Acid user looking to switch... Cubase or Samplitude ?

[rockstar_not]

about the native vst support- every application except for cubase uses a wrapper for vsts, sonar just makes it external to the application. I have no problem using any vsts I want in sonar...

S_A_P,

I'm not sure this comment is entirely correct. Many applications have native VST/VSTi support - they have to pay Steinberg a license fee, but they have native, non-wrapper required support without a doubt. Sonar is one of the few sequencing applications that does not directly support VST/VSTi, not the opposite case as you stated.

VST is Steinberg/Cubase technology, but that doesn't mean other hosts don't use it directly in a wrapperless fashion.

-Scott

By the way, the reason I got onto this thread - I'm still using ACID Music 2.0 that I got for free after rebate at Best Buy. I just use it as my time/pitch stretch application, since the host that I use, Tracktion, doesn't have a usable solution for this necessary processing algorithm.

Acid 2.0 suits my needs in this regard just fine.

[antardhyan]

I'm still using AP5 with FLS5. I don't like it as far as midi capabilities and vsti support is concerned. tried live 4 demo. didn't like it either. sonar demo was kinda heavy on my cpu. trying out Porject5. I like it so far but the only freakin problem is I can't find where you set the songs key signature in P5.
if you loved ACID then you would love SONAR or may be Project 5.

[whyterabbyt]

rockstar_not quoth
I'm not sure this comment is entirely correct.

It was, though.

Many applications have native VST/VSTi support

Define 'many' please.

- they have to pay Steinberg a license fee,

No they dont.

but they have native, non-wrapper required support without a doubt.

Some do.

Sonar is one of the few sequencing applications that does not directly support VST/VSTi, not the opposite case as you stated.

I think you dont have enough facts at hand to understand what he said. He talked about 'native' support, not 'direct' support. Take FruityLoops for example. It has 'FL-native' plugins, and also supports VSTs. At the core, a hosts audio engine must have its own means of passing data to and from plugins and synths. If that system does not conform exactly to the facilities and limitations of the VST standard, then it will require some form of wrapper to handle VSTs. FL's system can be assumed to not be 'native' VST, since not all of its plugins can be effectively usable as VSTs in other hosts, and because some of its own plugins would appear to be capable of things which the VST standard does not allow. Hence FL will require an internal wrapper. You could probably assume that almost any host with its own bundled synths that are unusable in other hosts does not use 'native VST' plugin handling in its engine.


VST is Steinberg/Cubase technology, but that doesn't mean other hosts don't use it directly in a wrapperless fashion.

And equally, VST is a supposedly open Steinberg/Cubase technology, but that doesn't mean other hosts do use it directly in a wrapperless fashion.

[headquest]

I've been wondering about that, too - thanks for a very good explanation there, whyterabbyt

[rockstar_not]

rockstar_not quoth
I'm not sure this comment is entirely correct.

It was, though.

Many applications have native VST/VSTi support

Define 'many' please.

- they have to pay Steinberg a license fee,

No they dont.

but they have native, non-wrapper required support without a doubt.

Some do.

Sonar is one of the few sequencing applications that does not directly support VST/VSTi, not the opposite case as you stated.

I think you dont have enough facts at hand to understand what he said. He talked about 'native' support, not 'direct' support. Take FruityLoops for example. It has 'FL-native' plugins, and also supports VSTs. At the core, a hosts audio engine must have its own means of passing data to and from plugins and synths. If that system does not conform exactly to the facilities and limitations of the VST standard, then it will require some form of wrapper to handle VSTs. FL's system can be assumed to not be 'native' VST, since not all of its plugins can be effectively usable as VSTs in other hosts, and because some of its own plugins would appear to be capable of things which the VST standard does not allow. Hence FL will require an internal wrapper. You could probably assume that almost any host with its own bundled synths that are unusable in other hosts does not use 'native VST' plugin handling in its engine.


VST is Steinberg/Cubase technology, but that doesn't mean other hosts don't use it directly in a wrapperless fashion.

And equally, VST is a supposedly open Steinberg/Cubase technology, but that doesn't mean other hosts do use it directly in a wrapperless fashion.

Hey,

Thanks for making an intelligent response that now makes sense to me as to what SAP was referring to when he said that everyone uses a wrapper.

The way that I read his thread was that I had to use a wrapper plugin to be able to use VST technology - which with many hosts (i.e. humble Tracktion, humble N-track as two low cost examples) don't require - like Sonar does require. It's an additional nuisance in Sonar that is not necessary in Tracktion or the other hosts that claim VST friendliness. Want to use a VST/VSTi?, just drop it in and use it - invisible to the end user in form and function. I understand that the audio processing might be 'wrapped' in the background to conform the VST plug data handling to the host's native data handling. I guess I didn't think of this as being 'wrapped' in the end-user sense of the word, like TackyWrapper eg.

-Scott

[headquest]

Yeah. My main host is Ableton Live 4, in which you simply drag 'n' drop your VST onto a track. It scans for VSTs when you first open the program. But using the explanation given above, I would guess there is some kind of internal wrapper involved...?

[kuniklo]

I would guess there is some kind of internal wrapper involved...?

I think the issue is less whether the VST implementation is internally "native" or a "wrapper" and more whether a separate utility is required to scan and register VSTs (Cakewalk) or whether VST support is transparent (Live).

I suggest you try Live 4 if you want something somewhat similar to Acid.

[Stupid American Pig]

Rockstar, I dont think that the wrapper is a nuiscance, since inserting a VST/Rewire/Dxi device all happens in the same menu. The only reason you see the wrapper is becuase it shows up around the vst. I actually prefer the wrapper, since it allows me to use vsts in sound forge 4.5- which supports DX and not Vst. Fl studio uses a wrapper for all non - FL plugins. Im sure orion does. Acid and the other sony apps use an internal wrapper.

The only "hassle" is that you have to open the wrapper seperately and scan for plugins, but that is very minor, and worth it so that I can use vsts in other apps. Granted, they maybe could make it appear that there is no wrapper in sonar- but I dont see the point. All my vsts work great, and there is no CPU hit.

[popsych]

Nice to see all these acid refugee's opinion !

So I guess I'll dig in Sonar, but I still hesitate because it still doesn't have native VSTfx support, inplace midi editor, mouswheel zoom and good song arrangement tool...

So my last question is : for the long run, whatever time the learning curve takes, Sonar or Cubase SX3 ?

The fact is that I've never seen any Cubase SX3 friendly post yet...

about the native vst support- every application except for cubase uses a wrapper for vsts, sonar just makes it external to the application. I have no problem using any vsts I want in sonar...

Actually plugins by their nature are wrapped and the difference in sonar is that they are encapsulated in dxi's. Logic PC supports them with no wrapping, and i'm not sure how Samp does it, but i'm pretty sure it's not wrapped.

[Sascha Franck]

FL's system can be assumed to not be 'native' VST, since not all of its plugins can be effectively usable as VSTs in other hosts, and because some of its own plugins would appear to be capable of things which the VST standard does not allow. Hence FL will require an internal wrapper.

Sorry, but what sort of nonsense is that?
So, are you saying a host coming with its own set of plugins which aren't useable in other VST compatible host implies that it's using a wrapper???

Who did tell you that? Did you ask each and every VST-capable host programmer? Because they would be the ONLY folks to answer the "native or wrapped" question - anything else is pure speculation, nothing else.

And then, following your twisted logic, Cubase wouldn't be a native VST host either, because you can't use the plugins coming with it in other hosts...

Sorry if this is sounding a bit harsh, but as you usually are a person with a clue this just was an outstanding statement.

[atomic_(no)afro]

The closest thing to Acid that I've found is Project 5 II (I was a beta tester), followed by FLStudio, not because the workflow was the same, but because it was just as easy to jump into.

ATA

[Zacchino]

Thanx for all these replyies, and this lightning on the VST implementation in Hosts (BTW, in Acid, it's a genuine Native support of VSTF, even if its delay compensation isn't quite perfect, it's correct).

I suggest you try Live 4 if you want something somewhat similar to Acid.

I'm not looking particulary at a similar app, I just need a true multitracker, that i'll invest myself on for the next 5 to 10 years (so it has to be a serious company - not a newcomer as Ableton).

[Zacchino]

I actually prefer the wrapper, since it allows me to use vsts in sound forge 4.5

Keep in mind that Soundforge 8 is now supporting VSTfx.

I hate Cakewalk VST Adapter 4. Its delay compensation caused so much bug in Acid... Stuttering issues etc... But in Sonar, it seemed to work well. Anyway, I'm much more like a demo-plugin tester at the time beeing, so it's very frustrating to scan everytime my VSTfx folder for new dll.

[popsych]

rockstar_not quoth
I'm not sure this comment is entirely correct.

It was, though.

Many applications have native VST/VSTi support

Define 'many' please.

- they have to pay Steinberg a license fee,

No they dont.

but they have native, non-wrapper required support without a doubt.

Some do.

Sonar is one of the few sequencing applications that does not directly support VST/VSTi, not the opposite case as you stated.

I think you dont have enough facts at hand to understand what he said. He talked about 'native' support, not 'direct' support. Take FruityLoops for example. It has 'FL-native' plugins, and also supports VSTs. At the core, a hosts audio engine must have its own means of passing data to and from plugins and synths. If that system does not conform exactly to the facilities and limitations of the VST standard, then it will require some form of wrapper to handle VSTs. FL's system can be assumed to not be 'native' VST, since not all of its plugins can be effectively usable as VSTs in other hosts, and because some of its own plugins would appear to be capable of things which the VST standard does not allow. Hence FL will require an internal wrapper. You could probably assume that almost any host with its own bundled synths that are unusable in other hosts does not use 'native VST' plugin handling in its engine.


VST is Steinberg/Cubase technology, but that doesn't mean other hosts don't use it directly in a wrapperless fashion.

And equally, VST is a supposedly open Steinberg/Cubase technology, but that doesn't mean other hosts do use it directly in a wrapperless fashion.

Even for you this is nitpicking and an ellegant class of terminology and semantics. As long as a host supports the bloody thing with all of it's features with no apparent lack of anything then it's native for me. What would differentiate native ? That it was developed by Steinberg ?

That said there are a couple of things not supported by non-Steinberg hosts with VST's like multi-in's (the new compression plugs with stereo sidechain that are appearing). That ,however, is mainly due to the fact that Steinberg could not adequately think up an efficient standard to begin with and with it's "excellent hindsight" started bolting stuff onto VST to add these features it was lacking.

[Cabinfever]

um... yeah. more to the point i've never had a problem running any of my vstis in sonar.