Steinberg Discontinuing VST2 Support in its products

[Compyfox]

Cubendo 12 on Intel and other non Apple Silicon Native platforms has vst2 that works fine.

Woudln't be the same to have an SB thread without you coming to complain.
rsp

Wouldn't be the same on KVR without people complaining about my "complaints".
Where is chk071 at? Also want to post your excitement to see me? I know you want to.


Listen here - I've been using Steinberg software since mid 1990s. And what they've been doing in the last 10 years alone, has been more than questionable in places, not to mention headache inducing rather than just "install, and it just works". It's about high time that people finally stop in the middle of the road and be like "wait a minute... what?! This has to end!".

I guess we're at that point now - and that has been long overdue.

[zvenx]

At least five years ago I wondered why didn't you just switch DAWs, Five years later I am even more perplexed that you haven't.

rsp

[Super Piano Hater 64]

So how does say Waves and Steinberg not have issues developing for vst3? I think they both use their own framework.

I can’t speak to what Waves is doing.

Steinberg designed VST3 for its own purposes and has internal support and documentation beyond what other developers get. None of us should be surprised that it works out for them.

For the record, although I’m convinced that VST3 really sucks, I’m not arguing against supporting the format itself. Developers should support whatever they can afford to support, if the reward is enough for them. Either way, they’re gonna suffer, because they’re programmers.

I’m much more concerned with how Steinberg is throwing its legal weight around. It’s really uncalled for.

[whyterabbyt]

Wasn't VST3 supposed to be backwards compatible?

Nope.

edit : in fact I suspect the opposite.

Doesn't the SDK render the same code in both versions?

Nope.

I mean, you can change the filename from .vst3 to .dll and the other way around in places, and it just works.

.dll is a generic suffix for a Dynamically Linked Library
.vst3 is a specific suffix for a Dynamically Linked Library that happens to be implemented via the VST3 standard.

So the suffix is 'interchangeable' inasmuch as you can specify the filename including, or not including a 'non standard' suffix when you load that library

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-gb/window ... dfrom=MSDN

That doesnt mean a VST .dll and a VST3 .dll are interchangeable though. (Or any other non-VST .dll)

[pixel85]

I... couldn't... resist...

[zvenx]

What would you have them do for their now discontinued for is it almost five years now (2018), vst2 platform?

I use Cubendo and Cubendo only (I have studio one pro but I never really use it beyond an occasional testing, same with Reason 11). For me vst3 is essential, especially for audio plugins to use with sidechaining, and reduced cpu when no audio is passing thru them. I have no other experience with sidechaining etc in other platforms.

I understand their (SB) position with sidechaining....vst2 doing sidechain is doing so by an unintended workaround, a hack, they addressed that limitation in vst3, I do not know why some would think Cubendo should then break their own DAW to work with that hack (not at all saying you are saying this). It would be like Apple officially changing their OS to allow jailbreaking stuff to be more 'compliant'.

I think there are quite a few developers here (and probably elsewere, I rarely see them on the other two forums I frequent, vi-control and gearspace, complaining they way they do here). These are loved developers and their views get echoed by users here, sometimes blindly (that is just accepting that word as gospel).

I happen to also be a SB beta tester so I get to hear the other side of the argument.

edit: for completeness, I was ok with them abandoning vst2 sdk etc, but not ok with this 24 month notice of making my beloved Cubendo no longer vst2 compliant in whatever versions come out after 2 years from now.

rsp

[pixel85]

Also

[pdxindy]

edit: for completeness, I was ok with them abandoning vst2 sdk etc, but not ok with this 24 month notice of making my beloved Cubendo no longer vst2 compliant in whatever versions come out after 2 years from now.

rsp

It is sooner than 24 months for someone with a new Apple Silicon Mac. But they can do what they want with their own DAW's.

Where it leaves a bad taste in the mouth is when it appears they want to force other DAW and plugin developers to stop using VST2 as well.

[crickey13]

Where it leaves a bad taste in the mouth is when it appears they want to force other DAW and plugin developers to stop using VST2 as well.

Exactly this, I don't give a rat's ass about what Steinberg does to Cubase.

[Super Piano Hater 64]

What would you have them do for their now discontinued for is it almost five years now (2018), vst2 platform?

For my part, I'd like them to turn it over to the public. Just walk away from it. Open source. Not their problem. But they've made it clear they'll continue to make it their problem, and also make their problems into everyone else's problems.

I think there are quite a few developers here (and probably elsewere, I rarely see them on the other two forums I frequent, vi-control and gearspace, complaining they way they do here). These are loved developers and their views get echoed by users here, sometimes blindly (that is just accepting that word as gospel).

I'm a programmer. I know how much it can suck to work with an incomplete, underspecified, badly architected SDK. But it's true that I haven't worked with VST3 before. So, let's make a deal: You and I will both write VST3 plugins. We'll use sidechaining and time-sensitive MIDI CC inputs and so forth. Until we release our plugins, we will both shut the hell up about how easy or difficult it is to work with VST3. How does that sound to you?

[Compyfox]

At least five years ago I wondered why didn't you just switch DAWs, Five years later I am even more perplexed that you haven't.

rsp

Because neither S1 nor Reaper have the features I use in Cubase. And Logic isn't on Windows - I ain't supporting the overpriced Apple economy.

Every other host (except MuTools MUX, and the dev deserves every penny) is of zero interest to me - simple as that.

Now less off-topic, more on-topic.

I understand their (SB) position with sidechaining....vst2 doing sidechain is doing so by an unintended workaround, a hack, they addressed that limitation in vst3, I do not know why some would think Cubendo should then break their own DAW to work with that hack (not at all saying you are saying this). It would be like Apple officially changing their OS to allow jailbreaking stuff to be more 'compliant'.

Sorry - nonsense argument IMHO. Has been since SX3 (2004) and Cubase 4 (2006) - so over 15 years. The VST2 SDK offered sidechaining easily. Every other host but CubEndo could use this without any hacks or workaround (especially Magix and Cakewalk - two hosts notorious for doing their own thing, and let's not forget Studio One, by former Steinberg devs, offering better VST2 paring than Steinberg). Wavelab is it's own can of worms.

I still remember Steinberg basically stating "no, this only works with VST3", because they didn't want to fix their spaghetti code that made the proper implementation nigh impossible. Or why do you think the Quad-Channel trick exists? (which sadly doesn't work for other plugins with multiple inputs/outputs -- deLaMancha truc2 was so innovative, but unusable in CubEndo -- and that was what... SynthEdit?!).

VST2 can also do Surround with up to 64 channels, as proven by New Audio Technology and plenty of open source Ambisonic Projects. It's just that Cubase is stuck to 6 discrete channels and Ambisonics 3rd Order, and Nuendo to what... is it 22 at this point? Their response was always "OnLy NuEnDo Is AlLoWeD To Do SuRrOuNd"... but funny enough, let's push Ambisonics and VR Audio in Cubase, yet allow no "unlocked channel amount" to do at least Blu-Ray Audio standard (7.1).

Spot the accumulating and contradicting comments/problems here.


This feels more like a sore wound scenario at this point - "we won't change our spagetti code, rather others need to adapt to the future". Outstanding... this is also the reason why Cubase works so well with CPU's >8 cores. <cough>

I happen to also be a SB beta tester so I get to hear the other side of the argument.

Okay -- let's hear it then why insisting on moving to a broken system, rather than finally going VST4 (fixed with the help from the community, with proper backwards compatibility by just one mouse-click, future proof for basically every you throw at it) or maybe even CLAP, is the route to go?

Wasn't VST3 supposed to be backwards compatible?

Nope.

edit : in fact I suspect the opposite.

I clearly remember Steinberg saying the opposite. But okay, not onyl was this years ago. The VST3 history is a blasted mess.

That doesnt mean a VST .dll and a VST3 .dll are interchangeable though. (Or any other non-VST .dll)

Funny that you mention that. Recently tried that. Aside from the fact that VST3 plugins need to be in the Common Files folder (due to reasons unknown, else they just won't work), i can rename VST3 to DLL and the other way around. In fact, this is sometimes the only way to test plugins in DDMF's PluginDoctor, else they won't even load (mostly VST3 related).

But YMMV - I'm but a user and software tester, not a programmer.

It is sooner than 24 months for someone with a new Apple Silicon Mac. But they can do what they want with their own DAW's.

Where it leaves a bad taste in the mouth is when it appears they want to force other DAW and plugin developers to stop using VST2 as well.

Fully agreeing on that. That is the main problem here.

We're effectively on a timer of 9 months, 12 months tops. macOS 12.5 (or maybe already macOS 13) will be announced in June (5 months from now), and the full version will drop in October (9 months). If Apple then decides once more (like they did from PPC to MacIntel) "whoops - no more Rosetta 2", then we're all in for a world of hurt. (the Steinberg Discourse Forum already hints at as early as Cubase 12.5 - not the first time a .5 version dropping "features", looking at you, "Replace Audio in Video")

It has been made clear by Steinberg a couple of times at this point, that their focus is not "Windows" anymore, but Apple MacOS. This is evident with the excessive hoop-jumping you have to do to not have latency issues, random dropouts, etc. We're basically at the mercy of another OS platform, one that gives a sh#t about VST (but AU).

I am currently building a new Windows/Intel-based rig (not even Windows 11 yet, which has it's own issues), and I've once again painfully reminded how insane these workaround/setups are. Long gone are the times of "just install and use it". On an Intel Chipset, RME ADCs and the most recent version of CubEndo.

Apple is not known to "look back" either - always forward, no prisoners, no long-term compatibility.



So I ask again... why is VST3 the future again?
Why do we need to "force purge" now of all places?

And why do people just accept this?
Ain't that the question of the day.

Have a nice evening!

I'm a programmer. I know how much it can suck to work with an incomplete, underspecified, badly architected SDK. But it's true that I haven't worked with VST3 before. So, let's make a deal: You and I will both write VST3 plugins. We'll use sidechaining and time-sensitive MIDI CC inputs and so forth. Until we release our plugins, we will both shut the hell up about how easy or difficult it is to work with VST3. How does that sound to you?

I'm curious to see that

[whyterabbyt]

That doesnt mean a VST .dll and a VST3 .dll are interchangeable though. (Or any other non-VST .dll)

Funny that you mention that. Recently tried that. Aside from the fact that VST3 plugins need to be in the Common Files folder (due to reasons unknown, else they just won't work), i can rename VST3 to DLL and the other way around. In fact, this is sometimes the only way to test plugins in DDMF's PluginDoctor, else they won't even load (mostly VST3 related).

Yeah, but that's only changing the file suffix. Its not changing it from a VST3-compliant Dynamically Linked Library into a VST2-compliant Dynamically Linked Library, or vice versa.

If you could do that, we'd all have been running VST3-only plugins in our VST2-only hosts all along.
DDMF have VST2 and VST3 hosting within Metaplugin, they clearly know how to handle both plugin formats.

[Compyfox]

Wouldn't that be the ultimate solution....


Also... DDMF "PluginDoctor" can also run VST3 plugins. Just... some... er... "graciously barf", and the workaround is renaming the extension.

[whyterabbyt]

Also... DDMF "PluginDoctor" can also run VST3 plugins. Just... some... er... "graciously barf", and the workaround is renaming the extension.

Yeah I would have assumed it handled VST3. Weird workaround, TBH, but if it works, it works

[Markus Krause]

So is u-he and Tone2 dropping support for VST?

No. We will support VST2 also in the future and we got no plans at all to drop this format.
We recently also released many free updates that add VST3 support to our products.

Steinberg advertises that their VST3 format has 'many essential new features' and 'advantages' compared to competing plugin-formats.
In practise, we do not think that this is true for synthesizers, since VST3 does not offer proper MIDI support.
That's why we recommend to use the VST2 version if your DAW supports both formats.