Waves Studiorack

[Righty27]

Anyone received the Waves e-mails?

I'm not an HD user but it does sound like a Waves 'solution' for TDM/HDX DSP, at the same time as launching a native rack option for their plugins, with recall of settings, etc. and available across different DAW platforms ... a Slate VMR if you will but with no pre-announcement and before Slate!

Edit - not sure but looks like TDM/HDX worki in conjunction with Soundgrid? I'm sure someone will come along and explain soon :)

[Righty27]

From Waves -

StudioRack is a software rack designed to run plugin chains, giving you the choice of directing the processing to a SoundGrid DSP server or to your host computer’s CPU. When processing your plugin chains on SoundGrid, StudioRack lets you monitor your tracks in low latency via the eMotion ST Mixer. Compatible with most popular hosts, StudioRack has a dedicated component for Pro Tools TDM and HDX systems, giving you access to both Avid and Waves offload capabilities.

* Compatible with most native DAWs
* Bridges Pro Tools HD and HDX DSP with the SoundGrid DSP server in order to process plugins in low latency while recording
* Compatible with Waves and third-party plugins
* Plugin chains used for low-latency monitoring are instantly available for mixing as wellUp to 8 plugins per rack
* Fully automatable
* Presets for plugin chains can be saved to and loaded from any DAW
* Quick access to plugin parameters within your chain
* Intuitive MIDI control over all plugins
* Avid Control Surface support

[sw rec]

They forgot to add:
"Will lock your computer if you're using a contemporary multi-monitor setup."

[rexcee]

I don't understand either if I need to have some kind of hardware or if will work for grouping plugins and settings as a channel strip, as the VMR (if someday become true)

[SOUNDDECISION]

What I don't understand is in one of their marketing emails they make a comparison of how their plugins run on the DigiGrid system Vs HDX but what I don't get is how they made that comparison if there were no HDX DSP versions created....?

[Craig F]

Originally Posted by SOUNDDECISION

What I don't understand is in one of their marketing emails they make a comparison of how their plugins run on the DigiGrid system Vs HDX but what I don't get is how they made that comparison if there were no HDX DSP versions created....?

ether a raw MIPS comparison or they did do a HDX/DSP compile of the native plug for in-house testing

ether way IDC, I will never advocate buying their wares

[Emcha_audio]

Originally Posted by SOUNDDECISION

What I don't understand is in one of their marketing emails they make a comparison of how their plugins run on the DigiGrid system Vs HDX but what I don't get is how they made that comparison if there were no HDX DSP versions created....?

What they probably did is take their TDM plugin and slapped it through the AAX dsp sdk. Without properly decoupling the GUI, Algorythm, Processor. SO they got awful results and decided not to go dsp. TDM was one big block of code, where AAX separates the three processes, the GUI and Core resides on the native computer, the processor is what is on the HDX chip to process the audio (from what Dave Tremblay had written) So if you shove everything down the HDX chip (gui and core on top of the processor) then of course you would get poor results because that's not how the hdx chips were designed for. They tried to do a shortcut that didn't give them the result they wanted so they decided not to go aax dsp, which combined with working on their own system made sense for the techs to tell their boss, nope going to take too long so let's just do our system. I'm not a coder myself, although I've dabbled with it in the past for other things and a know a few including my brother who is a programmer. A properly written code will have markers in them to identify what a section is doing, this way if an other coder comes later on he can easily find himself in the code. Those markers are usually textonly that doesn't affect the code or what is using the code. If they had done the job properly, they could have taken at least their rtas plugin, go through the code looking for these markers, and separate the three blocks (Gui, Algorythm, Processor) and then run it through the aax dsp sdk. Would maybe have taken a day or two for the first one, but then you get used to it, and if their coders who had done the plugins in the first place, had worked properly and tagged things properly for future referencing, not to forget work the same way for each plugins for uniformity and ease of work, then it would have been quite an easy job, locate, separate, run through sdk, and then finally optimize. But apparently, if we are to take them seriously, and it really would take them 72 mans year of work.. then either their coders are seriously skill lacking, or they have no organizational skills to make sure the job was uniformed.

[Kristo Kotkas]

Originally Posted by SOUNDDECISION

What I don't understand is in one of their marketing emails they make a comparison of how their plugins run on the DigiGrid system Vs HDX but what I don't get is how they made that comparison if there were no HDX DSP versions created....?

That caught my attention too.. I mean how legal is this type of promo that is basically a lie, since there are no HDX plugins available for this comparison?

[Righty27]

Originally Posted by rexcee

I don't understand either if I need to have some kind of hardware or if will work for grouping plugins and settings as a channel strip, as the VMR (if someday become true)

I think it does 'the rack thing' like VMR promises to do. Not sure I'm even keen on this as it sounds like there are a number of disadvantages to offset any benefits. Waves' Soundgrid hardware is required for the DSP aspects or Studiorack, including I think, some level of integration e.g. with HDX.

In the case of Slate, I wonder if part of the rationale for them may be some common code to help them develop new products ... yet there are many who refuse to use the T-Racks or Guitar Rig equivalents and were relieved when T-Racks released standalone versions of their plugins! I hope that VCC will arrive soon as a normal AAX64 plugin, like we purchased originally, and not in the VMR rack!

Steven posts quite regularly over on Gearslutz but only rarely hear, where the main AAX community hangs out ... so Steven; if you're reading, any news would be welcomed!

[YYR123]

Originally Posted by Righty27

I think it does 'the rack thing' like VMR promises to do. Not sure I'm even keen on this as it sounds like there are a number of disadvantages to offset any benefits.

It would still be really nice to have preset racks saved....even if it's a default.....


SSL channel strips......Neve Channel strips....all with one insert. It would be nice.

Especially since we haven't (and probably won't) see Avid integrate the Preset Track Hack into the full release.


EDIT - It looks like i am wrong again......It appears that Native licenses are also allowed to use the studiorack, go figure

.