Bringing new things to the table is one thing. Does it sound any better is another. 

I cannot understand it either, what is all the fuss about with vst3. Why is it essential technology to make better sounds.  It was unveiled in 2006 and computer power has more than made up for any speed problems in 7 years.

Cake are better focussing on other things, until the technology shows a softsynth or plugin that sounds obviously better than before. 7 years on and I haven't seen one. 

Spending another £500 on a vst3 compatible daw is nothing short of madness. A bit of ram and an ssd will do way more these days and much much cheaper.

beatscape and the matrix view are nothing alike.One is simply a matrix style sequencer and the other was an instrument that was loosely (and i mean very loosely) based on an MPC style sampler but more loop centered. Beatscape was discontinued because it was a buggy 32-bit program that seemed play worse and worse with 64-bit. It was owned by Cakewalk so they could have kept it. The lexicon and GR absences are simple matters of expiring license agreements that were not renewed.

Marcus Curtis

dubdisciple


I think the next re-write of Sonar is going to spell the end of several popular legacy included products, thus reducing the perceived value when they list all the instruments and effects. Right now a good chunk of the effects and instruments are Dxi's and 32-bit. I suspect keeping these legacy things around ads a layer of complexity when it comes to moving forward. They already gave up on Beatscape and The Pentagon bug is ignored. I only say this because my guess is there will be some weeping when that update that brings VST3 also signals the death of the old. I have no problem with that since change is inevitable.

Bub

dubdisciple

I think the next re-write of Sonar is going to spell the end of several popular legacy included products, thus reducing the perceived value when they list all the instruments and effects.

Yeah, a lot of people have complained that they don't include Lexicon Reverb any more.

I noticed that Studio one has VST 2 and VST 3 listed in their specs. Why would they need both? Apparently they can coexist.

Wow. Imagine the licensing fees to have both eh? If a small time operation like them can afford do it ... I'm pretty sure Cakewalk should be able to. Or maybe not? I don't know. Maybe they listed it that way to avoid confusion as to whether or not a non-VST3 plug-in would work.

I installed beatscape from my X1 CDs just to get the content. I think the Matrix view is the thing that replaces Beatscape. I think it works better than Beatscape. It may very well be that lexicon is not included anymore due to a license issue not a software issue. We don't know why it is not included. That may be the reason they switched to Breverb. For that matter why did they switched from GR4 to TH2. Personally I don't miss the lexicon reverb and if I need it I can install it at any time.

I guess they figure if you really want the VST's they previously offered, you'll install them from you DVD's or downloads. Which, spanning multiple generational changes, can be a very time consuming thing.

What I'm wondering is, how did they develop and test the new CA-2A Comp. It's VST3 compatible. Did they test it in Studio One? LOL

bub 

What I'm wondering is, how did they develop and test the new CA-2A Comp. It's VST3 compatible. Did they test it in Studio One? LOL

Now that.....is a good question.

Swiller

Bringing new things to the table is one thing. Does it sound any better is another.

Yes, but sound isn't everything. So is stability, system resource usage. Those things are just as important.

I cannot understand it either, what is all the fuss about with vst3. Why is it essential technology to make better sounds.  It was unveiled in 2006 and computer power has more than made up for any speed problems in 7 years.

Cake are better focussing on other things, until the technology shows a softsynth or plugin that sounds obviously better than before. 7 years on and I haven't seen one. 

Spending another £500 on a vst3 compatible daw is nothing short of madness. A bit of ram and an ssd will do way more these days and much much cheaper.

Where on Earth did you come up with 500? Everyone that offers it doesn't charge a penny more for it. Studio One is the same price it was before they included VST3.

Like it or not, developers are starting to use it. For God sake, Cakewalk themselves just put out a VST3 plug-in. How can anyone even argue about this anymore when they themselves are doing it?

All arguments aside ... developers are using it now. Cakewalk better implement it ... soon. And right or wrong, some of them are limiting the functionality of their VST's if you don't use them in a VST3 host, so again ... like it or not, they better get moving.

Bub

CakeAlexS

Why do we need this right now? Is it because "3" sounds better than "2"?

> The issue is if their position with respect to adding it to the DAW is it is not necessary then why did they implement it in a plug?

Sorry that's not a real world issue. Chicken and egg arguments are just paperwork not an actual reason.

Quote from Steinberg's web site.

"With VST (Virtual Studio Technology), Steinberg established the world’s leading and most widely supported standard for plug-ins and virtual instruments in 1996. With VST3 Steinberg releases the next major revision of Steinberg’s Virtual Studio Technology to the audio industry. VST3 marks an important milestone in audio technology with a completely rewritten code base providing not only many new features but also the most stable and reliable VST platform ever. This combination of latest technology and new features is the result of Steinberg’s twelve years of development experience as the leading plug-in interface provider. VST3 has been designed to provide a technological and creative basis for many innovative and exciting new products for the audio industry, offering a new world of creative possibilities for instrument and effect plug-in users. The VST3 SDK is available as a free technology, open in use for any developer"

Heaven forbid we should want any of that.

New code, more stability, more reliability, more features, more creative possibilities, it's FREE to developers.

Yeah, I can understand why Cakewalk hates it.

if it would end the bit bridge issues cake would be all over it, you would think.
unless its compleatly new code and  cake would have to buy into it, it should be a no brAiner

if it would end the bit bridge issues cake would be all over it, you would think.

 
Nah, that's 64bit vs. 32bit.   VST3 is a lateral change; i.e., you could bave a 32bit VST3 plugin that still requires bitbridge (or jbridge), or a 64bit VST2.4 plugin that does not.
 

I don't know how that is a VST 3 ability when we already have VST 2.4 plugins with sidechaining. If Waves chooses to use VST 3 to have this ability that is on them.

 
Personally, I think incorporating VST3 simply comes down to a business/marketing move more so than pure technology.   Major players (like Waves) who've already made the decision to lock into VST3 make it difficult to do anything else, regardless of what can technically be accomplished using VST 2.4.  

+1 to what Steve said. Just the fact that there is a 3 makes marketing 2.4 more difficult. No product lists "VST 2.4 compatible" as a major feature. The VST3 thing does not really bug me aside for the minor annoyance of not being able to use a plugin i wanted to test within Sonar. With that said, I think Sonar should just do it. Enough people do care and more than one salesman has told me it was important...although only one gave me a reason why. I ask why when presented those things, but a lot of people walking into a store don't. My son and I were at a pro tools class at Guitar center and the instructor made it clear that "in order to side chain you need VST3". I suppressed to tell him he was technically wrong because it would have just confused everyone else there more.

the role of a DAW is to allow us, the user, aka the paying customer, to use the synths, tools and plug-ins that WE choose, it is not the role of a DAW vendor to control what plugins we may be allowed to use.

It matters not who is right/wrong on the technical level.. i do not know, and i do not care one bit if VST2.4 can do everything that VST3 can when i am looking at a piece of software for a $2200 synth that only runs as VST3, or similarly, other users that cannot fully exploit a $1000 VST package without VST3 support.

as more companies support VST3 the cheaper option for many users will be to switch DAW, or at least not upgrade, and Cakewalk needs to mark their timing of VST3 support very carefully.