Propellerhead Forum

Propellerhead Forum (
-   General Forum (read only) (
-   -   RE -> VST wrapper (

fizbin 2012-03-21 16:46

RE -> VST wrapper
My first thought was that it might be possible to create a Rack Extension that's a VST wrapper, as is done for other formats.

However, since Propellerheads probably have the final say on what gets into the store (think Apple), this might not happen since it would not be possible to force all the requirements onto the VST plug-ins, for instance "undo".

VST plug-ins can implement their own undo, but it doesn't come by way of the host. I'm sure there are other differences, however it might be possible to relax those requirements and allow an RE/VST wrapper to exist. You could convert CV to MIDI automation, it would seem, fairly straight forward.

illCarl 2012-03-21 17:11

Ernst mentioned that the only thing the props will do is a quality check (technical stuff). But otherwise everything can be released. I got this from a interview.

fizbin 2012-03-21 18:38

A quality check like "does it conform to the entire RE spec", for instance sending undo messages from host to plug-in...

There's no way to do that through the VST spec from what I understand. That's why VSTs, if they do have undo, are implemented in the VST UI, and undo from the host would have no effect on any VST settings. In other words, nothing to wrap here to implement this.

Does that mean the quality check fails?

Think about the obvious though, instead of re-buying everything you already purchased, so to speak, or equivalents more likely, you buy one RE plug-in and get all your existing VSTs in Reason.

blank 2012-03-21 19:01

It's been explained that the extension only talks to Reason. It can't communicate directly/independently to external soft- or hardware. I also think that if they spent years thinking about and developing an alternative because they think VST doesn't cut it, it's more than unlikely that the first thing they'd do is allow it to wrap the very same plugin format they rejected, which would get VST developers 'off the hook' and they'd have one less incentive to create Re versions of those plugins.

fizbin 2012-03-21 19:22

I think it's unlikely too, but I also think that the number of developers wanting to support yet another format (actually three more, mac and 32 and 64 bit for PC) when they are already supporting arguably too many, will be limited.

myfriendimage 2012-03-21 19:32

It will never happen, ever. They are never going to sell a product that easily and efficiently undermines the entire ReRack model.

DanaAdalaide 2012-03-21 19:49

Yeah, Dream on..

SoundMutants 2012-03-21 19:54

RTAS, VST, AU, and now RE Etc... Props may not have wanted to open Reason to 3rd party devs for VSTs but there must have been enough people who wanted 3rd party plugins to warrant any approach. At least now those who want it have some kind of option. I just think there has to be something that allows those who already own a VST/AU version of a plugin the option to not have to pay again for an RE version!

adfielding 2012-03-21 19:57

DSP != VST wrapper.

If someone creates a RE instrument that allows any VSTi to work within it using the RE SDK and still, somehow, passes the PH approval process for inclusion in the RE shop... well, I'll eat my own arse.

DHWood 2012-03-21 20:50

There's another thing that makes the standard VST (that is, a plug-in based on the VST standard) pale in comparison to a properly made Rack Extension: Control voltages.

The VST standard will allow audio to come from an instrument, through an effect VST, and out to the track or monitor in question, but there's little in the VST spec that lets, for example, one VST's LFO control parameters in another plug-in. Perhaps they can be synchronized, but some of the wildest effects come from modulating that LFO according to other things, like envelope followers and whatnot.

Some DAWs may have ways of approximating this (for instance, Live's "Instrument Rack" grouping mechanism has eight knobs, Combinator-style), but as far as I know nothing lets one e-device directly modulate the parameters of another e-device. If someone has counter-examples, I'd love to hear them, but I'm not at all sure they exist.

This is also why the Combinator is going to become a lot more important, not less so: The best way to keep devices together that use CVs to tweak each other is within a common super-device, preferably with its own controls, and the Combinator is it. Also consider that any audio or mix track is essentially a Combinator that has the ear of the master mixer, so that's a good way to get bunches of specialty devices easily into your track.

All times are GMT +2. The time now is 00:05.