VST vs DirectX - please clue

[lilcapn]

hey guys and gals --

i'm fairly new to making music with my computer. i'm working with a few different softwares -- Acid Pro, Fruity Loops, Cool Edit Pro, and i've used Vegas in the past.

i downloaded a softsynth plugin for Fruity Loops - the WASP - and it also allowed me to download VST and DirectX versions of the Wasp.

i read all about these two things VSTi and DX but what is the difference between the two?

i.e.: are they competing platforms?

are they qualitatively different?

is one "better" or more prevalant or are they just different?

thanks for hopefully clueing me in!

 

[moskus]

Well, yes they are "competing" platforms, and I would say that DXi is the better (mainly because it's newer = more efficient)...

 

[lilcapn]

so

are "most" recording platforms attempting to be compatible with both? or are certain companies aligned with one or the other?

and when you say more efficient, do you mean in ease of use, or in terms of how much processor power it takes to run it?

thanks!

 

[Slackmaster2K]

I very much disagree here.

In a way yes VST and DX are competing "platforms." VST is a standard developed by steinberg for audio plugins, and of course VSTi is an extension of that. DX is a very generic plugin standard developed by Microsoft, and DXi is an extension of that. They don't really compete *for* anything though...they just both exist.

VST is much simpler to develop, and is potentially more efficient than Microsoft's directshow heirarchy which requires a lot of overhead work. Now I say potentially, because I doubt there is a lot of difference in practical applications.

VST is more portable to other operating systems, but that's probably not a big deal to most people.

VST does not require that a user interface be created, because the host application will automatically generate a generic interface. This, and the overall simplicity of VST, means that you will see many more "homebrew" VST plugins than DX.

VST plugins are implemented on Windows as pretty typical DLL's. In order for the host application to find your plugin, you have to tell it which folder your VST plugins (dll's) are located in. DX plugins are implemented using COM, which is basically a "complicated dll" A DX plugin can be installed anywhere on the system, because DX plugins are actually organized via the windows registry. Which of these two methods is better? Well, you can remove a VST plugin by simply moving a DLL file. To remove a DX plugin you have to use an uninstaller. This also implies that the developer must supply an installer application, which of course means more work. (you can also uninstall DX plugins via manual hacking or using a plugin manager application).

The VST standard, like ASIO, was developed specifically for us audio geeks. The DX plugin (direct show filter) standard, like WDM, is much more generic, and not designed with any one thing in mind. You can take this to mean whatever you'd like.

Personally, I choose VST over DX whenever there is the option. When we're talking about instruments, there are MANY more freeware VSTi's than DXi's available, which is a bonus.

I think all applications should be supporting both VST and DX, and a few of them do (as they should be supporting ASIO and WDM).

Slackmaster 2000

 

[saxman72]

wow slack!

dunno if I'll ever need all that info, but it's good to hear about the history and the different methods.

 

[MessiahNet]

Thanks

Slack, Thank You for being detailed on the subject. Some of us out here wish that we could find more posts such as yours. Your effort is, at very least, appreciate by me.