A shot across Steinberg's VST3 bow?

Seems that developers are unhappy with VST3. Why is that?

Thread with some useful info here:

Because of reasons like this:

When you consider that the president of the MIDI Association is from Yamaha, it’s just odd that Steinberg were so keen to snub it out of the VST3 spec - despite decades of MIDI based VST2’s.

Sadly their arrogance on such matters will be what bites them on the rear now that another universal format is ticking the right boxes. It also doesn’t help that this comes at a time where Steinberg has closed the door on VST2 - and yes, we know there were warnings, but people are still bitter about it which adds to the anti SB sentiments.

MIDI 2.0 is incoming, other hosts are leading the way in regards to plugin modulation - really, it’s a perfect time for another standard to come into the game and pick up.

As a Cubase user, I’d rather there not be the confusion of a secondary standard as we won’t be getting support for it any time soon, in fact we won’t even have VST2. The internal operations of Cubase are so out-dated it’s no wonder they won’t push the VST3 format to support what more advanced hosts are requiring.

I mean, we’re still having to use MIDI inserts to modulate plugins via MIDI CC messages, which SB themselves wanted to isolate from plugins. It’s a bit of a joke really.

2 Likes

Yes, it seems that a lot of devs are unhappy with Steinberg and VST3:

I found this on the KVR forum:

Urs of u-he gave the primary reason: “The main reason we (u-he, others may have other reasons) try to bring forward a new plug-in standard is very simple: It’s liberally licensed. No one needs to pay fees, hire lawyers or go through vetting process. No need to sign weird contracts or NDAs that may turn into future risks of investment.”

And this will be a reason why Steinberg won’t (initially) support CLAP. I think we should settle down for the long game here, and look forward to universal adoption.

:clap:

1 Like

sector = audio
i think just time will show us, let´s see.

what i see here: VST3 and MIDI CC pitfall
is that there is a lot of misunderstanding for some new developers about how to work with midi for virtual instruments only.

1 Like

I See I need to ask a second time, if you could be so kind. What aspects did the many developers state for CLAP being a “Waste of time”?

We need to clarify that this is absolutely nothing to do with you getting free products from Steinberg as part of the beta testing program, of course.

3 Likes

I see your concern, but of course not, i use a paid cubase since 1992, just join the beta team this year, also doing beta for more then other 7 big audio developers. I think any further discussion would be also a waste of time, have a good weekend.

1 Like

Oddly enough, I think people reading this thread would be interested in the (many) developers who categorically told you the format is a waste of time. Fact that you receive free software from Steinberg is entirely unrelated and without bias, of course.

1 Like

Ok, but if we read Arne’s responses Steinberg’s actions seem to make a fair amount of sense, starting with what I highlighted above plus:

The impression I get when reading his responses is that VST2 was never meant to define MIDI functionality but did support it by accident. It was supposed to be an audio API and now that’s more clear with VST3. So MIDI is pushed more toward the host DAW and if it supports MIDI 2.0 then VST3 is playing along with it 100%.

Problem solved.

So it seems to me that developers are miffed because they took an audio API and started using it for MIDI instead, and when the creator of that API decides to update it they don’t like that they’d have to rethink their approach.

I just get the feeling that Steinberg’s approach seems to be technically and practically the better approach here and developers would rather just not follow it because it takes time and effort - not because it’s “wrong” or “bad”.

More discussion on HN:

:clap:

Well, it’s whether their approach fits the requirements of users & developers. They’ll lose customers if they have it wrong. The perceived arrogance is not going to win any favours either.

I’ve had a play with CLAP and it’s much simpler, supports MPE, Multi-port output and MIDI 2.0 off the bat, minus the restrictions that SB employ being truly open source and licensed under MIT - meaning it’s a service to the audio world, not a money maker.

Nice slogan though…
VST3 : “Technically and practically better”

2 Likes

Well as a user it’s only my concern if the plugin does what I want. I’ve yet to see VST3 developers tell me that the plugins I’m using have a problem or lack functionality because of VST3. So from my perspective it simply doesn’t matter. And as for losing customers we’ll just have to see I guess. I think it’d be borderline idiotic to swap DAWs because Cubase/Nuendo doesn’t support CLAP, it would have to be because there’s a plugin that doesn’t support VST3, and at that point of course you could just as well ask if the developer is willing to lose out on revenue just to spite Steinberg or if there’s a net profit from avoiding VST3 completely.

But VST3 supports MIDI 2.0 as well, correct?

Cute.

now i see a potential on the newbie / lazy developer niche.
i prefer my hardcore friends that can code in Assembly .

No one wants performance gains, of course.

1 Like

very well said…Its pretty clear a lot of big dogs want to consider this. I have been using U-He and Surge plugins in the latest Bitwig beta, and CLAP is truly a remarkable format to work with. It allows some very interesting modulation and automation capabilities.

1 Like

Midi 2.0 could be a viable answer to CLAP for steinberg if they dont want to support CLAP obviously, and more power to them. These are all options for the end user so everyone has an opportunity to utilize features across every daw. None of it is a bad thing. CLAP isnt a bad thing, neither is VST3. Best to have an open mind and accept as many choices as possible

1 Like

They sound an absolute blast! :+1:

1 Like

If you read my post and think about it (!) you’ll notice that I’m saying that if one needs a plugin that doesn’t support VST3 then it makes sense to switch DAWs, and by “support VST3” I actually meant with full functionality.

I’ve seen absolutely nothing about CLAP providing performance gains, but maybe you can point me in a direction where I can read about that. Perhaps it’s about threading control which I remember seeing something somewhere but didn’t read. Is that it?

Steinberg should be leading the way with MIDI 2.0. But right now, I can’t work out the path they’ll take. Particularly in regard to the exchange components and modulation options. There’s just so much at the heart of the DAW that relies on MIDI CC.

I think it will be the turning point where other DAWs really start to take the lead, particuarly with CLAP as an option leaves less reliance on Steinberg and how they control the VST3 spec.

Let’s be honest, VST3 note expression is a flop, the articulation/key switching system is antiquated, and any MIDI 2.0 hardware integration will be heavily biased towards Yamaha/SB gear. As things start to open out in the audio world I think their incestuous nature could be a real hindrance.

To say I’m worried about the future of Cubase is an understatement. Hopefully we see some good developments in the coming years.

1 Like