UAD-2 - Manley Massive Passive in the queue

[b0ssa]

Originally Posted by spicemix

No chit.

I have no idea who "b0ssa" is...

Charming..... same to you mate.

[spicemix]

Originally Posted by b0ssa

Charming..... same to you mate.

It ain't all about you yaknow.

In fact, that post quoted kreeper....

(And I do know Coyoteous, at least, online.)

[b0ssa]

Originally Posted by spicemix

It ain't all about you yaknow.

In fact, that post quoted kreeper....

(And I do know Coyoteous, at least, online.)

Yeah, I know.. it's funny as I almost said that myself.. lol

It isn't always about me.....

I thought you were answering my post and offering to rip me off by allowing me to buy the plug-in on your voucher.. my sincerest apology for doubting you.

[kreeper_6]

Originally Posted by b0ssa

Tasty indeed! My fav' EQ on my Liquid Mix... so I'll definitely grab this one
Thanx for the pic.
I want to know when a SLAM & DIstressor are coming though.

I'd love to see them released together a few months down!

[b0ssa]

Originally Posted by kreeper_6

I'd love to see them released together a few months down!

Yeah same...

But they seem to release new plug's with OS updates so it may not be until the 2nd quarter before any new ones get released.

[Animus]

I guess that's the mastering version. The high and lo pass passes are different from my unit. I hope that's switchable.

[choukette]

Originally Posted by Animus

I guess that's the mastering version. The high and lo pass passes are different from my unit. I hope that's switchable.

As usual, I think they will release the 2 versions "classic" and "mastering" in 2 different plugins.

i'm much more curious to see how look the updated EMT140 with all the new parameters included on the GUI

[hugol]

Originally Posted by K-Slash

Well, the current one is Precision Enhancer kHz.

The coming one is Precision Enhancer Hz !

So for sure it's something to deal with basses, to do some sub-harmonic processing and so on, I imagine.

Thanks for that, I completely missed that at first. Sounds like one to miss though, unless it's fantastic and well priced. They would probably be better just updating the existing plug-in to do both highs and lows.

[DeadPoet]

Originally Posted by kreeper_6

Yeah but these go to eleven!




Herwig

[duvalle]

for me the biggest problem i have with UAD (i have 2x uad-1, 1x uad2 duo and 1x uad-2 quad) is the GUI!

i love the the FATSO plug, but why on earth did the make the gui work exactly like the hardware?? it's so strange that i have to click x-times to change the comp and if i missed the setting i have to keep clicking and clicking ..... same with the tranny/bypass switch ...

what i love about WAVES are the very nice little features that help the work flow (A/B, undo, good preset management).

i just changed my main go to eq from cambridge to fabfilter pro-q.
the pro-q is so easy and fun to set up.

i wish UAD would at least add A/B to all there plug ins.
and VST3 would be nice to have .....

[hitsville]

anybody knows when the MP is dropping ?

[electricsound]

Originally Posted by hitsville

anybody knows when the MP is dropping ?

It's supposed to be this month. Based on past releases it'll probably come out around the second half of the month..

[l.sicilian]

Originally Posted by Marando

I think there is one road for UAD to follow.. it's hybrid. Allow the CPU to assist the DSP's, like SSL is doing with the Duende.

Keep the DSP platform for people that still like the extra DSP power and keep it becuase it's a pretty crack proof dongle.

+ 100

[Mathew1967]

Originally Posted by duvalle

for me the biggest problem i have with UAD (i have 2x uad-1, 1x uad2 duo and 1x uad-2 quad) is the GUI!

i love the the FATSO plug, but why on earth did the make the gui work exactly like the hardware?? it's so strange that i have to click x-times to change the comp and if i missed the setting i have to keep clicking and clicking ..... same with the tranny/bypass switch ...

what i love about WAVES are the very nice little features that help the work flow (A/B, undo, good preset management).

i just changed my main go to eq from cambridge to fabfilter pro-q.
the pro-q is so easy and fun to set up.

i wish UAD would at least add A/B to all there plug ins.
and VST3 would be nice to have .....

I think so as well - great sound, but why is a stupid copy / paste approach from the original device used for the GUI and why are important tools not build in, when it helps to make my work more efficient?

When looking at the picture of the massive passive, I can't believe how difficult this looks like, e.g. to switch between boost and cut ... I mean having one knob, which allows from -11 to +11 dB all kind of values is good enough in the digital world. There's no need to have this spread across two controls!

I know it's a principle of UAD to be as close as possible to the original and the look and feel should underline this as well - but if it ends up in user-unfriendly plugs destroying effient work, I totally doubt the value ...

[Silver Sonya]

Originally Posted by Mathew1967

I think so as well - great sound, but why is a stupid copy / paste approach from the original device used for the GUI and why are important tools not build in, when it helps to make my work more efficient?

When looking at the picture of the massive passive, I can't believe how difficult this looks like, e.g. to switch between boost and cut ... I mean having one knob, which allows from -11 to +11 dB all kind of values is good enough in the digital world. There's no need to have this spread across two controls!

I know it's a principle of UAD to be as close as possible to the original and the look and feel should underline this as well - but if it ends up in user-unfriendly plugs destroying effient work, I totally doubt the value ...

This is an ignorant take on the Massive Passive, in my opinion.

The only reason to want this plug-in is to replicate the hardware exactly.

Otherwise, use a conventional EQ. There are a lot of them out there. The aesthetics and eccentricities of the original hardware design --- not just how they sound, but how they make you think/work --- are absolutely the only reason to do a project like this. Trying to "improve" it for the boring plug-in world would be a huge, tacky mistake.

- c

[Mathew1967]

Originally Posted by Silver Sonya

This is an ignorant take on the Massive Passive, in my opinion.

The only reason to want this plug-in is to replicate the hardware exactly.

Otherwise, use a conventional EQ. There are a lot of them out there. The aesthetics and eccentricities of the original hardware design --- not just how they sound, but how they make you think/work --- are absolutely the only reason to do a project like this. Trying to "improve" it for the boring plug-in world would be a huge, tacky mistake.

- c

Interesting, that you see it this way - and I admit a GUI can make one think / work differently.

But a SW emulation, which is used with a mouse is never the same as something which I can touch with fingers and control it so fast, as it's never possible with a mouse.

Therefore, I think pure copy / paste is not adequat. Maybe having a pure copy + a mouse friendly version of the GUI (including A/B cmparison capabilities and a little number of controlers), where you can switch to use whatever fits better to your way of working would be the best solution.

[Silver Sonya]

Originally Posted by Mathew1967

Interesting, that you see it this way - and I admit a GUI can make one think / work differently.

But a SW emulation, which is used with a mouse is never the same as something which I can touch with fingers and control it so fast, as it's never possible with a mouse.

Therefore, I think pure copy / paste is not adequat. Maybe having a pure copy + a mouse friendly version of the GUI (including A/B cmparison capabilities and a little number of controlers), where you can switch to use whatever fits better to your way of working would be the best solution.

My statement reads too harsh. Apologies.

All I wanna say is, basically, style is key.

Don't underestimate aesthetics/charm.

I mean, it would be easy for any of these things to have perfectly "logical" controls, which would all be numerical entries and sliders or whatever.

But... ugh... y'know?

I see this kind of thing as artistic.

- c

[work2do]

GUI's of filterbank and compressorbank are perfect for DAW work. I wonder how much extra work it would be to make secondary GUI's for plugins like those.

[Mathew1967]

Originally Posted by konkaos

GUI's of filterbank and compressorbank are perfect for DAW work. I wonder how much extra work it would be to make secondary GUI's for plugins like those.

I think specially a company of the size of UAD could afford to develop that - lot of the code could be leveraged across their plugs with kind of toolbox of knobs, faders ...

At least I would appreciate, as it would give me more efficiency - but I could also imagine, to work sometimes also in the 'charming mode' ...

[K-Slash]

Originally Posted by konkaos

GUI's of filterbank and compressorbank are perfect for DAW work. I wonder how much extra work it would be to make secondary GUI's for plugins like those.

Funny as I think they are one of the most ugly GUI designs ever made on quality commercial plugins.

Thankfully, the Classic Pack 2010 looks much cooler and the 6030 is beautiful .

[duvalle]

Originally Posted by Silver Sonya

I see this kind of thing as artistic.

- c

sorry, but i see this as a pain in the ass .... ;-)

Originally Posted by konkaos

GUI's of filterbank and compressorbank are perfect for DAW work. I wonder how much extra work it would be to make secondary GUI's for plugins like those.

+1

at least some "new" features like a/b, dry/wet and undo for uad plugs.
this should be standard anyway imho ... and: they should make all their plugs vst3 ASAP!

as said before, using the uad fatso could be way more fun if uad would have done some gui "redesign". i bet lot of the fatso hardware layout would have been different in the first place when production cost would not have been an issue, no?

[zvenx]

I too am with the really no need to mimic the original gui if it is ineffecient in use of mouse and keyboard. Improve on it, make it better for use with keyboard and mouse.
rsp

[duvalle]

Originally Posted by zvenx

I too am with the really no need to mimic the original gui if it is ineffecient in use of mouse and keyboard. Improve on it, make it better for use with keyboard and mouse.
rsp

thinking about it: to uad the original gui design seems to be some sort of a selling point.
maybe uad even paid a lot for that ... but bringing both worlds together should be the goal. the hype "oh it looks like the real thing" is a bit over imho. great sound AND inspiring gui. so if the original layout is close to perfect (1176,la2a) leave it that way. but if the original layout is not designed to work nice in a daw, please change it.

[Silver Sonya]

There are a lot of EQ's in the world. Somehow I think you can live with the GUI for this one for the few seconds you will be using it per week.

God help your music if you got 13 instances of Massive Passive running in every mix...

- c

[duvalle]

Originally Posted by Silver Sonya

God help your music if you got 13 instances of Massive Passive running in every mix...
- c

i don't think that's the point ...

[Silver Sonya]

Originally Posted by duvalle

i don't think that's the point ...

I actually don't really care that much about this topic. I'm over-posting. It's not a big deal either way.

I just think that there are lot of things that are efficient that are tacky.

Making the Massive Passive more "efficient" for the DAW age would be no fun, in my opinion.

But I can tell I'm outnumbered here so I'll shut up.

- c

[kreeper_6]

If I have a Massive Passive and opt to use the plugin version instead to save time & money, WHYTF would I want the plugin to look different and be different? Did you ever hear the phrase "Don't Fix What Ain't Broke"?

HowTF is this inefficient?

[feck]

Originally Posted by Silver Sonya

I actually don't really care that much about this topic. I'm over-posting. It's not a big deal either way.

I just think that there are lot of things that are efficient that are tacky.

Making the Massive Passive more "efficient" for the DAW age would be no fun, in my opinion.

But I can tell I'm outnumbered here so I'll shut up.

- c

I agree, with an EQ like this, I would much rather have it be super CPU intensive due to a fantastic algorithm than a streamlined version to blanket a mix with. 1 or 2 instances per mix is all I would probably use of it in most cases.

[duvalle]

Originally Posted by kreeper_6

Did you ever hear the phrase "Don't Fix What Ain't Broke"? HowTF is this inefficient?

beside the manley eq other plugs like the FATSO show howTF it can get inefficient fast. i like the way waves did it with the 2500. all knobs there, but nicely adjusted for daw use. get it?

[kreeper_6]

Originally Posted by duvalle

beside the manley eq other plugs like the FATSO show howTF it can get inefficient fast. i like the way waves did it with the 2500. all knobs there, but nicely adjusted for daw use. get it?

If you can't work with 2 Knobs & 3 buttons I don't know what to tell ya.