Hello,

I'm inviting you to a more "looking at the future" kind of conversation about producing/composing. To us who are used to working with DAWs, plugins, samplers, routing, Kontakt etc, the technical parts and processes seem trivial, but the number one thing I hear from beginners all the time is things like "why is this so difficult". Most of the time I just take this kind of comment with a grain of salt (because beginners are sometimes just lazy) but how often I hear this from students just got me thinking.

Take composing something with an orchestral Kontakt library for example. It's hard for a beginner to wrap their head around keyswitches, expression maps, etc. Why isn't the DAW just smart enough to scan Kontakt and figure out how to map/route things automatically, and let us focus our time purely on the writing aspect instead? We have the tech and the know-how. Why doesn't the industry go toward that direction?

Well, first I understand that for the creators of DAWs developing something that scans and integrates 3rd party software in that level can be a snowball of complications. My knowledge of programming and code is rudimentary, but I assume this would involve needing to know the source code of whichever plugin you are trying to implement, and companies obviously won't just release their source code out in the wild out of the goodness of their hearts. Corrrect me if I'm wrong, but I believe this could be a reason.

But what I think is the argument I would disagree with the most (I've been agreeing so far, but OK) is that things are the way they are because they always have been. That's just no excuse in the world of software. Every single industry that has transitioned to the digital age has had their software significantly changed/improved in some way. Video editing, 3D modelling, architecture, photo editing, animation, video effects, etc, but audio/music software for some reason is still functioning the same way it has since the 90s. Heck, take notation software for instance. For decades Sibelius and Finale have had no improvement on how they function. Sure, Dorico and StaffPad came in and brought new things/ways to use notation software, but I wouldn't call them "revolutionary" by any means. Revolutionary means it's so good it becomes a standard, and notation software is so slow to catch up to anything I doubt it even made much impact.

And I don't think a lack of competition is the cause of this (although it might be in the case of notation software). There are plenty of companies making DAWs, but they are so similar to a point it becomes hard to recommend a DAW, especially to a beginner.

Which leads me to the title of this post... Those who are more tech savvy than me can correct me, but what if the VST format (the one every DAW uses) is actually the culprit?
Think about it: DAWs are built around it, and it has existed since the beginning of producing digitally, and has not changed. It has been UPDATED, but not changed (and not every company has updated their plugins to VST3). Who owns the VST format, why is it still prevalent, and could ditching it for an alternative in the future make DAWs more straightforward to use?

Let me know what you think... It's a lot in one post but I think it's an interesting discussion, especially because it's not discussed enough.

 

Virtual Studio Technology (VST) is an audio plug-in software interface that integrates software synthesizers and effects units into digital audio workstations. under license from its creator, Steinberg. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_Studio_Technology

It depends on what kind of music you want to make. What education they have. Private or commercial.

For a private user who doesn't have high demands, making music is relatively easy, he buys FL Studio, pays once and has lifetime updates for free. FL Studio is pattern based and you just draw in your beats with the mouse, set the speed and your first beat is ready. Then you upload your videos to the free platform YouTube. A small midikeyboard, headphones or small boxes and almost anyone with little money can be creative on the computer, laptop, notebook, etc.. Make music.

 

Last edited: Apr 24, 2022

U-he and others are working on something called CLAP which aims to address some things, feel free to skim through the thread seeing the complexities involved.

But whatever it ends up being it'll take a long while before any meaningful support. Steinberg won't give up VST, Apple won't give up AU, Avid won't give up AAX.

 

This is interesting.

 

I feel linking CLAP to being a u-he project really distracts from it and minimizes the backing that CLAP has, Alexandre and Oli are far more the architects behind it, and guarantee that Ableton and Bitwig will both be key supporters

 

True, should've been more specific. "and others" doesn't really convey that.

It's just that the "announcement" was done by Urs always stuck to my mind, so my bad. It is indeed a group effort with many people and parties.

 

The fault is in the system. It's almost all individual companies, these companies have invented something or they have a product that consumers demand, it's actually always monopolization. They apply for a patent and have their products protected so that no one else can copy them. The goal of every company is to make a profit. Sometimes a company goes bankrupt or is bought out, and so the expertise and patents flow into the new company.

This company then has even more market power and it then tries to push the other competitors, with new better products, from the market. A positive example is the interface ARA, the company Celemony has invented Melodyne, patented of course, and asked as the first PreSonus - Studio One whether they would be interested in it and Studio One was equipped with the new ARA interface relatively quickly. The competition then also wanted to have this and so followed gradually other DAW manufacturers.

Note-based audio editing:
Melodyne gives you unparalleled access to all the musical details in your recordings and samples - note by note. This is made possible by a sophisticated analysis that deeply penetrates your recordings and samples and recognizes and understands the musical relationships within them: The individual notes and their properties, the scales and chords used, timing, tempo, sound. And you can then edit all this intuitively with Melodyne. With vocals, but also with any other instrument, even polyphonic ones like piano or guitar.

Interfaces:
Plugin operation via VST3, AU or AAX. ARA operation with compatible DAWs, as indicated in the DAW compatibility overview.

Audio Random Access (ARA):
Audio Random Access (ARA) is an extension of audio interfaces such as VST or AU, developed by Celemony Software and Presonus Software, which allows the exchange of additional information between the Digital Audio Workstation (DAW for short) and audio plug-ins. A plug-in with ARA not only receives the audio data currently present from the DAW at the moment of playback, but also has access to the complete audio data of a sequencer arrangement before and after the playback position. In practice, this eliminates the need to transfer the audio data to a plug-in, as is currently necessary when working with Melodyne without ARA.

The workflow when working with Melodyne thus becomes faster and permits editing in real time. In addition, ARA allows audio data already analyzed by Melodyne to be converted into MIDI data by simple drag and drop in the sequencer.

ARA must be supported by both the DAW and the plug-in and does not appear as stand-alone software but is integrated into compatible DAWs and plug-ins. ARA is built into Melodyne editor, assistant and essential from version 1.3, Melodyne studio from version 4, Cubase from version 10.0.30[2], Logic Pro X from version 10.4[3], Presonus Studio One from version 2, Cakewalk Sonar from version X3 and Samplitude Pro from version X3. The Software Development Kit has been released so that more manufacturers can support ARA.

 

VST's are tools that need to be mastered, just like real instruments such as a violin, piano & guitar, plus fx pedals, reverb units, EQ & compressor modules, etc. I see a trend towards simplicity, but is this really such a good thing? Who is in control, the man or the machine? Personally, I think VST's are one of the greatest inventions in the history of professional audio, and it has liberated the art of music making for the masses. Yes, automated EQ's are nice, but I still prefer the control of a single unit as it allows me to sculpt the sound how I want it.

 

Last edited: Apr 24, 2022

I agree. What I think people really mean by things needing to be simpler isn't so much having control taken from you, but more like things just being more straightforward and easier to understand. Let's use the automated EQ as an example. Automated EQs are as effective as the options they give you, so on a perfect world an automated EQ should actually have lots of things you can tweak, including just letting you disable the automatic features altogether, since you are an advanced user.

 

The VST is just a format that can (and will) evolve, and all those "ready to go" integration thing you talk about are already in the way. But the (r)evolution will mostly come from the MIDI format change, the MIDI 2 version seems to move in that direction, where your plugin can easily communicate with your controller (send information and not just receive it). That mean everything can be pre-mapped and change according to what you're using (kind of like a basic midi keyboard, but more complex with more control other than just the notes).

The VST 3 itself already allow all that, and DAW like Ableton or FL Studio already have some pre-mapped controlers and can be really easy to setup without any need for VST, but at the same time, for more advanced user, it's great to and they got more option to go beyond their DAW with the VST format. The VST format is just a convention choose by plugin and DAW developper to make it easy for them to have everything compatible (kind of like the MIDI format became a standard at some point, cause the more format available, the harder it is to have everything compatible with each other.

When (or if) a format like that disappear, it takes a lot of time, and it happens because it's not really use anymore by the majority of people (not just the one who jump on every update). Kind of like VST1 disappear or DX plugin, it was there, then it stop to get some new update from developper, and at some point it became so irrelevent that it disappear, without being anoying for any user cause it was obsolete enough.

 

DAWs often don't implement VST3 functionality properly or even don't, at times. That being said Cubase is probably the best implementation of a VST3 host. Not much people really uses VST3 directly to make a plugin so most of the bugs and workarounds are handled by a framework, so most devs don't probably know the shortcomings of VST3.

Finally, it always comes down to "If it ain't broken, don't fix it" and this is more true with older software which has been in development for decades.

 

Thanks for the update

 

I think VST needs a way to communicate patch names (and maybe other settings) to a DAW so tracks can automatically be named by plugin / patch. This should be standardised - each patch could also contain basic data such as instrument / sound type. Imagine being able to browse a combined patch list of all VSTi plugins within a DAW, with detailed information, without having to first load the VSTi.

 

Been a feature of VST since version 2 (~circa 2006). FL already has an option for naming plugin channels/insert slots by patch names.

This one would be easy to implement provided the plugin already stores that information in presets. But most plugins don't I guess. Also it would be too variable. Is a sound a lead or a chord, or a bass patch, most likely it can be used for all purposes but maybe in different genres. Also its a bit of perspective based thing really.

I guessed NKS already did that?

A more proper solution would be the standardisation of the preset format in an extensible manner. VST2 and 3 already have standards for presets which certain plugins don't follow. For example VST2 preset contain the name of preset. And some sort of certification by Steinberg for DAWs that implement these features

 

You know what? Making music is complicated. If you want to do it right. And good. Whatever that means.

Getting a PhD in astrophysics too is complicated. Becoming a brain-surgeon is complicated. Inventing computers was complicated. If you want great results, you have to put in great efforts.

I can't stand that whining "Oh, everything is so complicated". Since when are lazy and/or stupid people entitled to big successes? What the f*** is that? Make it more complicated. So that the lot of BS music from stupid little boys (mostly its from boys) will get less and less in the future.

Back in the day it was: Yeah, he went to guitar school. 5 weeks. Nah, he realized, that that wasn't his thing. Nowadays it's: why don't they (whoever that is) make things not so easy, that I have to do nothing to get a wonderful genius piece of music out?

Why? Because these little snowflaky morons are stupid. Lazy. Idiots. Can't read a manual. Heck, do not even know what a manual is? "Why do my mixes suck?" "Oh, it's not only the mix that sucks..." "Why I am not successful? I have worked 3 weeks since I got my DAW on that piece of music!" "Oh, it's not a piece of music, it's a piece of crap! That's why you are not sucessful! Easy, isn't it?"

The whining comes always from the ones with the most idiotic "music". And these are the ones that put 90% of their effort into a cultural war about digital vs. analog and the like. Companies are the bad guys. Companies hinder these pee-babies from becoming successful.

It's disgusting. Idiots rule the world. Or?

 

Then Why Was All the BEST music made Back in the Day!! Because you have a generation of so called Tech idiots! who sit behind a screen!.
When Bands ruled the roost! & it sounded so so good!! But today Everyman & his Dog thinks he's a Producer but actually there SHIT!

 

No compliance standard !There are 3 kinds of people: Windows users, Mac users and Linux users.

Each of these 3 operating systems is constantly changing and the software manufacturers have to constantly adapt to these
new conditions, which costs a lot of time and money. In addition, there are different devices and different CPUs and RAMs.

I mean we have come a long way and most of it works. I think that the future will become more and more digital and the
applications more and more complex. On top of that, there is AI intelligence. There's no telling what the end result will be.
The whole music computer system also has to be made secure against hacker attacks and power failures.

 

From a technical point of view, VST is a plugin format. If you exchange that then you still would have the same problems with any new/other plugin format. The meaning of a plugin is to extend the functionality of a software (and of course it creates a market, where the developer could get money by selling licenses for providing the plugin format). This concept is great since many developers can contribute their parts (VST plugins) to an existing software (DAW).

There is no software in existence which is able to scan any file and decide whether it is a usable plugin and map it accordingly. Instead the concept of "interfaces" is being used. You can see this concept everywhere. If you want to mount tires to your car you need to know how many holes for the screws and what sizes the holes must have, if you want to install a door, your new door must have appropirate counterparts (size, height, ...) to be mounted at your house. The same goes for plugins. VST is a technical specification of a plugin. A DAW doesn't need to know all source codes of all available plugins but it uses the VST specification to check if a file has an appropriate plugin format to be used inside the DAW.

Conclusion 1: an intelligent software which is able to decide for a file whether it is a plugin regardless of the plugin format does not exist
Conclusion 2: by using standards like VST the best available paradigm of interfaces is already being used, so no need to know any source code

To decide wheter the VST format should be ditched can only be judged by experienced software developers. Formats or interfaces released to the public were usually never designed by amateurs and cannot be judged by non-technicians. If plugins do not work or if there are many issues with many VST plugins then that is another story since this might be just the lack of knowledge of the developers or some unforeseen circumstances or a failure in the design of the VST format. The latter will usually be fixed by the devs providing the format (VST API).

They are build in compliance with a standard which makes sense from a DAW dev's standpoint. Becuase: a DAW dev will probably add stuff like EQs and compressors etc. and if there is a standard already which he has to implement anyway, why not use the standard? Why should the dev reinvent the wheel by designing a second method or interface to add his own "extensions" like Eqs, compressors,... if he can reuse the standard VST format? This makes totally sense. It reduces the costs and complexity of the software so it's easier to be maintained. So nothing wrong here.

But of course: Stuff like automatic mapping that you have mentioned could have also been foreseen and released as part of the VST spec. But still it doesn't matter if this is part of VST3 or VST4 oder any other format. Maybe there are reasons why some ideas haven't made it into the VST specs (lack of creativity, keeping the complexity low, ...)

Maybe the question here is: what do you expect? What is you intention? If VST is being ditched, what is you vision what should happen? Do you have any particular plans or ideas in mind on how to design a DAW or workflow which is easier to use?

 

History of Music Production From the first sound recordings to the home studio
https://www-delamar-de.translate.go...l=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de&_x_tr_pto=wapp

The first DAWs

1.) Digital recording with Pro Tools 1
Digital recording itself first became possible in 1991 with Pro Tools This also significantly simplified the editing process.

2.) Steinberg Cubase VST
Another important step towards the development of the home studio was Steinberg's Cubase VST in 1996.
The VST interface was introduced in conjunction with the ASIO audio transfer protocol.
This made it possible to connect audio, MIDI and effect plug-ins as well as virtual instruments with universal audio interfaces.
As a result, countless third-party plug-ins appeared for the VST interface. To this day, VST has remained the leading plug-in format.

 

Let's not forget that software evolves mostly to make its use/purpose easier (including adding new features), not to complicate its use further (which often happens inadvertantly) in order to keep self-proclaimed Überdawfunktionalistikagruppenfuhrers (look it up, it's in the dictionary) happy. Music making is for everybody, not just an elite group that has mastered arcanely complicated processes.