Pro Tools Public Beta: December 2022

[Darryl Ramm]

Originally Posted by Fishbone

If I'm not mistaken, that's not the case for any plugin that is universal 2 binary in it's AU/VST incarnations, which would load and run ARM natively inside Blue Cat's Patchwork(which is a universal 2 binary wrapper).

I described how this works and what it offers in all important cases. I covered that this in what I wrote: "You can of course run Apple Silicon compatible versions of VST or VST3 (or AU) plugins in Patchwork in a Apple silicon native version of Pro Tools."

[mattrixx]

Interestingly, the only AAX Native Izotope plugin at the moment is the older "BT Stutter Edit".

[Fishbone]

Originally Posted by Fidelis

This will take some time. So many plugins not working yet that it's not even possible to think about using this. But, it's something... Let's wait a little bit more.

In the meantime, you can use BCPatchwork or Waves StudioRack to load and run a bunch of plugins that currently are not showing up in PT, as long as they have AU/VST universal 2 binary versions

[Fishbone]

Originally Posted by Darryl Ramm

I described how this works and what it offers in all important cases. I covered that this in what I wrote: "You can of course run Apple Silicon compatible versions of VST or VST3 (or AU) plugins in Patchwork in a Apple silicon native version of Pro Tools."

Sure. I was confused by the first part of your post, which seems to imply that BCPatchwork wouldn't run universal 2 binaries natively.

But it's true that BCPatchwork cannot load AAX plugins, although most of third party plugins provides VST/AU counterparts, which makes BCPatchwork a very compelling workaround for now.

[JLC]

Originally Posted by pm mastering studio

I am a bit disappointed the ICON Control surfaces wont be able to connect to an silicon-Native version of ProTools Ultimate. Not sure when AVID will completely change to Native (and ditch Mac-Intel completely) but one can only assume this is a logical way they will go for future development (pretty sure they will not continue to develop 3 different OS's (Win- MACOS and Silicon Mac))

This means I have to invest heavily into a new console if I want to change my MacPro into a new M(x)-silicon enabled MAC computer ! I'm sorry but don't have that 60K investment lay-ing around these days to make a switch to S4 or even S6 :-(

What makes it even worse is that WINDOWS computers will still be able to use the Control surface (until AVID breaks that connection offcourse) and recieve updates.

Do I have to switch to Windows again ? MAC has brought me so much joy ;-)

Although I understand the switch to Silicon Native. AVID will lose a big part of there clients who still use a Command/ICON control surface.

I do urge AVID to consider updating there strategy and transfer the Command/icon interface into the new Native system.

PLEASE - PLEASE - PLEASE

Totally agree. A few of us pay more than 100.000 € for this surface, and it still has functions that you can´t find on S series...
It doesn´t have any sense to cut support for them. Today very old analog consoles have support, and small studios can´t do such an inversion to buy a new S4 or S6 console. Crazy!

[Darryl Ramm]

Originally Posted by Fishbone

Sure. I was confused by the first part of your post, which seems to imply that BCPatchwork wouldn't run universal 2 binaries natively.

But it's true that BCPatchwork cannot load AAX plugins, although most of third party plugins provides VST/AU counterparts, which makes BCPatchwork a very compelling workaround for now.

We are trying to say the same. I was just trying to be clearer than the previous post that 1. the special case of Intel AU plugins running in Patchwork in a otherwise all Apple Silicon environment was something very specific to AU plugins only. and 2. You can't run AAX plugins in Patchwork.

But yes these are all great tools to help in this migration.

The other thing I'm doing is watching vendors and I'll spend my future plugin money with vendors who show they can move fast and provide good products in this transition.

[off the wall]

Originally Posted by Gemylon

Same over here. Native mode for C|24 in ProTools Beta is not supported.

I guess I'll have to stick with Monterey then ...

This is what Avid claimed, but clearly not living up to ...

Monterey vs Ventura makes no difference. If you’re wanting to keep using a “Legacy Ethernet” control surface with PT. Running an all native M1 version of PT will be out. The C|24 will only work natively in PT under Rosetta on M1.

I didn’t do extensive testing on the M1/Ventura laptop with the C|24 but it appears to work just as it does under Monterey as long as you use PT in Rosetta.

Technically Avid is living up to support of the C|24 until this Saturday. M1 native support is a beta. When the final comes out, they will officially be past their promised support date.

[Tweakhead]

After messing with this all day, it seems to me that even having a few non-native plugins installed will slow Pro Tools to a crawl with menus, making this switching between modes utterly unworkable for now. The DAR is definitely part of the problem too.

In my opinion, anyone truly wanting to test both these versions needs to have two discrete boot partitions - with nothing but verified M1-native plugins installed on the non-Rosetta partition. I'm already beyond frustration and ready to bail on this until the "beta-testing" period (that I've paid for) is over.

As I said earlier in this thread, this update/beta should really have been two discrete application builds (Intel & M1), so that we could all truly observe how the code has shrunk for the new M1 version of Pro Tools. Right now, it's just a mysterious 4.7GB kluge of code. I'm irritated that we can't even have a "normal-sized" Intel build of 2022.12. This is just bloatware.

And we cannot tell if anything has really been M1 optimized . . . perhaps a deliberate choice of obfuscation.

When it comes to release-time, I hope Avid respect their user-base - and give us two truly separate builds. This is simply not the way to go.

I'm already regretting buying this Apple Mac Studio machine. By the time any of this is truly ready for primetime, there will be macs available twice as powerful (or more) - so buyers beware ... don't waste your money on an M1 mac if you haven't already done so. I'm going back to my customized 5,1 macs for real work.

[James Steele]

Good News! Sound Toys just posted updates for Mac Plugins... version 5.3.9. It didn't say specifically but I downloaded one and installed and the AAX versions all appear to be Universal Binary... Apple/Intel64!

If someone posted this already sorry. When you go to your user area it will say it's closed for maintenance, but presents you with "Downloads" link and that's where you can download the version 5.3.9 installers.

[James Steele]

Hey just an update here regarding UAD plug-ins. This appears to be affecting reverbs... haven't tried all the plugs. I think *some* are working.

I'm using a Mac Studio and I've got a UAD-2 TB3 Satellite OCTO. Latest version of the UAD plugins. I've got a mono-to-stereo instance of Hitsville Chambers on an Aux and I'm sending to it from a vocal track. I'm getting NOTHING from the AAX plug-in. No reverb... at best some very faint flanging. This is happening whether I run latest Pro Tools in Rosetta or native.

I did some experiments and swapped it out for the UADx version... it works as expected. I then replaced that with Blue Cat Audio PartchWork and ran the AU version of Hitsville Chambers (DSP version again) and that works fine... both with Pro Tools running in Rosetta and native.

Repeated this with several of my other DSP-assisted UAD reverb plugins: EMT 140, EMT 250. All with the same behavior. It might indicate a problem with the UAD AAX plugs. Weird thing is I think they didn't have a problem with previous version of Pro Tools. Maybe someone with a similar system and try and reproduce this. I'm running Monterrey 12.6.2. 64GB RAM.