"A friend" was wondering what the difference between these two synth types really was. He was hoping for some non-technical jargon that didn't mention the actual proprietors of the format but simply explained what the differences between these were. Obviously, I couldn't explain it in such layman terms so that he (or she) could understand so I think that "my friend" is still mystified as to why a plugin has to appear twice in his P5 instrument list...and which would be better to use and why?

I figured it would be beneficial to the new initiates here if someone could explain it to them...er...someone other than me, you know... I don't wanna bore you... and...um...my "friend" would appreciate it too!

oooh...who's your friend DA? is she hot? got any pictures?...........

yep...there goes this thread....

*Sigh... thanks :10:

there are always as many ways to do something as someone can think of. the method referred to as vst/vsti was developed by steinberg the one referred to as dx/dxi was developed by cakewalk. anything developed under these two different specifications will be as good as the programmer's capability in understanding and implementing the specification. generally with specifications one has more to offer one is easier to work with. guess which is which. :-)

not sure if this would help? but it is kinda intresting.

http://www.tweakheadz.com/software_plugins.htm

Micrsoft has a standard DirectX interface for 'media' of all sorts, including sound. I think its up to verson 9. So Cakewalk has this prefernce for dealing with sound devices through the 'native' Windows' interface DirectX, instead of through the standard vst interface specification.

i remeber more than once at early road shows hearing the Cakewalk reps indicate there were advantages to this, but I don't recall any details.

it should be noted that any given host wraps or adapts sound devices in some way to inteact with their host program. Cakewealk chooses to wrap the vst in Microsft's DirectX interface.

I don't know what's gone on with Sonar 5, but it sounds like the wrapper is now somehow attached or linked to the plug more directly so it's more portable. (that's a guess)
And given that OSX is in th efuture the whole wrapping issue must be occupying a few brain cells at CW these days.

ORIGINAL: wrench45us


Micrsoft has a standard DirectX interface for 'media' of all sorts, including sound. I think its up to verson 9. So Cakewalk has this preference for dealing with sound devices through the 'native' Windows' interface DirectX, instead of through the standard vst interface specification.

i remeber more than once at early road shows hearing the Cakewalk reps indicate there were advantages to this, but I don't recall any details.

it should be noted that any given host wraps or adapts sound devices in some way to inteact with their host program. Cakewealk chooses to wrap the vst in Microsft's DirectX interface.

I don't know what's gone on with Sonar 5, but it sounds like the wrapper is now somehow attached or linked to the plug more directly so it's more portable. (that's a guess)
And given that OSX is in the future the whole wrapping issue must be occupying a few brain cells at CW these days.

..and don't forget Longhorn/Vista's Win Fx

ORIGINAL: Brad Abrams
So what’s WinFX? Well, WinFX is an object-oriented API that leverages the .NET framework and exposes the breadth of Longhorn, the breadth of the operating system to developers.

I believe the bakers have already stated that they are on top of this (i don't remember the exact post and I can't find the link for it...), so I'm guessing that since they're going to have to handle the updated MS-API they might as well deal with OSX/AU, no?

ORIGINAL: MurderDethKill
I believe the bakers have already stated that they are on top of this (i don't remember the exact post and I can't find the link for it...)

yeah in this thread

http://forum.cakewalk.com/fb.asp?m=549434

so should I tell my "friend" that zeta, sampletanks, etc should only need the DXi version installed and not both? He/she is sick of having two instruments with the same name showing up in his/her list of plugins.

Will the DXi perform better with P5?

Is there any benefits for latency, stability, etc?

ORIGINAL: Digital Aura

so should I tell my "friend" that zeta, sampletanks, etc should only need the DXi version installed and not both? He/she is sick of having two instruments with the same name showing up in his/her list of plugins.

Will the DXi perform better with P5?

Is there any benefits for latency, stability, etc?

DA,

The probelm is it's all down to the way it's been coded. In reality there is no advantage to DXi over VSTi or the other way round. At the heart of it all they do is define an interface between the host and the DSP (the Digital signal processor at the heart of any synth/FX) So all the standards actually tell you is :

How midi goes in/out
How Audio goes in/out
How GUI controls go in/out.


The stability issues are all down to the programmers and how they interprest the specs of each of them. There should be no or little performance difference as long as the programmers know how to handle the specs right.

So bottom line is some synths will be better in DXi and some in VSTi, it depends on the diligence and skill of the programmers (IMHO).

Andy