Sorry if this sounds frustrating, but it is really annoying trying to talk to someone who stubbornly refuses to listen. I have never ever said that Steinberg should “seek to further develop the specification”. That’s the first point. Hopefully you get that now that I’ve spelled it out clearly (again).
Secondly, what I am asking for Avid has already done. They have taken what apparently can be done (wrapped in an AAF) and allowed Pro Tools to open that. Completely regardless of what the actual specs say officially. And all I’m saying is Steinberg should accept the same. I am NOT saying Steinberg should develop something new and I am NOT saying they should try to get that added to the official specification. Is that clear now?
And lastly, why am I getting the feeling that you don’t even work with AAFs for a living and are just engaging in this for god-know-what reason?! If this doesn’t apply to you because you don’t deal with AAFs why do you bother?
Sure seems like you are not engaging in this conversation in good faith.
Unfortunately the way this industry works is that companies like Avid do what they do and we exist in it. Your suggestion that I pay hundreds of dollars to do what Pro Tools can do rather than try to get Nuendo to do it natively sounds… like something I disagree with.
Also unfortunately how the industry works is that users lobby companies for enhanced functionality and hopefully they eventually get it. So you can just deal with the fact that we request these things.
And if people like me get what we want then good for you if you too are using AAFs… which… again… do you?
I’m happy for any user of the software, to be able to get what they want or need and I support any feature request that makes sense.
I am just saying I don’t like your chances and there’s no point in coming up against the likes of Mr. Fredo, asserting that a point stands, when in reality we are on the outside.
In general, why would a developer like Steinberg seek to try and implement something that even if they wanted to, they couldn’t in all likelihood, simply because of the fact that the specification in question, is closed source.
I can’t see AVID co-operating with anyone, to their own detriment, and if you look through the developer docs you will see AVIDs’ TM all over them.
Because they are converting from a binary format to a text-based format such as XML, the latter of which is preferred, at least by Steinberg I am sure.
…can Steinberg do what AVID have done, that is to add an extension to the spec?
To that question I believe the answer is no because I can’t see the latter providing source code for what they have done and in essence the mixed sample rate situation has become a feature that only exists in the ecosystem that is AVID.
Then why would you recommend I use AATranslator if that does not solve any of the problems I’m running into?
Also, as far as I recall it is NOT just a matter of a problem with Media Composer sources, I have had problems with AAFs coming out of Premiere as well where they opened in PT just fine but not in Nuendo. As long as that is true it is not “a feature that only exists in the ecosystem that is AVID”.
It’s not surprising that Steinberg don’t support AAF, in the way (some) users would like or appreciate because the format is effectively commandeered by one company and they all pay their fees accordingly, to which I would not like to see that happen here.
Steinberg don’t appear to be a member of any of the associations, that are associated with AAF, so again I don’t like your chances on this one.
Just ask Michael from AA translator what it takes to reverse engineer the ever moving code changes of the different formats. Basically it takes a full time job to fix the problems of others. If all DAW manufacturers would stick to the specifications of each exchange format, AA Translator would become redundant.
Hey all, i’m reading this discussion and recogize/ feel some of the frustration/irritation on both sides here.
If AAtranslator has a solution for the issues at hand, perhaps SB should get a license deal with them/michael (who apparantly holds the key )…
On the other hand, when they do that they venture into Avid PT territory: stay basic and only license complex plugins/routines.
This is exactly why i left avid; they were too expensive and did not evolve with time.
(This has been changing a bit (nice new features developed in house like AI transcription and finally good basic functionality like better session import/marker tracks etc).)
What I would much rather see SB doing is what Matthias suggests: not be too strict, adapt to the situation and make AAF work.
It would allow more PT users to jump ship to Nuendo.
I would also suggest they get onboard with OTIO (if they havent already) and support that development. Strategically it could make it harder for Avid to keep their grip on the market in the long run.
I also think this discussion deserves a separate thread where people can vote and talk about this topic.
About OTIO — We’re a small, four-member team and are in progress of building our own radio drama and animation series entirely in-house. With weekly releases, the pressure to deliver consistently is intense, and any improvement in workflow can be a lifesaver. Our pipeline is deliberately simple, and we rely on our own in-house rendering engine. In this context, a streamlined, efficient workflow solution like OTIO is a godsend—it helps us stay focused on the creative without getting bogged down in the technical.
In other words, you are wrong when you say that Steinberg “in all likelihood” “couldn’t” “try and implement something like that”. Because if the people of AATranslator can do it, so can Steinberg.
It’s clear to me that you don’t use AAFs and you’re just arguing for the sake of it. Seems you have no stake in this and you’re just throwing out statements without reading or considering what I’m writing carefully. If you can’t follow a line of conversation it’s utterly pointless for me to continue talking to you about this.
It’s a fulltime job for him for sure if he’s supporting ALL of those formats. That’s fairly obvious. What I’m asking for isn’t that. What I’m asking for is that Steinberg at least deals with what is most common.
I see what you mean, but it is not as simple as “fixing” AAF for Steinberg.
The AAF’s from different DAW’s and NLE’s all have different issues.
AA translator is an application that analyzes the AAF, detects the problems and translates it to Steinberg XML.
I’m not trying to makes this more complicated on purpose, but it really isn’t that simple.
Have a chat with Michael, he is a great guy.
Another solution then is to team up with this Michael and offer his app to Nuendo users either for free or at a heavy discount… if functionality can’t be easily embedded into Nuendo.
You’ve likely heard the expression, don’t re-invent the wheel; I think that is very apt, just like I think Mr. Fredos’ answer(s) should be enough to tell you what the situation is.
I do, it’s development time that could be better spent on something else, so yes I will fight for what is best for the application as a whole, not some niche aspect that affects only a small section of users.
)…