|
New toy.. UAD 2 Solo Neve (Your thoughts on UAD welcomed) (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| evo8 |
| Yeah never understood the latency queries either, i think it affects people more that do recording (not sure if this includes external synths) |
|
|
| Existo22 |
| quote: | Originally posted by evo8
Yeah never understood the latency queries either, i think it affects people more that do recording (not sure if this includes external synths) |
If you are recording vocals and you set up a headphone mix in the virtual mixer there is slight delay between the time you say something and the computer processes it and spits it out for you to hear on your headphones.
That can drive you crazy. This one of those reasons pro tools made a truck load of money because their TDM/HD system is ''live'' you will not notice any latency.
But if you are monitoring through a mixer there is no issue really.
You patch the mic pre to the compressor coz most of the build in preamps kinda suck
to do like 6 bd gain reduction and then after you have configured your patchbay to be half normaled one signal is already going to say channel one of the mixer and then you come out of the front jack without interupting the signal and hook that stuff (see didn't cuss) to the input of the soundcard. Then after you disabled software monitoring you bring the beat out on 2 channels setting your latency to low and hit record and go to town. Set the artist headphone mix add a bit of verb if its a *****... girl (see didn't cuss) and she wanna sound produced in her headphones (helps confidence) and hit record.
There.
Really there is no issue with latency Ritchie just trying to bring some negativity.
Like the UAD-2 dongle adds latency? ORLY?
You forgot to say how it takes the strain off your CPU. It ain't just a dongle.
The Fatso eq eats up a whole UAD-1 card! That would completely rape you native CPU resources at that resolution homeboy. ;) |
|
|
| kitphillips |
Lol.
You buy a dongle with an ancient DSP processor attached to relieve the CPU load, but then if you want usable latencies you'd better be prepared to have a huge CPU load. |
|
|
| Storyteller |
| That's what I was thinking. The UAD's are not as powerfull as one might think. It's just a very clever product which allows you to use some of the better audio-related products the market has to offer. |
|
|
| Existo22 |
| quote: | Originally posted by kitphillips
Lol.
You buy a dongle with an ancient DSP processor attached to relieve the CPU load, but then if you want usable latencies you'd better be prepared to have a huge CPU load. |
Again latency has nothing to do with mixdown latency only comes into play when you are recording vocals and you can compensate for that by adding a small mixer to you set-up. Hell even a DJ mixer will do.
Preamp into compressor compresor out 1 to mixer channel one compressor out two into soundcard input.
Bring the instrumental out on 2 mono mixer channels panned left and right or a stereo mixer channel say channel two give the singer the headphones and hit record. Done.
Again no way in hell you can run something like a fatso with your native CPU.
You can forget about it. 
That will completely rape your CPU.
The question is do you really need all this resolution or can you live with something optimized to run natively? That is a whole other can of worms right there...
But the reason everybody is raving about how good the Universal audio plug-ins sound compared to other manufacturers is precisely because of their modeling approach, their resolution and their price performance ratio. In terms of sound quality they are simply in a league of their own.
Unless you got pro tools TDM/HD nothing in the native world compares. Nothing I tied at least. |
|
|
| kitphillips |
Not everyone uses a compressor to record vocals, not all compressors have two outputs. Why would you stuff around with that crap just so you can have a UAD? Its not worth it for a dongle mate.
And no one is raving about how great they are. Most people are saying that they're a complete waste of time and not better qualty than native. Which when you consider the specs on those cards is probably about true. |
|
|
| DjStephenWiley |
When you look at pricing, then look around at other companies (in particular Waves) UAD gains a huge advantage. I like the fact that you get a card that helps to reduce CPU usage. People who think UAD cards are slow might want to re-think that statement. A UAD 2 Solo can run 6 instances of a very highly powered reverb to its fullest extent. Imagine what that would do to your native CPU??????
Then you look at plug-in pricing versus other companies. The only company I would even consider versus UAD is Sonnox. They're a big competition to UAD from my perspective and they should be. They're products are more traditional and don't really work towards emulating any one thing, but many will argue they beat anything out there when it comes to many things. (In particular their Dynamics plug)
When it comes to elite FX plugs, the choices are somewhat limited if you're really serious and are not interested in working outside the box. You've got Waves, Sonnox, UAD, and a bunch of companies with some "one hit" (sometimes two) wonders. (PSP, Sound Toys, Nomad, etc)
Kinda just gotta weigh it all out. Waves is too expensive for me and I do not like the fact that all the kids have it. I don't care what version they have, they still have the key plug ins and they work well because I've used a cracked mercury before. Sonnox didn't come close to offering the variety that I wanted, thus there was UAD.
Wether it's a surgical EQ, a super tape overloading circuit bending distressor, or a basic snappy compressor, UAD has you covered. Wasn't a difficult decision for me. |
|
|
| Storyteller |
| quote: | Originally posted by kitphillips
And no one is raving about how great they are. Most people are saying that they're a complete waste of time and not better qualty than native. Which when you consider the specs on those cards is probably about true. |
I disagree on this. I hear nothing but goodness about them. Yes it is expensive but I believe the quality of these plugins is (way) above todays plugins standards allthough native plugins are catching up quickly.
| quote: | Originally posted by Existo22
Again no way in hell you can run something like a fatso with your native CPU.
You can forget about it.
That will completely rape your CPU.
The question is do you really need all this resolution or can you live with something optimized to run natively? That is a whole other can of worms right there...
|
The fatso will rape your cpu is a non-argument (aka bull). Everybody who looks into the detailed specs of the UAD processors will see that it's not that special. If they would make it a native plugin it's not that heavy at all.
http://www.analog.com/en/embedded-processing-dsp/SHARC/processors/SHARC_benchmarks/fca.html
There's the reference to back it all up. The fastest SHARC processor is only 450Mhz. My pc has 4 cores running at 3Ghz. Of course there is more that matters in the end but these simple figures obviously prove that a computer processor is worlds apart from the uad's. |
|
|
| Existo22 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Storyteller
I disagree on this. I hear nothing but goodness about them. Yes it is expensive but I believe the quality of these plugins is (way) above todays plugins standards allthough native plugins are catching up quickly.
The fatso will rape your cpu is a non-argument (aka bull). Everybody who looks into the detailed specs of the UAD processors will see that it's not that special. If they would make it a native plugin it's not that heavy at all.
http://www.analog.com/en/embedded-p...hmarks/fca.html
There's the reference to back it all up. The fastest SHARC processor is only 450Mhz. My pc has 4 cores running at 3Ghz. Of course there is more that matters in the end but these simple figures obviously prove that a computer processor is worlds apart from the uad's. |
The thing is this though. When a company puts out a plug-in the put it with the average user in mind. They want to make sure that everybody can run at least a few instances of the plug-in. They don't put it out just for the people with say an 8 core mac maxed out with 32 GB of ram. That could do lots of damage but how many people own one of these tricked out like that :wtf: like what 2% of the market not even that
When a company puts out a native plug-in they are not going to put it out with what can be archived using the latest and greatest technology they put it out with what your average producer can run on his home PC. ;) |
|
|
| Storyteller |
| quote: | Originally posted by Existo22
The thing is this though. When a company puts out a plug-in the put it with the average user in mind. They want to make sure that everybody can run at least a few instances of the plug-in. They don't put it out just for the people with say an 8 core mac maxed out with 32 GB of ram. That could do lots of damage but how many people own one of these tricked out like that :wtf: like what 2% of the market not even that
When a company puts out a native plug-in they are not going to put it out with what can be archived using the latest and greatest technology they put it out with what your average producer can run on his home PC. ;) |
Good to see you can come to `the thing` after your crap talk caught up with you :).
My computer may be a bit above average but the average user surely has a CPU above 1.5Ghz and then these plugins would still be usable! The only reason they (Universal Audio) do what they do is because people used to have too little processing power, and because it acts as a dongle which eliminates the chance of illegal use and protects their market. Having too little processing power is very much a thing of the past if you've bought a proper computer somewhere in the past 2 years.
The only reason these days to buy an UAD card is because you want to use the plugins. Back in the day the saving of CPU might have been an argument too, but not today in most cases. |
|
|
| Existo22 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Storyteller
Good to see you can come to `the thing` after your crap talk caught up with you :).
My computer may be a bit above average but the average user surely has a CPU above 1.5Ghz and then these plugins would still be usable! The only reason they (Universal Audio) do what they do is because people used to have too little processing power, and because it acts as a dongle which eliminates the chance of illegal use and protects their market. Having too little processing power is very much a thing of the past if you've bought a proper computer somewhere in the past 2 years.
The only reason these days to buy an UAD card is because you want to use the plugins. Back in the day the saving of CPU might have been an argument too, but not today in most cases. |
Upgrading functional equipment is not exactly top priority. I know plenty of commercial studios that still run those old pro tools power pc mac hook ups and haven't even gone intel yet because upgrading the whole set-up would cost 15-20k and who the hell got money to burn on bleeding edge digital stuff (see didn't cuss) that is bound to go out of fashion all too quick. And for what? Most people learned their lessons in the 90s when they first bought those 20k hook-ups that couldn't even be even be upgraded. :nervous:
- We want to upgrade our 20k protools rig!
- Nope buy a new one and give us MOAR money.
- Oh.... s... why you **********! :mad:
Plus most dance music is made on home pcs running a sequencer maybe a few hardware maybe all in the box. Reason fruity loops ableton sonar logic cubase and vsts or some hardware synths.
There is a reason why those old DSP synths still sound a bit nicer than the plug-ins although plug-ins these days can sound good too. First reason is resolution second reason is research and development. I for one wouldn't want to spend millions of dollars to develop a product just so it can end up on every torrent site on the face of the planet. |
|
|
| Storyteller |
Well that really doesn't matter since the new UAD has a pci-express connection so it would even fit in the old computer :toothless
The older computers probably do not support USB2 so the usb version of the UAD wouldn't be an option either. |
|
|
|
|
