Question for Devs: Was AAX Development As Disruptive As It Seems?

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

As an end-user, it seems like Pro Tools AAX ports have stalled almost a year's worth of plugin development for a lot of different developers. I look at companies like Cytomic, Valhalla, U-he, Slate, etc., and it seems like they've had to devote a lot of time to AAX ports this year. This feels like it's wiped out a lot of effort that might have otherwise been spent developing or enhancing new products.

AAX format with a lot of commitments from developers to jump right on board with AAX ports of their existing plugins. Now what are we, 8 months out from that announcement and AAX plugins are just starting to trickle out now? I just wonder how Avid got so many developers to support the new format (versus say VST3 or Reason refills) and if it was ultimately worth it? From what I've seen, it seems like the copy protection requirements might have been the big delay, but isn't there a fear by jumping on board with a new [closed] plugin format like this so early, that other DAW manufacturer's could just start doing the same thing (i.e. the slippery slope argument)?

Just curious on how this is currently being viewed from a developer's perspective...

[valhallasound]

If you move this to the developer's forum, you'll probably get a lot more traction.

Sean Costello

[valhallasound]

I just wonder how Avid got so many developers to support the new format (versus say VST3 or Reason refills) and if it was ultimately worth it?

The big differences between the formats, from a developer's point of view:

VST3: No DAW currently out there REQUIRES this. Cubase might in the future, but expect this to be met with a lot of resistance from developers and users.

Reason Extensions: SDK apparently has very little to do with other plugin formats, from a technical point of view. This is the only plugin format that takes a cut off the top (30% of the sales price). Very limited user base, and they tend to balk at paying much money for plugins, if the Reason forum is any indication of the general mindset.

AAX: Runs in the new version of Pro Tools, that won't run RTAS. I have a LOT of existing RTAS customers, and I need to support them. Pro Tools runs in high end studios and production houses and is the biggest DAW in terms of users.

So, AAX is getting support, because people have to support existing customers, and it is a HUGE market. The number of AAX questions/requests I have got every day is pretty significant. I'm not sure how my sales will change when I release AAX ports, as my updates also include new algorithms for all users, but I doubt that it will hurt my sales.

From what I've seen, it seems like the copy protection requirements might have been the big delay, but isn't there a fear by jumping on board with a new [closed] plugin format like this so early, that other DAW manufacturer's could just start doing the same thing (i.e. the slippery slope argument)?

RTAS and TDM were closed formats as well, so it isn't a new thing for people that develop Pro Tools plugins.

As far as "early," apparently the AAX format was under development for a few years before it was announced at the fall 2011 AES show. Mind you, that was the first time I'd heard about it, but other developers had been working with the pre-announcement SDK. The SDK changed significantly between then and the actual release of PT11, so developers that had early AAX ports working would have had to change things a fair bit.

The nice thing about RTAS/AAX is that the formats, although they are closed, are also free. No royalties paid to Avid. You have to have a Pro Tools system, but nowadays this is a license that runs on an iLok.

Sean Costello

[jupiter8]

As an end-user, it seems like Pro Tools AAX ports have stalled almost a year's worth of plugin development for a lot of different developers.

I've been thinking about this too. A lot.

[Lotuzia]

AAX is a format to support if, like Xils-Lab, a significant part of your users are audio professionals.