Plans for VST Adapter Support in Pro Tools 11

[musicman691]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

As far as I know 64 bit VSTs are required so a wrapper isn't necessarily an answer.

Which isn't a problem because 64 bit vst has been a reality for many developers for ages; certainly far longer than 64 bit au or aax

[remute]

Originally Posted by spenner

All of Avid's customers could benefit from TransVST. The difference is some complain but also use what makes them money today, whereas others just complain. This is why, for example, VEP 5 is brought up in this discussion by other PT users.



I think it is a possibility, which your words below support:



TransVST is a streamlined, convenient, and inexpensive way of using VST directly in PT. If stable it would have been a better solution for PT than all the other paid and free solutions I have used and seen. It is the one solution that could have caused, not all but, some companies to at least think twice about developing 'another' plugin format for Avid.

I'd love to see the list of companies that you obviously have there - is this based on the same non-existent list of companies who bailed on RTAS because of the VST-RTAS wrapper?

And I'm again, not making money from Pro Tools, I'm a hobbyist, that most baffling of PT users - I don't have a shedload of cash to just throw at VePro5, especially when there's no demo I can use to test on my DAW.

(Cue slew of "stop complaining and just spend the money, I'm a pro, I haven't read the thread, but here's some made-up reasons why a wrapper is stoopid.)

[spenner]

Originally Posted by remute

I'd love to see the list of companies that you obviously have there - is this based on the same non-existent list of companies who bailed on RTAS because of the VST-RTAS wrapper?

And I'm again, not making money from Pro Tools, I'm a hobbyist, that most baffling of PT users - I don't have a shedload of cash to just throw at VePro5, especially when there's no demo I can use to test on my DAW.

(Cue slew of "stop complaining and just spend the money, I'm a pro, I haven't read the thread, but here's some made-up reasons why a wrapper is stoopid.)

I said it is possible. Why? Because many of these companies already have VST plugins to work with the wrapper. There is not a list nor is there a way to know if my speculation is correct because there is no TransVST.

Perhaps you should be the one to read the thread. I stated that we all could use the wrapper, not that it was "stoopid." The difference is some tend to go with current solutions rather than complain only. It was not intended to support any pro vs. hobbyist feelings.

[remute]

Originally Posted by spenner

I said it is possible. Why? Because many of these companies already have VST plugins to work with the wrapper. There is not a list nor is there a way to know if my speculation is correct because there is no TransVST.

There was a VST-RTAS wrapper - how many companies stopped RTAS development due to it's existence?

[spenner]

Originally Posted by remute

There was a VST-RTAS wrapper - how many companies stopped RTAS development due to it's existence?

The VST- RTAS wrapper was no where near as pertinent to PT 10 as TransVST is to PT 11 64 bit, nor did it have the ability to be as solid as TransVST in AAX 64 bit with a newly coded PT 64 bit. (I do not believe TransVST would have compromised performance. I believe it would have been much more solid and successful in PT 64 bit than any other wrapper before it made for the old coded PT 32 bit and R'suckaTAS).

Also, all of the RTAS plugins developed during the VST-RTAS wrapper's existence are now obsolete with PT 11. Now, those who have already developed and maintained RTAS plugins (some having also done the same for TDM plugins, and already having tried and true VST that can simply be loaded in TransVST) must go through the fun and exciting task of developing another format for Avid.

I am not saying that TransVST would derail all AAX development. Of course it won't. I do not think, however, it is not too far off to suspect that 'some' companies now developing AAX (or considering it) would have considered the third option: "Our VST plugins that you already own work flawlessly in TransVST." (At the least many of us would have bought TransVST. Had it been solid, some of the customer pressure on companies to release AAX 64 bit would not be as great... VEP 5 with its elaborate workflow has me somewhat relaxed during the slow AAX development... I imagine a solid TransVST, with a simpler workflow, making me even more relaxed).

[Bob Olhsson]

Frankly, I'd much rather see brand new, higher quality plug-ins developed than most of what currently exists. AAX creates a market for brand new higher-end plug-ins and the latest computers offer enough native horsepower to seriously improve audio quality.

[Eric Lambert]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

Frankly, I'd much rather see brand new, higher quality plug-ins developed than most of what currently exists. AAX creates a market for brand new higher-end plug-ins and the latest computers offer enough native horsepower to seriously improve audio quality.

Out of curiosity, in which categories do you feel that current plugins are lacking? And how does the AAX platform (specifically) cater to an increase in quality?

[remute]

Originally Posted by spenner

I am not saying that TransVST would derail all AAX development. Of course it won't. I do not think, however, it is not too far off to suspect that 'some' companies now developing AAX (or considering it) would have considered the third option: "Our VST plugins that you already own work flawlessly in TransVST."

Okay, I thought you might have some actual evidence, some communication from a dev, for example, to make what you're saying something other than conjecture.

[spenner]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

Frankly, I'd much rather see brand new, higher quality plug-ins developed than most of what currently exists. AAX creates a market for brand new higher-end plug-ins and the latest computers offer enough native horsepower to seriously improve audio quality.

I agree. This is why I believe TransVST got axxed. Instead of some attention (and perhaps distraction) being on a solid, ideal, more streamlined and convenient way to use all our plugins in PT 64 bit with TransVST, almost all attention is on AAX devlopment with a wee bit of attention on elaborate not so ideal workarounds to use in the meantime.

Slow AAX development is the reason for TransVST's poplarity right now; Sugarbytes released it at an optimal time around PT 11's release when even less AAX 64 bit plugins were available. This topic will lose traction as more AAX plugins are released, particularly by major players like Waves and NI.

[spenner]

Originally Posted by remute

Okay, I thought you might have some actual evidence, some communication from a dev, for example, to make what you're saying something other than conjecture.

It is about as much conjecture as this:

Originally Posted by remute

Bingo.
It was a surprise to me how many fanbois in the DUC do the mental backflip to both thoughtlessly support Avid's decision to block the seamless Sugar Byte's wrapper but then keep suggesting that customers should quit complaining as there's a $300 semi-solution out there.

The garbage about allowing the wrapper would invalidate "a more authentic user experience" is just that, garbage, as shown by Magma, Bidule, VEPro etc - awkward, expensive solutions none of which provide the seamless experience provided by a VST-AAX wrapper.

Ditto the nonsense about "it would stop companies releasing AAX", as eloquently rebutted by a dev himself

http://www.protoolerblog.com/2013/07...#comment-38504

The simple truth is that Avid has repositioned itsself away from the prosumer market and couldn't care less about making it easier for hobbyists like me.
End of.

The only reason we know is what Avid gave in the first post. Everything after that first post is conjecture. I simply wanted to join in.