Logic Users Group - Forums - LUG - Thread #61431: [LAM] THEY HAVE GONE CRAZY...

On Tuesday, September 3, 2002, at 12:12 AM, drgruv1 wrote: > They had better develop as os9 version AT THE SAME TIME and > not leave it behind and only concentrate on osx - Who said they do that. > the industry is > not ready let alone the end use I think it's great to have an OS X version of LAM now. Think about it: now many Midi and audio interface companies have a host to try out their drivers with - the sooner good drivers are there, the sooner we can change to OS X completely. > I think the company has gone mad... just read NO VST no other > formats ONLY core audio... oops There are not many carbonized VST plug-ins out anyway at this time, so there is almost nothing you loose. Best Ray

Raymund Beyer <brainstorm@m...> wrote: > On Tuesday, September 3, 2002, at 12:12 AM, drgruv1 wrote: > > > They had better develop as os9 version AT THE SAME TIME and > > not leave it behind and only concentrate on osx - > > Who said they do that. > > > > the industry is > > not ready let alone the end use > > I think it's great to have an OS X version of LAM now. Think about it: > now many Midi and audio interface companies have a host to try out > their drivers with - the sooner good drivers are there, the sooner we > can change to OS X completely. > > > I think the company has gone mad... just read NO VST no other > > formats ONLY core audio... oops > > There are not many carbonized VST plug-ins out anyway at this time, so > there is almost nothing you loose. > > Best > Ray Auto-Tune 3 VST M/M Auto-Tune 3 VST S/S FM7 FM7 FX NorthPole PROSONIQ Orange Vocoder 1 PSP_VintageWarmer PSPVintageWarmer files Waldorf WaveShell-VST 3.5 All the above from my system is GONE in 5.3 They have to do dual os development UNTIL ALL the companies come onboard -Mike

On Tuesday, September 3, 2002, at 02:04 AM, drgruv1 wrote: > Auto-Tune 3 VST M/M > Auto-Tune 3 VST S/S > FM7 > FM7 FX > NorthPole > PROSONIQ Orange Vocoder 1 > PSP_VintageWarmer > PSPVintageWarmer files > Waldorf > WaveShell-VST 3.5 > > All the above from my system is GONE in 5.3 They have to do > dual os development UNTIL ALL the companies come onboard Calm down! There was no announcement that OS 9 development will be discontinued, right? BTW: I find 5.2 the most stable release since quite a while, and quite sure we will want 5.3 that way too. ;-)))

drgruv1@... writes: >I think the company has gone mad... just read NO VST >no other formats ONLY core audio... oops This isn't such a big deal, because NONE of your existing VST plugins on OS9 would work in OSX anyway - they all have to be "carbonized" to work in OSX. Emagic did the right thing by going with the new Audio Unit standard, which is part of Core Audio, all built inside OSX with better features and not "secret" like VST is (Steinberg doesn't document clearly everything about VST, thus causing third party implementation and development time not to be as good as it could be). >Our way only please - emagic's new mantra... It was long known that OSX would have its own built in Audio, MIDI and Plugin structure which is tied directly to the Operating System for maximum efficiency. >what the hell do they think their doing? Check out <www.emagic.de> for details about what the hell they're doing. >I've always used logic for their willingness to let other formats >>and plugins exist inside... Huh? Well, there's no MAS or RTAS inside Logic, but it's still quite useful! Of course, this is because MOTU and Digidesign haven't licensed that technology, but the point is identical. In fact, there are certain plugins that are *not* VST like the excellent stuff from Bomb Factory and Metric Halo. So no native Logic user could ever use these great plugins. But these two companies will indeed code for the AU standard. And you'll probably say "Oh, but there are definitely more free VST plugins than RTAS or MAS". Yes, this is true. However, you should know that Apple will supply FREE development kits for the creation of AU plugins (with VST, the developer has to buy the expensive Code Warrior or equivalent). This means that way more free future plugins will be made for the AU standard. >Now logic 5.3 is only osx, so now I (we) have to stick on 5.2 for >another year while the other companies decide if they even want >to make their plugins core audio apple branded Huh? Nobody ever said that 5.2 was the last version for OS9 or even Windows. In fact, Emagic specifically announced that it will NOT be the last version. Just as the release for Mac and Windows versions are not always literally simultaneous, the release for MacOS9 and MacOSX versions aren't either. f-erenc szabo, smarty pants Z+E+R+O+B+E+A+T "NOW POWERED BY THE MIRACLE OF THE TRANSISTOR!" I use a Mac because I'm in the business of computing my work, not working my computer.

Raymund Beyer <brainstorm@m...> wrote: > On Tuesday, September 3, 2002, at 02:04 AM, drgruv1 wrote: > > > Auto-Tune 3 VST M/M > > Auto-Tune 3 VST S/S > > FM7 > > FM7 FX > > NorthPole > > PROSONIQ Orange Vocoder 1 > > PSP_VintageWarmer > > PSPVintageWarmer files > > Waldorf > > WaveShell-VST 3.5 > > > > All the above from my system is GONE in 5.3 They have to do > > dual os development UNTIL ALL the companies come onboard > > Calm down! > There was no announcement that OS 9 development will be discontinued, right? > BTW: I find 5.2 the most stable release since quite a while, and quite > sure we will want 5.3 that way too. > ;-))) I'm calm... 5.3 is an osx only! 5.2 looks like the last updated we'll see in os9, unless they make a new numbering system.. -mike

drgruv1@... writes: >Auto-Tune 3 VST M/M >Auto-Tune 3 VST S/S >FM7 >FM7 FX >NorthPole >PROSONIQ Orange Vocoder 1 >PSP_VintageWarmer >PSPVintageWarmer files >Waldorf >WaveShell-VST 3.5 > >All the above from my system is GONE in 5.3 They have to do >dual os development UNTIL ALL the companies come onboard Nobody said that 5.2 is the last OS9 or even Windows version of Logic. In fact, Emagic specifically announced that there would be more versions. Plus, it's not as if VST implementation in Logic-X means that you could use your existing VST plugins anyway (you can't). They all need to be ported over to OSX (none of the above are OSX compatible that I can think of - certainly not any Waves plugins). It's obvious that you'll need to use OS9 until all software and hardware that you personally need is OSX compliant. Emagic had to pick *some* time to release LogicX (it's the first multitrack audio/MIDI program for OSX). It's a chicken/ egg thing: Without any host software (like Logic, Cubase, Performer, ProTools) on OSX, there's no huge incentive to write the 3rd party drivers and plugins for it. Without all the 3rd party drivers and plugins, there's no incentive to release Logic, Cubase, Performer, ProTools) for OSX. Do you see the conundrum? A similar conundrum happened 1.5 years ago when Apple first released OSX. "Geez, why do I need OSX if hardly any software works with it???" f-erenc szabo, smarty pants Z+E+R+O+B+E+A+T "NOW POWERED BY THE MIRACLE OF THE TRANSISTOR!" I use a Mac because I'm in the business of computing my work, not working my computer

drgruv1@... writes: >5.3 is an osx only! 5.2 looks like the last updated we'll see in >os9, unless they make a new numbering system.. Do you have any proof that 5.2 is the last version for OS9, or are you just inventing stuff on the spot? At *no* point was this ever announced. In fact, the exact OPPOSITE was announced: That there will in fact be versions for OS9 and Windows beyond version 5.2. f-erenc szabo, smarty pants Z+E+R+O+B+E+A+T "NOW POWERED BY THE MIRACLE OF THE TRANSISTOR!" I use a Mac because I'm in the business of computing my work, not working my computer.

--- In logic-users@y..., "f-erenc szabo" <zerobeat@g...> wrote: > drgruv1@y... writes: > >5.3 is an osx only! 5.2 looks like the last updated we'll see in > >os9, unless they make a new numbering system.. > Do you have any proof that 5.2 is the last version for OS9, > or are you just inventing stuff on the spot? > > At *no* point was this ever announced. In fact, the exact > OPPOSITE was announced: That there will in fact be versions > for OS9 and Windows beyond version 5.2. > > > f-erenc szabo, smarty pants > Z+E+R+O+B+E+A+T > "NOW POWERED BY THE MIRACLE OF THE TRANSISTOR!" It does seem very odd that 5.2 is os9 and 5.3 is osx, I didn't see any os9 5.3 on their site... so it looks like the last version for os9 was 5.2 -mike <quotes repositioned by admin>

Hi there, On Tuesday, September 3, 2002, at 12:07 PM, drgruv1 wrote: > It does seem very odd that 5.2 is os9 and 5.3 is osx, I didn't see > any os9 5.3 on their site... so it looks like the last version for os9 > was 5.2 If you consider OS X another platform (yes it is Mac - but a new breed) then it shouldn't be confusing. There have often been times over the years that the Mac/PC version numbers have not always coincided...so as has already been aptly explained, the fact that Logic for OS X is 5.3 means absolutely zip about the future of Logic for OS 9 (or Win for that matter).. You may even see three columns at their downloads page (as a suggestion) in the future: Mac OS X, Mac OS 9, Windows. But if not, the point remains the same. Emagic have stated numerous times that OS 9 versions will remain for a long time...nuff said... > -mike with regards, -- Lachlan Deck ldeck@...

drgruv1@... writes: >It does seem very odd that 5.2 is os9 and 5.3 is osx, I didn't see >any os9 5.3 on their site... so it looks like the last version for os9 >was 5.2 Is there any precedent for this assumption? Or do you just keep posting "it looks like the last version for OS9 was 5.2" because you hope many people will accept this nonsensical and baseless theory? You do know that software companies don't usually simultaneously release the same version number for EVERY platform, right? It is definitely *not* odd that 5.2 for one platform (Windows and OS9) and 5.3 for another platform (OSX) are both concurrently the "newest" versions respectively. By the same token, nobody thinks that MicroLogicAV is never going to be released for version5 because the current latest MicroLogicAV is at version4. The only way to *simultaneously* release all platforms at the same version is to artificially delay the release of all of them except the last one. This might psychologically satisfy those nervous-minded folks who make grand assumptions like you're doing, but I don't think it's worth it. f-erenc szabo, smarty pants Z+E+R+O+B+E+A+T "NOW POWERED BY THE MIRACLE OF THE TRANSISTOR!" I use a Mac because I'm in the business of computing my work, not working my computer.

Thoughts from the mind of drgruv1, 03-09-2002: >It does seem very odd that 5.2 is os9 and 5.3 is osx, I didn't see >any os9 5.3 on their site... so it looks like the last version for os9 >was 5.2 If you've followed Emagic's history a bit over the last years, and if you've read the LUG a bit, it should be clear that the chance of your fears coming true is next to zero. As far as I can see, 5.3 is just 5.2 for OSX -- i.e. identical feature set, but just meant for a different OS. So it's quite likely that e.g. v5.4 will be issued in 2 versions, one for OS9 and one for OSX 9 (or 3 versions: OS9, OSX and Win). Emagic would be silly and stupid to stop OS9 development all of a sudden. And since their history doesn't suggest sillyness or stupidity on their part... And now please stop creating a panic for no reason. There are 8500 people reading your mails, and if what you write is not based on facts, the damage you can do is greater than the benefits. -- Hendrik Jan Veenstra <h@...> Omega Art: http://www.ision.nl/users/h/index.html

At 0:17 Uhr +0000 03.09.2002, drgruv1 wrote: >5.3 is an osx only! 5.2 looks like the last updated we'll see in >os9, unless they make a new numbering system.. Nonsense. Logic Platinum 5.3 will be released for Mac OS 9 and Windows within the next days. And yes, Logic 5.3 still supports VST on these platforms. -- Beste Gruesse - best regards, Michael Haydn - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dipl.-Inform. Univ. Michael Haydn mhaydn@... SoundDiver Group Executive http://www.emagic.de/ Logic Developer (Logic Control integration) Emagic Soft- & Hardware GmbH - Germany Phone: +49 4101 495 0 Halstenbeker Weg 96, 25462 Rellingen Fax : +49 4101 495 199 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

> drgruv1@... writes: >> It does seem very odd that 5.2 is os9 and 5.3 is osx, I didn't see >> any os9 5.3 on their site... so it looks like the last version for os9 >> was 5.2 > > Is there any precedent for this assumption? Where? At Emagic? Maybe not. At Apple? Hell yes. > Or do you just > keep posting "it looks like the last version for OS9 was 5.2" > because you hope many people will accept this nonsensical > and baseless theory? I didn't post the concern here, but the assumption is neither nonsensical nor baseless. Apple has stopped os9 development on almost every one of its pieces of software once an OSx version has come out. Various arrogant and off-base ramblings deleted here... > This might psychologically satisfy those > nervous-minded folks who make grand assumptions like you're > doing, but I don't think it's worth it. I know that you feel that Apple and Emagic have never made business decisions that hurt any of their customer base, and am sure you could not fathom either company changing a course of action from one earlier announced to customers. However, calling a realistic fear of discontinuation of OS 9 development by a "wholly owned division" of Apple, which announced the death of OS9 at a recent trade show, "grand" seems rather "grandly" naive. Gregory

> drgruv1@y... writes: > >It does seem very odd that 5.2 is os9 and 5.3 is osx, I didn't see > >any os9 5.3 on their site... so it looks like the last version for os9 > >was 5.2 "f-erenc szabo" <zerobeat@g...> wrote: > Is there any precedent for this assumption? Or do you just > keep posting "it looks like the last version for OS9 was 5.2" > because you hope many people will accept this nonsensical > and baseless theory? > > You do know that software companies don't usually simultaneously > release the same version number for EVERY platform, right? > > It is definitely *not* odd that 5.2 for one platform (Windows > and OS9) and 5.3 for another platform (OSX) are both concurrently > the "newest" versions respectively. By the same token, nobody > thinks that MicroLogicAV is never going to be released for version5 > because the current latest MicroLogicAV is at version4. > > The only way to *simultaneously* release all platforms at the > same version is to artificially delay the release of all of them > except the last one. This might psychologically satisfy those > nervous-minded folks who make grand assumptions like you're > doing, but I don't think it's worth it. I wanted to express concerns regarding their development philosophy and to make sure that I and others using os9 are able to continue with their lastest versions and releases. I am not making 'grand assumptions'. They need to clarify what they plan on doing. To leave os9 users in the dark is a mistake. -mike

At 14:17 +0000 03.09.02, drgruv1 wrote: >I am not making 'grand assumptions'. They need to clarify what they >plan on doing. To leave os9 users in the dark is a mistake. Did you read my statement? Is it sufficient? If not: we will release Logic Platinum 5.3 for Mac OS 9 and Windows *this week*. -- Beste Gruesse - best regards, Michael Haydn - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dipl.-Inform. Univ. Michael Haydn mhaydn@... SoundDiver Group Executive http://www.emagic.de/ Logic Developer (Logic Control integration) Emagic Soft- & Hardware GmbH - Germany Phone: +49 4101 495 0 Halstenbeker Weg 96, 25462 Rellingen Fax : +49 4101 495 199 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

drgruv1@... writes: >I wanted to express concerns regarding their development >philosophy and to make sure that I and others using os9 >are able to continue with their lastest versions and releases. > >I am not making 'grand assumptions'. They need to >clarify what they plan on doing. To leave os9 users >in the dark is a mistake. You have conveniently ignored every mention that your fears are unfounded, that Emagic will indeed continue with OS9 (and Windows) updates. [snipped by admin] To admin: A constructive way to censor posts might be to add comments when you know something to be factually wrong. It's standard in many forums, like when you see "Editor's Note:". f-erenc szabo, smarty pants Z+E+R+O+B+E+A+T "NOW POWERED BY THE MIRACLE OF THE TRANSISTOR!"

> >I wanted to express concerns regarding their development > >philosophy and to make sure that I and others using os9 > >are able to continue with their lastest versions and releases. > > > >I am not making 'grand assumptions'. They need to > >clarify what they plan on doing. To leave os9 users > >in the dark is a mistake. > > You have conveniently ignored every mention that your > fears are unfounded, that Emagic will indeed continue > with OS9 (and Windows) updates. [snipped by admin] > > To admin: A constructive way to censor posts might be > to add comments when you know something to be factually > wrong. It's standard in many forums, like when you see > "Editor's Note:". Just found that out... (about emagic continuing with os9) still learbing and reading. Thank You Emagic. PS. about impossible for editor to 'know all' about the 'goings on' in the business. MHO -mike

>At 0:17 Uhr +0000 03.09.2002, drgruv1 wrote: > >5.3 is an osx only! 5.2 looks like the last updated we'll see in > >os9, unless they make a new numbering system.. > >Nonsense. >Logic Platinum 5.3 will be released for Mac OS 9 and Windows within >the next days. And yes, Logic 5.3 still supports VST on these >platforms. >-- > >Beste Gruesse - best regards, >Michael Haydn For we are all mere children in the face of those who know....

> From: Michael Haydn <mhaydn@...> > > At 14:17 +0000 03.09.02, drgruv1 wrote: >> I am not making 'grand assumptions'. They need to clarify what they >> plan on doing. To leave os9 users in the dark is a mistake. > > Did you read my statement? Is it sufficient? If not: we will release > Logic Platinum 5.3 for Mac OS 9 and Windows *this week*. > -- > > Beste Gruesse - best regards, > Michael Haydn LOL this is funny... sorry

> Just found that out... (about emagic continuing with os9) still > learbing and reading. Thank You Emagic. > > PS. about impossible for editor to 'know all' about the 'goings on' > in the business. MHO > > -mike Again see below.... Mea Culpa

--- In logic-users@y..., Michael Haydn <mhaydn@m...> wrote: > At 14:17 +0000 03.09.02, drgruv1 wrote: > >I am not making 'grand assumptions'. They need to clarify what they > >plan on doing. To leave os9 users in the dark is a mistake. > > Did you read my statement? Is it sufficient? If not: we will release > Logic Platinum 5.3 for Mac OS 9 and Windows *this week*. > -- > > Beste Gruesse - best regards, > Michael Haydn > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - My only issue with Emagic(Apple Controlled) dropping VST and only supporting AudioUnits is the way they went about it. The following quotes are from: http://www.emagic.de/english/news/2002/osx3.html 'rather than dilute its development efforts by continuing to support a disparate and often poorly documented range of "standards".' This is quite arrogant and ballsy thing for Apple to say. I mean Emagic has supported VST for a long time yet now its conviniently a 'disparate' standard? Let alone the fact that it is WELL documented ... anyone that has downloaded the VST SDK would know this. I guess the way I feel about it is this ... Yes Apple owns Emagic now and it is their decision to do what they want with the company, but don't try and act like Emagic's outlook has been so hand in hand with Apple's all along. That is like an insult to all Emagic customers. Even other pro-Apple companies like MOTU have never resorted to Apple's marketing techniques and neither did the pre- buyout Emagic. At least own up to the fact that Emagic is no longer the same company whenever you see Apple's 'Switch' compaign show up on emagic.de. 'The decision to only support Audio Units was not taken lightly, we listened to both developers and users before making this decision' I don't ever remember being asked by Emagic my opinion on the situation. Anyone else get a personal request from Emagic on this? I hope AudioUnits turn out to be as good as Apple/Emagic are talking them up. Although I don't think having them built into the OS ads much advantage as you still have to run your DAW (Logic) to be able to USE them in the REAL WORLD. I also pray that their API is similar to VST so that plugin/instrument developers can focus on creation instead of Apple's latest standard.

On 3/9/02 7:39 pm, theperfectflow wrote: > > My only issue with Emagic(Apple Controlled) dropping VST and only > supporting AudioUnits is the way they went about it. > > The following quotes are from: > http://www.emagic.de/english/news/2002/osx3.html > > 'rather than dilute its development efforts by continuing to support > a disparate and often poorly documented range of "standards".' > > This is quite arrogant and ballsy thing for Apple to say. I mean > Emagic has supported VST for a long time yet now its conviniently > a 'disparate' standard? Let alone the fact that it is WELL > documented ... anyone that has downloaded the VST SDK would know > this. It has always been publicly declared by Emagic that they are not that impressed with Steinberg's 'standards' - primarily ASIO and VST. This is what led Emagic to develop alternate 'standards' such as EASI. The problem is that too many developers jumped on the Steinberg bandwagon to prevent alternatives taking market share. I suspect that such proposals as EASI (which incidentally was aimed as much as driving corresponding developments and discussions amongst the developments as being a serious commercial alternative to ASIO) have given great input to the development of the CoreAudio system. Whilst I can hold my hands up and say that I have not downloaded the VST SDK (I wouldn't know what it all meant anyway), I remember Markus commenting regularly that, although the VST SDK is very good from the point-of-view of the plug-in developer, it is largely undocumented from the host applications standpoint; thus Emagic has had to do a large degree of reverse-engineering to support VST to the level that it does. I think its fair to say that no other manufacturer, apart from Steinberg, has as capable a VST implementation as Emagic. > > I hope AudioUnits turn out to be as good as Apple/Emagic are talking > them up. Although I don't think having them built into the OS ads > much advantage as you still have to run your DAW (Logic) to be able > to USE them in the REAL WORLD. I also pray that their API is similar > to VST so that plugin/instrument developers can focus on creation > instead of Apple's latest standard. > Again, although I cannot say for definite, I think the terms in which all our developer buddies have been talking about the AudioUnit API shows it to be a very similar, but much more capable standard. I suspect that porting the plug-ins to AudioUnits will not take _that_ much effort, but the potential to develop them further in the new standard is substantially improved. JMHO. -- The best of times to you all... Pants

TO ADMIN: If you need to shorten this, please discard the whole message. <Admin: Reminder: As long as we are presenting facts and not emotions as a general rule in posts such as these, we are in good shape.> >Let alone the fact that it is WELL >documented ... anyone that has downloaded the VST SDK would know >this. Ahem. Very many people who have been developing VST plugs over years still depend on the VST dev list, everytime full of hope to grab an insight by Charly or Yvan. There is no documentation that deserves the WELL-attribute. The docs are enough to work with, but they are far from excellence. Steinberg always knew + apologized for this and promised to put up better documentation. Meanwhile the de facto standard meandered to a VST2.2 or so beta which has been used for quite a while now. Last week there had been a first really thorough beta-documentation released for an unofficial beta SDK which was actually the so-called standard everybody here refers to. We developers don't really complain on that, as we like the conversation and community that arises from this situation. - Maybe the challenge, too. The other side is the situation of the host developers. I could easily imagine how fed up they must be, at least those who needed to take up with Steinberg. There had never been anything like a reference implementation or the like. Frequent changes in the specs alone always may have cost days of analytical guessing, interpretation and finally waiting for the way Steinberg adopted their own ideas. - Which as of latest we know changed over time, too (Okay, that's a bug in a certain Cubase version, as Steinberg admits). Hence implementations of VST on host-side were different (especially in Logic, I must say), so developers were forced to compromises and to figure out workarounds. That's all no such big deal in my opinion. The VST dev list with its kind tone and wonderful people (I mean it) are the best support I could think of, better than what I've seen from Apple, yet, including but not limited to Emagic. Many of the things that went into AudioCore seem to reflect the deepest wishes the devolpers had for VST. Beyond technical detail, seen as an API alone, AudioCore appears to be the VST everybody ever dreamed of. Put together with the excellent way Apple uses to document their stuff among the many example + reference files they usually provide, this is a compelling argument for the decision made. Of course, VST will go on to exist, and everybody (including me) will love to support it. Of course, building for an additional API, AudioUnit that is, is more hassle. But in the end, by forcing developers to adopt AU, Logic sees its only chance to become the platform we want it to be: Nevermore lacking the features that Cubase always had before Emagic could build them in. Now chance is, chances are equal. And another: If developers can develop for a real standard, everything will be better. If developers don't have to care how a VST works inside Logic, VSTs will be better. Sorry I have to say here, but the Logic-way of VST handling has actually prevented the one or another capability a VST could have sported. It's not only me who looks forward to get his hands on AudioUnits and who waits impatiently for VST3.0. Chance is, both sides of the world will profit from what's going on. *sigh* Regards, ;) Urs urs heckmann urs@... www.u-he.com

>--- In logic-users@y..., "theperfectflow" <bobby@p...> wrote: > > My only issue with Emagic(Apple Controlled) dropping VST and only > supporting AudioUnits is the way they went about it. Well, I did think that there was something funny going on, despite the assurances that I was being given. IMO, the AudioUnits idea was a logical development, I don't know if these "units" are patched together with Logic Environment code, but something like this was definitely on the cards. The problem that the market now has to deal with is that Apple are announcing this fundamental change to OSX right as Steinberg roll out their first OSX version of Cubase. Apple's VST-porting library presumably isn't available just yet, so since Apple are effectively announcing that OSX VSTs are dead, then Steinberg's new sequencer, which presumably only takes VST's and not the new sort of object, would seem to be in a bit of a fix. So, strategy-wise, it's now Steinberg's move. Do they make their own software instruments only available for OSX in VST format? They might have been tempted to stick a finger up at Apple/emagic and declare that they'd be dropping OSX support altogether and only supporting the Mac via OS9, but since Apple have waited until the Cubase OSX launch is already underway, that would involve a major loss of face. Apple seem to be playing with a very hard ball. The question would now seem to be: Are Steinberg going to port their own instruments to AU, or keep them as VST-only? If Steinberg don't port to AU, and delay the inclusion of AU support in Cubase, then instrument writers are going to be stuck with a decision as to whether to support the emagic&AU or Steinberg&VST formats. Both camps would have a stock of proprietary-format instruments. I don't think we've been told yet whether the existing emagic instruments are going to have a free upgrade so that they can run as separate AU objects under OSX, with other people's sequencers, or not. This is getting complicated... Erk

Hi there, On Wednesday, September 4, 2002, at 12:18 PM, erkdemon wrote: >> --- In logic-users@y..., "theperfectflow" <bobby@p...> wrote: >> >> My only issue with Emagic(Apple Controlled) dropping VST and only >> supporting AudioUnits is the way they went about it. > > Well, I did think that there was something funny going on, despite > the assurances that I was being given. > > The problem that the market now has to deal with is that Apple are > announcing this fundamental change to OSX right as Steinberg roll out > their first OSX version of Cubase. ??? What gives you the impression that AU's are a sudden development? And what gives you the impression that Steinberg are somehow taken by surprise by CoreMIDI / CoreAudio / Audio Units? Anyone would think that they haven't been paying attention if that were the case... I think you're jumping to premature and unfounded assumptions about what the future holds... > <snipped unfounded speculations and interpretations> > This is getting complicated... Remember that these "announcements" might be new to *you* but they are by no means a sudden development - for Steinberg or for that matter any other developer... > Erk with regards, -- Lachlan Deck ldeck@...

At 18:39 +0000 03.09.02, theperfectflow wrote: >'rather than dilute its development efforts by continuing to support >a disparate and often poorly documented range of "standards".' > >This is quite arrogant and ballsy thing for Apple to say. I mean >Emagic has supported VST for a long time yet now its conviniently >a 'disparate' standard? Let alone the fact that it is WELL >documented ... anyone that has downloaded the VST SDK would know >this. What is meant in the statement is documentation for VST hosts. The VST plug-in documentation is quite ok (but still not perfect), however not for the host side. >'The decision to only support Audio Units was not taken lightly, we >listened to both developers and users before making this decision' > >I don't ever remember being asked by Emagic my opinion on the >situation. Anyone else get a personal request from Emagic on this? We did ask our beta testers, who are bound to a non-disclosure agreement. This is why you did not get notice of it. >I hope AudioUnits turn out to be as good as Apple/Emagic are talking >them up. Although I don't think having them built into the OS ads >much advantage as you still have to run your DAW (Logic) to be able >to USE them in the REAL WORLD. I also pray that their API is similar >to VST so that plugin/instrument developers can focus on creation >instead of Apple's latest standard. AFAIK Audio Units is actually a super set of VST (I'm not into it, I'm just echoing what I've heard from the involved developers). -- Beste Gruesse - best regards, Michael Haydn - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dipl.-Inform. Univ. Michael Haydn mhaydn@... SoundDiver Group Executive http://www.emagic.de/ Logic Developer (Logic Control integration) Emagic Soft- & Hardware GmbH - Germany Phone: +49 4101 495 0 Halstenbeker Weg 96, 25462 Rellingen Fax : +49 4101 495 199 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Michael Haydn wrote: > we will release > Logic Platinum 5.3 for Mac OS 9 and Windows *this week*. Still 5.2 on the web site. Desperate for 5.3 as 5.2 has been more than a little problematic over the last month or so, and support has been somewhat lacking (see previous message - assuming they end up getting posted in order!) Here's hoping that the problems with 5.2 are going to be fixed in 5.3, and that's why it's taking a little longer than promised.

--- In logic-users@y..., Lachlan Deck <ldeck@t...> wrote: > Hi there, > On Wednesday, September 4, 2002, at 12:18 PM, erkdemon wrote: > > The problem that the market now has to deal with is that Apple are > > announcing this fundamental change to OSX right as Steinberg roll > > out their first OSX version of Cubase. > > ??? > What gives you the impression that AU's are a sudden development? I didn't say that I thought that AUs were a new development. What /does/ sound like a new development is the announcement that Apple have declared that their software applications won't be running OSX VSTs, even though the first OSX VSTs have already started to appear, and Native Instruments had stated that they are porting their entire range to OSX VST, and AU 2.0 and the porting tools supposedly aren't ready yet. People out there seem to have put in work to make sure that there's some way for third-party developers to produce softinstruments for OSX while the AU stuff was being finalised, and Apple have now responded by saying that it's decided as a point of policy that its own applications won't run those VST instruments. Are you saying that the developers knew that Apple would be making this decision? > ... > Remember that these "announcements" might be new to *you* but they are by no means a sudden development - for Steinberg or for that > matter any other developer... So how long /have/ developers known that emagic wasn't going to be supporting the format? Before July 1? Shortly after? Please enlighten us, we end-users are feeling a bit in the dark here. [Erk]

Am Montag den, 9. September 2002, um 02:57, schrieb erkdemon: > So how long /have/ developers known that emagic wasn't going to be > supporting the format? Before July 1? Shortly after? > > Please enlighten us, we end-users are feeling a bit in the dark here. > > [Erk] It's a bit, hmm, no-fun to propell this thread up over and over. So, here is the latest news: Developers had expected the move, even before July 1, though it has not been certain until days ago. The new development kit for AU2s is available for developers from Apple. It looks astonishing. Emagic wants to provide developers with additional VST-porting help with some code/libraries. That stuff is expected to arrive within some days. - Nevertheless, this is not needed for starting AU development. I think it is most clear they didn't go crazy. - Read previous posts for that. ;) Urs (Developer and User) urs heckmann urs@... www.u-he.com

Urs Heckmann <urs@u...> wrote: > Developers had expected the move, even before July 1, though it > has not been certain until days ago. OK, thanks. The trouble I have at the moment, as an end-user who is now wondering whether to move to mac or not, is that I'm trying very hard to trust the market again after July 1, but there seems to be so much misinformation and uncertainty about anything to do with OSX that I really don't know what to make of it all. For instance: about a week ago, I started a thread here specifically asking whether there were any issues regarding OSX and VST, and as far as I remember, _nobody_ mentioned AU at all. One developer guy said that he'd already ported his VST to OSX VST, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/logic-users/message/116869 and was just waiting for a proper platform like logic to be released so that he could test it before publishing, so it sounds as if he might have been surprised by the announcement, too. There seem to be an awful lot of issues here that either haven't been decided, or where the development community haven't decided to tell us end-users yet. None of us Windows users are going to be switching to mac for the privelege of using OS9, because logic OS9 probably isn't going to be updated further than Winlogic is. The reason to switch would be OSX and logic X, and the expected performance increase in using logic on Apple hardware as single-platform code. So, as possible new entrants to the Mac world, we /need/ to know what the true situation is with OSX, and exactly what it is that we might be getting into. At the moment we are stuck trying to figure out whether certain critical information isn't available because nobody knows, or because they don't reckon that we need to be told. It's not very reassuring. [Erk]

"erkdemon" <eric_baird@c...> wrote: > There seem to be an awful lot of issues here that either haven't been > decided, or where the development community haven't decided to tell > us end-users yet. > None of us Windows users are going to be switching to mac for the > privelege of using OS9, because logic OS9 probably isn't going to be > updated further than Winlogic is. The reason to switch would be OSX > and logic X, and the expected performance increase in using logic on > Apple hardware as single-platform code... > > So, as possible new entrants to the Mac world, we /need/ to know what > the true situation is with OSX, and exactly what it is that we might > be getting into. > At the moment we are stuck trying to figure out whether certain > critical information isn't available because nobody knows, or because > they don't reckon that we need to be told. > > It's not very reassuring. > > [Erk] As another Windows user, I feel the same way. Even Mac users don't know what's happening. I mean, some speak with more conviction than others about the issue, but the truth is no one knows. So, there is no way I am spending >$4000 upgrading hardware and software (including plugins and other software that needs to be replaced) when Apple hasn't completely cleared the air and people are still confused as to what's going to happen. -Xav

>It's not very reassuring. true but whatever platform you are on - the "legacy" o/s we have all used for years is surely on the way out. Wherever you are, whatever sequencer you use - it will be gone at some point. So if you end up on OSX or NT or similar.. the app you use today will not run - some upgrade will be necessary. You will not see a great performance boost in either case - but you will see greatly increased reliability/stability. Compatibility with other real time apps will not be at the discretion of Steinberg, Digi, OMS etc etc - since these services will be part of the OS itself. It doesn't matter which platform - this is the way the future will look. If you need a performance boost right NOW and you are on Win - upgrade your Win machine. Logic will run fine, all the VST will run fine... etc. Mac Logic users now have a choice - even so, I suspect people will dual boot for a while but do most of their work under os9 until the vst thing is sorted.

Am Montag den, 9. September 2002, um 15:41, schrieb erkdemon: > One developer guy said that he'd already ported his VST to OSX VST, > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/logic-users/message/116869 > and was just waiting for a proper platform like logic to be released > so that he could test it before publishing, so it sounds as if he > might have been surprised by the announcement, too. > Yupp. I had been surprised. But I have found/received another host for testing my carbonized VSTs. Now I'm trying to get my environment ready for providing the community with carbonized VSTs, classic VSTs, AUs and (with a little help from outside my walls) Win VSTs. That's what almost all developer guys I'm in contact with currently work on. > There seem to be an awful lot of issues here that either haven't been > decided, or where the development community haven't decided to tell > us end-users yet. Yes. We still have no appropriate testing environment for AUs. Logic will support them in 5.3.1 or so which will probably be seeded to developers before public release (Michael?). That will bring more light into the situation. Also, remember the "final" AudioCore has been implemented in MacOS X 10.2 which is quite young and rare (I still couldn't get it), and the suite of sample code and documentation (AudioCore SDK) dates back 2 days from today. So we are right at the beginning of something. That's why there is not the overall certainty being communicated. What is sure is this: OS 9 will fade away, the sooner the better. OS X will see AUs and carbonized VSTs. Some carbonized VSTs are currently available, because there /are/ a few hosts. At the moment, AU seems to be superior to VST in means like flexibility, documentation and development speed. VST3 will possibly draw level with AU. Could be (speculation!), VST3 on MacOS X will be just another interface to AU. > So, as possible new entrants to the Mac world, we /need/ to know what > the true situation is with OSX, and exactly what it is that we might > be getting into. You do not need to switch at once, unless you care for that currently available switch program with rabate on hardware. Switching depends heavily on the software you use besides Logic. Crossgrading Logic cost you nothing, but does that also apply to your plugins? If you use Wavelab or Cooledit, can you affordably go Spark or Peak and still do the same things? Conclusion: There are several uncertainties in the MacOS X future. The hardware development can hardly keep up with wintel in means of pricing and performance. On the other hand the OS is the most stable, user friendly thing I've ever seen with thousands of nifty freeware applications, multi-button-plus-scrollwheel-mouse support (one of the most widespread misunderstandings ever), a paradise for developers and now with the most powerful audio engine ever built into system level. What can we say, it's a decision everybody has to make on his own. My decision is clear, I'll stick to X and feel assured Logic + AUs are the next big thing. ;) Urs

Erk wrote: >So, as possible new entrants to the Mac world, we /need/ to know what >the true situation is with OSX, and exactly what it is that we might >be getting into. >At the moment we are stuck trying to figure out whether certain >critical information isn't available because nobody knows, or because >they don't reckon that we need to be told. > >It's not very reassuring. As I understand it, the crossgrade to Logic on mac is free..so why not take that offer and get Logic on Mac for free. Don't buy the Mac now though, but wait for sometime meanwhile making music on your PC Logic. After you are certain that you want/ don't want to change platform then act accordingly. There is nothing more uncertain than the future :-) Cheers -- Check out the web page for my band: Now solo works also: New home address : http://koti.welho.com/jpennane

I spoke to Sound Technology last week and they claimed a big shipment is due this week which will satisfy outstanding orders. Should this not be the case I am hoping EmApple will honour the free crossgrade offer beyond Sept for those scuppered by distributor non-supply. Anyone with any insights/knowledge? Tony Perretta

"robbmasters" <robb@n...> wrote: > Here's hoping that the problems with 5.2 are going to be fixed in 5.3, > and that's why it's taking a little longer than promised. Or not. :-(

XtraD wrote: > So, there isno way I am spending >$4000 upgrading hardware and software > (including plugins and other software that needs to be replaced) when > Apple hasn't completely cleared the air and people are still confused > as to what's going to happen. Huh ? We know what is going to happen. No one is confused at all. Before the Emagic announcement most of the buzz around the net was that the major plugin manufacturers would opt for porting to AU instead of carbonizing VST, because AU would produce superior results. And that, possibly, the small guys might only opt for carbonizing VST in the short term. Emagic's stance has only clarified things more. It wasn't any big bombshell. Whether it be to carbonized VST or AU, you would still need to update to the OSX version, so that is no big deal either. The only reason I can see for some people creating a false sense of doom and confusion, is that they are miffed because they feel they might find they have to actually pay to use their favourite plugins for a change. As far as supporting multiple formats go, just look at the products pages on most major plug developers' sites. Count the formats already offered. [remember windows plugins won't open in macOS, and vice-versa, too which counts for two formats for a start.] Apple have not gone out to destroy other proprietary formats. They have just created an OS that doesn't need them. There's a big difference. In OSX/audio. There is no confusion. VST is legacy. No big deal. Clear? Dave Eager

erkdemon wrote: > So, as possible new entrants to the Mac world, we /need/ to know what > the true situation is with OSX, and exactly what it is that we might > be getting into. > At the moment we are stuck trying to figure out whether certain > critical information isn't available because nobody knows, or because > they don't reckon that we need to be told. I can understand very well how confused you can be. I would certainly be asking a lot of questions if I were in your situation. There's one thing I can tell you that may give some light about what Apple has in mind with AU. As you probably know, a new version of AU SDK (AU V2) has been made available to developers. I downloaded this SDK and noticed the main reason for a new version of Audio Unit. Let me explain it to you. A VST plugin receives data to process as n channels of non interleaved samples. That means for instance that a stereo sound is made of 2 separate buffers, one for the left channel, the other for the right channel. In AU V1, data are feed to the Audio Unit as interleaved buffer. That means that a stereo sound was made of a sample for the right channel, followed by a sample for the left, and so on. This was an incompatibility between the 2 formats. I say "was". Because, following feedbacks from plugin developer, Apple has decided to change this rule. Data are now in non interleaved format. Of course there are some other issues to go from a VST to an AU plugin (this was not difficult to fix, but interleaving/deinterleaving does cost some CPU resource).This little story shows that Apple do wants to make the transition as smooth as possible. Don't forget also that Emagic plans to release a library - a kind of SDK - which should allow VST developers to easily port their plugins to the AU "standard" (although Emagic looks somewhat optimistic when saying this would take some hours to do the job). I'm a (mac) developer myself, and from what I've read here and there about VST and AU, this seems totally feasible although not trivial. I'm waiting for that library to experiment with. After having throwed a first glance at the new AU SDK, I can tell you (this is a developer point of view) that Apple has made a pretty good job. As far as I can see, all the problems that may be an issue for an audio/midi plugin or host apps developer are covered by Core Audio (from the MIDI services to the audio with the GUI in between). This is the first time we have such a framework covering **ALL** the aspects of midi/audio on a platform. This is an opportunity that developers will be happy to catch because it guarantees that their contribution will be usable by anyone else (on the mac at least) whatever is the particular host/plugin configuration. In effect, the Core Audio standard can give us what VST brought to plugin, a standard for the whole midi/audio application domain. However, I do understand that you may be confused by what's happening these days. I do think that things will get clearer in a couple month. Steinberg should announce a release of Cubase SX for Mac OS X before the end of the year. Digital Performer should do same. Important plugin developers have already stated their intention to port their product to AU format. The transition has begun. It will not be done in one day, not in one month too, but in a couple of month or so. Philippe Wicker tamanras@...

you wrote: >The only reason I can see for some people creating a false sense of doom and confusion, is that they are miffed because they feel they might find they have to actually pay to use their favourite plugins for a change. I have been suspecting the same thing, but even still maybe not. I don't understand the dilema. If all plugins have to be replaced no matter what, what should it matter if it's VST or AU? Whats the difference if you have to replace it with an AU or a carbonized version of the VST plugin anyways? I'd personally prefer is the OS was in control of the standard rather than be at a 3rd party's mercy (though now that Apple owns Emagic it gets a little trickier). I don't use VST's, but if I did, as long as I can use the plugin I need, why should I care which of th two formats its in? Colin Miller

At 16:52 Uhr +0200 09.09.2002, Urs Heckmann wrote: >Yes. We still have no appropriate testing environment for AUs. Logic >will support them in 5.3.1 or so which will probably be seeded to >developers before public release (Michael?). Correct. -- Beste Gruesse - best regards, Michael Haydn - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dipl.-Inform. Univ. Michael Haydn mhaydn@... SoundDiver Group Executive http://www.emagic.de/ Logic Developer (Logic Control integration) Emagic Soft- & Hardware GmbH - Germany Phone: +49 4101 495 0 Halstenbeker Weg 96, 25462 Rellingen Fax : +49 4101 495 199 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

> someone wrote: >> The only reason I can see for some people creating a false sense of doom >> and confusion, is that they are miffed because they feel they might find >> they have to actually pay to use their favourite plugins for a change. That's just offensive bullshit. Not everyone is a pollyana, but that doesn't mean that those of us who fear getting screwed in a corporate battle for market share are all crooks, any more than the rest of you are all satanic puppy murderers. Colin wrote: > I don't > understand the dilema. If all plugins have to be replaced no matter what, > what should it matter if it's VST or AU? Whats the difference if you have > to replace it with an AU or a carbonized version of the VST plugin anyways? > I'd personally prefer is the OS was in control of the standard rather than > be at a 3rd party's mercy (though now that Apple owns Emagic it gets a > little trickier). I don't use VST's, but if I did, as long as I can use the > plugin I need, why should I care which of th two formats its in? Well, because if it's not in AU, you CAN'T use it. If your DAW supports every standard out there, then you KNOW your favorite plug will work on your system. But for every standard NOT supported by your DAW, there is that much greater chance that what you want will not work on your system. It sounds like a lot of developers are moving forward with porting their stuff over to AU, and that is great. But if even one developer chooses to port to VST OSX and stops short of doing the same for AU, then we users of Logic will not have as many choices as users of Cubase. VST ports are already HIGHLY Cubase-centric. Almost all of them come with instructions on how to use their plug in Cubase, while very few have similar instructions for use in Logic. So if SX can use both VST and AU plugs, it is totally reasonable to be a little apprehensive about Logic OSX's inability to use VST plugs. Gregory

people please ! stop this AU/VST_discussion or lable it OT or take it to OT. you are going nowhere, sorry. be fair and give others a chance to filter.

Hi there, On Monday, September 9, 2002, at 11:41 PM, erkdemon wrote: > None of us Windows users are going to be switching to mac for the > privelege of using OS9, because logic OS9 probably isn't going to be > updated further than Winlogic is. Only Logic for Win was announced as being discontinued. Please don't assume that this means anything regarding OS 9. Michael and Markus have not said anything to that effect....actually the opposite... > The reason to switch would be OSX > and logic X, and the expected performance increase in using logic on > Apple hardware as single-platform code. Naturally OS X is the preferred option for many, however if OS 9 fits your bill better (for example if you have a serial midi interface or Plugins you've purchased that either aren't ported to OS X or....) then it is still a great option. > So, as possible new entrants to the Mac world, we /need/ to know what > the true situation is with OSX, and exactly what it is that we might > be getting into. And that's fair enough...It's just not helpful (I think) making premature assumptions... - Many plugins still need to be ported to OS X so it's early days. - The big players have announced their support for AU. In the meantime OS 9 is a good platform and will remain so... with regards, -- Lachlan Deck ldeck@...