Avid Pro Audio Community

Avid Pro Audio Community

How to Join & Post  •  Community Terms of Use  •  Help Us Help You

Knowledge Base Search  •  Community Search  •  Learn & Support


Avid Home Page

Go Back   Avid Pro Audio Community > Legacy Products > Pro Tools 11

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #21  
Old 05-07-2013, 05:19 AM
rockridge's Avatar
rockridge rockridge is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: NY, NY
Posts: 919
Default Re: Avid officially kills Sugar Bytes TransVST

As it stands now, the success of AAX is crucial to the continued success of Protools.
That's what happens when you put all your eggs in one basket.

Avid's been pushing AAX for a couple of years now.
It hasn't been that easy for plugin developers to make the switch.

What if Avid had chosen Intel chips instead of TI for the DSP cards?
Would that had made a difference?

Too late? Maybe... if you believe Avid will never release another card?
How much life does PCIe have left in the computer world?

I'll say put... wait for the dust to settle.
__________________
Protools 10.3.10/11.3.2/12.6 | Win 7 Ultimate 64 bit

Last edited by rockridge; 05-07-2013 at 09:59 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 05-07-2013, 07:12 AM
John_Toolbox's Avatar
John_Toolbox John_Toolbox is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 5,461
Default Re: Avid officially kills Sugar Bytes TransVST

Quote:
Originally Posted by rockridge View Post
What if Avid had chosen Intel chips instead of TI for the DSP cards?
Would that had made a difference?
For the SugarBytes TransVST's fate, no. The TransVST did not convert a VST native into an AAX DSP, so the it wouldn't matter what kind of DSP chip the HDX cards were using.

I personally think that the simple reason was situations like this:

1. A VST developer (Let's call them Tamara Audio) sees that it's easier to just tell their customers to buy the VST-AAX wrapper than to actually go through the trouble of going to AVID, getting the AAX SDKs, and building and testing an AAX build themselves.

2. A Cubase user wants to switch to Pro Tools, but the deciding factor is whether or not they can use their Tamara virtual-mix-in-the-boxificatorizer-magically-deliciously-suspiciously-doesn't-actually-do-anything-bus VST plugin. So since they are not able to get an AAX version, they try the wrapper. The wrapper doesn't work. The problem is, if you instantiate the virtual-mix-in-the-boxificatorizer-magically-deliciously-suspiciously-doesn't-actually-do-anything-bus VST plugin in Pro Tools, the GUI for the plugin doesn't display properly, you just see a picture of a box of fruit snacks. The Cubase user gets frustrated with this, decides that Pro Tools is the prolem, so he goes to the store and buys a box of fruit snacks and goes back to working in Cubase, while eating his newly purchased box of fruit snacks.

I realize that if there is no wrapper, and the plugin never gets ported to AAX, the Cubase user might never switch. But the difference is that in one situation, the Cubase user doesn't switch, because there is not a way to use the virtual-mix-in-the-boxificatorizer-magically-deliciously-suspiciously-doesn't-actually-do-anything-bus VST plugin in Pro Tools at all. So Tamara Audio gets blamed for not making an AAX port. In the other situation, The user tests the wrapped plugin in Pro Tools, and puts the blame on AVID.
__________________
- John

If a MIDI event triggers a sample of a tree falling and there's no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 05-07-2013, 07:36 AM
@tention @tention is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Cologne / Germany
Posts: 215
Default Re: Avid officially kills Sugar Bytes TransVST

Quote:
Originally Posted by John_Toolbox View Post
the virtual-mix-in-the-boxificatorizer-magically-deliciously-suspiciously-doesn't-actually-do-anything-bus VST plugin
Yeah, but the first implementations for EBU r128 measurement in plugins were VST only and you can have the Toneboosters one for 10 Euros. It prints a loudness graph as well, so it's still more useful than the $400 Waves AAX (when it will be released) (just for the record I use iZotope Insight now, that will be AAX)

The Problem with the missing VST in Pro Tools is:

Each user has preferences and for me (full time audio post guy working in both PT and Nuendo) when I load up PT I regularly miss plugins that I love in VST land. It's never the other way around.
Why do you think did so many users scream for VST implementation in the idea scale?
I seriously ask myself why AVID fails to deliver what every other DAW on the market can do without any problems.

Ollie
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 05-07-2013, 07:40 AM
junkgear's Avatar
junkgear junkgear is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 1,894
Default Re: Avid officially kills Sugar Bytes TransVST

I think, like others have said, this has more with Avid protecting their new eco system more than anything else. It is very similar to the way Apple protects theirs; and in the end, the user gets a better experience. Avid has put a lot of work into PT 11 and can both predict and support how AAX will perform in PT. They really can't afford a black eye due to some third party wrapper for their new protocol. Even if the wrapper did work flawlessly, you still could not get all of the functionality of AAX from a VST, and again, like others have said, people would blame Avid.

Perhaps in the future they can support VST. The new platform seems to have the ability to dispatch resources to both the host and native cards, so maybe there is a way to force a VST to use only the host. Guess only time will tell. Let them get PT 11 out there first ;-)
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 05-07-2013, 07:56 AM
@tention @tention is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Cologne / Germany
Posts: 215
Default Re: Avid officially kills Sugar Bytes TransVST

Quote:
Originally Posted by junkgear View Post
I think, like others have said, this has more with Avid protecting their new eco system more than anything else. It is very similar to the way Apple protects theirs; and in the end, the user gets a better experience.
Better experience?

Sorry, that's marketing BS. What is it that AVID developers cannot code that LAWO, Fairlight, Steinberg, Cocos, MOTU, Presonus, Magix, Cakewalk and all the others manage to deliver? All these are rock solid and all of them work with VST.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 05-07-2013, 08:17 AM
John_Toolbox's Avatar
John_Toolbox John_Toolbox is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 5,461
Default Re: Avid officially kills Sugar Bytes TransVST

Quote:
Originally Posted by @tention View Post
Yeah, but the first implementations for EBU r128 measurement in plugins were VST only and you can have the Toneboosters one for 10 Euros. It prints a loudness graph as well, so it's still more useful than the $400 Waves AAX (when it will be released) (just for the record I use iZotope Insight now, that will be AAX)

The Problem with the missing VST in Pro Tools is:

Each user has preferences and for me (full time audio post guy working in both PT and Nuendo) when I load up PT I regularly miss plugins that I love in VST land. It's never the other way around.
Why do you think did so many users scream for VST implementation in the idea scale?
I seriously ask myself why AVID fails to deliver what every other DAW on the market can do without any problems.

Ollie
Just to be clear, I was just jokingly making up a name for a plugin, not saying that the VSTs you use aren't relevant.

The point I was making, is that while the VST-RTAS wrapper worked great for some plugins, a lot of VSTs were flat out useless when wrapped with the FXpansion wrapper. I never saw this is a Pro Tools problem, but a lot of people put the blame on Pro Tools, saying that it was AVID's fault that the plugin didn't work with the wrapper.

There are probably many more reasons than this, all of which we don't know about, but the fact that some VSTs didn't work with the old FXpansion wrapper is where the "better user experience" argument comes from.
__________________
- John

If a MIDI event triggers a sample of a tree falling and there's no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 05-07-2013, 09:15 AM
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
Bob Olhsson Bob Olhsson is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Songwriter Gulch, Nashville, TN
Posts: 3,519
Default Re: Avid officially kills Sugar Bytes TransVST

Quote:
Originally Posted by dave911 View Post
If Avid were actually making money it would be a lot more convincing that their way of doing business is the right one...
If the contribution of plug-in wrappers to making money is a legitimate test, the VST to RTAS wrapper was a total disaster!
__________________
Bob's room 615 562-4346
Interview
Artists are the gatekeepers of truth! - Paul Robeson
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 05-07-2013, 10:08 AM
rockridge's Avatar
rockridge rockridge is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: NY, NY
Posts: 919
Default Re: Avid officially kills Sugar Bytes TransVST

Quote:
Originally Posted by John_Toolbox View Post
For the SugarBytes TransVST's fate, no. The TransVST did not convert a VST native into an AAX DSP, so the it wouldn't matter what kind of DSP chip the HDX cards were using.
What makes HDX difficult for 3rd parties is that a different language is needed to program.
Avid has gone the cheap route with TI chips, and now they're paying the price.

Doesn't matter to me. I'll just use what I've got.
Avid's made the decision for me.

I just can't start over... not for a year or two at least...
__________________
Protools 10.3.10/11.3.2/12.6 | Win 7 Ultimate 64 bit
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 05-07-2013, 11:13 AM
Darryl Ramm Darryl Ramm is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 19,488
Default Re: Avid officially kills Sugar Bytes TransVST

Quote:
Originally Posted by rockridge View Post
What makes HDX difficult for 3rd parties is that a different language is needed to program.
Avid has gone the cheap route with TI chips, and now they're paying the price.
Huh?

Different language? Different from what? One benefit if using the TI DSP family (or just about any modern DSP) vs. the old Motorola/Freescale DSPs is there is a C-compiler/SDK available (Developers use the SDK from TI combiner with Avid's AAX SDK). That should be a significant help for developers even if core parts of the DSP code may still need to be hand optimized. But that is true of any modern DSP based approach (although the quality if SDKs and tools can vary).

I hope you were not expecting continued use of old fixed point DSP technology, That is all dead-end technology and Avid needs to be in 32/64 bit floating point--for quality/dynamic range issues and for full compatibility with native processing. Things everybody should want.

What exactly do you mean by "cheap route". TI TMS DSP vs. what else exactly? Freescale Starcore? AD SHARC? or other alternatives? TI's TMS family is certainly competitive there and I don't see why you would call the TI family a "cheap" route. I expect Avid evaluated seriously the floating point DSP options available and any evaluation is likely to be horribly complex. Covering SDKs/developer tools, chip glue/interconnectivity, on-board and off-board memory support, fixed and float performance (at 32 and 64 bit) etc., etc. So what exactly worries you in the choice if TI DSPs and what better option should Avid have gone for and why?

And not that any of this is relevant at all to this wrapper discussion, as others have pointed out you are not going to wrap native(IA-64) VST to DSP-anything. Avid's lack of willingness to allow companies to provider wrappers may even be an effort on their part to try to ensure more AAX-DSP plugins are available. If vendors are required to port to AAX-native then there may be more hope they will also port those plugins to AAX-DSP. But I hope a lot if Avid's reason for this is simply plugin performance/stability/scalability and with PT11 Avid really wants to make up for past sins and have leading capabilities in all three if those dimensions.

Darryl

Last edited by Darryl Ramm; 05-07-2013 at 11:26 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 05-07-2013, 12:20 PM
Craig F Craig F is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,606
Default Re: Avid officially kills Sugar Bytes TransVST

Quote:
Originally Posted by @tention View Post
What is it that AVID developers cannot code that LAWO, Fairlight, Steinberg, Cocos, MOTU, Presonus, Magix, Cakewalk and all the others manage to deliver?
It's not about the ability to code

It's about the licensing fees to use other company's Intelectual Property

If Avid put VST support into Pro Tools, Steinberg would demand a kings ransom for the use of there IP because Avid is direct competitor in the market

Steinberg dosen't go after the little guy because it's not cost efective for them to do so until the little guy takes enough of the markt from them and Steinberg thing they can get a chunk of cash from the competitor
__________________
...

"Fly High Freeee click psst tic tic tic click Bird Yeah!" - dave911


Thank you,

Craig
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
TransVST ! Actionmusic AAX Plug-ins 115 11-04-2014 04:55 PM
more AAX Plug-Ins from Sugar Bytes sugarbytes AAX Plug-ins 7 11-03-2013 03:03 PM
Sugar Bytes TransVST (VST to AAX wrapper ) removed from sale! dave911 AAX Plug-ins 0 12-06-2012 03:24 AM
AVID: Can you pretty please, with sugar on top, fix the H.264 bug in PT?? Maskeeper Post - Surround - Video 4 11-27-2012 01:44 PM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:45 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited. Forum Hosted By: URLJet.com