Is Duende Native Real? SSL speaks...

[fragletrollet]

Any crossgrades for MX4 users? Would be very handy to insert the plugins in DAW-strips directly

[clonewar]

Originally Posted by shelllink

I have much DSP cards (UAD, TC PowerCore FW, SonicCore, SSL Duende classic) There is a big difference between Native plugins and Dsp plugins. And because of it I also have not update to the driver 3 SSL Duende. It is a pity that team SSL have chosen an easy way for a solution of a problem with DUENDE. Many because of it can't use more especial sound DSP SSL plugins.

[djanthonyw]

Originally Posted by clonewar

+1 x1000

[Entrainer]

Originally Posted by clonewar

I thought there was some merit to this. Am I wrong?
I remember reading about the Softube CL1B emulation
on Powercore sounding better than the native version
and then reading a technical description of why it was
true.

I would think code is code, except when it's different
code. Even on game systems, two platforms will have
a different quality due to hardware optimization.

[Coyoteous]

Current US prices from the SSL store:

X-Verb plug-in for Duende - $389.00
X-EQ plug-in for Duende - $370.00
X-Comp plug-in for Duende - $295.00
Drumstrip Plug-in for Duende - $175.00
Vocalstrip plug-in for Duende - $399.00
Duende Mini Bus Compressor Upgrade - $370.00

Note the last item as a possible gauge for the channel strip price.

I think a lot of people paid a lot less with the consolation sales, etc.

I believe SSL will need to come down on most of these to be competitive.

They also need to keep the perceived value high for legacy hardware owners.

See how this post kind of has the shape of a Mayan Pyramid, if this line is longer?

[dotl]

Originally Posted by Entrainer

I remember reading about the Softube CL1B emulation
on Powercore sounding better than the native version
and then reading a technical description of why it was
true.

I would think code is code, except when it's different
code. Even on game systems, two platforms will have
a different quality due to hardware optimization.

Better? I wouldn't say so. Different? Not that much...at least i can't hear the difference:

[xj32]

Originally Posted by Entrainer

I thought there was some merit to this. Am I wrong?
I remember reading about the Softube CL1B emulation
on Powercore sounding better than the native version
and then reading a technical description of why it was
true.

I would think code is code, except when it's different
code. Even on game systems, two platforms will have
a different quality due to hardware optimization.

I compared them side by side and I felt that they were too close to really prefer one over the other and I got rid of my powercore soon after. Still have and use my Softube CL1B on almost every mix for what its worth.

[spaceman]

Originally Posted by Coyoteous

Current US prices from the SSL store:

X-Verb plug-in for Duende - $389.00
X-EQ plug-in for Duende - $370.00
X-Comp plug-in for Duende - $295.00
Drumstrip Plug-in for Duende - $175.00
Vocalstrip plug-in for Duende - $399.00
Duende Mini Bus Compressor Upgrade - $370.00

Note the last item as a possible gauge for the channel strip price.

I think a lot of people paid a lot less with the consolation sales, etc.

I believe SSL will need to come down on most of these to be competitive.

They also need to keep the perceived value high for legacy hardware owners.

See how this post kind of has the shape of a Mayan Pyramid, if this line is longer?

You mean they're not releasing the plugins before 2012 ?


( also i remember reading , before they locked the page, that it was only going to be sold as two packages , not as individual plugins)

[Coyoteous]

Originally Posted by spaceman

You mean they're not releasing the plugins before 2012 ?

( also i remember reading , before they locked the page, that it was only going to be sold as two packages , not as individual plugins)

Funny... as is your green comment in the other thread.

There is a post in the other thread that quotes all the staged web pages.

If I recall correctly, two bundles are to be offered by dealers, and individual plug-ins from SSL.

[spaceman]

Originally Posted by Coyoteous

If I recall correctly, two bundles are to be offered by dealers, and individual plug-ins from SSL.

So probably a bundle with the X-plugins , and another one with the channel strips and the bus compressor ? I hope it will be competitively priced.

( The "other" thread won't die until a mod pulls it out of it's misery , and even then it will come back from time to time to haunt this forum )

[Jorg]

SSL leads with good example. One can only hope that UAD will follow.

[anguswoodhead]

Originally Posted by Jorg

One can only hope that UAD will follow.

I'll bet my left Testie that it will never happen.
And why would they - there system performs flawlessly.
I've used it on PC's and Mac's, on Cubase, Pro Tools M-Powered, PT HD and Samplitude - never an issue.
Plus totally copy protected.

[djanthonyw]

Yet, every day that passes more and more people will realize they don't need to buy a UAD card because of so many other great alternatives that are as good, or better.

[spaceman]

Originally Posted by anguswoodhead

I'll bet my left Testie that it will never happen.
And why would they - there system performs flawlessly.
I've used it on PC's and Mac's, on Cubase, Pro Tools M-Powered, PT HD and Samplitude - never an issue.
Plus totally copy protected.

It works flawlessly , but is has limits. If you have a macbook , only the 17" has an expresscard port , and you can only use the very limited ( and already underpowered) Solo with it.
Shame, cause the plugins sound really great.

[work2do]

Originally Posted by anguswoodhead

I'll bet my left Testie that it will never happen.
And why would they - there system performs flawlessly.
I've used it on PC's and Mac's, on Cubase, Pro Tools M-Powered, PT HD and Samplitude - never an issue.
Plus totally copy protected.

But the ceiling is being hit already. You need (4) uad-2 quads to use massive passives and fatso's across a proper session. And i'm sure any new treats they make are gonna be just as dsp intensive if not more. $6000 in dsp cards that will need (4) PCIe slots or a new Mac Pro w/ native?

I have given away 1 duende firewire and the PCI version is in storage somewhere. never worked correctly for us. SSL is doing the right thing. Just not interested in any of their current plugin offerings.

[clonewar]

Originally Posted by Entrainer

I thought there was some merit to this. Am I wrong?
I remember reading about the Softube CL1B emulation
on Powercore sounding better than the native version
and then reading a technical description of why it was
true.

I would think code is code, except when it's different
code. Even on game systems, two platforms will have
a different quality due to hardware optimization.

The facepalm was directed toward this quote:

There is a big difference between Native plugins and Dsp plugins.

Which is completely false but is propagated by a few people here and can get picked up as fact. Algoriths are algorithms and the ones that are computed by DSP hardware will produce the same sound when computed by the CPU in your PC... DPS's are just dedicated CPU's.

The Poco / Native CL1B plug-in was really a different matter. The Poco uses fixed point arithmetic to compute it's calculations, while the native version uses floating point arithmetic. Believe me, that's a whoooooole nother rabbit hole to go down, but it isn't about DSP vs native.. it's more about things like floating point rounding errors.

At the end of the day, most people can't hear a different in the two versions anyway, and it seemed that those predisposed to wanting the DSP version to 'win' claimed that the Poco version sounded better.

[Jeremy Krull]

well...while the way this news emerged was extremely odd...this is great news nonetheless I think.

I'm glad somebody asked about the VST/AU wrapper thing too...I think Fxpansion is only doing it as a VST-based wrapper now (not that it matters).

While I understand not going to RTAS or TDM, I really wish it was in the cards, because it would make things easier for sure (and the presence of these plugins would bring me one large step closer to being Waves-free).

Also I'm really glad this thread is sticky'd, because it's about time we have a thread for a product constantly at the top that ACTUALLY EXISTS.

good show Jim

[lordward]

Originally Posted by clonewar

The facepalm was directed toward this quote:

Which is completely false but is propagated by a few people here and can get picked up as fact. Algoriths are algorithms and the ones that are computed by DSP hardware will produce the same sound when computed by the CPU in your PC... DPS's are just dedicated CPU's.

Yes, BUT, companies such as UA, TC have used this as a sales pitch for years. Now, all of a sudden, it's not longer true. Not saying that it's is/isnt but it was brought up. I think there is even on the UA page a technical explanation why DSP cards *should* sound better.... whateva...

[soundgeezer]

If the algos are the same, where should the sound improvement come from then ?

[Entrainer]

Originally Posted by clonewar

The Poco / Native CL1B plug-in was really a different matter. The Poco uses fixed point arithmetic to compute it's calculations, while the native version uses floating point arithmetic. Believe me, that's a whoooooole nother rabbit hole to go down, but it isn't about DSP vs native.. it's more about things like floating point rounding errors.

Yes, this was it. I remember now. Thanks for the clarification.

[lordward]

Originally Posted by soundgeezer

If the algos are the same, where should the sound improvement come from then ?

Dunno, I'm not a tekkie. But this was thrown at 'us' in the earlier days. I'm just sayin......

Just another reason not to believe anything you read or anything one says. Just your own ears.

DW

[Coyoteous]

I think there can be something that feels better about DSP, assuming it's working right, in the operation of a system.

I date back some fifteen years or more to early Pro Tools systems, before there was native, and when the isolation between processing and CPU was a must.

I've only used TDM DSP though, all the way from the beginning through HD, other than an occasional session on someone else's rig.

I've also used native for the last ten years or so, and there's definitely something more responsive about DSP that can translate to a happier experience, and perhaps perception of better sound.

That said, my current native system is about three years behind current technology, so maybe native responsiveness has caught up.

[blex]

cant wait!

[barrythave]

Can't wait +1. Finaly no more expensive dongles. I hope UAD and TC will follow. But the native competition is gaining ground and even getting better here and there IMO. My UAD is used less and less.

[andy_cytomic]

Originally Posted by Coyoteous

I think there can be something that feels better about DSP, assuming it's working right, in the operation of a system.

I date back some fifteen years or more to early Pro Tools systems, before there was native, and when the isolation between processing and CPU was a must.

This was definitely the case with early versions of Pro Tools. They used the mac as a user interface and all processing was done on the DSP card you plugged into it. You even plugged in a dedicated hard drive to the DSP card so you could get reliable streaming of audio.

Originally Posted by Coyoteous

I've only used TDM DSP though, all the way from the beginning through HD, other than an occasional session on someone else's rig.

I've also used native for the last ten years or so, and there's definitely something more responsive about DSP that can translate to a happier experience, and perhaps perception of better sound.

The latency of a TDM plugin can be as little a a single sample, which is as quick as any stand alone DSP rack units. Most of the latency from analog input to analog output is actually caused by the converters themselves.

Systems like UAD, Powercore, and Duende have the same block based processing of native plugins (eg AU, VST, RTAS) even though the processing is done on dedicated hardware. The size of the block is user definable but cpu increases with lower block sizes.

A TDM system becomes more like a Duende etc if you place a native plugin after a TDM one. This means the audio has to travel from the computer down to the TDM card to be processed, and then sent back to the computer so the RTAS plugin can process it in a block. This removes any low latency advantage gained from using TDM hardware and also increases bus traffic.

[andy_cytomic]

Originally Posted by soundgeezer

If the algos are the same, where should the sound improvement come from then ?

If the algorithms are the same there will be no difference is sound quality. There are 32-bit floating point on DSP chips like the Sharcs, and you can do 64-bit fixed point on CPUs using SSE3. Any sonic differences will be caused by the choice of algorithm, which to me also includes the bit depth and type of number representation used.

[Coyoteous]

Andy, thanks for the info on TDM vs. other DSP. In this context, I guess responsiveness might have been misleading, especially in terms of delay. I meant the more obvious sluggishness when you start loading down a native system. I'd imagine the legacy all-DSP Duende and other non-TDM DSP help quite a bit in this respect. I guess it's time for me to start saving for a six to twelve core Mac, or jump ship and build a hotrod audio Windows machine, if I want an equivalent monster native system.

[Animus]

Originally Posted by clonewar

The facepalm was directed toward this quote:

Which is completely false but is propagated by a few people here and can get picked up as fact. Algoriths are algorithms and the ones that are computed by DSP hardware will produce the same sound when computed by the CPU in your PC... DPS's are just dedicated CPU's.

The Poco / Native CL1B plug-in was really a different matter. The Poco uses fixed point arithmetic to compute it's calculations, while the native version uses floating point arithmetic. Believe me, that's a whoooooole nother rabbit hole to go down, but it isn't about DSP vs native.. it's more about things like floating point rounding errors.

At the end of the day, most people can't hear a different in the two versions anyway, and it seemed that those predisposed to wanting the DSP version to 'win' claimed that the Poco version sounded better.

I believe the actual developer already cleared this up saying they made some changes to the knob calibrations to the native so people were probably hearing the Powercore version as a little bit louder and/or less compressed for example.

[riverrun]

There is a difference between fixed point and floating point, so there is an audio difference between these dsp systems and native. Fact.

[dotl]

Duende modeling plug-ins have the same algorithm that's in the core of C200 digital console, right?
If so, how old is that algorithm??? Has it been updated?