Is Studio 1 the only realistic alternative to Cubase ?

[pdxindy]

The only alternative is to hunker down in a bunker with an old Intel machine and a copy of Cubase 11, and a lifetime supply of canned beans.

The other alternative is use a different DAW than Cubase and keep happily using VST2 plugins for some years to come.

[jamcat]

The only alternative is to hunker down in a bunker with an old Intel machine and a copy of Cubase 11, and a lifetime supply of canned beans.

The other alternative is use a different DAW than Cubase and keep happily using VST2 plugins for some years to come.

But you'll still need that old Intel machine.

[pdxindy]

The only alternative is to hunker down in a bunker with an old Intel machine and a copy of Cubase 11, and a lifetime supply of canned beans.

The other alternative is use a different DAW than Cubase and keep happily using VST2 plugins for some years to come.

But you'll still need that old Intel machine.

VST2 plugins are working fine on my M1 Mac...

[jamcat]

The only alternative is to hunker down in a bunker with an old Intel machine and a copy of Cubase 11, and a lifetime supply of canned beans.

The other alternative is use a different DAW than Cubase and keep happily using VST2 plugins for some years to come.

But you'll still need that old Intel machine.

VST2 plugins are working fine on my M1 Mac...

Only because of Rosetta2. Apple isn't going to keep it around forever. Maybe 3 years, tops.

I'm using AU versions of non-native M1 plugins right now (which includes all VST2), since Studio One supports AU as well as VST. And because Apple built in system-level Rosetta2 conversion for AU plugins into MacOS, I am able to use them in the M1 native version of Studio One.

This isn't a permanent solution though, because you lose cross-platform compatibility and it's not future-proof. Ultimately I want all my plugins to be VST3, M1 native, and cross-platform.

[pdxindy]

VST2 plugins are working fine on my M1 Mac...

Only because of Rosetta2.

No, there are plenty of M1 native VST2 plugins...

[jamcat]

Which ones?
Steinberg has clarified to developers that their VST2 licenses are not portable to Apple Silicon.
Developers distributing VST2 plugins for native M1 are subject to litigation from Steinberg.

[BONES]

You're making the same arguments as the 32-bitter clingers.

I have to say there are times when I deeply regret our move to 64 bit. It has given us absolutely no benefit to anything, yet has cost us access to a lot of tools we used to make a lot of music.

But VST2 is dead, just like 32-bit is dead. It hasn't been actively developed or maintained for 10 years.

If it still works, who cares?

But you'll still need that old Intel machine.

Why? 32 bit Orion runs perfectly well on my current laptop, alongside the 64 bit version and Cubase and Studio One, 8 or so years after development ceased. Things don't stop working just because development has stopped.

[jamcat]

But you'll still need that old Intel machine.

Why? 32 bit Orion runs perfectly well on my current laptop, alongside the 64 bit version and Cubase and Studio One, 8 or so years after development ceased. Things don't stop working just because development has stopped.

In the future, current Intel machines will be "old Intel machines."
What I meant by "old Intel machines" is the current x86/x64 architecture. RISC is the future. Apple is already there, and Microsoft has ARM-versions of Windows as well. AMD and Intel will switch over to ARM, probably sooner than later. The vast majority of computer users are on laptops now, not desktops, and old Intel architecture just can't compete with ARM in that sphere, where power consumption and battery life are so critical. In the near future, we'll see just how much desktop workstations benefit from ARM when Apple releases an M2 Mac Pro. In the desktop arena, what really matters is the processing-power-to-price ratio, where once again, ARM is going to romp.

My prediction is a 64-core Mac Pro for around $6500. Dual M2 processors with 16 CPU cores and 16 GPU cores each, and will be about 4x faster than a current $40k Mac Pro.

[BONES]

RISC is nothing new, it was around in the 1990s in the form of DEC Alpha. Used in a lot of servers but not much else. Intel purchased all the IP for it decades ago so they could have had a huge march on everybody with RISC if there had been any point in doing it. Microsoft have had ARM versions of Windows for years and guess what? Nobody gives a shit.

There are a few things you don't seem to understand. Firstly, Intel are more than just competitive against ARM, they are measurably better. Where their chips are behind is in that they are still using a 10nm process, where AMD and ARM have reduced their die sizes to 7nm. When Intel get down to those die sizes, and they don't seem to be in a hurry, they will be streets ahead of ARM and AMD. At the moment, there is no area in which Apple's ARM-based systems are superior and in many areas they aren't even competitive. I'd have thought they'd at least be able to nail it on battery life, but they can't even manage that, so what's point of them?

Nobody is going to buy a MacPro with Apple's GPU cores. MacPros are for professionals and professionals want performance. Apple's GPU cores might look good against Intel's on-board graphics but they can't compete with nVidia's Quadro cards and any graphics professional worth his or her salt will always want discrete graphics, preferably with a high degree of customisation to suit the task at hand.

[mgw38]

When Intel get down to those die sizes, and they don't seem to be in a hurry, they will be streets ahead of ARM and AMD.

About 20 years ago I used to spend of lot of time with Intel engineers working at the Ocotillo Fab in Arizona. Back then I lived in Ocotillo in walking distance to the Fab.

Around that time, Intel artificially delayed the release of new chip generations to maximize ROI for each generation. I distinctively remember that they were two generations ahead in development.

Steep decline since then.

Don't get me wrong. I personally prefer Intel because I rely on TB. But the "they are not in a hurry" statement is wishful thinking imho. They can barely keep up these days.

The Alder Lake architecture is nice though.

[jamcat]

Nobody is going to buy a MacPro with Apple's GPU cores. MacPros are for professionals and professionals want performance. Apple's GPU cores might look good against Intel's on-board graphics but they can't compete with nVidia's Quadro cards and any graphics professional worth his or her salt will always want discrete graphics, preferably with a high degree of customisation to suit the task at hand.

The M1 Max SOC GPU performance rivals Apple's Mac Pro with Afterburner cards. The M2 will almost certainly exceed it. Mac Pro is the industry standard. I'm sure You already know that. SOC is superior to distributed components on a PCI bus.

[LeVzi]

VST2 is dead. Time to move on.

This is the kinda BS that really tests me.

Some VST's that are REALLY good are VST2 only , for one reason or another will never see a VST3 update. Camelspace Camelphat but to name 2, and Cthulu from Xfer CANNOT be updated to VST3 due to the MIDI issues with VST3.

So they are NOT dead at all , also bridging VST2 from 32bit to 64bit is still used, look at Genesis Pro. That will be gone too. There are plenty I still have bridged that are stable.

So VST2 is not dead, in fact it needs to be kept alive for those reasons alone. It's bloody minded of Steinberg to just disregard them and the people that pay for their software who will lose out.

Hence why I asked the question, if I want to keep a DAW up to date and using VST2 and VST3 , is Studio 1 the only viable option. Or I just simply stay with Cubase the release prior to when they outlaw VST2. Thankfully VST2 is still OK in Cubase 12.

OR as was suggested some kinda wrapper / system to load in VST2.

You're making the same arguments as the 32-bitter clingers.

But VST2 is dead, just like 32-bit is dead. It hasn't been actively developed or maintained for 10 years. Development licenses are no longer being issued and licenses are not being extended to future platforms. It is dead.

Developers will begin phasing out VST2 support, just as they did with 32-bit. There is no reason to continue it. Because it is dead.

I recommend you find replacements for defunct plugins and abandonware. Just as you had to do for 32-bit. The sooner you end your reliance on dead-end plugins, the better.

I'm in more or less the same boat as you, so it's not as though I don't empathize. I'm just telling you for your own good, because the writing is on the wall, and has been for a long time now. You can try to stand athwart history, yelling stop, but it will only run you over. The only alternative is to hunker down in a bunker with an old Intel machine and a copy of Cubase 11, and a lifetime supply of canned beans.

I don't want to get painted into a corner with any software that might impose an expiration date on my work, so I've done what I can for some time now to cut out non-VST3 plugins, just as I did with 32-bit plugins a decade ago. But there are a few VST2 plugins that I rely on that have no replacement currently.

Parallax-Audio Virtual Sound Stage 2 and Toontrack ezplayer, in particular.
ezplayer is dead for sure, and VSS2 has all the appearance of that as well.

I'm assuming Relab Development will come out with VST3 versions, but it could be years, given the painfully slow pace of Development from Relab.)

Outside of those, I've ditched or replaced any plugins that aren't VST3. In all of those cases, it was an improvement, such as swapping Expressive E's buggy abandonware Arché instruments for SWAM.

I'm glad I am. I am yet to find a decent replacement for the likes of Camelphat.

And like was said, I can move away from Cubase if I choose to something that runs VST2 perfectly well.

You keep banging on about Mac, I don't own a mac nor will I ever. If dropping VST2 is a Mac thing, then why don't they leave us Windows users alone ? They deserve to lose the custom.

[BONES]

The M1 Max SOC GPU performance rivals Apple's Mac Pro with Afterburner cards. The M2 will almost certainly exceed it.

Says who? Where is your evidence? The Afterburner card is designed for video editing. It's about bandwidth, not performance.

Mac Pro is the industry standard. I'm sure You already know that.

Nobody is paying 10 grand for a basic MacPro any more. Two years ago we had 60 people on Mac at work, today we have zero. Everyone was moved to PC at the start of last year and that only happened because Apple have priced themselves out of the market. To get the spec we wanted would have meant more than $20,000 per workstation, as opposed to the $8,000 or so our HP Z Series workstations cost. Crucially, all but one of us are much happier on the new systems. We get more done in any given time period, we have way fewer dramas and noticeably better reliability.

Everything just works and our hardware is optimised for the applications we run on it. OTOH, when you buy a Mac, you get it get it set up for a range of things Apple thinks you might possibly want to use it for and that's your lot. The performance difference at the pointy end is chalk and cheese.

[dellboy]

The vast majority of computer users are on laptops now, not desktops,

In that case I am quite happy to never become one of the "vast majority". Much prefer being in a minority in most things in life.

[Trancit]

The vast majority of computer users are on laptops now, not desktops,

In that case I am quite happy to never become one of the "vast majority". Much prefer being in a minority in most things in life.

Exactly... I will never understand how it can be an advantage paying the double amount of money for the half power...

Everybody is claiming for more CPU power and then cutting their own legs with some mobile solution...