FWIW Freddie I agree with you...

But, I think Cakewalk has clearly demonstrated that they are banking on a new format for plugins with the proprietary open APIs for PrMoChannel.

Cakewalk is making an effort to entice third party developers to invest in an opportunity to develop for a small and arbitrarily limited pool of potential customers.

The idea that developers will partner up to present product to a small sub set of a global market seems to be less than well thought out.

Partnered product placement of cripple-demo-advertisements, like the SoftTube knob, is probably as good as it is going to get.

I don't know much about VST3, but I'd like to hedge my bets on a technology that seems more likely to become wide spread.

So, yeah... bring on the VST3.


best regards,
mike

If you've read my post Freddie, you'll notice that I am not against it - only stating that complying w/ VST3 alone will not make Sonar better. They'd have to work on ways to take advantage of the possibilities. 

I do appreciate your enthusiasm, but we need to go beyond the hype and propaganda here. Claiming that VST3 is widely adopted (when it isn't) or that Logic will implement it (when no one knows a thing about the next version) only contributes spreading misinformation.

No one is scared of seeing Cakewalk come up w/ an amazing DAW - it'd be a good thing. Still, no matter if Sonar included VST3, Melody and a thousand new features - they'd still have to fix a few pending issues (gapping audio).

dmbaer

Jeff Evans

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.

Given the number of situations where one would actually make use of such a feature, I'm having a hard time seeing that this has widespread appeal.  Granted, I don't have the chops for live performance and will likely never make music without a sequencer.  That means, however, that any time I would like per-note expression, I'd just do multiple monophonic tracks in which I can do all the per-note expression I wanted.
 
I'm not saying it's bad, but personally I could care less.  I'd much rather have CW work on sequencing enhancements, particularly in the area of tempo expression.  That of course, only after they fixed all the known bugs.  

The only way per-not expression could be made to work would be to manually edit the MIDI stream as there are very few keyboards out there that have polyphonic aftertouch and that's what one would need (I think) to apply what's being talked about.

Granted a guitar player can get per-note expression by way of the picking action but that's about it. Thing is this per-note expression on anything else wouldn't really be musical, I believe.

Maybe someone can post a link to where there are audio samples of per-note expression as envisioned by Steinberg.