What plugin-format do you prefer?

[Tj Shredder]

If the bells and whistles (expressions especially) are supported, I would concentrate on VST3. In general its more the question which format the developer prefers. If the main target is VST3 (recommended), and all others are just wrapped, I would not install or use VST2. Usually Developers don‘t tell much about that unfortunately...
I do want AU, as sometimes it is useful to work in Logic (sound track work for example...), but it is not my main DAW...

[Ingonator]

My main DAW is Ableton Live 10 Suite which since v10.1 suports both 64-bit VST2 and 64-bit VST3.
Mostly i kept using the VST2 but now i no longer have a problem with "VST 3 only" plugins like e.g Roland Cloud Zenology.

[TheMaestro]

Why does it matter if the plugins work OK now?

Because of, let's say, performance and features.

How does that work? Computers get faster so a high-CPU plugin today will barely trouble your CPU in a few years time. And if a plugin has all the features you need today, it will still have all those features in 50 years time. After all, it's not like there has been a whole lot of innovation in the last 50 years, given that we still covet Minimoog emulations as much as we do anything new and different. And how long do you need to have any particular plugin for before you feel you've got your money's worth from it? It's very likely you ill have stopped using it long before it is actually obsolete.

I hate standalone versions. I need access to my DAW's features.
Reaper takes about 1.5 seconds to fire up and be ready, and another 3 seconds to find and fire the VST.

If that's true, you must choose pretty krap plugins because I only require my host when it comes time to put an instrument into an arrangement. If things were otherwise, how would anyone ever use hardware synths?

Saying we don’t need performance enhancements in a VST because we have fast CPU’s is so ignorant that you have to be trolling. Or you can’t think outside your own world/needs, which seems to happen a lot.
Same with new features. If you want to go back to producing the way they did it 50 years ago, you can. Just don’t say stupid things like technology hasn’t changed because there’s a market for old analog synths/emulations. It’s mind-numblingly stupid.

And why I choose “krap plugins” just because I want to play/produce within my DAW, so I can use and experiment with effects etc., and also immediately record and save clips/patches if I come up with stuff is also quite baffling.
I can’t see one single advantage of standalone over opening in a DAW.
Maybe you can, and that’s good for you. But you’re projecting stupidity, over and over again.

[BONES]

Why would a plugin need performance enhancements if I the performance is satisfactory when you buy it? Why would it need new feature when you were happy with the features when you bought it? I don't buy a new car with the expectation the manufacturer will fit a turbo to the engine after a couple of years, or swap the internal combustion engine for an electric motor and batteries. Similarly, when I buy a new plugin, I do so because of what it gives me today, not in the expectation of what enhancements it might get at some future time, Again, I use the example of Hive - I used Hive 1.2 all the time but since the upgrade to version 2, I have stopped using it at all. I will probably get around to reverting to the old version next time I do a full reinstall.

You need to learn how to read and comprehend. You need to understand the difference between a statement and an example used to illustrate a point because at no time did I say anything to suggest I am interested in anything other than being up to date with modern technology. After all, I buy a new laptop every year and spend hundreds of dollars on new plugins. But I buy everything for what it can do for me today, not what it may or may not offer in the future and I don't see how anyone can do otherwise.

Seriously, what sort of idiot would buy something that isn't useful for them today, in the hope that it might become useful in the future? And if it's useful for you today, why would it not be useful for you in the future? I view product updates as being for the developer, not for the customer. With attitudes like yours, it's a great way to ensure continued income for minimal effort and it probably encourages developers to hold features back so they can include them in a later paid upgrade.

[plexuss]

<troll on>

So strange. First I read this..

Similarly, when I buy a new plugin, I do so because of what it gives me today, not in the expectation of what enhancements it might get at some future time... [snip]

and then I read this from another thread...

I also like the way Kilohearts run their business. They update everything at once which makes it really easy to keep track of versioning and stay up to date.

Seems contradictory, as if BONES likes to "stoke a fire" rather than be consistent. Noted.

<troll off>

[TheMaestro]

The irony and stupidity of that post is quite an achievement.

Why would a plugin need performance enhancements if I the performance is satisfactory when you buy it?
I'm struggling to believe anyone actually asked this question. But I'll answer anyway.

Because I use more than one plugin at the same time. And plugins evolve. My skills evolve. My goals evolve. Almost all my plugins get's updated. They might or might not get better (quality, features, etc.), and some get's more power hungry.
So if one or more plugins can reduce the processing power needed, I would be an idiot, like you, to not go for that.

And no one has argued about buying something that's isn't useful for them today because it might be useful in the future. Other than you, though. Talk about comprehension. Christ.

The rest of your ramblings isn't worth wasting time on.

[TheMaestro]

<troll on>

So strange. First I read this..

Similarly, when I buy a new plugin, I do so because of what it gives me today, not in the expectation of what enhancements it might get at some future time... [snip]

and then I read this from another thread...

I also like the way Kilohearts run their business. They update everything at once which makes it really easy to keep track of versioning and stay up to date.

Seems contradictory, as if BONES likes to "stoke a fire" rather than be consistent. Noted.

<troll off>

Or you can reply with this. Another (nut) case in point. Or not a point, as usual.