What caused Cakewalk to think VST3 is a good thing all of a sudden?

From what I recall Noel thought it was hyped up as everything VST3 did could already be accomplished with 2.4 plus extensions. He said they were not against it but that it was not a pressing concern.
 
Maybe one of the Bakers can clarify "why now?" but I bet it was lots of little things- one of which may have been the survey. 

Hyped up = marketing 

I seem to remember them saying they didn't have any plans to implement it, but I may well be wrong! Yeah I'm not saying they're too late or criticizing them in any way (it's a good thing) I was just wondering why the apparent shift in thinking. Perhaps it was something specific that pushed them over the edge? Or maybe the devs have always wanted it, but their boss said no before?! Or maybe they felt they could just sell more copies with VST3.

Anyway, pure useless speculation :-) Unless any bakers want to chime in?

jamescollins
I seem to remember them saying they didn't have any plans to implement it, but I may well be wrong! Yeah I'm not saying they're too late or criticizing them in any way (it's a good thing) I was just wondering why the apparent shift in thinking. Perhaps it was something specific that pushed them over the edge? Or maybe the devs have always wanted it, but their boss said no before?! Or maybe they felt they could just sell more copies with VST3.

Anyway, pure useless speculation :-) Unless any bakers want to chime in?

Yeah it's hard to say.. :)
But really.. With all due respect, we're just their customers.. :) They have no obligations to tell us anything really. Especially if it's just something in development or in their to-do list.
 
Talking about things that aren't official maybe would make us customers really happy and excited.. But it would also give their competitors an insight of what's coming and (if they would have to change their minds about a future feature update) it would be quite embarrassing to have to tell everyone that "..well.. no.. that thing we were telling you all about before.. It won't happen.. sorry". Just think about all the hate this would bring..

For a company that has historically prided itself on "industry firsts", the resistance to VST 3 was kinda wierd. I love the VST3 functionality in, ahem, a competitor because, among other things, parameters & remote control of them is way faster and smoother. Not sure if note expression is a VST3 thing or not....but that's amazing.

Thanks for digging that up Kev - wow, 6 years ago?! OK that makes more sense - I was under the impression those comments were made last year, but it must have been people digging up old dialogue.

Anyway I hope this thread isn't misunderstood - no negative undertones here - I think it's great X3 will have VST3 and look forward to its release. I was simply interested in the apparent shift in thinking, but as Kev pointed out, those comments were made 6 years ago, so this thread is irrelevant.

Thanks - let the circus continue!

some other dev folk disliked they had to make vst3 versions.. that their things didn't utilise in the new standard
 but like it or not , it's the standard...
 
if they didn't , more than probable less VST makers would do vst2 versions of their stuff..
 
same thing happened with the mac and some plugins only working on older systems for a while..
 

I think recollection is unclear.
 
I have followed the entire VST3 discussion, and my recollection is..
 
Noel did state that the majority/all of VST3 functionality exists in VST2.4, just not implemented in most VST, and hence there was not a pressing need for VST3 from a technical perspective . Noel also acknowledged that
a) Providers with VST2.4 and VST3 would not be likely to improve their VST2.4
b) Some providers (of VST instruments and effects) only offer VST3
c) Some providers of hardware (I am looking at you Yamaha) only offer VST3 editors
 
Noel stated that it was omitted from X2 as a) they had enough to do, and b) did not deem it essential and critical to support VST3 at that time. Noel acknowledged the need that a number of users had and indicated that there would likely be a time that Sonar supported VST3. He did not make any statement as to when or how, nor would I expect that, as this is clearly market sensitive material.
 
FYI, there is no "sudden decision" on any significant software development (as this is) and I suspect that CW has been working on this since the spring or therreabouts. Clearly CW would never make any statement as to what features would be offered in subsequent releases until such time is ripe. The time is now ripe.
 
I have no issues with how CW has handled the VST3 situation.. there was rampant debate in the winter in the forums, and the next major release has VST3... what could be a better example of listening to your users?
 
my apologies to Noel if I have incorrectly stated his position, I am, after all, getting older so the memory is the umm fade thing.. what was that?
 
regards, Ian
 

jamescollins
Not a smart-arse question, genuinely interested to know. It seems like just months ago that Cake staff were on here quite emphatically saying VST3 is unnecessary, hyped up and quite useless (of course those weren't their words, but can't be bothered looking for the original threads) and that they had no plans to implement it in the future - what caused the U-turn?

Isn't it just that Studio One has has VST3 and Melodyne ARA and they are a strong competitor.
 
What I read from Noel was a complete rework of routing that also improves some stuff for VST2.x.
 
And VST3 ability to organize automation parameters in groups will help significantly when having a number of plugins and you are about to select what to automate. Now I've had examples that take up more than one monitor with listed parameters.
 
If they also remove Midi FX and replace with VST midi would be nice. Not many bothered to make x64 midi fx. So the ability to handle multiple midi ports on plugins could mean this has improved. Maybe midi support on fx as well - would be swell. Having some plugins like Leslie that want that.
 
And most of all - X3 seems to take Sonar to frontline again and having the initiative.
 
Hope this mean full support for Waves Tune - which never was supported officially anyway. I'm staying with Sonar Studio - and I assume ARA is not part of that, like Studio One did make it a trial only on their non-top version.

lfm
Isn't it just that Studio One has has VST3 and Melodyne ARA and they are a strong competitor.
 
What I read from Noel was a complete rework of routing that also improves some stuff for VST2.x.
 
And VST3 ability to organize automation parameters in groups will help significantly when having a number of plugins and you are about to select what to automate. Now I've had examples that take up more than one monitor with listed parameters.
 
If they also remove Midi FX and replace with VST midi would be nice. Not many bothered to make x64 midi fx. So the ability to handle multiple midi ports on plugins could mean this has improved. Maybe midi support on fx as well - would be swell. Having some plugins like Leslie that want that.
 
And most of all - X3 seems to take Sonar to frontline again and having the initiative.
 
Hope this mean full support for Waves Tune - which never was supported officially anyway. I'm staying with Sonar Studio - and I assume ARA is not part of that, like Studio One did make it a trial only on their non-top version.

In S1 only the VST version of Melodyne will work with ARA.  I'm not sure that it's a technical requirement, but I suppose it is the precedent at this point.  
 
Besides, there are the other benefits of VST3, like parameter categorization (whatever that will look like), some of which I hope to see in the future.   I think the only VST3 plugins I have are Melodyne Editor and Melda, but I'll take whatever advantages there are.

Didn't Steinberg just say they were going to stop developing/supporting their VST2 application? Like the developers won't be able to use that program to create plugs? I don't quite understand all that stuff. However the newer program for VST3 is still capable of creating VST2.
 
The Bakers probably realized that not addressing this was gonna tarnish the image of a hyper modern DAW. Also people have been wailing about it for some time now so it keeps a few people happy.
 

scook
Why did they add any new features to X3?

It really does seem like a no brainer for the programmers to include it if they had the time. I know very little about VST3 but if that's where things are heading I see no reason to leave it out and every reason to put it in. That's the one thing about Sonar, it really is hyper modern for what it is (you could say FL and Ableton are way more modern but they aren't really for actually RECORDING audio). For the most part Cake doesn't seem to be like a company that "keeps up with the Jones'". They ARE the Jones'.

stevec

briandhughes
I know in Studio One you have to install the VST3 version for the ARA Melodyne to work.

I'd imagine this is a big part of it, since it would appear ARA was part of the X3 plan for some time (Noel's comments indicate it was a big task).  And let's not forget the move from Roland to Gibson and the removal of VVocal from X3.   Add that to the limitations when using Waves VST3 plugins and more manufacturers offering VST3 versions, and it's like a software alignment of the stars.

That sounds exactly right to me.  I don't believe there is such a thing as ARA on VST2.  You don't code ARA support just for the fun of it when there are so many other things that people are asking for.  But Melodyne is truly a breakthrough product IMHO -- to important to be ignored.  It is so useful that people are willing to put up with a really kludgy connection as a VST2.  It looks like ARA will be a huge leap in integration (and hopefully stability) for the SONAR / Melodyne combination.
 
Moreover, some other VSTs can benefit by evolving to ARA and probably will in the next 18 months, so this was the right time to make that a priority.