We can use VST's in Pro Tools using bridge ,patcher or wrappers . But cannot use AAX in other DAW's that isn't PT.
I always thought, why this is the only way and why isn't there any software or plug-in to make this happen. since we can use VST with wrappers ,there should be a way to use AAX in other DAWs too.

Did anyone ever try to make something that'll do it? or thinking about trying it?
or is it just impossible?

 

most aax have vst versions, so whats the point

 

Maybe this?

 

Most , not all, thats the point

 

Err, did you link warez??? That's a no-go here. From the rules 'Linking to, requesting or trading Warez is strictly prohibited'. Unless you're keen for a warning, I'd delete the link.

 

but you can state rls name but no links

 

Using Juce it's relatively easy to host VST/VST3/AU plugins inside another plugin but there's no support for hosting AAX.
Not even Blue Cat's Audio PatchWork can do this.

So I guess it's hard whether for technical or legal reasons.

 

Last edited: Jul 21, 2020

Dunno if it is for technical reasons (also) but i can tell for sure its for legal reasons.

 

It is for Avid reasons.

 

I guess now we know what kind of avid stands this company for.
JUST GET ME MORE MONEEEEEEEYYYYY

 

ik it's for legal reasons that there is no application for hosting AAX files in DAW's other than PT . i wanted to know if anyone ever tried to make something like that for personal use, if its possible or not.

 

Definitely legal reasons. Avid doesn't allow you to upload their code anywhere on sites like Github. It states clearly that their code should be used only for serious purposes and not educational/experimental causes. You need to have an account and agree to a ton of licenses to even make your own plugin. You cannot nake a host from their SDK.
There have been attempts in the past to make AAX->VST2/3 wrappers. Infact you can easily make a VST3 plugin run in PT like an AAX without adding much code and by using Patchwork etc. Internally a wrapper is used but I guess its much faster than using Patchwork.

 

were the attempts unsuccessful? using AAX as VST's ?

 

Sugar bytes did release TransVST but it was taken down thanks to Avid. Avid wants AAX to be PT-only. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.soundonsound.com/techniques/angelic-hosts?amp

 

When Avid had the idea to encrypt the AAX interface, they thought about that.
We lock out cracked plugins, but what if some blokes come around with vst to aax wrappers and
people start using vst instead of AAX. So they started suing companies that built wrappers,
saying it's against avids policy.
TransVST as mentioned is still out there, but its old and abandoned that for.

 

TransVST doesn't probably support AAX 64 bit

 

The way the article is written and you have quoted it, is out of context. TransVST was a wrapper to use VSTs in ProTools and not the other way around as the writer incorrectly implies. Indeed, Avid's Director of Partnering Programs, Ed Gray, explained: "We do not plan on supporting utilities that convert VST plug‑ins into AAX plug‑ins or load VST plug‑ins directly into the AAX plug‑in menu. TransVST was a VST to AAX Adaptor. Those of us with the original Sugar Bytes release can confirm that. Therefore, let us be clear here. There is not, and never was, a wrapper that will convert AAX to VSTs.

Edit: I would like to add that as much as some hate Avid, I believe that it did the right thing. A wrapper is not going to be as efficient as a native plugin. Therefore, by forcing developers to support AAX versions of their plugins, Avid is making sure that its users are getting the best (while Avid stays alive). Killing two birds with one shot.

 

Last edited: Jul 22, 2020

@The Pirate Ok, so isn't Bluecat's Patchwork any different? Also Steinberg provides a way to wrap in a VST3 plugin into an AAX. What Avid doesn't allow is, VST plugins acting like AAX without informing the host (Pro Tools). That's what they hate. VST3 works this around by letting the host know that a particular AAX is indeed a wrapped VST3. The same cannot be done with a VST2. Architecture-wise VST3 and AAX are very similar.

It forces devs to support AAX to earn more $$$. No other reason. And no way is VST3 inferior to AAX. VST3 is more like Android and AAX is like iOS here. One is universal, open and other one is confidental and expensive.

 

I didn't say that bro, you said it. What I said was, "making sure that its users are getting the best." As in not having to depend on wrappers. What would you rather use in Pro Tools, AAX or wrapped vst? It was a brilliant move on Avid's part. Indeed, as I said earlier it is the only way that Avid could, and can survive. Avid knows that it has cornered the market when it comes to professional commercial facilities. The owners, we have invested so much in Avid that we can't simply switch to another platform. We are not talking about switching from Ableton to Studio One here. That will cost us costs us a couple of hundred dollars, and even as low as $15 per month. Avid platform is a different animal. We are talking tens of thousands of dollars here. On the other hand, every developer knows that we will pay for their software. So it has worked to the benefit of Avid and the other developers, too. Who can afford $600 plugins if not for the commercial facilities? Accordingly, by developing AAX the developers are ensured a shot at the big money-spending sector of the market. At the end, Avid does have everyone grabbed by their balls. It is what it is.

 

Avid's main source of income isn't Pro Tools anyways and they have tons of other software/hardware to get money. So what does a company ideally do when its product isn't making much money? Find more audience, ease up their shitty license, they tried that with Pro Tools | First, but Avid being Avid, put up a 3 project limitation with cloud save only. Somewhere recently I read they added local save option as well, since they couldn't afford the cost of keeping just 3 projects on cloud. Hell, you get like 15gb free for a google account.
Microsoft was like Avid until Satya Nadella, when he started open sourcing a lot of code and realized that Windows wasn't a cash cow. By doing such things, the only thing Avid is doing is losing audience slowly. Most music today isn't made in Pro Tools anyway. Avid thinks it will be difficult to pirate plugins and their host by digitally signing.

Completely wrong. It should go like, "Accordingly, by developing AAX the devs need to spend like 500+ bucks/year/plugin to ensure a shot at that sector in the market, in which your flexing shows your fame (Famous singers, rappers, ...). At the end, Avid has been punched in its balls by seeing cracked version of Pro Tools." It is impossible to make your plugins cheap/free if you want AAX.