Bargain Center: discussion, gossip, etc.

[Peter - IK Multimedia]

Then, after you upgrade, your old projects will still require the old plugins. Because, unless it's changed recently, IKM bakes the plugin whole version number (v3, v4, v5) into the plugin name. So any old project will be looking for a specific plugin name with that whole version in it.

They could easily rectify that issue by removing the plugin version from the plugin naming scheme..

This is done on purpose but not for the reasons you may be implying/thinking. People generally do not want their existing/older projects to suddenly sound different when they open them after updating software. A major version can (honestly should, and in our case does) have an updated sound engine and other improvements that will change the sound of the plugin. While these improvements are obviously positive improvements, that doesn't mean you want your mixes/masters to suddenly sound different. If you do, I understand that's your prerogative but that is the minority and we will continue to make sure the majority of our users are not suddenly dealing with sonic changes to their projects after upgrading to a new version of our software (full, non point releases, obviously).

[wayford]

Hi Peter! Could IK please allow stacking the survey code with jampoints? That would be great.

[VitaminD]

Then, after you upgrade, your old projects will still require the old plugins. Because, unless it's changed recently, IKM bakes the plugin whole version number (v3, v4, v5) into the plugin name. So any old project will be looking for a specific plugin name with that whole version in it.

They could easily rectify that issue by removing the plugin version from the plugin naming scheme..

This is done on purpose but not for the reasons you may be implying/thinking. People generally do not want their existing/older projects to suddenly sound different when they open them after updating software. A major version can (honestly should, and in our case does) have an updated sound engine and other improvements that will change the sound of the plugin. While these improvements are obviously positive improvements, that doesn't mean you want your mixes/masters to suddenly sound different. If you do, I understand that's your prerogative but that is the minority and we will continue to make sure the majority of our users are not suddenly dealing with sonic changes to their projects after upgrading to a new version of our software (full, non point releases, obviously).

Attempting to minimize my point by claiming I'm in the minority and majority rules can be turned around too. Because backwards compatibility can be baked into the plugin. And we see this all over the industry.

Fabfilter have no problems with this. Native Instruments have no problems with this. Arturia have no problems with this. U-he have no problems with this. Softube have no problems with this. UAD have no problems with this. etc, etc, etc. Yet somehow IKM has a problem with this.

In reality it is IKM that is the minority with how they remedy their versioning and backwards compatibility. And that's a big frustrating aspect to IKM software.

Because you may have a project you work on say with v4 plugins. Then years later need to dial it up again (remix, remaster, or just completing it). But now you have moved on to v5, v6, v7 as the years have progressed and uh-oh! -- You have to source and install those old plugins to get the project back. Because IKM didn't have the foresight to accommodate the user's over their developers code complexity in managing backwards compatibility in the software.

Really a lot of these plugins haven't changed over the years sonically to warrant a whole version change. Those CSR reverbs, for example, are the same as they were in V3. They got a GUI makeover in V4 and resizing in V5 IIRC, but otherwise aren't they the same? And the clipper, and the optical compressor.. etc.

Besides the novice users, your company chases with these 50 dollar bargain basement sales, aren't really going to care either way. But everyone above that level get to deal with this if they chose your software. Because you make excuses for it instead of working solutions for the end user.

You are welcome to disagree, I know you do. But please don't minimize the issue. Your company could work to make compatibility versioning modes inside the plugin..

[Caine123]

everyone who still buys IKM stuff should be aware of their bad version compatibilities and bad support. i just cannot recommend their bloated plugins anymore since a long time. but well people have to learn themselves. IKM is more a PR company with bloated plugins and shoptabs etc. get fabfilter and other plugins instead.

[Peter - IK Multimedia]

I'll relay that some people want their projects to sound differently when they update to a new full version of the software. Thank you for the input. In the mean time, if the project is going to sit for a very long time before reopening and you need to "re-source" plug-ins I'd suggest rendering tracks so you don't lose any work if you have uninstalled those plug-ins or are moving old projects to a new computer (though we do host previous releases so unless they are REALLLLY old you should still have access to them).

[ROTMetro]

You are welcome to disagree, I know you do. But please don't minimize the issue. Your company could work to make compatibility versioning modes inside the plugin..

Dude didn't minimize anything, he explained a very sound reason for the behavior. Your argument is also incorrect. Native Instruments Kontakt major versions behave the same way as IK, and for the same logical reason.

You disagreeing with the reason doesn't magically turn the reason for the behavior into 'minimizing'.

I'll add that another reason dealing with versions this way is superior. It allows developers to reorder or add automation in a logical manner. If you just keep iterating on one 'exposed' version of a VST all new automation has to come at the end of all previous automation. When you create a new version you can add new automation parameters in a logical manner.

[Uncle E]

I'll relay that some people want their projects to sound differently when they update to a new full version of the software.

Do the V5 plugins sound better than the V4 plugins? There's no mention of improved sonics on the T-RackS MAX page.

[elxsound]

I'll relay that some people want their projects to sound differently when they update to a new full version of the software.

Do the V5 plugins sound better than the V4 plugins? There's no mention of improved sonics on the T-RackS MAX page.

I think that was his point… a bit of a dig that the only reason to upgrade is if it sounds different (and not because UI changes, and additional modules added).

[Gavincoolguy]

IK needs to repair its reputation. They simply treat existing customers like shit. No discount for items owned in a bundle is a scam simple as that. Whatever psychologist you guys hired to game your customers sucks. You should get Arturias guy, he doesn't punish me for buying everything they release the second it comes out, so they get my money.

I'll relay that some people want their projects to sound differently when they update to a new full version of the software. Thank you for the input. In the mean time, if the project is going to sit for a very long time before reopening and you need to "re-source" plug-ins I'd suggest rendering tracks so you don't lose any work if you have uninstalled those plug-ins or are moving old projects to a new computer (though we do host previous releases so unless they are REALLLLY old you should still have access to them).

[Uncle E]

It's a great point. Peter, while we have your ear, it'd be nice if you could have some sway on this. IK used to offer lower prices for upgrades and the general attitude towards IK was better back then.

[VitaminD]

You are welcome to disagree, I know you do. But please don't minimize the issue. Your company could work to make compatibility versioning modes inside the plugin..

Dude didn't minimize anything, he explained a very sound reason for the behavior.

I disagree. When he stated,

If you do, I understand that's your prerogative but that is the minority and we will continue to make sure the majority of our users are not suddenly dealing with sonic changes to their projects after upgrading to a new version of our software (full, non point releases, obviously).

He was very plainly claiming the issue is my own and not really an issue anyone deals with. That's minimizing.

Your argument is also incorrect. Native Instruments Kontakt major versions behave the same way as IK, and for the same logical reason.

The context was the T-Racks Effects suite. Only a handful of NI products behave as you claim though. Kontakt has version numbering in the file name because whole portions of the software behaves entirely different from a functional level -- such as scripting changes. Others, such as Massive, and their many effects, seem to not yet they still get/got updates.

Which is interesting since not all the IKM Effects seem to get sonic changes between version numbers. Actually, how many times have IKM effects plugins got such a makeover on the audio algos that it altered the output? That's a legitimate question -- I don't know. But I will say some of that suite got ported from version to version with seemingly little to no changes under the hood, just cosmetic changes. So if that's the case, there really wasn't much going for an update to begin with. It would be interesting to do null tests between say v3 and v5 and see what happens on like plugins.

Arturia also have a large effects suite that goes from suite version to version. Yet the file names don't state the version number in them. You may (and do) get updates on the individual plugins but you don't ever have to worry about sourcing old plugins (so far).

You disagreeing with the reason doesn't magically turn the reason for the behavior into 'minimizing'.

Well, as I have already pointed out, with the actual quote, he did minimize the issue by stating few people have this issue, in response to me pointing out the issue. It has nothing to do with me disagreeing with the reason. But I'm not that worked up over it -- I said what I came to say to him, he responded in kind. It's a done deal. Now you're throwing your hat in the ring..

I'll add that another reason dealing with versions this way is superior. It allows developers to reorder or add automation in a logical manner. If you just keep iterating on one 'exposed' version of a VST all new automation has to come at the end of all previous automation. When you create a new version you can add new automation parameters in a logical manner.

Hmm ok. Yet I don't see this being a major issue. Maybe it is in some hosts, but in Cubase I arm the automation, playback the track, then move the controls I want to automate, then disarm the automation. The automation lanes are sorted already nicely by only showing me what I updated in the automation lane and nothing more. So I really don't care where the new lanes are ordered internally.

But even if it were somehow an issue, usually these types of effects plugins aren't changing so dramatically that it requires an upheaval of the automation ordering. Plugins like IKM's are pretty fixed from whenever they're released. Go back and look at the featureset for v3 plugins then come and look at those plugins in V5 -- they seem not to have changed.

[ROTMetro]

Again, it's not minimizing. It might feel that way to you, but it isn't. A big software company with a ton of products has to have a standardized, understandable upgrade process. Imagine the complaints 'V5 or XYZ behaves this way, but V5 of ABC doesn, why is IK so inconsistent'. They don't evaluate on a plugin by plugin what's changed basis. They have a standard behavior.

Even if the whole engine isn't changed, there might be filter changes/etc. Optimizations that have slight impacts, which compounded with filter changes etc add up to sounding different.

Masterplan is a pretty legit plugin, it takes the same approach as IK, new release, new version. There are lots of companies that do.

But then if you look at the Cableguys thread where people are complaining about the automation and the response being that 'in order to keep compatibility...' (like VitaminD likes) the side effect is a crappy automation list (to the detriment of their users like myself or the person that brought it up). Old boy from Cableguys wasn't minimizing, he was just explaining why it is how is, that it's a tradeoff, one or the other.

Go submit your request on their site. If people have changed from wanting stability to wanting one version installed and it shows in their requests they will switch it up. The best thing you can do is submit tickets so that what you want starts showing up internally. Griping here isn't going to show up in their project managers planning, but actionable tickets will.

Ultimately all software is full of compromises.

[Nobdi]

It's a great point. Peter, while we have your ear, it'd be nice if you could have some sway on this. IK used to offer lower prices for upgrades and the general attitude towards IK was better back then.

2nded - and to add to this:
For pretty much every other hardware company on the planet you can openly access their drivers w/o having to register the hardware with them (making it at least a pain in the rear end for a 2nd-hand buyer and a certain "IK s*cks" evaluation from the start)
It might not be "instant money" for you if someone buys your hardware 2nd-hand but it might lead them into your eco system.

[VitaminD]

Again, it's not minimizing. It might feel that way to you, but it isn't. A big software company with a ton of products has to have a standardized, understandable upgrade process. Imagine the complaints 'V5 or XYZ behaves this way, but V5 of ABC doesn, why is IK so inconsistent'. They don't evaluate on a plugin by plugin what's changed basis. They
have a standard behavior.

It is precisely minimizing. He directly stated a majority/minority argument. I mean it has 'min' in the name even. It couldn't be more clear. But this back and forth between what is and is not minimizing is tedious and rather a waste of my time (and yours for that matter). If you want to believe it isn't that is your perogative, but I'd say you have an unusual view of what is then.

Even if the whole engine isn't changed, there might be filter changes/etc. Optimizations that have slight impacts, which compounded with filter changes etc add up to sounding different.

Precisely why they should have selectable version modes built into the plugins, which I have been suggesting from the start. That would resolve all the concerns with the plugin sounding different over time.

But I doubt IKM has updated those old plugins algos much over the years. Much of the changes seem to be GUI related. So you've just been buying new versions of the suite to get GUI updates and OS/DAW compatibility. Beyond that the major thing the different versions provide is more new plugins added to the collection.

Arturia does the same thing in adding new plugins to the effects suite between whole versions. Yet they don't include the version number in the file names, and they provide you with updates at no extra charge once you buy a plugin or effect suite. So even your older suite gets updated versions of the individual plugins.

Masterplan is a pretty legit plugin, it takes the same approach as IK, new release, new version. There are lots of companies that do.

I wasn't arguing that companies don't do as what IKM does, so I'm not sure why you brought up Master Plan. But as true as there are companies that do, there are also companies that don't -- which is my point. The companies that don't provide us more ease of use. I value ease of use.

But then if you look at the Cableguys thread where people are complaining about the automation and the response being that 'in order to keep compatibility...' (like VitaminD likes) the side effect is a crappy automation list (to the detriment of their users like myself or the person that brought it up). Old boy from Cableguys wasn't minimizing, he was just explaining why it is how is, that it's a tradeoff, one or the other.

Cableguys may have a really poor implementation in their code and/or add large amounts of features to a particular plugin over time. IKM don't typically do that to their plugins. Generally it is What you see is what you get. Outside of OS/DAW compatibility and GUI changes mostly.

Go submit your request on their site. If people have changed from wanting stability to wanting one version installed and it shows in their requests they will switch it up. The best thing you can do is submit tickets so that what you want starts showing up internally. Griping here isn't going to show up in their project managers planning, but actionable tickets will.

Ultimately all software is full of compromises.

No thank you. Peter, the brand ambassador/marketeer for IKM, has already spoken here. It, like this discussion with you, would be another fruitless endeavor I'm afraid.

Stability isn't threatened by such a change. Plugins aren't going to start crashing because they remove the version numbering from the plugin name. No "Human sacrifice! Dogs and cats living together! Mass hysteria!"

We can have our cake and eat it too if they'd remove the numbering from the file name and offer baked in compat modes per whole version, but then I think we'd see that many of the plugins haven't really changed much (if at all) audibly...

If you care to respond back, I'll read what you say but I'm not going to respond further on this matter as I think it's run it's course.

[seangm]

Did anyone who signed up for the free Waves Flo Motion actually get an email? When I signed up it said the license would be emailed but never received anything (checked spam, etc.). Thanks.