Swiller
Bub
Swiller
Bringing new things to the table is one thing. Does it sound any better is another.
Yes, but sound isn't everything. So is stability, system resource usage. Those things are just as important.
I cannot understand it either, what is all the fuss about with vst3. Why is it essential technology to make better sounds. It was unveiled in 2006 and computer power has more than made up for any speed problems in 7 years.
Cake are better focussing on other things, until the technology shows a softsynth or plugin that sounds obviously better than before. 7 years on and I haven't seen one.
Spending another £500 on a vst3 compatible daw is nothing short of madness. A bit of ram and an ssd will do way more these days and much much cheaper.
Where on Earth did you come up with 500? Everyone that offers it doesn't charge a penny more for it. Studio One is the same price it was before they included VST3.
Like it or not, developers are starting to use it. For God sake, Cakewalk themselves just put out a VST3 plug-in. How can anyone even argue about this anymore when they themselves are doing it?
All arguments aside ... developers are using it now. Cakewalk better implement it ... soon. And right or wrong, some of them are limiting the functionality of their VST's if you don't use them in a VST3 host, so again ... like it or not, they better get moving.
Quite right on the stability, system resource usage in some scenarios, depends on whether you need to conserve those resources i guess. Hence why I suggested upgrading hardware if that is the worry. It will give spades more stability than simply having vst3.
But I shouldn't have to upgrade my hardware if a software upgrade can make things run better. If I can run 200 VST's on my i5 because of VST3, where as I could only run 50 because of VST2 ... I want VST3. Everyone should. CPU resources is as much a part of working with DAW's as planning around a 12 track tape limit was back in the analog days.
Sound is pretty much everything to be honest. Having vst3 will do nothing to magically open up an old pcs performance or make it sound better.
Sound is everything is your opinion, and I respect that, but nobody said anything about VST3 making things 'sound' better.
The 500 came from a scenario where you would consider ditching sonar for another vst3 daw..cubase 7 for example, to get your vst3 right now today...which is around 4-500 quid retail..or live 9 , live 9 suite which is more £. Similarly if you were a live 8 user, you have to fork out for vst3 support in the form of an upgrade to the forthcoming live 9.
That's got nothing to do with VST3 cost though. That has to do with going to another solution that just costs more. None of the DAW's that have VST3 capability charge more for their product because of it. I already gave you examples of that. If you want to move to a DAW that has VST3 capability and happens to cost more ... you can't blame that on VST3.
There are cheaper alternatives...studio one pro for example but it remains more expensive than an additional 16gb ram and a 120gb ssd drive for the pc. That will obliterate the benefits of solely having vst3 support in terms of precious system resources and stability. Or maybe fruity loops is the best option.
Of course daw manufacturers charge for it. It takes them time to program it. That's why they don't give daws away free.... and charge for new versions or upgrades. They are businesses interested in making money.
That cost is built in to the product to cover all expenses along those lines. There is not a sudden surcharge for VST3 capability. By that thinking, we would have been charged for every single thing that has been added to the software. Such as Take Lanes, Pro Channel, etc etc. All that stuff came along at the $99 dollar upgrade price. There was no surcharge for these added things.
We'll see when X3 comes out and if the upgrade is still $99 and it it has VST3 capabilities.
64 bit is where most people concerns are still. Vst3 has not really caught on since it was introduced in 2006. Largely because it is fairly pointless when you consider alternative hardware upgrades as I have said above.
No ... it hasn't caught on because it takes time to for developers to write new code, test it, and implement it. 64bit has already been established and set years ago.
And actually, 64-bit doesn't improve the sound at all either. It basically does the same thing as VST3, and that is, it allows your DAW to run more efficient by allowing you to use more RAM. Other than that, there are no benefits to 64 bit.
I sympathise with people wanting to use waves plugins to their full in sonar and that is a credible argument. But I agree with John as well, in the fact that it is a shortfall on waves behalf more than it is a sonar. It means that these plugins will require additional spend to utilise vst3 if using live 8, sonar, reaper. That's a sizeable chunk of the market and not a clever strategy by waves to alienate their potential buyers....not least disappoint existing owners when many daws have ignored vst3.
There is no actually information to back up your claim of more expense because of VST3. Your claim that switching from one product to another that supports it being more expensive is only because of the cost of the product to begin with. It's not because of new technology in it. To put it another way, Cubase still cost more than Sonar before they introduced VST3.
If you think about all the things that have been added to Sonar, for example, the Pro Channel, Take Lanes, 384kHz support, Skylight, Screensets, and the fact that the new user price hasn't changed, and the upgrade prices have gone down, I really can't see your point.