backwoods


Um, well I've never gone around teaching people how to use DAWs (couldn't imagine anything worse to be honest),
 

I never suggested I taught people how to use DAWs. I get hired to give guitar/music/bass clinics/instruction.

 
but I've made money as a piano player for about a decade- but it's a side gig for me.  I've also recorded bands for money using Nuendo and Sonar. And I've done numerous FOH gigs also. Again, it's not my job, more a hobby.

I am a full time professional and have been since I left school. Actually, starting before I left school. This is not to suggest anything, I'm not drawing a comparison here, but it is what I have always done professionally.

I'm fully proficient with VST3 also which I don't think you are.
 

I'm not proficient whatsoever with "specific" uses of VST3 such as modulating a single note of a chord using a DAW. That's currently not specifically relevant to my needs. However I am of the understanding that it affects me and will continue to in terms of not only using future plugins (compatability; whether you use all features or not is not the only issue) but also in using the ones I have already spent reasonable money on.

 
You didn't even know that most Compressors that sidechain as VST3s also sidechain using sonar as VST2s!  
 

Please qualify "most". Waves alone makes at least five times as many compressors as you have named, all to be found in far more studios than the ones you have mentioned.
 
Why should I need to know? I teach, perform, do session work, compose for games, commercials and documentaries (among other things), play in two bands as well as working as a hired player, own a music academy, take care of three properties (cottage, house and academy location which I own) , sixteen cats, and a mother who has congestive heart failure issues (she gets a pacemaker in 6 hours). I have more important things to do than to download and play with demos to see what sidechains and what doesn't. I purchased the entire Waves Collection so to have adequate tools that I did not need to faff with that kind of thing. My time is mostly invested in working, not testing and playing around therefore I am more interested in time-saving solutions, not sorting out plugin compatability issues. My money has already been invested as far as plugins (not VSTi's) goes. If you have the time, cheers to you. If I did I might be more inclined to actually care what other companies are doing although it's not likely I would fork out more money on compressors when I have dozens. None of which sidechain in Sonar without mono workarounds and other time-consuming options.

 
 
And the ones that I own that don't sidechain as VST2s either don't sidechain as VST3s (eg Vertigo VSC2, elysia alpha, ssl) or don't even exist as VST3 (PSP (First P stands for Professional ), Voxengo)

What exactly SToons are some examples of "Pro" compressors?   

Whatever compressors a pro chooses to use. That's a loaded question, now, isn't it?
 
The defacto industry go-to at the moment is Waves. I'm not suggesting everything they make is the absolute best but they certainly offer the most comprehensive, useable out-of-the-box set of complete tools available.
 
So if you're asking what I use, choose any compressor that Waves makes. V-Series, SSL-series, Puig, C-series, CLA-series, H-Comp, Linear Multi, Ren series...take your pick. I have occassionally used the ones included with Sonar 8.5.3.

OK- you got a waves bundle, it makes sense now.

I hope Sonar gets around to VST3 eventually but it really is not that important as some here make it out to be.

p.s. I hope your Mother's pacemaker procedure goes well today.

SToons

backwoods


VST3 was introduced for Cubase 4 which was about 2006-2007. 

It's 2012 and Cubendo and S1 and Adobe are the only supporting DAWs? Hardly the industry standard at all. Lots of top VST makers say it is a waste of time (Kush Audio, Fxpansion for example). 

And over 50% of Americans believe angels exist. So?
 
Sony bet the bank backing Beta (say that quick ten times). How'd that work out?
 
Did you consider the fact that the "type" of VST/VSTi being coded may not benefit from VST3? Do you think I and others are concerned that a reverb plugin may not be VST3 capable? Likely not. Have you also considered that companies will code according to what brings them income? Why hasn't Waves gone further to code their plugins to be fully compatible with Sonar? Likely because they understand their target market doesn't appear to be using Sonar. Clearly they have not dragged their heels in providing support for TDM, AU, RTAS and VST3 which covers most of the serious DAW bases...except one. Sonar.
 
As for "industry standard" - every single institution I have EVER lectured or given clinics in, be it Academy, College or University, teaches using Cubase. Without exception. Every audio recording studio I have been in as a session player or band member uses Pro Tools and, if they have composition in-house, Cubase. Every single gaming company I have worked or contracted for uses Cubendo. When I have done on-air interviews and performances for CBC Radio and CTV among other broadcasters I have never seen Sonar in use or otherwise. If you go to Steve's Music or Long & McQuade, the two largest music retailers in Canada, mention Sonar. It is almost a guarantee the salesperson will advise you against and suggest Cubase, ProTools, Logic or MOTU. I have argued with salespeaople about this but my opinion falls on Industry-standard deaf ears and given Cakewalks current projected path this will not change anytime soon. I'm seriously starting to question my own arguements.
 
In over 10 years I have yet to see a copy of Sonar in an academic institution or in any studio. Ever. Nor have I seen a copy in the hands of any composer I have personally worked with. This is not a criticism of Sonar but this is a reality in the industry. Clearly I would prefer to use Sonar, myself, but slowly as I transition from being a session player/performer/composer to doing more production I am seeing the holes in Sonar's game.

Being unable to regulate the volume of one track by using Vocal rider being triggered by the volume on another audio track is not tantamount to driving a car without brakes in my opinion. 

It's an analogy -  suggesting something is "fine and dandy" when it only partially functions as intended is not tantamount to suggesting something functions properly.
 
Want another analogy? It's like saying the car works fine but won't drive in reverse. It's easier to back up ten feet than to drive in a big circle to end up ten feet back. Essentially this is what happens with Sonar. Want to use Waves Morphoder? Buy a second DAW at great expense to perform only one or two functions. Export audio and MIDI from Sonar into other program. Edit. Re-import. Listen. Needs adjustment? Repeat procedure, indefinitely, as you cannot hear the track against the others while working so it will be much more difficult to tweak and edit. Be prepared to repeat till final mixdown.
 
Hurray, it's like going back 12 years in time to use Gigasampler.

All of which really begs the question - why are you persisting with Sonar?

A1MixMan


This makes me want it by itself:
 

Resizable edit windows

VST3 introduces a new approach to plug-in GUIs though window resizing, allowing for extremely flexible use of valuable screen space.
 
 
I HATE that I can't resize VST2 windows.

I have a number of VST 2.4 plugins that are re-sizable. All the Melda plugins are. Kontakt 5 is re-sizable. This is not new and not exclusive to VST 3.

I referenced this earlier...the die hards who don't care, including the CTO, are going to argue the "unimportance" of this into the ground.

How many different ways can said CTO explain that *ALL* those features can be implemented using VST2.4 (including VST3 itself)???  The spec brings no real/new capabilities to the table.  A complete lateral move.

Noel has given a very reasonable explanation as to why Cakewalk chose not to implement VST3 in X2.
Too much development time (read cost) for the potential gain.


Using Computer Music (UK magazine that targets novices) as a source of "industry standards"???  
Call ten significant studios in New York, Nashville, and LA.  Ask them about their main DAW application.
Guarantee the consensus won't be Cubase... or FL Studio   

Well said Jim.

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  ?

All the best,
Tom

I'm wondering - would you know Jim if this VST 3 feature could actually be inplemented in VST 2.X  ?

Hi Tom,


Based on what Noel has said, I would surely think this is possible...

BTW, I'm not bashing Cubase...
I own a copy of version 6, ProTools, Samplitude, Vegas Pro, etc.
They all have some great features (though Sonar X1 is my personal favorite/main DAW app).

Based on what Noel said this has already been implemented in cakewalk products since the 90s which leaves me totally confused. For me, plugins in Sonar always consume CPU whether audio is present or not. So there has to be some kind of misunderstanding as to what we are talking about exactly. To me it's straight forward. No audio, no hit on CPU. 

I would think that a plugin needs some CPU to stay active. It can't be totally shut off if for no other reason than to monitor when audio is present. That would allow it to not process stuff that isn't there.

Sonar has been curtailing plugins for some time now. Anyone can check this out by loading a project with sections that are processed at different places in the project. Look at the X1 CPU meter as the project plays. It will vary due to load.

There will be a hit on the CPU even if there is nothing to process but it will go up when that plugin is processing.  

Based on what Noel said this has already been implemented in cakewalk products since the 90s which leaves me totally confused. For me, plugins in Sonar always consume CPU whether audio is present or not. So there has to be some kind of misunderstanding as to what we are talking about exactly. To me it's straight forward. No audio, no hit on CPU.

If he has the time, perhaps Noel will elaborate...