Universal Audio Sony Oxford EQ

[dxavier]

Originally Posted by choukette

true

when you used only one part of nigel they called it by its function

if you used the whole nigel plugin they called it nigel

the good ol time ...

all the new UAD-2 users just can't understand this golden age

hahhahahahaha!!! Skooled, I did actually own 4 UAD-1's before, but this shows how much I used the Nigel Plugins :-)....

[K-Slash]

Originally Posted by euphoria89

I'm assuming the LA610 preamp+EQ will be Apollo only.

Would make perfect marketing strategy to really get people to consider it as an interface. I don't think it will work for UAD cards. Very interesting concept.

Why being Apollo only ? That would be a nasty move from them.

By the way the Apollo uses the same SHARC chips of the UAD-2 cards so of course it would work.

[syra]

I don't own a UA card but have been using the sony Eq for a decade. It is my bread and butter eq for non-extreme settings. Great filters, simple layout.. I can get what I want with it super quick.. it just works. I do have newer "clean" eqs like Pro-Q and BX Digital V2 which sound awesome but the sony feels "right" for most uses...

[Synthpark]

Originally Posted by Marando

This is one step closer to me feeling totally fine having no UAD cards anymore.
Asking $299 for this ancient history EQ so you can run 22 instances on your UAD-2 solo card..

I mean.. I don't get the joke.. I'm trying, but I just don't get it.

Sorry, but this is something like 10 years to late.. bye bye UAD and Sonnox.

100% agreed

[mirrorboy]

I think a lot of the UA Bashing (not all, but most...ESP the obvious troll non-sense posts) come from people that don't own or use the UAD platform.

It's just another form of justifying your purchases (or non-purchases).

The UAD2 platform is indispensable right now, IMO.

--

I run a 12 Core Mac Pro 2.93 Ghz | 64 GB RAM | All SSDs | OS X 10.7.4 | Pro Tools 10.2 HD | Native PCIe 2.0 | 3 x UAD2 Quads PCIe 2.0

--

For me, my system with the UAD2 cards is a bit like a TDM / HDX system with better DSP-based plugs to choose from.

While UAD2, TDM and HDX are all DSP-based, the fact is they all take up CPU cycles when you use them. Although I believe UAD2 is the heaviest on the CPU amongst the three I named.

My point is, even with one of the fastest computers available, I could NEVER do what I do ITB w/out some sort of DSP hardware.

It should also be mentioned that I run VE Pro as well.

People who say DSP is old tech / pointless dongle / cash cow quite obviously have no need for DSP hardware.

The problem is, they often believe this in turn means NO ONE needs it!! Lol

--

The Sonnox EQ is something I've wanted for a while but I really buy very, very few plugs these days. And when I do, it's usually UAD2 (w the occasional Slate / BX).

I have colleagues that swear by this EQ.

I probably won't pick it up now, but am certainly not "upset" about the release.

That seems like a waste of energy.


Scott

P.S. I want 64 bit as much as the next guy (maybe even more!! Haha) but this release does not tell me they're spending their time on other things, ie this EQ.

I doubt the majority of UA's 64 bit coding team was affected by this port at all.

[FLYINGJAY]

Scott I'd like to see a eventide harmonizer h3000,mic modeler or even more channel strips.

But I too still need the dsp,maybe that why my one machine is all that's needed for my production.

I'm a uad fanboy,the sonnox eq just rub me the wring way.

I want exclusives on the uad platform.

My problem is this!Sony had a choice to partner with UA,right?

So now that they're cracked,they want protection!sorry,I wasn't going to say this,but let them burn!

We're talking Sony here,umm how big is that company!?!

Would they pull UA up off the ground or cripple them if they had there way?

Yes! They would cripple.

UA make great emulation,porting over to a dongle is not why I buy there Plugins.

Bad move....

Sent from my PC36100 using Gearslutz App

[euphoria89]

Originally Posted by K-Slash

Why being Apollo only ? That would be a nasty move from them.

By the way the Apollo uses the same SHARC chips of the UAD-2 cards so of course it would work.

I have the idea that it will be a major selling point for the Apollo, considering it can print fx straight to disk, and would be modeled based on the neutral sound of the Apollo's preamps. It would be the most ideal way of operation and would highlight the benefits of the Apollo over other interfaces and would be a massive step forward in technology if pulled off faithfully.

Yes, you could purchase/run the emulation i'm sure on a normal UAD2 card, but how would it sound on already recorded material? Unless you are using identical pre's/A/D converters as the Apollo, it will sound different. Not saying it wouldn't sound good depending on how well they model it, but it is a pre-amp emulation and this ideally means using it on a live input for tracking purposes to get the same effect as an analogue chain.

[work2do]

Originally Posted by K-Slash

Why being Apollo only ? That would be a nasty move from them.

By the way the Apollo uses the same SHARC chips of the UAD-2 cards so of course it would work.

Apollo-only would be ridiculous being that at this time Apollo is only available for Mac. They have much more UAD2 users. Also, Apollo and UAD2 use the same exact chips as you mentioned. If they started drawing lines they will kill themselves.

Originally Posted by euphoria89

pre-amp emulation and this ideally means using it on a live input for tracking purposes to get the same effect as an analogue chain.

Many companies have preamp emulations already as plugins. metric Halo for one. It's just a color plug. You can use it after. The REAL preamp is the hardware preamps going into the unit.

[duvalle]

Originally Posted by FLYINGJAY

I'm a uad fanboy,the sonnox eq just rub me the wring way.

i wish they would have ported that Fraunhofer Pro-Codec plug in over to uad.

[euphoria89]

No yeah i get the fact that there are already a few pre-amp emulations available, but i am almost certain that they will develop it with the Apollo in mind over anything else.

They seemed very positive that the complete transparency of the unit would be its strength along side the UAD plugin range, and whilst i agree that the effect could be applied afterward (like any), i also have noticed how much they are promoting the whole 'live on input tracking', especially if this emulation is DSP hungry like a few are. Printing to disk is a really efficient way of working and being creative and i think UA are keen to promote that.

Realistically, i think as long as you have a clean and transparent recording then you would no doubt benefit from something such as this, but we shall see. It would be exciting either way to have the sound of a nice 610 unit.

[djstudio048]

This release, yea it might be:

but who said it was supposed to be:

It seems that UAD is meant for those that find that their CPU needs help. I think you've been dooped if you think their plug-ins can't be matched by anything else native out there. It so happeneds that a lot of folks love their plugs so even those with enough power are going their way, not just those that need the CPU help.

So, tying in with that, they put this eq out for those that use it a lot and would like to releave a little of the work off their CPU/computer. If I could have my way, I would prefer to leave my computer to do everything else, and let 3rd party cards do all the plug-in work. Why not?

I've thought about getting something like the UAD-2 Solo, just so I can use some of their included comps and eqs to help out my 2008 Mac Pro, which I don't plan to replace until something goes so wrong with it that fixing it outways its current value.

[mirrorboy]

Originally Posted by djstudio048

It seems that UAD is meant for those that find that their CPU needs help. I think you've been dooped if you think their plug-ins can't be matched by anything else native out there. It so happeneds that a lot of folks love their plugs so even those with enough power are going their way, not just those that need the CPU help.

All due respect, I'm going to have to strongly disagree.

The UAD2 platform is amazing and the people who use it have all sorts of different, legitimate reasons for doing so.

As far as,

"I think you've been dooped if you think their plug-ins can't be matched by anything else native out there."

--

Have you ever used the UAD2 platform??

--

According to your post, I'd say 'no' since you said u r thinking of picking up a solo.

So again, most statements such as this are from people who have never even used the plugs. (justification for their own purchases / non-purchases).


Scott

[dasoundjunkie]

Originally Posted by duvalle

i wish they would have ported that Fraunhofer Pro-Codec plug in over to uad.

Now THAT would have been cool!

[Agzilla]

Well, i'm not at all interested in buying the UAD Sonnox EQ... but as far as UAD plugins being better than the majority of native plugs.... Yeah in my experience i would have to agree....

Not sure why it is so... but it is so.... I draw for the UAD plugins over most others consistently...

UAD and Soundtoys are very much the go to selection...


Zz.

[Marando]

Originally Posted by Herb

I always thought the Oxford had the edge on the Cambridge.

I still think it's one of the best EQ's today.

Still can't understand why anyone would want this over the native version though.

Try DMG Audio Equality or Equick.. you will soon find out Sonnox EQ is history.. not only in quality, but in usability too.

[Marando]

Originally Posted by duvalle

sorry, but i could not disagree more.
great native synths like uhe diva can be very cpu hungry.
even for modern i7 setups. i would love to run quality synths on my cards ...

Problem is, having a power hungry synth that is even bringing an i7 to it knees, will never be able to work without a problem on a UAD-2 DSP... The DSP is not powerfull enough. Maybe they can make it run on multiple DSP's (they can't with their current plugins)... but than.. it would take up a whole Quad at least to be able to play a few notes in DIVA.

[Marando]

Originally Posted by Agzilla

Well, i'm not at all interested in buying the UAD Sonnox EQ... but as far as UAD plugins being better than the majority of native plugs.... Yeah in my experience i would have to agree....

Not sure why it is so... but it is so.... I draw for the UAD plugins over most others consistently...

UAD and Soundtoys are very much the go to selection...


Zz.

Some UAD only plugs are indeed amazing, but the ported native plugins will not sound better suddenly as soon as it is running on a DSP card.. some people believe miracles happen in DSP, but they should stop believing in fairy tales.

Originally Posted by FLYINGJAY

I'm a uad fanboy,the sonnox eq just rub me the wring way.

I want exclusives on the uad platform.

My problem is this!Sony had a choice to partner with UA,right?

So now that they're cracked,they want protection!sorry,I wasn't going to say this,but let them burn!

We're talking Sony here,umm how big is that company!?!

Would they pull UA up off the ground or cripple them if they had there way?

Yes! They would cripple.

UA make great emulation,porting over to a dongle is not why I buy there Plugins.

Bad move....

You have to broaden your scope and think like a company. Sonnox (sony) is now available for every major platform in use. Tdm, aax-dsp, rtas, au, vst, uad-2. Contrary to the belief of some, sonnox plugins are still very much in use in the pro post and music industries. From ua's point of view the more third party support the better as it continues to broaden their scope.

[Johnkenn]

Apparently, they're going Apollo only...check the pic out. Too bad considering the ADDA on the Apollo's aren't up to snuff with Symphony, Hilo, etc...

[K-Slash]

Originally Posted by Johnkenn

Apparently, they're going Apollo only...check the pic out. Too bad considering the ADDA on the Apollo's aren't up to snuff with Symphony, Hilo, etc...

And what does that pic says ? No mention of it being Apollo only.

[Melodeath]

Can anyone explain how Sonnox EQ on Apollo in particular is building towards the future? UA already has EQs that can be used on Apollo.

[FLYINGJAY]

Originally Posted by djstudio048

It seems that UAD is meant for those that find that their CPU needs help. I think you've been dooped if you think their plug-ins can't be matched by anything else native out there. It so happeneds that a lot of folks love their plugs so even those with enough power are going their way, not just those that need the CPU help.

There are a few uad plugs that can't be matched.

So I disagree also.for the power that their dsp offer,I dare load any thing offered naively.

But CPU's are very powerdays these days.I agree with that part

The unique emulations are what attracted me uad.but they're smart,the sonnox eq is just not for me.

Sent from my PC36100 using Gearslutz App

[mirrorboy]

Originally Posted by Johnkenn

Apparently, they're going Apollo only...check the pic out. Too bad considering the ADDA on the Apollo's aren't up to snuff with Symphony, Hilo, etc...

I have no idea what you are trying to say with this picture.

I also have no idea why you'd think "UA is going Apollo only." (which I couldn't disagree with more, btw)


Please share why you think "UA is going Apollo only."

I'm sure many would be interested to hear why you think this.


Thanks,

Scott

P.S. Out of curiosity, do you own a UAD2 card or Apollo?

Have you ever used UAD2 plugs?

Thx.

[otobianki74]

Originally Posted by Johnkenn

Apparently, they're going Apollo only...check the pic out.

+1 what are you talking about?

looked at the picture a few times and can't see what you see.

thanks.

uri

[dxavier]

I just cannot believe this would be an Apollo only release. Forcing us to buy cards to run their plugins is one thing, but forcing us to change interfaces? I would like to believe that UAD is not that crazy. I think all of the UAD-2 users, such as myself, would be very very angry if certain plugins were going to be released for Apollo only, especially when the DSP chips that run the plugins on the Apollo are identical to the DSP chips on the cards.

[lordward]

Originally Posted by dxavier

I just cannot believe this would be an Apollo only release. Forcing us to buy cards to run their plugins is one thing, but forcing us to change interfaces? I would like to believe that UAD is not that crazy. I think all of the UAD-2 users, such as myself, would be very very angry if certain plugins were going to be released for Apollo only, especially when the DSP chips that run the plugins on the Apollo are identical to the DSP chips on the cards.

uaudio.com first page: Now available for UAD2 and Apollo.

The end.

[alkor]

i still think UA aims at ilok users, on the other side, it makes no sense to port plugin after plugin, they ´d need to port whole bundles...

2nd thing that came to mind...64 bit support
sonnox is already 64bit...i really thought sonnox will arrive when UA is 64bit ready...from that point of view that release makes even less sense ...hmmm
and a release just for spoiling preamp emus ? ...lol, marketing guys must be really on d0pe

[lordward]

So, if you are a owner of the Native version what could the point/advantage to this version be? Do you get it cheaper?

BTW, the native version is cheaper than the UAD version......(at the Sonnox.com site)
I can't figure this out.

I guess the "it sounds better" posts will follow

[Sixstringzzz]

UAD will never go native because they're terrified of piracy and losing their customer base. Clever business IMO.

[lordward]

Just saw the that the price is in dollars so it's actually cheaper than the Native version.

UAD = 243.428 EUR
Sonnox Native = 253.920 EUR

At todays exchange rate.
My bad!