What's VST3 and do I need it?

Ahh VST3...Roland likes to make users think it´s "unnecessary" ;-) .

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=steinberg+vst+3

I assume Cakewalk Sonar x1 is developed in some new code invironment where coders can sit home review the teamcode and make changes and suggestions.

This is great. So first the old code needs to be imported and checked by the team.

I assume this is now done.

VST3 would have brought many new variables to the table. In the past cakewalk developers have commented on the VST2 standard and the latere VST2.4 standard as being a great effort of Steinberg, but not too well documented, meaning loads of different ways of using the standard by many VST manufacturers. Wich lead to many incompatabilities.

Right now the biggest userbase of Sonar is working in stereo. So there is not yet a true need to implement VST3. And by next year most troubles will be known to the development team. Meaning better implementation and performance.

I'm happy with Sonar at the moment (7). And will upgrade soon. I have been following the improvements on DAW's now for some years and if above is true, it only makes sense.

bitflipper


VST3 has been slow to be adopted. Plugin developers don't want to invest the effort because of limited demand, the fact that creating a VST3 version of a plugin requires a substantial rewrite, and that VST3 offers virtually no new functionality that would help them enhance their products. In short, it's a lot of work for almost zero payback.

So why does VST3 even exist, if it's not a step forward? Steinberg's arrogance, mostly. Their original VST spec filled a void and quickly became a standard. It wasn't nearly as versatile or powerful as other standards but it was platform-agnostic and that was the real need it fulfilled. Thanks to VST, plugin developers could write for a larger market and we all benefited from low-cost software. This success made Steinberg think that they ruled the DAW world and whatever they offered up everyone would follow. Such has not been the case for VST3.

The fact is we aren't missing out on anything. VST2.4 can do anything VST3 can do. The only VST3-only products out there are from Steinberg and Yamaha (a big mistake on Yamaha's part, IMO). If they were really out to improve the standard, Steinberg should have created VST2.5 and maintained backward compatibility, as they have done in the past. That's what you do when you're in charge of a real "standard".

But they are flexing their muscle as the marketplace leader, especially now that they are under the wing of the behemoth that is Yamaha. They put support for VST3 into Cubase before the specification was even released, assuring that only they had it. At that moment VST3 ceased to be a standard and became a proprietary technology. It's no wonder the rest of the audio software industry took offense and collectively decided not to play Steinberg's game.

Microsoft plays a similar game with developers, arbitrarily changing the rules to suit their own obscure agenda. There is an old joke among programmers: Q) How many Microsoft engineers does it take to change a lightbulb? A) None. They just change the standard to "dark". Steinberg wants to be (or already imagines itself to be) the Microsoft of audio software.

+1
 
And for these reasons everyone should stay away from VST3. I am.
 
You don't need it. Just install the regular version of the VST plugin.

You fellas saying nobody needs VST3 may want to re-read some of the stuff available on it, several links of which appear in this very thread, only this time with a little bit more open-mindedness. 

Note Expression by itself is huge, and makes VST3 worth it just for that feature alone.  But there are other features, too.

I'm not saying that VST3 should be a high priority at this point in time, but I do believe that it would be a bad decision for any DAW or VST maker to completely ignore it, and would be a very very bad decision to publicly say that it's unimportant technology.  That's insulting to those potential customers of yours who think it is important to THEIR WORK.

I knew that AOL's downfall was nigh when their CEO or CTO made public statements that AOL users didn't care about performance enhancements, video-on-demand, or increased bandwidth.  How insulting!  And it turned out I was right, it has been downhill ever since.

Can you imagine Steve Jobs saying stupid stuff like that?  "Our users don't care about improved response time in our computers, phones, and iPads".  Or "Our users will never do video-calls or chat, so why bother with two cameras?"  Or "Seriously, a THINNER iPad?  Our customers don't want or need thinner, lighter devices."

It's ludicrous to think in those terms.  I am one of those folks looking for my DAW maker(s) to keep up with technology. 

The first one to go 64-bit should not be the last one to adopt VST3.

And in the meantime will not (I hope) be the most vocal one saying that the new technology doesn't matter and the users don't care.  Not even if some people on this forum say the new technology doesn't matter and the users don't care!

Other factors to think about:  As I understand it, the SDK is free and there are no royalties.  If I'm correct about that, then the biggest cost item is the development cost necessary to bring your DAW and/or VST code to that level.  It's true; that can be expensive.  But it can also be implemented "over time" as new versions are developed.

Positively Charged


You fellas saying nobody needs VST3 may want to re-read some of the stuff available on it, several links of which appear in this very thread, only this time with a little bit more open-mindedness. 

Note Expression by itself is huge, and makes VST3 worth it just for that feature alone.  But there are other features, too.

Note Expression is VST3.5 not VST3. I think comments above refer to VST3, which didn't really offer anything compelling beyond VST2.4.

AFAIK, so far 3.5 is nothing more than an SDK (released just last month), with no actual products available yet. But it looks to me like it has some more compelling stuff than 3 did, so if 3rd party developers pursue it, I hope Cakewalk is taking a close look at it.

Yeh, "note expression" (Drew is correct: it's not part of the original VST3 spec) is often touted as the Next Big Thing. Well, maybe.

Let's start with looking at what "note expression" means. Basically, it is a way to send a CC event that only applies to a specific note or range of notes.

Quick: when was the last time you were stumped in your MIDI composition for lack of such a feature?

Well, I actually have. An example is when you're faking a guitar on a synth and you want to bend one string independently from another, something very basic to making a realistic faux-guitar. So despite my own dismissal of VST3 in general, this is one feature I could potentially use.

But here's the catch: it's not enough to support this new class of MIDI CC events in the DAW, that's only part of the solution. First of all, the synth has to recognize the note expression syntax as well. No synths do, either hardware or software, other than a couple that are bundled with Cubase.

And even then, there are no MIDI keyboard controllers that can send such data, so the feature is restricted to those who compose entirely in the PRV. Think about if you were designing a MIDI controller that supported it, how exactly would the user interaction be managed? Polyphonic Aftertouch? Don't need VST3.5 for that.

(Some synths can do this trick, though, without benefit of VST3.5. Most of the higher-end guitar sample libraries can do it, just by other means (e.g. clever Kontakt scripting). One might make a case that deciding which notes to bend might better be handled by the synth anyway, not the DAW host.)

At the end of the day, note expression is a tool for orchestral composers who compose in the PRV. Nice for them, but I'd rather see the orchestral sample player vendors come up with a keyswitch scheme, which could work just as well. Either way, all you owners of high-end orchestral libraries are going to have to re-purchase your packages. (That, or keep on doing what you've always done: record each instrument separately!)

Bear in mind that I'm no expert on VST3.x so maybe there are benefits I'm overlooking. I'll keep looking and let you know when I find some.

You didn't "dis" the standard, you just pointed out its limited benefits