also, the thread linked to for noel's comments is 3 years old; i'd much rather they'd done vst3 than the pc thing

Freddie H



No its not "Spot on" infact its quite the contrary. If you follow news closly Apple and LOGIC PRO will soon implement VST3-standard to thier platform in OSX Lion...

Enlighten us, by all means Freddie. 


So far, all we know about Logic X is rumours. There is no announced date of release, no preview, no comment by Apple, no confirmation that they're even working on a new version - as per usual policy. So unless you're actually working for Apple, I'm not sure where you'd know that from.

I'm USING Logic, working on a mac, frequently visiting their web site, and I get Apple newsfeeds directly in my inbox. I'm also a member of a few forums, including one moderated by the guy who writes certification books for Logic. So I'm not sure it's Apple you're following closely.

People may be talking about something they don't know a lot about. Firstly VST 3 is an amazing thing actually and here is some info about it:

http://www.steinberg.net/...technologies/vst3.html

It is a great great improvement over previous VST versions and allows for a level of realism totally unobtainable in previous VST versions. You do have to have the plugins (and full software implimentation) that are also VST 3 compatible on the receiving end and take advatange of the full amount of expression on offer.

VST 3 could end up being a decider for some people if Sonar have not integrated it eventaully. Studio One has it too. But as pointed out later here although it may be good, it may also be exclusive to certain software. How any DAW that offers VST 3 reacts is only a matter of time.

I have done some deeper research on it myself and one main aspect of it is the fact that every individual note can can have a level of articulation not possible with previous versions of VST. One person described it is simply breathtaking to hear it in action. But I guess it does depend on your production technique of course. For those tracking rock bands for example it may not prove to that beneficial but for those who are creating very real sounding midi tracks (like me) then it may be a revelation.

So... I was wrong about Steinberg and the dust?







;-)

Reading the specs, I admit I don't understand how VST3 can allow for more realism, unless it's linked w/ VST Expression.

The only thing I see that pertains to "realism" is this:

No MIDI restriction for parameter value transfers VST3 has a dedicated interface for event handling that carries a much wider range of functionality than standard MIDI events would be able to provide. This opens up a big range of opportunities for musical use cases with very high potential for innovative product design. For example with VST3 some controller events (for example, pitch) can be referred to a note event (using a note unique ID). This offers the possibility to e.g. modulate only a single note which itself is part of a chord.

EDIT: Nevermind my question about VST Expression - that's exactly what it is.

Rain

Freddie H



No its not "Spot on" infact its quite the contrary. If you follow news closly Apple and LOGIC PRO will soon implement VST3-standard to thier platform in OSX Lion...

Enlighten us, by all means Freddie. 

Time will tell...  
Majority of all DAW's have implemted VST3...so why shouldn't Cakewalk SONAR?..
 
 
Best Regards
Freddie

Rain

EDIT: Nevermind my question about VST Expression - that's exactly what it is.

Actually, VST Expression 2, to be exact... here's the scoop: http://www.steinberg.net/en/company/technologies/vst_expression.html
 
By themselves, the constituent technologies are cool ideas, and in the context of the Cubase 6 featureset a way cool set of functionality(*). VST Expression 2 is comprised of: Note Expression (this is what Jeff was referring to, primarily), VST Dynamics, and Expression Maps. Note Expression itself (and to some extent VST Dynamics and Expression Maps) is sort of the software extension to arcane MIDI limitations, in particular addressing how VSTi are integrated into DAWs. Those 3 features provide abstractions that make VSTi integration "more meaningful", from a user's perspective. That's way cool and all, but...
 
(*)This is where the Technology Slippery Slope begins.
 
Point #1.) The coolness of VST Expression 2 functionality is directly manfiested in Cubase 6 functionality. So... without those features that are implemented in Cubase (v5 started w/ Expression Maps, v6 added Note Expression and Dynamics), VST Expression 2 features are totally useless! In short: if you really really want to take advantage of VST Expression 2... sorry to say, you should be using Cubase 6. The only alternative is for all other DAW developers to implement some form of host support for VST Expression 2, which would essentially amount to varying degrees of copycat functionality.... First of all, don't hold your breath. Second of all, why not just use Cubase 6, then? 
 
Point #2.) VST Expression 2 is useless without VSTi that specifically implement those features of VST 3.5 that enable VST Expression 2. Anybody have a list of major VSTi vendors tha plan on supporting VST Expression 2 features? EastWest, NI, BestService, MOTU, UVI, Yellowtools, VSL etc.? My guess is that list is a short one, if it exists at all...
 
And if vendors are tenatively signing up they will each quickly realize that while the intent of such tight VSTi integration is admirable and desirable, what each of them is signing up for is a.) tight integration with Cubase/Nuendo specifically (since no other DAW vendor will have such support in the near future, if ever), and b.) a wholeheckuvalota complicated code to achieve item "a". VST Expression 2 represents complex abstractions. Complex abstracttions require lots of complicated code be implemented, tested, refined, and supported. There's cost associated with that, and if the list of DAW targets is limited, well, you get the point...
 
Then again, there are always Steinberg VSTi like HALion Sonic, which most definately supports VST Expression 2 extensions of VST 3.5 spec, which brings me to...
 
Point #3.)  Steinberg have implemented a bunch of pretty cool VSTi-integration features in a.) their host DAW and b.) their own VSTi. However, they've manifested those realy cool, vendor-/product-specific features as abstract features of the VST 3.5 spec. In effect, they've "polluted" the VST 3.5 spec with features that are specific to Steinberg's product evolution, strategic direction, etc. Does that sound like a train that DAW host and VSTi vendors will be readily willing to jump on? My guess is the costs are too high, all the way around. Separating VST Expression 2 features from VST 3.5 proper would have been a better approach... nothing says you need to put all features into one API. You can have as many APIs as you need/want, and vendors can pick and choose what they want/need to support. Putting everything into one API produces a "bitter pill" situation for all involved.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

keith

Rain

EDIT: Nevermind my question about VST Expression - that's exactly what it is.

Actually, VST Expression 2, to be exact... here's the scoop: http://www.steinberg.net/en/company/technologies/vst_expression.html
 
By themselves, the constituent technologies are cool ideas, and in the context of the Cubase 6 featureset a way cool set of functionality(*). VST Expression 2 is comprised of: Note Expression (this is what Jeff was referring to, primarily), VST Dynamics, and Expression Maps. Note Expression itself (and to some extent VST Dynamics and Expression Maps) is sort of the software extension to arcane MIDI limitations, in particular addressing how VSTi are integrated into DAWs. Those 3 features provide abstractions that make VSTi integration "more meaningful", from a user's perspective. That's way cool and all, but...
 
(*)This is where the Technology Slippery Slope begins.
 
Point #1.) The coolness of VST Expression 2 functionality is directly manfiested in Cubase 6 functionality. So... without those features that are implemented in Cubase (v5 started w/ Expression Maps, v6 added Note Expression and Dynamics), VST Expression 2 features are totally useless! In short: if you really really want to take advantage of VST Expression 2... sorry to say, you should be using Cubase 6. The only alternative is for all other DAW developers to implement some form of host support for VST Expression 2, which would essentially amount to varying degrees of copycat functionality.... First of all, don't hold your breath. Second of all, why not just use Cubase 6, then? 
 
Point #2.) VST Expression 2 is useless without VSTi that specifically implement those features of VST 3.5 that enable VST Expression 2. Anybody have a list of major VSTi vendors tha plan on supporting VST Expression 2 features? EastWest, NI, BestService, MOTU, UVI, Yellowtools, VSL etc.? My guess is that list is a short one, if it exists at all...
 
And if vendors are tenatively signing up they will each quickly realize that while the intent of such tight VSTi integration is admirable and desirable, what each of them is signing up for is a.) tight integration with Cubase/Nuendo specifically (since no other DAW vendor will have such support in the near future, if ever), and b.) a wholeheckuvalota complicated code to achieve item "a". VST Expression 2 represents complex abstractions. Complex abstracttions require lots of complicated code be implemented, tested, refined, and supported. There's cost associated with that, and if the list of DAW targets is limited, well, you get the point...
 
Then again, there are always Steinberg VSTi like HALion Sonic, which most definately supports VST Expression 2 extensions of VST 3.5 spec, which brings me to...
 
Point #3.)  Steinberg have implemented a bunch of pretty cool VSTi-integration features in a.) their host DAW and b.) their own VSTi. However, they've manifested those realy cool, vendor-/product-specific features as abstract features of the VST 3.5 spec. In effect, they've "polluted" the VST 3.5 spec with features that are specific to Steinberg's product evolution, strategic direction, etc. Does that sound like a train that DAW host and VSTi vendors will be readily willing to jump on? My guess is the costs are too high, all the way around. Separating VST Expression 2 features from VST 3.5 proper would have been a better approach... nothing says you need to put all features into one API. You can have as many APIs as you need/want, and vendors can pick and choose what they want/need to support. Putting everything into one API produces a "bitter pill" situation for all involved.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Thanks a lot, Keith! 

You are not stuck with Cubase 6 at all in fact all you have to do is buy Halion VST and use it inside another host that supports VST 3 such as Studio One. You would buy a synth VST from another maker and install it so why not consider Halion as an option. ($250 for Halion Sonic)

Freddie Samplitue is very very very expensive. Is it worth the extra cost? You have not mentioned that.

Rain Audio Units as far as I know do not support individual note expression within a chord and that is its major feature as far as I am concerned. You can list all the features of AU but this is the main one. It means within a chord eg a string chord you can provide total individual expression of every note contained within that chord eg velocity, vibrato, timing ete etc. JohnT that is what I mean by amazing expression. It could save a lot of time because of you were trying to do this normally you would have to do that to indiviudal string parts but if you can do it as a whole over a group chord then it may be a lot easier and it will still sound great.

VST3 is a perfectly legitimate request. Steinberg invented VST also. Cakewalk adopted that. Nothing wrong with choices. If you want to live in a constrained Crapple environment that's cool but we are on PC here. 

backwoods


VST3 is a perfectly legitimate request. Steinberg invented VST also. Cakewalk adopted that. Nothing wrong with choices. If you want to live in a constrained Crapple environment that's cool but we are on PC here. 

I agree, but keep in mind VST 2.4 and VST 3.x are different technologies. Don't be swayed by the commonality of "VST" in the name. As with any new technology (such as VST 3.x), you need a good reason to invest the time + resource = money into implementing it. VST 2.4 is broadly supported because it is a de facto standard. VST 3.x doesn't have the same broad level of support across the industry to push individual vendors to support/implement it. Not yet, anyway, and whether or not it happens remains to be seen. Similar situation as x64 adoption. Chicken, meet egg...

Beagle

Wow.  that's incredible!  if that's the case then it's no wonder cake doesn't want to implement vst3.  that sounds like steinberg is trying to become the epitome of "proprietary code" (opposite of open source) and delve out features to those who would pay top dollar only.

I wouldn't go that far, necessarily. Only pointing out that Steinberg is talking about both sets of functionality, almost interchangeably, in the same collection of sentences. If you're not reading carefully you might get sucked into thinking "well, all ya gotta do is support VST 3.5"... but reality is that VST Expression/Expression 2 are Cubase/Nuendo-specific features. There's nothing to pay Steinberg in order to implement your own version of VST Expression (2). Another way to think of it: you could implement your own VST Expression (2) functionality in your DAW based on existing VST 2.4 technology (w/ possibly a vendor-neutral extension here or there). Don't confuse VST 3.5 w/ VST Expression (2), even though there is (purposefully) some overlap in terminology, functional features, etc. from Steinberg marketing.

What speculation?

keith

Beagle

Wow.  that's incredible!  if that's the case then it's no wonder cake doesn't want to implement vst3.  that sounds like steinberg is trying to become the epitome of "proprietary code" (opposite of open source) and delve out features to those who would pay top dollar only.

I wouldn't go that far, necessarily. Only pointing out that Steinberg is talking about both sets of functionality, almost interchangeably, in the same collection of sentences. If you're not reading carefully you might get sucked into thinking "well, all ya gotta do is support VST 3.5"... but reality is that VST Expression/Expression 2 are Cubase/Nuendo-specific features. There's nothing to pay Steinberg in order to implement your own version of VST Expression (2). Another way to think of it: you could implement your own VST Expression (2) functionality in your DAW based on existing VST 2.4 technology (w/ possibly a vendor-neutral extension here or there). Don't confuse VST 3.5 w/ VST Expression (2), even though there is (purposefully) some overlap in terminology, functional features, etc. from Steinberg marketing.

ah, ok.  I was under the impression that cakewalk had to pay steiny for VST 2 implementation and then further assumed it would be that way for vst3.

Shame that the response to proprietary lock in it just another flavour of lock in (DX ProChannel etc)

I'd love to see Sonar implement something like this: http://lv2plug.in/trac/

Child