Quantcast
Are AAX native plugins more efficient than RTAS plugins - Gearspace.com
The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Are AAX native plugins more efficient than RTAS plugins
Old 9th September 2012
  #1
Gear Addict
 
Trailmix's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Are AAX native plugins more efficient than RTAS plugins

I just made the jump to PTHD 10. I want to start updating my RTAS plugs to AAX native. Before I start the migration, when I instantiate a plug they all show up as native. First question, do AAX plugins read as AAX where they now Native?

And second, once installing the AAX native version, do RTAS still remain in the plugin folder, and if so are they useable?

Also, I am using PTHD 10 with and HD2 accel.

Thanks!
Old 10th September 2012
  #2
Gear Addict
 
Sino's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trailmix ➡️
I just made the jump to PTHD 10. I want to start updating my RTAS plugs to AAX native. Before I start the migration, when I instantiate a plug they all show up as native. First question, do AAX plugins read as AAX where they now Native?

And second, once installing the AAX native version, do RTAS still remain in the plugin folder, and if so are they useable?

Also, I am using PTHD 10 with and HD2 accel.

Thanks!
AAXplugin is the new format and, depending on the manufacturer, supports NATIVE and/or AAX-DSP processing.

List of AAXplugs available is here AAX Plug-ins List (Avid and 3rd Party) - Avid Audio Forums



RTAS are still supported and shows up as Native in ProTools.

Speaking for Mac, they're located on Library/Application Support/Digidesign/Plug-ins and have .dpm extension

AAX are located in Library/Application Support/Avid/Plugins and have .aaxplugin extension.

Same thing for windows; don't know the exact folders but same extension and same "Avid branded" folder.
Old 10th September 2012
  #3
Lou
Gear Head
 
Lou's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trailmix ➡️
First question, do AAX plugins read as AAX where they now Native?

I've been wondering this as well. I just made the move to PT10 and some of my plugs (NI/UBK-1) read AAX in the menu, while some plugins (Softube) do not read AAX. I've installed the Softube AAX versions, but how do I know which versino PT is using?
Old 10th September 2012 | Show parent
  #4
Gear Addict
 
Sino's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lou ➡️
I've been wondering this as well. I just made the move to PT10 and some of my plugs (NI/UBK-1) read AAX in the menu, while some plugins (Softube) do not read AAX. I've installed the Softube AAX versions, but how do I know which versino PT is using?
Go to the folder I mentioned above, then trash (or better just move out to another folder like your desktop) the .DPM files of these plugs.

Launch ProTools and it should read AAX versions.
Old 10th September 2012
  #5
Lou
Gear Head
 
Lou's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Thanks, Will try when I get home.
Old 11th September 2012
  #6
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
We probably won't know if they are more efficient until RTAS support is left behind.
Old 11th September 2012 | Show parent
  #7
Gear Addict
 
Sino's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson ➡️
We probably won't know if they are more efficient until RTAS support is left behind.
This is from AVID forums... may be interesting.
Consider reading the whole thread if you need more informations

In terms of data transfer, both RTAS and AAX passes audio around using a 32-bit floating-point pipe, with internal processing at 32 bits, 64 bits, 80 bits, or more.

BTW this is a good and necessary move for the future, especially for the DSP parts, considering that TDM was written in early '90 and that tecnology lasted for so long.

RTAS and TDM require two completely separate implementations due to the fundamental differences in architecture; RTAS is written in C or C++ in a floating-point environment, TDM is written in 56k assembly language in a fixed-point environment. While the GUI and "glue" code could be shared between the two, the actual processing code had to be written completely separately for TDM and RTAS. This made ensuring bit-for-bit matching and synchronization of changes difficult.

HDX changes the DSP hardware to a floating-point architecture and AAX enables the possibility of writing a single implementation of the algorithm in C that compiles to both the native and hardware-accelerated versions.

Note I said "enables the possibility". The realities of writing an algorithm for the constrained architecture and feature set of the HDX hardware and TI DSP makes it significantly harder than simply writing a plug-in to run on the host. There are many differences to factor, ranging from the straightforward (buffer size) to the complex (subtle differences in mathematical operations btw Intel and TI). And while simple algorithms can indeed run identical code on Native and DSP, many will still require some conditional code that is different on Native vs. DSP.
Old 12th September 2012
  #8
Here for the gear
 
🎧 5 years
What is best system for small budget in Protools?
I have to change my system because i have a Power Pc with protools 7.4...I want to move on but I'm not shure what is...I have an 003 interface...What do you recommend? ...Thanks!
Old 12th September 2012 | Show parent
  #9
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
I've heard great things about i-Macs. Just get at least 16 gigs of RAM.
Old 12th September 2012
  #10
RiF
Lives for gear
 
RiF's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScorpionHook ➡️
What is best system for small budget in Protools?
I have to change my system because i have a Power Pc with protools 7.4...I want to move on but I'm not shure what is...I have an 003 interface...What do you recommend? ...Thanks!
I'd say iMac + PT 9 or 10 upgrade + your existing 003.
Old 12th September 2012
  #11
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
I'd not even think about PT 9 at this point. Apple has made massive OS changes recently that I wouldn't expect PT9 to support for very long. PT 10 is also far less demanding of drive capabilities.
Old 12th September 2012 | Show parent
  #12
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson ➡️
I'd not even think about PT 9 at this point. Apple has made massive OS changes recently that I wouldn't expect PT9 to support for very long. PT 10 is also far less demanding of drive capabilities.
Absolutely!

You may also want to look into 003 compatibility/connection issues with Pro Tools 10, Core Audio, etc... Give AVID a call and also check the AVID DUC Forum.

Hope this helps!
Old 12th September 2012 | Show parent
  #13
Gear Addict
 
Sino's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Izzi ➡️
Absolutely!

You may also want to look into 003 compatibility/connection issues with Pro Tools 10, Core Audio, etc... Give AVID a call and also check the AVID DUC Forum.

Hope this helps!
003 (as well as 002) is compatible with ProTools 9 and 10.

Here's the list
Pro Tools 10.0 Approved Audio Interfaces and Peripherals
Old 12th September 2012 | Show parent
  #14
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sino ➡️
003 (as well as 002) is compatible with ProTools 9 and 10.

Here's the list
Pro Tools 10.0 Approved Audio Interfaces and Peripherals
Yes, I know this but I do see some Threads on the DUC mentioning some issues, be it with Pro Tools, using Core Audio with 3rd party apps, etc...

Could be user error or whatever, I just wanted ScorpionHook to be aware of it.

Good Luck & All the Best!
Old 18th October 2012
  #15
Gear Nut
 
🎧 5 years
AAX is what we need. Yes they will run like RTAS and similar specs but they can run DSP and sound the same.

One plug in pick your format.

I reallty hated the difference with TDM and RTAS since they had to be writted twice. And the double price for TDM.

Anyway I belive you have to purchase the DSP versions of those. Most early adopters make you pick one when purchasing. DSP (with native) or Native only. Maybe so they can charge you more.
Old 20th October 2012
  #16
Gear Nut
 
🎧 5 years
For Native RTAS or AAX you cant go wrong with either. With the PT HD Native and more powerful cpus every year Waves is draggihg thier feet to go to AAX dsp. From what I understand if they focus on Native the RTAS are the same as AAX so to them its a no brainer.

If they want to make the dsp happy they need to move to AAX.

If a company is staying native they have no reason to port to aax.
Old 20th October 2012
  #17
Gear Addict
 
🎧 10 years
Are AAX native plugins more efficient than RTAS plugins

Yes!
Old 20th October 2012 | Show parent
  #18
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by passmore ➡️
Are AAX native plugins more efficient than RTAS plugins

Yes!
My previous experience had been no but the brand new AAX-DSP Alpha compressor seems to be more efficient running native than their AAX native or RTAS versions were. Like everything else digital this seems more a matter of individual implementation than of format.
Old 21st October 2012 | Show parent
  #19
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson ➡️
I'd not even think about PT 9 at this point. Apple has made massive OS changes recently that I wouldn't expect PT9 to support for very long. PT 10 is also far less demanding of drive capabilities.
even 10 Native??

or are you talking about the 10 HD ram caching of the mix?
Old 21st October 2012 | Show parent
  #20
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by wwittman ➡️
even 10 Native??

or are you talking about the 10 HD ram caching of the mix?
10 native isn't nearly as picky about drives while the HD or CPTK disk cache will play off a thumb drive or WiFi which is downright ridiculous!
Old 2nd February 2013 | Show parent
  #21
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sino ➡️
Go to the folder I mentioned above, then trash (or better just move out to another folder like your desktop) the .DPM files of these plugs.

Launch ProTools and it should read AAX versions.
In the link to the DUC thread it says this.. from post 23 of that thread.
A Programmer's Perspective on the AAX Transition + Q&A - Page 3 - Avid Audio Forums

DPM files are still stored in their old location. Pro Tools will load from both directories and apply appropriate plug-in dominance rules to figure out which one shows up in the menus... Very much thought through dominance rules...
--------

Just wondering which is correct. To leave the duplicate .DPM plugs alone...
Or.. move them
Old 2nd February 2013
  #22
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
It's not supposed to matter but I think Pro Tools comes up at least a little bit faster with the dupes put in the unused folder. I put them back before installing any updates and then take them out again. If I have a choice, I no longer install the RTAS version of anything.
Old 2nd February 2013
  #23
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Hi Bob
Thanks, i shall try that.
What prompted me to ask, was that i just tried the new BETA ¨PluginUpdater¨ and only a couple of AAX showed up.
PluginUpdate
Now that could be the BETA .. or something else.
I shall give it a whirl when i have moved the DPM,s

cheers
Macky
Old 2nd February 2013 | Show parent
  #24
Lives for gear
 
blackcom's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sino ➡️
This is from AVID forums... may be interesting.
Consider reading the whole thread if you need more informations

In terms of data transfer, both RTAS and AAX passes audio around using a 32-bit floating-point pipe, with internal processing at 32 bits, 64 bits, 80 bits, or more.

BTW this is a good and necessary move for the future, especially for the DSP parts, considering that TDM was written in early '90 and that tecnology lasted for so long.

RTAS and TDM require two completely separate implementations due to the fundamental differences in architecture; RTAS is written in C or C++ in a floating-point environment, TDM is written in 56k assembly language in a fixed-point environment. While the GUI and "glue" code could be shared between the two, the actual processing code had to be written completely separately for TDM and RTAS. This made ensuring bit-for-bit matching and synchronization of changes difficult.

HDX changes the DSP hardware to a floating-point architecture and AAX enables the possibility of writing a single implementation of the algorithm in C that compiles to both the native and hardware-accelerated versions.

Note I said "enables the possibility". The realities of writing an algorithm for the constrained architecture and feature set of the HDX hardware and TI DSP makes it significantly harder than simply writing a plug-in to run on the host. There are many differences to factor, ranging from the straightforward (buffer size) to the complex (subtle differences in mathematical operations btw Intel and TI). And while simple algorithms can indeed run identical code on Native and DSP, many will still require some conditional code that is different on Native vs. DSP.
TDM was written in ASM? Oh, dear god... now wonder they priced it higher...
📝 Reply

Similar Threads

Thread / Thread Starter Replies / Views Last Post
replies: 55 views: 32073
Avatar for IM WHO YOU THINK
IM WHO YOU THINK 13th October 2020
replies: 15929 views: 1532487
Avatar for Ragan
Ragan 11th January 2019
replies: 1296 views: 181389
Avatar for heraldo_jones
heraldo_jones 1st February 2016
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearspace Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…

Forum Jump
Forum Jump