The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
UAD2 is a PCIE card Dynamics Plugins
Old 19th July 2008
  #541
Lives for gear
 

The quality of the UAD plugins is so high that the card(s) or dongle(s) is just something that comes with it.

Anyway, I've made a habit of freezing a track when I'm done processing it, then I go to the next track, use UAD plugins and freeze it, etc. Works cool.
Old 20th July 2008
  #542
Quote:
Originally Posted by manthe View Post
I hear you. To me, I see it this way - The UAD-1 system is designed to couple 4 cards together and use a load sharing algorithm to spread the processing of plugins across the 4 cards. As a means to allow for 'entry level' adoptions or spreading it out financially, you can indeed buy 1 at a time and add the plugins as you see fit.

Without all 4 cards and all of the plugins, you're not capable of using the UAD-1 system to its achievable potential and they are clear about those limitation...very clear...going in to it. There is both official and anecdotal information all over the place telling us what is attainable with 1, 2, 3 an 4 cards as well as what each plug can do.

In order to build the UAD-1 system to its full potential, one must plan accordingly. You need to either get a motherboard that can handle it, or an expansion chassis that is compatible and meets the requirements.

Like any modular system, you upgrade as you go.
One of the most sensible posts I have ever read on this "subject".
Congratulations for keeping a sense of perspective too.
I was not going to bother in this thread, but after reading your posts felt I had to add my 0.02 worth.
Firstly, the whole "I am dumping this because the UAD-1 is not powerful enough".
Bollocks. Complete & utter bollocks.
Do we hear similar things shouted at PoCo X8 - where if you are VERY lucky you can run 16 of their tube compressors (cannot remember it's number, but one will swallow 41% of a CPU in a PoCo x8. It's a CL-1B or something)
Secondly (same argument) UA got hammered & seriously castigated for NOT releasing plugs that can use the full potential of the unpartitioned chip. Then when they do (Re0201, 33609) that is also somehow wrong.
Thirdly. WHere do any of the "UAD-2 imminent" crowd think the "new" chip is coming from? UA got the MPACT-2 from a garage sale, as the developing company went broke after spending hundreds of millions of dollars developing it.
Fourthly. How do you suppose UA can possibly continue in business supporting 2 different systems?
Fifthly. The chassis idea is indeed the most likely option - and I have been saying this for over a year now. It would make sense. Certainly far more sense than trying to run dual development on 2 platforms in the current climate.
Sixthly. FireWire/USB2 is never gonna happen. Far too wobbly.

If the same attitude was taken with CPU - "Oh, I am not going to build a new system as I am waiting for the next big thing" - sheesh.
Old 20th July 2008
  #543
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by neilwilkes View Post
Firstly, the whole "I am dumping this because the UAD-1 is not powerful enough".
Bollocks. Complete & utter bollocks.
How can it be "bollocks" for some people to not be satisfied with the performance of the UAD-1? Yet you talk about others' lack of perspective.

Either the product is suitable for certain set-ups / working methods or it isn't... but neither outcome is "wrong".

The catch with UAD cards is that you don't really find out for sure whether or not the card system is suitable for your needs until you buy and install one.
Old 20th July 2008
  #544
Lives for gear
 
solidstate's Avatar
 

Well.. I don't wanna be "forced" to buy 4 cards just to run a DECENT amount of plug in @ 88.2!! I'm on MP and i have only 2 slots available right now.They need to sort this thing out ASAP. I have almost 3k in licenses that i cant use because their card is too damn old to run on a new mac pro!!! Yeah they say is logic "fault" but how come i can run my 2 duendes flawlessly?!!? And FW buss supposed inferior or not suitable for dsps??! Inferior my @$$!! Their silence is damaging them.. They have to give some kind of heads up to their customers!
Old 20th July 2008
  #545
Lives for gear
 
Henchman's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hint View Post
The catch with UAD cards is that you don't really find out for sure whether or not the card system is suitable for your needs until you buy and install one.
And how is this different from other hardware?
Old 20th July 2008
  #546
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Henchman View Post
And how is this different from other hardware?
Surely you can appreciate that there are more "unknowns" when dealing with UAD-1, looking at it from the perspective of a new customer?
Old 20th July 2008
  #547
Lives for gear
 
Henchman's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hint View Post
Surely you can appreciate that there are more "unknowns" when dealing with UAD-1, looking at it from the perspective of a new customer?
Actually, no I don't.

How many people have bought PT systems sight unseen or tested, because ti's an "industry standard".
Old 20th July 2008
  #548
Lives for gear
 
manthe's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hint View Post
How can it be "bollocks" for some people to not be satisfied with the performance of the UAD-1? Yet you talk about others' lack of perspective.

Either the product is suitable for certain set-ups / working methods or it isn't... but neither outcome is "wrong".

The catch with UAD cards is that you don't really find out for sure whether or not the card system is suitable for your needs until you buy and install one.
What do you mean? The plugins are excruciatingly well documented all over the net and the number of instantiations are documented just as well, both literally and empirically. It's 1 of the easiest things to research out there! Also, I do believe it is 'wrong' to say that the UAD-1 system is underpowered unless you have a 'full' system. Then, if you still find it underpowered (after having 4 cards and all of the plugins), then so be it. It's like buying a Duende Mini and complaining about the fact that it can only run half of the Channel Strips as the Classic and that the Bus Compressor isn't included!

Quote:
Well.. I don't wanna be "forced" to buy 4 cards just to run a DECENT amount of plug in @ 88.2!! I'm on MP and i have only 2 slots available right now.They need to sort this thing out ASAP. I have almost 3k in licenses that i cant use because their card is too damn old to run on a new mac pro!!! Yeah they say is logic "fault" but how come i can run my 2 duendes flawlessly?!!? And FW buss supposed inferior or not suitable for dsps??! Inferior my @$$!! Their silence is damaging them.. They have to give some kind of heads up to their customers!
No one 'forces' anyone to buy into the system at any level. You do or you don't. I have a Duende too. There are plenty of systems and configurations where it does not work or is crippled in some way...including mine. Plus, a FULL Duende classic, at 88.2 running stereo versions can only run a TOTAL of 8 plugins, period. I have a fully unlocked Duende. In the USA that's close to $3500 (I bought mine a few years ago when they were closer to $1900 after tax.). For the last 6 or 8 months, I am suffering from the DSP 3 issue. That means that for $3500 I can only run 4 plugins at 88.2!!! Imagine that. I'm not bitching. Even at only 8, I knew what I was getting when I bought it. It is what it is.

4 UAD-1 cards can run 36 of the 88RS Neve channel strips, in STEREO mode! I can run 52 in mono!! I am on my 5th system in 4 years with the UAD-1 cards moving from system to system and they've been perfectly flawless in every single one. I ADORE the Duende and I have far less problems with it than others. But, pound-for-pound, the UAD-1 system has benn FAR, FAR more stable and seamless.
Old 20th July 2008
  #549
Gear Maniac
 
protoculture's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by neilwilkes View Post
Sixthly. FireWire/USB2 is never gonna happen. Far too wobbly.
That's partly conjecture and the evidence suggests you are wrong. Yamaha N12 is firewire and works great ( although not a plugin ) Duende is Firewire based plugin and seems to work well same with Powercore. You talk about objectivity, but you are clearly not looking at the evidence out there.
Old 20th July 2008
  #550
Lives for gear
 
solidstate's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by manthe View Post
No one 'forces' anyone to buy into the system at any level. You do or you don't. I have a Duende too. There are plenty of systems and configurations where it does not work or is crippled in some way...including mine. Plus, a FULL Duende classic, at 88.2 running stereo versions can only run a TOTAL of 8 plugins, period. I have a fully unlocked Duende. In the USA that's close to $3500 (I bought mine a few years ago when they were closer to $1900 after tax.). For the last 6 or 8 months, I am suffering from the DSP 3 issue. That means that for $3500 I can only run 4 plugins at 88.2!!! Imagine that. I'm not bitching. Even at only 8, I knew what I was getting when I bought it. It is what it is.

4 UAD-1 cards can run 36 of the 88RS Neve channel strips, in STEREO mode! I can run 52 in mono!! I am on my 5th system in 4 years with the UAD-1 cards moving from system to system and they've been perfectly flawless in every single one. I ADORE the Duende and I have far less problems with it than others. But, pound-for-pound, the UAD-1 system has benn FAR, FAR more stable and seamless.
On my duende system i can run 32 mono(or 16 stereo) channel @ 88.2 of ANY plug in, not just the channel strip.And it costed me about 2,500$(duende classic+mini+dsp upgrade). Try to run one stereo instance of the neve buss compressor at 88.2 on the UAD1..How many strips you can run after that?

Don't get me wrong here. I love the UAD plug ins. But their card processing power is not comparable to sharks dsps.
Old 20th July 2008
  #551
Lives for gear
 
wakestyle's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by solidstate View Post
On my duende system i can run 32 mono(or 16 stereo) channel @ 88.2 of ANY plug in, not just the channel strip.And it costed me about 2,500$(duende classic+mini+dsp upgrade). Try to run one stereo instance of the neve buss compressor at 88.2 on the UAD1..How many strips you can run after that?

Don't get me wrong here. I love the UAD plug ins. But their card processing power is not comparable to sharks dsps.
How do you manage to mix with duende? I've been trying to do it but right now, no audio is passing through the fx. Before there was a 100-200ms latency? Impossible to mix with???
Old 20th July 2008
  #552
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Henchman View Post
Actually, no I don't.

How many people have bought PT systems sight unseen or tested, because ti's an "industry standard".
OK... I assumed you meant "other hardware" such as outboard. Yes - there are similar unknowns with a PT system... with any hardware system that relies on compatibility with computers, of course.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Manthe
What do you mean? The plugins are excruciatingly well documented all over the net and the number of instantiations are documented just as well, both literally and empirically. It's 1 of the easiest things to research out there!
I mean:

- Which of their plug-ins do I like?
- How many of those plug-ins would I typically want to use and how many cards would I need to run that many?

These are things that can't be documented or researched (to my personal satisfaction) without owning a UAD card first. So I read "all over the net", and find a bunch of people in those 2 camps I descibed earlier, thrashing it out in forum threads for months on end, and I decide it's probably best to just wait and see what happens / stay out of it.

For what it's worth - your earlier post is helpful in the sense that it kinda confirms what I was beginning to assume. If you buy into the UAD-1 you should make sure you're prepared / able to get 3 or 4 cards.
Old 20th July 2008
  #553
Lives for gear
 
solidstate's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by wakestyle View Post
How do you manage to mix with duende? I've been trying to do it but right now, no audio is passing through the fx. Before there was a 100-200ms latency? Impossible to mix with???
Maybe i'm one of the "few" lucky onesheh

I was prepared to have some sort of trouble but instead i'm having a very good experience with latency and i do not have the 3rd dsp problem at higher sampler rates (touching wood:-)

Occasionally I get kernel panics on some project, but ehy, nothing is perfect!
Old 21st July 2008
  #554
Quote:
Originally Posted by solidstate View Post
Don't get me wrong here. I love the UAD plug ins. But their card processing power is not comparable to sharks dsps.
I am not getting anything wrong.
Sharcs are far less powerful than the MPACT-2 is. WHy else do you think they need so bloody many of them on any card?
Also, because these "rival" DSP systems are all - without any exceptions at all - based on multiple DSP chips, you simply will never get anything even close to the quality of the Neve 33609.
Let's take another look at this - I repeat the earlier statement.
UA got caned for NOT creating plugs that run all of the available power.
Then they do so, and that is also wrong.
You cannot please everyone.

FW has been stated - categorically - as unsuitable for the UA platform - by UA!
See Universal Audio
where comparative bandwidth is discussed.
To save the troublre - here is the list.

Bus Protocol Peak Bandwidth (MB/s)
PCI-33 / 32-bit 133
PCI-66 / 32-bit 266
PCI-66 / 64-bit 533
AGP 8X 2100
PCI Express (x1) 500
PCI Express (x2) 1000
PCI Express (x4) 2000
PCI Express (x8) 4000
PCI Express (x16) 8000
IDE (ATA100) 100
IDE (ATA133) 133
SATA 150
Gigabit Ethernet 125
IEEE-1394B [FireWire S400] 50
IEEE-1394B [FireWire S800] 100
USB 2.0 60

Based on these figures, please - and I would love to hear this - explain to me exactly WHY FireWire is so good?
I repeat - a FW interface for UA is never gonna happen.

Moving swiftly on.
Duende.
Great if you want the plastic sounding 80's SSL sound. That is all. it is strictly a one-trick pony. My UAD system gives me way more flexibility, and has performed flawlessly on all systems since I bought my first card back before the LA2A had even been released. I still have the box marked as version 0.9!

PoCo.
Wobbly as all get-go, and despite it using multi-DSP chips is not-so-Powerful at all.
See how many CL-1B you can run on a PoCo x8? I'll save you the bother - it is about 16. Tops. And no headroom for anything else, plus you have now - as with Duende - taken up an entire FW buss. So - unless you have spare expansion slots for adding a new FW buss for every FW DSP device, (which is not so different from multi-PCI cards for UAD) you will get very unreliable performance.
I know plenty of people with PoCo/LM that will not play together, PoCo/FW Audio will not play, all manner of issues. The most reliable PoCo are the PCI/PCI-e versions - not the FW versions.

Waves.
Most of their plugins will not even run on their DSP - and there seem to be no plans to port them either.

LM.
Great unit - I am a definite fan - but Oh! so wobbly. It simply must be the sole device on the buss, and even then once you start to push it near it's limits it too falls over. Add anything apart from an external HDD to the same buss, and you are screwed. And if you are actually streaming audio from that external HDD, you're screwed again.
Old 21st July 2008
  #555
Lives for gear
 
solidstate's Avatar
 

Dude, you cant b serious! An 8 years old video card processor doesn't even come close to 4 sharcs dsps.. It's like comparing a P3 to dual 'quad' xeonheh

Duende doesn't have a "80s plastic sound"..It has the modern puchy sound of 9k/duality

And trust me, i know the sound of the ssl boards!
Old 21st July 2008
  #556
Lives for gear
 
manthe's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by solidstate View Post
On my duende system i can run 32 mono(or 16 stereo) channel @ 88.2 of ANY plug in, not just the channel strip.And it costed me about 2,500$(duende classic+mini+dsp upgrade). Try to run one stereo instance of the neve buss compressor at 88.2 on the UAD1..How many strips you can run after that?

Don't get me wrong here. I love the UAD plug ins. But their card processing power is not comparable to sharks dsps.
First of all, I have a Duende with all of the extra plugs. I will be getting a second one as well. I love the platform and the plugins. From a sound quality perspective, I believe it beats the UAD-1...but only in 1-to-1 comparisons of like plugins. On vibe and variety, UAD-1 wins, IMO. I disagree with the 'plasticy' remark whole-heartedly.

Also, on any given mix, I can run WAY more UAD plugins that I can on my Duende. I know people like to single out the 1 (out of 30+!!) plugins that eats a lot of DSP and use that to try to convince people that the system is underpowered, ignoring the fact that over 70% of the plugins available for the UAD-1 platform can run in number FAR exceeding what a Duende classic can, and at least 40% of the UAD-1 plugins can instantiate a lot more than TWO Duende classics! In sheer numbers, the UAD-1 power is only now being rivaled by other DSP providers.

So, now that SSL has allowed me to bond 2 Duendes, I can FINALLY do what I've been able to do with the UAD-1 system for almost 9 years already! Also, I really like how UA designs these plugins to decrease DSP utilization when disabling features. In other words, if I run the 88RS in EQ-only mode, i can instantiate almost 75 stereo instances (124 mono!!)!!

PS - I'm curious. A little later I will load a 33609 onto a project at 88.2 and then see how many 88RSs will load.

PPS - All of this is mostly academic for me as I rarely use any more than 10 to 15 plugins on larger mixes. I think the most I've ever used on a single mix was 31 and they were all UAD-1 plugs and I still had DSP left.
Old 21st July 2008
  #557
Lives for gear
 
solidstate's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by manthe View Post
First of all, I have a Duende with all of the extra plugs. I will be getting a second one as well. I love the platform and the plugins. From a sound quality perspective, I believe it beats the UAD-1...but only in 1-to-1 comparisons of like plugins. On vibe and variety, UAD-1 wins, IMO. I disagree with the 'plasticy' remark whole-heartedly.

Also, on any given mix, I can run WAY more UAD plugins that I can on my Duende. I know people like to single out the 1 (out of 30+!!) plugins that eats a lot of DSP and use that to try to convince people that the system is underpowered, ignoring the fact that over 70% of the plugins available for the UAD-1 platform can run in number FAR exceeding what a Duende classic can, and at least 40% of the UAD-1 plugins can instantiate a lot more than TWO Duende classics! In sheer numbers, the UAD-1 power is only now being rivaled by other DSP providers.

So, now that SSL has allowed me to bond 2 Duendes, I can FINALLY do what I've been able to do with the UAD-1 system for almost 9 years already! Also, I really like how UA designs these plugins to decrease DSP utilization when disabling features. In other words, if I run the 88RS in EQ-only mode, i can instantiate almost 75 stereo instances (124 mono!!)!!

PS - I'm curious. A little later I will load a 33609 onto a project at 88.2 and then see how many 88RSs will load.

PPS - All of this is mostly academic for me as I rarely use any more than 10 to 15 plugins on larger mixes. I think the most I've ever used on a single mix was 31 and they were all UAD-1 plugs and I still had DSP left.
I don't know which plug ins you use with your UAD-1..But i can (barely) run 1 stereo 33609 and a couples of 1081 @ 88.2 with 2 cards..Do you think is resonable instances count? Now.. I don't use many plug in either, but i think that is time for UA to update their DSP platform.. Or AT LEAST let us know if they're not going to!
Old 22nd July 2008
  #558
Gear Addict
 
Electronique's Avatar
 

Stop with the OT already!

Now where the hell is my UAD2??

Old 22nd July 2008
  #559
Gear Guru
 
Animus's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Electronique View Post
Stop with the OT already!

Now where the hell is my UAD2??

word! the people complaining about not needing a UAD2 and are happy with the UAD1 can just not buy the UAD2. Simple. I for one don't want "vintage" dsp cards or video cards or whatever it is. ;-)
Old 23rd July 2008
  #560
The thing I just do not understand here is all the angst directed at UA over a product that does not exist.
It is exactly the same as saying that "I am not buying this new PC/MAC because I need more power, and will wait for MacBook Pro 2" or something.

It is stupid beyond belief.
Old 23rd July 2008
  #561
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by neilwilkes View Post
The thing I just do not understand here is all the angst directed at UA over a product that does not exist.
It is exactly the same as saying that "I am not buying this new PC/MAC because I need more power, and will wait for MacBook Pro 2" or something.

It is stupid beyond belief.
It's hardly stupid.

It's exactly the same as when Apple was having so much problems with getting a G5 chip that would work in a laptop and hence, they were stuck with their Powerbooks getting frozen in time with G4 chips while the world kept moving forward.

I have been a loyal Mac user but I actually went out and bought a PC laptop to tide me over rather than invest in a G4 Powerbook. (BTW: I also had a dual G5 as my main production computer.)

And thank god that I did because as soon as the Intel MBPs were announced, I was able to sell the PC laptop and pick up a MBP.

The fact is that UAD has an old technology that is very underpowered by today's standards, that also has serious load balancing issues, and is not compatible with the most modern Macpro's.

So people who love their UAD plug-ins, but wish that UAD would step up and create a modern solution that allows them to get the most out of their investment without having to buy a 1000 Magma chassis (not very portable either), or be able to run a decent amount of plug-ins if they only have 1 or 2 slots are very valid complaints.

Cue UAD fanboys deriding everyone, all other plug-ins suck, and saying blame the operator not the tools, etc. etc.

The most interesting comment they make is pooh pooh-ing firewire as being a ****ty unstable protocol. Gee, how is it that you can run huge HD video editing systems and several audio interfaces without problems but, not be able to have an external box for a UAD card that connect to the computer via FW??
Old 23rd July 2008
  #562
Lives for gear
 
peeder's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by siddhu View Post
The most interesting comment they make is pooh pooh-ing firewire as being a ****ty unstable protocol. Gee, how is it that you can run huge HD video editing systems and several audio interfaces without problems but, not be able to have an external box for a UAD card that connect to the computer via FW??
You need to understand bandwidth usages in practice, and the architecture of how these systems interface with their hosts. UA is right about this...
Old 23rd July 2008
  #563
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by peeder View Post
You need to understand bandwidth usages in practice, and the architecture of how these systems interface with their hosts. UA is right about this...
Then explain to me about running HD editing systems based on Firewire.
Old 23rd July 2008
  #564
Lives for gear
 
Henchman's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by siddhu View Post
So people who love their UAD plug-ins, but wish that UAD would step up and create a modern solution that allows them to get the most out of their investment without having to buy a 1000 Magma chassis (not very portable either), or be able to run a decent amount of plug-ins if they only have 1 or 2 slots are very valid complaints.


The most interesting comment they make is pooh pooh-ing firewire as being a ****ty unstable protocol. Gee, how is it that you can run huge HD video editing systems and several audio interfaces without problems but, not be able to have an external box for a UAD card that connect to the computer via FW??

Well, for one, it's easy to make a 4-slot Magma chassi very portable.
I did it with mine, and it.s the size of a lunchbox. Very portable.

As far as Firewire, it's abotut he numbe rof data streams nbeing run.
Try running say 80 channel of audio direct I/O's through a firewire connection.
Playback AND record at the same time (so, really 160 channels).
That's what's happening when using 80 UAD plug-ins. The audio gets streamed to the card, then back again.
Guess what, ain't gonna happen.
Old 23rd July 2008
  #565
Lives for gear
 
Henchman's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by siddhu View Post
Then explain to me about running HD editing systems based on Firewire.
Especially on an editing system, you're running minimal data streams through the firewire.
Old 23rd July 2008
  #566
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Henchman View Post
Well, for one, it's easy to make a 4-slot Magma chassi very portable.
I did it with mine, and it.s the size of a lunchbox. Very portable.

As far as Firewire, it's abotut he numbe rof data streams nbeing run.
Try running say 80 channel of audio direct I/O's through a firewire connection.
Playback AND record at the same time (so, really 160 channels).
That's what's happening when using 80 UAD plug-ins. The audio gets streamed to the card, then back again.
Guess what, ain't gonna happen.
80 UAD plug-ins!!

Give the man a cigar!

I'm lucky to get 10-12.
Old 23rd July 2008
  #567
Lives for gear
 
peeder's Avatar
 

The UAD-2, I suspect, could run perhaps 800 of the current plugins if it had the bandwidth access...
Old 23rd July 2008
  #568
Lives for gear
 
ProducerBoy's Avatar
 

I'll laugh when UAD-2 hits, next gen plugs are eventually released, and then everyone is carrying on the exact same conversation looking for UAD-3.

You know...UAD-1 has been around for so long, maybe UA should just skip UAD-2 and go right to 3.
Old 23rd July 2008
  #569
Gear Guru
 
Animus's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ProducerBoy View Post
I'll laugh when UAD-2 hits, next gen plugs are eventually released, and then everyone is carrying on the exact same conversation looking for UAD-3.

You know...UAD-1 has been around for so long, maybe UA should just skip UAD-2 and go right to 3.
Maybe in another 8 years.
Old 23rd July 2008
  #570
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Henchman View Post
That's what's happening when using 80 UAD plug-ins. The audio gets streamed to the card, then back again.
Guess what, ain't gonna happen.
Well, with the current chip I think the bandwidth of USB2 is quite enough (the processor load would not). I think that is also a major concern when talking about firewire vs. pci/pci-e. and what to do with those empty connectors in my mac - at least for with a UAD they find some use.

I do not know all the plugins, but the once I have are excellent. for comparable native plugins I would have payed more. (and at the moment with most packages you get the card for free anyways .....) I think UAD really passes the advantage of a platform that is not to easy to pirate to the customers. The prices are ok, quality is great. Ok, one can argue about processor power - but, we will always run short on that ....

Ok, not everything is gold - plugin distribution problem seems embarrasing that this is not solved, no external side-chain and there should be a chainer plugin ....

best
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
sevendaysoff / Gearslutz Secondhand Gear Classifieds
0
kingneeraj / Gearslutz Secondhand Gear Classifieds
3
rackdude / Low End Theory
1

Forum Jump
Forum Jump