For some reason I thought VST3 format was backwards compatible with VST2? So you can't run a VST3 plugin in Sonar? If things are moving in this direction, it would be nice for Cakewalk to support VST3.

 
I don't know about all VST3 plugins, but I think the problem is that there are "features" of the plug in that will not work.
 
For instance - "Waves Vocal Rider". It is VST3, and will open in Sonar, and even work. But the side-chaining feature of the plug in (that makes it special) is based on the VST3 spec, and it will not work in Sonar. So you end up with a half-funtioning plugin.

I don't know why it is so hard to just implement it in SONAR X1? What's wrong with OPTIONS?
I mean if you don't like it use VST2. For us that want to use VST3 aswell let us have the OPTION to use it...
Its out there already and its working....

mudgel


Presonnus Studio One scans both VST2.4 and 3 plugins.

so do Cubase too...there are no problems with VST3 working together with other VST2.4 or even older VST backward...so I don't now what's the problem is? Just add support for it in SONAR. I mean 64 bit bit bridge technology are 1000 times more complicated then adding VST 3 support in SONAR X1. Takes a couple of lines of codes in SONAR X1 and then add the FREE VST3 Pack from Steinberg and then you are done...  

ok dreamkeeper - your second post brings up some good points i did not know about.  well, it's too bad developers are not making the most out of vst2.   but it seems the newer plugs are getting better.   (not like hardware where the best of today is often at best as good as the old stuff - mabye there's a few examples of hardware that is new and that is better today -like mabye that bax eq thing - but those are rare and usually the exception)

anyway, just saying that the new plugs are probably getting better quick, and it's probably best for us to be able to use them, even tho alot of it is marketing bs no doubt.  i donno, if it is a difficult implementation then mabye it can wait till they are able to do it right.  there's always hardware comps and gates for sidechain tricks if you get sick of the sonitis stuff or the v64 - the external insert is working nicely now so there's that.  I'd actually really like to see a few bugs taken out of the step sequencer b4 anything else.. 

A long time ago in a land far away there was a company called IBM.  IBM being the big and nasty competitor that it was thought that they would own the O/S that would run on the x86 platform.  So they hired a little company that had all but taken over the PC world with its version of DOS to do its development for them.  Well, not all of its development just the messaging architecture and multi-threading library.  The little company was known as Microsoft or MS for short.  In IBM’s infinite wisdom MS could not possibly compete against them they were to small and didn’t have the money to play in the real game.  Well sneaky MS went off and developed a cheap application to run on top of DOS that looked remarkably familiar from an architecture point of view.  They called is Windows 98.  IBM tried to rally its customer base and destroy little MS with marketing and more marketing and customer reviews and customer support, I mean from a ‘Crossing the Chasm’ perspective they had all of the adopters endorsing there O/S and Token Ring network and the whole package. 
In the mean time behind closed doors IBM chose to go to market late with their O/S 2 platform and figure out how to make Windows 98 run in a window within the O/S, along with trying to support Ethernet, Banyan Vines and Novell Netware (NETBIOS).  IBM chose to go to market late in order to support an archaic architecture charging customers to support their printers and peripheral equipment.  Meanwhile little MS was developing the future (perceived) easier API’s, Industry RPC standards (Microsoft Industry Standard), standard developer’s kits (very painful, but something is better than nothing) and a method in which to debug (sorta) the code.  All the stuff was um, errr free, yea that’s the ticket but you had to give them you left nut to get the stuff.
The key to pay attention to is that MS owned the architecture, could explain it and could do whatever it wanted to, making it very painful for the O/S 2 Big Blue think tank to stay ahead of them once it was in place.  In fact MS in it’s infinite wisdom started to negotiate with all the other vendors putting a little clause in every contract that said unless the technology that you are developing becomes a part of their application (now a full blown O/s) the royalties received would continue to go to the owner of the invention.
I am sorry for the diatribe here.  I am a big Cakewalk/SONAR/X1 fan and had the first version on the 3.5 inch floppy disk drive back in the day, however, generally speaking the company that owns the standard, owns the development kit, owns the tools in which to develop the code is usually in charge of the direction that the industry or technology takes.  So to my point it really disturbs me to see that Yamah/Steinburg/Cubase basically own the VST road map rather than an open standards body but to not pay attention to them is folly and arrogant at best.  Is it fair? Nope, will we the consumers suffer because of it? Yes I believe we will.  But the model is already in place and unless something new comes along that is widely accepted by a large population of vendors supplying VST plug-ins both the consumer of DAW platforms and DAW platform consumers of VST technologies (Everyone Except Steinberg) are basically passengers in this roller coaster ride.
I think on the heels of a Major release such as X1 it is impossible for the development team to even strategize how to adopt the VST3.5 let alone the VST3 technology into its platform.  Architecturally I believe they have changed fundamentally how the underlying code base is structured and once the application itself is solid they can more easily leverage other technologies.  However, a new product release always has to go through the sort of turmoil we are experiencing with X1.  This is, of course, just my opinion and I fully reserve the right to put my own foot in my mouth at times.

VST3 its important but more important to me its support for ASIO Direct Monitoring, and I been waiting a long time and cakewalk do nothing...

cyphersuit


My favorite company (vengeance) are going VST3 now. Please add VST3 Support in X1C

+ 100000000000000000000000 please!!!
 
 
The only thing that's bad in SONAR is that it doesn't support VST3 yet? Cakewalk that often are first with all new Technologies are last with VST3? 

dreamkeeper


From now on I'll consider everyone demanding VST3

- a troll
- a Steinberg shill
- an idiot who doesn't know what they're talking about.

Pick at least one...

Well I just bought Cubase after many years of being Sonar exclusive, in part because of VST3 support (the other main thing being no EUCON support in 64 bit).  Which category do I fit in?

dreamkeeper


From now on I'll consider everyone demanding VST3

- a troll
- a Steinberg shill
- an idiot who doesn't know what they're talking about.

Pick at least one...

VST3 is a legitimate feature request. Please refrain from referring to those who want it as idiots or shills. Be cool. Cool?

SP

Well - I do not say VST3 is not a legitimate request. Not at all...

I do, however, see some small difficulties here. I really don't know ho much developers Cakewalk has, but I think it is safe to assume they do not have (and cannot afford), the hundreds (maybe even thousands) of developers a massive company like Microsoft has. I think is is really safe to assume the number is well below the hundred, or fifty (or even twenty?)...

I do think a big chunk of work at this moment is devoted to nail the bugs in X1, including the nice extra's coming together with X1c. Also - a big part is devoted to prepare the next version of X1 (there has money to be made to pay those same developers). So - a lot of work is done at this time by a (assuming) not too big crowd. Implementing VST 3 requires a complete rewrite of at least the interface (not the graphical interface, but the software interface). As this is connected to a LOT of parts in the program it is a huge task. The question is - does Cakewalk has the manpower, time and money (if they have to hire additional developers) to do a full implementation of VST3, while at the same time hunting bugs and preparing the next big version?  This is a question I cannot answer...

Do I think X1 will get VST3 in the long term? I think so..
Do I think X1 will get VST3 in a very short term? I have my doubts..

Milamber - I think you need to get the facts about IBM/Microsoft story right, before you start using it in public.
 
1 - IBM hired Microsoft to make IBM Dos and made the mistake not to make sure to get the exclusive rights to it hence the MS Dos that was always a version ahead of IBM dos.
 
2 -  As far as I remember, the first Windows I ever tried was version 1.1 which was extremely slow, and the first decent working windows was not until version 3, and when version 3.1 with network fuctions built in came to market it became a success.
 
3 - IBM and Microsoft then agreed to work on a new operating system together, but a long the way IBM wanted to go one way and MS another, so they ended the partnership and the result was IBM's OS2 and Microsoft's Windows NT.
 
You will have to dig up the details if you want them
 
Sorry for interrupting the normal program carry on  
 

For someone such as myself. I could care less about opinions on if VST3 is relevant or not. Everyone is different and we are all in different situations musically and production wise. For me, an avid Cakewalk user since Master Tracks Pro. Someone who has every version except X1. I would very much like to use my Motif Rack XS editor in an environment I am familiar with.

I keep asking myself this.......why should I have to learn and pay for another DAW (Cubase, Pre Sonus Studio One or FL Studio 10) just to use my Motif XS? Yeah I know Steinberg messed this up, but as I look on the horizon, this request will only increase in demand. This is the only reason I havent updated to X1 and probably wont. Agree or not

Im just being real....as I keep my fingers crossed

i just want to give my +1 for a VST3 feature.

Just 2 reasons for me. Fabfilter plug-ins and VE Pro.

Seth Perlstein [Cakewalk
]


My comment was simply to let some folks posting in this thread know that it is in fact OK to request such a feature and to keep things civil.

SP

Seth Perlstein - Born with a peacepipe in his hand.

was not meant in any way as a hint about if and/ or when VST3 might make it into SONAR. Right now I have no knowledge of our plans for VST3, or if we even have plans for VST3. And that's not to say we do or don't either way.

 
Yes, I see.  But can you tell us what your definition of "is" is?