I get what you mean, but I did quite a bit of research around plugins and handling of MIDI Clock and MIDI Program Change messages - and from that research, there were very few that did the MIDI Clock handling at all and the vast majority which had issues with MIDI Program Change messages.
From what I read when doing that research, the issue around much of this is that the VST3 specs are sometimes not specific enough around MIDI handling so that implementing it in a way that works with all hosts can be extremely difficult, which comes back to my point about Steinberg helping developers…
If these things are very difficult to develop, then it gets in the way of people developing the VST3 versions - so Steinberg investing in the VST3 developer community and providing assistance to them (and maybe realising just how difficult some things are proving to be) may mean that they recognise limitations in VST3 and improve it to remove some of these blockers. Explicitly working with the framework developers to make sure that ALL capbilities that are available in VST2 are also available in VST3 implementations in a way that can be easily access would also remove these blockers.
At the moment, and using the English phrase, it feels that this is all a bit too much “stick” (you won’t be able to use VST2 at all) and not enough “carrot” (we’ll make sure you can update your plugins to VST3 as easily as possible).
Personally ok with 2-year transition. Less happy with immediate lack of support for native Apple Silicon. No technical explanation afaics - native VST2 obviously possible in S1 & Live. Seems mainly aimed at getting users to lobby plug-in devs, which I’ll do, but not mad keen on being used in this way.
When I upgrade to C12 I’m not gonna want to run it thru Rosetta (C11 is ok but not without problems). So there may be an uncomfortable choice to be made between DAW and plug-ins. If that’s down to an arbitrary decision by DAW dev with no effort to mitigate, well that may have a bearing…
That’s the big unknown here - is there a technical reason? Or is this just lobbying for VST3?
One of the most influential brains behind the VST3 specifications (Matthias Juwan) has been a part of Presonus’s success. They also developed ARA along with Celemony and is now a standard across DAW’s. Last year started creating a standard for dynamic mapping of key switches/articulations between DAW and Sound libraries/Instruments.
It does make you question which DAW is the better to be investing in at this point. However, I’m of the belief that this is the egg breaking stage of SB making a good omelette. At least, I hope so! It’s definitely a period of change, for sure.
I began my transition to VST3 plugs years ago and if presented with a choice upon install, I only choose it. I’m sitting in a good spot when they pull the plug. Where I’m not in a good place is with Native Instruments stuff. I’m a heavy Komplete Kontrol user (s49, s61 and the Komplete suite). It, along with Superior Drummer 3, are mainstays of my productions, although once Spectrasonics made VST3 versions of Omni, Keyscape and Trilian, I’ve been slowly migrating to them. As far as money in concerned, Omnisphere feels more like an investment in a top tier hardware synth than the NI stuff does, which is basically a collection of apps tied together loosely by their hardware. I could leave it behind and not feel like I’ve lost anything. I’ve more than gotten my money’s worth out of the ecosystem.
Opening old projects might be painful if NI and Toontrack don’t play ball, but given their sheer ubiquity in our business, I find it hard to believe they won’t fall in line. NI has already begun this process, but the question will be, can I open an old session and have the VST3 load perfectly in place of the VST2 version? So far, there are separate versions of Kontakt, so I’m guessing no.
To get around this, I guess I’ll begin the process of printing tracks in old sessions. I’ve been making that a priority recently, and it’s a good practice. I do it for my Post work. We make stems for DX, MX, SFX, etc for this very reason and I’m not sure why musicians and songwriters are so reluctant to do the same. Nothing last forever (a company can disappear overnight) and if you want to ensure project integrity, print your VI and effects tracks.
Yes, this is kind of my point. Yet to read anything convincing - may have missed something though. If it is technical it would be courteous of Steinberg at least to give some explanation.
I feel the same. Have used Logic in the past and have Ableton for clients but much more comfortable with Cubase – good feeling about C12 on the whole.
Absolutely, for finished projects I print audio stems and archive. It’s the sketches, ideas, half-finished ones that are more difficult – just ported a few over to new system and it’s a minor pita with legacy plug-ins and some plug-in devs with new version numbers, or the VST3 has a different name, or in some cases they won’t even load old presets, so you end up printing to audio, doing screenshots, taking notes.
Like you, everything VST3 where possible now – don’t think I’ve bought anything not VST3-compatible for years.
I’m sure lots of developers will release VST3 versions of their plugins - although as Toontrack point out these will possibly be paid/major version upgrades.
Obviously it depends how the updates are coded but it’s possible these upgrades will be ‘new’ plugins meaning backwards compatibility will be broken.
VST3 is only “better” for Steinberg. Check around plugin-related forums like KVR Audio , and see what major plug-in vendors like Urs Heckmann (U-He) have to say about the matter.
The shortest way to express it is to say that while VST3 does introduce certain technical improvements, they are implemented in a way which hugely complicates hosting software that must also handle other formats like VST and Audio Units.
I see no reason for Unify ever to stop hosting VST2 plug-ins, and I would imagine that DAW vendors other than Steinberg probably feel the same way. If, some fine day, every DAW in the world stops supporting VST2, we might stop shipping Unify itself as a VST2 plug-in, but the VST3 version would (as I’ve written elsewhere) become quite valuable as a bridge to allow loading older VST2’s.
To bad hardware is som expensive og i would felles my room whit every synth i nerder, om just waiting for å Hardware synt whit Extreme multitrimbrale, atleast 15 synths at the same time, then i woudent need plugins no more!!
Do i still use IOS 9.0? Yes, i still have an old Ipad 2 with IOS 9.3 and Metagrid that works well for what it does. Should i hide in a cave now? Can i even coexist on this planet with you mega cool people?
Dropping VST 2.0 has nothing to do with progress lol. It just means one less thing Cubase will offer to users… An obstacle for some since there are plenty more plugins with only VST 2 thant just UAD…
VST2 format could be ageless, always “there” if you would need it because it is a well thought out format that just works.
I keep seeing talk about this CLAP plugin format, and it’s mentioned in that thread.
Does it really have legs? I mean, I could imagine Presonus to try to develop something with one of the large plugin devs as they’ve done it with ARA and are very active in regards to plugin efficient features in their latest DAW versions.
Bitwig and u-he don’t really strike me as a pairing that could dominate in any large way, but maybe if the Reaper/Linux userbase got involved it could carry it a distance into other DAW’s. They both love an open format, and super passionate!
I don’t think this will be the case, but if Steinberg do manage to annoy a sizeable portion of the userbase dropping VST2 from their products it only adds to the potential of another format gaining support.
Personally, the last thing I want is to go from such an established format to 3-4 different ones. But also VST3 has also demonstrated that a closed format which is too stubborn to meet demands from devs and end users has been a very hard sell. There is an arrogance from SB that’s evident when you read through the developer forums.
The ‘retirement’ of VST2 isn’t entirely technical, most especially on Windows. There are many reasons behind. And newer is not always better.
Slightly off topic but other DAWs are even able to run native M1 on the macs WITH VST2 as they ‘sandbox’ their plugins (slightly simplistic explanation, but hey:)) …something that has been a feature request for many years with SB…no sign of it though.
I know I sound like a broken record but SB are not the major player they used to be - and attempting to force developers down a specific route isn’t good for ANYONE. If you want to behave like a schoolyard bully you have to make sure you have the muscle to back it up. IMO SB are not going to make more $$$ from this decision and they may well make less. They saw sense on the licence ‘call home’ so maybe we’ll see a turn around ?
“VST2 support Isn’t over” (Obviously, in the current context that’s correct)
However, in regard to future versions…
“Probably won’t be VST2 support going forward”
and
“May not be working”
As Greg is internal, That leads me to think this is more of a front to move developers along than a very definite shutoff. At the least, how he’s talking is not as definite as the wording in the statement.
“Compatibility” is the term being used of course. Not maintaining compatibility means what exactly what? Does it mean total removal of VST2? Or simply a hard line “We won’t be fixing anything that breaks with your VST2 plugins” stance?
If he’s incorrectly played it down there, perhaps he can iterate more formally in the next hangout.
It sounds exactly as definite as the statement. The only thing he’s saying is that this isn’t an issue for Cubase users now, it will be an issue at some point in the future for anyone who wants to use a future version of Cubase because that version won’t support VST2.
The statement says that within 24 months plugin compliance will be VST3 only. It’s not clear what ‘compliance’ means, and whether they’re shutting out VST2 completely, or just not willing to maintain it.
So within 24 months we won’t be able to use VST2 on the latest DAW version, or we ‘perhaps’ or ‘maybe’ will?
Because your writing of “Some point” in relation to “A” future version is not very definitive either.
Nither are choices of words such as “May” or “Probably” as mentioned during the hangouts.
I mean, If i wasn’t aware of the statements and reading all this - I would’ve heard Greg say that and not be overly concerned if i was relying on VST2 currently, it’s very underplayed.
But If the statement is 100% true then he’d been better off confirming that it’s VST3 only within 24 months and users need to check now and hassle developers for VST3 compliance - do you not think?
