|
Woooooooooooooooooooooop!!
|
View this Thread in Original format
| djandymac |
| what is it mate? |
|
|
| Ry Thomas |
| Hopefully the best dsp system going *crosses fingers* |
|
|
| thecYrus |
| they would better release the plugins in native format. cpu has much more power than any UAD-2 will have.. |
|
|
| Ry Thomas |
| They may do mate, exciting times for me, i use UAD as about 80-90% of my fx |
|
|
| Eric J |
| That's some sweetness right there! :) |
|
|
| Zombie0729 |
| i own 2 uad cards, i hope this doesn't make my chipsets useless : / |
|
|
| alanzo |
| quote: | Originally posted by thecYrus
they would better release the plugins in native format. cpu has much more power than any UAD-2 will have.. |
I think releasing their plugins in native format would be good, too. CPUs have so much more power than they did when the UAD-1 came out. For FX, today's multi-core CPUs make processing a non-issue.
But I doubt they're going that route. It may not even be possible for them to compile their code to run exactly the same on a standard x86 CPU. |
|
|
| Zombie0729 |
| quote: | Originally posted by alanzo
I think releasing their plugins in native format would be good, too. CPUs have so much more power than they did when the UAD-1 came out. For FX, today's multi-core CPUs make processing a non-issue.
But I doubt they're going that route. It may not even be possible for them to compile their code to run exactly the same on a standard x86 CPU. |
i think it's a marketing thing too... being native throws them in a sea of competition.
the only company i can think of that might have had a successful leap from dsp to native would be Sonnox? i'd be curious to know if it worked out for them.
i don't know if i just use way too many plugs but there's no way i could use what i do if i didn't have two uad cards. heck Jupiter8v takes up 40% of my quad core when i run it lol. |
|
|
| Eric J |
| quote: | Originally posted by alanzo
I think releasing their plugins in native format would be good, too. CPUs have so much more power than they did when the UAD-1 came out. For FX, today's multi-core CPUs make processing a non-issue.
But I doubt they're going that route. It may not even be possible for them to compile their code to run exactly the same on a standard x86 CPU. |
Another point to add to this is that by running all their plugins off of a DSP card, its a built in copy-protection scheme, removing the need for third party copy protection such as Syncrosoft or iLok. Don't think that doesn't factor into their decision to not release these things natively.
In addition, it makes things a bit easier for the programmers because they can code to one type of chip, instead of having to code to the subtle differences in instruction sets between processor types. They can control the hardware their software is running on, just like Apple, so that makes debugging and performance tuning a bit easier since they are in a controlled environment.
Honestly, I do not think they will ever get away from the DSP card method. This is how they have built their business and I do not see that changing anytime soon.
Personally, I don't think its a huge deal. Whats wrong with having to get a separate DSP card? It's not like most of us are eating up PCI slots with anything else these days. Most of the things that were used in PCI slots like network cards are all built onto the motherboard nowadays. |
|
|
| alanzo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Zombie0729
i don't know if i just use way too many plugs but there's no way i could use what i do if i didn't have two uad cards. heck Jupiter8v takes up 40% of my quad core when i run it lol. |
I suppose it may still be good to have a UAD if you want to save your PC's CPU for VSTis. I don't use those CPU hogging crap fests, though. |
|
|
|
|
