A shot across Steinberg's VST3 bow?

Steinberg Lounge
44

Yes, Image-Line confirmed that they will support it.

45

Lets be objective. This will become a widely supported format. I know Cubase/Nuendo users might be bias, and shut down the idea of CLAP, or say its a pipe dream, but if you read the list of devs interested in development, including Avid, it makes you come to the realization that the plugin format offering is substantial enough to gain traction. Be objective, and not bias

4 Likes
46

Objective speculation?

1 Like
47

i have being talking with many developers friends, no Steinberg related, they are very categorical to say it is a waste of time.

1 Like
49

You need new friends, not detractors. Lots of pissed off devs regarding VST3, and lack of VST2 support. They seem pretty happy about CLAP

1 Like
50

it is strange, both fellows make the exactly same unsubstantiated claim, but on behalf of opposing viewpoint.

1 Like
51

objective speculation meaning an educated guess, than yes. Thorough communication with devs involved with CLAP, and getting first hand updates on which companies are likely going to move foward with CLAP helps to provide an educated guess on the outcome

52

My statements are absolutely substantiated. I also stand by my statement that some Cubase/Nuendo users may be bias against CLAP because they feel as though CLAP was created as an answer to VST2 discontinuation.

Here is a little business knowledge for those who are skeptical. CLAP solves a problem, in sales, people loves things that solve a problem for them.

2 Likes
53

Hello Mike,

you are definitely correct. My point was that macOS and Linux are two siblings of the same concepts. Their similarity is obvious.

Best regards

1 Like
54

From a developer standpoint it’s a very attractive option, you could at least explain why they said it’s a waste of time and what sectors they work in, otherwise it’s an irrelevant statement to make.

They don’t have to pay licensing costs, development is easier, more efficient thread pooling, and no Steinberg to pull the rug from their feet.

There’s no confusion on MIDI support, CLAP actively supports it by featuring a single event queue for easy iteration vs the multiple abstractions with VST3. This has been a bone of contention for VST development.

You have to wonder why companies like Avid, Presonus, Image-line, Arturia, Valhalla, Xfer, Fabfilter etc. see something your friends don’t?

6 Likes
55

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

56

Thread with some useful info here:

57

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
58

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

59

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
60

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
61

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
62

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
63

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
64

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”.