VST3- is it finally catching on?

[koolkeys]

Ok, I know that technically VST3 doesn't have a lot that couldn't be done with 2.4 using some tricks.

But I have noticed more and more support for VST 3.

Of course, Cubase isn't the only host supporting it now. Studio One also supports it.

Then it comes to the plug-ins. Here are the ones I know:

Fabfilter(all plugs)
Virsyn(not all plugs, but a few)
Waves version 7 plug-ins
MixControl from TeamDNR
iZotope Alloy
Algorithmix(not all plugs)


Also, the dev at Brainworx, who also has coded the SPL plug-ins and the Elysia Mpressor, on top of his many plug-ins, has said that VERY soon(within the month) everything will be ported to VST3.

I believe Vienna Ensemble Pro either comes as VST3 plug-in, or hosts them. I haven't tried yet to be honest, but it's listed on the product page somewhere.

I also heard that Virus TI is VST3?

My list above is most likely missing some, and there are other devs I believe they are in the works for. The list above is just what I know of.

So is VST3 finally catching on? I know many devs around here have said it would be a waste of time to port to VST3 in the past, while some like Urs look forward to it(or at least said at one time that he did). And now that Cubase isn't the only host supporting it, maybe that's the first step?

So what do people think about it now? Any devs care to chime in that their opinion or plans have changed? While I understand both sides of it, I am a Cubase 5 user who wouldn't mind seeing more.

I'm interested in any thoughts anyone has. Of course, statements like "VST3 sucks and is useless" won't help the conversation(and I'm sure somebody will say just that to be funny!). But I'd like to know anyways what people are thinking.

Brent

[headquest]

When I saw the announcement that Waves are now VST3 - and that is a headline feature of the new versions - I thought to myself, okay, VST3 is now set to become the standard. Those that haven't adopted it will now start to look *old*

[Jim Roseberry]

When I saw the announcement that Waves are now VST3 - and that is a headline feature of the new versions - I thought to myself, okay, VST3 is now set to become the standard. Those that haven't adopted it will now start to look *old*

Still no support for x64... (hard to believe they're releasing a new version without it)

[shamann]

I'm still not sure what would be the point for everybody to adopt VST3. Other than people who really like Cubase, I haven't seen anyone present a good reason for the change.

I could see VST3 start to catch on once somebody creates a VST3-to-VST2 wrapper. That way plugin developers could move to the new format and still have stuff work in most hosts, and then most host developers might be encouraged to implement VST3 natively once they start getting flooded with lots of "your host keeps killing the wrapper"-style support emails.

Two hosts are still the minority, especially when one of those has barely hit the market and was made by former Steinberg employees. Without Live, Sonar, or FL Studio going to the new format, I just don't see momentum behind it.

[headquest]

I think that Live will go for it now, especially since Waves have. Ableton are not a company who like to be seen lagging behind, and they are clearly targetting the Pro market as well as hobbyists.

I'm still not sure what would be the point for everybody to adopt VST3. Other than people who really like Cubase, I haven't seen anyone present a good reason for the change.

There it is though... Cubase is (I believe) the biggest selling host by quite a stretch, and always tops the polls in that respect, as it has done for a long time. I think that for any commercial plugin developer, failure to support the neew standard will in the medium term is going to really hurt their potential sales. And now that Waves have bitten the bullet and support VST3, I think we'll see a rush of host and plugin developers jump in over the coming months.

[shamann]

Are you a Cubase user headquest?

[kritikon]

I'm still not sure what would be the point for everybody to adopt VST3

Probably not everyone needs to or will, but there are quite a few plugins, or at least plugin types that I can see would benefit from VST3. I'm not that familiar with all the new things, but just the multiple input aspect would make some so-so FX plugins into very creative ones. There aren't that many FX that wouldn't be made hugely more flexible with triggering/sidechainability. All reverbs could be made volume envelope sensitive to various parameters (i.e. a more dynamic drum can be made to trigger reverb so that it's denser, or shorter tail, or longer predelay etc). All filters can be made to do great things with some sidechaining. Any flanger or phaser can be made into a dynamic wah-wah and other things. Delays can be ducked. The list goes on. Pretty well all FX could benefit from it. I don't think some coders have cottoned onto the sales hype they could gain from VST3. It seems that many noobs don't think you can make any kind of dance music without sidechaining every compressor to everything - they'd flock to other FX if they were marketed with the word "sidechain".


Apart from that though...




...VST3 sucks and is useless

[shamann]

Probably not everyone needs to or will, but there are quite a few plugins, or at least plugin types that I can see would benefit from VST3. I'm not that familiar with all the new things, but just the multiple input aspect would make some so-so FX plugins into very creative ones. There aren't that many FX that wouldn't be made hugely more flexible with triggering/sidechainability. All reverbs could be made volume envelope sensitive to various parameters (i.e. a more dynamic drum can be made to trigger reverb so that it's denser, or shorter tail, or longer predelay etc). All filters can be made to do great things with some sidechaining. Any flanger or phaser can be made into a dynamic wah-wah and other things. Delays can be ducked. The list goes on. Pretty well all FX could benefit from it. I don't think some coders have cottoned onto the sales hype they could gain from VST3. It seems that many noobs don't think you can make any kind of dance music without sidechaining every compressor to everything - they'd flock to other FX if they were marketed with the word "sidechain".

But that can be done in VST2.4, though. Lots of plugins have sidechains already. The reason most plugin developers avoid it is that Cubase's implementation of VST2.4 couldn't handle it, and would result in crashes etc.

When NI released Battery 3, they had this cool dynamic output feature, where you could internally set the number of outputs freely. They had to remove the function, because Cubase kept crashing when users changed the number of outputs. Instead of fixing their implementation of VST2.4, Steinberg chose to invent VST3.

[kritikon]

Instead of fixing their implementation of VST2.4, Steinberg chose to invent VST3.

But that's what every s/w company out there does. It's not just a Steinberg thing. Every upgrade of every app out there left behind unfixed bugs in the previous version.

[shamann]

But that's what every s/w company out there does. It's not just a Steinberg thing. Every upgrade of every app out there left behind unfixed bugs in the previous version.

Sorry, but what? You seem to be haunted by some other conversation, because what you just said has nothing to do with this topic. I'm not sure where the cue to argue vague host war generalities is, but I thought this one was for talking about VST3 and its merits specifically.

[kritikon]

What host war? You're the one that just wrote that VST2.4 could do what VST3 can, only that VST2.4 didn't work. That's exactly why Steinberg brought out VST3. And then you're the one that knocked them for bringing out VST3 instead of fixing 2.4. I fail to understand why I'm now supposedly responsible for starting a host war?

They brought out VST3 precisely because VST2.4 couldn't do what VST3 does. I thought it was blindingly obvious. So I've just written exactly why I think many plugins can benefit from VST3 (which is what the topic asked) and now I'm starting a host war?

[shamann]

VST 2.4 didn't work in Cubase, works just fine in lots of other hosts.

I was talking about why Steinberg created VST3, and asking for a reason for any other host software to adopt it. I'm not sure how this -- "But that's what every s/w company out there does. It's not just a Steinberg thing" -- is anything but irrelevant.

[kritikon]

Instead of fixing their implementation of VST2.4, Steinberg chose to invent VST3.

Your post, not mine.

[TankEyes]

I just wish hosts would drop this whole sidechain button stuff and allow you to route any audio channel to any available input's the loaded vsts have.

In cubase, I should be able to load up a vocoder in an instrument channel, and then be able to route my vocal into vocoder input A, and my synth into vocoder nput B, in the same fashion I can route them to a group channel.

It seems bizarre a simple "vst inputs submenu" interface like that has still not been implemented.

And Shaman - Kritikon wsa making perfect sense mate. But I think he's assuming the issues you have in mind were addressed in VST3.

[shamann]

Instead of fixing their implementation of VST2.4, Steinberg chose to invent VST3.

Your post, not mine.

Sure. But that's what happened.

Here's a recap:

me: what's vst3 good for?
you: dynamic IO, sidechaining
me: but VST2.4 can do that, just not in Cubase. Instead of making VST2.4 in Cubase do it, Steinberg made VST3.
you: but everyone does that!
me: ???

That other software developers do that kind of thing doesn't matter. I'm not attacking Steinberg, just pointing out that VST3 solved their problems rather than created something new for the rest of us.