Plans for VST Adapter Support in Pro Tools 11

[remute]

Originally Posted by Weg

Kinda missed my point.

My point is that the line between disallowing a wrapper and allowing vst hosting within an aax plugin appears to be one of a level of inconvenience to the user. Maybe if you added a pan pot to my suggested volume plugin it could be a "muti-effect" and therefore qualify?

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.

[ArKay99]

Originally Posted by remute

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.

Well, I'm not a prosumer, but a 'pro', as I earn a portion of my income from what I do with Pro Tools and have invested tens of thousands of dollars into them, and may do even more in the future if it makes sense.

I wonder when I hear obfu-speak such as "a more authentic user experience" where a statement like that even comes from...obviously some lawyer or high level marketing bozo. It sounds like Hillary Clinton sqwaking "what does it matter?"

My ONLY reason for using Pro Tools is in it's name...as a user of their 'products' and a PROfessional I don't need an authentic user experience...I need TOOLS. If AVID's reluctance to allow me to utilize more and better tools than is defined by them as "a more authentic user experience" causes me to lose money or time, I have no problem utilizing my money and time purchasing and using other tools better fit for the problem.

So, btw, I wholeheartedly agree with you.

[musicman691]

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 programs you cite are NOT wrappers - they host plugins and do nothing to do the base code of a plugin. Wrappers do mess with the code.

[Bill Denton]

Keep in mind that Avid just rolled out a totally new plugin format.

There will be plenty of teething pains with AAX, even using plugins that either Avid wrote or that were written to Avid's specifications.

Avid simply doesn't want their shiny new product looking bad due to someone introducing a "wild card" into the mix...

[musicman691]

Originally Posted by Bill Denton

Keep in mind that Avid just rolled out a totally new plugin format.

There will be plenty of teething pains with AAX, even using plugins that either Avid wrote or that were written to Avid's specifications.

Avid simply doesn't want their shiny new product looking bad due to someone introducing a "wild card" into the mix...

Agreed. It's tough enough to hit the target as it is - you don't need to add in other variables.

[GW]

...and therein lays the Catch22-situation - I can't see myself migrating to PT11 before I can use my TC PowerCore plugins (for someone else it's perhaps some vital VI). In contrast to common belief, these plugins are not discontinued - the platform is. I cannot afford or justify to move up to System6000 - that would of course solve the problem...

The code in these plugins are very well written (so that argument is BS), they will never be developed to AAX or AAX2 (never mind how many customers are displeased)...

A VI I still use in PT10 for songwriting for mandolin and dobro is the ancient Virtual Guitarist - yet another plugin that is so useful in the toolkit.

I see the need for a replacement of the RTAS-format and welcome AAX, but the timing is a pure business decision and the technical aspect seems to being pushed way back...

But I'm in no hurry, I can wait and I hope Avid feel the same way about my money?

[Weg]

Originally Posted by musicman691

Agreed. It's tough enough to hit the target as it is - you don't need to add in other variables.

They are already there.

Granted, I am a musician, not a technician, so I don't understand the exact ins and outs of the technical differences between a host and a wrapper, but the bottom line is, to me, as long as it works, it doesn't much matter.

With Magma etc, I see the ability to have vst plugins work in PT11. So, why tarnish the "authentic user experience" by only allowing it in a half-cocked and clumsy manner?

I am thinking my hypothetical plugin needs a name...

[Southsidemusic]

Originally Posted by Weg

...

... why tarnish the "authentic user experience" by only allowing it in a half-cocked and clumsy manner?

I am thinking my hypothetical plugin needs a name...

Hahaha Sooo true that statement

"Half-cocked" is a word I'm gonna borrow hehe

Thanks for making me laugh as it has been one of those days ->

[spenner]

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..

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.

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

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

Magma, Bidule, VEPro etc - awkward, expensive solutions none of which provide the seamless experience provided by a VST-AAX wrapper.

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.

[Bob Olhsson]

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