Comments

Spheris wrote on 6/26/2004, 11:29 PM
Direct-X written to a known and recognised standard, extensible across the PC platform and just works (as they say it in the mac community) Closest known relative is Audio Units for the Mac OS-X platform.

VST - written to some strange witches brew of borland and c++ (sometimes, mostly written to the less workable borland) adhering to no particular standard and not really compatible with much of anything but steinbergs closed format - that is if you don't blow up your application installing the odd badly coded one first and many of them are - including and sometimes especially steinbergs own.

Both have their uses, but direct-x offers more quality and a wider array of effects at that higher quality than vst currently does (vst has thousands of varieties of the same half designed/thought out effects from an endless variety of writers. I doubt its the lack of ability on the part of the spec itself as much as lack of imagination on the part of their coders)
klyon wrote on 6/27/2004, 1:08 PM
Actually, there are many great VST plugins. The quality varies -- you're right; the Steinberg stuff is poorly written -- but the variety is great. VST has been a standard and very popular in Europe for quite a while; a lot of good stuff comes out of there. The Voxengo (Russian) stuff alone is worth having a wrapper program; they're only VST and there's nothing else quite like some of them.
randygo wrote on 6/28/2004, 10:27 AM


Even though many folk tout DX as being superior to VST, the fact of the matter
is that there is far more VST effects available than DX, probably by about 10 to 1.


I don't think badly-coded plugins are exclusive to VST, its just as easy to write a
bad DX plugin.


Because VST is currently more widely supported, more programmers are writing
to VST, so there are more plugins available. VST plugins also do not require use of
the Windows registry, which is one less hassle to deal with.


There are a lot of fantastic free VST plugins, for example, the free plugins from
Voxengo, and the SIR convolution reverb (I love it!).


Sony really should support VST plugins natively in Vegas. For now, I am using
DirectiXer 2.5 to make VST plugins appear as DX in Vegas, and it is working great.


Cheers, Randy

Geoff_Wood wrote on 7/3/2004, 2:03 AM

>Even though many folk tout DX as being superior to VST, the fact of the >matter
>is that there is far more VST effects available than DX, probably by about >10 to 1.

Just cos Mc Donalds sell heaps of burgers (well things that vaguly look like burgers in the photos), doesn't mean that they are all great.

>I don't think badly-coded plugins are exclusive to VST, its just as easy to >write a bad DX plugin.

Didn't somebody say that even Steinberg;'s *the dudes that loosely DEFININED VST) are shoody ?

>Sony really should support VST plugins natively in Vegas. For now, I am >using DirectiXer 2.5 to make VST plugins appear as DX in Vegas, and it is >working great.

But htey do, via various wrappers that work just fine. I'd rather they concentrate on getting important things working great. But VST support would be relavely simpole to implement (???), so what the hell. Or would it open more cans of worms ?

geoff.