Sonar is NOT Cubase's biggest competitor...NOT EVEN CLOSE...CUBASE - WORLD WIDE is the LARGEST INSTALLED DAW in the WORLD....

 
Can you reveal the source of these statistics?  
 

stevec


In all fairness, cclarry did say that he doesn't personally need VST3, but does see the need for it when looking at the big picture.   And in that context I think it makes sense.   However, VST3 is just one aspect of the big picture.
 

Those features may be VERY important to some...great...no problem.

 
Maybe it's just me, but I really do see the use of those features I listed as being way more widespread than VST3 plugins.  IOW, I look at VST3 as the "some" and those other features as the "many".   That was really my only point - that CW's decision to spend their time and effort on features like those instead of VST3 was a good one.     Agree to disagree and all that.   

That is my point entirely...

We tend to diminish the wants and needs of others, in favor of our own PERSONAL wants and needs...
and I don't do that...I try to look at the big picture...see ahead...and around...and behind...360 so to speak.

It's good that Cake uses this forum as a sounding board. But, they need to use other sources as well, as NOT ALL
of their users are on this forum...so they need to keep their eye on what's happening, and has been happening, in the industry as a whole.

Try sending out a survey to ALL your registered users and see what results you get...I guarantee there will
be a HUGE difference in what ends up where on that list.

I'd love to see Sonar overtake Pro Junk and Cubase in all these Studios...and be number one on ALL the surveys..
but in order to do that you've got to not only meet, but exceed the standards, and be the first on the block to do it,
AND then add even more to SET standards ( Pro Channel ) .  Go above and beyond. Not just comply.  It sounds like they did the bare minimum on the list just to get the release out, rather then go above and beyond to get the most and the best out.

Personally, I don't need R-Mix, Breverb, or TH2.  It's great they are there...but, honestly, we all have plenty already
in those departments.  VST 3 would have been a better option over more plugins. (VST3 and Plugins - even better!!!)
and then sold us those PC Mods down the road...I would have bought in...and most of you would have too.

I'm fully stoked about X2....can't wait...

BTW...I have used ALL these programs....I used Cubase and Pro Tools for many years...Sonar, to me, is far above them, but it's not me that they have to convince...It's the rest of the Industry.

Jim Roseberry

Sonar is NOT Cubase's biggest competitor...NOT EVEN CLOSE...CUBASE - WORLD WIDE is the LARGEST INSTALLED DAW in the WORLD....

 
Can you reveal the source of these statistics?  
 

All you have to do is read any Industry publication.  It's a well published fact.

Sonar themselves will tell you so.  They know where they stand.

( The source, btw...was Computer Music )

In the aritcle it stated that "While Pro Tools considers itself to be the Industry Standard, statistically Cubase is installed
in more Professional Studio's Worldwide then Pro Tools"

Cheers!

john6448

VST3 is important to me, particularly because I work with orchestral music and Cubase has used it to make articulation switching so easy. 

Sigh. This is exactly the point I have been trying to make all along.  VST3 in itself doesn't give you "articulation switching" and even if we implemented the spec you wouldn't get that. That is a whole different feature which just happens to have some support in the VST3 spec. If that feature in itself is specially important to you by all means feature request it but asking for VST3 for sure isn't going to get that to you. Its like going to another vendor and asking why don't you support prochannel modules - its implemented in VST 2.4 after all :) 

I'll say it again. VST3 is a plugin spec - no more and no less. It is simply a template for implementing a common protocol to communicate with plugins.  It won't get you any new features! 




>>cclarry
>>But that does not dimish the importance of VST 3 implemenation. 
>>Plug Manufacturers and PC DAW's have been using and implementing it for 4 years now...while Cake sits on their lists. 
>>I don't use it...I don't need it...BUT...I understand the NEED and reason for the NEED, and that is why I support 
it. 

Lets see - you have no need for VST3 yourself and yet you want us to invest our resources in it just in case someone wants it. I'm afraid I don't see a lot of sense in that argument. We use our development time wisely to deliver tools that benefit the most of our customers base and not for some hypothetical gain. I think most people will agree that this is a better model. 

john6448


For my particular uses, Sonar has made a marketing choice not to pursue VST3 or an improved Staff View, and it's choice has left me feeling that I may have hitched my wagon to the wrong DAW. It is what it is, and no amount of bickering is going to change it.

Have you sent a request to CW to implement these features?  The CTO has stated right here that customer requests are a primary driver of what they put in new releases.  It's apparent that most of us value the kinds of features coming now in X2 over things like VST3.  If you and others in your position would send enough requests to CW for any particular feature, your wishes might just be granted one of these days.  CW is just trying to keep the greatest number of customers happy within the constraints of limited resources, just as any decent company would do. 
 
No DAW (or product of any kind) can be perfect for everyone, so there will always be those who wish Sonar was just a little different.  It's not worth throwing tantrums over, it's just the way the world is.  You take what you can get and make it work.  But hey, if someone had shown you ten years ago what was possible with ITB music production today, wouldn't your mind have been blown?  We do live in amazing times, eh?

Cheers,
Eddie

Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk
Lets see - you have no need for VST3 yourself and yet you want us to invest our resources in it just in case someone wants it. I'm afraid I don't see a lot of sense in that argument. We use our development time wisely to deliver tools that benefit the most of our customers base and not for some hypothetical gain. I think most people will agree that this is a better model. 

A big ol' gulp of fresh reality is always so refreshing. Thanks Noel!

Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk
]

john6448

VST3 is important to me, particularly because I work with orchestral music and Cubase has used it to make articulation switching so easy. 

Sigh. This is exactly the point I have been trying to make all along.  VST3 in itself doesn't give you "articulation switching" and even if we implemented the spec you wouldn't get that. That is a whole different feature which just happens to have some support in the VST3 spec. If that feature in itself is specially important to you by all means feature request it but asking for VST3 for sure isn't going to get that to you. Its like going to another vendor and asking why don't you support prochannel modules - its implemented in VST 2.4 after all :) 

I'll say it again. VST3 is a plugin spec - no more and no less. It is simply a template for implementing a common protocol to communicate with plugins.  It won't get you any new features! 




>>cclarry
>>But that does not dimish the importance of VST 3 implemenation. 
>>Plug Manufacturers and PC DAW's have been using and implementing it for 4 years now...while Cake sits on their lists. 
>>I don't use it...I don't need it...BUT...I understand the NEED and reason for the NEED, and that is why I support 
it. 

Lets see - you have no need for VST3 yourself and yet you want us to invest our resources in it just in case someone wants it. I'm afraid I don't see a lot of sense in that argument. We use our development time wisely to deliver tools that benefit the most of our customers base and not for some hypothetical gain. I think most people will agree that this is a better model. 

Noel,
 
This is a very unreasonable reply  - from the CTO especially.
Waves plugins rely on the VST 3 standard for some of their better functionality.
FabFilter Plugins rely on VST 3 standard as well, and most other Plugin manufacturers
and DAW's are supporting this format.

I could go on...listing what has been posted here in this thread....that some of the synths require VST 3
that other things require VST 3...and while it is just a standard, as you stated, it is an INDUSTRY STANDARD
that has been around for over 4 years now!
 
Your attempts to diminish the importance of this are ludicrous, to say the least.  Do you really believe
that your customers are that naive?

I could care less one way or the other..other then the fact that I see about 50 percent here, on this forum alone, who
not only WANT it ..but NEED IT for their software to work most effeciently.  And a LOT who stated emphatically that
they would not upgrade to X2 until VST 3 is implemented because the work they do requires it, so they are using "other
DAW's, that DO support it".

No you should not invest your money to satisfy me..you should invest it to satisfy the MANY customers you now have
who not only WANT it...but NEED it to do their jobs.  And there are far more then just the ones on this forum, as those who
use this program for a lving do not have the time to sit here on this forum and discuss it.

Really....really...really...who's being fooled here?

Personally, I don't need R-Mix, Breverb, or TH2. It's great they are there...but, honestly, we all have plenty already in those departments. VST 3 would have been a better option over more plugins.

 
Just one last point...   Adding plugins to a release is likely to be the least amount of time and effort spent, by far.   So comparing the inclusion of a new VST spec (which potentially affects everything) to adding plugins doesn't really seem like a fair comparison.   That's why I listed the features I did earlier, because those are likely to be more inline with the time needed to incorporate VST3.    Or to put it another way, if VST3 were that simple to do, we wouldn't be having this discussion.  
 
All that said, I do hope CW will implement VST3 in the near future -  much of their history has been about using cutting edge technology.   But I am happy that X2 was more about core workflow enhancements instead, this time around.  
 
Now, how about VST3 vs. Staff View...  
 

NEW VST 3 Features - from steinberg site.

Improved performance

Managing large plug-in sets and multiple virtual instruments on typical studio computer systems can often be difficult because of CPU performance limits. VST3 helps to improve overall performance by applying processing to plug-ins only when audio signals are present on their respective inputs. Instead of always processing input signals, VST3 plug-ins can apply their processing economically and only when it is needed. Multiple dynamic I/Os

VST3 plug-ins are no longer limited to a fixed number of inputs and outputs. Their I/O configuration can dynamically adapt to the channel configuration they’re inserted in, meaning that any VST3 plug-in can be surround-capable with true multi-channel processing. For example, all the new VST3 plug-ins in Nuendo 4 can work in stereo-mode when inserted into a stereo channel, but switch to 6 channels when inserted into a 5.1 channel. Each audio channel is processed independently. Interaction between channels depends on the type and design of the plug-in. In addition to their flexible audio bussing capabilities, VST3 plug-ins may also offer a dedicated event bus. Typically, this is a MIDI input for control/modulation but these busses are no longer restricted to MIDI standard only. Future plug-ins may replace the common MIDI interface with alternative methods of control. Activating/deactivating busses

A typical issue with current virtual instruments is their audio output bussing system and how they’re connected to the mixer after loading. Especially virtual samplers with multiple outputs often occupy more mixer channels than need. The VST3 interface offers the possibility to deactivate unused busses after loading and even reactivate those when needed. This cleans up the mixer and further helps to reduce CPU load. Resizable edit windows

VST3 introduces a new approach to plug-in GUIs though window resizing, allowing for extremely flexible use of valuable screen space. Sample-accurate automation

VST3 also features vastly improved parameter automation with sample accuracy and support for ‘ramped’ automation data, allowing completely accurate and rapid parameter automation changes. Logical parameter organization

The plug-in parameters are displayed in a tree structure. Parameters are grouped into sections which represent the structure of the plug-in. Parameters like “Cutoff” and “Resonance” could be grouped into a section called “Filter”. This makes searching for a certain parameters easier, such as on an automation track. This also allows assigning a group of parameters to a specific MIDI Channel input and audio output bus. Optional VST3/SKI combination

As a direct result of the modular interface design of VST3, the Steinberg Kernel Interface (SKI) can be combined with VST3 plug-ins. SKI is an additional SDK that allows extremely close integration of a plug-in with a Steinberg host application, and allows functions to be carried out almost from within the application. This extends to the ability to create tracks, copy, cut, paste or process events in the Steinberg host application. SKI is provided to selected industry partners upon request. VSTXML for remote controllers

Remote controllers for audio and MIDI software applications have become increasingly popular. With VSTXML, VST3 offers far more flexible control of VST plug-ins by remote controllers. Using the knobs and faders on the control surface, parameters can be recorded, renamed and edited in many ways. Parameters that cannot be edited can be routed for display purposes to the control surface, for example to show Gain Reduction on compressor. UTF16 for localized parameter naming

In VST3, all strings that can be displayed to the user are in Unicode (UTF16) format. Usage of this universal character base allows the host application to display characters in localized languages. No MIDI restriction for parameter value transfers

VST3 has a dedicated interface for event handling that carries a much wider range of functionality than standard MIDI events would be able to provide. This opens up a big range of opportunities for musical use cases with very high potential for innovative product design. For example with VST3 some controller events (for example, pitch) can be referred to a note event (using a note unique ID). This offers the possibility to e.g. modulate only a single note which itself is part of a chord. Audio inputs for VST instruments

The VST3 interface expands VST instruments by adding the ability to create audio input busses. As a result, audio data can be routed to an VST3 instrument. A synthesizer which has a built-in e.g. vocoder effect is able to process audio data coming in from other sources as well. Multiple MIDI inputs/outputs

Unlike with VST 2.x,, a VST3 plug-in can have more than only one MIDI input or one MIDI output at the same time. 64-bit processing

VST3 plug-ins are generally able to process audio data in 64-bit.

I've had WaveLab 7 since it was first released.  It supports VST3 and includes a number of VST3 plugs.  I use WaveLab more regularly than I use SONAR (I'm afraid).  I have yet to have even opened a VST3 plug...or had a need to.
 
I think there's a much more compelling case for implementing ARA support than VST3 at this point...especially if your development resources are constrained.