Which DAWS will support VST3 ?
lllubi
Thread Starter
#1
16th April 2008
Old 16th April 2008
  #1
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,565

Thread Starter
Which DAWS will support VST3 ?

I bought Cubase4 in jannuary 2007 raeding Steinbergs announcement
about VST3.
Steinberg stated that VST3 will support 64bit floating point plugins.

This week i had to learn from steinberg that Cubase4 will not support
64bit floating point plugins within Cubase4 for sure.

Telling them that i expected they would implement 64bit floating point plugins in Cubase 4 i had to learn:
it is a technology that other hosts should use if they like while
administrators on the forum always mentioned they doubt the usefullness
of 64bit floating point plugins.

After a break of 15 years im back in music and some things still didnt change.

As i see it Protools HD is the only environment with 3rd party plugins
that are harmonizing and could replace a big consol with some limitations.
But for now thats not an option.

I hoped using strictly 64bit floating point plugins in a real 64bit audio engine
would make the heavy use of plugins possible in a vst environment.

I know how to work OTB.And i regard 32bit DAWS as digital tape decks.
Id like to stay ITB so any input on the possibilities of heavy plugin usage
would help.If i learn that this is not possible this will help too.

thanks in advance
#2
16th April 2008
Old 16th April 2008
  #2
Gear addict
 
Fredo's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 406

Hi,

I'm afraid you have misunderstood the whole thing and are jumping conclusions.

1. For the moment, there is no real advantage to switch the 32 bit float mixer to 64 bit float. That is what you have been told.

2. Most of the VST2 plugins already work at double precision. (64bit) Any critical process is always done in double precision. That goes for native plugins and Third Party plugins.
What happens is: the plugin receives a 32 bit signal from the host, the plugin upsamples to 64bit, does the process and then brings down the numbers to 32 bit and dumps the registers back into the host's summing engine. (which is 32 bit float)

3. The VST2 protocol is fixed to 32-bit in/32 bit out. Regardless of what the plugin does internally.

4. VST3 allows to accept and to dump the 64bit results into a 64bit mixing engine. 64bit in/64 bit out.
This means, used in a host that is double precision, the numbers don't have to be brought back to 32 bit before the registers are dumped into the host's summing engine.


That introduces small errors which end up in the LSB. These errors are of the same "magnitude" as the errors that a 64 bit engine produces.
While a Floating point CPU can hold up to 80bit (and more) registers, SSE registers are limited to (2x) 64 bit.
So, once you begin adding (big) numbers you will encounter the same errors in a 64bit engine as in a 32 bit engine.
In other words, *the way the Nuendo engine is build (holding the registers as long as possibly can before dumping the results to 32 bit)* for simple summing, 64 bit is less precise than 32 bit. (although the 64 bit errors are smaller than the 32bit errors - still both can be neglected.)

There are some advantages to a full 64bit engine, and there are disadvantages. But you should be able to get the exact same results. Unless you are doing some "exotic" things which would never occur in "normal" mixing conditions. (-50 dB/+50 dB)

So, in answer to your question. Most of the good plugins out there already use double precision for their processes. VST3 or VST2 won't make them sound better or worse.
No difference.


Best regards
Fredo
lllubi
Thread Starter
#3
16th April 2008
Old 16th April 2008
  #3
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,565

Thread Starter
hi fredo,

my misinterpretations are completed from a report in a german magazin
on a VST3 developer meeting.

Rod Densham from Sonnox said in this interview that they are very busy at
the moment and that they are not going to work on VST3 prior to
late this year.

I expected a new audio engine supporting 64bit floatingpoint plugins
without dithering a good argument for plugin developers to support
the VST3 standard.

I wanted to strictly use 64bit floating point plugins to circumvent any
possible degradations caused by different filters from different companies.

I simply imagined this like a DSP plattform for plugins with a better resolution
than 32bit floating point without DSP

thanks for your respond
#4
16th April 2008
Old 16th April 2008
  #4
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,374

Quote:
Originally Posted by lllubi View Post
I expected a new audio engine supporting 64bit floatingpoint plugins
without dithering a good argument for plugin developers to support
the VST3 standard.
It isn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lllubi View Post
I wanted to strictly use 64bit floating point plugins to circumvent any
possible degradations caused by different filters from different companies.
That will have no effect whatsoever in the real world. Noone will ever be able to hear the difference. 32 bit float is more than adequate for the job.
lllubi
Thread Starter
#5
17th April 2008
Old 17th April 2008
  #5
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,565

Thread Starter
a moderator on the steinberg forum just responded that cubase will
support 64bit floating point in the future but that he does not know when.

He also said that Waves 6 by his informations will support VST3.

So if 64bit floating point is not improving sound which i hoped,
VST3 is just going to help some developers to make more money with future upgrades .tutt

So simply speaking there will be no alternative to Protools HD 48bit fixed to mix
with a higher resolution ITB in the near future.
#6
17th April 2008
Old 17th April 2008
  #6
Gear addict
 
Fredo's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 406

Quote:
Originally Posted by lllubi View Post
So if 64bit floating point is not improving sound which i hoped,
Again, you are jumping conclusions based on incomplete information.

64bit Processing *does* improve quality. That's why most plugins already use double precision.

64bit Summing *does not* improve quality.

The 64bit support of VST3 is *not* related to the processing, only to the summing.



Quote:
VST3 is just going to help some developers to make more money with future upgrades .
No, not at all.
It is a new future-proof platform which allows developers to write *compatible* plugins with a range of extra features.
Just have a look at the Reflect forum where Harry Gohs explains what he thinks of VST3 and why it is needed for future development.

""Buggy" ?:
As i took my first steps with the final release of VST3 i was a bit discouraged, because it
simply didn't worked... But i was pretty sure that this couldn't be the truth. And a few days later
it turned out that the final release of VST3 expected the Cubase/Nuendo 4.1.2.
Ok, things like that can happen, the SDK should have been released not before 4.1.2.

But you know that bad news find there way thousand times faster than good ones.

Complicated" ?:
There is now a strict technical separation between the dsp (audio) part of a plugin and it's GUI.
This could be a very time consuming tasks for developers to implement if they haven't done it already,
most have done this already because AudioUnits needs this separation too.

This aspect taken aside, i never encountered any SDK till today that was this easy. It was a matter of only a few
days to implement it in our first VST3 plugin MATRIX.

"Useless" ?:
The strict separation of DSP and GUI is a requirement which was really overdue, the advent of multicore CPUs
make this a necessity.
Regarding the feature set itself doesn't seem "earthshaking" on first sight, but little gems sometimes make
live much easier: the well thought out sidechaining, the seemless integration of multichannel plugins...
Ok, there are "workarounds" for some of this features with VST2.4, but "workaround" always means
non-standard with all negative consequences.
Last not least: VST3 has a "built-in" extensibility, which makes it much easier to adopt future requirements
without breaking backward compatibility.

"Incomplete" ?:
There are some areas where speculation is growing a bit, especially regarding the MIDI implementation.
I think there needs to be more information from Steinberg regarding the reasoning behind some decisions
to make it more clear, but hey it's a new standard and it would be the first one able to answer all questions
right from the start !

I'm really hoping that people start looking at it with a bit less emotions...


Quote:
So simply speaking there will be no alternative to Protools HD 48bit fixed to mix with a higher resolution ITB in the near future.
Bit depth is not related to "resolution" as we know it for example in photography. (Cfr Pixels)
More bits means more dynamic range, not "better quality".




Fredo
#7
17th April 2008
Old 17th April 2008
  #7
Moderator
 
psycho_monkey's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Location: Sydney via London

Quote:
Originally Posted by lllubi View Post
As i see it Protools HD is the only environment with 3rd party plugins
that are harmonizing and could replace a big consol with some limitations.
There's plenty of people mixing in the box with a powerful mac/pc, Logic/nuendo/whatever.

3rd party plugins are available in AU, VST, RTAS/TDM and for some MAS formats.

There's plenty of hardware acceleration options out there that aren't HD (Liquidmix, Duende, Waves APA, Powercore, UAD).

Not sure what you mean by this?
#8
17th April 2008
Old 17th April 2008
  #8
Lives for gear
 
joris de man's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2002
Location: Amsterdam - now Steyning, UK
Posts: 599

And to add to this; people have been making amazing sounding records with far less capable technology for the last 20-30 years.
As far as technology goes; we've never, ever had it this good; the fact that you can buy a PC and quality soundcard and do mixes that 10-15 years ago required a top of the line studio says it all really.

Right now, if there is anything hampering your abillity to come up with quality mixes with a modest amount of gear (current computer hardware, good quality soundcard and up to date DAW with a few plug-ins) it will be your abillity; not the summing quality of DAW's or plug-ins.

Sure, there are good plug-ins and bad ones, but if you're working with things like Waves (as you mentioned in another thread) then you're on the better end of the spectrum plug-ins wise.

Even the stock plug-ins in most DAW's these days are very capable...

CHeers,

Joris
lllubi
Thread Starter
#9
17th April 2008
Old 17th April 2008
  #9
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,565

Thread Starter
the best plugins are reserved for Protools HD in the field of
saturation,tape or emulating a console sound like others would say.

the situation started to get better since sonnox,audioease,soundtoys went native.
and then all of a sudden VST3 appears and forces developers to waste
their time rewriting old plugins.

as an example i own as most of you BFD1.
now they released BFD2 allready.
i didnt find any information that they will use VST3 in the near future.

i used to work with ataris and tape and was satisfied with my results.

im really tired of people who say they get the best results with the
cheapest equipment or hear better than a cat.

what you do not understand is very simple:

i want to change to a daw that will not use VST3 in the near future.
because i want to work and not to gamble on the plugin market.

if you were analysts i wouldnt by shares from you

peace
#10
17th April 2008
Old 17th April 2008
  #10
Lives for gear
 
stag's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2004
Location: Over myself
Posts: 931

Quote:
Originally Posted by lllubi View Post
the best plugins are reserved for Protools HD in the field of
saturation,tape or emulating a console sound like others would say.

the situation started to get better since sonnox,audioease,soundtoys went native.
and then all of a sudden VST3 appears and forces developers to waste
their time rewriting old plugins.

as an example i own as most of you BFD1.
now they released BFD2 allready.
i didnt find any information that they will use VST3 in the near future.

i used to work with ataris and tape and was satisfied with my results.

im really tired of people who say they get the best results with the
cheapest equipment or hear better than a cat.

what you do not understand is very simple:


i want to change to a daw that will not use VST3 in the near future.
because i want to work and not to gamble on the plugin market.

if you were analysts i wouldnt by shares from you

peace

I don´t think that taking your decisions on technicalities that concern developers alone will make your work more fruitful.

I like the new plugs on C4. The way they integrate on the workflow et al.

On a side note: If i mix using C4 plugs alone i find it hard to go back and use the usual suspects: UAD and Waves. Character= square waves; thanks but no thanks.

Cubase Plugs are the most silky smooth i ever tried. I don´t mind if they call them VST 3 or 4, just keep with up the good work.
#11
18th April 2008
Old 18th April 2008
  #11
Gear addict
 
Fredo's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 406

Quote:
Originally Posted by lllubi View Post
.
and then all of a sudden VST3 appears and forces developers to waste
their time rewriting old plugins.
Sigh .... I don't know what to say ...
I just gave you evidence (from a non-suspected third party developer) that VST3 is not a waste of time.

Furthermore, no-one forces developers to do anything. Steinberg's Sequencer4 (Nuendo and Cubase) is a VST3 host, but all -properly written- VST2 plugins still work.

This comment is so contradictory to what you have been saying before. First you complain that not enough VST3 hosts and plugins are available, then it's called that developers are "wasting their time" rewriting for VST3.

Quote:
as an example i own as most of you BFD1.
now they released BFD2 already.
i didnt find any information that they will use VST3 in the near future.
So? BFD2 works fine in Cubase4/Nuendo 4
What's the problem? And how does that relate to your above comment?


Quote:
i want to change to a daw that will not use VST3 in the near future.
because i want to work and not to gamble on the plugin market.
huh !?
You started this thread by saying: "I hoped using strictly 64bit floating point plugins in a real 64bit audio enginewould make the heavy use of plugins possible in a vst environment."

This is a 360° change of mind ....
I am afraid that you are very badly informed and that you have very little knowledge of the technical aspects, and by picking up fragments of that information, combined with guessing and assuming, you are jumping conclusions.

Tell is what is really worrying you, and we might be able to give you answers.
If you want to hear them that is ...

Fredo
lllubi
Thread Starter
#12
18th April 2008
Old 18th April 2008
  #12
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,565

Thread Starter
[QUOTE=Fredo;1995623]Sigh .... I don't know what to say ...


Fredo

i was opening the qestion
64bit floating point when?
on the english forums aswell as i had the impression that the moderator
didnt read the VST3 features and was responding to other issues.

the threads i started in the english forums were closed and i started to believe
im in china causing serious troubles to the regime

Cubase doesnt implement sidechain as a userfiendly faeture as for example
Ableton Live does it now for 2 years.

As an answer i got from a cubase moderator he is a musician since 10 years and he doesnt need a sidechain.


after watching a video on sonicstate about VST3 i was reading comments on it
as well as a dicussion between developers on kvr.com

KVR: Don't know if anyone noticed... VST3

you did take part in it as well

waiting for plugins to see if they are going to support VST3 or not is not
my intention .

Asking when will Cubase have a better audio engine would be the correct
question as i see it,but im sure i know what i would hear as an answer.

Stand up and fight for China!!!
C&C

peace
#13
18th April 2008
Old 18th April 2008
  #13
Lives for gear
 
joris de man's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2002
Location: Amsterdam - now Steyning, UK
Posts: 599

Quote:
Originally Posted by lllubi View Post
the best plugins are reserved for Protools HD in the field of
saturation,tape or emulating a console sound like others would say.

the situation started to get better since sonnox,audioease,soundtoys went native.
and then all of a sudden VST3 appears and forces developers to waste
their time rewriting old plugins.

as an example i own as most of you BFD1.
now they released BFD2 allready.
i didnt find any information that they will use VST3 in the near future.

i used to work with ataris and tape and was satisfied with my results.

im really tired of people who say they get the best results with the
cheapest equipment or hear better than a cat.

what you do not understand is very simple:

i want to change to a daw that will not use VST3 in the near future.
because i want to work and not to gamble on the plugin market.

if you were analysts i wouldnt by shares from you

peace
Apples & Oranges; the format has nothing to do with the quality of the plug-ins.

The quality of the plug-ins is up to the quality of the developers, it has little to do with how technically the plug-ins are implemented.
The plug-in format mainly deals with the I/O and user interface aspects; once the audio data is in a format that the plug-in standard can handle, what happens between the input and the output of that plug-in is completely up to the developer.

I would agree that there are certain plug-ins on Protools that aren't matched on VST/Audio Units or other native formats.
Things like Cranesong's Phoenix and some McDSP plug-ins spring to mind.

It is not that these *couldn't* exist in VST format, it is just that the developers have decided not to port them to that particular format.

Like you say, some developers that were TDM exclusive previously are now porting their stuff to native formats, such as SoundToys and URS, so these days there are few TDM plug-ins that don't have native equivalents.

You're right though that I don't understand you; one moment you're going on about how the VST3 standard needs to support 64 bits, of which in a way it is; and then you say you want a DAW that doesn't support the VST3 standard, cause it wastes developers' time?

If you don't want to gamble on the plug-in market, then the solution is very simple; don't buy any plug-ins!!!

Of all the audio equipment you can buy, plug-ins are the least likely to retain their value over time, due to changing platforms, discontinuation of the plug-in itself or the developer going out of business.
I personally have a bunch of plug-ins lying around that I can only use because I never upgraded my Protools Mix set; Lexiverb, Spatializer and Qsound spring to mind (I can happily live without the last two, but Lexiverb is rather good).
The same with some VSTi's; I can't sell them because the License agreement won't allow me to (in this case I don't want to sell them, but I'd be fecked if I did!)

At least with hardware, you can be pretty sure it will still work in 5-10 years time, and retain some of it's value.

Cheers,

Joris
#14
18th April 2008
Old 18th April 2008
  #14
Gear addict
 
Fredo's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 406

Quote:
Originally Posted by lllubi View Post
i was opening the qestion
64bit floating point when?
Please, ask specific questions, and stop responding with generalized, vague questions and statements.

64bit (double precision) is "better" and is used all of the time; in every critical process. That goes for native & third party VST2 and VST3 plugins.
64bit summing is not "better" and will only be introduced (although Steinberg is totally ready/they just have to switch a knob) when the advantages outweigh the disadventages.
And even then ... will it be highly questionable if anyone will be able to measure or even hear the difference.

Quote:
On the english forums aswell as i had the impression that the moderator
didnt read the VST3 features and was responding to other issues.
Be specific. What have you read in the VST3 features that is unclear, or that needs clarification.
Or what do you think we misunderstand about the VST3 features?

Quote:
the threads i started in the english forums were closed and i started to believe
im in china causing serious troubles to the regime
This was very well explained to you.
1. Because you did got all your answers. You kept running in circles. Like we do now.
2. Because you can only have one thread running about the same subject at the same time.

No regime troubles, just making sure that the forum rules are followed. Your original thread is still open.


Quote:

Cubase doesnt implement sidechain as a userfiendly faeture as for example
Ableton Live does it now for 2 years.
Yes it does. Cubase 4 has some of the most advanced side-chaining possibilities that exists. Even in Cubase2 and Cubase3 there is the possibility to use sidechaining; that is if you have the plugins for it.
I don't know how you can say that, since you claim to use Cubase4 ...

Quote:
after watching a video on sonicstate about VST3 i was reading comments on it
as well as a dicussion between developers on kvr.com[*] you did take part in it as well
And if you have read these threads correctly, then it should have become clear that the discussion isn't about VST3 at all.
It's about the *work* they have to put in to make their plugins VST3, thereby totaly ignoring the long-term advantages for the users and host builders.
The reprinted article of Harry Gohs of VirSyn (just a few posts up) was an answer to my question:

There has been a big fuzz by many developers about the new VST3 SDK, claiming that it was useless, complicated, buggy, incomplete, etc ...
Since you are the first 3th party developer (as far as I know of) which implements VST3, could you comment on that please.
Don't be afraid to tell the truth, even if VST3 sucks big time, just say so.
It's just that I have the feeling that the information that is "out there" is far from objective and that this is a perfect opportunity to get some first hand information from someone who actually build a good working VST3 plugin
.



Quote:
waiting for plugins to see if they are going to support VST3 or not is not
my intention .
Again, there is no sonic advantage to VST3.
A VST3 plugin sounds as good as a VST2 plugin.
NO DIFFERENCE.

No-one ever said that VST3 was going to sound better. That is what *you* make of it.
No-one ever said that a 64bit summing engine is going to sound better. That is what *you* make of it.


Quote:
Asking when will Cubase have a better audio engine would be the correct
question as i see it,but im sure i know what i would hear as an answer.
First tell us what is wrong with the Cubase Engine, and then we can start talking.
But before you do that, let's do a small test.

-Grab a (non compressed-so you still can see the peaks) song modulated to 0dB and drop that into Cubase and into a PT HD system.
-Add 12 dB of gain to that channel.
-Lower the output fader by 12 dB.
-Export your song.
-Open the song in a Wave Editor, or re-import into whatever DAW.
-Look at the Waveform.

Now, tell me which one is the superiour audio engine.
That is unless you really dig the sound of a 1930's transistor Radio.



(OK, I know it's not fair, if you stay under the 0dB limit, PT will sound as good as Cubase or Nuendo/and vice versa - this is just for the sake of the argument.)


Matter of fact is that all summing engines used in the right way (be it PT, Nuendo, Logic, name_any_DAW - be it 48fixed point, 32- or 64 bit floating point) will provide the exact same quality and summing.


Fredo
lllubi
Thread Starter
#15
18th April 2008
Old 18th April 2008
  #15
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,565

Thread Starter
joris

you are saying what i missed in my DAW for the last year

i was 15 years away from music and it was very very hard for me to recalibrate
my ears to todays sound.

a friend in the states told me recently that he emulates a console with
some dedicated plugins.

from his tips i could only find URS Console strip Pro as a VST unit,
(with the sidechain only working in Ableton.)

so i asked myself if this plugin uses 64bit fl,point what will happen
if i use different plugins with different fl.points in a raw.

And would it be better to use strictly 64bit fl.point plugins in a 64bit fl,point
environment?
Thats what Protools should be about

im actually testing samplitude 10 and my converters seem to work better
with it.UAD1 makes troubles.
but at least i didnt have to buy it without former testing.

How did Steinberg users get their impressions prior to their buy or
marketing?

thanks
#16
18th April 2008
Old 18th April 2008
  #16
Gear addict
 
Fredo's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 406

Quote:
Originally Posted by lllubi View Post
so i asked myself if this plugin uses 64bit fl,point what will happen if i use different plugins with different fl.points in a raw.
OK, I think I see what has confused you.

As said before, for some processes, double precision is indeed better. That's why any of the "good" plugins already use double precision for their critical processes. But it is wrong to assume that they sound good only because they use double precision.

Quote:
And would it be better to use strictly 64bit fl.point plugins in a 64bit fl,point
environment?
No. As said, it depends on the sort of process. Some processes don't benefit at all from double precision. So, thinking that "more" equals "better" is not correct.
64bit is not nessecairly "better"; that's why the 64bit summing engine is hold back by Steinberg. "64bit is better" is nothing but marketing. (Not to be confused with 64bit processing)

Quote:
Thats what Protools should be about
That is also incorrect. Summing is adding numbers. A Summing engine is a giant calculator. If computer calculators would summ incorrect, planes would crash, Apollo 13 would have landed on Jupiter instead of on the moon, and DNA research would reveal that I am the Father of the Pope.

Quote:
im actually testing samplitude 10 and my converters seem to work better
with it.
If your setup is correct, then it is *impossible* that your converters "sound better" or "sound worse" with different DAW's.

Quote:
How did Steinberg users get their impressions prior to their buy or
marketing?
On what basis did you buy Cubase4?
People buy stuff after research. And if the research tells you that DAW-X would be the best buy for you, you go and test it at the local shop. And you ask other users for advice.


Fredo
lllubi
Thread Starter
#17
18th April 2008
Old 18th April 2008
  #17
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,565

Thread Starter
specific question for
Fredo

which 3rd party plugins will you name that have a sidechain i can use
without a workaround?

thanks
#18
18th April 2008
Old 18th April 2008
  #18
Lives for gear
 
joris de man's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2002
Location: Amsterdam - now Steyning, UK
Posts: 599

The new compressors (vintage and regular flavours), next to a load of effects all allow sidechaining in Cubase/Nuendo 4.

But if you want to use something else, I believe Waves' C1 can do sidechaining, as well as Sonalksis (which some people consider to be some of the best compressors in the business). They use the VST2 standard, and so work under any VST complient Host.
I thought URS did sidechaining with VST as well these days, but I could be wrong.


With regards to simulating mixers in a vst environment (if you're talkin saturation), there are various options:
-URS's saturation plug-in; apparently very good
-PSP has various plug-ins that contain saturation in their mixpack
-Voxengo has a plug-in called Vari Saturator, which offers various flavours of saturation
-Virsyn have a tape emulation plug-in which apparently works extremely well..though I don't know if it is VST 2 as they recently started using VST3
-Sonnox has a warmth function on their compressors which adds....warmth...
-Ferox, another tape emulation plug-in to add some dirt
-Magix has a vintage plug-in suite which has a tape-like simulator with saturation

Though I haven't found an equivelent of Cranesong's Phoenix yet, there are many alternatives.
Also, if you're on a Mac there are quite a few interesting AU plug-ins, amongst others Massey's Tapehead which is very similar to Phoenix.

Massey's stuff might make it over to VST at some point, btw.

etc. etc. etc.
Really, there are numerous options available to get things to gel in a digital world.
And they don't even have to be in the box.
Another option is to route outside and use a summer ;something like TL Audio's Fat Track which will allow 8 channels of Tube summing.

Cheers,

Joris
#19
18th April 2008
Old 18th April 2008
  #19
Gear nut
 
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 113

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fredo View Post
OK, I think I see what has confused you.

and DNA research would reveal that I am the Father of the Pope.


Fredo
I was under the impression that you were the man on the right with the moustache... www.kreuz.net/article/article.3852.jpg



Regards,

S
#20
18th April 2008
Old 18th April 2008
  #20
Gear interested
 
westner's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2005
Location: Boston, MA, USA
Posts: 22

SONAR 7 supports VST 2.4, which does allow for 64-bit double precision input/output to/from SONAR.

SONAR 7 supports sidechaining, as well, also using the VST 2.4 spec. We ship with sidechainable compressors, including the VC-64 which is powered by Kjaerhus. Sidechainable VSTs from Voxengo, Wave Arts and Sonalksis all work fine with SONAR 7.
#21
19th April 2008
Old 19th April 2008
  #21
Gear addict
 
Fredo's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 406

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sequoia Berlin View Post
I was under the impression that you were the man on the right with the moustache... www.kreuz.net/article/article.3852.jpg
Yes, but keep it quiet.

Fredo
lllubi
Thread Starter
#22
19th April 2008
Old 19th April 2008
  #22
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,565

Thread Starter
[QUOTE=joris de man;1996719]The new compressors (vintage and regular flavours), next to a load of effects all allow sidechaining in Cubase/Nuendo 4.

you fix it,
id like to use the voice over effect i used i DS201 hardware.
Kjaerhus has the Golden Audio Gate and Sonalksis their 719SV out for
about one year,but i cant use them in Cubase without opening an extra
quadro channel and doing some routing with it and so on.

following the discussions between the developers made it clear to me
why some plugins work perfectly without a workaround in other DAWS.


i liked Flux Epure Eq very much during my testing but had to realize that
they are partners of Digidesign.so id better ask them what this means
when they translate it to a VST3 user.

Samplitude 10 and Sonar 7 seem to include a multichannel "Beatdedectiv"
in their new specs. What for my needs is allready a musthave.

So i see that its not only the plugins that make big step towards the
professional sector.I did ignore their developments since i didnt read
positive comments on their sound on my trustworthy magazins.

So ill test them and give Fredo a little break.
I said a little.

thanks
#23
21st April 2008
Old 21st April 2008
  #23
Gear addict
 
Fredo's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 406

Quote:
Originally Posted by lllubi View Post
....,but i cant use them in Cubase without opening an extra quadro channel and doing some routing with it and so on.
Well, there you have it.
This is a good reason for developers to switch to VST3.
While sideschining is possible with VST2, it is not documented within the VST2 SDK, so very Third Party manufacturer implements it like he thinks it should be done. The result is incompatibility. Or at least different workflows.

Quote:
following the discussions between the developers made it clear to me
why some plugins work perfectly without a workaround in other DAWS.
It is correct that part of the problem (was) the outdated routing/piping of the Steinberg Sequencers; but the matter of fact is that the sidechining in VST3 is much better than any flavor of sidechaining in VST2.

Quote:
So ill test them and give Fredo a little break.
I said a little.
Good luck!
By the way, no need to give me a break. That's what i am not paid for.
;o)


Fredo
#24
31st January 2010
Old 31st January 2010
  #24
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Jun 2007
Location: Zurich
Posts: 1,326

We are in 2010 now
#25
3rd February 2010
Old 3rd February 2010
  #25
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 885

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkyGoldstein View Post
We are in 2010 now
your point is????
#26
22nd October 2010
Old 22nd October 2010
  #26
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Jul 2010
Location: McPherson, Singapore
Posts: 601

Hi I am on a mac, may I know which DAW supports vst3 plugins please, thank you. I tried ableton 8 & cockos reaper, but they dont display vst3 plugins.
#27
22nd October 2010
Old 22nd October 2010
  #27
Gear maniac
 
Alex_HS's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2009
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 291
My Studio

PureArtist, Presonus Studio One.
#28
27th January 2011
Old 27th January 2011
  #28
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Jun 2007
Location: Zurich
Posts: 1,326

We are in 2011 now
#29
27th January 2011
Old 27th January 2011
  #29
Gear addict
 
7thangelz's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2008
Location: toronto
Posts: 428

Quote:
Originally Posted by PureArtist View Post
Hi I am on a mac, may I know which DAW supports vst3 plugins please, thank you. I tried ableton 8 & cockos reaper, but they dont display vst3 plugins.
for the mac, cubendo, studio one, and n-track.

**i think you can add vienna ensemble pro as well (it can host vst3)**
TNM
#30
8th February 2011
Old 8th February 2011
  #30
TNM
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Jan 2010
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,496

studio one doesn't support them properly and crashes with many of them on mac.

It doesn't support the save cpu when processing silence feature.

There;s no advantage in S1 to use vst3 versions as S1 supports internal sidechain for vst 2.4 plugins AND you can categorize them in your own folders.
New Reply Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+ 
 
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
introvert / Music Computers
5
TinderArts / Mastering forum
43
dongle / Music Computers
1
Hexfix93 / Music Computers
3

Forum Jump
 
Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.