Jump to content
Reid Rosefelt

Steinberg discontinues VST2

Recommended Posts

21 hours ago, paulo said:

the idea doesn't sound any less daft to me today than it did then.

Is it unreasonable to expect people to follow a social convention that's been around for over a quarter of a century?

It's been that way for a long time.

All caps=shouting.

All lower case=teenage girl who writes poetry.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Starship Krupa said:

All lower case=teenage girl who writes poetry.

True story this...

For several years, I worked with a young woman (mid-20s?) whose first name was Emma and who always signed her name in lower case in emails (everything else was properly capitalised).  So we could legitimately call her...Lower Case Em.

  • Like 1
  • Great Idea 1
  • Haha 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At first I was concerned about Steinberg's decision to stop using vst2 and only use vst3 plugins because I still have some vst2 plugins that I value and use.  Then I saw ABACAB ' s post earlier in this thread about Pluginguru's Unify.  Unify comes as vst, vst3 as well as a standalone app.  It will also serve as a host for vst2 plugins.   This means that I/we can run Cubase, load Unify as a vst3 in Cubase, and then within Unify load any of the numerous vst2 plugins that have not been updated to vst3.  

Thanks ABACAB for reminding us about the use of Unify to host/bridge vst2 to vst3.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the words of Unify’s developer:

”I see no reason for Unify ever to stop hosting VST2 plug-ins, and I would imagine that DAW vendors other than Steinberg probably feel the same way. If, some fine day, every DAW in the world stops supporting VST2, we might stop shipping Unify itself as a VST2 plug-in, but the VST3 version would (as I've written elsewhere) become quite valuable as a bridge to allow loading older VST2's.”

https://forums.pluginguru.com/questions-about-unify-v1-0/will-unify-ever-run-natively-on-apple-silicon/

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Great Idea 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Cecelius2 said:

At first I was concerned about Steinberg's decision to stop using vst2 and only use vst3 plugins because I still have some vst2 plugins that I value and use.  Then I saw ABACAB ' s post earlier in this thread about Pluginguru's Unify.  Unify comes as vst, vst3 as well as a standalone app.  It will also serve as a host for vst2 plugins.   This means that I/we can run Cubase, load Unify as a vst3 in Cubase, and then within Unify load any of the numerous vst2 plugins that have not been updated to vst3.  

Thanks ABACAB for reminding us about the use of Unify to host/bridge vst2 to vst3.

And there are other good reasons to check out Unify! :)

The ease with which you can add instrument layers to a unify preset to build up big layered sounds is one. And the fact that you can do so without needing to pop open the original synth GUIs speeds up the loading and is a more efficient use of your system resources. https://pluginguru.net/unify/manual/doku.php?id=layer-stack-view

You can have as many layers as your computer can handle. https://pluginguru.net/unify/manual/doku.php?id=threadpoolsize

All Instrument layers are processed simultaneously, in separate threads. https://pluginguru.net/unify/manual/doku.php?id=cpu-meters

 

Edited by abacab
  • Great Idea 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Caps don't offend me so much as they further reduce the already challenging task of inflecting tone and context when communicating via text.  Capitals and lowercase exist for a reason. It helps us to identify proper nouns, acronyms and other sight cues.  It's not the end of the world if someone types in CAPS, but it often goes along with personality traits that could be a red flag. Obviously this is not always true. I do tend to ignore most posts in all caps because in my experience there is little fruitful discussion to be had with people insistent on typing that way.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dubdisciple said:

Caps don't offend me so much as they further reduce the already challenging task of inflecting tone and context when communicating via text.  Capitals and lowercase exist for a reason. It helps us to identify proper nouns, acronyms and other sight cues.  It's not the end of the world if someone types in CAPS, but it often goes along with personality traits that could be a red flag. Obviously this is not always true. I do tend to ignore most posts in all caps because in my experience there is little fruitful discussion to be had with people insistent on typing that way.

Exactly. Refusing to use accepted conventions of communication displays a lack of respect for the reader. If you don't believe me, watch what happens when you correct them.

  • Like 2
  • Great Idea 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dubdisciple said:

Caps don't offend me so much as they further reduce the already challenging task of inflecting tone and context when communicating via text.  Capitals and lowercase exist for a reason. It helps us to identify proper nouns, acronyms and other sight cues.  It's not the end of the world if someone types in CAPS, but it often goes along with personality traits that could be a red flag. Obviously this is not always true. I do tend to ignore most posts in all caps because in my experience there is little fruitful discussion to be had with people insistent on typing that way.

It's also provably slower to read.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Kevin Perry said:

It's also provably slower to read.

Yes It is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CAPS, when typing, is commonly believed to be the same as "yelling".  However, some use it
for EMPHASIS, and not yelling.  But this creates confusion because the person typing believes
that they are using CAPS for added emphasis, but the person reading interprets that as "Yelling"
and "Anger".

Fakebook is a good example of this.  They don't allow "Bold" or "Italics" so, if one wants to add
"emphasis" then you have no choice but to use CAPS.  Then others believe you are YELLING because
of the "stigma" of CAPS being most often referred to as being the equivalent of YELLING. 

Who made these rules?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, cclarry said:

Who made these rules?

The Internet has rules?  With all the  "Fake-News" stories I refuse to believe the WWW has any sort of rules ;)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cclarry said:

CAPS, when typing, is commonly believed to be the same as "yelling".  However, some use it
for EMPHASIS, and not yelling.  But this creates confusion because the person typing believes
that they are using CAPS for added emphasis, but the person reading interprets that as "Yelling"
and "Anger".

Fakebook is a good example of this.  They don't allow "Bold" or "Italics" so, if one wants to add
"emphasis" then you have no choice but to use CAPS.  Then others believe you are YELLING because
of the "stigma" of CAPS being most often referred to as being the equivalent of YELLING. 

Who made these rules?

The rules weren't made - they emerged from the underlying social norms applying themselves to the new medium, and reflect the consensus. If you think differently and don't conform, people will perceive you as being impolite, awkward and/or aloof, and be annoyed with how you present yourself. It can't be that alien of a concept to anyone cultured enough to be blending in in civilized society where conforming to surrounding culture and abiding by social contracts is crucial for getting along and going forward.

People are much better at reading the context than you (seem to) think. Generally they can tell whether using caps signifies agitation or emphasis.

The problem with adding emphasis to every other word is that you lose the effect from overuse and end up sounding agitated. For instance, you emphasized "caps" by capitalizing it a total of four times and "yelling" twice, and in four out of six instances it was totally pointless. You also used quotes to put emphasis on "emphasis" the second time, even though no emphasis is needed and the quotes are completely out of place. You also quoted and capitalized "bold" and "italics", effectively adding awkward double-emphasis (I know it wasn't the intention, but by then you'd already set up the context for this interpretation), and you also randomly capitalized "yelling" once.

I'm not even nitpicking, it is just tedious to parse. When there's so much irregularity jumping out from the text, I feel the temptation to skim it from start to finish by jumping from emphasis to emphasis instead of reading it thoughtfully, and in the end it indeed gives the impression of agitation, because I've never met one person whose words were so drenched in wisdom that their delivery would require so much emphasis. I wish I could say I've never met one person who would be so stupid that the emphasis was actually necessary, but that's not quite true. They're not here though.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, sarine said:

The rules weren't made - they emerged from the underlying social norms applying themselves to the new medium, and reflect the consensus. If you think differently and don't conform, people will perceive you as being impolite, awkward and/or aloof, and be annoyed with how you present yourself. It can't be that alien of a concept to anyone cultured enough to be blending in in civilized society where conforming to surrounding culture and abiding by social contracts is crucial for getting along and going forward.

People are much better at reading the context than you (seem to) think. Generally they can tell whether using caps signifies agitation or emphasis.

The problem with adding emphasis to every other word is that you lose the effect from overuse and end up sounding agitated. For instance, you emphasized "caps" by capitalizing it a total of four times and "yelling" twice, and in four out of six instances it was totally pointless. You also used quotes to put emphasis on "emphasis" the second time, even though no emphasis is needed and the quotes are completely out of place. You also quoted and capitalized "bold" and "italics", effectively adding awkward double-emphasis (I know it wasn't the intention, but by then you'd already set up the context for this interpretation), and you also randomly capitalized "yelling" once.

I'm not even nitpicking, it is just tedious to parse. When there's so much irregularity jumping out from the text, I feel the temptation to skim it from start to finish by jumping from emphasis to emphasis instead of reading it thoughtfully, and in the end it indeed gives the impression of agitation, because I've never met one person whose words were so drenched in wisdom that their delivery would require so much emphasis. I wish I could say I've never met one person who would be so stupid that the emphasis was actually necessary, but that's not quite true. They're not here though.

You know what's really sad?

People spend far too much time trying to establish their own intellectual
superiority, rather than actually trying to understand what it is that people are saying, and why!

"YOU, peasant, do not speak thusly as I, therefore I cannot abide"

This is a forum, not a Literature Class...and expecting people to use literary
conventions that most Rhode Scholars would have a hard time following, in typing out
their random thoughts, on the Internet, usually hurriedly, is the epitome of condescension and virtue signaling
 

Edited by cclarry
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, cclarry said:

You are most certainly entitled to "your opinion"

Just to clarify, the important thing here is how our conduct makes impressions and evokes feelings and associations in other people.

If I have any opinion on the matter, then it is that, there's a relatively lax range of acceptable behavior between the extremes when it comes to balancing things like action vs. inhibition, extraversion vs. introversion, speaking vs. listening, exerting influence vs. adapting, etc., that working out how close to me you'll stand if we're talking, how and when to interrupt - and generally; how do we maintain the balance so that we're both satisfied - is so easily achievable when certain compromises are made that demanding that effort from others is easily justifiable (and it is on average easily achievable specifically because human behavior itself defined the acceptable norms). I also like hopping in my car knowing everyone else on the road will be driving on the right lane (and we all know that the right lane is the right lane, so if you're from UK, Australia, Mozambique, or some such... get bent), so I don't have to stress about some non-conformist crashing into me just to express their sovereignty.

That opinion has little (not nothing) to do with how breaking of certain social rules makes me feel. Just like if you suddenly walk up to me in the street and punch me in the face, it just feels uncomfortableOr if you emphasize too many words in your writing, you effectively de-emphasize your whole message because that's how my brain's heuristics respond to the discomfort. That's not my opinion, that's just a description of reality.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, cclarry said:

You know what's really sad?

People spend far too much time trying to establish their own intellectual
superiority, rather than actually trying to understand what it is that people are saying, and why!

"YOU, peasant, do not speak thusly as I, therefore I cannot abide"

This is a forum, not a Literature Class...and expecting people to use literary
conventions that most Rhode Scholars would have a hard time following, in typing out
their random thoughts, on the Internet, usually hurriedly, is the epitome of condescension and virtue signaling
 

Bovine Excrement and a false dichotomy.

Nobody is asking for or expecting a Doctoral dissertation. Just something comprehensible.

Paragraphing. Capitalization. Punctuation. Proper English is not hard. It is not anything escoteric. > 99% of the posts here are proper English.

You have this exactly 180° backwards. If one wishes to be understood, one should adhere to the conventions of communication and not expect one's intended audience to engage in mental gymnastics.  Striving for clear communication is just common courtesy.

Edited by bdickens
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, cclarry said:

People spend far too much time trying to establish their own intellectualj
superiority, rather than actually trying to understand what it is that people are saying, and why! 

This is a catch-all - you could use it as an argument for typing in all caps, dropping all punctuation, violating every possible grammatical rule etc., if one just feels so, the words are identifiable English and the intended meaning can be derived from the [con]text with any imaginable effort. In essence, the writer puts the bare minimum effort into making themselves understood while expecting the reader to compensate by putting in extra effort. By implication, the writer places that much more value on their own time than the reader's, and the disproportion only gets grosser when you're writing to a larger audience because you're now multiplying the extra work required to patch up one person's sloppy work. If that isn't entitlement, then what?

 

7 hours ago, cclarry said:

expecting people to use literary
conventions that most Rhode Scholars would have a hard time following, in typing out
their random thoughts, on the Internet, usually hurriedly, is the epitome of condescension and virtue signaling!

I can't relate to that because it's not in proportion to what has been discussed (basic common courtesies), and I've not been virtue signaling at all. In any case, I will take your feedback as proof that I'm not communicating as clearly as I imagined.

You too should take my criticism as constructive - I was only using it to illustrate something in trying to answer your question "Who made these rules?" by going into why they exist. Just in case I came off as condescending (and all that jazz); I don't have any gripe with you and no intellect could possibly compete in value with your contributions to the forum. I've seen you not holding back punches when expressing your own opinions here, and it's something I respect. I can only hope we can continue to give & take and shrug it off. Water under the bridge.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...