The PC plugins fever... a trend?

Sorry if this is a too dumb thread...

Are PC plugins VSTs?

The reason why I am asking this is because they are so dedicated I thought it should be some kind of proprietary thing...

I was watching the propellerheads announcement about RE (rack expansion), wich is a new (and proprietary) technologie wich will let other companies to develop plugins for the Reason plataform,,, One of the companies is SofTube, wich is also making (or made) PC components...

Is that maybe a trend? Will companies like CW going for a more "close than open" architeture? I know there is quite strong standards like VST, AU and Rewire, wich make things work together or in various plataforms... But after watching Propellerheads video I felt something like Apple's Itune's approach, sort of speak... This is not the best comparison but, you know that feeling like, to have an iPhone you have to tolerate iTunes...? You now what i mean?

What you guys think about that?

Peace.

Yes, ProChannel modules are VSTs.

But in order to make them squeeze into the tiny little ProChannel display panel Cakewalk decided to put the graphics assets some place special where other apps that use VSTs can't get to them.

It costs extra... but you don't have to spend as much time looking for where the VST window is... you just press I and squint and you can see that it's all right there.


best regards,
mike

What happens to the PC modules if there is a new X2 version with a totaly different GUI?
As I already have several VST clones of this new PC device I don't jump in.
As having other DAW it makes no sense buying something only for one...

FastBikerBoy

Are PC plugins VSTs?

Yes, but better for my workflow. I'm only a fan of the PC because of the shortcomings of the VST standard.

Yeah, I like them too,probably in almos the same way I'll like RE's...


I don't know, maybe I didn't find a good way to explain my toughts in english...


I know this was a old practice... But I felt like it is growing now with much more intesity than it was a year ago...(also pretty obvious)


CW will not stop with this ProChannel thing (wich, for me, is awesome). What we could expect from X2? I mean, let me say something trying not to be "inelegant".


I think Cubase, for me, is way better than Sonar to mixdown music for record companies because of it's bus structure. I use paralel compression alot, in a VERY complex way and, again for me, Cubase is the one who handles better this kind of routing.


In the other hand, when doing music for advertise I cannot live without Sonar and, specially, PC's modules... It is so fast to work with that I don't even consider the possibilitie to use Cubase for nothing related to this process.

A year ago i was jumping from one to another barely because of my mood... Now, it is defined... Do I got a point here?

Well, maybe I am spending too much time in this forum...(wich is also way better than steinberg's)

Thanks anyway for interacting with me.

Peace. 

VST was an is an excellent standard, and it's proven very robust. What it isn't, though, is some set of inviolable holy orders. I don't see what's wrong with DAW makers building things that work differently. Why should all design decision be constrained by the VST standards?

"Why should all design decision be constrained by the VST standards?"


Good point.

In fact, In my my opinion, it seems really lame to hide a bunch of VSTs in some fancy emperors clothing and act like it was a big deal to cripple them and make them un-universal, if that is a word, just so that they seem different from all the other VSTs out there.


BTW, DX is alive an well... it's used in games like COD Black Ops... and I use it with Sonitus FX in SONAR 8.5 all the time.

:-)

The prochannel is a unique selling proposition for Cakewalk and ties people in. Personally, I don't have a problem with this and think that the Concrete Limiter and now the PC2A are excellent plugs at a decent price that don't use a ton of CPU power. The event of the prochannel has changed the way I work and I find myself using the FX bin less and less these days. 

Look what do you do when you have completed the digital studio, Pro Tools, Cubase, Logic adn Sonar, you come up with **** to fill the digital studio, stuff like effects, VARISPEED and various other **** you would find in a real studio.

Hence the ProChannel, when are you people going to get it!!!

Sorry I am a rotton apple that fell from the tree and cannont sleep.

Ben

The event of the prochannel has changed the way I work and I find myself using the FX bin less and less these days

 
Ditto.  At least for the core FX that PC provides - it's my go-to for EQ, comp and "saturation".  And all I have to do is switch tracks and the interface is in the same place as the last track's FX.   Same location, same size.
 
Sure, the interface may be smaller than some standard VSTs.  But within the context of the specific FX I'm using within the PC, I honestly don't care.  It's not even a tradeoff for me, I simply prefer it. 
 
I hope CW and other third-party vendors keep coming out with new inexpensive (and dongle free :-)) PC modules.
 

daryl1968


I tell you what would be really exciting, with Waves moving to 64 bit and losing the ilok perhaps they are going to develop their plugs for the prochannel? Maybe it's a pipe dream, but you never know :)

It would be more a sort of miracle...

You mean like Waves being 64bit and dongle free?   
    

Almost like...


But doing this they are turning into a more inclusive approach...

First off why are some saying that PC modules are VSTs? They may take some code from the SDK but they are not VSTs from a Steinberg perspective. I'm not sure but wouldn't Steinberg have something to say about it if they were?

It seems to me that in order to be a VST  a plugin has to follow the VST standard.

I see PC as something else. Its own standard.  Further its only available to X1 producer.

If one doesn't buy into the PC idea there is X1 Studio. 

As was stated, the ProChannel modules are VSTs under the hood, Cakewalk has simply wrapped them in a console like emulation GUI to provide the ease of use features that many of us, that like the idea, find a welcome workflow enhancement.  It's not a replacement for VST support, it's an alternative (completely optional) tool.  I can't see any reason why it has to be an either/or proposition as many people are painting it to be.  A DAW is just a DAW, we choose our DAW products not for their similarities in most cases, but for how their features (not related to the core functionality of recording either MIDI or audio) impact our use of the product - I look at ProChannel as a workflow feature that Cakewalk offers to differentiate themselves in a large pack of competing products, nothing more, nothing less.  At least its optional - meaning you don't have to buy into it or even like it - they have a version of their product without it if you have issues with it - the core product is still the core product. 

If you do like the workflow of using them - are you locked into Sonar?  I guess so, but you knew that the moment you bought into it, no one forced anyone down this path.  Is it proprietary?  Yes, but I don't look at it in the same light as VST which is a current standard, ProChannel is more of a Cakewalk only feature - one expects VST support in a fully functional DAW they use these days, that's what a standard is; one does not have to have ProChannel support - it's a something Cakewalk has offered Sonar users as a tool that differentiates them from another DAW.  If it weren't for different features what would make you choose one product over another - essentially a DAW is just a product to capture recordings, it's the features that make you select one over another.  Cakewalk wants you to choose them - so they add things to the mix that they think will make different.  

No one chooses a product for it's sameness - if we did we would all be driving one model of a car, or eating the same meal every day.  

Jind


As was stated, the ProChannel modules are VSTs under the hood, Cakewalk has simply wrapped them in a console like emulation GUI to provide the ease of use features that many of us, that like the idea, find a welcome workflow enhancement.  It's not a replacement for VST support, it's an alternative (completely optional) tool.  I can't see any reason why it has to be an either/or proposition as many people are painting it to be.  A DAW is just a DAW, we choose our DAW products not for their similarities in most cases, but for how their features (not related to the core functionality of recording either MIDI or audio) impact our use of the product - I look at ProChannel as a workflow feature that Cakewalk offers to differentiate themselves in a large pack of competing products, nothing more, nothing less.  At least its optional - meaning you don't have to buy into it or even like it - they have a version of their product without it if you have issues with it - the core product is still the core product. 

If you do like the workflow of using them - are you locked into Sonar?  I guess so, but you knew that the moment you bought into it, no one forced anyone down this path.  Is it proprietary?  Yes, but I don't look at it in the same light as VST which is a current standard, ProChannel is more of a Cakewalk only feature - one expects VST support in a fully functional DAW they use these days, that's what a standard is; one does not have to have ProChannel support - it's a something Cakewalk has offered Sonar users as a tool that differentiates them from another DAW.  If it weren't for different features what would make you choose one product over another - essentially a DAW is just a product to capture recordings, it's the features that make you select one over another.  Cakewalk wants you to choose them - so they add things to the mix that they think will make different.  

No one chooses a product for it's sameness - if we did we would all be driving one model of a car, or eating the same meal every day.  

Agreed... But,lets pretend I am cooking some chicken in my oven and you are making some pasta in your microwaves... Different meals, different metods... But I can use salt on both... s-pice can be used on both... And thats what I imagened would be the future of the DAWs...Like you said, we gor for the tools we like the most... But, for me, the more interaction, the better... 


Then, maybe Reason would be no longer "rewireable" in the future... I would like to Rewire Sonar in Cubase or vice/versa...


Looks like Reason is going for a more close than open structure...Even with this RE's feature... They are going for independence.


Maybe CWs too... And everybody else...

As was stated, the ProChannel modules are VSTs under the hood, Cakewalk has simply wrapped them in a console

So how are they VSTs? What is so VST like about them? And where is this notion that they are VSTs coming from? Using some portion of the code that some VSTs may use doesn't  mean they are in fact VSTs.

To me this is just an assumption. If they are VSTs can they be tested in another VST host? Isn't the essential quality of all VSTs is they work in a VST host.