Wow, cmusicmaker, I agree with some of the things you mention, but I just cannot see Cakewalk ever dropping VST support, unless far in the future there is a compelling, far superior plugin format... and they would STILL keep VST support around for legacy projects. That is "The Cakewalk Way" TM. That would just be too radical of a change and it just wouldn't make sense market-wise, and it would needlessly put Cake users through a potentially tough transition. x64 was tough enough.

If the only reason would be to isolate Steinberg and the VST standard, that's just not a strong enough reason. There are too many other hosts that support VST and Cakewalk's absence would definitely not cause Ableton or Presonus (or Reaper or Tracktion or Samplitude or ACID or.... ) to drop VST. Let us not forget that people invest a lot of time and money into plugins, and such a change is very painful. Look what happened when Steinberg dropped DX support. Think what would happen if Cake dropped VST support! Cakewalk, in my opinion, is KNOWN for backwards compatibility and they STILL support DX plugins today, which as I mentioned, Steinberg dropped, to the great frustration of many of its customers.

If anyone would consider dropping or messing with VST support -- at least legacy support -- ironically, it's Steinberg, sad to say. They frankly crapped all over legacy 32-bit VST plugins with their x64 VST Bridge, and very technically, don't officially support VST plugins older than the 2.1 standard, I believe (although most 2.0 still work fine). VST3 is Steinberg's current baby, and there's no guarantee that legacy VST2 plugins will be 100% reliable in future Steinberg products. Even the way they handle presets has changed. So if anyone changes things, it's Steinberg.

In fact, Sonar x64 with its superior BitBridge, out of the box, is technically MORE compatible with MORE VST plugins than Cubase x64. I know this from experience. So I just can't see Cake dumping VST support, especially with all the hard work they invested with BitBridge, etc.

DX is PC only. VST is not tied to a platform, though obviously a developer needs to compile their code separately for each platform. I think VST's takeover was the result of the industry simply saying "yeah, this seems to work, let's just use it...", not to mention the large push from the shareware/freeware/cheapware crowd. At some point when a majority of hosts support VST in some form or another (perhaps via adapter... 'member those days?), a plug developer has to ask "and I'm maintaining this DX version for what reason?"... and there you go.  You just simplified your business by cutting off a feature that only 50% of the cusomers use 20% of the time...

Lack of VST support on the PC side is looked down upon, IMO. When such new product versions are announced there's always a "yeah, but it doesn't support VST" groan... how many potential customers are they missing out on? I suspect alot.

keith


DX is PC only. VST is not tied to a platform, though obviously a developer needs to compile their code separately for each platform. I think VST's takeover was the result of the industry simply saying "yeah, this seems to work, let's just use it...", not to mention the large push from the shareware/freeware/cheapware crowd. At some point when a majority of hosts support VST in some form or another (perhaps via adapter... 'member tose days?), a plug developer has to ask "and I'm maintaining this DX version for what reason?"... and there you go.  You just simplified your business by cutting off a feature that only 50% of the cusomers use 20% of the time...

Lack of VST support on the PC side is looked down upon, IMO. When such new product versions are announced there's always a "yeah, but it doesn't support VST" groan... how many potential customers are they missing out on? I suspect alot.

Well, that's the paradox. It's cross platform, but standard only on the PC. Developers usually offer AU version of their plug-ins on Mac. On the PC, the lack of a real standard makes VST the de facto standard. Apple pushed on the AU standard and developers followed. On the PC side, it seems like all the pressure was on Cakewalk and Ron Kuper at the time. Still quite an achievement when you look back at it - they managed to get NI and a few others to actually develop DXi when only Sonar supported it. But it's like they were fighting the battle alone and eventually had to renounce in face of the de facto standard.


I really think this has A LOT to do w/ share/donation/freeware developers as you mention. The big guys (Waves, NI, etc) supported DX. But I guess that users wanted to be able to use all those VST freebies and put so much pressure that Cake and plugin devlopers just gave up.

eratu

UnderTow

Lowline

I'm not sure in reference to your other points, but with regards to your 4 steps above, you can easily do by - right click - "revert clip(s) to original time stamp".

That might not always work. If the audio was imported from another project or wasn't at the original time stamp when you start editing (because you rearranged or changed tempo or whatever), this solution won't work.

UnderTow

Not to mention how you set up your project and tracks. I'm not an "expert" in the depths of PT -- I've used Sonar and Cubase far more in recent years, but I do have PT9 installed next to Sonar and know my way around well enough that it's easy to test in detail.

The example presented in rhythminmind's video clip is just the tip of the iceberg.... In PT, tracks can be sample-based or tick-based, so that has an impact if you're working on things with tempo changes. Any decent PT operator could easily sit down side-by-side and show that you can create complex projects, shift things around, edit, play with tempos, move tracks between sample/tick modes and then get everything to line up again later on... sample accurately... and it's not that hard to do it. That capability is not easy to dismiss, and why PT is so strong in post production. Let's be honest here. Also, when you couple that with its consistent, reliable automation and region/group management during editing, that lends credibility to the "pro" in Pro Tools, I hate to say. I'm just pointing that out, not cutting down Sonar at all. It's an important aspect of why many studios have adopted PT, like it or not. They may not even be aware of that fact. :) That ability, from beginning to end sample accurate editing is nothing to sneeze at. So I don't think people should just dismiss it in this forum unless they really have tested it out themselves.

(And BTW, sitting down for a couple of hours and "playing around" with PT at a buddy's studio does not constitute enough experience to say whether or not PT editing is good or not in comparison with another DAW. ANY DAW requires plenty of time to really learn how a feature is implemented, and after real experience and an open mind reading the nitty-gritty details in the manual, you'll finally know the differences. Frankly, I'm STILL discovering amazing things about Sonar, Cubase, Reaper, Live and Pro Tools after using them to various levels of intensity in my studio.)

But I do agree about PT's editing prowess over most other DAW apps when push comes to shove and you have deadlines to meet. If you have learned the PT paradigm (i.e. if you're actually a Pro Tools operator instead of a Pro Tools tourist), you will know that what PT does, it does very well. What it doesn't do, it doesn't even try to do. I hope that makes sense. I'm not saying there aren't other shortcomings with PT, nor am I saying Sonar doesn't have some great tools up its sleeve -- there certainly are, and we've hit on a lot of those in this thread. Cakewalk's clip-based FX and envelops, for example, are huge tools that many people overlook. There's a lot of power in that, and you'll be disappointed moving to PT that those clip-based features are simply not there. PT doesn't even bother trying to do that. Hell, I just love clip gain in Cubase, and it has a great little sample editor built-in, so Cubase people would be disappointed as well in that sense.

On top of all that, we'll have to wait to see what Sonar X1 might bring to the table! :)

Hi Eratu !

I think we all agree about PT being excellent in the edition world and we all stated that this a really solid post prod tool !!
If you have read some of my comments , what i feel is that more than PT , it's more the biased representation of people are making of it (because of who's using it and where) than the product itself witch respond to a certain portion of the market !!

The thing is that hearing : "you wanna do music ...go protools" is just a common statement that IS the problem in my "poor"mind....as well as "this the best daw" or some witch tend to be what i read in otha terms of course !

All the great post from Rythm , Jose , you ....are from people who handle quit everystep of the production themselve (so they know when and why using protools !!)....but a lot of people are using PT because they "have too" and don't even use or go in the area where it shines , to stay in a area where it lacks but don't even know it because of their poor knowledge of other daws !!

What i say to student is that don't trust me , try by yourself !!.....and i must say that a lot of you guyz are doing so by having multiple daws ....but i don't feel like PT users are as "good" as you guy and "really" try otha platform since they use the PT !!

ba_midi

if Cakewalk gives up VST for RTAS, they will also be handing Avid a user base in a way.   It's one thing to fight another mid-market company (like Steinberg) than to 'appear' to fight an Avid.

 
Without VST support and going soley for RTAS, Cakewalk would essentially be in the same "pool" as Avid.  I'm not sure that'd really work out well (at this point).
 
 

  Making plugins is one thing but hosting them is another. VST is open, RTAS is not an open SDK. Unless something changes avid is the only one capable hosting RTAS.

cmusicmaker


Cakewalk could in a bizarre twist use RTAS to its advantage.

As far as I know, Avid won't allow anyone to offer RTAS support. And why should they? They have that market cornered. As for using the FXPansion VST to RTAS wrapper, I have no idea if it is stable or not but it is certainly an option. It seems that Avid very much have the advantage.

UnderTow

Cubase could have done that too with VST I would imagine. So what yall think? Was a good move for them not to?

yep , i can hear it !!!

VSt is a norme as well as midi , and rewire ......thks Mr Steinberg for that
RTAS is defenitly not as well as all others .....every daw has developped their owned , but a serious daw for me surpports vst ...unless they create anotha big game changer like this , i don't see why a manufacturer would want to impose its format ....(dxi for cake , AU , rtas ,....)

Wow recommended PC!? Cool! Truth is Macs use dto haev an edge in the arts - they were better for some time (windows me days)

But that is absolutely not true these days, no more stable, no more powerful. Only thing they have is a higher price tag and a sleek finish-

I wont knock mac or pro tools. They are both fine products.

they point is, they have equal rivals, and for less money. It is a no brainer-

Well, my rig looks sexier than a mac! lol

Rain

Lanceindastudio


I planned on buying protools in the beginning and a mac. I asked questions because I think more and always look at options.

People that dont do that are ricking making a bad decision via lack of research.

I have been very happy with my decision ;)

When I transitioned from tape to computer, we (me and my student gf at the time) were on a tight budget and needed something we both could use - her for school and me for music. Ironically enough, she was leaning towards a Mac and it is I, who knew next to nothing about computers, who insisted on getting a PC because all my musician friends were using PCs. Odd...

Though I've questioned my own choice a few times afterwards when I started reading magazines like Computer Music, it eventually settled down when I started working w\ Guitar Studio and Pro Audio.


I now use both but I'm glad I went for PC first, I feel I've learned so much more (including tuning out the hype :) ).

wintaper


My PT9 box just arrived. Installing shortly... brb!

Famous last words. ;)

Kidding. Enjoy!

.

haha I owned the tascam 4 track rackmount version and a vs-880 ex version. Life is good these days ;)

Freddie H


The last 10 pages in this thread is about being a Pro Tools fan-boy. Nothing about VS SONAR X1.
Its much easier to talk about good PRO TOOLS are instead of talking about versus. They know already they have lost before it begins. 

I can only think of one biased, irrational presence spreading misinformation in this discussion.  

So... I drove into town yesterday for a gig.

When I met up with my photographer team mate for the day... (whom I haven't seen in a month) he said to me "hey, I heard you got Pro Tools."

Crazy huh?

Better than working the Facebook ;-)

I guess so... I'm not on the Facebook. :-)

Yesterday I did sound and interview on a industrial video shoot.

As I said earlier, I had called some of my music colleagues a few days ago and told them I had purchased PT9. They seemed enthusiastic. Evidently they seemed enthusiastic enough to mention it to our mutual friends and workmates as if it was good news.

When the photographer mentioned it I started laughing because it seemed funny... I don't recall ever thinking anyone talked about my DAW before :-)

I know... it defies sensibility... but it seems to be.