Kush Audio AAX

[Bill Denton]

Originally Posted by Drew Mazurek

And yet some companies (Softube, Sonnox) have everything already in 64bit AAX DSP, and have for a while. Strange.

Or so they claim...

Personally, if I ain't seen it in the wild, I ain't seen it...

[ryanavery]

Originally Posted by musicman691

Thanks for the explanation. Perhaps you could clear up something: there's been talk that AAX has been in the works for like 4 years. Is this true and has the sdk been available for approximately that long? I ask because if it is/was then companies shouldn't be having the delays for stuff coming to market they seem to be having.

AAX has indeed been in development for a long time - I'm not sure if one can place an exact start to it's development, but it's been actively coming together for the majority of my 6 years at Avid. Of course, an SDK has to be developed to some extent before you can release it in alpha/beta form, so no, an SDK was not available 4 years ago. But the AAX SDK was released in conjunction with the lead-up to PT10 and HDX. For some background on the development of AAX, I highly recommend reading the thread where David Tremblay discusses the reasoning behind AAX: http://duc.avid.com/showthread.php?t=325586

When you're talking about many different companies of varying sizes coming together to launch a major platform like AAX has been, there will be a lot of different road maps. Some third parties have definitely been early-adopters with their support of AAX since the beginning. Other 3Ps have been constrained by development resources, time, economics, or other reasons. So there's not really any way to place fault in situations where the timing doesn't line up.

In a fantasy world, we would love for developers to be able to put their RTAS/TDM plug-ins into a box and AAX Native and DSP versions would come out the other end. But of course that's just not the way it is. Some plug-ins are just easier to port than others, whether that's due to complexity or having to switch to newer tools, underlying GUI frameworks, etc.

Now excuse me, as I get back to work!

[Bill Denton]

Originally Posted by Drew Mazurek

Dave Tremblay stated in another thread (don't have time find it now) that the AAX2 (64bit) SDK has been available to Avid partners for over 1.5 years.

Which, all things considered, is not a very long time...

First, you have to get a handle on the SDK, and remember that developers are dealing with Version 1.0 of the SDK. So, even if the developer(s) have thoroughly read the SDK documentation and fully understand it, some of the stuff they know may well be wrong.

Then, the developer(s) have to design the interface they will use to connect their stuff to Avid's stuff. They will want to design an interface that can be used across their entire product line, and they will want to take advantage of whatever new features the AAX format offers.

Next, the fun part...tying their processing algorithms to the interface they have designed. Again, they will try to incorporate any useful new AAX features, along with taking care of those "zits" that have slipped into their code over the years. Oh, and I almost forgot...they will be using an entirely different programming language with AAX DSP than was used with HD DSP.

After that, there's the user interface; the GUI. Of course this will need to hook up to their interface and their processing code and the "standard" items that will be part of the SDK. Lots of knobs and switches and meters and stuff that will all need to be tied in. Of course all of the GUI elements will need to be mapped to HUI, the 003, the C|24, the Icons, and the Eucon control surfaces.

Of course the programming code has to be written, help files have to be created, and the 1001 other things that didn't fit into any other job step must be done.

Finally, the plugin(s) must be tested...and fixes created and coded...and testing...and fixes created and coded...ad infinitum, ad nauseum...

And I'm sure Avid will have some kind of "acceptance testing" hoops to be jumped through.

True...this does not have to be done serially by a single person. Tasks can be done in parallel, with multiple people working on them. Some tasks can be farmed out to other firms/people, often with specialized skills.

But then you have to do most of these tasks for every single plugin that will be released.

This is not just building a dog house from pre-numbered parts...this is one hell of a lot of work. And it's not something you knock out in your spare time over a couple of months...

[Eric Lambert]

Greg didn't say that the SDK hasn't been made available to him - I'm sure that it has been - he said that he needs additional interaction with Avid which to this point he has not received.

[WorldStudios]

Yeah. Greg has had an aax native version of the UBK-1 plugin out for a long time. I have absolutely no idea what's going on. Greg is a cool guy with great ears, but I can't really picture him actually coding the plugins himself. But perhaps?

[Eric Lambert]

In this case it doesn't matter who's actually writing the code. I'm sure Greg is properly representing the issue they're running into.

[WorldStudios]

Agreed.

[DaveTremblay]

I know you guys would like a candid answer from us on what exactly our interactions are with Kush Audio, but we try to keep the details of our business partner relationship confidential because we think that is the right thing to do. Reading the quote that Greg wanted you to share with Avid, it is quite vague on what it is he needs and unfortunately paints our SDK and developer service in a poor light. Without disclosing details of our relationship, I will tell you that I am not aware of any technical or support issue that is standing in the way of Kush Audio supporting 64 bit DSP.

There have been a lot of posts here and on other forums questioning our level of support of AAX. Some of our unwillingness to "defend" that situation is our dedication to confidentiality. Of all of the audio plug-in formats, I believe AAX is by far the best supported, both from the technical development side and the business engagement side. There are occasional miscommunications, or issues that end up being difficult to solve, but this is still way beyond AU for VST. Audio Units and VST are both loosely supported by Apple and Steinberg through mass email distribution lists with no clear owner. There isn't any anyone that developers can contact directly for SDK support without being really important or paying serious cash. At Avid, we have a dedicated developer forum that is monitored by several senior engineers including myself and Ryan Avery who posted above. We also have direct email addresses if there are concerns that companies would like to keep more confidential. We also have a business engagement team that reaches out to those developers regularly and asks if we can do anything to help them in their transition. AU and VST have nothing of the sort. And after developers finish off a plug-in, we also offer business contacts to work out things like co-marketing or links from the Avid website. Again, AU and VST having nothing like that, to the best of my knowledge.

There is also a misconception about the cost of AAX development. Let me state categorically, that Avid doesn't charge a dime for AAX development. In fact, we give developers large discounts on hardware. We loan HDX cards, for free, to established developers committed to AAX DSP development. We provide Pro Tools licenses for free to develop and test plug-ins. Compare that with developing for VST or AU, where developers have to buy licenses for all of the various hosts to test with. Sometimes developers can get free licenses, but not always.

We know how important our plug-in platform is, to our business, to our partner's businesses, and to our customers. That is why we're willing to spend the kind of time and money we do to create and support it.

Dave

[ubk]

Oh my!

First off, I apologize to Avid, and Dave and Ryan in particular, for having unintentionally stirred up any criticism of Avid and their technical support for AAX development partners. Avid has always been, and continues to be, extremely responsive with regards to SDK's and technical support; any intimations to the contrary are wholly undeserved.

Since my deliberate vagueness regarding Kush's situation did not have the intended effect (I just wanted supporters to write Avid and express their support, and thank those who have done so!), let me instead be transparent.

My guess is Kush is perhaps the smallest fish in the Avid pond; we are a tiny one-man company with only two coders whose availability for our work is sporadic and unpredictable; as such, our limited resources for DSP work are naturally focused on new products with established coding requirements --- in blunt business terms, the most practical and do-able path to new products and revenue.

Keeping pace with Avid's ongoing (and forward-thinking) PT platform developments is a challenge for our small enterprise, so we're asking Avid for any help they can provide in that regard.

That's the scoop, hopefully this clears up any misconceptions about Avid's otherwise exemplary development support.

Thanks for listening,

Gregory Scott - ubk

[DaveTremblay]

Thanks for chiming in, Greg! I know it was just a misunderstanding. It's sometimes hard for us to clarify a situation without violating our confidentiality, so I really appreciate it.

And while you may feel like a small fish, you definitely have huge fans, including within the walls of Avid. Personally, I think your plug-ins are really cool and your demo videos are downright awesome. They demand to be watched with a fine Scotch Whisky. :)

For those of you that haven't watched them.

http://www.thehouseofkush.com/videos.html

(Scotch optional)

Dave