Talk:Virtual Studio Technology

Merging Virtual Studio Technology and VST Plugin

Hi everybody, those 2 articles look very much about the same subject matter. Shouldn't we merge them? Peter S. 16:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

good call (anonymous edit by User:71.141.12.193)

I agree.

Of course. The whole point of VST is the VST Plugin. Duh! (anonymous edit by 69.142.225.237)

So do you go ahead and do the merge, 237? Peter S. 20:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes! Merge them for the love of Pete! :) 'bitchen' ric 19:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

There we go, merge done. Enjoy. Peter S. 21:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Could some info be added about where to go what one needs to do to get vst running on various platforms? Resources in this area would be especially helpfull.

Dead Links

Hey guys, quite a few of the links on this page are dead.... 70.58.78.244 03:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Linux VST

On http://www.energy-xt.com/ there are some NATIVE Linux VSTi instruments now. There is also dssi-vst for vsti plugins through WINE. (sry for my english)

Also, can someone who knows how it fits in add a sentence on JOST? See also http://www.linuxjournal.com/node/1000233. 84.190.169.16 20:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Bloated External Links Section

The external links section is way too long. Steinberg should obviously be listed, as they are the creators of the technology being discussed. I am not convinced of the need or usefulness of adding every single VST vendor to a long list. The article is about VST technology, not "list of VST vendors". Most of the developers provide very little or no info about VST; instead, their websites are platforms for selling software.

Then there's a whole list of sites under lists. Surely one or two would be enough.

Many of the links seem to contravene WP:EL. Unless anyone has some good arguments why the links (apart from Steinberg) should be retained, I'm going to chop the list within the near-ish future. Steevm 00:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please do chop the list when you can get around to it. Thanks. Doctormatt 06:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

And while we're at it, any opinions on the (IMO excessive) lists throughout the article? The way I see it, the entire article consists of little substance and too many bloated lists. Does a list of VST hosts really add much to the article? To me, it's just another part of wikipedia crying out for link-spam. I'd much prefer to rewrite the article to cover the basic essence of using VSTs; software hosts, wrappers, hardware etc. without the need to list every application (although a few high profile examples would be OK; e.g. Cubase). I'd rather just explain the concepts, and anyone let looking for the actual software use google or visit one of the gazillion audio sites on the web to find the actual content. Again, the article is VST, not "list of VST hosts". Steevm 01:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I've trashed pretty much all the lists and external links and added a comment asking people not to simply link to every conceivable VST developer. No one has voiced any objections as of yet. Please don't simply restore all the bloat; if you think something actually adds weight to the article, let's discuss it here first. Steevm 16:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

History

It would be nice to know WHEN VST was introduced and what made Steinberg allow the implementation, perhaps competing with RTAS? How did they figure the VSTi idea, who came up with it, when? VST is already in the third generation, isn't it? This text does not refer to this at all... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgracanin (talk • contribs) 11:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

For further processing?

I have become very interested in VST technology very recently. I use a sequencer which is cheap but I notice things amongst the 'lingo'.

Always completely surprised with the plain and obvious reason that I always find the only place to find *any* useful information on anything I am searching for is here.

Reason?

I wanted to know a lot about the cryptic, esoteric nature of the logic behind the lingo of VST instruments or effects.

Effects in particular.

'for further processing'?

This is the kind of distinction between one unrelated lingo and another. One lingo used behind the shower curtains of the API, the other the layer of mnemonics related to the function and operation of the synthesiser.

What you suggest here when explaining how each effect can be 'chained' - in my mind also a wrong term to use - is that the process from one effect output to the input of the next is done in time.

This is grammatically incorrect, it would be interesting even for the reader to understand the process is in 'real time'. Understanding this gives anyone's own experience of computers to understand exactly what an effect *is*, before it is explained in more detail further on down the page.

Just my own bit of bantering! Arch Angel (talk) 17:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Pros and Cons

Pros and Cons section seems a little bit "unwiki-ish" to me. It seems a bit pointless, really, to say "good use is good, bad use is bad". 82.39.212.232 (talk) 20:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

First part of the first sentence is relevant (in both pro and amateur platforms), but the rest could go. Glrx (talk) 18:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed; I came here to make the same comment. The writing is sub-literate, and seems to be a lame pitch from someone losing work because of these new technologies. I thought to edit it, but the only worthy edit I could think of is to delete the section entirely. 173.171.168.253 (talk) 06:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the section. --Zundark (talk) 08:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Confusing lede

Surely not all VSTs are created by Steinberg. Native Instruments, by far the dominant firm in the VST market, is not owned by Steinberg. Maybe Steinberg made the first VST, but the lede sounds extremely outdated and confusing. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 12:54, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

The lede doesn't say that all VST plug-ins are created by Steinberg. It says that VST itself (the plug-in architecture) is a Steinberg creation. You could try rewording it to make this clearer if you like, but it looks OK to me. --Zundark (talk) 13:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Steinberg does not design plug ins for Native Instruments, and the DAWs themselves design "architecture" as you call it that makes the VSTs work in the DAWs. Steinberg does it for Cubase and Nuendo obviously, but say I'm running Massive in Ableton, that has nothing to do with Steinberg. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 16:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

No, you misunderstand. When I say "plug-in architecture", I'm talking about the protocol (or the "format", if you like). The protocol was designed by Steinberg, and they still maintain the specification for it (it's included in their VST SDK). Everyone who makes VST plug-ins or hosts has to follow Steinberg's specification, otherwise the plug-ins wouldn't work with the hosts. --Zundark (talk) 18:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I mean I'll take your word for it that this is accurate because you obviously know more about it than I do, but to the typical person/producer with a decent amount of technical knowledge (myself), it seems like it's lacking a proper explanation. The use of the term VST by the majority of people that use the term is well beyond the scope of Steinberg's designs. It's obviously fine to tell the reader that Steinberg created the protocol and all that, but I don't think it's best to start the lede with "Steinberg's VST is..." It sounds as if you're saying that Steinberg created and owns all of the VSTs (ie Absynth, Massive, FM8, Sylenth, etc), which is obviously not the case. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 21:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't sound like that to me, but I'll take your word for it that some people could read it that way. In any case, the word "Steinberg's" at the beginning can be removed without problem, as it doesn't add anything to the paragraph. --Zundark (talk) 21:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)