Waves Studiorack

[John_Toolbox]

Originally Posted by CygnusX-1Bk2

I didn't realize until I got the emails today that SoundGrid can be integrated with HDN systems with Avid HD IO hardware, in a sense creating a DSP/Native hybrid. Interesting on the surface. I too have HDN but fear Waves a being Waves we'd have to pay for SoundGrid hardware AND pony up for the SG plugin upgrades from Native which when all is said and done could be as much as an HDX card.

The waves box is basically intel based PC hardware with some extra IO ports. So the "DSP" in it is not purpose built chips like an HDX card.... The plugins hosted on it are running as native, it's essentially just a different computer from your main machine. However, you pay the premium TDM price for the plugins that will run on it, so that needs to be factored into the cost. The digigrid box is a similar approach to hosting plugins in a network app like Vienna ensemble Pro, the only difference is the digigrid box has digilink ports for connecting to an HDN or HDX card, or for using a digilink IO with a computer that doesn't have an HDN/HDX card installed. It's an interesting system technically, but there are some possible problems with it:

1. Latency is likely different depending on how you connect it. My guess is it's best when connected to an HdN/HDX card via digilink, and worse if you connect directly to the computer via ethernet.
2. When connected to an HDX/HDN card via digilink, it appears to eat up available IO for routing to Digigrid plugins. This means you really only have 64 IO to the waves box when using it via digilink with a single HDX or HDN card. So you can get hundreds of instances of SSL channel, but you probably need to submix them to less than 64 channels using the software on the waves box in this situation. So your mix is likely saved in multiple programs, meaning your pro tools session is not transferrable to other systems that don't have a digigrid box involved.

I personally use a slave PC for hosting virtual instruments and reverbs (which are generally tweaked once and then left alone), but I would never want to use effects like Eqs and compressors that you constantly tweak during a project. These things need to open like a plugin, right on the track or you end up mousing over to a different monitor, or worse, grabbing a completely different mouse/keyboard to tweak them.

IMHO, External plugin servers will become quite irrelevant if the Freeze track feature is added to PT. At that point, You can just use waves native right in pro tools, and freeze tracks if you run out of cpu power.

[nst7]

Hey guys, Russ has a video showing how the free Studiorack plugin works on the Protools expert site:

http://www.pro-tools-expert.com/home...tudiorack.html

[Drew Mazurek]

Just watched all of Waves' videos.

It's funny. If Avid had released this system 3 years ago instead of just HDX cards, I think we'd be having a different conversation right now.

Love or hate Waves, they are innovating and thinking big picture.

They're still not getting any of my money at this point though.

[sw rec]

They're still not getting any of my money at this point though.

Fer DANGED sure! I don't feel like working with just ONE monitor so I can use a bunch of plugins that I've lived without all alonganyway. There are alternatives!

[YYR123]

Originally Posted by nst7

Hey guys, Russ has a video showing how the free Studiorack plugin works on the Protools expert site:



http://www.pro-tools-expert.com/home...tudiorack.html

Yep and his site didn't come back as having been hijack or spam-malicious.

First time in months, my AV didn't flag him......

[Shan]

Originally Posted by John_Toolbox

...I would never want to use effects like Eqs and compressors that you constantly tweak during a project.

+1. These new "plug-in chain hosting" type of plug-ins(Slate, Waves etc) that are starting to become trendy have a few drawbacks in their most basic form. What you don't get is instant visual feedback to the plug-in chain that is inserted on your track. With individual plug-ins, you can quickly glance at the insert name in the DAW mixer and know what's inserted. This isn't the case with a plug-in that hosts multiple other plug-ins inside of it. Another issue is quick access to make changes. Once the plug-in host is open, you'll need to click on a thumbnail image, button, or scroll bars, just to access/open the UI of the actual individual plug-in you want to make changes to. This brings us to other issues like quick access to setting up and displaying automated parameters, quick access to individual presets via hardware controllers, and quick access to individual parameter hardware controller setup etc. Talking about really slowing down production and defeating the whole concept of using a computer. This type of workflow would never fly in a post production mix, or any moderate to large mix for that matter.

Shane

[John_Toolbox]

Originally Posted by Shan

+1. These new "plug-in chain hosting" type of plug-ins(Slate, Waves etc) that are starting to become trendy have a few drawbacks in their most basic form. What you don't get is instant visual feedback to the plug-in chain that is inserted on your track. With individual plug-ins, you can quickly glance at the insert name in the DAW mixer and know what's inserted. This isn't the case with a plug-in that hosts multiple other plug-ins inside of it. Another issue is quick access to make changes. Once the plug-in host is open, you'll need to click on a thumbnail image, button, or scroll bars, just to access/open the UI of the actual individual plug-in you want to make changes to. This brings us to other issues like quick access to setting up and displaying automated parameters, quick access to individual presets via hardware controllers, and quick access to individual parameter hardware controller setup etc. Talking about really slowing down production and defeating the whole concept of using a computer. This type of workflow would never fly in a post production mix, or any moderate to large mix for that matter.

Shane

They have their uses…. Like if you have a specific chain that always works in a certain situation… or to shoehorn in a VST/AU that doesn't have an AAX version, but I don't see the advantage of using them as often as they are being marketed to be used. Aside from a small mixer within an instrument plugin (Like an instance Kontakt with several similar instruments for example), I really don't want to deal with multiple mixers. I used to hate working with an external digital console, plus pro tools. It seemed so counter intuitive to have to route audio out of pro tools to gain access to the built in effects in the mixer, than print them to a track in case the project had to be revisted outside of that particular studio. The concept of hosting your effects plugins on a box that is not available in every pro tools studio seems very much like the days of separate digital mixers, but even more of a headache because there are more channels and effects to worry about recalling. In 2002, it was cost effective and often necessary to do this if you didn't have a lot of DSP farms. In 2014, it's just better if everything remains within Pro Tools so you can easily recall it anywhere.

At some point enough is enough, and you need to simply get work done, rather than have infinite control over every minute detail of the project and face the troubleshooting headaches that come with this.

[YYR123]

Vox chains, kick and snare chains most of the time people never change these things.

I find I love the way a kick sounds and usually go from there at least to start. This is a time saver....at least the idea anyway....

Plus waves wants people to use it so they will get more waves plugs to use inside of the rack....more sales

[Carl Kolchak]

Originally Posted by Shan

+1. These new "plug-in chain hosting" type of plug-ins(Slate, Waves etc) that are starting to become trendy have a few drawbacks in their most basic form. What you don't get is instant visual feedback to the plug-in chain that is inserted on your track. With individual plug-ins, you can quickly glance at the insert name in the DAW mixer and know what's inserted. This isn't the case with a plug-in that hosts multiple other plug-ins inside of it. Another issue is quick access to make changes. Once the plug-in host is open, you'll need to click on a thumbnail image, button, or scroll bars, just to access/open the UI of the actual individual plug-in you want to make changes to. This brings us to other issues like quick access to setting up and displaying automated parameters, quick access to individual presets via hardware controllers, and quick access to individual parameter hardware controller setup etc. Talking about really slowing down production and defeating the whole concept of using a computer. This type of workflow would never fly in a post production mix, or any moderate to large mix for that matter.

Shane

This is what really makes me laugh about this whole concept - and whilst I can see some genuine benefits in a few situations - on the whole, it seems pretty odd.


In essence, the DAW mixer inherently does what these rack plug-ins do, but this just starts the journey down a macro path.

How long before some bright spark decides that these racks don't have enough slots, or offer the level of control of effects chains that they'd like, and so we end up with a sub-rack, within a rack, within a plug-in floating window, within a mixer, within a DAW GUI?

Soon it will go fractal.

It's a Russian Doll mixing philosophy.

[denka]

Just got a mail from Waves:

"Dear Waves Customer,

Thank you for registering your free StudioRack Native plugin.
Some users have experienced installation difficulties.
We have uploaded a new SoundGrid & Native Applications V9r2 installer which solves these difficulties.
We apologize for the inconvenience.

Best regards,
The Waves Team"