AVID Must DO Something for AAX DSP

[Oblivion777]

P.S.: If Waves really did advise Avid to stick with the Motorola’s range of 56k DSP chips as the foundation for their future product which later became HDX then this advise was crap...my opinion anyway. Why? Because I agree that sooner or later old tech has to be retired. It's the way of things and rightfully so.

[Marsdy]

Originally Posted by Oblivion777

P.S.: If Waves really did advise Avid to stick with the Motorola’s range of 56k DSP chips as the foundation for their future product which later became HDX then this advise was crap...my opinion anyway. Why? Because I agree that sooner or later old tech has to be retired. It's the way of things and rightfully so.

Waves didn't advise any such thing. This is one of those internet misquotes taken out of context that people pluck out of thin air to bolster their argument.

Here's what Waves ACTUALLY said.

Waves advised digidesign (so they where called at the time) at the first time they showed us their plans over 4 years ago. We advised them not to change DSP core as the effort in porting will never be worth it. We also suggested two alternative solutions which they refused to accept.

EDIT: I was wrong about this. Waves actually did suggest the 56k chip as an alternative along with native Intel.
http://duc.avid.com/showpost.php?p=1...&postcount=102

[John_Toolbox]

OH #%^#%^&#%$@&@$%&$%&$%&

I'm in again.

@$%&@$%&$%&@$%&@$%&$%&@$%

Originally Posted by Marsdy

Waves didn't advise any such thing. This is one of those internet misquotes taken out of context that people pluck out of thin air to bolster their argument.

Here's what Waves ACTUALLY said.

Sorry Marsdy, then what exactly is meant by:

We advised them not to change DSP core

???????????

Doesn't that mean that AVID would have had to stick with the motorola chips?

I'll admit I'm not an expert in this area, but I'm having a hard time not seeing this quote as saying "Waves doesn't want to recode all their plugins to a new DSP platform, so please stick with the motorola chips."

We also suggested two alternative solutions which they refused to accept.

Unless I missed something this is really vague, and doesn't really tell us anything. Based on my interpretation of the "We advised them not to change DSP core" quote, one can very easily, and logically speculate the options waves put on the table that digi "refused to accept" were:

1. keep using the old motorola chips
2. abandon DSP completely

Again, this is just speculation, because there aren't enough facts here to come to a vaild conclusion. The bottom line is, this quote doesn't have enough factual information, so it can and will get distorted into whatever someone wants it to be until we get some more information from both AVID and waves(which probably won't ever happen, since this is probably not supposed to be public).

[spenner]

Originally Posted by Oblivion777

C'mon guys...this thread is getting ridiculous. So everybody take a deep breath and be

I've already told Marsdy that he can't win. This is a PT forum (with HDX users). He's barking up a tree where the birds actually live. They will just sit there and poop on him. Gotta find another tree.

With that said. Marsdy why not start another petition, poll, or thread somewhere else to see who agrees with you? You got over 500 sigs the first time because people agreed with you. When did PT users become shy???? Surely those who agree with your new info will make it known.

Originally Posted by feliponk

Enough for me, I was looking to have a higher level conversation, not something based on "speculations" made by an "unknown" source from one of our partners...

Marsdy seems to be b@!!$ deep in this. Clearly something caused him to change from getting Waves to support HDX so he can buy it to The Grinch that stole HDX.

Why can't someone from Waves come on the forum and either agree with Marsdy or say that he is misrepresenting them. If not then, seriously, why keep this going? The points and counterpoints have been stated hundreds of times. There is definitely no imbalance regarding the argument.

[musicman691]

Originally Posted by spenner

I've already told Marsdy that he can't win. This is a PT forum (with HDX users). He's barking up a tree where the birds actually live. They will just sit there and poop on him. Gotta find another tree.

With that said. Marsdy why not start another petition, poll, or thread somewhere else to see who agrees with you? You got over 500 sigs the first time because people agreed with you. When did PT users become shy???? Surely those who agree with your new info will make it known.




Marsdy seems to be b@!!$ deep in this. Clearly something caused him to change from getting Waves to support HDX so he can buy it to The Grinch that stole HDX.

Why can't someone from Waves come on the forum and either agree with Marsdy or say that he is misrepresenting them. If not then, seriously, why keep this going? The points and counterpoints have been stated hundreds of times. There is definitely no imbalance regarding the argument.

Marsdy's playing a game he can't win and should never have gotten himself into. But I guess he had to learn the hard way.

[Oblivion777]

Originally Posted by Marsdy

Waves didn't advise any such thing. This is one of those internet misquotes taken out of context that people pluck out of thin air to bolster their argument.

Okay first of all I did not say or write anywhere that Waves DID say or DID NOT say a thing. I said IF. Secondly - and this is from your "source" - you wrote that Waves suggested two alternatives. Now this is pure speculation from my side but how stupid or intelligent can you be to see exactly two solutions to the "problem":
1st: increase the Motorola DSP chips per card
2nd: increase the Motorola DSP capacity per chip (When Pro Tools HD launched 10 years ago, the Core and Process cards each featured nine 100MHz ‘Presto’ chips, and, for those who are interested, the Presto chip on a recent HD card is an end-of-line version of the 56361 chip. However, a year later, with the launch of the Accel card, Digidesign were able to take advantage of Motorola’s latest 56321 chips, which, running at 200MHz, offered approximately 2.2 times the performance.)



Dave - I don't hold any grudge or anything against you, but ...

Yes - there's always a BUT(T)

[Marsdy]

Spenner
I haven't posted any new info. I posted that Waves stuff above months ago.

I'm not trying to win anything, just get some honest answers out of Avid.
http://duc.avid.com/showpost.php?p=1994541&postcount=85

Perfectly legitimate questions as far as I'm concerned. I would imagine many potential customer for HDX might want to know the answers too, for example why such poor instance counts with MANY third party plug-ins compared to Avid's own? Why is there such a huge shortfall in HDX PIs compared to TDM?

Regarding Waves, I have no idea why they are passing info through me except I wouldn't imagine they'd want to come on Avid's forum and criticise Avid's flagship product.

Regarding

"speculations" made by an "unknown" source

As I said above to the Avid guy

My source isn't "unknown" to Avid. Ask your bosses. At least one of them knows.

[Marsdy]

Originally Posted by Oblivion777

Okay first of all I did not say or write anywhere that Waves DID say or DID NOT say a thing. I said IF. Secondly - and this is from your "source" - you wrote that Waves suggested two alternatives. Now this is pure speculation from my side but how stupid or intelligent can you be to see exactly two solutions to the "problem":
1st: increase the Motorola DSP chips per card
2nd: increase the Motorola DSP capacity per chip (When Pro Tools HD launched 10 years ago, the Core and Process cards each featured nine 100MHz ‘Presto’ chips, and, for those who are interested, the Presto chip on a recent HD card is an end-of-line version of the 56361 chip. However, a year later, with the launch of the Accel card, Digidesign were able to take advantage of Motorola’s latest 56321 chips, which, running at 200MHz, offered approximately 2.2 times the performance.)



Dave - I don't hold any grudge or anything against you, but ...

Yes - there's always a BUT(T)

Well it turns out your guess was a very good one. I was incorrect in this post http://duc.avid.com/showpost.php?p=1994596&postcount=96

Hot off the press:

AVID replaced a 56 bit fixed point engine with a 32 bit floating point engine. the TI chip is not a real 64 bit engine. In the new HDX card they put more DSPs so they get more processing. they could have done this with extra 56K chips and gotten the same added functionality.

The other suggestion was native Intel processing.

...Not a real 64 bit engine? Maybe this accounts for the low plug-in instances from the 3rd party vendors that have gone 64 bit. THAT is why I was asking.

And before anyone jumps in with "TDM is 48 bit fixed point"

The 56k chip has a total accumulator of 56 bits which is used for 48 bit math at single instructions.

EDIT: So now I'm wondering....Are Avid getting such high plug-in counts because their PIs are running at 32 bit floating point precision, wouldn't this be inferior to TDM's 48 bit fixed point. There are some who claim 48 bit fixed is sonically superior. Avid should come clean on this.

[spenner]

Originally Posted by Marsdy

Spenner
I haven't posted any new info. I posted that Waves stuff above months ago.

None of this being new is kinda of the point.

Originally Posted by feliponk

The only thing I see here, is your lack of knownledge of how things are being processed and how desperate you sound as the Waves defender...you never replied if you really understand what are you talking about, and apparently you don't...

With this quote I think it is understood that Felix is not going to answer your questions. EVERYONE arguing in these threads are basically agreeing with Felix's quote, not with you or your Waves source.

This is why I am saying, regardless of what you say, you can't win here. Not that you are looking for a prize or anything like that.




But I'm sure you all will carry on...

[Oblivion777]

Dave - you have to realize that we HDX users are biased to support AAX-DSP. I guess that's entirely human. It's not that I think you are right or wrong; it's a matter of perspective. I still believe that Waves support (or lack thereof) of AAX-DSP is not critical. I still believe that there are AAX-DSP PI's out there available right now that can do the job done. I still believe that Waves's support of AAX-DSP (or lack thereof) will not tilt the table. I still believe that HDX is the future. And I still believe that TDM will get the job done for quite some years to come; not all have and will make the transition to HDX. Not all have to or are able too (financially or because of recall of old projects). I respect that. And I am sure Avid do, too. Still this dose not negate my initial thought: TDM is gone and AAX-DSP is (at least for now) the future.