Collaboration of VST audio plugins between different DAW software

Interesting idea Daniel, but I believe that VST is the intellectual property of Steinberg, who seem to have no issues writing code that does not comply with their published API.  You may want to ask this on the Cubase forum.
 
Glen

robert_e_bone
I would add that the market seems like it settles out with companies releasing either for free within a larger release, such as the bundled effects and synths in the various recording software packages available - Sonar, Cubase, FL Studio, etc., and also with both free and commercial software that is available - that runs on multiple recording software platforms.
 
I think it basically works itself out over time, due to market forces.  Certainly not in all cases, but in lots of them.
 
Further, though there are indeed differing collections of included effects and synths with various recording software offerings, if you understand how to configure a delay, or a reverb, or whatever, then there is not really an obstacle when presented with the various different interfaces from these different collections.
 
Of course, the above is a simple characterization of my own viewpoint on the matter, and may differ vastly with anyone else's.
 
Bob Bone
 
 

 
I can see where you're coming from, but I think it would be nice to have some consistency of "common" plugins across the DAWs.  Yes, you are likely to get near the same end result in all the different DAW with their own versions of the plugins but this is something I think should be made easier.
 
 

gcolbert
Interesting idea Daniel, but I believe that VST is the intellectual property of Steinberg, who seem to have no issues writing code that does not comply with their published API.  You may want to ask this on the Cubase forum.
 
Glen

Yes, VST is IP of Steinburg but I'm not sure if you see my point.  I have posted on the Steinberg forum as well as I'm targeting all the big DAW makers.

Hi Daniel,
I'm not sure this forum is the best place for this kind of discussion... I think the unique dsp that different daws bring to market with these types of standard plugins enhances competition and creativity and in itself is not inherently bad for the consumer - I believe it drives innovation to a very great degree.  Any of these daw developers could get together and recommend or bundle a uniformed free suite of tools which fit your criteria while still offering their own versions, like the free tools from blue cat audio and melda productions.  
I'd take a look at midi standards and how uneven the implementation is from both hardware manufacturers as well as vsti manufacturers.  maybe send a message to dave smith, who is pretty open to correspondence.  
The other places I'd ponder this question is in the kvr.com developer forums and I would definitely get in touch with the people who host the kvr one synth competitions.  These competitions allow you to use one synth to provide all sounds, and you can use host plugins if they aren't extravegant, other than that all plugins/processing has to be available as freeware.  It's a really great concept imho.
Another place I'd pose the question is the developers of reason.  They build a daw with conformity in mind.  A standardized set of effects and synths, with no audio capabilities and even said they would never include audio recording capacities in their program.  The latest versions of reason are a 180 turn on that original idea with audio recording, external synth control and a rack extension shop to expand reason with in-house and 3rd party synths and tools.   
Hope that helps out and good luck in university.  
 
Best,
Vid

"stock" anything removes competition, it would never happen, just look at the state of internet (standards-based) since business got its monetizing mitts on it...

yeah but their charge is like 2 fields behind the commercial competition...

i do have mixbus but not currently installed, i like it but i'm waiting for the native x64 version;  i gave ubuntu a shoot a couple of years back but while ok for officey stuff i couldn't get a decent gaming fix :)

knaggsdp
I use multiple DAW software both at home and at college and I wonder why when switching between the applications I don't have the same VST plugins for certain tasks, for example, compression and reverb. Every DAW has their own plugins which can achieve the same purpose but they aren't exactly the same in both the process, features, and the user interface.

The great thing about VST is that you can have the same plugins on different DAWs if you like. Each one will work in the others (with very few exceptions). So, what you seem to be suggesting is not some sort of standardisation across DAWs but a reduction in choice, which is rarely a good thing.
 
You might think it's possible to condense all the features into just 1 or 2 'standard' plugins but that is likely to result in excess complexity. For example, I don't bother with the analogue style EQs because they give me too little control and I don't care about the supposed qualities that some people like in them. But they probably don't want to use a standard parametric EQ because they value the ease of use of something like a Pultec and may prefer its sound. Which should be the standard? If you say "both", then why stop there? How about a graphic equaliser as well - but how many bands? How many channels?
 

• All the plugins must also have their source code released under one of the OSI-approved licenses. I recommend the three-clause BSD license.
• To allow for collaboration between DAW makers for the plugins (so everyone can help with the development of the plugins), the plugins source code will be publicly available online at GitHub.

This sort of requirement basically compels DAW makers to work on something for free. Why would Cakewalk work hard on an EQ if Steinberg can just take it for free and put it in Cubase? Why would Apple create an amazing compressor for Logic if Cockos can drop it into REAPER without investing any money themselves? This would be a clear example of a free rider problem and you would need to provide external incentives to overcome it.
 
 

• Binary installers must be available for both Windows and Mac and available in both 32-bit and 64-bit and must be able to be installed side-by-side.

Here, you compel Windows-only developers to start a Mac development team (and vice versa) - all for a product that they can't sell and which other developers can use for free.
 

• All plugins must utilise all cores available on the host for processing.

That's an arbitrary technological requirement that doesn't make any sense. Not every audio algorithm is trivially parallelised. It's much more common,and usually more efficient, for each plugin to run on a single thread, so that the concurrency happens with plugins each on different cores, not each plugin spanning all the cores.
 
In short, what you're asking for is for developers to spend money on something that doesn't benefit them and doesn't necessarily even benefit users (since there are already many good freeware and bundled VSTs).
 
What would have more traction is for independent developers to start out on this mission. Let them create some high quality open-source VSTs, then all the DAW developers have to compete to be able to offer something better. The main downside here is that the VST SDK is not open source so it's non-trivial for people to join in development efforts. But maybe there are legal ways around that.