bitflipper

Noel continuing to defend Sonar NOT having VST3 support is INSULTING!

Would you be insulted further if I told you that Noel is absolutely right?

i dont understand why you have a vested interest in Sonar NOT doing something....?
 
There are multiple members in this forum that constantly orate a view similar to yours that simply because they have no need for something ergo nobody else does... and yet it frankly is irrelevant that VST2.4 is technically capable of certain things if certain instruments and editors can only be used as VST3..
 
In my own individual case, the VST for a $2200 synth I own ONLY comes as VST3... and the best workaround i have been suggested by a VST3 phobic member is to purchase a $350 third party editor.... I mean, like, really?...??
 
Luckily, I am not at any sort of crisis point on this,  yet when push comes to shove, do you think Sonar will win out over a $2200 synth in my studio?.......... of course not.. I shall use a the tool that allows me to effectively use the expensive instruments that I own...  
 

Blogman

Noel why don't you speak on Cakewalk's timeframe for VST3 support, and not just continue on about what all VST 2.4 can do. 

I`m  interested in an answer to this as well .

Blogman , the rest of Your post was an outlet of frustration and pain :-)

All the best

Jan

You guys have got it all wrong- it's up to VST 3.5 now - that's what you should be protesting about.

I want to use McDSP plugins. Timeframe?

Blogman


Timeframe on VST3.5 Noel??? Trying to do business here, need to make business decisions.

I completely sympathise with your needs here, but there is no chance that Cake will disclose what is market competitive information in a users forum. Even if done so, my 2c is that if you are making "business" decisions vs hobbyist decisions then you really should never make them based upon commitments, schedules or expectations .. you must make them on what is, now... ie..judge Sonar solely by x2 as is.

backwoods


You guys have got it all wrong- it's up to VST 3.5 now - that's what you should be protesting about.

I want to use McDSP plugins. Timeframe?

Er, not sure here if this is a joke, but AFAIK McDSP plugins don't come in VST format at all.  It's McDSP you should be asking about timeframes ... I'd like to use them too, but right now I'd have to change platforms completely in order to do that. 
 
But if this was meant in jest, good point.  There are lots more AU/RTAS/AAX plugins out there that we can't use compared to the relative handful that require VST3 for full functionality.  Funny that we don't hear lots of whining about that. 
 
Still, VST3 support will come eventually.  The Bakers ain't stupid -- if they see their market share threatened due to lack of certain features, actions will be taken. 
 
Cheers,
Eddie
 

Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk
]

As Bitflipper says SONAR has done sidechaining since version 7 and the work was done before VST3 was even on the horizon. SONARs implementation does something neat - like allowing multiple sources to feed the same sidechain input on a plugin. It automatically internally makes a summing bus so the user doesn't need to manage an extra bus in the project. 

We even have a knowledgebase article which was published over 5 years go to guide any vendors that wanted to support sidechaining in VST 2.4. There is just so much FUD on this topic its unbelievable.

http://www.cakewalk.com/DevXchange/article.aspx?aid=102

And another describing sidechaining use in SONAR.

http://www.cakewalk.com/support/kb/reader.aspx/2007013049

Numerous plugin vendors have already done so. To clarify, the technique described in that paper at paper is The way SONAR does sidechaining is all through standard VST 2.4 there is nothing in there that is proprietary to Cakewalk. I in fact learned how to do this through plugin vendors who already supported it.

Now I cannot speak for Waves - they have schedules and decisions to make just as we do, so my assumption is that they chose to only do sidechaining support in VST3 to save on development resources and implement only one solution. I forwarded the same article to their developers a couple of years ago so its not that they are unaware of the VST 2.4 method to do so - its a choice they made.

Noel - this does NOT answer my question as to how to use the C6 sidechaining inside Sonar. As Blogman noted, the purpose of a host is to... 'HOST' apps, not filter what you can use. To some extent I understand what you're saying, then again it helps with nothing if I still can't use C6 sidechaining.
 
Jesus guys, just bite the bullet and do the VST3. You might be absolutely right to say that 2.4 can do all that 3 can, but honestly how is that any help to me now? It's like the Betamax vs VHS war... Although Betamax was MUCH better, VHS won so you either had to put your movie on VHS or not watch it at all. 
 
Throwing the 'dead cat' in the Waves 'courtyard' doesn't work either - since it's Sonar's job to host not the other way around. Somehow I can't believe that Waves chose 3 for no reason at all.. BUT EVEN if such is the case, let's get on with it. I can't stay on the sidelines and I really don't think that things will devolve... as in people will migrate back to 2.4. And Waves isn't exactly some unknown company that was started yesterday.
 
I personally don't care if you call it Vst 2.4, 3.5 or Pepe Le Peu - All I need is my plugs to work. Come on, please get on it. If this is the new format, let's go with it... It's really not useful to keep saying 3 is the same as 2.4...

ErikDeluxe


+1 for Alloy 2:)

Jalcide


Just confirmed iZotope Alloy 2 sidechaining works in X2, as well.

Alloy 2 has a multi-band compressor (somewhat similar to Waves C6 but only 3 bands max) that supports per-band sidechain selection. There are two multi-band compressors in it, with 3 bands each. So, you might be able to get a full 6 bands by creative use of it.

Alloy 2 is another plugin I highly recommend. It's basically a zero-latency, low-cpu version of Ozone in a channel strip form. So, plenty of sidechaining, X2 options to be had.

+1 for Alloy 2:) Jalcide Just confirmed iZotope Alloy 2 sidechaining works in X2, as well. Alloy 2 has a multi-band compressor (somewhat similar to Waves C6 but only 3 bands max) that supports per-band sidechain selection. There are two multi-band compressors in it, with 3 bands each. So, you might be able to get a full 6 bands by creative use of it. Alloy 2 is another plugin I highly recommend. It's basically a zero-latency, low-cpu version of Ozone in a channel strip form. So, plenty of sidechaining, X2 options to be had.

 
Unfortunately I do not have Alloy 2. I have only Waves. These workarounds that involve purchasing different soft version of things you already have (and know/love a lot) or limiting your creativity, don't seem very useful to me... not to mention practical.

backwoods


Alloy 2 is very cool. What's more it can also be used fully in VST2 and VST3 hosts.  

Something for Waves to think about.

LOL backwoods... I just want my plug to work in Sonar - You're signing me up for educating Waves on the value of VST2.
 
SONAR is the host... IT should the one able to handle both formats. The whole point of a host is to handle as many things as possible. Othewise you'd have an audio program separate from a sequencing program, separate from a Vst2 hosting program, seprate from a Vst3 hosting program etc... At least that's how I see it.

backwoods


Probably a better solution than lecturing Cakewalk about the benefits of VST3 :)

How many plug in companies require VST3 for full benefit?- not very many

How many DAWs don't support VST3- more than half.

Wouldn't it be easier to persuade the VST makers to make proper VST2 versions?

And while I'm at it, I can also persuade them to drop back to only Win XP compatibility :) Good luck convincing somebody that does 3 to drop to 2.4. Mind you I'm not debating the technical arguments - just saying....
 
Lol - well, this isn't a dealbreaker with Cakewalk... yet. I am a little annoyed at the answers that keep repeating how great 2.4 is... as if that helps me with something.
 
As for your calculation for VST3 support, I think you're taking into cosideration things that don't deal that much with VST like ProT. Even if just 35% supports 3, that's HUGE...

Ok..here's the MAJOR issue that not being addressed...

VST 2.x can support side-chaining....however, it's an inefficient method - and
one of the reasons it hasn't been "widely" implemented or accepted.

This was one of the major reasons for the implementation of the VST 3 standard, to make
these things more efficient...AND to get DAW's ready for the next level of advancement.  
I know everyone at Cakewalk hates Stinkberg....never the less...THEY are the ones who
gave us the SEQUENCER, ASIO, VST, etc...and THEY continue to write the standard....and it's
 not going to change UNTIL SOMEONE "OUT STANDARDS" them....i.e. gets creative enough to 
take their tech to a GREATER level OR implement a NEW, BETTER, MORE EFFICIENT way ( I think that is 
Reason's goal with "rack extensions" but I don't think that's going to get the job done.)

VST 3 is NOT going away....it's advancing...and the industry is moving with it...
and Cakewalk will continue their "boycott" of it as long as they can, as an afront to Steinberg...
and continue to hold their customers hostage in the process to their "pettiness"

The MAIN reason that developers are against VST 3 is NOT because it's not better- it's because it requires a RE-WRITE of the HOST application.  (Cakewalk isn't the only one - Renoise feels the same)

N-Tracks - an $89 DAW program ($36 on Amazon) supports VST 3....and yet
a $500 Top of the Line DAW doesn't.  

Fruity Loops, voted #1 DAW in the latest MR Poll by subscribers (this year AND last year), supports VST 3 and is about half the cost of Sonar and has FREE UPGRADES FOR LIFE!  I personally, don't like the interface...but it gets the job done...and people are flocking to it.  

Studio One is GAINING GROUND and becoming a highly competitive player BECAUSE it supports VST 3!! 
(not the only reason)

Adobe Audition will support VST 3
BitWig Studio will support VST 3

Cubase, obviously, supports VST 3...and has taken the PRV to NEW HEIGHTS with
it's advanced editing capabilities, and NOW with VST Expression - all implemented
by the VST 3.x standard.  It also has GREAT scoring capabilities...

MOST of the DAW's are NOW seeing the benefits of supporting this format, and have
it in the pipeline...as the Plug people are moving there as well, and realize that, much
to everyone's dismay, there are GREAT benefits to it...

IT AIN'T CHANGIN' MARY..

Cakewalk has an agenda...it's to resist Steinberg's writing of the standards, because they
don't like Steinberg....and consequently hold their OWN CUSTOMERS hostage because of their
dislike of Steinberg...they've been doing it for YEARS!!!  It's a V for Vendetta I assume.

And the fanboi's, right, wrong, or indifferent, will always support them - as, being fanboi's,
the sense of "objectivity" has been washed away - as long as "they" are happy...nothing else
really matters...and, it seems, they don't care if you WANT IT, NEED IT, or whatever...


Eventually, as always, Cake heads will be dragged, kicking and screaming the whole time,
like a "child throwing a tantrum, because they can't get what they want", into implementing VST 3, 
as the industry continues it's move there...history repeats itself (VST)

Waves Plugins are the INDUSTRY LEADER...no question....as just about every top STUDIO or FRONT OF HOUSE Engineer uses them...and there has to be a reason for that....not going to change anytime soon...and making their NEW plugs "reliant" on VST 3 is because it's EFFICIENT.

Here are the options.....use your SONAR as is or SWITCH...only choice for now....which, when Cakewalk sees their customer base dwindling, they will have to react....


That's it...end of story ...bye bye...

i suspect the no-show of vst3 (so far) is due to previously made technical design decisions that make such an implementation too expensive from a business standpoint [/speculation]

Bristol_Jonesey

Mystic38

backwoods


Probably a better solution than lecturing Cakewalk about the benefits of VST3 :)

How many plug in companies require VST3 for full benefit?- not very many

How many DAWs don't support VST3- more than half.

Wouldn't it be easier to persuade the VST makers to make proper VST2 versions?

You really need to pause and rethink how you personally view the needs of other people... its really quite sad.. it seems that you take some delight that other members have spend serious money on VST and hardware that they cannot use to their full potential because Cakewalk has let Sonar has decide we cannot use them... its the tail wagging the dog.

I'd like to bring into question the mentality of people who would go out and spend serious money on software & hardware KNOWING that Sonar doesn't support VST3.

Isn't that akin to having a cheap source of petrol (gas) and then going out & buying a diesel?

From observation to me at least there are folks that
a) have purchased a plug-in package that works (ie has vst2.4 version), but the vst3 version of same package has additional functionality that they cannot exercise.
b) have seen vst3 plugs they would like to buy, but are not supported by Sonar.
c) have bought vst3 plugs assuming they worked in Sonar "the most complete DAW for windows PC", or were not aware of VST3/2.4 issues (as I was not)
c) are evaluating Sonar and surprised at its lack of inclusion
 
in my own particular case the synth predated Sonar x1 and x2 by some time, and its editor is vst3 only.. 
 
While i get your analogy, we have differing perspectives as to me, using Sonar is not the objective..... whereas using the tools/plugs/synths is the objective...Sonar is simply an enabling tool to get from music > tracks..and when users cannot use the plugs/tools/synths they choose due to constraints in the DAW, then the DAW will ultimately go..not the (more expensive) plugs/tools/synths...ie instruments of choice.
 
I am lucky that I am not at any crisis point given i am a hobbyist and I have so far have ignored this issue...in fact,  I have vocalised support for vst3 primarily due to the host of members who insist that given they dont have an issue then nobody else does...  a stance i view as being sadly lacking in community spirit and one that a healthy percentage of users could equally take on staff view (as an example) ...
 
 

cclary
N-Tracks - an $89 DAW program ($36 on Amazon) supports VST 3....and yet
a $500 Top of the Line DAW doesn't.  

Fruity Loops, voted #1 DAW in the latest MR Poll by subscribers (this year AND last year), supports VST 3 and is about half the cost of Sonar and has FREE UPGRADES FOR LIFE!  I personally, don't like the interface...but it gets the job done...and people are flocking to it.  

Studio One is GAINING GROUND and becoming a highly competitive player BECAUSE it supports VST 3!! 
(not the only reason)

Adobe Audition will support VST 3
BitWig Studio will support VST 3

Cubase, obviously, supports VST 3...and has taken the PRV to NEW HEIGHTS with
it's advanced editing capabilities, and NOW with VST Expression - all implemented
by the VST 3.x standard.  It also has GREAT scoring capabilities...

MOST of the DAW's are NOW seeing the benefits of supporting this format, and have
it in the pipeline...as the Plug people are moving there as well, and realize that, much
to everyone's dismay, there are GREAT benefits to it...

If this is true then it really undermines the argument that being VsT3 compatible is such a monumental undertaking for Sonar. As I noted earlier, I'm not at the point of desperation yet. But I also don't want to reach that point - sitting around with plugs that I can't use.
 
A few months ago I chimed in about VST3 and had said that it did not affect me yet... Now it DOES... albeit only a little. But the question is what's next? Do I have to buy plugs based on Sonar limitations? This won't work for me.
 
Let's be frank here, 3 will have to happen whether they like it or not. Question is only if they'll beat 2 into the ground like they did DXi's or if they'll just let it go and move on. I personally want to stay on the Sonar platform, but not at the expense of these kind of limitations. If an $85 program has features that a $500 does not then there's something wrong - my 2 cents.
 
I'm not putting anybody down because everybody should be able to run their business as they see fit. But I would wish for an answer such as: VST3 ETA or "we'll NEVER implement VST3 so get it out of your head". Then I know where I stand. If CW's long term strategy is to cater to the Garageband market, that's fine but let me know at least. In one post Noel said VST3 is not off the table... so I don't know what side is up.

Jackel


Holy Crap,  Lot of scrapping going on here.  Not interested in inserting myself into a vst3 discussion since I have nothing to add but I do know that you can use softube FET and dynamite compressors and do side chain compression in sonar.

Here is a little video that explains how.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5g60LK6u35c

this has nothing to do with sidechain...

Jackel


Huh? OP is about side chaining.  video is about side chaining.  the rest of the stupid conversation may not be but OP and me...  sidechaining.

May i simply suggest that you actually read the thread.. ?
 
 Firstly, the OP is interested in sidechaining waves C6, not sidechaining in general. Secondly, sidechaining the waves C6 plugin requires the VST3 version of said plug in, and thirdly, Sonar does not support VST3..Hence the thread really is nothing to do with sidechaining at all....:)