VST 2 or VST 3 - what's the difference and which is better?

January 26, 2019

In 2013, Steinberg announced that the Software Development Kit (SDK) for the VST2 plug-in format is no longer supported, but the SDK itself will continue to be available as a subset of the VST3 SDK. Then, in May 2018, Steinberg announced that a subset would be eliminated from October. If you are impatient and just want to summarize this article, here is: VST 2.4 plugins work great for a very long time. Most hosts are more than happy with VST3 versions. They are at least as good as VST 2.4 versions and may even offer some advantages.

How important is the migration to VST3? Let's start with a few myths.

MYTH 1: VST3 plugins are more effective

VST is an interface specification for how the plugin interacts with the host. So performance depends on the code, not the specification. The VST2.4 and VST3.0 plugins share a common code base, and almost all of the internal code is identical. Therefore, this does not affect the processing of audio material.


MYTH 2: VST3 plugins are no more effective

plaginy VST3 ne boleyeffektnyPlugins - no, but they can be disabled if the data is not processed. This does not only apply to VST3. Developers could do this using old technologies. However, VST3 is a standardized method that works as long as it is implemented by both the host (see Figure 1) and the plug-in manufacturer (like MIDI). For example, manufacturers can choose what to support in the VST3 specification. Just because the keyboard supports MIDI doesn't mean it implements polyphonic subsequent touch.


MYTH 3: VST3 is buggy, so it's best to stick with VST 2.4 for now

The VST3 specification has been around for 10 years and implementation has been relatively slow as the early version was stable. Over those 10 years, manufacturers have improved their code and generally fixed potential bugs so VST3 plugins are just as reliable as v2.4. Remember that the problem is not with the specification itself, but with the implementation. You can set both types if you want, as plugins don't usually take up much space by themselves (their libraries and samples replace tools). Also note, however, that many companies are more actively developing and debugging their versions of VST3 while there is a delay in updating previous versions.


MYTH 4: Now that VST3 is out, VST 2.4 plugins are obsolete

vst 2, vst 3 Each host can freely support VST 2.4 and / or VST3 (Fig. 2). If the program supports your VST 2.4 plugins, it will continue to do so unless the manufacturer specifically removes this support. Please note that the lower part of the graphic symbol is different for the two types. When you click on the plugin, the supplier, type and category as well as a link to the manufacturer's website are displayed in the information bar at the bottom. In the end, developers can stop releasing VST2.4 once VST3 hits most of the music market.


MYTH 5: Ableton Live cannot use VST3 plugins

Although there is no built-in support for VST3, the Metaplugin DDMF plugin helps with the installation. You can insert it as a plug-in into Ableton Live and then into VST3.


MYTH 6: You need to install the VST3 plugins in a specific location on the system drive

This is a preference, not necessarily an iron rule. In fact, this can be good because when you create a system disk image, you are also backing up your plugins. Usually, however, you can install them wherever you want (on Windows, directory links can point to the default VST3 folder on each drive).


MYTH 7: You must have VST3 side chain plugins

Not necessarily. Several hosts and plugins have implemented page binding with VST 2.4 over the years.


MYTH 8: VST3 has many interesting new features that are not available in versions of VST 2.4

Possibly yes. If a product was developed exclusively for VST3, it will likely take advantage of at least some improvements. However, during the transition, many developers created VST3 plug-ins with the same basic functionality as their version of VST 2.4.


MYTH 9: VST3 is no different from VST 2.4. It's just a joke; There are no real improvements

VST3 is a remake of VST 2.4, and indeed a new platform.


Source / Translated with Google
https://arefyevstudio.com/de/2019/01/26/vst-2-oder-vst-3-was-ist-der-unterschied-und-was-ist-besser/

 

Consider some of the benefits:

- An example of precise automation. The manufacturer should implement this, but this is a major change from VST 2.4.

- Hierarchical plugin and classification of automation parameters. Some people think that categorizing plugins (Fig. 3) is a downside as it doesn't let you organize them however you want (although most hosts provide some sort of manager, it doesn't matter in this case). However, if you want to automate parameters, VST3 plugins can make life a lot easier if the manufacturer uses the options to categorize parameters.

- Grouping all of the filter automation parameters into the filter category is much better than having a large list of automation parameters with a seemingly random arrangement.

- VST3 SDK is a free technology available to every developer.

- Dynamic I / O assignment. VST 2.4 plugins used to have a fixed number of inputs and outputs, but this is no longer the case - VST3 plugins can adapt to the channel configuration in which they are shipped. Plug the connector into the stereo bus and it will be stereo. Put it in the surround bus and it will be surround.

- You can also create sound buses, which simplifies cross-modulation and vocoder. On the other hand, these functions are dependent on the manufacturer.

- With VST3 you can switch off unused outputs, but switch them on again if necessary.

- Change the size of the window. This is certainly to be welcomed as monitors have a wider range of resolutions than when VST was introduced in 1996 (and for the future, “Macarena” was better than song of the year. Just a quick note).

- Virtual instruments support multiple MIDI ports that you can switch on the fly. And who doesn't like a couple of MIDI ports?

- It's much easier to search and find your plugins. VST3 has the suffix .vst3 instead of the general suffix.

- Plugins can have a dedicated "event bus". While it is currently intended for MIDI control input, there is no reason why it couldn't conform to a future non-MIDI standard.

- VSTXML for remote controls. No, the cat didn't walk on my keyboard. VSTXML is a protocol that simplifies the creation of remote controls for audio and MIDI applications. Even non-editable parameters such as the measurement can be displayed.

- Multilingual design. All user-oriented strings are represented in Unicode format, which can be used to display characters in any language (including Russian - which means "including Russian") for ease of localization.

Source / Translated with Google
https://arefyevstudio.com/de/2019/01/26/vst-2-oder-vst-3-was-ist-der-unterschied-und-was-ist-besser/

 

Interesting info, thx. I just got used to VST3.

Btw R2R also now mostly releases their products in VST3 only.

 

Interesting. Anyway, VST2 is about to die out. Developers are increasingly releasing their plugins exclusively as VST3. A process comparable to the transition from 32 to 64 bit. So it's time to get used to VST3, folks!

 

I use cubase5 x86(32bit), I installed (for example) fab filter pro Q3 and trackspacer in vst3 format. In this version of these plugs the sidechain function is integrated directly in the vst gui ...very useful for me!

 

True. But one rhetorical question: Who even needs more/new plugins?

 

Hard times for plugin developers that they even have to resort anime girl user interfaces

 

Even more difference than I already knew. Nice. Already started to only install VST3, if possible. Most plugins have the VST3 option these days.

 

Well, you can freeze your equipment and use it unchanged as long as possible. I know people who do that. Or you touch it. Then you have to deal inevitably with the current state of the art, because the old stuff doesn't exist anymore.