The Logic Off Topic list

--- In logic-users@yahoogroups.com, "Sascha Franck" <S.Franck@g...> 
wrote:
> To me it looks like there's not much public demand for a 
> new standard. VST plugins (of course assuming they're 
> running well) seem to fit most needs pretty well allready.

Yep, VST's seem to work pretty well. 

And if Steinberg leapfrog AU by rushing out an improved  
"VST version 3" in a few months time, and they make it 
nominally a superset of the published AU format, but with 
the added advantage of being cross--platform ... and 
include a simple shell that allows VST3s to effectively 
run stand-alone with rewire support, under all the 
platforms ... 
 
Emagic could look very silly. It would look like they'd 
put people through all this grief for months, and caused 
delays in innumerable third-party softsynth development 
programs, for something that would look like it would 
have happened anyway.
 
[Erk]
(message rejected from "logic-users")

>And if Steinberg leapfrog AU by rushing out an improved 
>"VST version 3" in a few months time, and they make it
>nominally a superset of the published AU format, but with
>the added advantage of being cross--platform ... and
>include a simple shell that allows VST3s to effectively
>run stand-alone with rewire support, under all the
>platforms ...

And if they hurry up and put those wings on pigs.....

On a fine day, 19-02-2003, Dennis Gunn wrote:

>  >And if Steinberg leapfrog AU by rushing out an improved
>>"VST version 3" in a few months time, and they make it
>>nominally a superset of the published AU format, but with
>>the added advantage of being cross--platform ... and
>>include a simple shell that allows VST3s to effectively
>>run stand-alone with rewire support, under all the
>>platforms ...
>
>And if they hurry up and put those wings on pigs.....

You obviously saw too many old Pink Floyd videos lately... :-)

-- 
Hendrik Jan Veenstra  <h@...>
Omega Art: http://www.omega-art.com

--- In logic-ot@yahoogroups.com, Dennis Gunn <dennisg@a...> wrote:
> >And if Steinberg leapfrog AU by rushing out an improved 
> >"VST version 3" in a few months time, and they make it
> >nominally a superset of the published AU format, but with
> >the added advantage of being cross--platform ... and
> >include a simple shell that allows VST3s to effectively
> >run stand-alone with rewire support, under all the
> >platforms ...
> 
> And if they hurry up and put those wings on pigs.....

Well, the "stand-alone shell" part should be easy, and wouldn't need 
a new VST format -- all they'd have to do is take the VSTACK code and 
strip out the effects and multi-instrument stuff, so that it's just 
left as a minimal shell that holds one VST. 

And if they ported that empty shell to AU, they'd be able to 
say, "See, now we don't have to bother porting any of our instruments 
across to AU, because the shell can run an OSX VST inside an AU 
slot." 
Perhaps not quite as conveniently as having the host app running the 
OSX VST directly, but maybe Steinberg wouldn't lose too much sleep 
over that ...

Snag is, it might slightly undermine VSTACK sales on the other 
platforms. 
So .. perhaps another possible alternative might be for them to 
produce an OSX version of VSTACK that can run as an AU? 
That way they'd have an "AU" option for all their OSX VSTs, and 
they'd get to make a few extra sales at the same time (and get  
SystemLink-capable software installed onto more machines)

>--- In logic-ot@yahoogroups.com, Dennis Gunn <dennisg@a...> wrote:
>>  >And if Steinberg leapfrog AU by rushing out an improved
>>  >"VST version 3" in a few months time, and they make it
>>  >nominally a superset of the published AU format, but with
>>  >the added advantage of being cross--platform ... and
>>  >include a simple shell that allows VST3s to effectively
>>  >run stand-alone with rewire support, under all the
>>  >platforms ...
>>
>>  And if they hurry up and put those wings on pigs.....
>
>Well, the "stand-alone shell" part should be easy, and wouldn't need
>a new VST format -- all they'd have to do is take the VSTACK code and
>strip out the effects and multi-instrument stuff, so that it's just
>left as a minimal shell that holds one VST.

Some day someone may make an AU Wrapper for VSTs.  The question is 
"why should we consumer want that?".   What is the point of all this 
Rube Goldberg wrapper crap that will just at a layer of instability, 
complication, and CPU overheard?

It would be about a million times better for all of us consumers if 
the developers would simply make the OSX plugins in the AU format 
like they should be doing.   *That* is what you should be lobbying 
for.

There is some thing that really bugs me in the way that people keep 
ignoring the fact that there is no such thing  as a cross platform 
format now.  As we all know, just because the label says VST does not 
mean that you can use a Mac one on a PC or vice versa.  Same with 
TDMs and RTAS and every other plugin format out there.  Plugins on 
the various platforms all need some rewriting before they can work on 
other platforms.  So what if a PC VST ends up getting called an AU 
when it is in OSX?    The code that makes the sound will be the same.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Dennis Gunn wrote:
> As we all know, just because the label says VST does not
> mean that you can use a Mac one on a PC or vice versa.  Same with
> TDMs and RTAS and every other plugin format out there.  Plugins on
> the various platforms all need some rewriting before they can work on
> other platforms.  So what if a PC VST ends up getting called an AU
> when it is in OSX?    The code that makes the sound will be the same.

You defenitely have a point here, Dennis - but as usual that's not all there
is about it.
So far quite a lot of developers seem to go the "VST/Win/MacOS9 > VST/OSX >
perhaps AU" route.
That doesn't make the AU format look like a very prominent thing, regarding
public perception.
In the end, no matter how you put it, the programmers have to a) accept AU
as being the best "standard" to develop for on OSX (no matter whether
they'll be doing OSX/OS9/Win -VST versions at the same time) and b) convince
people those new AUs are a good thing to have/buy - instead of still buying
VST versions.
And then, Erik has a point as well, what if VST3 simply superceeds the specs
of AU? I don't know whether that'd be possible at all, but hey, in the end
all these discussions are rather speculative anyways.

The only point IMO is: It's just silly to force someone into a new
"standard", no matter if it'd be WAY better than anything that was existing
before. Thing is, LA6 IS VST compatible (as the OS9 version will prove) and
VST-support for OSX is possible as well.

To me it just looks stupid making a program LESS compatible just to force
people to believe in (or develop for) a new standard.

If AU is so much better, people will just buy AU versions and developers
will just do AU versions instead of VST/OSX versions.

As said before, EASI was said to be a WAY better protocol than ASIO too.
It's almost unknown these days though because ASIO allready was good enough.
Whether that is a good thing or not I'm not able to decide, but it clearly
shows that once you established something for a wide amount of people it's
hard to make the folks believe there's something better - no matter if it is
or not.

Sascha

--- In logic-ot@yahoogroups.com, "Sascha Franck" <S.Franck@g...> 
wrote:
 
> As said before, EASI was said to be a WAY better protocol 
> than ASIO too.
> It's almost unknown these days though because ASIO allready 
> was good enough.
> Whether that is a good thing or not I'm not able to decide, 
> but it clearly shows that once you established something 
> for a wide amount of people it's hard to make the folks 
> believe there's something better - no matter if it is
> or not.

Hi Sascha!

Yep, I think the "good enough" point is relevant ... if people 
already have something that works, any replacement has to seem to 
offer /significant/ advantages to make the switch worthwhile, 
otherwise the inconvenience of switching (and worrying about whether 
to switch or not, and compatibility, and migration) can be the 
overriding factor. 
Apart from some of the more "techhie" people, I think people just 
want stuff that works, that they can do music on, without thinking 
too much about what's going on under the hood.


In a similar vein, the .DLS ("DownLoadable Sounds") format was 
allegedly a superset of the SoundFont2 standard, got adopted by the 
MMA as the "official" sampled instrument standard ... but nobody much 
seems to use it apart from Apple, because the switch to yet another 
format and another set of tools just wasn't worth it for most people. 
Creative's "Vienna" SF2 authoring tool really isn't that great, and 
I'm prepared to believe that DLS authoring tools might well be 
better, but most of the people who use these formats are end-users 
rather than authors (most of us don't write softsynth code or publish 
sample sets).  
So even if DLS /was/ technically better, it wasn't better /enough/ to 
give people a compelling enough reason to withdraw their .SF2 
libraries and replace them with .DLS versions. 
AFAIK, there wasn't the unique DLS-based content that would make 
people want to go specifically looking for DLS software or hardware

Erk

Well similar to the VST situation, I have more than $1000 worth of Photoshop 
plugins that won't work in OS X. Apple is not very good at this kind of thing.