KVR Audio

Z1202 · Post by **Z1202** » Wed Oct 02, 2013 10:49 am

Somehow I think that FL being tied to Windows/Delphi to one or another extent doesn't necessarily mean the SDK is. IIRC the SDK is just one or several C++ headers, not sure how much bound to Windows API.

Angus_FX · Post by **Angus_FX** » Wed Oct 02, 2013 11:00 am

GMPI was it. Unfortunately, it was controversial because it used modern programming techniques (like separation of processor and controller). This is unfamiliar and required a learning curve from people familiar with VST2.

Modern and WRONG for a plug-in API - which exists to provide connectivity (like MIDI, like 1/4in jacks) while being as agnostic as possible about what's being connected to what, not dictate the internal architecture of plug-in code according to a particular software engineering flavour-of-the-month.

Is it good practice to separate those things within the plug-in? In many cases, sure. But enforcing it at host<->plug-in interface level is just bad design. Wrong place for it.

VST3 isn't necessarily a bad design for a host's internal format, but as a format designed to connect many different plug-ins and hosts, which may be built on different architectural and musical concepts, it's a massive crock of fail.

Think it's time I spoke to a good lawyer about whether it's possible to make an SDK that's 95% or 100% binary-compatible with VST2.x without infringing copyright.

otristan · Post by **otristan** » Wed Oct 02, 2013 1:23 pm

Angus_FX wrote: Think it's time I spoke to a good lawyer about whether it's possible to make an SDK that's 95% or 100% binary-compatible with VST2.x without infringing copyright.

As long as you're in Europe, you're safe.
Reverse engineering is legal for inter operability.
Still you can't copy the SDK headers, however you can be binary compatible.

mahaya · Post by **mahaya** » Wed Oct 02, 2013 2:47 pm

The VST3 SDK contains the VST2 files (aeffect, aeffeditor, audioeffect, vstpluginmain etc.), so IMHO there is no need for any reverse engineering or open source VST2 compatible SDK.
As long as it is possible to get the official VST2 files why should anyone use a (only probably, as all software has bugs) 100% compatible SDK?

duncanparsons · Post by **duncanparsons** » Wed Oct 02, 2013 7:26 pm

aciddose apparently uses his own headers which are essentially VST2.4 but rewritten for his convenience.

His stuff seems to work all right. Should Angus and a/d talk?

fluxmind · Post by **fluxmind** » Wed Oct 02, 2013 8:28 pm

[Mod edit: If you want to rephrase the deleted portions of this post without the abuse, go ahead. Please don't post any more things like that.]

smoothing.............oh ffs..............

antto · Post by **antto** » Wed Oct 02, 2013 8:57 pm

fluxmind wrote:...

dude

relax
there are single-person devs here, can't compare them to the big companies

hibrasil · Post by **hibrasil** » Wed Oct 02, 2013 9:54 pm

fluxmind wrote: smoothing.............oh ffs..............

sure it's been said already, but some basic smoothing is required for most algorithm parameters anyway, otherwise you could make all sorts of glitches with your sample accurate automation. Just because VST3 supports sample accurate parameter changes, it doesn't mean that Waves or other devs actually implement it. Saying that it's nice to have the option.

arakula · Post by **arakula** » Thu Oct 03, 2013 8:05 am

fluxmind wrote:blah blah blah

The bottom line is that you invested in VST3 PlugIns so VST3's great. Correct?

fluxmind · Post by **fluxmind** » Thu Oct 03, 2013 4:35 pm

arakula wrote:
fluxmind wrote:blah blah blah
The bottom line is that you invested in VST3 PlugIns so VST3's great. Correct?

Sample accurate automation, CPU "savings", no hassle side-chaining makes it greater than by now archaic Vst2, with **** load of workarounds even some DAWs itself provide workarounds for it lol, like cpu "preservation" or whatever...concerning some DAWs, that's where unwillingness to adapt vst3 support stems from, because they've implemented too many "workarounds" and now they feel as if they were "cheated" by Steinberg lol that's it.

AdmiralQuality · Post by **AdmiralQuality** » Thu Oct 03, 2013 5:20 pm

fluxmind wrote:
arakula wrote:
fluxmind wrote:blah blah blah
The bottom line is that you invested in VST3 PlugIns so VST3's great. Correct?
Sample accurate automation, CPU "savings", no hassle side-chaining makes it greater than by now archaic Vst2, with **** load of workarounds even some DAWs itself provide workarounds for it lol, like cpu "preservation" or whatever...concerning some DAWs, that's where unwillingness to adapt vst3 support stems from, because they've implemented too many "workarounds" and now they feel as if they were "cheated" by Steinberg lol that's it.

Sounds like somebody's been drinking Steinberg's Kool-Aid.

Are you a developer fluxmind, or did you just come into this board to insult developers and tell us our business based on a bunch of marketing drivel you chose to take as gospel? You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. "CPU Savings"?

bjporter · Post by **bjporter** » Thu Oct 03, 2013 5:42 pm

AdmiralQuality wrote:
fluxmind wrote:
arakula wrote:
fluxmind wrote:blah blah blah
The bottom line is that you invested in VST3 PlugIns so VST3's great. Correct?
Sample accurate automation, CPU "savings", no hassle side-chaining makes it greater than by now archaic Vst2, with **** load of workarounds even some DAWs itself provide workarounds for it lol, like cpu "preservation" or whatever...concerning some DAWs, that's where unwillingness to adapt vst3 support stems from, because they've implemented too many "workarounds" and now they feel as if they were "cheated" by Steinberg lol that's it.

Sounds like somebody's been drinking Steinberg's Kool-Aid.

Are you a developer fluxmind, or did you just come into this board to insult developers and tell us our business based on a bunch of marketing drivel you chose to take as gospel? You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. "CPU Savings"?

This is going to be good.

fluxmind · Post by **fluxmind** » Thu Oct 03, 2013 6:05 pm

bjporter wrote: This is going to be good.

No, it won't, I'm a sociopath, it's impossible to bait me, I roam at will.
VST3 FTW, keep on whining, I've seen some happy "sandwiched" ones already, money talks-people listen, so as far as vst3 goes, money talks louder there, so soon you'll all be "vst3whiched" lol and goodbye.

bjporter · Post by **bjporter** » Thu Oct 03, 2013 6:09 pm

fluxmind wrote:
bjporter wrote: This is going to be good.
No, it won't, I'm a sociopath, it's impossible to bait me, I roam at will.
VST3 FTW, keep on whining, I've seen some happy "sandwiched" ones already, money talks-people listen, so as far as vst3 goes, money talks louder there, so soon you'll all be "vst3whiched" lol and goodbye.

I really am genuinely interested in a intellectual discussion... not mocking anyone... this is really exciting, please continue!

AdmiralQuality · Post by **AdmiralQuality** » Thu Oct 03, 2013 6:11 pm

fluxmind wrote:
bjporter wrote: This is going to be good.
No, it won't, I'm a sociopath, it's impossible to bait me, I roam at will.
VST3 FTW, keep on whining, I've seen some happy "sandwiched" ones already, money talks-people listen, so as far as vst3 goes, money talks louder there, so soon you'll all be "vst3whiched" lol and goodbye.

Admins, can we do something with this self-admitted troll?

We deal in facts here in the development board, fluxmind. Your illiterate and ill-informed comments mean nothing to us who actually DO this work. But you are wasting space and detracting from the topic, so please f**k off.

Steinberg: No more VST2 Development