Hello, my name is Danny and I'm a first year student at Hull College studying for a diploma in Music Technology and Production. We've been assigned to look into a special subject for investigation which interests us personally. I've chosen to look at why there isn't any standardisation of plugins between the most popular DAWs in the marketplace. 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.
 
My proposal is that we all need to have a collection of VST plugins which will become the standard across all the DAW makers who follow these new guidelines: -
 

• The collection of audio FX plugins which at a minimum will include a compressor (single and multiband), deesser, delay, equaliser (graphical and parametric), expander/gate, filters (low pass, high pass, band pass, and notch), limiter, maximiser, reverb, and a spectrum analyser. This list is not exhaustive.
  
• All the plugins must work in all DAWs (ie, no vendor lock down) regardless of the operating system used (we must be able to at least use the plugins on Windows and Mac with Linux optional).
  
• 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.
  
• The plugins must compile in both 32-bit and 64-bit. But 64-bit is preferred.
  
• 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.
  
• All plugins must utilise all cores available on the host for processing.
  

 
I would be very interested if Cakewalk would be like to action this proposal or if any Cakewalk users would like this as well. If you have any questions, comments, on what I have said here; please don't hesitate to contact me.
 
Thank you for your time and I look forward to your reply.

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

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
 
 

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.

knaggsdp
 a collection of VST plugins which will become the standard across all the DAW makers 

They already exist. (I.e. Waves, UAD, etc. etc. etc.)
 
A proposal for a new standard must be supported by a sound business argument. Host (DAW) developers are competitors. What is the compelling need for them to collaborate on such a project when well proven alternatives exist?

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

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

As I read OP request - it's about stock plugins shipped with daws.
 
But it's pretty much up to collaborators to decide having a bunch of common pluginsas VST or whatever.
 
All daw makers seem to like the idea to lock users into their realm with them getting used to their particular stock of plugins. A natural response would be not to use any stock plugins - only 3rd party - and you are free to shift to any daw that fit your needs. That's what I did anyway.

"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...

I think Ubuntu studio and ardour are leading this charge. It is unlimited in scope.

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