Why VST??

All your LV2 and LADSPA goodness and more.

Moderators: MattKingUSA, khz

Post Reply
User avatar
sadko4u
Established Member
Posts: 986
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2015 9:03 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 359 times

Re: Why VST??

Post by sadko4u »

beck wrote:So, please tell me ... why are VST plugins so badly wanted?
It's simple: not all hosts under Linux do support LV2. For example, ANY JUCE-based host (like Tracktion) and also Renoise don't know anything about LV2. But people use them for regular job and need native plugins of that format that is supported by these DAWs (VST).
LSP (Linux Studio Plugins) Developer and Maintainer.
User avatar
sadko4u
Established Member
Posts: 986
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2015 9:03 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 359 times

Re: Why VST??

Post by sadko4u »

beck wrote:Why would you want non-linux (risk of undstable) under your stable linux?
There is no difference in stability between VST and LV2. For example, in LSP plugins that support both formats it's the thin layer of wrappers that allow plugins to be of LADSPA, VST, LV2 and JACK standalone formats. Both VST and LV2 can be unstable (consider to often claims about Calf plugins that crash Ardour). That's only problem of development process and tools that are used for development. Consider most plugins are using C, C++ and even assembly code for time-critical optimizations. These tools are good when speaking about performance and completely unsafe when speaking about safety of the memory. Any plugin (VST, LV2, LADSPA, AU, etc...) can break the behaviour of the host or even corrupt your session if it will suddenly write into not it's own chunk of memory or, for example, into host's chunk of memory. The workaround can be performed by launching each plugin as a separate process with isolated address space. But this leads to performance penalties due to necessity to perform inter-process communication between host and plugin.
LSP (Linux Studio Plugins) Developer and Maintainer.
User avatar
sadko4u
Established Member
Posts: 986
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2015 9:03 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 359 times

Re: Why VST??

Post by sadko4u »

falkTX wrote: Mostly because it's what commercial DAWs support.
I also can add that VST is easier to support (at least, VST 2.x). LV2 design is much more complex than VST one.
LSP (Linux Studio Plugins) Developer and Maintainer.
User avatar
sadko4u
Established Member
Posts: 986
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2015 9:03 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 359 times

Re: Why VST??

Post by sadko4u »

beck wrote:Still a question unanswered. Are VST's better then LV2's? Or doesn't that make a different at all?
There is no difference for end-user. For developer it's a great difference because both have different design.
LSP (Linux Studio Plugins) Developer and Maintainer.
User avatar
sadko4u
Established Member
Posts: 986
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2015 9:03 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 359 times

Re: Why VST??

Post by sadko4u »

beck wrote:Why is wine then needed?
That's because VST (as LADSPA, as LV2, as AU) is a thin interface between host and the plugin. And it can be compiled everywhere where you have C/C++ compiler. But this does not cancel that fact that the internal code of plugin can use system-specific libraries and system-specific functions that are different for different platforms (Win, Mac, Linux). Wine is used to emulate windows-specific functions with linux-specific functions.
LSP (Linux Studio Plugins) Developer and Maintainer.
User avatar
davephillips
Established Member
Posts: 592
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2015 1:05 pm
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 23 times

Re: Why VST??

Post by davephillips »

beck wrote:
falkTX wrote:VST is just a plugin format, it doesn't mean they are for windows, mac or linux.
That can not be totaly true. Why is wine then needed? Why the questions about troubles implementating it?
Why, if VST is that good, linux and it's software can't handle them in several cases?

Or simpler, if it is nothing more than a plugin, why can't i simply load them into my ardour like other plugins?
For the same reason you can't "simply load" Cubase or Pro Tools on your Linux box. Those programs would need to be rewritten and rebuilt for Linux. And that is likely to be a non-trivial task, thus no Cubase or PT for Linux.

Btw, you appear to have confused "VST plugins running under an emulation layer such as Airwave, Reaper, or any other Wine-based solution" and "VST plugins compiled for running under native Linux conditions, i.e. with no Wine required". The first solution (emulation) is indeed error-prone and potentially difficult to maintain (though it may be quite stable for some users). The second provides plugins in a native format optimized to perform directly on Linux, with no emulation layer.

It's just a plugin format. It's been around a long while and as sadko stated, its API is fairly simple. It spawned a massive collection of plugins from commercial and cottage industry vendors, to the point of literally thousands of offerings, from totally free (some even with source code) to very costly and very copy-protected.

Best,

dp
nareto
Established Member
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 9:22 am

Re: Why VST??

Post by nareto »

sadko4u wrote:
falkTX wrote: Mostly because it's what commercial DAWs support.
I also can add that VST is easier to support (at least, VST 2.x). LV2 design is much more complex than VST one.

is there a reason for that? Does the LV2 design offer benefits to the developer in exchange for added complexity?
User avatar
sadko4u
Established Member
Posts: 986
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2015 9:03 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 359 times

Re: Why VST??

Post by sadko4u »

nareto wrote:is there a reason for that? Does the LV2 design offer benefits to the developer in exchange for added complexity?
We can refer to this document: http://lv2plug.in/pages/why-lv2.html
LV2 implements more features that are not supported in VST 2.x, but these features are not always required by most plugins. It has extensible interface without any need of redefinition of LV2 core. As an example, Ardour provides additional LV2 extension called 'Inline Display'. That's the first public host-specific extension that may be supported by the plugin or may not, and this doesn't take any effect to main LV2 headers. The second advantage is that LV2 headers are free for use while VST headers have proprietary grounds.
The disadvantage of LV2 is high barrier to enter. To write LV2 plugin, we need to study the RDF format, the core (which is simple as LADSPA) and all extensions that we need. With VST we need to study only set of callbacks provided by host and plugin.
For example, if we want to integrate MIDI into our plugin, in LV2 we should learn:
- the extension interface about how to use extensions by LV2.
- the URID extension to properly map URIDs to integer constants.
- the Atom and AtomForge extensions to properly transport and receive atoms.
- the MIDI extension to properly receive and transport MIDI messages.
In VST, we just need to learn two or three callback functions that allow to receive and send MIDI messages.
LSP (Linux Studio Plugins) Developer and Maintainer.
User avatar
sadko4u
Established Member
Posts: 986
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2015 9:03 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 359 times

Re: Why VST??

Post by sadko4u »

falkTX, you're right. LV2 Inline Display is not the first extension, I've just hurried up with conclusions.
LSP (Linux Studio Plugins) Developer and Maintainer.
User avatar
sadko4u
Established Member
Posts: 986
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2015 9:03 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 359 times

Re: Why VST??

Post by sadko4u »

beck wrote:... why should i if there are lots of perfect LV2's and LADSPA's available and it doesn't make a difference in quality?
You've missed a verb, the question is not completely understandable. Probably you wanted to write 'why should I use VST...'. The answer is simple: you shouldn't if you work with the host that supports LADSPA/LV2.
beck wrote:Then what's the reason that others want it? Only the popularity of them?
Want VST? Again, not all are using Ardour/QTractor. Somebody likes Tracktion or Renoise. These both don't provide LV2 support under Linux.
beck wrote:Something i don't understand while we ignore popularity of other big proggies too because we have very good alternatives.
Not all ignore 'other big proggies'. As already mentioned, people do use Tracktion, Renoise and even Reaper (under Wine). No one of these hosts does support LV2. And there is no information about do these hosts plan to support LV2 in the future or not.
LSP (Linux Studio Plugins) Developer and Maintainer.
ssj71
Established Member
Posts: 1294
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 6:36 pm
Has thanked: 1 time

Re: Why VST??

Post by ssj71 »

If a plugin is available as native linux vst AND native linux LV2, then there is no difference to the end user. Just different formats. If only one is available, you use what's available, it doesn't make any difference if your DAW supports it.

If a plugin is ONLY available as a windows VST and you feel you MUST HAVE IT then that's where wine comes in. Some windows plugins work some don't. I personally don't subject myself to that and feel there's really no need to. It's certainly not for me. But a lot of people really want plugin X or Y and it's not available for linux. And to be fair, many of the linux alternatives are lacking polish or features compared to windows VSTs. You CAN work around it, but some don't want to. Also as mentioned, there are people using DAWs that don't support LV2. Those linux users are very limited in their selection of native linux VSTs. That's why there's so much talk about VST wine solutions. They usually just say VST when they mean windows VST. So you have to know the context to know if they're talking about windows VSTs or native linux VSTs.

By sheer numbers (there are thousands of windows VSTs with no linux version) they're likely talking non-native, but VST doesn't always mean windows plugins so you can't just assume it. Its also entirely possible to have non-native LV2 plugins too, just none have been created yet that didn't start as native linux plugins.
_ssj71

music: https://soundcloud.com/ssj71
My plugins are Infamous! http://ssj71.github.io/infamousPlugins
I just want to get back to making music!
Luc
Established Member
Posts: 741
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 1:04 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Why VST??

Post by Luc »

beck wrote:
falkTX wrote: All those plugins that have issues running on Linux are the same - they were not made for Linux.
There the conflict for me starts to exist.
I'm glad that i now have a OS that's higly stable. I not gonna fool around asking for issue's with it by letting in unstable software myself.
I have tested around 2,000 Windows VST plugins, and there are some that I use frequently. In my experience, there are plugins that won't run at all or run with some problem, but those are very few. At least 90% of them run without any problem whatsoever. Well, almost no problem. I use Tracktion, which is extremely prone to crashing, always when adding or removing a plugin. But then I test many of them on Bitwig (limited demo) and they run absolutely hunky-dory. I think 90% is a fantastic score considering the circumstances ("a miracle," as described by falkTX).
beck wrote:... why should i if there are lots of perfect LV2's and LADSPA's available and it doesn't make a difference in quality?
Then what's the reason that others want it? Only the popularity of them?
Something i don't understand while we ignore popularity of other big proggies too because we have very good alternatives.
Sorry, no. We can't have "very good alternatives" to the vast catalogue of Windows VST plugins. They are far too many and some of them can be quite valuable. When I first got involved in this whole music on Linux thing, I was quite impressed at how much was available. I could definitely make music on Linux! :D But then, some time later, I was amazed to learn that we could run Windows plugins, and began to try a few, and ran into some really nice plugins, got carried away, and there you go, I ended up trying many hundreds of them. Some of them are crappy, of course, but most are at least good, and I've run into a few gems. Now, why not use them? Why do we have the tools to run them anyway? It's the music that matters. It's what it sounds like that matters.
beck wrote:And i understand now that i don't do myself short by only using 'linux only' and the thereby plugin's i'm forced to. I ain't missing the train. :mrgreen:
As stated above, I believe you actually might be missing a rather interesting train.
CrocoDuck
Established Member
Posts: 1133
Joined: Sat May 05, 2012 6:12 pm
Been thanked: 17 times

Re: Why VST??

Post by CrocoDuck »

Luc wrote: Sorry, no. We can't have "very good alternatives" to the vast catalogue of Windows VST plugins. They are far too many and some of them can be quite valuable.
Well, I did not try all the Windows (or Mac) plugins out of there. I did not try all the Linux ones as well for the matter. Try them would also give very little quantitative information of how good a piece of software is, we would need benchmarks for that. Also, we would need to define "good", which can be done in multiple ways. Anyway, I don't fully agree with that and I would like to expand.

Consider you have two headphones. Now, you want to measure which one has the highest audio quality. You get a pool of 100 very well trained critical listeners. Now you need to set a double blind test with tons of different pieces of music (different genres) and a well designed questionnaire for the listeners. And, interestingly, you will not use any of the headphones you need to test. You will pick a reference headphone whose frequency response is as flat and un-coloring as possible and filter the music (programme material) to emulate this or that headphone under test (with also reference headphone response removal). This way, the headphone themselves are randomly distributed in the test and you will assess what the significance of the quality judgments from the listeners is.

An important thing: using the headphones themselves would expose the listening panel to unwanted unconscious bias. A headphone whose materials and design looks cheaper and fragile can get listening test results significantly worse even if its sound reproduction capabilities are vastly superior. This is another very good reason to prefer the reference headphone method.

This to say that when it comes to audio we deal with something very hard to measure and I am afraid that the vast majority of Windows VST that many think they need might end up just having a better looking interface.

Now, don't get me wrong, that can be very important. Look at this, for example. Most of the analyzers for Linux report much more accurate info with respect that plugin (I would never use that, for example). But the discussion that follows makes possible to appreciate that in many cases something that behaves and looks like that can be valuable and useful, even if it is not accurate.

So, bottom line, I think that the Linux ecosystem is populated with great software that doesn't even try to be an alternative. It is its own thing and it is damn good at it. I also think that, speaking about the underlying maths and algorithms, the Linux plugins are second to none. I think that people that want VSTs from other platform does it more because they accustomed to them (which is a good reason, why to change a workflow that works?), they find the interface better (which can give objective advantages, not only eye-candy) or they have some psychological bias. But I wouldn't bet the Linux plugins to be any worse in terms of implementation and functionality. I mean, of the underlying engine (GUI and controls is another implementation thing and that could be lacking in some cases).
glowrak guy
Established Member
Posts: 2315
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2014 8:37 pm
Been thanked: 251 times

Re: Why VST??

Post by glowrak guy »

beck wrote: So, please tell me ... why are VST plugins so badly wanted?
No criticism. Just a curious question.
They would be 'badly wanted", even if linux did not exisit.
Among win/mac musicians, more are always 'badly wanted',
(and new ones eagerly awaited), some for the vast variety of sounds
they provide, some for the potential of creating/discovering
new sounds, some for both.

The same holds true even for a linux purist, using only native linux VSTs
Just the sheer volume of choice is more limited, but lately,
like eating at a feast, there is plenty available with which to stuff ones self.

A single preset sound can justify a healthy purchase price.
Such is the passion of creative composition. What two musicians
share the same diligence, capabilities, workflow, and resources?

It is easy to be diverted away from creativity by endless
'us Vs them' scenarios, stealing precious hours, at the cost
of ones personal art porfolio being divided and conquered
by groups, subgroups, tribes and clans more intent on
making their point, than promoting the general artistic endeavor.

Use the tools you like and need, and peel the labels off
before breakfast!

(another realm of distinction lies in ones musical endeavors.
Home producer? Commercial composer? Singer/songwriter? Cover Band?
Touring band? Recording studio owner? Mad/happy scientist?
Many different needs among these diverse titles.)

(And then there are locales locked in poverty. Great potential exists,
and not just where there are paved streets, running water,
toilets and sewers. Free software, on recycled computers, running
a well crafted linux, poses few limits, when in the right hands! )
Cheers
User avatar
davephillips
Established Member
Posts: 592
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2015 1:05 pm
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 23 times

Re: Why VST??

Post by davephillips »

Greetings,

An anecdote:

Last year I posted a piece on KVR that got some nice feedback from some serious KVRians I respect. The comments praised the music but noted a certain problem in the mix. Due to the nature of the original recordings the bass parts drifted across the stereo panorama. I had to agree with the comments that it was a disturbing phenomenon, so I asked if there was any way to correct the sound. I was directed to the Sanford Bass Tightener, downloaded it, Airwave'd it, and applied it in Ardour with no problems, using settings suggested on KVR.

My piece was accepted for the initial concert for the Csound 30th anniversary held at Maynooth Ireland. I feel strongly that it probably would have been rejected without the bass fix.

The point ? As far as I can tell, the Linux plugin armory includes no such creature as the Sanford plugin. If it does, and if it works as well as the Windows VST plugin, please point me to it.

I use the right tools to get the job done right. No, it doesn't have to be "perfect". "Better" will suffice. In this instance an Airwave'd Windows VST processor was the only solution I could find, i.e. it was the right tool.

Best,

dp
Post Reply