|
Subject:support for vst???
Posted by: liquid
Date:2/4/2003 9:27:25 AM
Geez, I'm just wondering if anyone knows a reason why sonic foundry is so slow to implement vst? What's the deal? It's a standard and Acid users suffer because of this lack of support. Also, who here has experience using a vst wrappers? Do they work, |
|
Subject:RE: support for vst???
Reply by: liquid
Date:2/4/2003 9:43:11 AM
You know what pisses me off, is that people and companies alike all use vst and vsti interchangeable. To the point where by looking at a web site I can't even tell which is which, and which one will or wont work with acid.....here's an example... http://www.linplug.com/Products/RM_F/rm_f.htm no check out the link of their page that says compatibility list.... and notice that all the heading say vsti... but on the product page is clearly says vst2.0 why is this so confusing? Will this think work with acid??????? |
|
Subject:RE: support for vst???
Reply by: tympanicfrenzy
Date:2/4/2003 11:31:15 AM
for good vst/vsti intergration you should use something like logic or cubase or sonar, acid got in too much of a rush to put theres together and released a product full of bugs and lacking in common features such as overdub recording, metronome, realtime parameter control of plugins and so on, Cubase sx seems to be pretty well rounded, all though I've just been using there demo so far a little complex but overall its badass. logic kick butt to but its moved to a mac only platform. |
|
Subject:RE: support for vst???
Reply by: SHTUNOT
Date:2/4/2003 12:10:09 PM
The reason for the lack of vst effects support is the fact that a "vst wrapper" like the one from Fxpansion audio will do the trick. http://www.fxpansion.com/ You got to understand something. If sofo said that tomorrow we'll have vst support in acid it will be because they spent their resources in developing a "wrapper" to get it done...Does that make any sense? Especially when a affordable option is right there in front of you. Plus this free's sofo's r&d money to go to other areas. Cubase has a "DX wrapper" in their softrware that has MORE problems and LESS fixes than what you"ll find with FXpansion's VST wrapper. I've seen more problems with DX plugins 'trying" to work in their apps. This isn't as big of a deal as you think. Try it out and you'll see what I mean...Don't believe me...Then go to the cakewalk forums and you'll see all the happy "wrapper" users getting their Ua-1 cards vst plugins to work great with sonar/vegas/etc... For a better picture try here at the UAd-1 forums... http://www.chrismilne.com/uadforums/ Vsti's will work in acid...do a search for the compatiblity list that nick posted on which vsti's work well in acid...This is the first version of acid to use vsti's...give them a break to work all the kinks out. Don't forget that all these apps that your stateing had these features for 2-3 versions already...Do you "think" that they worked out all the bugs??????????????[sarcasm] Vst2.0...Is the 2nd level release of the vst "plugin" standard. This means that they've fixed bugs from the earlier version and added new features. In acid 4.0 I can't see anything to bitch about in terms of the DX automation. Vst 2.0 or DX...I've never seen or heard of any arguement that would sway me towards vst at all. HTH. Ed. |
|
Subject:RE: support for vst???
Reply by: spectre1
Date:2/4/2003 1:11:14 PM
I'm using the fxpansion lite wrapper. I'd say that 95% of the VST plugs I try work great in ACID (the ones that don't work are always freebees/synthedit stuff, so it's never been a big deal). I'm kicking myself for not buying the full version as in the lite there's no effects automation. Cakewalk's upcoming Project5 will have VST/VSTi as well as DX support, but through the same fxpansion wrapper. |
|
Subject:RE: support for vst???
Reply by: pwppch
Date:2/4/2003 1:50:41 PM
There is no point for us to support VST FX. Most major VST FX are available as DX (and actually solve problems and stability issues FAR better with DX FX than VST FX.) The DX wrappers solve 99% of the VST FX problems for our apps. In the end, we would just write a wrapper. There is just no need as there exist viable and inexpensive solutions to using VST FX in ACID/Vegas/Sound Forge. Peter |
|
Subject:Yes there is a need
Reply by: pazzap
Date:2/5/2003 7:01:18 AM
The main reason to support vst fx is for the sync to host features....You can do this via wrapper in Sonar, but you must install the specific vst that supports sync as a dxi with the wrapper...then just bring it up as a normal dxi in sonar, but it will work as an effect, voila, with trmpo sync. there are A LOT of vst fx that rely on tempo sync. If Acid supported dxi then maybe this would work, as in sonar |
|
Subject:RE: Yes there is a need
Reply by: dkistner
Date:2/5/2003 9:29:25 AM
I haven't gotten into VST effects very much, but I'm wondering if using, e.g., Chainer within Acid would get the job done? I just bought Chainer (standalone and VSTi implementation included) and feel it was money very well spent for what I do with it (route my non-VSTi-compatible scoring program into it so I can play my compositions as I work on them with VSTis). Diane |
|
Subject:RE: Yes there is a need
Reply by: pazzap
Date:2/5/2003 10:03:07 AM
Chainer will get it done in one sense...you load chainer into acid as a subhost, then load whatever vsti you wish into chainer...the vsti will sync to acid as normal, and subsequently, any syncable vstfx you place in chainer beneath your vsti will sync also...in reality the effect is syncing to chainer, not acid....so for vsti's, yes, there is a workaround, for audio files, no |