AU SDKs are a mess of bad documentation and too much time spent on minutia rather than actually exposing how it all works.

[ghettosynth]

Oi, they've taken the termination of the existing VST2 License Agreements out of the new VST3 SDK License Agreement.

This certainly gives us more time to figure things out.

Said every discussion of either creating or shifting to a new standard ever. I mean, I think that this is good, Steinberg is probably responding to concerns from their most important partners, but it's not like the color of their spots is changing.

A part of the pace of new standards being adopted is the ebb and flow of satisfaction with the old.

[Urs]

Obviously, this won't work for Avid, but I doubt they'll ever figure out what their dependency on PACE costs them.

I never understood that. I thought that their hardware was their dongle.

I can understand Apple's, Avid's, and Steinberg's desire to keep control of their ecosystems, thus each having their own proprietary format for plugins, but I don't understand why the iron-fisted control. I would think plugins sell DAWs and DAWs sell plugins. I've never seen the RTS/AAX SDK (like I've never seen Bigfoot), but the VST and AU SDKs are a mess of bad documentation and too much time spent on minutia rather than actually exposing how it all works.

I guess the details are difficult to discuss, but their dependency on "security" to me is an obvious obstacle in product maintenance. Being last with every OS update or platform change certainly takes a toll.

[syntonica]

I guess the details are difficult to discuss, but their dependency on "security" to me is an obvious obstacle in product maintenance. Being last with every OS update or platform change certainly takes a toll.

Oh, no worries. I don't want the ProTools jackbooted thugs kicking in your door!

PACE buries itself as a kext deep in the heart of OS X, IIRC, so I get why it's such a pain. It's one of the big reasons why I'm not interested in ProTools.

Anyway, just ignore me today. I'm a crabby bastard this morning, getting my first COVID shot this afternoon.

[lkjb]

Oi, they've taken the termination of the existing VST2 License Agreements out of the new VST3 SDK License Agreement.

Where did you see that? The license agreement on github as well as the one in the zip download at steinberg.net still has the terminate-any-prior-agreements clause.