ProTools - Programming a plugin.

Discussion in 'rec.audio.pro' started by reddred, Aug 28, 2003.

  1. reddred

    reddred Guest

    "Patrick" <prklem@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:ed221b9e.0308281142.5466a170@posting.google.com...
    > "Andrew M." <andrewm@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message

    news:<o%m3b.15741$7G2.13800@twister.nyroc.rr.com>...
    > > You need to become a digidesign developer. Why not just call Digidesign
    > > and tell them you want to be a developer. They will tell you how much it
    > > will cost and what you will need.
    > >

    >
    >
    > Does anyone else not find this offensive?


    I find it pretty normal. It costs money to code, unless you stick with
    strict open source. You do realize that some development software costs tens
    of thousands of dollars a seat? In many cases, to many companies, it is
    worth it.

    > Digidesign are notorious
    > for closely guarding their SDK. Their own RTA standard flies in the
    > face of compatibility with the already established VST format.
    > Furthermore, charging money so you can design plugs under their format
    > is a surefire way to restrict the market, ensure profits to the major
    > companies that can afford such enterprises, and is generally a way to
    > reinforce that you are part of 'their' system, nothing collective
    > about it. Has anyone even heard if they will support AU? How about a
    > movement more towards www.smartelectronix.com/~destroyfx ? Anyone
    > from Digidesign want to defend their position?


    Why is it offensive? Nobody is obligated to join the 'collective'. As well
    as the kind of development model you apparently prefer can work under
    certain circumstances, it's hardly the only way of doing things.

    Consider the experience of the end user when he buys a piece of software
    that he knows will deliver in his professional environment, versus the end
    user downloading VST or DX freeware off the net. Maybe Digidesign is trying
    to make sure their users are always happy. Users are always the most
    important part of the 'collective'.

    jb
  2. Yaniv Sapir

    Yaniv Sapir Guest

    Hi all.

    We would like to convert an audio filter program into a Digidesign
    ProTools plugin. After searching a while, we were not able to find any
    information regarding the API or any other developer info.
    Digidesign's website offers only user manuals.

    Writing Digidesign a few times, they didn't answer. Their local
    representative also was of no help (he only sells the software...).

    Can anyone here help in locating the required information?

    Thanks,
    Yaniv.
  3. Andrew M.

    Andrew M. Guest

    You need to become a digidesign developer. Why not just call Digidesign
    and tell them you want to be a developer. They will tell you how much it
    will cost and what you will need.



    Yaniv Sapir wrote:
    > Hi all.
    >
    > We would like to convert an audio filter program into a Digidesign
    > ProTools plugin. After searching a while, we were not able to find any
    > information regarding the API or any other developer info.
    > Digidesign's website offers only user manuals.
    >
    > Writing Digidesign a few times, they didn't answer. Their local
    > representative also was of no help (he only sells the software...).
    >
    > Can anyone here help in locating the required information?
    >
    > Thanks,
    > Yaniv.
  4. Patrick

    Patrick Guest

    "Andrew M." <andrewm@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message news:<o%m3b.15741$7G2.13800@twister.nyroc.rr.com>...
    > You need to become a digidesign developer. Why not just call Digidesign
    > and tell them you want to be a developer. They will tell you how much it
    > will cost and what you will need.
    >



    Does anyone else not find this offensive? Digidesign are notorious
    for closely guarding their SDK. Their own RTA standard flies in the
    face of compatibility with the already established VST format.
    Furthermore, charging money so you can design plugs under their format
    is a surefire way to restrict the market, ensure profits to the major
    companies that can afford such enterprises, and is generally a way to
    reinforce that you are part of 'their' system, nothing collective
    about it. Has anyone even heard if they will support AU? How about a
    movement more towards www.smartelectronix.com/~destroyfx ? Anyone
    from Digidesign want to defend their position?
  5. Jay Kadis

    Jay Kadis Guest

    In article <ed221b9e.0308281142.5466a170@posting.google.com> prklem@yahoo.com
    (Patrick) writes:
    > "Andrew M." <andrewm@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message

    news:<o%m3b.15741$7G2.13800@twister.nyroc.rr.com>...
    > > You need to become a digidesign developer. Why not just call Digidesign
    > > and tell them you want to be a developer. They will tell you how much it
    > > will cost and what you will need.
    > >

    >
    >
    > Does anyone else not find this offensive? Digidesign are notorious
    > for closely guarding their SDK. Their own RTA standard flies in the
    > face of compatibility with the already established VST format.
    > Furthermore, charging money so you can design plugs under their format
    > is a surefire way to restrict the market, ensure profits to the major
    > companies that can afford such enterprises, and is generally a way to
    > reinforce that you are part of 'their' system, nothing collective
    > about it. Has anyone even heard if they will support AU? How about a
    > movement more towards www.smartelectronix.com/~destroyfx ? Anyone
    > from Digidesign want to defend their position?


    I'm not from Digidesign, but I can shed some light on their thinking. It's
    quality control. The goal is to have a suite of dependable, solid plug-ins
    written for their platform which work seamlessly as though they themselves had
    written them.

    To insure this, they demand certain things of their developers. Look at
    companies producing TDM plug-ins like McDSP and Universal Audio. They are
    extremely knowledgable about DSP and the devices they are modeling. They are
    not hackers. If you buy their plug-ins, you get what you expect (maybe a
    little more). ProTools TDM is not an entry-level system and is not intended
    for everyone. Limiting the available plug-ins to quality ones keeps their
    brand associated with quality. (At least in _their_ minds, if not everyone's.)

    Now that a lot of entry-level ProTools systems are available, it tends to muddy
    the issue of high-quality software and the RTAS stuff came about to service
    that sector of the market. But as a company, Digidesign needs to protect the
    perceived quality of plug-ins users acquire and expect to work. It's a
    proprietary interface and they are protecting their investment.

    -Jay
    --
    x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ----x
    x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
    x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
    x-------- http://ccrma-www.stanford.edu/~jay/ ----------x
  6. Les Cargill

    Les Cargill Guest

    Patrick wrote:
    >
    > "Andrew M." <andrewm@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message news:<o%m3b.15741$7G2.13800@twister.nyroc.rr.com>...
    > > You need to become a digidesign developer. Why not just call Digidesign
    > > and tell them you want to be a developer. They will tell you how much it
    > > will cost and what you will need.
    > >

    >
    > Does anyone else not find this offensive? Digidesign are notorious
    > for closely guarding their SDK. Their own RTA standard flies in the
    > face of compatibility with the already established VST format.


    That's deeply offensive. Obsoleting your own product format is
    just plain wrong. Raising the bar for developers might be a
    good strategy.

    Backwards compatibility is just not optional.

    > Furthermore, charging money so you can design plugs under their format
    > is a surefire way to restrict the market, ensure profits to the major
    > companies that can afford such enterprises, and is generally a way to
    > reinforce that you are part of 'their' system, nothing collective
    > about it.


    It's not without precedent. It actually solves some business problems -
    it gets the money people to ante up, which will support organizational
    buy-in. And it keeps the riff-raff out.

    > Has anyone even heard if they will support AU? How about a
    > movement more towards www.smartelectronix.com/~destroyfx ? Anyone
    > from Digidesign want to defend their position?


    Go around 'em and get the VST dev kit from Steinberg.

    --
    Les Cargill
  7. Les Cargill

    Les Cargill Guest

    reddred wrote:
    >

    <snip>

    >
    > Why is it offensive?


    Because the lack of backward compatibility
    renders users' previous investment in plugins
    worthless. I've never worked for a shop
    that allowed that.

    <snip>
    >
    > jb



    --
    Les Cargill
  8. reddred

    reddred Guest

    "Les Cargill" <lcargill@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
    news:3F4F8B2F.B0ACE962@worldnet.att.net...
    > "Your Add Here!" wrote:
    > >
    > > Why is it offensive?
    > > >
    > > > Because the lack of backward compatibility
    > > > renders users' previous investment in plugins
    > > > worthless. I've never worked for a shop
    > > > that allowed that.

    > >
    > > You're joking right?

    >
    > I'm joking right what? Backwards compatibility is a joke?


    Guess you never worked for Microsoft, or a thousand other companies... If
    your point is that normal isn't always good, I'd have to agree. At any rate,
    I don't think that was the poster's point.

    jb
  9. reddred

    reddred Guest

    "Patrick" <prklem@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:ed221b9e.0308290528.5902f1b3@posting.google.com...
    > > > Does anyone else not find this offensive?

    > >
    > > I find it pretty normal. It costs money to code, unless you stick with
    > > strict open source. You do realize that some development software costs

    tens
    > > of thousands of dollars a seat? In many cases, to many companies, it is
    > > worth it.

    >
    > that link i gave, they make no money off the plugins, and yet deliver
    > super stable plugs.


    That's nice. Where do they work? Could be some people like having companies.
    Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with what they do, but I don't
    have a problem with the kind of control digi has either.

    jb
  10. Patrick

    Patrick Guest

    > > Does anyone else not find this offensive?
    >
    > I find it pretty normal. It costs money to code, unless you stick with
    > strict open source. You do realize that some development software costs tens
    > of thousands of dollars a seat? In many cases, to many companies, it is
    > worth it.


    that link i gave, they make no money off the plugins, and yet deliver
    super stable plugs. they support upcoming formats (indeed, they were
    the FIRST company to release plugs for X's AU format
    http://www.osxaudio.com/index.php?story=142), encourage discussion
    lists for developing new ideas... i'm not trying to give one of those
    stupid advertisements vaguely concealed as discussion on this group, i
    simply think the industry would be much better off with engendering
    some of the ideals present in DFX's approach.

    >
    > > Digidesign are notorious
    > > for closely guarding their SDK. Their own RTA standard flies in the
    > > face of compatibility with the already established VST format.
    > > Furthermore, charging money so you can design plugs under their format
    > > is a surefire way to restrict the market, ensure profits to the major
    > > companies that can afford such enterprises, and is generally a way to
    > > reinforce that you are part of 'their' system, nothing collective
    > > about it. Has anyone even heard if they will support AU? How about a
    > > movement more towards www.smartelectronix.com/~destroyfx ? Anyone
    > > from Digidesign want to defend their position?

    >
    > Why is it offensive? Nobody is obligated to join the 'collective'. As well
    > as the kind of development model you apparently prefer can work under
    > certain circumstances, it's hardly the only way of doing things.


    never said it wasn't the only way of doing things - and it's just
    that, digidesign limits diversity in their plug-ins. for that, and
    the reasons in my original post, i think it is very insulting to the
    end user.

    > Consider the experience of the end user when he buys a piece of software
    > that he knows will deliver in his professional environment, versus the end
    > user downloading VST or DX freeware off the net. Maybe Digidesign is trying
    > to make sure their users are always happy. Users are always the most
    > important part of the 'collective'.


    why is downloading freeware not able to be used in a 'professional
    environment?' recent albums for jeff beck and tori amos used DFX
    plugs. and the producer raved about them. furthermore, judging from
    the feedback forums, DFX provides numerous more responses and
    'support' as well (you know, as you mentioned, incorporating the most
    important part of the collective into research and development), which
    usually correlates to a happy end-user.
  11. Why is it offensive?
    >
    > Because the lack of backward compatibility
    > renders users' previous investment in plugins
    > worthless. I've never worked for a shop
    > that allowed that.


    You're joking right?
  12. Les Cargill

    Les Cargill Guest

    "Your Add Here!" wrote:
    >
    > Why is it offensive?
    > >
    > > Because the lack of backward compatibility
    > > renders users' previous investment in plugins
    > > worthless. I've never worked for a shop
    > > that allowed that.

    >
    > You're joking right?


    I'm joking right what? Backwards compatibility is a joke?

    --
    Les Cargill
  13. Musikboy

    Musikboy Guest

    In article <s8idnWnqO7p-XNKiXTWJjg@rockbridge.net>, reddred
    <opaloka@yahoo.com> wrote:

    > "Les Cargill" <lcargill@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
    > news:3F4F8B2F.B0ACE962@worldnet.att.net...
    > > "Your Add Here!" wrote:
    > > >
    > > > Why is it offensive?
    > > > >
    > > > > Because the lack of backward compatibility
    > > > > renders users' previous investment in plugins
    > > > > worthless. I've never worked for a shop
    > > > > that allowed that.
    > > >
    > > > You're joking right?

    > >
    > > I'm joking right what? Backwards compatibility is a joke?

    >
    > Guess you never worked for Microsoft, or a thousand other companies... If
    > your point is that normal isn't always good, I'd have to agree. At any rate,
    > I don't think that was the poster's point.
    >
    > jb
    >
    >Bitch bitch bitch bitch why is everyone always complaining about

    digidesign? what is the problem. they want a certain standard met for
    their plugins. obviously steinberg could care less. so go develop your
    crap for steinberg toys like cubase and nuendo and leave dig alone.
    >
    >
  14. Chris Smalt

    Chris Smalt Guest

    Les wrote:

    > Backwards compatibility is a joke?



    In theory it isn't.


    Chris

Share This Page