The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Wishing for the ultimate Audio DSP plugin box. Other Modular Audio Processors
Old 29th June 2017
  #1
Lives for gear
 

Wishing for the ultimate Audio DSP plugin box.

Wishing for a non-proprietary DSP box that all the plugin manufacturers could write their plugins for and do away with software level plugins (rtas, ax, aax, vst, vst3, dx).


the plugin's license would be stored into the device, or one single software control. no extra dongles, or software licensing centres in the background.


I just wish for this.......
Old 29th June 2017
  #2
Gear Guru
 
jwh1192's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Audiospacific2 View Post
Wishing for a non-proprietary DSP box that all the plugin manufacturers could write their plugins for and do away with software level plugins (rtas, ax, aax, vst, vst3, dx).


the plugin's license would be stored into the device, or one single software control. no extra dongles, or software licensing centres in the background.


I just wish for this.......
What I/O would this box have Ethernet !!! thats forward thinking .. i like your idea ...
Old 29th June 2017
  #3
Lives for gear
 

I don't know, since the computing community didn't adopt the optical pcie transport (16 - 16x pcie lanes over fiber optic) and they adopted the copper based single 4x lane (thunderbolt) because it was cheaper to implement.

Thunderbolt would work but is limited. Fiber optic version would have been better for us.

Ethernet would kinda work, but then it would have to rely too much on its hardware timing transferring the digital media instead of having direct bus access. USB3 would be in the same boat here.
Old 29th June 2017
  #4
Gear Guru
 
jwh1192's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Audiospacific2 View Post
I don't know, since the computing community didn't adopt the optical pcie transport (16 - 16x pcie lanes over fiber optic) and they adopted the copper based single 4x lane (thunderbolt) because it was cheaper to implement.

Thunderbolt would work but is limited. Fiber optic version would have been better for us.

Ethernet would kinda work, but then it would have to rely too much on its hardware timing transferring the digital media instead of having direct bus access. USB3 would be in the same boat here.
Madi (optical or Coax) .. but that would also have some latency inducing limits too .. right !!

i thought since this is an ADD-on box not an ALL-IN-One solution that Gigabit Ethernet might be better ...

maybe we need yet another protocol for this type box .. !!! Quantum !!
Old 30th June 2017
  #5
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jwh1192 View Post
Madi (optical or Coax) .. but that would also have some latency inducing limits too .. right !!

i thought since this is an ADD-on box not an ALL-IN-One solution that Gigabit Ethernet might be better ...

maybe we need yet another protocol for this type box .. !!! Quantum !!
Instead of a new protocal, how about a better physical layer, instead of the gigabit ethernet, 100-Gigabit optical via 100GBase-SR10 (IEEE 802.3ba-2010)

something like that I can see servicing the channel plug-in slots more efficient. Say it was vst architecture: 4 digial ports per plugin slot (2 is the audio 2 is the aux vst for sidechain) and the daw has 6 slots it would need 24 pathways per channel to cover all slots.
Crazy thing is it would have to have at least one full dsp processor per channel.
Maybe even more.
Old 30th June 2017
  #6
Gear Guru
 
jwh1192's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Audiospacific2 View Post
Instead of a new protocal, how about a better physical layer, instead of the gigabit ethernet, 100-Gigabit optical via 100GBase-SR10 (IEEE 802.3ba-2010)

something like that I can see servicing the channel plug-in slots more efficient. Say it was vst architecture: 4 digial ports per plugin slot (2 is the audio 2 is the aux vst for sidechain) and the daw has 6 slots it would need 24 pathways per channel to cover all slots.
Crazy thing is it would have to have at least one full dsp processor per channel.
Maybe even more.
smarter minds than me !!! very nice ... a full DSP per channel ... ouch !!
Old 30th June 2017
  #7
Lives for gear
Why a DSP box? Our computers are pretty much non propriety and what you requested right now.
Old 1st July 2017
  #8
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alndln View Post
Why a DSP box? Our computers are pretty much non propriety and what you requested right now.
I actually find that computers are very proprietary, and inefficient.

Apple's os started as a unix workstation and evaluating them after Maverick, they are more consumer class and behave like windows.

Microsoft has always been inefficient and monopolized the pc market. They made exclusivity clauses with manufacturers to prevent any other os to be sold on a computer. None of their operating systems has been decent. You have to install their os to support our audio hardware and software. And quite frankly, it needs to come to an end. SO many security problems have been caused by machines running Microsoft operating systems. Plus its easy to pirate any software on the platform. Most loss of productivity in office and other work environments have been caused by windows inefficiencies.

Then the last choice is linux. A lot of our hardware and software has been purposely engineered to be not compatible with the platform. However, the hardware and software that is ran on the platform has ran faultless. Younger designers think you have to give your program away, but no, its not like that. You may make a demo and put it in the software distribution. but you can sell a full version. (my cad software I use for pc board drafting cost me $500 and its a linux program and its impossible to pirate.)

In reality, the issue is that the DAWs need to break away from consumer computing operating systems. Maybe the next generation of DAWs needs to incorporate their own OS and not Microsoft. This could be done. and has been done (Dante runs a Linux platform embedded in their hardware)

co-processing the audio with a DSP box removes the plugin from the inefficient environment. So the plugin is not tieing up cpu power.
Old 1st July 2017
  #9
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jwh1192 View Post
smarter minds than me !!! very nice ... a full DSP per channel ... ouch !!
Its not bad actually. For example: A dsp that is used in a UAD2 cost $35. That is $1120 for 32 channels at 1 dsp per channel.


Things that has been put in the markets of pro audio and audiophile has always been overpriced.

Take for instance the Neve 1073 that goes for $1000+. They actually cost $100 to build.
Old 1st July 2017
  #10
Lives for gear
 
bgood's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Audiospacific2 View Post
I actually find that computers are very proprietary, and inefficient.

Apple's os started as a unix workstation and evaluating them after Maverick, they are more consumer class and behave like windows.

Microsoft has always been inefficient and monopolized the pc market. They made exclusivity clauses with manufacturers to prevent any other os to be sold on a computer. None of their operating systems has been decent. You have to install their os to support our audio hardware and software. And quite frankly, it needs to come to an end. SO many security problems have been caused by machines running Microsoft operating systems. Plus its easy to pirate any software on the platform. Most loss of productivity in office and other work environments have been caused by windows inefficiencies.

Then the last choice is linux. A lot of our hardware and software has been purposely engineered to be not compatible with the platform. However, the hardware and software that is ran on the platform has ran faultless. Younger designers think you have to give your program away, but no, its not like that. You may make a demo and put it in the software distribution. but you can sell a full version. (my cad software I use for pc board drafting cost me $500 and its a linux program and its impossible to pirate.)

In reality, the issue is that the DAWs need to break away from consumer computing operating systems. Maybe the next generation of DAWs needs to incorporate their own OS and not Microsoft. This could be done. and has been done (Dante runs a Linux platform embedded in their hardware)

co-processing the audio with a DSP box removes the plugin from the inefficient environment. So the plugin is not tieing up cpu power.
It's all relative... If you're just using it as a dsp box, buy a second computer. Guys used to do that all the time in the gigasampler days. Then CPU and ram and ssd came along and cats can do everything in one box native.

The Mumbo jumbo about os always strikes me as more political or social commentary than an actual position.

You can't fight city hall... All the trillion and one devs aren't about to pick up a new plugin format... It took forever for them to cater to the pt aax or whatever the heck that is and that's a platform by the gold standard daw in the industry.
Old 1st July 2017
  #11
Lives for gear
They exist:
M7
Eventide 8000
TCE M6000
Old 1st July 2017
  #12
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by elegentdrum View Post
They exist:
M7
Eventide 8000
TCE M6000
yes something like the eventide, or the uad2 but not limited to just their plug ins, it should support a standard plug-in format.

the only thing I found that kinda fits this is the Protools HDX card, but not all AXX format plugins run off the DSP.
Old 1st July 2017
  #13
Lives for gear
 
bgood's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Audiospacific2 View Post
yes something like the eventide, or the uad2 but not limited to just their plug ins, it should support a standard plug-in format.

the only thing I found that kinda fits this is the Protools HDX card, but not all AXX format plugins run off the DSP.
I just don't get this thread... Perhaps 20 years ago it'd make more sense, but, with the cheap CPU power available today native just smokes. Seems like a solution in search of a problem. Good luck!
Old 2nd July 2017
  #14
Lives for gear
 

We already have FPGAs which calculate plugins under 1ms latency with Antelope releasing its plugins for free. Enough room for developers to jump on the FPGA train.
Old 3rd July 2017
  #15
Gear Nut
 

New compute cards are on the way...

Intel Announce New Compute Card - Will This Make The Best Mobile Pro Tools System and Replace Laptops In The Studio? — Pro Tools Expert

Who knows...maybe this will be the future of extra DSP power.
Old 4th July 2017
  #16
Gear Nut
 

What i trully wanted was a DSP system for acqua and nebula plugins!!!

The day they come out with this, instant purchase....

As long as Native plugins sound like 2D as they sound (UAD, Powercore apart for FX, and Nebula and Acqua for the rest) , i will never move completely ITB.

Nebula and acquas for me are enough to quit Hybrid, but for reliability and speed, we need an external DSP card, which processes these plugins with no stress on the CPU.
Old 4th July 2017
  #17
Lives for gear
 
jupiter8's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by fastconcept View Post
New compute cards are on the way...

Intel Announce New Compute Card - Will This Make The Best Mobile Pro Tools System and Replace Laptops In The Studio? — Pro Tools Expert

Who knows...maybe this will be the future of extra DSP power.
But that's just another computer? Which on the other hand is the only real solution to the problem imo.
Old 4th July 2017
  #18
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jupiter8 View Post
But that's just another computer? Which on the other hand is the only real solution to the problem imo.
Yes, it is a whole computer...as small as a creditcard :-)
Old 4th July 2017
  #19
Lives for gear
 
jupiter8's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by fastconcept View Post
Yes, it is a whole computer...as small as a creditcard :-)
It is cool and all but space isn't really the issue here?
Old 4th July 2017
  #20
Lives for gear
 
jupiter8's Avatar
 

There are obviously several ways to go about this but the most sensible solution imo opinion is simply another computer. Then you have the plugins already, you have the economics of scale, standardized equipment, etc. Just connect another computer to your network and go to work. There aren't really any drawbacks compared to other solutions that i see and plenty of advantages.

Now there could be simpler, cheaper solutions softwarewise (built in AES67 support for example) but hardwarewise a computer is hard to beat.
Old 5th July 2017
  #21
Gear Nut
 

Yes, a computer would be the best solution.
Add "Vienna Ensemble Pro' as your plugin host and you have a great powerhouse ;-)

https://www.vsl.co.at/en/Vienna_Soft...a_Ensemble_PRO
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz 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…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump