lacyth
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1
- Joined: 2009/01/18 11:29:07
- Status: offline
RE: Sonar 8 not VST3 compatible?
2009/04/22 09:59:40
(permalink)
VST3 is what future plug-ins will likely be authored as it is a cleaner API with much better support for side chaining as well as the ability to NOT process freeing up CPU as well as add and remove channels on the fly. It is NOT an update that can simply be ignored. I find it absolutely astonishing and unacceptable that as I Sonar 8 user I am stranded at VST2 and can't use newly developed plug-ins. Cakelwalk needs to be ahead of the curve not behind it. This is up there with Waves not offering 64 bit support "until they see a demand". I have to run Sonar in 32 bit because of their lack of support. Just as Waves foot dragging on 64 bit makes me less inclined to buy their plug ins, this news makes me think less of Cakewalk and their commitment to staying at least up with the current state of music technology.
So my question for those at Cakewalk is WHEN? will you catch up to the current VST platform?
|
Gerry
Max Output Level: -73 dBFS
- Total Posts : 861
- Joined: 2004/10/30 11:18:38
- Location: Cadiz, Spain
- Status: offline
RE: Sonar 8 not VST3 compatible?
2009/04/22 12:32:56
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: plainfaced
Yep.. Its just Steinberg trying to win back thier market share that they have lost in the past few years that Sonar, Logic and Repear have taken..
It's good to see a world authority on market shares dropping their wisdom on these boards. Why don't you delete all your vst plug-ins after all Virtual Studio Technology was invented by shhhh you know who.
|
TheSteven
Max Output Level: -55 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2037
- Joined: 2005/03/05 01:17:06
- Location: Southern California
- Status: offline
RE: Sonar 8 not VST3 compatible?
2009/04/22 12:40:54
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: lacyth
VST3 is what future plug-ins will likely be authored as it is a cleaner API with much better support for side chaining as well as the ability to NOT process freeing up CPU as well as add and remove channels on the fly. It is NOT an update that can simply be ignored. I find it absolutely astonishing and unacceptable that as I Sonar 8 user I am stranded at VST2 and can't use newly developed plug-ins. Cakelwalk needs to be ahead of the curve not behind it. This is up there with Waves not offering 64 bit support "until they see a demand". I have to run Sonar in 32 bit because of their lack of support. Just as Waves foot dragging on 64 bit makes me less inclined to buy their plug ins, this news makes me think less of Cakewalk and their commitment to staying at least up with the current state of music technology.
So my question for those at Cakewalk is WHEN? will you catch up to the current VST platform?
Please read the former posts in thread...
"Time is a great teacher, but unfortunately it kills all its pupils" Loius-Hector Berlioz  www.AgitatedState.com MenuMagic - plug-in management powertools! My Tunes
|
mudgel
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 12010
- Joined: 2004/08/13 00:56:05
- Location: Linton Victoria (Near Ballarat)
- Status: offline
RE: Sonar 8 not VST3 compatible?
2009/04/22 12:50:07
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: lacyth
So my question for those at Cakewalk is WHEN? will you catch up to the current VST platform? Answered by Noel several posts ago.
Mike V. (MUDGEL) STUDIO: Win 10 Pro x64, SPlat & CbB x64, PC: ASUS Z370-A, INTEL i7 8700k, 32GIG DDR4 2400, OC 4.7Ghz. Storage: 7 TB SATA III, 750GiG SSD & Samsung 500 Gig 960 EVO NVMe M.2. Monitors: Adam A7X, JBL 10” Sub. Audio I/O & DSP Server: DIGIGRID IOS & IOX. Screen: Raven MTi + 43" HD 4K TV Monitor. Keyboard Controller: Native Instruments Komplete Kontrol S88.
|
arkiruthis
Max Output Level: -84 dBFS
- Total Posts : 343
- Joined: 2008/02/13 09:49:17
- Status: offline
RE: Sonar 8 not VST3 compatible?
2009/04/22 12:51:54
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: bitflipper
That link to the Audio Damage blog pretty much says it all: "none of our current products would benefit directly from VST3's additions". Exactly what Noel said.
Aleksey Vaneev (of Voxengo) mentioned much the same. (bold emphasis mine) ORIGINAL: http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=3517709
With Voxengo situation is same - no VST3 support in a foreseeable future.
I also have not received many VST3 support requests from the users - maybe less than 5, and mainly with the desire to have a seamless side-chain support, which is a bit tricky in Cubase for VST2.4 plug-ins.
I can start working on VST3 only when these vendors start to support it: Cakewalk (Sonar), Ableton (Live), Sony (Vegas, SoundForge), Cockos (Reaper), Magix (Samplitude). Without that the benefits of supporting VST3 are marginal.
|
dantarbill
Max Output Level: -57 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1820
- Joined: 2004/12/15 10:48:18
- Location: Monrovia, CA
- Status: offline
RE: Sonar 8 not VST3 compatible?
2009/04/22 12:58:16
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: lacyth
...I find it absolutely astonishing and unacceptable that as I Sonar 8 user I am stranded at VST2 and can't use newly developed plug-ins.
What VST3 plugins are there that you need and aren't able to use right now?
|
arkiruthis
Max Output Level: -84 dBFS
- Total Posts : 343
- Joined: 2008/02/13 09:49:17
- Status: offline
RE: Sonar 8 not VST3 compatible?
2009/04/22 13:08:00
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: lacyth
I find it absolutely astonishing and unacceptable that as I Sonar 8 user I am stranded at VST2 and can't use newly developed plug-ins.
You buy a product (SONAR, Cubase, Renault Megane, hedge trimmer, microwave oven, etc.) on the basis of what it does now, not what it 'might' or 'should' do at a later date. Otherwise you've made an investment, not a purchase.
|
stevec
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 11546
- Joined: 2003/11/04 15:05:54
- Location: Parkesburg, PA
- Status: offline
RE: Sonar 8 not VST3 compatible?
2009/04/22 14:15:15
(permalink)
I find it absolutely astonishing and unacceptable that as I Sonar 8 user I am stranded at VST2 and can't use newly developed plug-ins. "Absolutely astonishing and unacceptable", huh. Wow. I didn't realize that all the must have plug-ins only came in VST3 format, leaving you "stranded" using an outdated, unsupported format. You know, the one that the other 99% of available plug-ins use. So my question for those at Cakewalk is WHEN? will you catch up to the current VST platform? My guess would be when other non-SB hosts like Logic, DP, Reaper, Samp, etc all support it as well.
SteveC https://soundcloud.com/steve-cocchi http://www.soundclick.com/bands/pagemusic.cfm?bandID=39163 SONAR Platinum x64, Intel Q9300 (2.5Ghz), Asus P5N-D, Win7 x64 SP1, 8GB RAM, 1TB internal + ESATA + USB Backup HDDs, ATI Radeon HD5450 1GB RAM + dual ViewSonic VA2431wm Monitors; Focusrite 18i6 (ASIO); Komplete 9, Melodyne Studio 4, Ozone 7 Advanced, Rapture Pro, GPO5, Valhalla Plate, MJUC comp, MDynamic EQ, lots of other freebie VST plugins, synths and Kontakt libraries
|
Jim Roseberry
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 9871
- Joined: 2004/03/23 11:34:51
- Location: Ohio
- Status: offline
RE: Sonar 8 not VST3 compatible?
2009/04/22 15:28:48
(permalink)
VST3 is what future plug-ins will likely be authored as it is a cleaner API with much better support for side chaining as well as the ability to NOT process freeing up CPU as well as add and remove channels on the fly. It is NOT an update that can simply be ignored. I find it absolutely astonishing and unacceptable that as I Sonar 8 user I am stranded at VST2 and can't use newly developed plug-ins. FWIW, The only VST3 compliant plugins you can't use right now are: 1. The VST Motif Editor (You can still use the Studio Manager version of the Editor or John Melas' Editor) 2. Cubase 5's included VST plugins (which you can't use in Sonar anyway) 3. The Virsin plugins EW mentioned earlier Noel explained why Cakewalk isn't supporting VST3 (at least for now)... VST3 isn't adding any significant new capabilities beyond what's already been possible. Thus, there's just not a great impetus to support VST3 at this time. Most developers feel the same way... so it's not just a Cakewalk/Sonar decision or train of thought. To my knowledge, Cubase 5 is the only (major) host software that supports VST3.
|
papa2004
Max Output Level: -10.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 6475
- Joined: 2005/03/23 12:40:47
- Location: Southeastern U.S.
- Status: offline
RE: Sonar 8 not VST3 compatible?
2009/04/22 16:39:51
(permalink)
When Jim speaks, everybody should listen!  Jim knows his stuff...Do NOT doubt his knowledge...(and I'm not being facetious or a suck-up)...
|
mabian
Max Output Level: -68 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1111
- Joined: 2005/02/10 02:52:13
- Location: Italy
- Status: offline
RE: Sonar 8 not VST3 compatible?
2009/04/23 05:29:19
(permalink)
Fabfilter is releasing VST3 version of its plugins, but, as well said previously, they are still a very narrow niche by now, and they offer so little (almost nothing) more than you can already achieve with VST2.4. So why should an host developer bother with several hours coding to support something what is, as a matter of fact, currently a one brand thing only? - Mario
post edited by mabian - 2009/04/23 06:03:29
Mario Bianchi --------------- Intel Q9550 Quad Core, Abit IP35 Pro XE M'Board 2x2GB RAM, XFX GeForce 8500GT, 2x500GB Seagate SATA2 HD 7200.11 Terratec EWS88MT, ESI Near 5 Monitoring Speakers Yamaha SY-85 Master keyboard, Roland JV-1080 Rack mod
|
Lemonboy
Max Output Level: -77 dBFS
- Total Posts : 679
- Joined: 2004/05/31 11:36:59
- Location: Dorset, UK
- Status: offline
RE: Sonar 8 not VST3 compatible?
2009/04/23 06:01:07
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]
I have spoken to other DAW vendors and VST developers who unanimously agree that there is no gain to VST3.
In fact a few plugin vendors have proposed alternate VST2 compatible specifications that far exceed the VST3 specification. Sounds like Steinberg have jumped the gun and not made the best of VST3 . . . could this become a VHS v BetaMax / HD-DVD v Blue-Ray situation?
|
Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]
Cakewalk Staff
- Total Posts : 6475
- Joined: 2003/11/03 17:22:50
- Location: Boston, MA, USA
- Status: offline
RE: Sonar 8 not VST3 compatible?
2009/04/23 07:51:40
(permalink)
Since there were various posts talking about sidechaining in VST 3, here is a white paper I wrote on how sidechaining is done using plain old VST 2.4. This is how its implemented in SONAR and how several other vendors do it today. VST 2.4 Side-chaining in SONAR
post edited by Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk] - 2009/04/23 08:01:39
|
papa2004
Max Output Level: -10.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 6475
- Joined: 2005/03/23 12:40:47
- Location: Southeastern U.S.
- Status: offline
RE: Sonar 8 not VST3 compatible?
2009/04/23 09:18:58
(permalink)
Nicely done, Noel. Thanks for sharing that.
|
DaveClark
Max Output Level: -71 dBFS
- Total Posts : 956
- Joined: 2006/10/21 17:02:58
- Status: offline
RE: Sonar 8 not VST3 compatible?
2009/04/23 11:17:03
(permalink)
Hi all,
This is actually a programmer issue, not a user issue.
Some time ago, I also downloaded the VST3 SDK and looked at it. I agree with Noel that this is pretty much just a different API, but I thought it looked more well-organized (at first glance anyway --- VST2 is pretty bad in that respect). The question I asked myself, and I'm sure a lot of "real" VST/VSTi developers have: Which API should I use? Because of the presence of SONAR and other non-Steinberg DAW's, the answer is pretty obvious: VST2.
It's somewhat silly for a professional programmer to write a VST or VSTi for which there would be only one family of hosts from a single vendor. My initial and limited first impression was that the VST3 API would probably be easier to learn and use, but that adoption would be quite a ways off yet. Many folks have invested a LOT of time learning the VST2 API, and they are not going to just jump into a new one with very few others doing so at the same time. VST3 is not just a "new version" of something like a new version of SONAR. It's more like a different language, related yes, but taking a lot of time to learn.
Regards,
Dave Clark
|
Guitarmech111
Max Output Level: -24.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5085
- Joined: 2003/11/06 10:18:53
- Location: Bayou City, TX
- Status: offline
Re: RE: Sonar 8 not VST3 compatible?
2010/07/26 16:45:33
(permalink)
Let's revise this discussion.
What is the current stand by Cakewalk about VST3?
Peace, Conley Shepherd Joyful Noise Productions PC config: (Win performance base score = 7.7) ASUS Sabertooth 990 FX -amd fx-8150 - core processor am3+ - 32G Corsair 1066 DDR3 - PNY GTX670 2g gddr5 - Corsair Force SSD 120G - Samsung 750G SATA drives - WD 1tb Black (Audio files) - WD 2TB for storage - RME UFX - USB ASIO 2/2016 drivers Win8  Without a mess, there is no message
|
John
Forum Host
- Total Posts : 30467
- Joined: 2003/11/06 11:53:17
- Status: offline
Re: RE: Sonar 8 not VST3 compatible?
2010/07/26 16:47:15
(permalink)
CW's stand is it is unnecessary. It offers nothing that VST 2.4 doesn't already offer.
|
Guitarmech111
Max Output Level: -24.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5085
- Joined: 2003/11/06 10:18:53
- Location: Bayou City, TX
- Status: offline
Re: RE: Sonar 8 not VST3 compatible?
2010/07/26 16:58:48
(permalink)
So the enhanced functionality of plugs who adopt a VST3 standard, for new features on existing plugins, may leave SONAR out of the market when a host is decided based on the plugin(s) functionality.
too bad...
I wonder if that user survey is still open for feedback.
Peace, Conley Shepherd Joyful Noise Productions PC config: (Win performance base score = 7.7) ASUS Sabertooth 990 FX -amd fx-8150 - core processor am3+ - 32G Corsair 1066 DDR3 - PNY GTX670 2g gddr5 - Corsair Force SSD 120G - Samsung 750G SATA drives - WD 1tb Black (Audio files) - WD 2TB for storage - RME UFX - USB ASIO 2/2016 drivers Win8 Without a mess, there is no message
|
TheSteven
Max Output Level: -55 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2037
- Joined: 2005/03/05 01:17:06
- Location: Southern California
- Status: offline
Re: RE: Sonar 8 not VST3 compatible?
2010/07/26 17:26:50
(permalink)
I'd be really surprised if Cakewalk adopted VST3 support this year (or anytime soon). I just don't see the payoff, in terms of sales gained or lost, vs the cost of implementing. IMHO there are so many other areas where the manpower could be better spent. Edit: fixed typo - somehow accidentally created link, instead of deleting a line.
post edited by TheSteven - 2010/07/26 17:29:27
"Time is a great teacher, but unfortunately it kills all its pupils" Loius-Hector Berlioz www.AgitatedState.com MenuMagic - plug-in management powertools! My Tunes
|
dantarbill
Max Output Level: -57 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1820
- Joined: 2004/12/15 10:48:18
- Location: Monrovia, CA
- Status: offline
Re: RE: Sonar 8 not VST3 compatible?
2010/07/26 17:30:59
(permalink)
Guitarmech111
So the enhanced functionality of plugs who adopt a VST3 standard, for new features on existing plugins, may leave SONAR out of the market when a host is decided based on the plugin(s) functionality.
too bad...
I wonder if that user survey is still open for feedback.
What "enhanced functionality"? The fact that Yamaha wrote its Motif editor specifically for VST3 was (likely) entirely a business decision, calculated to produce something in the marketplace that couldn't be run on other hosts. It's highly unlikely that all the functionality in that editor could not be implemented in VST2.x. So far, I'm not seeing plug vendors (other than Yamaberg) producing VST3 only versions of their plugs. (Have I missed some?)
post edited by dantarbill - 2010/07/26 17:34:25
|
John
Forum Host
- Total Posts : 30467
- Joined: 2003/11/06 11:53:17
- Status: offline
Re: RE: Sonar 8 not VST3 compatible?
2010/07/26 17:40:21
(permalink)
Guitarmech111
So the enhanced functionality of plugs who adopt a VST3 standard, for new features on existing plugins, may leave SONAR out of the market when a host is decided based on the plugin(s) functionality.
too bad...
I wonder if that user survey is still open for feedback.
I take it that your question was rhetorical. Clearly you dismissed my answer. I got that answer from Noel BTW. I can see CW offering support when it becomes a standard as in many plugins are in that format. I don't see CW supporting it otherwise. There is no compelling reason at this point to support it.
|
dr.hash 
Max Output Level: -86 dBFS
- Total Posts : 220
- Joined: 2005/11/17 16:43:02
- Location: Australia
- Status: offline
RE: Sonar 8 not VST3 compatible?
2010/07/26 21:05:55
(permalink)
Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk
]
There is really no reason why VST3 will save CPU. The exact same techniques used by VST 3 can be adapted to any VST plugin. The Media bay has absolutely nothing to do with VST per se its an application feature.
I have reviewed the VST3 spec and its primarily just a new API.
Hey Noel, nice to speak to someone from Cakewalk, "I'm not Worthy". look some of these messages are a little on the silly side aren't they. I see no reason for VST 3, yet either. Has anybody really thought about the most important thing and that is the music, its all about the music. "I HAVE NEVER HAD A PROBLEM WITH THIS SOFTWARE" and i have run some crazy setups that included Creamware audio cards in XTC mode which was not even supported in SONAR. Unlike Logic and don't get me started about Pro-Tools 8 and Vista, it took me a whole month of going through everything to make it work on my woman's computer. Come on people this software is the bomb, it does so many things now that were not even dreams when The Beatles were in the studio. When i have finished my masters thesis, which is to recreate two Beatles classics (Strawberry Fields and Because) in Sonar. I hope Sonar aficionados understand and be a little kinder to the people at Sonar. As I keep saying it is impossible to do what i am attempting in any other DAW and i will stake my degrees and career on that. Viva La Revolution Sonar Forever, Pro Tools Never Ben B.CT (Bachelor Of Creative Technology)
|
Bristol_Jonesey
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 16775
- Joined: 2007/10/08 15:41:17
- Location: Bristol, UK
- Status: offline
RE: Sonar 8 not VST3 compatible?
2010/07/27 05:24:10
(permalink)
lacyth
. I find it absolutely astonishing and unacceptable that as I Sonar 8 user I am stranded at VST2 and can't use newly developed plug-ins. So my question for those at Cakewalk is WHEN? will you catch up to the current VST platform?
I find it absolutely astonishing and unacceptable that you chose to ignore the previous 30 posts in this thread detailing why adopting the VST3 standard is not only un-necessary but totally impractical at this time. But I suppose it gets your post count up.
CbB, Platinum, 64 bit throughoutCustom built i7 3930, 32Gb RAM, 2 x 1Tb Internal HDD, 1 x 1TB system SSD (Win 7), 1 x 500Gb system SSD (Win 10), 2 x 1Tb External HDD's, Dual boot Win 7 & Win 10 64 Bit, Saffire Pro 26, ISA One, Adam P11A,
|
Guitarmech111
Max Output Level: -24.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5085
- Joined: 2003/11/06 10:18:53
- Location: Bayou City, TX
- Status: offline
Re: RE: Sonar 8 not VST3 compatible?
2010/07/27 10:10:39
(permalink)
dantarbill
Guitarmech111
So the enhanced functionality of plugs who adopt a VST3 standard, for new features on existing plugins, may leave SONAR out of the market when a host is decided based on the plugin(s) functionality.
too bad...
I wonder if that user survey is still open for feedback.
What "enhanced functionality"?
The fact that Yamaha wrote its Motif editor specifically for VST3 was (likely) entirely a business decision, calculated to produce something in the marketplace that couldn't be run on other hosts. It's highly unlikely that all the functionality in that editor could not be implemented in VST2.x.
So far, I'm not seeing plug vendors (other than Yamaberg) producing VST3 only versions of their plugs. (Have I missed some?)
If I told you, I would have to shoot you. ;)
Peace, Conley Shepherd Joyful Noise Productions PC config: (Win performance base score = 7.7) ASUS Sabertooth 990 FX -amd fx-8150 - core processor am3+ - 32G Corsair 1066 DDR3 - PNY GTX670 2g gddr5 - Corsair Force SSD 120G - Samsung 750G SATA drives - WD 1tb Black (Audio files) - WD 2TB for storage - RME UFX - USB ASIO 2/2016 drivers Win8 Without a mess, there is no message
|
Freddie H
Max Output Level: -39 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3617
- Joined: 2007/09/21 06:07:40
- Status: offline
RE: Sonar 8 not VST3 compatible?
2010/07/27 10:39:21
(permalink)
Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk
]
SONAR doesn't support VST3. We haven't seen any compelling reason to support VST3 since VST 2 is capable of doing pretty much all that VST3 can do. VST3 is largely a somewhat improved API to talk to VST's with very little gain to the end user or host developer. It would be way too much work for us to support with no known gains.
It doesn't matter! Cakewalk and SONAR should still support VST3. SONAR should always be pioneer and support all kinds of new technology when it comes along. It doesn't matter if still few use it and from my own experience, more and more 3part manufactures adds VST3 support now. That's why we all use SONAR instead of any other DAW:s, because fast adoption of new technology. First on adding x64bit support, multi core support, best audio quality..etc Be advice: Don't forget that many said the exactly the same in the beginning about "no compelling reason" to add x64bit support either. Now we all use it! Best Regards Freddie
post edited by Freddie H - 2010/07/27 10:41:29
-Highly developed spirits often encounter resistance from mediocre minds. -It really matters!
|
Meffy
Max Output Level: -78 dBFS
- Total Posts : 629
- Joined: 2003/11/22 16:41:23
- Status: offline
RE: Sonar 8 not VST3 compatible?
2010/07/27 10:48:59
(permalink)
Why should Cakewalk support a complete rewrite of its plug-in interface when there are, from practically every account, "no known gains" from doing so? Just so they can put a sticker on the box saying "New! Improved! Now with Miracle Ingredient VST3! Makes your car's audio engine run 20-40% better"? That's not leadership, that's me-too-ism.
VST3 is at present little more than a Steinberg marketing gimmick IMO. It offers practically nothing to the user, and any benefits to programmers are gained only at the cost of huge upheaval -- at present, probably far more must be invested in the so-called "upgrade" than will be returned. At least that's the business and technical decision Cakewalk have made regarding VST3, and I agree with it.
|
keith
Max Output Level: -36.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3882
- Joined: 2003/12/10 09:49:35
- Status: offline
RE: Sonar 8 not VST3 compatible?
2010/07/27 11:05:09
(permalink)
Maybe that jbridge fella should make a VST3 => VST2.4 adapter... then he can have all the fun fixing all of the new VST3 ports of old VST2 plugs from developers who just barely got their VST2 plugs working in 17 different hosts... Oh, never mind, I forgot... there aren't any VST3 ports of old VST2 plugs... 
|
Meffy
Max Output Level: -78 dBFS
- Total Posts : 629
- Joined: 2003/11/22 16:41:23
- Status: offline
RE: Sonar 8 not VST3 compatible?
2010/07/27 12:15:23
(permalink)
Well, 3.1 apparently includes a wrapper. Still doesn't make things more compelling from a host standpoint, but it's a move in the right direction.
|
wintaper
Max Output Level: -81 dBFS
- Total Posts : 464
- Joined: 2007/12/11 22:52:07
- Location: New Jersey
- Status: offline
Re: RE: Sonar 8 not VST3 compatible?
2010/07/27 15:36:30
(permalink)
Whether or not Cakewalk sees any advantage/improvement in VST3 over VST2 is a moot point. Cakewalk doesn't control the VST process - Steinberg does. And the latest version is 3.0 - so Cakewalk is behind. I recently got the Waves Vocal Rider plugin - it is VST3 and the sidechain feature doesn't work in Sonar - it does work in Cubase, which supports the latest version of the VST standard. I agree with what someone said earlier - one less bundled synth - one more supported standard. Sticking your head in the ground isn't going to make VST3 go away. Wow I'm actually agreeing with Freddie 
post edited by wintaper - 2010/07/27 15:38:29
Intel i7 @ 3.60GHz, 12GB DDR3 1600MHz, Win7 / OSX 10.6.6, Sonar 8.53 / Pro Tools 9.0.1, RME RayDAT, UAD2-Quad, Focusrite OctoPre (x4), Euphonix MC Mix, Tascam US2400, Monette Ajna (x2), 15' Macbook Pro
|
Meffy
Max Output Level: -78 dBFS
- Total Posts : 629
- Joined: 2003/11/22 16:41:23
- Status: offline
Re: RE: Sonar 8 not VST3 compatible?
2010/07/27 15:51:27
(permalink)
Maybe, maybe not. I remember an audio salesman telling me something along the lines of "Sticking your head in the ground isn't going to make Quadraphonic Eight-Track Surround Sound* go away." :-} Which isn't an attack against you, just saying the adoption of VST3 isn't an inevitable process. Plenty of proposed "improvements" have fallen flat. The marketplace will decide, of course, not us -- except as each of us buys or doesn't buy. To me, VST3 is a non-issue. I want sound, flexibility, comfort of use, and power. Interface standard? Not concerned unless it makes a real-world difference to me. __________________ * [edit] Yes, I was wearing bell-bottoms and a floral print blouse at the time. =O.o= Guilty. We all dressed that way back then. Some of us.
post edited by Meffy - 2010/07/27 15:53:14
|