TC Powercore+ Vegas Audio

SHTUNOT wrote on 12/14/2001, 5:30 PM
I wrote an email to TC's tech support page about the TC Powercore and if/when they be supporting Direct X applications,there answer was...

Hi Eddie,

thanks for your mail.

There are remote plans to support DirectX, but this will definitely take some time and most important: this is no promise. Up until then, you could try the workaround via VST-Wrappers, but we do not officially support them, because some of them are really improperly programmed.

I commented on which VST wrappers "were" properly programmed and they responded...
"Properly programmed" was probably a translation error... ; -)

We have in fact tested POWERCORE 1.5 with FXPansions VST Wrapper, and it works. We did not test automation, by the way.

One of the factors in our decision to delay a DirectX version of POWERCORE is that very few Windows applications have Automatic Compensation Compensation. We do provide a Compensation Plug-In, but this too requires a wrapper, as it is currently VST.

I hope this helps!
Best Regards!

Not sure what in the hell "Automatic Compensation Compensation" IS but I hope the techs in the R+D department might have a clue. If SOFO gives a little in development[meets them somewhere in the middle] + the new VST wrapper upgrade from FXpansion [3.2] comes out in "late december?". Between the two of them if this can be accomplished it would mean a big boom in sales of Vegas Audio 3 IMHO!!!

The newest fad which I don't feel will be leaving us anytime soon will be DSP accelerator cards. Right now Vst compatible applications have the edge and will remain retaining even a larger portion of the market because of the quality of the plugins. I hope that something is being done about this as we speak. I can understand if 5.1 audio isn't added into the next upgrade, or even midi [sorry guys not really necessary here though would be nice :)],among other things...not too many I hope...but to leave out something like this would lack forward thinking in the audio department "bigtime". Out of any of the new advancments going on in the development of VA3 this should really be up in the top 5!!!
If incorporating VST would hurt the program than something like this might be a better alternative. Any other opinions? Later.

Comments

SHTUNOT wrote on 12/18/2001, 6:22 PM
I'm bumping this thread to keep everyone aware of whats going on audio wise. This would greatly improve sales in both the video field as well as audio. Imagine having a video with 40 or so tracks of audio[some stereo!!!] and having your system running solid because the dsp being used for the audio isn't hitting the host processor at all...the dsp card is doing all the work. Using plugins that compare and even excedes the quality of "Protools" plugins by the way. You can imagine how much more important it is to an audio engineer/producer...All the other forums like Cubase,logic,etc...are buzzing with how good the quality is. Something to sleep on...hope the kind fokes at SOFO are reading this. Later.
pwppch wrote on 12/19/2001, 7:31 AM
I have been in contact with the vendors of these DSP hardware solutions - though they don't want to respond it seems. I have also been following most of the formums on the Web about these cards. (I even noticed you haunting one of these.)

The problem is all of this "auto latency compensation" crap that is being demanded by the plugins.

The horror stories of adding plugin compensation filters to tracks or sliding tracks forward is ludicrous! The filter should add NO latency - i.e. introduct silence. The host should just deal with any buffering issues that a plug in introduces.

Yuck and not needed!!!!

The DSP hardware vendors are developing for VST with all the baggage and design issues of Cubase/Nuenedo. NONE of this has to be this way. A properly implemented host engine can and SHOULD deal with plugin latency because the plugin should not introduce any.

Bottom line: A properly implemented plugin and its host application do not need to do any of this.

Note that many of the Waves plugins insert silence at the beginning of their processing. THEY DONT HAVE TO DO THIS. In fact, they shouldn't be doing this.

There is no need for any kind of auto compenstation when a plugin is written correctly according to the DShow filter spec.

We shall see if the hardware DSP vendors can develope DX plugs that follow the specification correctly. I have offered to help any way I can.

Peter




SHTUNOT wrote on 12/19/2001, 11:44 AM
Thanks pete...appreciate the response on this topic. Its funny how great the argument is when it comes to VST or DX implementation. You probably saw my post at Universal Audios site. I commented on why they didn't make a direct x plugin and only vst. I wasn't happy with the response because what I hear from you guys and from them "contradict" each other greatly.Plus I never got an intelligent answer. Just that they are developing first for mac THEN DX. I'm trusting you guys on this one though. I've been told that vst is more efficient, stable,blah blah blah...and yet they can't seem to get it stable using windows 2000 or XP. We're talking async distortion,pops and clicks,etc...Works fine for some with certain hardware,but for most are only able to get 40-50% out of their card. I hope that you guys are at least in contact with Angus at FXpansion...there is a update to their vst-dx wrapper coming out in december sometime. I wonder if he made any headway in getting this stuff worked out.

What is your take on VST in general...why is it so bad, so much baggage,etc...thanks. Later.
pwppch wrote on 12/19/2001, 2:13 PM
What is your take on VST in general...why is it so bad, so much baggage,etc...thanks. Later.
>
SHTUNOT wrote on 12/19/2001, 3:47 PM
The problem with any plugin architecture is that the weakest link causes the rest of the links to be just as weak. One bad plug in and things start to break.-SonicPCH.

So then if I invested in FXpansions VST wrapper and used in it in conjunction with any SOFO product...Would I be adding a "weakest link" to the chain? Will I be taking the stability of my system in my own hands in doing so. Never heard much on the side of crashes,instability,problems using the wrappers. If a problem comes up I just turn it off...or maybe just having it in my system is bad enough? If not then just being able to use it here and there would be good enough for me...HMMMMM...interesting. Thankyou for taking the time to explain it. Later.
pwppch wrote on 12/19/2001, 9:59 PM
So then if I invested in FXpansions VST wrapper and used in it in conjunction with any SOFO product...Would I be adding a "weakest link" to the chain? Will I be taking the stability of my system in my own hands in doing so. Never heard much on the side of crashes,instability,problems using the wrappers. If a problem comes up I just turn it off...or maybe just having it in my system is bad enough? If not then just being able to use it here and there would be good enough for me...HMMMMM...interesting. Thankyou for taking the time to explain it. Later.
>
SHTUNOT wrote on 12/20/2001, 12:54 AM
That sounds really interesting. I'm definitely going to use the UAD-1[universal audio] after they have upgraded to a stable win2k/XP drivers for the card. If there is a problem I can just go and use my copy of cubase 5.1 to do certain mixes. Though it would be nice to only have to use 1 program instead of a bunch. Drop a line to FXpansion and see if Angus and you guys could work something out[ie:deveopment wise]. Or maybe include it in your package like the VMR. Thanks again dude. Later.
SHTUNOT wrote on 12/21/2001, 1:47 AM
One more idea before I go to bed...There are alot of third party players designing plugins for it. Since everyone is concentrating on the VST aspect of it...Why not be the first to Implement DX plugins then. If ya want something dun right...do it yourself!!! This way you guys benefit from the DSP boost in plugins...and people using VST/dx apps[cubase/logic/etc...] will also use it as well. Can you just imagine what you could do with the noise reduction package,or wavehammer. Acoustic Mirror would be scary!!!!!!!! Crap it already is!!! Just a thought. Later.
Rhythmystik wrote on 12/21/2001, 3:33 AM
Hi Peter,

Thanks for chiming in on this topic.

>Note that many of the Waves plugins insert silence at the beginning of their processing. THEY DONT HAVE TO DO THIS. In fact, they shouldn't be doing this.

Can you expand on this a bit? Is this "silence" that the Waves plug-ins insert something that would affect the audio output in a way that we should be concerned with or is it something completely internal?

-Kenny