4 ms·
They're never gonna let you upload and run your own executable files to their infrastructure. That + latency with MIDI devices is why every DAW-in-a-browser is
by input_sh 1y ago
They're never gonna let you upload and run your own executable files to their infrastructure.
That + latency with MIDI devices is why every DAW-in-a-browser is just a toy.
- polishdude20 1y agoYou can get a vst to run locally and still work with the browser.
- input_sh 1y agoOkay, but why would you? What's the advantage of that? VSTs are resource hogs (when you have like 10+ running at once), not DAWs. I somehow doubt a full-blown browser connected to more than a couple of VSTs would be less of a resource hog than doing the same in a DAW. On your computer. That you own. In your house. Without like additional 50ms of latency for the data to travel to the server and back.
- recursive 1y agoI just assumed all the audio data would be local even in a "browser DAW", so VST calls wouldn't go through a network.
- recursive 1y agoDidn't realize this was in a browser. That tells me all I need to know.
- lioeters 1y agoComing soon: Suno Desktop (Electron version). "Look ma, no browser!"
- notpushkin 1y agoI’ve seen at least one AI-focused, Electron-based DAW already.
- efskap 1y agoIt's a pipe dream of course, but WebAssembly would be an ideal target for C++ VSTs for its portability and sandboxing
- zahlman 1y ago... VSTs are executable code?
- notpushkin 1y agoAre you genuinely surprised?
- zahlman 1y agoI hadn't thought about it, frankly.
- input_sh 1y agoConsidering when the standard was written (v2 in 1999 and v3 in 2008), what else would they be? As horrible as it sounds, a VST is just a .dll file you're running straight from the Internet. On a "positive" note, they're backwards-compatible with like Windows Vista!
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]