Altiverb 7 and AAX-DSP

[DaveTremblay]

Hey guys.

Let me shed some light on this. TL Space and Altiverb both used a "hack" called chip spanning on the HD cards to create a convolution reverb. I call it a hack because these plug-ins were using some exposed functionality of DAE to trick the system into doing chip spanning. Not only is this sort of exposure difficult to support as engines improve over time, it also resulted in plug-ins that took nearly an entire HD card, which we didn't think was a great solution for HDX. We had a much better idea in mind when discussing this "feature-parity" with HD. We have implemented this already and are working with AudioEase and others on how to use this new system.

I'll be the first to admit that we haven't done the best job of communicating our technical direction and vision. We're going to try to fix that soon. In the mean-time, let me add a couple of more comments. When we look at making DSP based systems, we're not looking at competing with the power of a 12 core Westmere processor. We're looking at adding processing resources to the system that have unique advantages. Intel processors are great because they have a huge amount of power, if you use them at high latency. They also aren't that deterministic, as you all know. DSPs provide an additional resource that have some unique advantages. They do have additional power to offload processing, but I think the more interesting traits are the incredibly low latency and determinism of the chips. As technologists, we think that is a cool capability that we can provide to our customers that need or want it. And you flat out can't get those capabilities with a Native only DAW. Looking forward, we're trying to provide cool ways to bridge those advantages so you can take advantage of all of the best traits of the individual hardware resources. More on that soon...

Dave

[DaveTremblay]

Originally Posted by rus5

And Massey, and UA, and Flux::, and URS, and East West, and Sonnox, and Antares, and Melodyne, and Sound Toys, and Eventide, and Lexicon, and on and on and on are ALSO just under a year and a half out making slow if any progress. Only a couple of those companies have even gotten their FIRST AAX-DSP port out. iZotope is saying they probably won't EVER take it on (which is especially bad news). Avid themselves sold their own entire "Air" line rather than port them to AAX, let alone AAX-DSP. And of course, the most important of them all, Waves, threw in the towel completely and isn't going to port any of their plugs to AAX-DSP at all. Ever. They specifically said they gave up because porting to AAX-DSP was too difficult. There is absolutely no case whatsoever that porting to AAX-DSP is not difficult.

I can understand your frustration, but decisions to focus on porting work really are the decisions of independent third party plug-in companies. In addition, a lot of companies, us included, have chosen to bite off 64 bit porting work when doing the port to AAX. This significantly delays the work because many companies have completely rewrite their GUIs. You can blame that one firmly on Apple as they dropped all of the old APIs for 64 bit and forced everyone to move to Cocoa.

Additionally, many of these companies really shifted their focus to Native in the past few years. There is no doubt it is easier to write a purely Native plug-in. Our focus on AAX-DSP was really more of an attempt to make DSP development way easier than TDM ever was and I believe we've achieved that goal. In fact, there isn't a single company that has told me AAX DSP is more work than TDM. Quite the opposite. I talked to a bunch of plug-in companies at NAMM and several said that they wouldn't have even bothered to try to get their plug-ins on TDM, either due to difficulty or power. And those companies are or will be shipping AAX-DSP.

Dave

[rus5]

Originally Posted by DaveTremblay

I can understand your frustration, but decisions to focus on porting work really are the decisions of independent third party plug-in companies. In addition, a lot of companies, us included, have chosen to bite off 64 bit porting work when doing the port to AAX. This significantly delays the work because many companies have completely rewrite their GUIs. You can blame that one firmly on Apple as they dropped all of the old APIs for 64 bit and forced everyone to move to Cocoa.

Additionally, many of these companies really shifted their focus to Native in the past few years. There is no doubt it is easier to write a purely Native plug-in. Our focus on AAX-DSP was really more of an attempt to make DSP development way easier than TDM ever was and I believe we've achieved that goal. In fact, there isn't a single company that has told me AAX DSP is more work than TDM. Quite the opposite. I talked to a bunch of plug-in companies at NAMM and several said that they wouldn't have even bothered to try to get their plug-ins on TDM, either due to difficulty or power. And those companies are or will be shipping AAX-DSP.

Dave

Ok, this raises several difficult questions in my mind but I am so happy to see someone at Avid at least address this question rather than what I'm used to that I'm going to simply say, thank you Dave for taking the time to provide this information.

[Marsdy]

Originally Posted by Emcha_audio

If this is the issue, then it's not an issue of Ram amount anymore, its the fact that their plugin is coded to use more dsp chips to compensate for the lack of ram. They should rewrite their plugin the other way around, Use less dsp chips but more direct ram.

I think the point rus5 is making is that it was supposed to be easier to write/port to HDX than it was to code for TDM! It sounds like Audioease has some significant engineering hurdles to overcome in porting to HDX despite having more RAM available per chip. It's not just Audioease who appear to be struggling. Nearly 18 months since the release of HDX, McDSP and Sonnox are still having issues with instance counts compared to Avid who I now see is claiming up to 8x performance per card over TDM!

DaveTremblay wrote:

....Additionally, many of these companies really shifted their focus to Native in the past few years. There is no doubt it is easier to write a purely Native plug-in. Our focus on AAX-DSP was really more of an attempt to make DSP development way easier than TDM ever was and I believe we've achieved that goal. In fact, there isn't a single company that has told me AAX DSP is more work than TDM. Quite the opposite. I talked to a bunch of plug-in companies at NAMM and several said that they wouldn't have even bothered to try to get their plug-ins on TDM, either due to difficulty or power. And those companies are or will be shipping AAX-DSP.

I have to say I'm a bit confused and concerned by this. It sounds like there's a considerable disconnect between what HDX developers are saying to Avid and the disappointing plug-in counts some key third party developers are achieving.

I'm really not trying to score points here but just a few weeks ago I pointed out that Sonnox were getting dire HDX instance counts in some cases. There are clearly some major performance discrepancies. What bothers me is that this was news to Avid. I'm aware there is a known issue with McDSP's HDX plug-ins but that doesn't square up with a format that is supposed to be easy to port to.

So McDSP and Sonnox are clearly having issues with their HDX ports. Waves have bailed on HDX completely because it simply can't see a return on porting 200+ plug-ins given it's knowledge of the dealer channel and how well it sees HDX selling. Waves just doesn't see how it can possibly pass on the cost of the 72 man years it would take to port to HDX.

Yes I know this has been debated ad nausea here and elsewhere but FAR too many TDM plug-ins will never make it to HDX, a worrying number of key developers are failing to commit to HDX or are taking a LONG time to get product to market, and some major players that have made it to HDX are struggling to optimise performance and get anywhere near the up to x5 and even x8 performance Avid is now claiming of HDX. Avid is understandably going to cherry pick best case scenarios. Unfortunately, the best sounding plug-ins are at the other end of the spectrum in many cases.

If you also factor in worryingly sluggish HDX sales judging by Avid's audio product revenue for the first three quarters of 2012, and if many developers are shifting their focus to native then I fear HDX will become a niche product rather than the ubiquitous industry standard TDM became regardless of it's undoubted strengths over TDM....

And what happens if the new Macs turn out to be ridiculously fast and PT11 catches up the Logic in terms of CPU efficiency? Does that not further embed HDX at the niche end of the market. For that matter, doesn't HD Native? And if HD Native is a viable option then so is a UAD Apollo.

I realise Avid is now focusing it's attention on the pro end of the market place but if I'm right, can it really afford to have its it's flagship audio product marginalised to the largest post pro facilities and very top end studios with a ton of outboard.

From where I'm sitting, there is simply not a significant enough benefit to justify upgrading from HD3 to HDX, especially when you factor in all those many TDM plug-ins that seem consigned to history. This is a major disappointment for me as I'm not currently seeing an upgrade path for my TDM system and a problem for Avid in that it is not making a sale.

I see an HDX upgrade like this.... my virtual studio would have more tracks and a bigger desk but my outboard rack would be a fraction of it's current size and capability.

Times have changed but I'd rather Avid's flagship audio product remain the industry standard. Avid need to find a way of making that happen in an age were native systems are becoming ever more powerful. IMO, it could start by using it's cash reserves and maybe even take on some debt to radically cut the price of HDX, make it appealing to the masses who might otherwise buy an Apollo and give it a firm foothold in the market place. As the old saying goes, you have to speculate to accumulate. As things stand, Avid is floundering in so many ways it's scary. None of us want that.

[groundcontrol]

Originally Posted by Marsdy

If you also factor in worryingly sluggish HDX sales...........

That is definitely not what I'm hearing from the local resellers.

[rus5]

Originally Posted by Marsdy

I think the point rus5 is making is that it was supposed to be easier to write/port to HDX than it was to code for TDM! It sounds like Audioease has some significant engineering hurdles to overcome in porting to HDX despite having more RAM available per chip. It's not just Audioease who appear to be struggling. Nearly 18 months since the release of HDX, McDSP and Sonnox are still having issues with instance counts compared to Avid who I now see is claiming up to 8x performance per card over TDM!

DaveTremblay wrote:


I have to say I'm a bit confused and concerned by this. It sounds like there's a considerable disconnect between what HDX developers are saying to Avid and the disappointing plug-in counts some key third party developers are achieving.

I'm really not trying to score points here but just a few weeks ago I pointed out that Sonnox were getting dire HDX instance counts in some cases. There are clearly some major performance discrepancies. What bothers me is that this was news to Avid. I'm aware there is a known issue with McDSP's HDX plug-ins but that doesn't square up with a format that is supposed to be easy to port to.

So McDSP and Sonnox are clearly having issues with their HDX ports. Waves have bailed on HDX completely because it simply can't see a return on porting 200+ plug-ins given it's knowledge of the dealer channel and how well it sees HDX selling. Waves just doesn't see how it can possibly pass on the cost of the 72 man years it would take to port to HDX.

Yes I know this has been debated ad nausea here and elsewhere but FAR too many TDM plug-ins will never make it to HDX, a worrying number of key developers are failing to commit to HDX or are taking a LONG time to get product to market, and some major players that have made it to HDX are struggling to optimise performance and get anywhere near the up to x5 and even x8 performance Avid is now claiming of HDX. Avid is understandably going to cherry pick best case scenarios. Unfortunately, the best sounding plug-ins are at the other end of the spectrum in many cases.

If you also factor in worryingly sluggish HDX sales judging by Avid's audio product revenue for the first three quarters of 2012, and if many developers are shifting their focus to native then I fear HDX will become a niche product rather than the ubiquitous industry standard TDM became regardless of it's undoubted strengths over TDM....

And what happens if the new Macs turn out to be ridiculously fast and PT11 catches up the Logic in terms of CPU efficiency? Does that not further embed HDX at the niche end of the market. For that matter, doesn't HD Native? And if HD Native is a viable option then so is a UAD Apollo.

I realise Avid is now focusing it's attention on the pro end of the market place but if I'm right, can it really afford to have its it's flagship audio product marginalised to the largest post pro facilities and very top end studios with a ton of outboard.

From where I'm sitting, there is simply not a significant enough benefit to justify upgrading from HD3 to HDX, especially when you factor in all those many TDM plug-ins that seem consigned to history. This is a major disappointment for me as I'm not currently seeing an upgrade path for my TDM system and a problem for Avid in that it is not making a sale.

I see an HDX upgrade like this.... my virtual studio would have more tracks and a bigger desk but my outboard rack would be a fraction of it's current size and capability.

Times have changed but I'd rather Avid's flagship audio product remain the industry standard. Avid need to find a way of making that happen in an age were native systems are becoming ever more powerful. IMO, it could start by using it's cash reserves and maybe even take on some debt to radically cut the price of HDX, make it appealing to the masses who might otherwise buy an Apollo and give it a firm foothold in the market place. As the old saying goes, you have to speculate to accumulate. As things stand, Avid is floundering in so many ways it's scary. None of us want that.

Man, gotta agree with Marsdy here. And the thing is, it isn't doing anybody any good to keep trying to believe this isn't all the case. As has been said before (I think by Marsdy among others), if enough people, stock holders in particular, would voice their concerns, the Avid board of directors would probably have to make the difficult changes at Avid that pretty much seem essential at this point. Despite more than a factor of ten decline in their stock price (that's DIVIDE BY 10 !!) while the rest of the stock market has been soaring, people are still trying to pretend that somehow things are just fine at Avid.

Have you guys read this:

http://m.bizjournals.com/boston/blog...a=yfcpc&r=full

It says Nasdaq sent a letter to Avid last Friday warning them they're at risk of being delisted if they don't provide last year's financial report that they declined to submit a few weeks back. What is it going to take for people to stop pretending about this??

[TOM@METRO]

Well Dave, you offer a question worth an answer here. Regarding availability of DSP/AAX Plug-ins, Unfortunately, I am not the guy with that answer. But I do kinda’ wish I had a crystal ball on the subject. My hope is that when PT11 hits the streets we will see most of the Plug-ins to which you refer materialize.

If we do not, there may be cause for concern, but we are not there yet, so perhaps it's a little premature to start the panic.

As to the popularity of HDX, it it is being touted as coming alive with the next PT release. Perhaps we should see what happens with that before we declare it less than successful.

I’m just sayin', because we are so close, it may serve us well to hold negativity in check. This year will likely tell the tale.

[rus5]

Originally Posted by TOM@METRO

Well Dave, you offer a question worth an answer here. Regarding availability of DSP/AAX Plug-ins, Unfortunately, I am not the guy with that answer. But I do kinda’ wish I had a crystal ball on the subject. My hope is that when PT11 hits the streets we will see most of the Plug-ins to which you refer materialize.

If we do not, there may be cause for concern, but we are not there yet, so perhaps it's a little premature to start the panic.

As to the popularity of HDX, it it is being touted as coming alive with the next PT release. Perhaps we should see what happens with that before we declare it less than successful.

I’m just sayin', because we are so close, it may serve us well to hold negativity in check. This year will likely tell the tale.

Hi Tom,

Forgive a dumb question. You say, "... because we are so close", do you have reason to believe PT11 is going to be released soon?

[TOM@METRO]

Historical timelines and tea leaves say this will be a good year.

[DaveTremblay]

Originally Posted by Marsdy

I think the point rus5 is making is that it was supposed to be easier to write/port to HDX than it was to code for TDM! It sounds like Audioease has some significant engineering hurdles to overcome in porting to HDX despite having more RAM available per chip. It's not just Audioease who appear to be struggling. Nearly 18 months since the release of HDX, McDSP and Sonnox are still having issues with instance counts compared to Avid who I now see is claiming up to 8x performance per card over TDM!

I talk to a lot of plug-in developers including Sonnox, McDSP, and Audioease. I have never received feedback that AAX-DSP is more difficult than TDM development. Quite the contrary. We've already talked about the reasons for limited instance counts of McDSP and Sonnox, so no need to rehash it here. That limitation was our issue, not the plug-in developers. As to Audioease, I imagine the effort to create a TDM version of Altiverb was herculean. I can't speak for them, but I imagine the AAX-DSP version will be quite a bit simpler.

And Marsdy, I know I've talked about a lot of these other points you're making as well. I think I haven't, or we haven't, done the best job of explaining why we would continue to make DSP accelerated hardware. Platform transitions are difficult, there is no doubt about that, but we think it's worth investing in the future. We could no longer make TDM systems due to variety of hardware issues, but we still strongly feel that there is value to embedded DSP resources in a DAW environment. Let me talk a bit about why...

1) Integrated DSP Systems have lower latency. No matter how much power is in the Intel cores, they still can't run effectively below a 64 sample buffer, and even that is pushing the limits of reliability. With converter latency, that probably ends up around 7-10mS of latency. For some people, that is plenty low enough, but certainly not for everyone. No matter how powerful those Intel chips get, you likely won't be able to push this much lower due to the OS. With a dedicated real-time OS, you can get lower, but still not as low as our HD and HDX cards which mix in a single sample buffer. You simply can't get better than that. And the "simplicity" of the TI DSP chips lends itself well to this type of situation. Intel does not.

2) Integrated DSP Systems have higher determinism. Again, the "simplicity" of the TI DSP chips is an advantage here. The chips run our own real-time OS and have near perfect predictability for processing. This means that we know, with absolute certainty, that the engine on the DSPs can operate without hiccups. We also know, in advance, whether a DSP based effect can fit on a processor or not. Compare that with Native, where you add another effect, it throws errors and you either remove it or go into the hardware settings dialogs to tweak buffer size. You absolutely cannot get this with a Native DAW. Even if you installed a hard real-time OS, you wouldn't have the same level of predictability. You're playing the odds. For some customers, this is a fine tradeoff, for many it is not.

No matter how powerful the Intel processors are, they two reasons above make the DSP resources unique. And that uniqueness is what makes them interesting. Sure, they do add power to your system which many customers appreciate, but don't overlook these other advantages.

The way I see it, it's our job to do whatever it takes to give you guys the resources to create great music and films. And in my opinion, we are capable of doing that like no other company in the world. We can give you every advantage of a fully Native DAW (run AAX Native plug-ins), and in addition, we can provide you with additional resources that have strengths where native DAWs have weaknesses. In the end, you can combine all of the positive attributes of all of these different resources to make a highly reliable, low latency, high performance DAW.

The ideal DAW combines high-power/higher-latency resources with lower-latency/higher-reliability resources in a SEAMLESS way that gives you the advantages of both.

Dave