VCV Rack 2

[hoxclab]

Hope this will be more intuitive. If so, I might be interested.

[vurt]

Softube should think about upgraiding their Modular usability. Because not having VST is what held be back from VCV. And i think with VCV2, Softube will loose a good portion of users.

Why? Just because VCV looks analog doesn't mean shit. Softube actually uses analog emulation.

how do you mean "looks analog"?

[Dirtgrain]

how do you mean "looks analog"?

[vurt]

how do you mean "looks analog"?

scary!

[cnt]

Vcv isnt true open source... developer forced forks to shut down, incl the vst version.

This is really bad behaviour for someone CLAIMiNG its open source but in reality, its not!... ppl developing modules for vcv are treated like shit.

I like VCV so its major letdown......

[whyterabbyt]

Vcv isnt true open source... developer forced forks to shut down, incl the vst version.

The developer of that fork specifically says otherwise.

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

Vcv isnt true open source... developer forced forks to shut down, incl the vst version.

This is really bad behaviour for someone CLAIMiNG its open source but in reality, its not!... ppl developing modules for vcv are treated like shit.

I like VCV so its major letdown......

There's different types of open source licenses. Andrew changed the license at one point, but if you want to take a peek at the code, the source is still open to learn from and use. There's just restrictions on how it can be commercialized from what I understand. Doesn't sound unreasonable to me considering the other two big virtual modulars (Softube and Cherry) aren't any kind of open.

[AcrossTheSky]

Softube should think about upgraiding their Modular usability. Because not having VST is what held be back from VCV. And i think with VCV2, Softube will loose a good portion of users.

...cherry season is over too...

[Functional]

Softube should think about upgraiding their Modular usability. Because not having VST is what held be back from VCV. And i think with VCV2, Softube will loose a good portion of users.

Why? Just because VCV looks analog doesn't mean shit. Softube actually uses analog emulation.

Lol. "Analog emulation" can mean literally anything from just adding noise hiss to output or some stage to using non-linear DSP.

Which brings us to how ridiculous this statement is: all of that depends on the people who make the plugins themselves. So whatever is your threshold for "analog modeling", you'll find that there's plenty of modules for VCV that will cross this threshold. Or maybe you won't, because you kind of imply here that you don't even know what you're talking about.

[coroknight]

Softube should think about upgraiding their Modular usability. Because not having VST is what held be back from VCV. And i think with VCV2, Softube will loose a good portion of users.

Why? Just because VCV looks analog doesn't mean shit. Softube actually uses analog emulation.

Lol. "Analog emulation" can mean literally anything from just adding noise hiss to output or some stage to using non-linear DSP.

Which brings us to how ridiculous this statement is: all of that depends on the people who make the plugins themselves. So whatever is your threshold for "analog modeling", you'll find that there's plenty of modules for VCV that will cross this threshold. Or maybe you won't, because you kind of imply here that you don't even know what you're talking about.

My threshold is circuit modeling, because that's what Softube does and it sounds better than any of the other "analog emulation" that I've tried. Do any of the VCV modules do that? Because otherwise VCV is just a fancy VST host in my eyes.

[Functional]

Personally, biggest thing I hope for is that we could download specific modules rather than subscribe to them on per developer basis. I doubt there's a single person out there that doesn't have extremely inflated module subscription list because you have to subscribe to all of them from a given developer.

Like, yeah, options are nice - but usually you don't really need million different VCA's or envelopes and bunch of other stuff. With compressors you could at least say that they have some differences, but most of these things aim to be functionally almost identical and beyond having a couple different ones, there's little difference anymore.

Also I hope that there will be Prophet modules one day. Filters and oscs in particular. But overall excited to finally have VCV inside a DAW

[Functional]

My threshold is circuit modeling, because that's what Softube does and it sounds better than any of the other "analog emulation" that I've tried. Do any of the VCV modules do that? Because otherwise VCV is just a fancy VST host in my eyes.

Amazing, so you have explored the sound of about 2500 modules in VCV and arrived to this clearly rational conclusion. Congrats!

Now, on a serious note, most people will 100% ditch Softube modular. Only advantage it specifically has is those Doepfer modules*. The user interface is clumsier, module selection is more limited by orders of magnitudes. And although some things are more streamlined (such as how polyphony works), unfortunately the streamlined design also creates limits of its own. If you enjoy Softube more, then just keep using it then and be happy with it.

*in all honesty, it's hard to call it advantage as equivalents exist anyway; for example Nurage by Vult is pretty much on equivalent grounds with the VPG, because they both just do what they're supposed to do and are coded in by professional people who know what they're doing.

[cnt]

Vcv isnt true open source... developer forced forks to shut down, incl the vst version.

This is really bad behaviour for someone CLAIMiNG its open source but in reality, its not!... ppl developing modules for vcv are treated like shit.

I like VCV so its major letdown......

There's different types of open source licenses. Andrew changed the license at one point, but if you want to take a peek at the code, the source is still open to learn from and use. There's just restrictions on how it can be commercialized from what I understand. Doesn't sound unreasonable to me considering the other two big virtual modulars (Softube and Cherry) aren't any kind of open.

But its GPLv3, right?
So they should be upfront with there behaviour.

Suppressing any forking..its not good for the users nor developers.

Quote:

> VCV has been trying to prevent forks both through legal and social means, so there’s no viable fork yet.

> There’s MiRack, a fork of VCV for Mac OS and iPhone. Any mention of it within the VCV community is immediately deleted, and its author is banned, so it exists completely disconnected from the VCV community

> There used to be VeeSeeVST, another fork of VCV for the VST plugin architecture, but it’s dead: the VCV project asked the author to discontinue the fork in June 2019, to avoid competing with VCV’s commercial offering.

Someone already coded VST version but was asked to take it down....still no vst available 2 years later......thats just stupid.
How is that good for the community? Its ok to be 100% nonfree software.. just be straight about it.... i would gladly pay to use VCV, but now.... no.

[coroknight]

My threshold is circuit modeling, because that's what Softube does and it sounds better than any of the other "analog emulation" that I've tried. Do any of the VCV modules do that? Because otherwise VCV is just a fancy VST host in my eyes.

Amazing, so you have explored the sound of about 2500 modules in VCV and arrived to this clearly rational conclusion. Congrats!

Yep and every module sounds like trash compared to Softube. But if you have lower standards then that's fine. You do you man.

[Functional]

But its GPLv3, right?
So they should be upfront with there behaviour.

From what I understand, the GPLv3 is there for a reason but the reasons are complicated. The business model of VCV is really complicated and the licensing model reflects that specific fact. The discussion on the GPLv3 can be found here: https://community.vcvrack.com/t/relicen ... ns/3161/11

Many there agree that the license model makes sense considering the goals. You may disagree, even I may disagree, but presumably neither of us is a specialist in the topic of licensing models so... doesn't really matter.

Someone already coded VST version but was asked to take it down....still no vst available 2 years later......thats just stupid.

Well, VCV Rack 2 will have the Studio edition which is the "VST version". So that was their goal and now it's coming finally. I wouldn't call it stupid - they wanted to make sure the VST version also worked well.

I sympathize with Aria (who brought this whole topic up in that long blogpost), but it's quite clear that many of the issues surrounding this matter have to do with complexities of licensing specifically. And others had to do with Andrew as a person.