Phylosophycal!!!

Cake didn't NEED a new version of Sonar...

Yet...here it is...

The old one was just fine...I don't NEED X2...but I sure want it...
because it has new features, better implementation, more efficient...

Ringing any bells?

I've never been good at sugar coating the truth...

rabeach

cclarry


Do you HONESTLY think that the guys at Steinberg, the largest Sequencer Company out there, just arbitrarily said...hey...let's screw everyone up and write a new standard?

REALLY?

Yea it happens all the time. Do you believe that Steinberg and Steinberg alone understands the vst3 specification That any competent software engineer can’t see that it was indeed a political social economic move on the part of Steinberg and there is some passive resistance throughout the industry to this less than stellar development on the part of Steinberg.
 
So called industry standards fall by the wayside all the time. VST is past due. :-)

cclarry, you need to do some more reading and a lot less pronouncing. Steinberg created something that is entirely incompatible with the previous version of the API. Ask yourself: why would Steinberg knowingly create something entirely incompatible with VST2.4? For the "benefit" of everybody? Then ask yourself: why would Waves and UAD choose VST3-only when the entire industry is not VST3-only? Answer: because supporting two incompatible code paths is alot more work than supporting one code path. So... the examples that everypone uses as the archetype gives you the insight to the underlying problem -- support both VST2.4 and VST3 is a big effort and a big investment for host and plug developers. That's a mess that Steinberg knowingly created, for their own benefit, BTW.

keith

rabeach

cclarry


Do you HONESTLY think that the guys at Steinberg, the largest Sequencer Company out there, just arbitrarily said...hey...let's screw everyone up and write a new standard?

REALLY?

Yea it happens all the time. Do you believe that Steinberg and Steinberg alone understands the vst3 specification That any competent software engineer can’t see that it was indeed a political social economic move on the part of Steinberg and there is some passive resistance throughout the industry to this less than stellar development on the part of Steinberg.
 
So called industry standards fall by the wayside all the time. VST is past due. :-)

cclarry, you need to do some more reading and a lot less pronouncing. Steinberg created something that is entirely incompatible with the previous version of the API. Ask yourself: why would Steinberg knowingly create something entirely incompatible with VST2.4? For the "benefit" of everybody? Then ask yourself: why would Waves and UAD choose VST3-only when the entire industry is not VST3-only? Answer: because supporting two incompatible code paths is alot more work than supporting one code path. So... the examples that everypone uses as the archetype gives you the insight to the underlying problem -- support both VST2.4 and VST3 is a big effort and a big investment for host and plug developers. That's a mess that Steinberg knowingly created, for their own benefit, BTW.

Every NEW thing has a curve....
From my earlier post..

This is the same way 8 Tracks replaced Records, Cassettes replaced 8 Tracks, CD's replaced Cassettes,...and so on and so on. Are THEY still out there? Yes. Are they still usable? Yes. Does anyone? Ummm...not so much.

Old things fade....new things arrive...it's the way....of everything...not just plugins...
 
...use your feelings Luke...you know this to be true...

It AIN'T GOIN' AWAY....

As my favorite Band RUSH says...."Conform or be cast out"

Cake resisited VST.....didn't do any good...
Cake resisited VST 2 .....didn't do any good..
Cake resisted VST3.....do you see pattern here?
 
Steinberg Cubase/Nuendo is the largest installed DAW base in the world...not a myth, a fact...
 
Just as Microsoft Windows is the largest installed operating system in the world...
 
When they say...this is how it is.....THIS IS HOW IT IS....resist all you want..
it's not gonna do any good...if you want it to work... you better listen..

You people just aren't hearing it....it's not going away....try as hard as you want...
resist all you want....do what you want....

As Agent Smith said...."It is INEVITABLE"

cclarry


Steinberg Cubase/Nuendo is the largest installed DAW base in the world...not a myth, a fact...
 

That's the part I'm not comfortable w/. All of the studios I've been in may have had a copy of Cubase somewhere in a drawer or a locker but not a single one had it installed. In traditional studios, it's 99% Pro Tools or PT and Logic. Live also seems like it has a lot of users, but, again, it's mostly used in conjunction w/ PT. 

Recently, we were doing inventory work and budget for our home studio, and when I mentioned to my wife that we had Cubase, first thing she asked was "People still use that?" 

Now, you might tell me that this is in America and doesn't account for the UK and the rest of the world. Fair enough. But this still means that a lot of the supposed Cubase users actually don't use Cubase and that the numbers are inflated. Having it installed or owning a copy is one thing. But it doesn't become a standard unless people use it. 

GarageBand is installed by default on every Mac. It's hardly a standard in the Mac audio community.

We have a close relationship with plugin vendors many of whom are development partners with us. So we're generally aware of their needs and future plans and do our best to accommodate them. VST3 in itself is not an end user feature and this is where the confusion lies - its was intended to facilitate development of plugins for the latest version of Cubase at the time which introduced some new features. Despite the VST name, VST3 has little to do with the last version and is a completely different API which requires a full rewrite of the plugin framework in every DAW (for gains that are still questionable, since they could all have been achieved in VST2.4 with extensions - ask any VST developer, don't take my word for it).


>>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  ? 


It is a cool feature though hardly revolutionary by any means - SONAR already does exactly this with DirectX plugins via an interface called IDeferZeroFill (from our DX SDK published in '98 or so). Additionally SONAR in general (unlike some other hosts) does not stream audio to plugins on tracks unless the track is active. i.e. you can have 100 tracks with plugins patched into them and it will consume zero dsp resources until you press play or connect a stream to the track via input monitoring or a softsynth. 
Technically speaking all that would have been required to do this feature in VST2.4 is a different flavor of the processXXXReplacing call. This could easily be done via an "effVendorSpecific" opcode to add a custom process method that is silent buffer aware. If you are interested in reading the technical details on this download the VST SDK and look at the documentation. Here is a 3'rd party link to the effVendorspecific opcode. So yes this can definitely be done in VST2.4 as well.  

 
To clarify again. We are not against doing VST3 support and as a host we try and support compatible formats as much as we can. As much as a few seem to be implying this to be some sort of conspiracy theory it simply isn't - its an economics one and one that prefers looking out for our customers backs first! The development costs of this compared to other way more beneficial end user features and stability fixes have been prohibitive until now. As I said development of this is on the table and we will do it at an appropriate time. Lets not engage in pointless debates beyond the facts here that benefit nobody, Lets keep this thread professional please.

I repeat my post:Oh my God!!!!!I have done many releases with 60 audio tracks,40 midi tracks and tons of plugs and instr whitout VST3.........!!!????it's a miracle!!! .Many Thanks to Cake team to develop a very PRO Daw.Best.Roby

This whole discussion is really quite laughable... Bottom line is this... Cake is going to take a beating...mark my words..from the Industry for not including it. On all sides. The Publication reviews are going to rip X2 and Cake on it. It's a fact.

 
Opinion posted as fact... expressed with upper-case ranting emotion.
Yeah, that qualifies as comedy. 
 
CM as a basis for judging "Pro standards"???
Mention that to your favorite Nashville player/engineer/producer.
That'll draw a deep belly-laugh.  
 
Businesses don't make significant decisions based on emotion... or recent shifts/changes in the market.
Decisions are based solely on a cost (development) vs. benefit (profit) basis.
Calm/logic would suggest that Cakewalk has done market research... and that they've got a solid idea on the top priorities for the largest percentage of their end-user base.  Obviously VST3 was not found to be a top-priority.  In plain english, adding VST3 support wasn't worth the development cost (at the time the decision was weighed). 
 
As has been mentioned, there are very few plugins at this time that are VST3 only.  That translates to a small percentage of the market... which translates to "not much profit".
 
"Industry standards" come and go (some much quicker than others).  The "Industry Standard" DAW (and you know which one it is) doesn't support VST plugins at all.  In fact, it has many weak points... yet it still exists.

• M-LAN?  
• Beta
• SA-CD
• RTAS
• TDM
• DirectX
• ADAT
• DAT
• 2" Tape
• 16-Bit resolution

If/when it affects a significant portion of the Sonar end-user base, I have no doubt that the Bakers will implement VST3 support.  Until that time, I guess the arm-chair-quarterbacks will preach impending doom. 
 

• Native Instrument's Komplete
• Ivory-II
• Play
• Spectrasonics
• Lexicon PCM
• T-Racks 3 Deluxe
• Most all of the Waves bundles/plugins
• UAD-2
• FabFilter

All work fine in Sonar X1

keith
Then ask yourself: why would Waves and UAD choose VST3-only when the entire industry is not VST3-only? Answer: because supporting two incompatible code paths is alot more work than supporting one code path.
 

And a rather obvious example that plugin manufacturers know who is forking out the bills for the high-end plugins and what DAWs they use.

 
So... the examples that everypone uses as the archetype gives you the insight to the underlying problem -- support both VST2.4 and VST3 is a big effort and a big investment for host and plug developers. That's a mess that Steinberg knowingly created, for their own benefit, BTW.

 
Sorry but I don't buy it. Waves produces for the TDM, AU, RTAS, AudioSuite and VST3 formats. That's FIVE formats if you care to count. Huge company compared to many other plugin makers. At the moment the problem is Cakewalk does not officialy support any of these formats. There was a time when Waves released DX versions of plugins. One of the main programs to rely on that protocol was Sonar although others also benefitted. Many other products used VST instead (Beta vs VHS?). After DX appeared to be going by the wayside Cakewalk "semi-embraced" the VST format, initially thru third party wrappers which were then internally incorporated, however have subsequently not appeared to have made any effort to completely adopt ANY format. Cakewalk has to make a decision one way or the other or be potentially left in the dust as far as major plugin manufacturers go.
 
The fact is, Sonar has not fully supported Waves plugins for some years now. Years. Not months. And with all current indications that is not soon to change, there is no current indication Cakewalk intends to address this issue at all. This is not a minor issue for many of us. I was seriously hoping this would be addressed in X2.
 
Furthermore, Cakewalk's current approach "seems" to be to develop proprietary plugins which are useless in any other program. So not only can I not fully use Waves in Sonar, but many products I might purchase from Cakewalk cannot be used in any other program. Yes, there are other programs that function similiarly (not many!) but I can't say I  think it's a good business decision. It's not one I care to back.
 
Again I don't care if this is an issue of VST3, VST2.4 or The Willys. I have no reason to doubt Noel and clearly other plugins have adapted to deal audio routing issues to allow things like Sidechaining (I could potenntially live without the Surround Tools and mix in another program but it's still a hastle). However, if Waves is not using resources to adapt their plugins to work in Sonar's framework that is a cause of concern to me. And if Cakewalk is depending on all plugin manufacturers to code specifically to adapt to Sonar's framework, that is also a problem. It still does not look good in the short term.

SToons

keith
Then ask yourself: why would Waves and UAD choose VST3-only when the entire industry is not VST3-only? Answer: because supporting two incompatible code paths is alot more work than supporting one code path.
 

And a rather obvious example that plugin manufacturers know who is forking out the bills for the high-end plugins and what DAWs they use.

 
So... the examples that everypone uses as the archetype gives you the insight to the underlying problem -- support both VST2.4 and VST3 is a big effort and a big investment for host and plug developers. That's a mess that Steinberg knowingly created, for their own benefit, BTW.

 
Sorry but I don't buy it. Waves produces for the TDM, AU, RTAS, AudioSuite and VST3 formats. That's FIVE formats if you care to count. Huge company compared to many other plugin makers. At the moment the problem is Cakewalk does not officialy support any of these formats. There was a time when Waves released DX versions of plugins. One of the main programs to rely on that protocol was Sonar although others also benefitted. Many other products used VST instead (Beta vs VHS?). After DX appeared to be going by the wayside Cakewalk "semi-embraced" the VST format, initially thru third party wrappers which were then internally incorporated, however have subsequently not appeared to have made any effort to completely adopt ANY format. Cakewalk has to make a decision one way or the other or be potentially left in the dust as far as major plugin manufacturers go.
 
The fact is, Sonar has not fully supported Waves plugins for some years now. Years. Not months. And with all current indications that is not soon to change, there is no current indication Cakewalk intends to address this issue at all. This is not a minor issue for many of us. I was seriously hoping this would be addressed in X2.
 
Furthermore, Cakewalk's current approach "seems" to be to develop proprietary plugins which are useless in any other program. So not only can I not fully use Waves in Sonar, but many products I might purchase from Cakewalk cannot be used in any other program. Yes, there are other programs that function similiarly (not many!) but I can't say I  think it's a good business decision. It's not one I care to back.
 
Again I don't care if this is an issue of VST3, VST2.4 or The Willys. I have no reason to doubt Noel and clearly other plugins have adapted to deal audio routing issues to allow things like Sidechaining (I could potenntially live without the Surround Tools and mix in another program but it's still a hastle). However, if Waves is not using resources to adapt their plugins to work in Sonar's framework that is a cause of concern to me. And if Cakewalk is depending on all plugin manufacturers to code specifically to adapt to Sonar's framework, that is also a problem. It still does not look good in the short term.

With each one of your posts I wonder even more as to why you've chosen SONAR as your platform of choice. Why do you even entertain using it when it comes from such an out-of-touch company? Especially when your vast experience showed you nothing but Cubase.
 
I'm cornfused.