A good example of this is a new type of plug-in we enabled for PT11, called AAX Hybrid. We also want to remain an innovative company, and if you simply adopt VST, it doesn’t give you a lot of flexibility to innovate in your plug-in platform or in your engine that uses those plug-ins. How would people have responded to that!?! With VST, the data stored in our session isn’t compatible. With AAX, we could design it to maintain compatibility with all legacy RTAS and TDM plug-ins, meaning that you can open old sessions, and even round-trip back to PT9 if you want. It also take different stances with respect to coefficient generation and handling of automation, which we don’t think scales as well up to very large sessions.Īnother thing that no one thinks about is that VST is a different plug-in format. VST is a good format, but it doesn’t have the processing code isolated enough to run on DSP. :) But I’ll echo it and add a little.ĪU is clearly Mac Only, and we have a fair number of Windows users. “ Paul’s answer is pretty succinct, as opposed to my long-winded answers. AAX is designed specifically to operate as Native and DSP, similar to how the older Digi format supported RTAS and TDM.”

Only Steinberg can modify the VST format and only Apple can modify AU to add DSP support. “ VST and AU are designed to only support Native and have no means of supporting DSP hardware. You may have missed them in the comments section, so here they are in their own article.

One question has been asked time and again since the announcement of AAX: “Why another format, why not VST or AU?” During a recent set of comments to our Why The Delay? article, we have had contributions from third-party developer Paul Neyrinck and AAX architect Dave Tremblay.

Plogue bidule for pro tools 11