VST vs AAX (Avid claims VST is not powerfull enough?)

Hello. I don’t know if this is the right board to ask this question, but Avid has posted one of the programmers’ comment regarding why they chose AAX.

In the post, this guy basically says that VST is not powerful enough to achieve what Pro Tools need. I seriously doubt it. I mean, of course, that depends what they trying to accomplish, but what PT 10 has and Cubase and Nuendo don’t right now, which might require some audio engine that is more powerful than VST?

He also sounds like he implies AU would have been the candidate if it wasn’t a Mac only platform. So I wanna know is this guy serious? VST is inferior to AU and AAX? Any logical explanation?

I mean I thought about upgrading my PTMP8 to 10, but considering what I get for $499,I thought it is sort of ridiculous to do it. So I decided not to this time.

Why I’m skeptical about the comment is because he also says in the same post that their upgrade is not to rob their customers which I kinda think Avid has been doing recently.

Are they feel threatened by the growth of the Cubase users base?

I find this hard to believe.
{’-’}

not powerful enough for what? processing their new 32bit floating point engine? :open_mouth:

of course there’s always room to better something. But, in my opinion, there’s no room for a completely different new standard, instead of enhancing an established standard, like ARA does.

Nonsense.

The AAX is what they need to put some distance between them and the competition, nothing more than that. The concept is very simple, if you run a race alone you are always going to win.

VST, AU, TDM (and now AAX) are all the same.

And another goal is to keep exclusive plugins like McDSP, Massenburg EQ, Eventide anthology bundle, Neyrinck, Dolby, Trilanium labs plugins , Crane Song Phoenix, Massey out of the vst plug market :mrgreen:

Don’t forget also that upgrading to PT11 will require not only a further upgrade fee, but as with PT10 60% of the new features are not available in Native version at all (hardware required) and with PT11 all current hardware will become obsolete (and unsupported) at a stroke.

I am in complete accord with you on this one.
So often I get told by people that “I am using ProTools” to find out what they have is PTLE or PT M-Powered.
Not ProTools at all - we generally find this out when we ask them to provide us with an OMF or an AAF and find out they cannot do it (incidentally, can PTLE save sessions as PTF for PT7 and/or sessions as PT5 compatible as well?).

As you say, if you need a PT rig you need the CPTK card - although it would seem you can get these on Ebay with the blessing and collaboration of Avid for much less money than you think.
There is a thread about this somewhere on GS forums - I will try to find it.

Hi guys,

ok let me give an additional “funny” comment:

AVID already uses SteinbergTechnology since PT9…( ASIO )

If they would have chosen the VST 3- Technology as well…PT10 would have a grace note:
Assembled by Avid, designed by Steinberg.
:laughing:

P.S.: don’t take this post too serious please…
:wink:

So it seems like nobody can prove AAX is better than VST. Thought so.

I think the true industry standard is 24 bit WAV/BWF/AIFF (the grammy academy recommends BWF) not Pro Tools because every Pro Tools Studios use different plug-ins. The audio files are truly universal just like 2inch reel to reel tape were. It didn’t matter who made the tape machines or blank media with reel-to-reel stuff, right?

I got PTMP just to load the PT sessions and consolidate and export the audio files to import to Cubase. Some engineers who came to my studio say there’s too much learning curve for them to mix in Cubase at my studio and that they prefer to use PT because they’re too used to using only PT at any studio.

Yes, many claim they got PT when they got PTLE. From version9, I think it’s ok to claim they got PT even if it’s PTMP9 ,though. There ain’t too many crippled important features like version 8 and earlier.

I was gonna upgrade my PTMP8 to PT10 , but then it still won’t let me turn off the software input monitoring on all channels. It just doesn’t make sense to upgrade it when I have a 02R96 as control surface/monitor control and a RME that gives me very low latency without worrying about the buffer size. Cubase just work perfect with it.

My main software will be Cubase regardless. I don’t feel like changing my DAW when it’s not necessary. I mean I can use the same plug-ins with PT as my Cubase so I can use PT to record and mix, but I won’t use it to do MIDI. Cubase is just easiest when it comes to MIDI. Only problems I have with PTMP8 is ‘no ADC’ and ‘no software input monitoring off option’. It’s only useful to render consolidate audio files for me right now.

To somepeople, Pro Tools means ‘DAW’ They call any DAW ‘Pro Tools’ just like some people call any tissue ‘Kleenex’ or any adhesive bandages ‘Bandaid’. It looks like that is changing slowly, too. It is gradually getting known that there’re many commercially released CD that were recorded with other DAWs.

If I recall correct the first cubase audio sequencer (on atari I think) ran on the digidesign audio engine (this was before the time steinberg developed asio).

I have read about that. I wasn’t cubase user at the time, but I did some research and found a SOS article about it. It was Cubase Audio on mac that ran on TDM system.

The article says it worked with ‘Sound tools’ as well as ‘Pro Tools’.11 years before SX came out!!

I need to correct my own post earlier. I wrote Broadcast WAV is recommended by Grammy Academy, but their DAW guideline actually says ‘WAV(or Broadcast WAV’).

Cubase and Nuendo as well as PT, DP, Logic (also 2inch 24 tracks and other analog & digital Media) are listed as Master Delivery Media to deliver the production results in their recommendation, too.


These are the actual words:

‘WAV (or Broadcast WAV) is the recommended audio file format for compatibility with most DAW systems.’

‘24 bit resolution is preferred for recording of audio files.’

Same here re peeps stating they have PT but its only the limited LE version. One of the reasons I bought PT.

PTLE sessions open in PT7,8,9 and I can now say 10. Don’t know about PT5. I’ve just upgraded to PT10 Native, I already had CPTK2 which I got from ebay for under 1k about a year ago. Not sure what you can get them for now.

Don’t lock in your imagination. VST is old. That’s a fact. Soon 20 years.

i get really fed up with bands coming in and having one of them ask “do you use protools? why not?”. then having to explain to somebody who knows eff all. you don’t go to the doctor and enquire about his brand of stethoscope before he checks you out!
p.s. i do have an older version of protools and an old digi 001 (nice hardware). i point to it and say “there it is!”.
ed
:wink:

“so you have pro Tools?”

Of course: Cubase, Sonar, Live, Reaper, RME Interfaces… What else do you want to know?

g

No :wink: my “tools are pro” :smiling_imp:

VST3 is six years old and has not even managed to achieve a market share of one percent in that time frame. So I don’t think that it counts at all.

I’d like to comment from the perspective of a long time Pro Tools user that has just started using Cubase in addition. Right now, I’m using PT10 HD3 and just purchased a Yamaha MOX8 for my studio. The great thing about the MOX is that it doubles as a hardware i/f . It came bundled with Cubase AI5 and that is exactly what I wanted. Cubase’s MIDI implementation is much better than Pro Tools and I wanted to do move my MIDI recodring duties to Cubase and sync that with Pro Tools. Having said all the above here’s my take on AAX vs. VST. The reason Pro Tools is ‘evolving’ to AAX is that they sorely need to have a 64 bit version of the program and in doing so will need the plug-ins to be 64 bit as well. As I understand it, the AAX plugin’s will have 64 bit processing, at least in the data in/out and interface. AAX is more of a ‘wrapper’ in that it can run in both 32 bit and 64 bit environments. PT 10 is 32 bit and PT 11 will be 64 bit. At the present time, Pro Tools can only access about 3 gig of memory and resources, so with a larger production, things get ‘tight’. Going to 64 bit will alleviate this, and also allow for caching of huge chunks of audio which is supposed to help out with processor loads. Also the HDX cards are much more powerful and one card has about the processing power of 3 HD Accel cards. Right now, I’m using AAX plugs on projects and my guess is that they actually put slightly more load on the processor…perhaps due to the AAX ‘layer’?

Now taking that all into account, an ‘upgrade’ to PT10 HDX is over $10k, not including a suitable host. Even PT 10HD Native is over $7k and that’s not including the CPTK.

The other obstacle that AVID will need to overcome will be acceptance of 3rd party developers in producing AAX versions of their products. There are a few, but, at this time not that many. It’s possible that those producing plugs are waiting to see how many HDX systems get sold before they order the SDK and start porting. I believe that the port will entail more than just a recompile to 64 bit, as the chips being used have a different architecture than the old 56k dsp chips on the Accel cards. All things considered, AVID is really out on a limb with this transition and they have made quite a few ‘enemies’ with their ‘consumer’ lines, as they’ve sold them off or discontinued a lot of support. Depending on what happens with PT 11 HDX will determine the outcome of a lot of other DAW companies, including Steinberg. I believe that these companies will benefit from this.

Sorry for the Magna Carta on my 3rd post, but this was a great subject, at least to me. :slight_smile: