How important is VST3 support for you as a customer

[Urs]

This is the thing, we're not exaggerating. Almost everything they claimed was "new" in VST3, you could do before in VST2.4.

100% agreed. Almost everything.

[aciddose]

that's a pretty stupid argument though, if not extremely stupid. it's ignorant of the fact with such a simple c interface, any of the new "features" would make up a handful of lines of code and be fully backward compatible.

[AdmiralQuality]

I forgot one of the things vst3 offers us Cubendo users I believe.... vsti's to have audio inputs so I can router a bus to a sampler and sample from within Nuendo......could this be done in the vst 2.4 spec?
rsp

Of course. Insert your plug-in on your mic's audio track, and there's your mic signal going in the plug-in input. Pretty crazy stuff, eh?

well as that is described cubase already does that. for instance maschine comes as fx version to do that precisely. In Cubendo you can only use vst effects as inserts, do other DAW allow you to use vst instruments as inserts as well?

rsp

This was another genius "feature" from Steinberg, this time in VST 2.x. I already mentioned it above. They decided to enforce an artificial distinction between effects and instruments. So if you want your synth to take input, but also be able to appear in the normal "synth rack" (F11 view) you need to distribute two versions of the same plugin, with ONE LINE of code different. This is how they think, how to restrict the user instead of how to enable him/her.

So while I'm done arguing with those who insist on making themselves look foolish instead of having a real conversation, I think there is a definite benefit to supporting VST3 and VST3.5.

Brent. Most of us in this discussion, particularly the developers who actually know what they're talking about, are making solid, verifiable points. You're the one who's got the blinders on, beating the drum mindlessly, and insulting anyone who dares to disagree with your point of view that you refuse to explain with any actual examples other than "Urs says". Well Urs says above when cornered on the bundling issue... "use VST 2.4".

And someone already pointed out, Urs is somewhat trivializing the effort required to port to VST3.x. Indeed, he has a minion doing it for him. 2 days? OK, where's VST3.5 ACE? (Heck, the website says it's VST 2.3!) Where's VST3.5 Zebra? Don't tell me what Urs says, tell me what Urs DOES. I'll even give him two more days...

I can only assume you know nothing about how software development works. But generally, developers fear change. It takes, literally, years worth of hundreds of users working with your product before you can be confident that it's reasonably bug-free. Move to an ENTIRELY new interface and all bets are off. The developer, AND THE USER, can toss out whatever confidence they had in the product and start testing at square 1 again.

[whyterabbyt]

have you bothered to see a lawyer about this stuff? since you know if you haven't seen one, it puts you at greater risk because you haven't even bothered.

Have you? Because you're making a lot of assertions about the legal implications.

[aciddose]

i've only heard what lawyers have to say about other products or situations, but not these particular ones. probably because vst is such a narrow niche nobody has even really hard of it. in that light, the trademark becomes a lot weaker. also in all the cases and discussions i've heard whether from lawyers or not these always involve cases of "passing off" or misrepresentation of association with the holder of the mark. that might be a distinction in uk/canadian/united states tort case-law, i'm not sure. i wouldn't even expect to be able to ask an average canadian lawyer about german trademark stuff without paying a mega-huge fee for a specialized trademark guy.

what they can tell you is how much you might owe your wife in a divorce.

oh, i can also tell you this from experience - if you sign into contracts like the one for vst3 and distribute software you'll have a huge problem finding corporate insurance. the advice is "minimize any holdings" and something i didn't quite follow about shell companies and cross-licensing.

[whyterabbyt]

Brent. Most of us in this discussion, particularly the developers who actually know what they're talking about, are making solid, verifiable points.

Actually some of them are relying more on conspiracy theory and appeal-to-authority bullshit, instead of dealing with solid verifiable points, or even just technical facts. Which is a shame, the overwhelming case against VST3 is that technically, its just not needed as a replacement for VST2; a better VST2 would have sufficed, and the current VST2 will suffice for most needs for a long time to come.
Telling another developer that he shouldnt support VST3, or has been 'duped' if he chooses to, or saying that one of his customer's has been paid to request it of him, are not 'solid verifiable' points. Its bullshit, pure and simple.

And for the record, in case you try that one on me, I do know how the software development process works.

[AdmiralQuality]

Please can we leave licensing/trademark/etc issues out of it. That's one area where the customer DEFINITELY doesn't care. And I'd love to see what would happen to SB's reputation if they started going after VST3 developers. They make these APIs because they WANT/NEED third party developers to fluff up their narrow feature sets. (SB aren't the most imaginative bunch, but at least they're smart enough to recognize that.)

I suspect that the actual developers at SB knew this was the reaction they were going to get to VST3, a few probably even dared to try to warn the management, but again... the shareholders rule. If the only way they can think of to keep the cash flowing is to screw their user base and the entire development community, they're OBLIGATED to do it.

It's just such a bloody shame all that effort didn't go into some really meaningful improvements, and new products. Two of my favorite VSTs are actually Steinberg's. The Grand 1 is still the best piano I've ever heard. (No need to upgrade to The Grand 2, the second piano they added really sucks but fortunately the original ver1 piano is still in it.) And if I say I like LM4 MkII someone will laugh at me, but sorry, that's all I ever want/need from a sample based drum machine. And there was one (out of many) Wizoo CD that came with it that had good, UNEFFECTED, velocity layered drum samples. Still my go-to kit.

See, I don't TOTALLY hate Steinberg. Cubase, even the new versions, is still my favorite host for workflow too. They got it right back in ver 3.1. But it's been rather stagnant since then, only adding these weird, esoteric features that I don't need, as well as yet-another-API (VST3), just when the old one was finally stable. But at least they've kept most of the workflow intact. And x64 is nice (though of little benefit) and 64 bit audio is nice, I guess, but I wouldn't pretend I can actually hear the difference over 32 bit.

If they had wanted to add NE, or whatever, to VST 2.4, there was nothing stopping them. It could have been completely backwards compatible with existing plug-ins (that just wouldn't implement the new features). But features weren't the point, a new new version number and tricking that 15% of suckers into buying it again was all that mattered.

[AdmiralQuality]

Telling another developer that he shouldnt support VST3, or has been 'duped' if he chooses to, or saying that one of his customer's has been paid to request it of him, are not 'solid verifiable' points. Its bullshit, pure and simple.

Where have I said anything like that? I'm just trying to educate the few misinformed here who say things like "no VST3 support is a deal breaker", but have no idea why they actually think that.

[zvenx]

wasn't you AG
rsp

[aciddose]

my rebuttal wasn't telling urs anything - it was explaining my point about the risks associated with signing a contract. any idiot should understand that - although apparently most people don't with their over-drawn accounts, collection-agency calls and so on.

urs is an adult and free to do whatever he wants, and i'm sure he knows what is best for him.

my rebuttal was against the appeal-to-authority that urs knows what's best for me, or for anyone other than himself. his points are semi-valid about vst3's advantages, but they're on an extremely flaky foundation. the foundation is that you don't have any other options and so "might as well give up. it doesn't hurt so bad anyway." i made another rebuttal to that claim that although based upon a theory, isn't something that is impossible or even unlikely to occur. it might start to hurt real bad at some point in the future and the facts are you have no control over that if you jump on board with vst3 only.

urs never said that because i don't think he would make that kind of ridiculous argument. so far anything urs said was perfectly valid, even if not really well thought-through regarding it's technical aspects. that would make sense if he hasn't worked on the vst3 stuff himself.

[whyterabbyt]

Telling another developer that he shouldnt support VST3, or has been 'duped' if he chooses to, or saying that one of his customer's has been paid to request it of him, are not 'solid verifiable' points. Its bullshit, pure and simple.

Where have I said anything like that?

erm, here, perhaps? :

http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic ... 86#4500386

Again, HZ is (I'm forced to assume) in SB's employ. Of COURSE he wants someone else to make a Note Expression capable plug-in, then he'll have two!

[AdmiralQuality]

Telling another developer that he shouldnt support VST3, or has been 'duped' if he chooses to, or saying that one of his customer's has been paid to request it of him, are not 'solid verifiable' points. Its bullshit, pure and simple.

Where have I said anything like that?

erm, here, perhaps? :

http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic ... 86#4500386

Again, HZ is (I'm forced to assume) in SB's employ. Of COURSE he wants someone else to make a Note Expression capable plug-in, then he'll have two!

HZ isn't a developer. And I didn't tell any developers NOT to support VST3, as you claim above. What I'm telling USERS is, don't buy the VST3 marketing hype, 2.4 plug-ins aren't "broken".

And I still think SB pays their endorsers. At the very least they're feeding them free software. I do this too. For all that work he got a $180 Poly-Ana license for "free". So the software has GOTTA have a lot of value to him. But note that none of his comments I quote on the website were solicited in any way, that's just what he told me in emails. Unprompted. (Albeit edited somewhat, his English isn't so perfectomundo. He actually asked me to clean it up.)

[Urs]

my rebuttal was against the appeal-to-authority that urs knows what's best for me, or for anyone other than himself.

Where do I say such? I absolutely do not care for you, so I wouldn't ever tell you or even "order" you to do this or that.

As far as I can see I have brought up my points as to why I'm supporting VST3, as a simple business decision. For which a couple of developers jump on me in unsurprisingly hostile ways.

As I said, I couldn't care less, and I guess that your condescending ways to exprss your points are mostly meant as a joke or something.

[Urs]

And I still think SB pays their endorsers.

Yes. Visits.

[koolkeys]

Brent. Most of us in this discussion, particularly the developers who actually know what they're talking about, are making solid, verifiable points. You're the one who's got the blinders on, beating the drum mindlessly, and insulting anyone who dares to disagree with your point of view that you refuse to explain with any actual examples other than "Urs says". Well Urs says above when cornered on the bundling issue... "use VST 2.4".

I never insulted you. You just take it all personally. I still disagree with you, and I absolutely know what I'm talking about. I don't really care if you believe me or not. I'm not discussing the deeper coding issues, nor have I disputed anything anyone has said with those issues, as I am NOT a coder. FWIW, I do code in some smaller formats, from web formats to some scripting, and I've learned a certain amount of C++ in the past, but I don't consider myself a coder. I do enjoy the conversation from a distance though. You can continue to want to make it personal if you wish, but I could care less.

And someone already pointed out, Urs is somewhat trivializing the effort required to port to VST3.x. Indeed, he has a minion doing it for him. 2 days? OK, where's VST3.5 ACE? (Heck, the website says it's VST 2.3!) Where's VST3.5 Zebra? Don't tell me what Urs says, tell me what Urs DOES. I'll even give him two more days...

Great, I'm sure he'll appreciate you doing that. You're such a nice guy.

I'll still trust Urs ANY DAY of the week over you, acidose, etc. Not because I don't think you know what you're talking about at all, but there are several good reasons behind that trust(no, I don't work for him, in case you felt like making that assumption).

I can only assume you know nothing about how software development works.

Another incorrect assumption. Though not a coder myself, I know far more than you think, and have been involved in virtually all other parts of the process in very involved ways.

But generally, developers fear change. It takes, literally, years worth of hundreds of users working with your product before you can be confident that it's reasonably bug-free. Move to an ENTIRELY new interface and all bets are off. The developer, AND THE USER, can toss out whatever confidence they had in the product and start testing at square 1 again.

I absolutely agree to an extent. It's always touch dealing with new interfaces and platforms. But it's done EVERY DAY, and many many devs have made the jumps, and done so successfully. No confidence lost. Nothing tossed out.

Brent