"R6025 - pure virtual function call" After trying to use VST's

Hi. Now dont just say, "oh just uninstall that VST" because its a high end demo of which I am considering buying the full version.

Been getting "pure functioned" since installing it on my lappy ( 1.8 dual core, Vista Sp2 ). First time was trying to go to edit view. Reinstalled and fixed.

Now this VST works fine on FLSTUDIO and am about to test it on Reaper. I have had to uninstall some other very cool VST's which also work fine in other apps.

WTF  Audition ?

I am a paid, registered customer blah blah
 Got to say, not happy that such not cheap software is so unstable. Lol'ing at how Adobe Customer support have been very profficient in informing me that AA2.0  is on the "Go F*ckyourself List" of supported software and that I have to sign up for at least a Bronze( how much ? $$)  level of support.



Problem signature:
Problem Event Name:APPCRASH
Application Name:Audition.exe
Application Version:2.0.5306.2
Application Timestamp:436970db
Fault Module Name:AmpliTube 3.vpa
Fault Module Version:0.0.0.0
Fault Module Timestamp:4c374d11
Exception Code:c0000005
Exception Offset:00681050

Hi. Now dont just say, "oh just uninstall that VST" because its a high end demo of which I am considering buying the full version.

Even "high-end" VSTs can be unstable in some program or other - for instance, Steinberg's WaveLab had similar problems with VSTs from Waves until Waves fixed them fairly recently. 

Your best bet is to let both Adobe and the supplier of the VST know; but don't be surprised if you get nowhere, given that Audition 2 is quite some years old, and the VST you have a problem with is only a demo...  After that you have the choice to take your custom elsewhere, either for host or VST.

Paul

After that you have the choice to take your custom elsewhere, either for host or VST.

Paul

Looks like I will be looking for another host as ( as I mentioned ) this was not the first VST to crash poor little fragile AA2.0

You might, or might not, find thishttp://audiomastersforum.net/amforum/index.php/topic,6122.0.html useful.

Relevant reply is #2.  (third post down)

Thanks oretez.

After looking around these forums and having a good play around with Reaper:

 I am left with no smart choice but to pay Reaper the honorary $60 US when I know all the VST's I want to work DO work as opposed to paying Adobe  $160 Australian ( much higher than exchange rate of the claimed $99 US WTF ? ) for the upgrade to AA3 when it doesnt seem any more stable than AA2 and is definitely a resource hog. Wasnt overly impressed with the trial a while back.

Reaper is ....amazing. I will still use CEP2 as my sound editor ( didnt want to link to AA2 as it is such a resource hog ).

You might, or might not, find thishttp://audiomastersforum.net/amforum/index.php/topic,6122.0.html useful.

Relevant reply is #2.  (third post down)

BTW: Lol at SawStudio, especially the prices $2200 for full ? Hahahahahahahaha

BTW: Lol at SawStudio, especially the prices $2200 for full ? Hahahahahahahaha

Purely for the record SAWBasic (roughly comparable to Audition) cost is $300.  SAW, even from inception, attempted to target a Pro Audio Production demographic.  In its own way and addressing a smaller niche SAWStudio is comparable to a full Adobe CS installation (though not a broad ranging in the tasks it attempts to address) which starts @$1400 and with necessary add-ons, inclusions & plug-ins gets you to $2k (a collaborator spent roughly $3k just to upgrade to CS5) fairly rapidly

When I started with SAW in 1994 its was almost the only game in town for serious desk top audio editing (attempting to use TwelveTone required all sorts of trial/error hit/miss lead time, pre-roll delay calculations when attempting to sync overdubs to existing tracks, for example)  And SAWBasic would not currently be something I'd recommend over AA 3.x for either cost, features, robustness, capability.  It is still a bit difficult to say where Reaper will shake out as (if it ever does) approaches maturity but for tracking and mixing real time Reaper is my current recommendation unless I know a client well enough to know its interface would be problematic

But, from the 2007 post, if you want to something that Adobe did/does not support (e.g. VSTis) your only choice is to find an app/host that does

blaming an app for being 'unstable' for not supporting a function in its code is, generally speaking, counter productive.  I still know people who use PT simply because it is 'PT'.  and they will probably go to their grave before they admit that 'industry standard' BS has anything to do with their decision.  Until a couple of years ago I regularly (once or twice a yr) tracked projects in Chicago at a studio whose (frequently absent) owner was a vehement 'analog tape can do anything Digital [processing] can do!'  It is likely he'll die before he sees any benefit to DSP.  personally I was ecstatic to have to pick up a razor blade again (or loose 6dB s/n on a bounce) but not all interfaces suit every work process.  For decent, respectable, maintenance on a 24 trk 2in machine you needed to budget at least $1k a yr (doesn't mean you had to spend that much/yr, though insurance could cost you a sizable chunk of that figure) . . . for some people $1k/yr for software with appropriate suppport becomes a necessary biz expense

as project studios mature (if they can) learning how to budget & control expense is going to be far more important then which specific DAW platform you choose (IM(not always)HO)

  ..It is still a bit difficult to say where Reaper will shake out as (if it ever does)

What does this mean ?

But, from the 2007 post, if you want to something that Adobe did/does not support (e.g. VSTis) your only choice is to find an app/host that doe.....

blaming an app for being 'unstable' for not supporting a function in its code is, generally speaking, counter productive. 

What does this mean ? "Counter productive"

as project studios mature (if they can) learning how to budget & control expense is going to be far more important then which specific DAW platform you choose (IM(not always)HO)

 Please define mature in this instance. The general consensus from my  general readings is that the shift is towards home studios. They are  good, they are stable, they are getting cheaper. The budget aspect is taking care of itself as consumption drives technology and the tech becomes cheaper. Therefore what is important is having a working DAW at a competive a price that offers what the consumer wants. Unless AA can offer that, the market will shift to someplace that does.

What does this mean ? "Counter productive"

this thread started, more or less with:

WTF  Audition ?

I tried to point the OP in the direction that issue was not a matter of apps stability but that it did not support the Steinberg interface specification 'VSTi'

While that might be a feature that an individual requires it, generally speaking is a non-trivial task to recode for something like that. I have no idea of the history of Fruity Loops but Reaper, for example arrived on the scene 9 yr. after Steinberg introduced VST.  While I can not say for sure (and if I knew I wouldn't be permitted to say) my understanding that AA2.x still depended on significant bits of Syntrillium code.  My general impression is that  AA3 constitutes Adobes more or less thorough rewrite of underlying code (not saying they threw out everything, but AA3 'felt' like a new app as opposed to merely adding features to existing interface).  In '96 there would have been no way to be sure that VST was going to become a dominant 'necessary' feature.  VSTis were merely a dream (affordable hardware was available to support the tech).  Even by 2000 plug in support (also not necessarily the idea that a company dumping money into proprietary software development would champion) in CEP was via an add on module (DX-plug) and considering originators of CEP/AA connections with microsoft it's not hard to imagine why they opted for DX as opposed to VST

yeah, they kind of mistimed the market

Not making excuses for AA.  Guessing what the market might want and how much they'll pay for it is not an easy task (part of the relevance of introducing SAW (in the 2007 post) but gaining basic information about the tools one uses is not particularly difficult . . .  if you need to get down the mountain and the bridge is out, no matter how, otherwise wonderful that Escalade might be it probably is not the appropriate tool for the job.  Issue with VSTi was not 'lack' of stability with AA, but, perhaps, too much stability

but again as much for anyone else stumbling on to this thread as the OP, search is you friend.  Even if it was too much trouble to figure out in advance that a VSTi would not work with AA2, seach of forum archives is a trivial task

=

as project studios mature (if they can) learning how to budget & control expense is going to be far more important then which specific DAW platform you choose (IM(not always)HO)

 Please define mature in this instance. The general consensus from my  general readings is that the shift is towards home studios. They are  good, they are stable, they are getting cheaper. The budget aspect is taking care of itself as consumption drives technology and the tech becomes cheaper. Therefore what is important is having a working DAW at a competive a price that offers what the consumer wants. Unless AA can offer that, the market will shift to someplace that does.

Not ignoring your opinions, read them, will consider them, but not going to get drawn in an unproductive debate about this issue here.  You are certainly welcome to your opinions and it is unlikely that anything I might be able to say would inform or modify them in any way.

While I've been at this (recording music) for a long time, with regard to majority of contributors here, and in some small way helped pioneer the concept and practice of the 'project studio', I do not see the concept as having  achieved a mature business model.  A 'budget' is not merely expenditure, but also revenue.  'A' budget is never purely $ but also time.  Which, as example, is why stability of tools is significant, as is recognizing whether an issue is a function of a tool's stability or its design.

I can conceive  of a time where I would not use AA.  For the things it does it still remains one of the best values on the market (your reaction to SAW certainly suggests that), but this forum does not exist to be a marketing tool for Adobe or to function as a booster for AA.  Adobe has their own forum for that.

Not ignoring your opinions, read them, will consider them, but not going to get drawn in an unproductive debate about this issue here.  You are certainly welcome to your opinions and it is unlikely that anything I might be able to say would inform or modify them in any way.

Are you being (unintentionally) patronising    ? I just gave a rundown of behavioural economics, of how the market actually responds. It's not an opinion, its an emerging fact.

While I've been at this (recording music) for a long time, with regard to majority of contributors here, and in some small way helped pioneer the concept and practice of the 'project studio', I do not see the concept as having  achieved a mature business model.  A 'budget' is not merely expenditure, but also revenue.  'A' budget is never purely $ but also time.  Which, as example, is why stability of tools is significant, as is recognizing whether an issue is a function of a tool's stability or its design.

Studios all around my area using very stable protools and logic are winding up shop as the work is not coming in. Once they had the monopoly, now they dont. That's their mature business model - going well past maturity and into old age and forced retirement.

I can conceive  of a time where I would not use AA.  For the things it does it still remains one of the best values on the market (your reaction to SAW certainly suggests that), but this forum does not exist to be a marketing tool for Adobe or to function as a booster for AA.  Adobe has their own forum for that.

For me that time is now. Wake up calls dont ring forever so Adobe should get out of bed and answer a few of them.

Audition has always been a bit picky about which VSTs it would run and which it wouldn't - and invariably the reason has been that the VST writers took short-cuts that they shouldn't have and Audition, which only accepts parameter passing by the book, threw them out. End result is that a lot of manufacturers of them have had to do rewrites to get them correct.

And before you say 'Oh that's just the little one man bands', I should point out that one of the manufacturers who had to correct their VSTs to work properly was Waves...

Audition has always been a bit picky about which VSTs it would run and which it wouldn't - and invariably the reason has been that the VST writers took short-cuts that they shouldn't have and Audition, which only accepts parameter passing by the book, threw them out. End result is that a lot of manufacturers of them have had to do rewrites to get them correct.

And before you say 'Oh that's just the little one man bands', I should point out that one of the manufacturers who had to correct their VSTs to work properly was Waves...

Hi SteveG, hope you are well.

Ok, what means 'by the book' in this instance ? Also has it worked out in AA's favour ?

Ok, what means 'by the book' in this instance ? Also has it worked out in AA's favour ?

The VST standard specification (currently up to version 2.4, the 64-bit one). Yes, this really exists - despite several programmers flouting bits of it, simply because they thought they could get away with shortcuts. I think that it may have worked more in favour of other DAW manufacturers than Adobe, simply because the VST designers have now realised that they have to be a bit more careful...

It's an open standard, so you don't have to pay Steinberg for using it, but you do have to abide by their user terms. Trouble is, some people think that the standard is flawed (there are discussions about this in various places), and almost on this basis alone they think that this gives them carte blanche to do what they think is 'better'. Adobe's take on this is simply that a standard is a standard - so you stick to it.

************************

I'm fine, but recently somewhat overworked. No, that's not altogether a good thing either, because it's not going to make me stupendously rich, unfortunately. How's the Rock Star business?

Hey Steve, sorry for the delay. The original rock scene in Australia is dead as a dodo unless you play very heavy metal ( and even then its only hardcore metal bands who attend gigs lol ). I had a rock band a couple of years back, got chicks but no money. Purely making tunes for pleasure now.



The landscape is changing. Socialism is on its way and its starting with music. Haha.



Also, Reaper is so absolutely amazing value that I wouldnt be surprised if Adobe et al tries to buy it out.