Cake didn't NEED a new version of Sonar...

Yet...here it is...

The old one was just fine...I don't NEED X2...but I sure want it...
because it has new features, better implementation, more efficient...

Ringing any bells?

I've never been good at sugar coating the truth...

keith

rabeach

cclarry


Do you HONESTLY think that the guys at Steinberg, the largest Sequencer Company out there, just arbitrarily said...hey...let's screw everyone up and write a new standard?

REALLY?

Yea it happens all the time. Do you believe that Steinberg and Steinberg alone understands the vst3 specification That any competent software engineer can’t see that it was indeed a political social economic move on the part of Steinberg and there is some passive resistance throughout the industry to this less than stellar development on the part of Steinberg.
 
So called industry standards fall by the wayside all the time. VST is past due. :-)

cclarry, you need to do some more reading and a lot less pronouncing. Steinberg created something that is entirely incompatible with the previous version of the API. Ask yourself: why would Steinberg knowingly create something entirely incompatible with VST2.4? For the "benefit" of everybody? Then ask yourself: why would Waves and UAD choose VST3-only when the entire industry is not VST3-only? Answer: because supporting two incompatible code paths is alot more work than supporting one code path. So... the examples that everypone uses as the archetype gives you the insight to the underlying problem -- support both VST2.4 and VST3 is a big effort and a big investment for host and plug developers. That's a mess that Steinberg knowingly created, for their own benefit, BTW.

Every NEW thing has a curve....
From my earlier post..

This is the same way 8 Tracks replaced Records, Cassettes replaced 8 Tracks, CD's replaced Cassettes,...and so on and so on. Are THEY still out there? Yes. Are they still usable? Yes. Does anyone? Ummm...not so much.

Old things fade....new things arrive...it's the way....of everything...not just plugins...
 
...use your feelings Luke...you know this to be true...

It AIN'T GOIN' AWAY....

As my favorite Band RUSH says...."Conform or be cast out"

Cake resisited VST.....didn't do any good...
Cake resisited VST 2 .....didn't do any good..
Cake resisted VST3.....do you see pattern here?
 
Steinberg Cubase/Nuendo is the largest installed DAW base in the world...not a myth, a fact...
 
Just as Microsoft Windows is the largest installed operating system in the world...
 
When they say...this is how it is.....THIS IS HOW IT IS....resist all you want..
it's not gonna do any good...if you want it to work... you better listen..

You people just aren't hearing it....it's not going away....try as hard as you want...
resist all you want....do what you want....

As Agent Smith said...."It is INEVITABLE"

We have a close relationship with plugin vendors many of whom are development partners with us. So we're generally aware of their needs and future plans and do our best to accommodate them. VST3 in itself is not an end user feature and this is where the confusion lies - its was intended to facilitate development of plugins for the latest version of Cubase at the time which introduced some new features. Despite the VST name, VST3 has little to do with the last version and is a completely different API which requires a full rewrite of the plugin framework in every DAW (for gains that are still questionable, since they could all have been achieved in VST2.4 with extensions - ask any VST developer, don't take my word for it).


>>The  *only*  VST 3  feature I  *would* like to see is  VST EFX  using  0  CPU cycles when not in use - ie:  if you have reverb on a
>> drum track and there are no drums in say the middle 8, then the VST Reverb ceases using CPU cycles during those 8 bars.  >>I'm wondering - would you know Jim if this VST 3 feature could actually be inplemented in VST 2.X  ? 


It is a cool feature though hardly revolutionary by any means - SONAR already does exactly this with DirectX plugins via an interface called IDeferZeroFill (from our DX SDK published in '98 or so). Additionally SONAR in general (unlike some other hosts) does not stream audio to plugins on tracks unless the track is active. i.e. you can have 100 tracks with plugins patched into them and it will consume zero dsp resources until you press play or connect a stream to the track via input monitoring or a softsynth. 
Technically speaking all that would have been required to do this feature in VST2.4 is a different flavor of the processXXXReplacing call. This could easily be done via an "effVendorSpecific" opcode to add a custom process method that is silent buffer aware. If you are interested in reading the technical details on this download the VST SDK and look at the documentation. Here is a 3'rd party link to the effVendorspecific opcode. So yes this can definitely be done in VST2.4 as well.  

 
To clarify again. We are not against doing VST3 support and as a host we try and support compatible formats as much as we can. As much as a few seem to be implying this to be some sort of conspiracy theory it simply isn't - its an economics one and one that prefers looking out for our customers backs first! The development costs of this compared to other way more beneficial end user features and stability fixes have been prohibitive until now. As I said development of this is on the table and we will do it at an appropriate time. Lets not engage in pointless debates beyond the facts here that benefit nobody, Lets keep this thread professional please.

This whole discussion is really quite laughable... Bottom line is this... Cake is going to take a beating...mark my words..from the Industry for not including it. On all sides. The Publication reviews are going to rip X2 and Cake on it. It's a fact.

 
Opinion posted as fact... expressed with upper-case ranting emotion.
Yeah, that qualifies as comedy. 
 
CM as a basis for judging "Pro standards"???
Mention that to your favorite Nashville player/engineer/producer.
That'll draw a deep belly-laugh.  
 
Businesses don't make significant decisions based on emotion... or recent shifts/changes in the market.
Decisions are based solely on a cost (development) vs. benefit (profit) basis.
Calm/logic would suggest that Cakewalk has done market research... and that they've got a solid idea on the top priorities for the largest percentage of their end-user base.  Obviously VST3 was not found to be a top-priority.  In plain english, adding VST3 support wasn't worth the development cost (at the time the decision was weighed). 
 
As has been mentioned, there are very few plugins at this time that are VST3 only.  That translates to a small percentage of the market... which translates to "not much profit".
 
"Industry standards" come and go (some much quicker than others).  The "Industry Standard" DAW (and you know which one it is) doesn't support VST plugins at all.  In fact, it has many weak points... yet it still exists.

• M-LAN?  
• Beta
• SA-CD
• RTAS
• TDM
• DirectX
• ADAT
• DAT
• 2" Tape
• 16-Bit resolution

If/when it affects a significant portion of the Sonar end-user base, I have no doubt that the Bakers will implement VST3 support.  Until that time, I guess the arm-chair-quarterbacks will preach impending doom. 
 

• Native Instrument's Komplete
• Ivory-II
• Play
• Spectrasonics
• Lexicon PCM
• T-Racks 3 Deluxe
• Most all of the Waves bundles/plugins
• UAD-2
• FabFilter

All work fine in Sonar X1

SToons

keith
Then ask yourself: why would Waves and UAD choose VST3-only when the entire industry is not VST3-only? Answer: because supporting two incompatible code paths is alot more work than supporting one code path.
 

And a rather obvious example that plugin manufacturers know who is forking out the bills for the high-end plugins and what DAWs they use.

 
So... the examples that everypone uses as the archetype gives you the insight to the underlying problem -- support both VST2.4 and VST3 is a big effort and a big investment for host and plug developers. That's a mess that Steinberg knowingly created, for their own benefit, BTW.

 
Sorry but I don't buy it. Waves produces for the TDM, AU, RTAS, AudioSuite and VST3 formats. That's FIVE formats if you care to count. Huge company compared to many other plugin makers. At the moment the problem is Cakewalk does not officialy support any of these formats. There was a time when Waves released DX versions of plugins. One of the main programs to rely on that protocol was Sonar although others also benefitted. Many other products used VST instead (Beta vs VHS?). After DX appeared to be going by the wayside Cakewalk "semi-embraced" the VST format, initially thru third party wrappers which were then internally incorporated, however have subsequently not appeared to have made any effort to completely adopt ANY format. Cakewalk has to make a decision one way or the other or be potentially left in the dust as far as major plugin manufacturers go.
 
The fact is, Sonar has not fully supported Waves plugins for some years now. Years. Not months. And with all current indications that is not soon to change, there is no current indication Cakewalk intends to address this issue at all. This is not a minor issue for many of us. I was seriously hoping this would be addressed in X2.
 
Furthermore, Cakewalk's current approach "seems" to be to develop proprietary plugins which are useless in any other program. So not only can I not fully use Waves in Sonar, but many products I might purchase from Cakewalk cannot be used in any other program. Yes, there are other programs that function similiarly (not many!) but I can't say I  think it's a good business decision. It's not one I care to back.
 
Again I don't care if this is an issue of VST3, VST2.4 or The Willys. I have no reason to doubt Noel and clearly other plugins have adapted to deal audio routing issues to allow things like Sidechaining (I could potenntially live without the Surround Tools and mix in another program but it's still a hastle). However, if Waves is not using resources to adapt their plugins to work in Sonar's framework that is a cause of concern to me. And if Cakewalk is depending on all plugin manufacturers to code specifically to adapt to Sonar's framework, that is also a problem. It still does not look good in the short term.

With each one of your posts I wonder even more as to why you've chosen SONAR as your platform of choice. Why do you even entertain using it when it comes from such an out-of-touch company? Especially when your vast experience showed you nothing but Cubase.
 
I'm cornfused.

Hmm... I wonder.. I have Padshop pro and Retrologue from Steinberg (included in Cubase), and as far as I know they are VST3. Still - they seem to work without a hitch in Sonar X1 pro expanded. In fact - I have no single plug-in that does not work with Sonar. I think I will not have any problem waiting until Cakewalk implements VST3 in the future. Waiting won't kill me. I can work full speed (and I am sure I can with X2 too) and that's what counts...

@simpleman: As far as I know using the VST3 in a more Cubase manner (I assume you mean note articulation), means a complete rewrite of the Sonar piano roll view. Not just a simple "adaption" to VST 3 parameters. That's a lot of work, and will take a lot of time (especially when you consider MIDI is connected to a lot of other things in Sonar too).

This is why Waves has stated that, in the next Major Release VST 2.4 will
not be supported.

New topic please...this ones a dead horse...
History repeats itself...

Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk
]

We have a close relationship with plugin vendors many of whom are development partners with us. So we're generally aware of their needs and future plans and do our best to accommodate them....


To clarify again. We are not against doing VST3 support and as a host we try and support compatible formats as much as we can. 
 
 
As I said development of this is on the table and we will do it at an appropriate time.

 
Good and thanks for that clarification!

pdlstl

With each one of your posts I wonder even more as to why you've chosen SONAR as your platform of choice. Why do you even entertain using it when it comes from such an out-of-touch company? Especially when your vast experience showed you nothing but Cubase.
 
I'm cornfused.

See post #24.
 
I'm cornfused too...
 
I have used cakewalk products for years and always loved them. Still do. Generally prefer the workflow than in any other program. Then came X1 and I refused to buy in, partly because I need a new system to really benefit, and also due to the "problems" with X1 and the fact it required learning a new workflow after all these years of use with different hot-keys, screen layouts etc. - those of my peers who did purchase X1 ended up using 8.5.3 thru till the d-patch came out. After I puchased Sonar 8.5.3 I purchased the Waves Complete collection ver 7. Now as my needs progress in terms of production capabilities I find myself in need of sidechaining and surround capablities more frequently.
 
As I have explained in previous posts, I find myself in the position of having to make the choice, now after all these years, of moving on or sticking with Sonar. Until now it has suited my needs and moved in a mutual direction. If I ultimately have to learn a whole new workflow and also look towards the future it may be in my best interests to move on to some other DAW which will allow me to use tools I already have more efficiently. This is my conundrum, plain and simple.
 
Cons of moving on obviously require more immediate expense (new software vs upgrade cost), learning new software (even though X1 is different it still has many similiarities to previous versions.
 
None of this is to attack Cakewalk, it's about personal needs and self-preservation. I can/will never be a "fanboi" of any software to the point it excludes the reality of how these choices affect me professionally.

I hope that a free update will come later of X2 year 2013 that address VST3 issue...

I had to check in and see for myself how a VST3 topic could possibly extend to seven pages. And now that I've read the whole thing through, I still don't know.

I have never seen so much badly-understood information become the basis for evangelical breast-beating, so much opinion and speculation stated as fact, and so many marks so widely missed. Not on this forum, anyhow. 

Those of you who have neither written nor worked from an interface spec and don't know what one is, please shut the fck up. You are killing the SNR here.

pdlstl


Scott -

From my perspective...I've made every upgrade beginning at CWPA 8. And for the last eight years (part-time for the five years prior to that) I have made my living with Cakewalk products. For me, I buy products (not just software) after researching then deciding what features will work for me and which won't. If there are more negative features than positive, I pass. If I go ahead with the purchase, I embrace those features that work and stay away from those that don't. I have been very successful using this strategy.

Now, I'm assuming you haven't purchased X2 yet. I assume this because, as a professional, I know you've done your homework. If you see that the lack of VST3 as a deal breaker for you, what choice do you have but to move to another platform? I totally understand the expense and time but if the product is going to stop you in your tracks, I don't see that you have any other choice. The only pitfall here, no DAW is ever going to do 100% exactly what every person is going to need.

I have seen these same exact threads occur year after year, it's just different issues. And for the most part, those mostly greatly stressed out over the non-implementaion de jour are still around when the next version rolls around.

All in all, X2 am what it am. The back and forth debate regarding the inclusion or lack of VST3 is a moot point. It's not in X2 and won't be at this time. Feel free to submit Feature Requests as some of us have done for two years for something as seemingly simple as color customization.

So good luck whichever direction you decide to pursue.

And FWIW, I do understand I won't change your mind.

Nothing new, no revelations here but it is a refreshing thing to see you seem to "get me" now.
 
Hopefully Bitflipper and others realize that I'm not pushing for VST3 (although it is one more straw on the camel's back) as I realize that would be a monumental task to implement at the moment and the features I specifically seek could likely be achieved without VST3 implementation.  I have no interest in confusing the issue and despite how some perceive this thread I've learned a few things. However, I am disappointed to see that Sonar still does not appear to have interest in supporting Waves plugins to their full capacity.
 
In the short term it's a toss up between doing the majority of my work in Sonar and using Audition when necessary or seeking a new DAW that would better allow me to largely work in a single program without disruption. Long term is obviously impossible to predict, we can only watch for "signs"...either way is not ideal nor is it an easy decision.
 
Now if someone cares to explain to me the real "issue" of Waves not being fully compliant with Sonar, as this is not the case in other major DAWs, I'm all ears. I can only suspect I that I will continue to hear speculative answers and those that shed little light on the subject, sadly from Cakewalk representatives as well.

backwoods


Hi SToons,

I hope your Mother's pacemaker procedure went well.

So far so good.

Someone posted the waves compatibility map and it showed Waves is fully compliant with not very many DAWs at all. 

No, just the major ones.

You are going on a massive crusade because you bought a Waves Bundle, as is cclarry.  You are repeatedly pushing your backward opinion in the face of all evidence.

What backward opinion? That Sonar does not fully support Waves. Yeah, real backwards. Completely accurate.
 
What backward opinion? What evidence have I ignored? Facts please. And quotes. And make sure you read all my posts carefully as I have no trouble shoving the foot all the way in once you put it there.

backwoods


There are very few professional compressors that will sidechain in Sonar.  incorrect

Why should they? Why should other companies bust their butts and spend serious money to make plugins "Sonar compatable" when they can instead code for existing formats such as VST3 which is supported by:  FL Studio  Cubase  Nuendo  Adobe Audition  Presonus Studio One 2  Sony Acid   acid does not support vst3

That's the best you can do? Wow, the significance of those errors in absolutely astounding...especially considering I offered no arguement otherwise in our subsequent "discussions" on compressors and had figured we were past that. I erroneously assumed you meant some issue that was relevant. My bad.