|
Avid Pro Audio CommunityHow to Join & Post • Community Terms of Use • Help Us Help YouKnowledge Base Search • Community Search • Learn & Support |
#31
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Transition to AAX: A Real Programmer's Perspective
Quote:
Facilities like post houses, broadcast, film sound, etc have very different needs than your average studio owner or hobbyist. These DSP based solutions fill that gap. |
#32
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Transition to AAX: A Real Programmer's Perspective
Quote:
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Transition to AAX: A Real Programmer's Perspective
Quote:
I think PT10 is a good step forward with a lot of usable features and is setting the stage for the next BIG step.
__________________
Scott Formerly Hobo Wan Kenobi Core 2 Specs Page ASUS P6T6 Revolution | i7 930 | 12GB OCZ DDR3 1600 7-7-7-20 | PTLE 10 | CPTK | 003 | Presonus D8 | 11Rack | Alesis AI3 | Presonus HP60 | Mercury + Studio Classics | Sound Toys | MasseyPack | Axiom61 | MAudio Keystation Pro 88 |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Transition to AAX: A Real Programmer's Perspective
First, let me thank Frank for making such an in-depth post about what AAX really is and why we we had to tackle a new plug-in platform. I was tempted not to reply at all because his comments are so comprehensive, but I decided to post to validate his comments as well as provide any additional information I could provide about AAX, both the reality of what we've shipped as well as some of the back story that drove us in this direction.
AAX is truly just a plug-in specification, as Frank mentions. Early on, we were really just trying to add HDX support to the legacy plug-in spec. (I'll admit, back then it had a different name, and a MUCH different architecture to just accomplish that goal) But when we started to look at the feature requests the plug-in developers were asking for to create amazing new plug-ins for all of you guys and our internal roadmap of products we'd like to create, that old plan just didn't make a lot of sense. This infrastructure had been growing by bolting on features for 17 years and it just wasn't easy to add even seemingly simple features to the SDK (Software Development Kit) anymore. Not to mention all of the 64 bit issues that come along with 17 years of development... So, about a year ago we decided to take a more aggressive stab at setting ourselves and our third party plug-in developers up for the future. We looked at the backlog of feature requests, we looked hard at our road-map, we spent a lot of time studying all the intricacies of our current formats (RTAS and TDM), and we started designing AAX. We had several really talented teams working on this from multiple angles to make sure it satisfied all of our requirements and was simple. (And I don't mean limited in features, I mean simple to develop for, which hopefully in the long run leads to fewer bugs.) We had to preserve preset compatibility between formats. We had to make all of the new types swap out seamlessly with TDM and RTAS when you round trip your sessions. We had to make the porting process for plug-in developers as straightforward as possible. We needed to support complex engine interactions with both real time plug-ins and non-realtime (AudioSuite). We needed to make sure that new plugs-in mixed in with legacy plug-ins (and not break those, by the way). The list goes on and on and I just can't tell you all how proud I am of the teams that worked on this project. There's the story, or enough of it at least... So, where are we now? Truthfully. We've shipped AAX, which solves all of the legacy issues that were preventing us from getting to 64 bit, which I could go on and on about. It also provides a much simpler path for plug-in developers to create DSP accelerated plug-ins, which is important in a world where DSP isn't always needed and developers may not be as motivated to do a TON of extra work to develop for that platform. (It's still extra work for them, so please be understanding) We have a design that is modular that will enable us to do some pretty darn cool features/products in the future. (Trust me, we're just getting started with this...) We've incorporated a ton of feedback from plug-in developers that will enable them to make cool new products. In fact, I think we closed out 14 of the top developer feature requests the day we shipped AAX. I'm personally looking forward to what these guys can do with the new platform. And finally, with the incredible support of our third party plug-in developers, we're launching PT10 with shipping third party AAX plug-ins (Native and DSP) from some companies as well as firm commitments from a ton of others. All of the feedback they provided during their development process was critical in the refinement of AAX. Hopefully, they all feel like this platform is as much theirs as it is ours. With their continued efforts and feedback, we'll be able to make it even better. We're still polishing up the last details on HDX, so I might not be able to answer questions quickly, but I will follow this thread and answer any additional questions as quickly and candidly I can. Thanks again Frank for dispelling the myths and giving your very candid opinions on all of this. Dave Tremblay Sr Engineering Manager - DSP Group Avid |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Transition to AAX: A Real Programmer's Perspective
Quote:
1) The communication channel between the Host CPU and the TDM Cards. 2) The drivers all have to be fixed for 64 bit. 3) All plug-ins would have to be rebuilt to communicate with the DSPs. 4) All plug-ins would have to be rebuilt to remove non-64 bit safe graphics frameworks on OSX. Actually, the list is quite a bit longer, but suffice to say it's a ton of work for both us and for 3Ps. Dave |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Transition to AAX: A Real Programmer's Perspective
Thanks very much for your reply Dave! It's great to have engineering chiming in and to get the details from the source. We're all technical people and providing details as you have helps to make end users feel that our requests don't fall upon deaf ears. As you've no doubt seen, most comments revolve around pricing rather than technical achievement. Thanks for filling in some of the gaps!
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Transition to AAX: A Real Programmer's Perspective
Quote:
And trust me, things discussed on the DUC do not fall on deaf ears. While we may not all post, nearly everyone in product management and engineering reads the DUC and takes these things to heart when we're developing and prioritizing features. Dave |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Transition to AAX: A Real Programmer's Perspective
Thanks to Frank and Dave for sharing technical details and viewpoints.
If there's something we all share, it's an appreciation for good tools - and that includes what goes into making them. Putting a human on the other side of that helps us to understand what we're all dealing with here, and not simply feel that it's "avid being greedy" or "strategizing to make the most $$". (Frankly it's in all our best interests if the platform makes money, because then it will see vigorous continuous improvement.) In other words, most of what we've heard has been from the marketing side, but hearing from the engineering side is really great. So thanks. As a user, it's also heartening to see Avid investing in the long-term future and modernizing the platform. On to questions: It's a major strategic decision to continue the DSP-based path, and to forge that path forward as a platform with 3rd party vendors. My question is: Besides the reliability and latency factors (a big issue for the high-end market, where downtime is way more expensive than hardware) are there other technical decisions that went into continuing on the DSP path vs. abandoning it for a native-only system? -jeremiah |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Transition to AAX: A Real Programmer's Perspective
Quote:
I think what's been rolling around in the back/middle of my mind is trying to see the future path. We are a small two room music facility. HD has been indispensable for our work, as we record ensembles and do the cue mixes from PT. Just having that consistent latency takes another possible glitch out of the picture. Though I'm still in shock over the price, the PT HD 10 upgrade is killer, and I appreciate all the effort to provide a bridge. I think PT 10 will hold us over for a long time, which is good because upgrading to HDX is just not going to be do-able in the near future. For our smaller overdub room a native solution would be adequate, and I'm trying to get a feel for how HD Native is going to be supported going forward to version 11? The HD Native option might fit for studios caught in the middle. It's great to hear from the AVID folks on these threads! Best, |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Transition to AAX: A Real Programmer's Perspective
Quote:
__________________
https://lukehoward.com/ |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
A Programmer's Perspective on the AAX Transition + Q&A | reichman | AAX Plug-ins | 32 | 07-16-2012 02:25 PM |
perspective control 24 | youbringmesuffering | ICON & C|24 | 10 | 01-31-2010 09:27 AM |
PC to Mac....looking for a little perspective | Studio66 | 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Mac) | 15 | 10-09-2008 03:50 PM |
Reason / PTLE (different perspective) | basis3708 | 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Mac) | 14 | 09-06-2001 07:58 AM |
Female perspective | Doc | 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Mac) | 6 | 07-16-2001 09:21 AM |