Transition to AAX: A Real Programmer's Perspective

[Dism]

Originally Posted by Dnnspv

Yes Dism. I remember that and you were very smart to figure that out. But again it came after the release, after the push back, and after DTS initially said PT10 was mostly for post. I first read of the "bridge" from a user post on an unofficial Avid forum. Only then did it become "the reason" and a sticky. It was like Avid said, "Oh yeah, that's why Dism. That makes sense. Whew, we had no idea what say to all this push back. Sticky that!" This is why I say after the fact the bridge talk made sense, but I never bought it. You call PT10 the getting your feet wet version. I still think it all could have been done without another major 32 bit release, but the major release was the perfect reason to sell HDX (with no plugins). They could have made the same announcement on PT9.x, waited 2 years, built up the buzz for PT10 64 bit, and come out with a few PT9 point releases in the meantime. PT9 was a huge release for Avid that could have carried them a few years at least. I will not dwell on the past though as things seem to be moving along now. Only commented on Darryl's post.

I understand the sentiment, and appreciate your acknowledgement... but the realistic way to look at it, is that this release wasn't all about Avid. See my previous response to corp. I believe this release more of a courtesy to plugin developers than anything else.

Should it have been priced the way it is? No. Could they have marketed better? Definitely. But I still believe this was a very necessary release, for the sake of the future architecture.

Originally Posted by Dnnspv

LOL I don't feel that way. It's all just opinions.

Exactly.

Nothing taken personally here, just a friendly debate.

[corp]

They could have made the same announcement on PT9.x, waited 2 years, built up the buzz for PT10 64 bit, and come out with a few PT9 point releases in the meantime. PT9 was a huge release for Avid that could have carried them a few years at least. I will not dwell on the past though as things seem to be moving along now.

This was a quick money grab and it didn't work! It's not just the software but even the new HD192 which will be updated again using TB.....I remember how many talked that down but then you see other companies having interfaces with future slots for TB. Your being spoon feed!

[Dism]

Originally Posted by corp

Companies use confidential agreements all the time .......A company like Waves I believe would of worked with this type of agreement but I believe there's more going on Avid which people on the outside don't realize...

So what's going on then, if you have such inside info..?

Avid is a corporation like any other. They outsource development to cut costs. I don't have any reservations about how Avid is as corporation. I've had plenty of heated debates with Avid staff. Also, Waves doesn't have nearly as many different developers to worry about as Avid does. Oldest DAW in the world vs plugin developer. No comparison.

At the same time... PT10 was for the other developers. The dozens of companies that they are not responsible for, and the new companies that are starting up all the time, or did not previously write plugins for Pro Tools. It gives everyone equal opportunity without the mess of beta releases and obtuse secrecy. Why have 100 different companies with countless individuals and further outsourced testers all sign NDAs when they can just release a version that anyone can get?

[corp]

Waves doesn't have nearly as many different developers

Avid is following this path......

They outsource development to cut costs

This has been happening for years in many companies ...what's new... My point wasn't outsourcing as a bad or good thing.....

Avid Stock 7.43.... July 30th conference call......

[DaveTremblay]

Originally Posted by Darryl Ramm

Yes which is why they need to start now, even if that is internal only bring-up. I don't know if developers have access to a 64 bit version of Pro Tools or any test/debug frameworks to host/test a 64 bit AAX plugin? Do you? It would be great if they do. Trying to build a 64 bit plugin and seeing what the compiler barfs on is one thing but you do not get far without being able to test it.

Our third party plug-ins developers do have access to a 64 bit AAX SDK and a 64 bit developer build of Pro Tools (severely feature limited) to test plug-ins.

Dave

[Darryl Ramm]

Originally Posted by DaveTremblay

Our third party plug-ins developers do have access to a 64 bit AAX SDK and a 64 bit developer build of Pro Tools (severely feature limited) to test plug-ins.

Dave

Thanks Dave, knowing that is happening is fantastic and an important technical step. Its becoming clearer and clearer that very good things are happening in AAX land. Your openness here is also a huge reassurance.

I lived though the MIPS IV 64 bit migration at Silicon Graphics, and later IA32, PAE and IA64 at VMware and know these migrations are hard enough, let alone moving an entire ecosystem like this.

Darryl

[lousi]

i aggree guys! +1

[Wayne_S]

Im no expert on this topic so don't beat me up. Ive been watching this AAX / PT10 thing for some time and this thread as well. For me and my 2 cents, a UAD pci-e card makes most of this a non-issue. I believe ol Frank said in a Q&A video I saw that one of his "On a island" items would be a UAD card. So while I sit with a Waves Mercury bundle TDM tho awesome plugs, I wished I would have used half the money and got a UAD card.

Just a comment, I'm not a guru professional but having stepped into the Mac/PT world in 2006 Ive learned plugins are crack addiction. Knowing what your doing is far more important, yes Im guilty.

Wayne

[Bob Olhsson]

Originally Posted by Wayne_S

... For me and my 2 cents, a UAD pci-e card makes most of this a non-issue...

Unless something has changed, the UAD cards create greater latency than RTAS or AAX-native!

[hue]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

Unless something has changed, the UAD cards create greater latency than RTAS or AAX-native!

Have you seen the Apollo? Very low latency specs and even moreso via Thunderbolt. It also allows you to track with plugins. That is, you can print your compression, gating, eq during tracking. VST3 also has come a long way. "VST is not capable of the complex functions available in AAX"- like having more than one plugin visable at a time? I'm sorry. Low blow. I know. I can't help but feel there are not just a few people running around with blinders on at the Avid camp.

At any rate,I'm starting to feel that the only real reliable format is hybrid. The DAW for editing and tracking and hardware for effects. That is where Pro Tools has the upper hand. Latency in that respect is undeniably better with Pro Tools. But I suppose I could remedy that by mixing live to an external recorder or secondary DAW computer.