Transition to AAX: A Real Programmer's Perspective

[Emcha_audio]

Originally Posted by awe

My apologies if this has been answered already (I've only read half of this thread), but here's what I'd like to know regarding AAX: Will the SDK finally become open and public? Pro Tools seems to be the only DAW that still has a closed plug-in system that is only available to paying developers (which have to be approved by digidesign/Avid first); Logic has AU, Cubase/Nuendo (as well as others) have VST, MOTU has MAS, etc. Some of the best and most creative plug-ins I've ever encountered were free VSTs, created by audio enthusiasts who developed these plug-ins in their spare time. But of course there never were any RTAS versions, simply because the developers were not digidesign-approved and couldn't get the SDK. IIRC not even universities could get it. So I'm stuck with commercial plug-ins rubber-stamped by Avid, which usually means it's just yet another invocation of a compressor, EQ, or reverb.
To this day I've never heard a reasonable and logical explanation as to why the SDK isn't public (other than the fact that it's another way to generate money). I'd love to hear some thoughts on this.

That's an easy one. Because avid doesn't need or want to have to trouble shoot plugins that were made by people they don't know or know their work ethics and abilities. Can you imagine the number of problems that could potentially arise if mr nobody could download the sdk and start making plugins without really knowing 100% of how the software work?

[Bob Olhsson]

Digi 'er Avid has always had an engineering team that supports plug-in developers and works with them on software revisions. I suppose this is because they invented the audio plug-in (which was TDM format) but my understanding is that it's really a lot more of a partnering relationship than the others.

[awe]

Originally Posted by Emcha_audio

That's an easy one. Because avid doesn't need or want to have to trouble shoot plugins that were made by people they don't know or know their work ethics and abilities. Can you imagine the number of problems that could potentially arise if mr nobody could download the sdk and start making plugins without really knowing 100% of how the software work?

That was always one of the arguments that don't count. Why would Avid have to troubleshoot plug-ins they didn't make? This type of handholding reminds me of Apple. If I buy/download a plug-in that is not certified by Avid, I know that I'm taking a risk; if it doesn't work it doesn't. Move it out of your plug-ins folder and everything runs smoothly again. Takes less than 5 minutes. Sure, if you actually bought it it sucks, but again that's not Avid's business.

Additionally, developing a plug-in is not exactly rocket science. I can't imagine the RTAS specs to be too different from, say, AU and it's really not that hard to make a decent AU (even though the documentation is abysmal). The fact that a plug-in doesn't come from a big software company but from a "mr nobody" as you put it doesn't mean it's worse quality. You ought to give people more credit. And ironically, I've had my worst plug-in experiences with a very big company whose plug-ins would randomly crash Pro Tools and other DAWs.

Bottom line is: this policy is slowly but steadily driving away a certain (and admittedly rather small) group of customers who work with non-commercial and somewhat more experimental audio software and who'd love to integrate Pro Tools into their workflow. I might also add that many new impulses in audio algorithms are coming from this group; making audio software is as much an art as using it is, and a considerable amount of creativity goes into creating new plug-ins. Commercial developers simply can't take the risks that hobbyists can take who develop this stuff mainly for themselves.

[John_Toolbox]

Originally Posted by awe

That was always one of the arguments that don't count. Why would Avid have to troubleshoot plug-ins they didn't make? This type of handholding reminds me of Apple. If I buy/download a plug-in that is not certified by Avid, I know that I'm taking a risk; if it doesn't work it doesn't. Move it out of your plug-ins folder and everything runs smoothly again. Takes less than 5 minutes. Sure, if you actually bought it it sucks, but again that's not Avid's business.

Additionally, developing a plug-in is not exactly rocket science. I can't imagine the RTAS specs to be too different from, say, AU and it's really not that hard to make a decent AU (even though the documentation is abysmal). The fact that a plug-in doesn't come from a big software company but from a "mr nobody" as you put it doesn't mean it's worse quality. You ought to give people more credit. And ironically, I've had my worst plug-in experiences with a very big company whose plug-ins would randomly crash Pro Tools and other DAWs.

Bottom line is: this policy is slowly but steadily driving away a certain (and admittedly rather small) group of customers who work with non-commercial and somewhat more experimental audio software and who'd love to integrate Pro Tools into their workflow. I might also add that many new impulses in audio algorithms are coming from this group; making audio software is as much an art as using it is, and a considerable amount of creativity goes into creating new plug-ins. Commercial developers simply can't take the risks that hobbyists can take who develop this stuff mainly for themselves.

How is avid going to benefit from this type of user? Why would a company for profit care about having users that don't want to pay?

There are a few software products that have been successful on the open source/donationware business model(blender is one that I use and find to be very impressive), but most of these started out as a commercial product, and were opened up when the company tanked.

As far as small companies making rtas plugs go, there are a few. LiquidSonics makes a very impressive reverb, for something like $60. Steve Massey is a one man operation.... Etc.
If you want to make rtas plugins, it's defintely possible... You just have to ask.


Sent from my sub-epic jailbroken and unlocked iPhone 3g running on a cheap pay-as-you-go T-HOBObile plan using Tapatalk

[Emcha_audio]

Originally Posted by awe

That was always one of the arguments that don't count. Why would Avid have to troubleshoot plug-ins they didn't make? This type of handholding reminds me of Apple. If I buy/download a plug-in that is not certified by Avid, I know that I'm taking a risk; if it doesn't work it doesn't. Move it out of your plug-ins folder and everything runs smoothly again. Takes less than 5 minutes. Sure, if you actually bought it it sucks, but again that's not Avid's business.

Additionally, developing a plug-in is not exactly rocket science. I can't imagine the RTAS specs to be too different from, say, AU and it's really not that hard to make a decent AU (even though the documentation is abysmal). The fact that a plug-in doesn't come from a big software company but from a "mr nobody" as you put it doesn't mean it's worse quality. You ought to give people more credit. And ironically, I've had my worst plug-in experiences with a very big company whose plug-ins would randomly crash Pro Tools and other DAWs.

Bottom line is: this policy is slowly but steadily driving away a certain (and admittedly rather small) group of customers who work with non-commercial and somewhat more experimental audio software and who'd love to integrate Pro Tools into their workflow. I might also add that many new impulses in audio algorithms are coming from this group; making audio software is as much an art as using it is, and a considerable amount of creativity goes into creating new plug-ins. Commercial developers simply can't take the risks that hobbyists can take who develop this stuff mainly for themselves.

Simple, it's human nature to go for the easiest, in this case admonish pro tools and expect avid to offer free technical service, even if it's not their fault, than to try and find the solution and trouble shoot your (general) errors and incompatibilities.

Just go through the posts here on the duc for the past 5 years, and you'll see a multitude of examples. Now imagine if the rtas format was open and that suddenly thousands appeared. Yes there would be some made by competent people, but then again those competent people could always have requested the sdk and start selling their pluggins. But you'd also have a lot that would be on the brink point of making your system very unstable.

[Bob Olhsson]

Originally Posted by awe

?..This type of handholding reminds me of Apple...

Why would you expect anything different? Digidesign started out as a Mac developer using Apple development tools. They followed Apple's business model of using software to sell hardware for a couple decades. You'd also be really hard-pressed to find as much plug-in innovation anywhere other than on the Pro Tools platforms. There are also VST and AU wrappers that work quite well.

[DonM]

Happy New Year to everyone.

I got up early on this New Year's Day and read this entire thread. Great information here, and I appreciate all of the technical under-the-hood insight.

I have been using PT on and off for several years as my main DAW. I had mainly used Sonar and Samplitude since 2003 until PT9. Supporting third party hardware and a unified installer made me make the most significant investment in DAW software I had made in years. I purchased multiple licenses and moved my primary 'mental' focus to improving my PT chops to the level they had been with other my other software. I moved 90% of my client work to PT, I heavily invested in RTAS plugs from Waves and other 3rd parties to bring PT to the production level I had enjoyed in other DAWs. I began moving my entire University lab to PT and change all of the software instruction to PT for undergrad and graduate courses. It has been a great two+ years.

To be honest I am concerned that both my personal and financial investment over the past two years was made partially inconsequential when PTX was announced (which I didn't move to yet) and I fear that PTXI will make my investments null without a significant financial reinvestment. Given the progress of other DAW's any similar investment would have been much more linear.

AAX feels like a 180 degree about face from PT9's open strategy to include 3rd party hardware. Supporting VST on the new Avid hardware would have felt much more consistent with that thinking. At this time I am hesitant to invest in the new hardware, software and repurchase AAX versions of all of my plugins.

So can anyone help me not feel as though I stepped into the web of a black widow two years ago and a $9k+ (my estimate to move to PTXI when released) will be worth it.


Best

-D

[LukeHoward]

Originally Posted by DonM

AAX feels like a 180 degree about face from PT9's open strategy to include 3rd party hardware. Supporting VST on the new Avid hardware would have felt much more consistent with that thinking. At this time I am hesitant to invest in the new hardware, software and repurchase AAX versions of all of my plugins.

Why don't you wait and see. No one is forcing anyone to upgrade to HDX, Avid doesn't appear to be abandoning supporting third-party audio hardware, and the lay of the land with respect to upgrading existing plugins to AAX is not yet entirely clear. HDX is the TDM successor product to HD.

[panamajack]

Originally Posted by DonM

...So can anyone help me not feel as though I stepped into the web of a black widow two years ago and a $9k+ (my estimate to move to PTXI when released) will be worth it.

Sounds like you are cursing yourself. You moved your students into Avid's lair, now you fear the new entry fee is too high.

Pro Tools has great training programs. Unfortunately, once one has mastered the software, there are very few paying jobs for intern level noobies.

The current upgrade cost has been beat to death, so no need to revisit that aspect. That many large facilities have made huge financial commitments is no news either. It is the project studio people who must question whether to buy into the new revisions, or find alternative ways to accomplish their goals.

Pro Tools has been de-linked from Avid hardware, but third market stuff is unsupported. With such an outlandish upgrade cost, buying an HDX card with PT10HD thrown in has a way of seeming like a bargain. And a few great plug-ins can get the job done, especially with great mics, great pre-amps and great musicians.

[NewdestinyX]

Originally Posted by LukeHoward

Why don't you wait and see. No one is forcing anyone to upgrade to HDX, Avid doesn't appear to be abandoning supporting third-party audio hardware, and the lay of the land with respect to upgrading existing plugins to AAX is not yet entirely clear. HDX is the TDM successor product to HD.

You need to read about what support is ending at ProTools 11. That's the issue to fear. TDM support and HD Accel support will stop; as will support for ASIO drivers "as written" now.

So, pro big studio folks, get your HDX stuff now! It will never be cheaper than now in terms of a cross grade. Be forewarned...

I'm sure there'll be an alternative for the ASIO drivers in PT11 but not immediately. They'll never go back to non 3rd party hardware support. That would be utter suicide for Avid.

But.....