Avid Pro Audio Community

Joris Vincken · #31 01-22-2002, 01:27 PM

Great to see a response from Digi on this. I didn't expect that.

But still if I look at the session now open I wonder why I use only 70% of my DSP chips, but still I cannot insert anything anymore. Included in my mix are D2, Stereomixer, Lofi, Drawner, Directconnect that are produced by Digidesign (and do not use MuSh).

mpayne · #32 01-22-2002, 02:15 PM

So why is it apparently so easy for these same manufacturers' native plug-ins to "share the same chip" in effect?

Rythym Stick · #33 01-22-2002, 02:19 PM

Thank you David for your kind reply .

As mentioned earlier , certain questions need to be answered before I and others can decide to upgrade or purchase a new HD system.

You have answered the most important one.

We have now learned, that under certain circumstances, Multishell is not technically posible for some types of plug Ins, so this leaves MULTISHELL and the true power of HD in a very mysterious and ambiguous position since it is more than DSP which governs how powerful the system really is.

This limitations of Multishell come as a great surprise to me as I have been under the impression that all plug ins were capable of being Multishell, as Digi had stated that they had supplied the manufacturers the technology to do so over a year ago............but Digi forgot to tell us that some plug ins will never be possible to make Multishell compliant ...until today of coarse.

Now I can only consider purchasing a system when all the information about which plug ins are Multishell and which ones are not is availble.
Without this information I cannot evaluate weather a HD system is really going to be that much more powerful than my current system.

Could you please help make the decision making a bit easier by supplying a list of all the Digi or Digi distrubuted plugins that ARE or SOON will be MULTISHELL compiant , including Lexicon, Amp Farm, Bomb Factory etc etc etc.............any Plug that you supply in your bundles ) .

This information will help very much and be much appreciated.

Thank you for your time.

blairl · #34 01-23-2002, 12:08 AM

Here's how McDSP responded to the Multishell II question.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>we are contemplating using Mutlishell II for the HD stuff. This is
underway now, and I will not have a real answer for you until the end of
Feb. Yes, dsp sharing would be a good thing for plugIns...not to
mention users!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It sounds like they are on the fence. If you want them to implement it you might want to give them a nudge by e-mail.

d_alonso · #35 01-23-2002, 12:51 AM

RythmStick said:

"Sorry but the conspiracy theorist in me suggests that Digi dont give a hoot about plug in sharing.
Its all part of corporate business crap.

If Digi did care then I'm sure that they could just make it a rule that for any partner to be given
permission to make TDMII plugins, they have to abide by the MultiShell Protocol. FULLSTOP!"

It is really sad to hear things like this, so here we go:

As Frederick has mentioned, MultiShell II (or MuSh) has been fully documented and offered to third party developers more than a year ago. It was also presented to them as "the new way" of writing TDM Plug-Ins, because we knew, as many of you suggest, that MuSh offers the biggest "bang for the buck" in terms of DSP resource usage to our users.

Although our Dev. Partners acknowledged the benefits, they also weighted it against several factors, as you can read from Waves' and WaveMechanics' responses. Many have chosen to simply to not support it or have considered doing so for only a limited number of their Plug-Ins in the future. One key factor is that third-party TDM developers each have their "own way" of loading, initializing, and running their algorithms on the chip, which they're accustomed to, and makes them more efficient in writing new Plug-Ins. Furthermore, some specific types of algorithms (Plug-Ins) simply cannot be made MultiShell compatible, ever. Even some of Digi's. DSP code is highly customized and specific to the application. Although very friendly to use and develop for, MuSh sets some basic ground rules that some developers simply cannot afford to be abided to, because they want/need full control of the chip. They probably could re-write some of their algorithms to work with MuSh, but doing so can be a difficult, time-consuming, and expensive process. Some companies simply cannot afford to do it, for many of them it's a tough business case to make. For new Plug-In companies, it's a different story, in that case, it is strictly the technical reasons that may make them think about using it or not.

So it is a compromise, as many things in life are: Sometimes the "cooler" Plug-Ins cannot be made MuSh compatible, or even if they could, they would still take over the entire chip's resources (be it MIPS or memory), so the perceived benefit is not great.

Having said that, we are hopeful that some of the existing developers might do it, at least in some of their products. We had been getting some hints that some of them will, sooner than later. It's up to you guys (the DSP-hungry users) to really make them jump, provided is technically feasible for them.

MultiShell is great for many types of Plug-Ins, and users like you guys, of course love it.
But again, bear in mind not everyone can take advantage of it.

Digi does care, and this is precisely why we have offered this technology to our development partners, and we fully support it and stand behind it. If anything, we did this for our users, which demanded a better utilization of DSP resources in their systems. Amazingly, this goes against the general belief that Digi only cares about "selling more process cards", MuSh development is something we've encouraged for the sake of our customers, which is obviously our biggest interest.

Hope this sets clearer expectations on this subject,

David Alonso
Digidesign
Developer Services Engineer

dave-G · #36 01-23-2002, 05:11 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by d_alonso:
One key factor is that third-party TDM developers each have their "own way" of loading, initializing, and running their algorithms on the chip, which they're accustomed to, and makes them more efficient in writing new Plug-Ins. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm still not sure why this is "allowed". I suppose the distinction is that you're "offering" 3rd party developers the "opportunity" to use MuSh, despite having advertised that this is the new way that plugins "work"

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Furthermore, some specific types of algorithms (Plug-Ins) simply cannot be made MultiShell compatible, ever. Even some of Digi's. DSP code is highly customized and specific to the application. Although very friendly to use and develop for, MuSh sets some basic ground rules that some developers simply cannot afford to be abided to, because they want/need full control of the chip. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Forgive my naivete -- I'm not a DSP engineer, but my logic makes me wonder: cant MuSh be the standard for all plug-ins, wherein those that absolutely need full contrrol of the chip can be coded to take it?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> They probably could re-write some of their algorithms to work with MuSh, but doing so can be a difficult, time-consuming, and expensive process. Some companies simply cannot afford to do it, for many of them it's a tough business case to make. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Aren't all plug-in companies in a unique position right now where they need to do some re-writing of their algorithms for HD anyway?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>So it is a compromise, as many things in life are: Sometimes the "cooler" Plug-Ins cannot be made MuSh compatible, or even if they could, they would still take over the entire chip's resources (be it MIPS or memory), so the perceived benefit is not great. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, I wonder: Is it impossible to mandate that all plug-ins be MuSh-compatible, with those needing a full chip being coded to take it from within MuSh?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Having said that, we are hopeful that some of the existing developers might do it, at least in some of their products. We had been getting some hints that some of them will, sooner than later. It's up to you guys (the DSP-hungry users) to really make them jump, provided is technically feasible for them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for the buck... nice pass. [img]images/icons/tongue.gif[/img] So those of us who bought these systems just to have something to do our work with should now feel compelled to spend time taking up the role of making sure that 3rd party developers adhere to the protocol for plug-in usage that was sold to us as a "feature"?

Not that I'm unwilling to be the squeaking wheel, but this just seems like you (digidesign) are handing us another job, along with another friendly, smiling explanation of something that moves me beyond disappointment. . . And we cheer you for responding?! (no offense, Joris)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> MultiShell is great for many types of Plug-Ins, and users like you guys, of course love it.
But again, bear in mind not everyone can take advantage of it <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

However, it sure seems like most plug-ins COULD take advantage of it, and opt not to because Digi hasn't made it the standard they implied it would be to "users like us guys".

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Digi does care, and this is precisely why we have offered this technology to our development partners, and we fully support it and stand behind it. If anything, we did this for our users, which demanded a better utilization of DSP resources in their systems. Amazingly, this goes against the general belief that Digi only cares about "selling more process cards", MuSh development is something we've encouraged for the sake of our customers, which is obviously our biggest interest. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

||: Actions speak louder than words :||

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Hope this sets clearer expectations on this subject, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

sadly, yes.

-dave

F Umminger · #37 01-23-2002, 10:59 AM

This thread is unnecessarily insulting.

We never said that all future plugins would be MultiShell.

We have been doing our best to encourage 3rd parties to adopt MultiShell, but things take time.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I'm still not sure why this is "allowed". I suppose the distinction is that you're "offering" 3rd party developers the "opportunity" to use MuSh, despite having advertised that this is the new way that plugins "work" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is allowed because this is how things worked for the many years before MultiShell was invented, and because plugins written back then need to still work. We try not to unnecessarily break compatability.

"Offering" is correct, although it should be strengthened to "encouraging". You seem to want us to strengthen it further to "forcing". That kind of undiplomatic approach is simply not a good idea in a competitive marketplace where 3rd parties have the choice to develop for other platforms.

We never advertised that this was how all new plugins would work. We are not obligated to keep promises that we do not make. I personally resent this kind of straw-man attack.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Aren't all plug-in companies in a unique position right now where they need to do some re-writing of their algorithms for HD anyway?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The changes for HD support at 44.1/48k are fairly trivial, which is why so many 3rd parties are supporting HD so quickly. Recoding for MultiShell is not trivial.

dave-G · #38 01-23-2002, 01:41 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> This thread is unnecessarily insulting. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Frederick,

Unfortunately, you're right. Since your message quotes mine, let me say that I'm genuinely sorry that you feel insuted by my questions, or perhaps by the tone of frustration animating my post. It seems I may have over-vented, and certainly didn't mean to attack you personally! My bad.

Apparently I was misinformed or misunderstood the point of "MuSh" in the first place. From what I'd gleaned at demos in the past, Multishell chip-sharing was to be "the way" plugins would use DSP under PT 5.1. I'd hoped for this for a while, and it seemed like something to get excited about .. . . It has, however become another disappointment, as there weren't (aren't?) many of the "good" plugins using it. To see the HD systems emerge, apparently without any major change on this front is again, disappointing.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Chris Townsend:

Yes, most plug-ins can take advantage of MultiShell right now. I estimate this to be about 80 to 90 percent of plug-ins. With additional work to MultiShell we could probably get this into the mid to high 90s. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This does bode well. I'm very enthusiastic to hear that the additional work to multishell you speak of is somewhere on the list of development priorities. Thanks!

Guys, as you may note from the somewhat critical tenor of several posts here and elsewhere, many of us hoped that this iteration of PT would address a lot of old gripes. It's becoming clearer to me that this is more of an evolution than a new species. Fault me for idealism, but somehow HD seems incomplete compared to what I'd hoped it would be.

Fine. It still has a lot to offer. I'll probably upgrade anyway. HTDM is a good idea too. . I won't bitch about it anymore. . carry on. .. [img]images/icons/grin.gif[/img]

-dg

Chris Townsend · #39 01-24-2002, 12:44 AM

I definitely agree with Frederick's comments, although I have a few other things to add.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by dave-G:

However, it sure seems like most plug-ins COULD take advantage of it, and opt not to because Digi hasn't made it the standard they implied it would be to "users like us guys".
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, most plug-ins can take advantage of MultiShell right now. I estimate this to be about 80 to 90 percent of plug-ins. With additional work to MultiShell we could probably get this into the mid to high 90s. Nonetheless, some plug-ins will never be good candidates for MultiShell, such as the Virus synth or the Mixer plug-ins, due to a multitude of reasons. Certainly performance is a major factor. If performance goes way down by being MultiShell, then it can often offset the benefits of sharing.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Joris Vincken:

Included in my mix are D2, Stereomixer, Lofi, Drawner, Directconnect that are produced by Digidesign (and do not use MuSh).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

For ProTools 5.3 we have ported additional plug-ins to MultiShell. These are Maxim, LoFi, SciFi, and RectiFi. These new MultiShell plug-ins will likely be available in the next Mix release. We also hope to port Focusrite d2, DVerb, and others soon, but we have first focused are efforts on plug-ins that are easier to port and benefit the most from being MultiShell. In the case of DirectConnect, we have plans to merge it into the Engine, so that Directconnect can simply steal voices from the engine, without requiring a whole new DSP to be allocated.

Joris Vincken · #40 01-24-2002, 03:06 AM

Frederick and Chris thank you for replying. My posts are not meant to be insulting and I appreciate you feedback a lot. Fredericks first post however was an open goal, so I couldn't resist replying on that.

Very good news that more plugs are being ported to MuSh. This will encourage other company's to do the same.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
"Factory Promo UB" - "Eventide" - iLok license - What plug-in is this?	Intini	Pro Tools TDM Systems (Mac)	7	08-31-2012 08:27 PM
Import session data... please break out "plug in settings" and "plug in automation"	yeloocevad	Pro Tools TDM Systems (Mac)	19	10-05-2011 01:04 PM
"Buss" and "Plug in" words grayed out...	amba	003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Mac)	4	11-10-2008 04:23 PM
"Plug-In Sharing" . . . not sharing enough...(?)	dave-G	Pro Tools TDM Systems (Mac)	7	08-21-2002 05:59 AM
"DOES THE 604E CHIP WORK FOR PTLE?"	strat	003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Mac)	1	07-27-2001 12:47 AM