Is VST3 worth it?

[Dewdman42]

Whenever possible, yes use VST3. It is definitely an improvement on VST2 and will be the future. VST2 isn't going away tomorrow, but sooner or later, it will go away. I already disable all my VST2 plugins in Cubase and StudioOne, prefer using VST3 every time when it's available. Its getting to where most major plugins are coming out in VST3 format now. The end of VST2 is coming...

[replicant X]

deleted

[ictools]

OK, so VST3 is a new improved (and still improving?) plug-in specification.

For VST3 to be of any benefit to users:
(a) the DAW host must support its functionality,
(b) the plug-ins must make use of that functionality.

So my questions are:

• Q1: what aspects of the VST3 new / changed functionality does ( DAW support?
• Q2: what aspects of the VST3 new / changed functionality does ( plug-in implement?

After all, a developer could take a VST2 plug-in, build it into the VST3 format, without adding any support for the new /changed functions, but it would still be a VST3 plug-in.

Or, have I missed the point?

Please reply only with specific answer to Q1 or Q2 or both, to avoid clutter.
(Also posted in "Instruments").

VST2 and Windows XP is all you really need, but seriously, yes VST3 is the future.

[reggie1979]

[Functional]

BTW, 2008? 11 years later and there are only a few hosts that truly support this standard? What a mess.

It's because there's costs too, not only benefits. Lot of synths up to this date don't really utilize VST3 in a way that can't be implemented in VST2 and on the other hand because some (popular) daws don't support VST3, stuff like MPE has to be implemented in VST2.4 too and it's different code-wise. So VST3 means just more work. At the same time, any VST3 capable DAW is capable of VST2.4 support too.

All this means that lot of devs are adamant against VST3, synths or hosts. Also I think VST3 support actually costs too, as in, they'll have to pay Steinberg for it.

That isn't to say VST3 doesn't have its benefits (because it does) but it is to say that for most people, it doesn't. Which is why this whole process drags forever.

[reggie1979]

Understood but what I don't understand is that if vst2 is "dead" then why is it a thing? Sometimes I'm just too logical, I'm thinking onward and upward, adapt, etc.

THEN AGAIN, I use Reason as my number one so viva la vst2!

[Functional]

Understood but what I don't understand is that if vst2 is "dead" then why is it a thing? Sometimes I'm just too logical, I'm thinking onward and upward, adapt, etc.

THEN AGAIN, I use Reason as my number one so viva la vst2!

VST2 isn't dead, I just told you the reason too: clashing corporate / business interests

[Forgotten]

VST2 isn't dead

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZw35VUBdzo

[reggie1979]

[reggie1979]

Very nice. Well, good luck to ya............

[Functional]

VST2 isn't dead

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZw35VUBdzo

As funny as that is, we still have major daws such as Ableton that don't even support VST3 and plugin developers that don't use the format even though they use 2.4. These are getting rarer, but they're still out there.

Trust me, I'd be that much happier if we would only have VST3 and would not have to bother with VST 2.4 at all.

[AnX]

There are too many plugins.
VST3 is useful to screen out unskilled developers.

why would steinberg create a format that screens themselves out?

[BONES]

I already disable all my VST2 plugins in Cubase and StudioOne, prefer using VST3 every time when it's available.

And what benefits does that bestow upon you? i..e Why do you bother doing that?

Trust me, I'd be that much happier if we would only have VST3 and would not have to bother with VST 2.4 at all.

Why? Why should anyone care? I don't, I just install both and I wouldn't know which one I actually use in Cubase.

I'd prioritise the use of VST3 plugins if there was a tangible benefit to doing so - e.g. lower latency, less CPU strain, etc. - but if there is nothing like that on the table, why care or bother with it?

[Functional]

Trust me, I'd be that much happier if we would only have VST3 and would not have to bother with VST 2.4 at all.

Why? Why should anyone care? I don't, I just install both and I wouldn't know which one I actually use in Cubase.

I could write this in a long story but I decided to do it in a short story: if every major DAW would support VST3, then plugin developers would only have to develop for VST3 and it wouldn't matter whenever they would benefit from VST3 format itself or not.

Right now, because the likes of Ableton that simply outright refuse to implement VST3 support, we are in a situation where lot of devs are grumpy about VST2.4 and VST3 debacle because they have to do the same thing over again in another format just because people keep asking for it (even if there's no actual benefit for those particular plugins) and because some DAWs just avoid VST3 to oblivion.

And in case anyone asks why not only VST2.4, the answer is simple: VST3 can do things that VST2.4 can't and VST2.4 can't do things that VST3 can't. Even if 99% of the plugins that are out there do not benefit from VST3 all that much, the 1% that does (i.e. ARA support) justifies the existence of VST3, whereas VST2.4 should be viewed as an outdated, redundant format that should be supported but not developed for anymore.

[EvilDragon]

Ableton 10.1 actually got VST3 support.

Also ARA support is not directly tied to VST3, it can be implemented in VST2.4 plugins as well.


VST3 suffers from over-engineering for no good reason whereas VST2 is a much simpler SDK overall. I wouldn't call it redundant and outdated, many of the things VST3 touts were possible in VST2 as well, and in fact nearly all the things VST3 touts could've been a part of VST2.5 without completely changing how the plugins are built and how the SDK is laid out. But no, why should things be simple when they can be complicated?