Slate Digital AAX-DSP?

[WernerF]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

Very specifically, as I understand it, AAX DSP plug-ins developed using Avid's free development software kit yields code that will also run perfectly fine native.

Unfortunately most developers prefer to use a multi-platform development kit that can produce VST and AU versions in addition to RTAS and AAX native. In many cases existing plug-ins could simply be recompiled as AAX native. I understand framework support for AAX got delayed by the competing requirements for 64 bit VST, VST3 and AU support.

That said, today's low plug-in prices are a direct result of this kind of multi-platform development.

Ok, so is it possible for Avid to be part of the multi-platform development kit? If so, is it on them as to why they are not part of that software development strategy?

[Bob Olhsson]

I wouldn't hold my breath for Avid to support development for competing platforms. That's really the responsibility of plug-in developers. My understanding is that they offer a great deal of support to developers who use their development kit including hardware.

[WernerF]

Bob, thanks for the reply. I would submit that maybe it's time for Avid to get off of the old school Avid high horse, as their market dominance is not at all what it used to be, and maybe consider some new business practices that have a chance of actually working. They clearly have some as of yet unsold product to move.

[upscaps]

I believe we will not see any new developers of AAX-DSP. Hopefully, we may get an out of the blue plugin like equality (but not equilibrium which is the one) every once in a while.

Exponential Audio posted this yesterday. Relative to this convo:

Writing for DSP--as opposed to a more standard computer architecture--is fussy beyond belief. I did it for years. You've got to decide how many chips will be required--and the answer is different for every sample rate. So I'd have to write it once for 48K and then again for 96K and then again for 192K. My current native versions run up to DSD rates without any special compilation; they just require more cycles and more memory as rates go up. They'd go even higher than that, but there aren't any workstations that do it.

I designed my reverb architecture around the modern chips that make up the computers of the last five years or so. I didn't give any thought to porting it to DSP chips and it's a decision that I don't regret. A modern Trashcan Mac will run hundreds of my reverbs. Heck, an old cheese grater will run over 90 of my 5.1 'verbs. An HDX system may still have some latency advantages in tracking, but that's got a lot to do with the way PT sets up buffering.

As a small shop, I have to consider my time expenditures very carefully. The substantial time it would take to port to HDX would keep me from developing new plugins and extending the plugins I already have. So HDX won't be happening. This is the same decision that's been made by other developers. Hope this gives you a little more insight into the reasons why.

[Michael Carnes]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

My understanding is that they offer a great deal of support to developers who use their development kit including hardware.

That's absolutely true, Bob. Avid's very good in the area of developer support and I've found that they're always available when I need them.

[Bob Olhsson]

Originally Posted by Drew Mazurek

Waves is different.

They chose their path because they have a competing system. Small developers might just need some help like a loaner system for example.

They are different in that they have far more plug-ins to convert than anybody else. HDX is a lot more of a niche product than Pro Tools has ever previously been so it's not that surprising that the numbers didn't add up.

[JFreak]

Plugin-Alliance has almost as many. At least re-installing PA takes ages if you have them all. Still, they have released at least *some* of their most useful plugs as AAX-DSP.

Waves on the other hand has bent over.

[Emcha_audio]

Originally Posted by upscaps

that's a change of tune but a reasonable outcome. slate digital is basically a one man show, Fabrice. aax-dsp just takes too many man hours, hdx n development system investment, and optimization time for the small operation. Especially when they have a variety of plugins across all plugin formats on mac n pc.

even if avid gave them an hdx rig and development system they would still need to hire coders in order to keep the rest of their plugin line viable across the formats as they are a one/two man operation. When there are bug fixes and updates needed does avid re-loan them the hardware?

avid is going to have to keep making aax dsp plugins that fill in the gaps left by autotune, echoboy, waves renaissance, etc.

Fabrice is not the only coder for Slate but he's the main guy.. And just look at MDG audio, they are a 2 man team, yet they just released Equality for AAX DSP with astonishing numbers of instances per cards. They could also release Equilibrium if they wanted to, as an hybrid DSP/native plugins which is possible to do with AAX 64, but that requires a bit more time and knowledge.

Originally Posted by DaveTremblay

Now to AAX Hybrid. This is indeed a new plug-in specification for PT11 that is of course optional. What this feature does is allow a single plug-in to SIMULTANEOUSLY tap into the low latency signal network and the high latency signal network. In many large plug-ins this can be very useful. Let's use this example... Take a reverb. A reverb can be divided into an early reflection part and a tail part. With AAX Hybrid, you can process the early reflections at low latency, while allowing the high latency part to process with higher latency (and this higher efficiency). This is something plug-in developers would have to choose to develop for as it is a new feature in AAX with PT11. And it's worth mentioning that most plug-ins wouldn't benefit from this. EQs and Compressors and such should not use this feature as it wouldn't really make much sense. But reverbs, noise reductions, analyzers, and possibly instruments would potentially benefit. We think this is a pretty cool thing that we can enable with AAX that isn't possible on any other platform.

And the coolest thing about it?... It works splitting a plug-in across DSP and Native as well. You can write a plug-in that has a low latency piece working on the DSP and a high latency piece working on the Native core. You get the benefits of low latency and high determinism, but you can also leverage the high latency power of the Intel core. All within a single plug-in.

As a customer, you won't really know much about Hybrid. There isn't a new menu or anything like that. I just wanted to give you guys a look into something we've been working on and tie that into our philosophy.

Dave

[SPA]

Hi folks. We're focusing right now on getting VCC and FG-X into AAX Native first, and then we have the Virtual Microphone System coming out.

After that, we'll have to revisit the AAX DSP conversation and figure out if the demand is high enough. It will be very expensive for us to do with all of our plugins and will take a considerable amount of time and manpower. Despite what you may have heard, there is not a little 'switch' we hit to turn AAX Native into AAX DSP.

I will also say that with my new Mac Pro (cylinder), I'm tracking at 64 buffers using a thunderbolt interface at 96khz, using VMR and some zero latency verbs and delays, and I have a 1.5ms roundtrip and the CPU is barely touched. Tracked 20 tracks of drums, and vox/guitar scratches without a hitch.

But again, it will revolve around customer demand and I have ruled nothing out.

Cheers,
Steven

[Raoul23]

This is nice to here Steven that you haven't completely ruled out AAX DSP :) I have a TDM system and plan to keep this for a long time ..... But if your plugins went DSP I would buy a HDX system in a heartbeat what with yours and McDSP's AAX DSP plugins I wouldn't really need anything else. :)