Transition to AAX: A Real Programmer's Perspective

[John_Toolbox]

Thanks Dave,

Gary Gegan asked a question in another thread, wondering if you are able to answer it for us. Here's the link:

http://duc.avid.com/showthread.php?p...59#post1868059

[NuBus]

Originally Posted by reichman

VST simply doesn't have the power and flexibility to do everything RTAS/TDM and AAX are capable of.

So a RTAS version of Kontakt is more powerful and flexible than a VST version???

And the same for Waves or any other plug-in for that matter???

How so? Or should I just take his word for it??

I guess I need the words Power and Flexible defined to me???

What can you do with a RTAS that you can't do with a VST to make it more powerful and Flexible???

[Bob Olhsson]

My understanding is that all plug-ins need to be optimized for the host software, the OS and the type of processor chip and that the more development time is invested, the more efficient the plug-in will be. Developers, especially small developers put the most time into the platform having the greatest sales potential. The idea that one platform being inherently better is not really the case. What can potentially make a plug-in format more powerful are better development tools.

Because it has the largest installed base, CueBase running on a PC tends to have the most efficient plug-ins in general. On the Mac side, Logic is the big seller for virtual instruments so developers are likely to devote more time to that version especially because it comes bundled with so many virtual instruments optimized for it. I can remember in the late '90s when friends told me Logic was the only platform offering workable virtual instruments. Meanwhile Pro Tools was considered useless for serious composition. For that reason RTAS would probably be the absolute last priority for most virtual instrument developers. Its worth pointing out that developing audio plug-ins is mostly a labor of love and I am unaware of anybody who ever got rich from doing so.

There is one factor I suspect has made Pro Tools virtual instruments difficult to optimize. This is that the older real time disk routines have always written data to disk much more reliably without any hick-ups than the competition. This probably has introduced considerable extra overhead to RTAS. Hopefully the new disk routines in PT 10 will give us the best of both worlds. I'll add that this idea is pure conjecture on my part based on putting things friends have told me over the past twenty years together with some unreliable recording experiences using logic, DP and Nuendo.

[corp]

Bob,

Are you a "beta" tester?

[Dism]

Originally Posted by corp

Bob,

Are you a "beta" tester?

Are you incapable of showing any respect?

[spenner]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

Because it has the largest installed base, CueBase running on a PC tends to have the most efficient plug-ins in general. On the Mac side, Logic is the big seller for virtual instruments so developers are likely to devote more time to that version especially because it comes bundled with so many virtual instruments optimized for it. I can remember in the late '90s when friends told me Logic was the only platform offering workable virtual instruments. Meanwhile Pro Tools was considered useless for serious composition. For that reason RTAS would probably be the absolute last priority for most virtual instrument developers. Its worth pointing out that developing audio plug-ins is mostly a labor of love and I am unaware of anybody who ever got rich from doing so.

Nice post. So, this makes me wonder...

VST may not be able to meet the needs of Pro Tools, however, 100% of my VI's perform great via VST. Does VI performance for a particular format (RTAS, VST, AAX) fall mostly on the VI developer? Or, is the format code itself already doomed, great, or not so great before it gets to the developer?

[corp]

Originally Posted by Dism

Are you incapable of showing any respect?

Are you kidding...? I asked a simple question where's the disrespect in that.....?

I'll email Bob directly if that's ok with you Dism?

[Dism]

Originally Posted by corp

Are you kidding...? I asked a simple question where's the disrespect in that.....?

I'll email Bob directly if that's ok with you Dism?

A simple question that implies you:

a) Have no idea who Bob is.

b) Can't get over the fact that anyone who likes/is informed about Pro Tools isn't employed by Avid.

c) Think somehow Avid has any money to pay people to troll forums.


No one here works for Avid who doesn't say they do. Get over it. Find a new hobby.

[daeron80]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

There is one factor I suspect has made Pro Tools virtual instruments difficult to optimize. This is that the older real time disk routines have always written data to disk much more reliably without any hick-ups than the competition. This probably has introduced considerable extra overhead to RTAS. Hopefully the new disk routines in PT 10 will give us the best of both worlds. I'll add that this idea is pure conjecture on my part based on putting things friends have told me over the past twenty years together with some unreliable recording experiences using logic, DP and Nuendo.

Great post. It accords well with my experiences, at least until PT9, when spikes of incorrect data began to be written at punch points. The only digital hard disc recorder I ever used that was as reliable as older versions of PT was RADAR. And it had no plug-ins. Or even a simple mixer. So. What can you do? PT it is.

[Bob Olhsson]

I don't have any inside information about this but I'm old old friends with a number of plug-in developers and was one of digidesign's first hundred customers. I also learned a lot, sometimes I fear way too much, as a member of the Stanford Music Special Interest Group and as a Studio Vision beta tester. Back in the early '90s digidesign's DAE was the only disk engine that could even run on an ordinary Mac-format disk drive. I paid $2500 for my 650 meg CDC Wren VI drive on a "developer deal." We've come a long long way!