Why is there MAS?

[contigoni]

This isn't meant as a Zen question or a challenge. I mean I really, genuinely don't know why MAS has been carried over into OS X and Core Audio.

It seems to me, from an admittedly uninformed point of view, that it's an overlay of a sound handling system on a sound handling system and I can't see any way that could do otherwise than complicate things.

If there's a good sound reason for it (pun intended) I'd honestly like to know.

<small>[ August 08, 2005, 04:26 PM: Message edited by: contigoni ]</small>

[glmusic]

My guess is that MAS will disappear in the next incarnation of DP. It will go to VST / AU format and become more efficient in its handlling of VI's as that is the future of the DAW. Of course, this is just speculation, but it is competing with Live 5 and others and I think the big rewrite for Intel will bring about streamlined code and an end to the MAS portion of DP.

[qo]

My (admittedly limited) understanding of MAS is that it handles more than DP's interface with the outside world. It also handles internal routing within DP. For example, it's what makes DP's flexible routing architecture possible. It is DP's internal audio engine and, as such, can't be replaced. I'm sure it could be trimmed down if e.g. MOTU removed MAS plugin support, or dropped their internal support for multiple devices. But, let's look at these two:

1. MAS plugin support.

Most vendors write proprietary plugins for their DAW. This provides a bit of value-add to get the first-time user up and running with at least the basic necessities. You might ask "That's all fine, but why make these plugins proprietary?" And the answer to that is that you don't want plugins that are developed as a product differentiator to be used in the competition's products since this takes away the value they add to your product. <off topic>Apple, IMHO, has taken this arms race to a whole new level since the non-AU plugins they provide with Logic go WAY beyond basic necessities.</off topic>

2. Internal Aggregate Device support.

Currently, DP runs only on OSX. And, if MOTU had no plans ever to port to e.g. Windows, then internal AgDev support could safely be removed. But, this internal support might come in very handy if porting DP to a different OS. So, I bet MOTU keeps it. They'll certainly keep it in the short term simply because OSX 10.2/10.3 don't support AgDev, and many of MOTU's customers haven't upgraded to Tiger.

MAS as Marketing Term

But, really, MAS is a Marketing Term more than it is a single thing you can point your finger at. It's convenient to describe something like MOTU Audio System as a single coherent thing. In reality, I'm sure MAS isn't a single coherent thing. It's a bunch of code, split up between DP and MOTU's drivers. CoreAudio is an API. MAS is a vendor's implementation of an "audio system" which, in all likelihood, incorporates a lot of calls to CoreAudio.

[Shooshie]

Because there are legacy files by the tens of thousands? I don't know. I really don't know what makes MAS different (better, worse, other) than DAE or any other. It was the first to be sample accurate. That means it was the first to be in phase with itself, too. Which means it probably has been sounding better, longer.

I did a DAW shootout in Las Vegas back in 2001, between Digital Performer and Soundscape, which was a Pro-Tools-like DSP-based system that was highly rated on PCs at the time. A panel of about 5 music/audio professionals judged. We had all I/O factors exactly equal. The only differences started and stopped with the audio interfaces and DAWs. Playback was double-blind. In the end, all five of us chose DP, which stunned everyone in the room, all of whom were certain that Soundscape would be a slam dunk, being orders of magnitude more expensive. Maybe MAS really is a better sytem. I don't know.

Incidentally, one very cool factor (not considered in the judging) was that for every operation, I was done in a few seconds, while the poor fellow running Soundscape would sometimes clunk through menus, windows, and clicks for a minute or more. These guys were music directors and audio directors for two of the very top shows in Las Vegas, and were accustomed to systems in which price was never even a consideration. Best-in-the-world systems. They walked out of there with a tremendous respect for Digital Performer, and to my knowledge, they never bad-mouthed it again.

I don't know what role MAS plays in all that, but I suspect it's major.

Shooshie