Native vs DSP Powered Plug-Ins

[Pronecobra]

I was watching a internal mixing tutorial in which the instructor explained that DSP powered plug-ins like those found in Duende or the UAD can produce better results than Native plug-ins that rely on the CPU. Is this true? Even if the DSP powered plug-ins are faster, are not the end results the same? Or does the processor for the DSP powered plug-ins achieve results superior to Native software regardless of whether or not it achieves these results quickly or slowly?

Also, does anyone know if something like the Duende or the UAD Express Card works well during tracking, not just mixing? It would be great if you could use the SSL channel strip in Duende (or the like) on the on every track during tracking, then it would be like you really did have an SSL console (well, sort of . . you know what I mean).

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

P.Cobra

"I am my own Father" - Dad/Son

[thermos]

I don't agree with that at all. There are great native solutions out there. Uad and Duende are actually less useful for tracking than native solutions (though its not recommended to track monitoring through native plugs either).

That being said, duende sounds great, but is buggy as all hell. Doesn't sound exactly like an analog ssl (from my memory) but is very nice. Uad stuff is cool, but the cards are stupidly underpowered for the plugins they support. Good sounding plugs though.

[BuzzaB]

I think he is generalising, but it is true to an extent.

The reason being a lot of plug-in manufactures that code native (especially reverbs) are forced to cut corners so that you can run lots of the plugin on a typical cpu , i.e on many systems, not just the latest dual cores. otherwise their plugins would not sell as well.

DSP plugins do not have this concern as their CPU (the DSP chip) is only doing one dedicated job, e.g. not running windows and all its 30+ backround proceses! Also the plugin is coded for a known platform (i.e. 48bit fixed point Sharc Chip Bla) so more power (quality) can be used than if they were coding to run on XP32bit, Vista32/64bit, Mac IBM, Mac Intel OSX 10.2, 10.3, 10.4 Etc.............

In general you can guarantee DSP based plugs are 90% fantastic,
where as of all the Native one out there its totally hit'n'miss, maybe 10% are as fantastic (there are a lot of S**T native plugs out there)

However (before the inevitable backlash to that comment) it must be said, good native plugs are getting more and more common with the increasing power of computers now. 48 and 64bit are becoming day-to-day useable.

I have 2xUADs , 2xP/cores a liquid Mix, and the native plugs which match them for quality IMO are Waves, Sonnox (previously DSP only), McDSP, some Voxengo, some convolution reverbs....

so choose wisely and you can do it! (with a decent machine)

[BuzzaB]

oh and by the way Duende is not supposed to be an analog SSL, its the same chip from their digital console so its a mimic of that.

I really don't see the point though I must say, everyone who's asked I'm sure would rather have an analog one (the same that we've been hearing on records for the past 30 years!), than their own digital emulation of their own digital desk that emulates their analog one!!! WHAT!!!!

....And thats why I chose Liquid Mix instead! (not exactly an SSL, but a lot more analog!)

[Boogle]

Originally Posted by BuzzaB

oh and by the way Duende is not supposed to be an analog SSL, its the same chip from their digital console so its a mimic of that.

I really don't see the point though I must say, everyone who's asked I'm sure would rather have an analog one (the same that we've been hearing on records for the past 30 years!), than their own digital emulation of their own digital desk that emulates their analog one!!! WHAT!!!!

....And thats why I chose Liquid Mix instead! (not exactly an SSL, but a lot more analog!)

I've been really interested in Duende and now Liquid Channel. Demos on focusrite site are useless imho. Could you tell us more about your experience?

[kaki putih]

Originally Posted by BuzzaB

I have 2xUADs , 2xP/cores a liquid Mix, and the native plugs which match them for quality IMO are Waves, Sonnox (previously DSP only), McDSP, some Voxengo, some convolution reverbs....

Wow, you are my man!!!!!

I have worked with UAD plugins on a PC in Cubase SX 3 a while ago and LOVED them. At the moment I don't have any recording gear, but I ordered a MacBook Pro with Logic Pro to get started again. However, here in Germany they have an incredible problem getting these machines delivered, I am already waiting for more than a month and slowly start to get tired of waiting. In my mind I have three scenarios coming up...

1. Wait still for the MacBook Pro, run it with a FW interface (thought of Mackie Onyx 400F or TC Konnekt 24D) and get Liquidmix and UAD-Xpander Extreme for DSP. Problem: Don't know if I am satisfied with the power of only one UAD card. Liquidmix might offer me many good plugs to substitute / complement UAD plugs, but - I have not tried Liquidmix yet, don't know how good it sounds.

2. Get a Mac Pro instead, forget about portability, and run it with the same interface but get 2 UAD-1e (Extreme and Express Pak). Lots more power for the plugs I already know and used before and love. Problem: More expensive, only UAD plugs.

3. Get a Macbook (no Pro), run it with a USB 2.0 audio interface (thought of MotU 828 Mk2 USB, maybe tuned by this Black Lion Audio guy), and use the FW for Liquidmix and get a good native plugin collection. Maybe Waves Platinum Bundle or the Sonnox Sixpack. Problem: No UAD (sniff!!!). But: Cheaper and very portable. (If that works I would try the FW interface instead of the MotU and connect the Liquidmix to the second FW port of the interface, but don't know if that will run without problems).

Which one of these options would you recommend, knowing / owning all these plugs? (Of courseI don't expect a hundred percent answer... but useful hints like "Liquidmix and Waves / Sonnox are no substitute for the quality of the UAD" or "2 units on one FW port of the Macbook don't work" or "Liquidmix and UAD would be better than two UAD cards"... maybe you can give some advice of that kind...? Please...!)

[BuzzaB]

Hi Boogle, Yeah focusrite's demo's are poo aren't they. by the way, you do mean Liquid Mix, not Channel don't you?

I must ask what you have already, have you used UAD because its easiest to compare with that?

[BuzzaB]

Hi Kaki, Thats certainly a tough one.

I'm leaning to your second option, I think if you want the quality and power of this set up then you should sacrifice portability.
Plus that would be your only sacrifice, although you will only have UAD plugs to start with (no bad thing), you can add any of the others at a later date (like I did!)

As general advice:
I don't think you'll get away with 2 firewire devices on the same bus,
Sonnox are very good, def get these at some point, I have the EQ, Dynamics, Transmod, inflator. Use them all at some point on every mix nearly! (and not just 'cause I got 'em!)
Waves are always safe imo, and I use the word 'safe' on purpose. They're all generally good, but none really stood out as 'wow' like UAD do (perhaps maybe the SSL, haven't tried API bundle yet)

Now the big one, Liquid Mix. had it for 9 months now, its the same 'vintage/boutique' slant as UAD.
Its strengths are that the whole sampling approach does mean that you get the 'flavour' of the box in question, in a dynamic sense too, not like those static samples you find on noisevault etc. they saturate in a very real way (when they're supposed to). Theres not much in the EQ's between the two, though you can hear a slight more openess in the upsampled EQ's on the UAD. (Pultec, Neve nonSE), however a UAD cannot run 1/20 as many on one card, this is the real plus with LM. where it does fall down is the compressors, they sound great in terms of colour, but they don't 'behave' as well as the UAD's. Though some are better than others, and there are 40 to choose from!

hope this helps yas

[kaki putih]

Originally Posted by BuzzaB

hope this helps yas

It helps lots, thanks!

One question again about the two units on one FW bus... I have read here many times that the two FW ports on the MB Pro "share the same FW bus". Wouldn't that mean that it should also be unsuitable for connecting an audio interface and a DSP box (or external FW HDD or whatever)? I know from other posts that people use their MBP exactly that way, so I am confused - should it work or not??

Anyway, it seems like the Macbook is the worst option. I think the decision will be to wait a bit longer and still get a Macbook Pro (I really want portability, I love to have my stuff with me on the road and while traveling), I will simply wait until October and get the MBP already with the new OS X. Then I have portability, and with a UAD-Xpander and a Liquidmix I don't have to fear to run out of processing power.

From how you describe it I think this setup is ideal for me - with the Liquidmix I have lots of processing power with already quite good quality, and for the tracks where I need that extra plus of quality (like main vocals... or e.g. I LOVED the UAD-1's 1176LN on snare drums!!!) I have the UAD-Xpander.

Again, thanks a lot - this has helped me / will help me make future decisions!

[tamasdragon]

Today, this dsp card is better thing is really a marketing thing. Count some. Todays 2core and quad core cpu's are much more powerful than the most of the dsp cards. If you properly use and maintain a computer, than os does not stress your cpu, so more than enough is ready to process the plugins.
Not to mention that dsp can act actually as a big nice dongle.
Tamas Dragon

[island-dave]

I've got a powerbook and since it comes with one fw400 and one fw800 connection (and 2 usb 1.1 connections) I bought a PCIMCIA card on ebay that has 2 fw400 ports and 2 usb 2.0 jacks. now i can connect all kinds of stuff to it. just something to think about.
also, i think i only paid about $15 including shipping!





Dave

[TonyBelmont]

Originally Posted by Pronecobra

I was watching a internal mixing tutorial in which the instructor explained that DSP powered plug-ins like those found in Duende or the UAD can produce better results than Native plug-ins that rely on the CPU. Is this true?

NOT TRUE!

[flatfinger]

There is hardware and there is the code that utilizes it. The guys who right the code for the dsp cards could just as well be writing bloated, cycle hog crap algo's as the guys who write the native code. Really , unless you have pluggs on EVERY TRACK , how much effects do you need , plus you can always freezs, Geeze, your all DSP addicts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[waltermusik]

Hi!

I agree with some "native is better than DSP card" statements in previous posts such as:

1. the "dongle" thing: DSP card effects can not as easily be ported to other computers as native effects.
2. The performances of CPUs have increased more rapidly than those of most of the available DSP cards.
3. The quality of the effects rather depend on good coding than on the HW they run on (given we talk about pure SW effects). I guess there are more developers for native plugins than for DSP card based plugins. Though owning and loving a UAD-1 card, I find myself increasingly using native plugins recently, for there just are so many.

Well and there is also the issue of latency and possible PCI bus overload. I never use UAD-based effects while recording; I always have some native effects for that.

Some reasons pro DSP card are:

1. The DSP card based plugins are usually coded by full time pros. I have not heard any DSP card effect that is just crap. Some effects one may like or need are available on DSP cards only, so the SW may be a reason to buy the HW.
2. You can avoid/delay a PC HW Upgrade, which may be a cost advantage. Also, the energy consumption / heat topic is worth thinking about. Adding a UAD-1 to my old PIII machine made its power consumption rise from ca. 60 to 70 Watts. My new E6600 machine runs at 118 Watts idle power, which requires extra cooling, causing extra noise.
3. A DSP card is capable of exactly reporting the degree to which it is "loaded". When I use too many native plugins, the sound begins to crackle and get dropouts. When I use too much DSP card power, it will warn me "your card is > 95% loaded". BTW, even though my CPU has much more computing power than my UAD, I'd never dare load my CPU up to 95%.

Cheers, Thomas

[Pronecobra]

Originally Posted by BuzzaB

oh and by the way Duende is not supposed to be an analog SSL, its the same chip from their digital console so its a mimic of that.

That is true. They plug ins in Duende are just like the software within SSl's digital consoles. However, the software within the digital console was based on SSL's analog EQ's and compressors. The propaganda on Duende is pretty clear about what analog models the plug-ins are modeled after: G series mix bus compressor, the EQ is switchable between E series and I think G series EQ's.


I wonder if Duende could be used for tracking? I read an ad about the version 2 software for liquid mix that said that the new software increased the machines power making the Liquid Mix a candidate for tracking work. I have my reservations as to whether or not this is true but they say they lowered latency substantially.

When I look at some thing like a Waves SSl channel strip plug, it seems to be begging to be utilized during tracking! You know, mild compression and a high pass filter with a little touch of SSL color, nothing crazy but an alternative to bringing an entire rack to a session. I would love it if there was a DSP based processor powerful enough for tracking .

[zul_nalury]

Sorry off topic - Kaki_Putih = means White leg (translated). Bisa berbahasa melayu? Where your from?

[Lagerfeldt]

Originally Posted by Pronecobra

I was watching a internal mixing tutorial in which the instructor explained that DSP powered plug-ins like those found in Duende or the UAD can produce better results than Native plug-ins that rely on the CPU. Is this true?

Again, like many before me: not true.

[Bo Jorgen]

Originally Posted by Lagerfeldt

Again, like many before me: not true.

Be that as it may.

But the UAD and Poco plugs ain't native. Yet.

[Daniel Antix]

Originally Posted by Boogle

I've been really interested in Duende and now Liquid Channel. Demos on focusrite site are useless imho. Could you tell us more about your experience?

i love my LM, best thing i have bought this year.

[sonicdefault]

From the research I've done, I've personally concluded there is no major quailty difference between most card based DSP plugs and their Native counterparts. As far as programmers being faced with limitations while coding... that goes both ways. This itself is kind of a misnomer, especially when you consider that the biggest complaint you hear in regards to card based systems, is limited instance count. It seems pretty plain to me that Native is the future. One only needs to consider what's going on over at Intel to figure that out. There may be a spot in the marketplace for DSP to remain viable, but IMO these systems will be more of a luxury than a necessity when it comes to quality.

[Igotsoul4u]

+1 for there being no sonic difference unless you want to get into a latency discussion.

[Confusionator]

If someone were to tell me how to get UAD quality via native plugins, I'd ditch my two UAD-1 cards.

However, I have yet to hear any native plugins that sound like the UAD 1176LN and LA2A. I would absolutely not want to mix without those two plugins.

[TonyBelmont]

Originally Posted by Confusionator

If someone were to tell me how to get UAD quality via native plugins, I'd ditch my two UAD-1 cards.

However, I have yet to hear any native plugins that sound like the UAD 1176LN and LA2A. I would absolutely not want to mix without those two plugins.

Here's the easiest way... Go to the following website: Unique Recording Software Home Page and download the Channel Strip Pro demo. Install it... and then try it with an open mind.

It will not sound exactly like your UAD plugins. But, I don't think anyone can argue that it is at least of the same quality... A lot of guys in the other thread were saying it's 1176 & LA2A models "blow the UAD away".

Decide for yourself.

[George Necola]

we did an A/B shootout of the sonnox (sony oxford) plugins, and we did a NULL test.. result was null.

there is no diffrence between the DMX-R100 and the native plugins, besides faders and nice controlsurface

UAD still has some very good pluggos. I think they could been released on a normal CPU.

cheers

[kaki putih]

Originally Posted by zul_nalury

Sorry off topic - Kaki_Putih = means White leg (translated). Bisa berbahasa melayu? Where your from?

Halo Zul,

aku dari Jerman, tapi istriku dari Indonesia
(For the rest of you guys: I am German, but my wife is Indonesian.)

She is Ambonese, so she is very tanned, and I am quite a pale guy. Once we were sitting in my parents-in-law's house in Palmerah Barat in Jakarta, and they all found funny how white my feet are... therefore the nickname.

Saya nga bisa belajar bahasa Indonesia bagus... (I hope this was half way correct!)... just enough not to starve there...

Puji Tuhan!

[kaki putih]

Originally Posted by Confusionator

If someone were to tell me how to get UAD quality via native plugins, I'd ditch my two UAD-1 cards.

However, I have yet to hear any native plugins that sound like the UAD 1176LN and LA2A. I would absolutely not want to mix without those two plugins.

Ok, back on topic - that's exactly why I am so keen on this card. I mean, let's find parallels UAD and Native... there are some things like UAD Precision Limiter - Sonnox Limiter, UAD Cambridge - Sonnox EQ, UAD Dreamverb - Sonnox Reverb... on the vintage emulation side, there might be UAD Neve stuff - Waves V-Series... but what about replacements for UAD's 1176, LA-2A, and Fairchild? Is there any native "substitue"? I love their sound and colour...

[thermos]

Originally Posted by Confusionator

If someone were to tell me how to get UAD quality via native plugins, I'd ditch my two UAD-1 cards.

However, I have yet to hear any native plugins that sound like the UAD 1176LN and LA2A. I would absolutely not want to mix without those two plugins.

As Tony said, UAD Channel strip pro. Done and done and done. For me I will never use those uad plugs ever again.

[preben]

Inspired by George's null-test I just did the same here in Logic/Powercore - and with the same results: they cancel out 100% on eq as well as dynamics.

Interestingly enough the Inflator doesn't cancel out 100% but it's VERY close.

Now, the mad thing is I still feel there's a difference in sound of t he eq and comp. when I use them in a mix.

I KNOW it doens't make sense and in all honesty I feel much the same as I did when I thought OSX sounded better than OS9 but was too embarrassed to say so

[kaki putih]

Originally Posted by thermos

As Tony said, UAD Channel strip pro. Done and done and done. For me I will never use those uad plugs ever again.

Eh... I think I am right to assume you meant URS Channel strip pro, not UAD Channel strip pro...? Anyway, yes, sorry, I must have overlooked Tony's post regarding it. And had a look at the URS page. Seems like all the desired models are included there (1176LN, LA2A, Fairchild...).

Sounds to me like Sonnox for non-vintage and URS CPS together make a very fine combination that makes DSP plugins quite unnecessary... oh, by the way... (now you can all throw stones at me...) is the Waves Platinum Bundle not a good native option? It seems to have also quite a complete all-in-one package except for vintage emu stuff, and some guys here found obviously the sound quality of Waves plugs really good...? What would you prefer - Sonnox Sixpack Bundle or Waves Platinum? (helmet and body armour -ON-)

[macleodgrant]

Originally Posted by kaki putih

Eh... I think I am right to assume you meant URS Channel strip pro, not UAD Channel strip pro...? Anyway, yes, sorry, I must have overlooked Tony's post regarding it. And had a look at the URS page. Seems like all the desired models are included there (1176LN, LA2A, Fairchild...).

Sounds to me like Sonnox for non-vintage and URS CPS together make a very fine combination that makes DSP plugins quite unnecessary... oh, by the way... (now you can all throw stones at me...) is the Waves Platinum Bundle not a good native option? It seems to have also quite a complete all-in-one package except for vintage emu stuff, and some guys here found obviously the sound quality of Waves plugs really good...? What would you prefer - Sonnox Sixpack Bundle or Waves Platinum? (helmet and body armour -ON-)

i have all the sonnox, waves gold and soundtoys and feel that i have all bases covered.
i also have the v-series, duy everpack and duy tape but could live without them though the everpack & v-series is very nice