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 9th January 2008
  #151
Gear Nut
 
WeekendWanker's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by WidgetNinja View Post
Note I used Neve, which four cards would get you how many... and per card.
Personally, I'm doubting anyone has ever run that many cambridges, even with 4 cards.
Okay, a single UAD-1 will run 9 stereo Neve 88Rs emulations, or 18 channels, which means a 4 card UAD-1 system will run 72 channels--again, more than firewire can handle. "Programmers" are usually a bit better at math than you seem to be. :-)

Quote:
Again, only if the DSP chip is sitting there doing nothing. Nobody in the real world has encountered such a scenario thus far. It's not a balance of factors in this case. It either is a factor or not. Note that 64 channels doesn't mean 64 plugins, but discrete channels.

Can anyone say they have had 64 discrete channels at mixdown and gone "Gee, what about my 65th channel? I still have tons of processor power, why can't I add one more channel of UA fx?" Anyone?
Lots of people do projects with more than 64 channels--what do you think all those huge consoles on the cover of Mix are there for?

Quote:
BTW, I am passionate because I honestly love my UA plugs, but it is like watching Apple flounder for so long. The inability to meet users' needs, or stay within half a decade of ambient technological progress, as a software developer, just makes me want to get all Navy Seal on UA HQ, steal the the code, leaving an inferno using discarded user requests for kindling, and find people to help do the platform justice.
So UA doesn't meet your needs, I get it, but I would humbly suggest that your needs are not necessarily the entire market's. When I bought an additional Express Pack a couple of months ago, I had to wait a week or so to get at as all three of the dealers I contacted were sold out. My guy at West LA told me that they were selling UAD-1s "like crazy" so somebody's still buying these things.
Old 9th January 2008
  #152
Lives for gear
 
jacko's Avatar
My calculations say that FW400 gives you around 160 tracks at 96KHz 24bit resolution, twice as much when used 48 or 44.1KHz.
Anyway - TC Electronic and SSL don't have any problems with making Firewire DSP solutions.
Old 9th January 2008
  #153
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jacko View Post
Anyway - TC Electronic and SSL don't have any problems with making Firewire DSP solutions.
lol

look at their forums, and then repeat "don´t have any problems"

the poco-fw was a big desaster in my system. 1 duende "works" but the new 2 x duende-feature doesn´t. that´s why i sell one of them.

the actual firewire-units (powercore, duende, liquidmix) aren´t rock solid!
Old 9th January 2008
  #154
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jacko View Post
My calculations say that FW400 gives you around 160 tracks at 96KHz 24bit resolution, twice as much when used 48 or 44.1KHz.
Anyway - TC Electronic and SSL don't have any problems with making Firewire DSP solutions.
That is some very optimistic math, in terms of what's actually going on under the hood. Your initial calculations were correct as far as they go, but make a few incorrect assumptions and do not account for nearly all the required bandwidth. Here's what you calculated.

24 bits = 3 Bytes
So 96K x 3 Bytes = 288KB/sec per channel
So then 288KB/sec per channel x 160 channels = 46080 MB/sec for 160 channels at 96K.
Firewire 400 (1394a) specs at 400Mb (megaBITs) which is 50MB (megaBYTEs)..... in theory, with everything literally perfect. So as far as that goes, your numbers match.

Now, with all due respect, some corrections:

Plugins, at least UAD-1 plugins, are handled at 32 bits, the Native resolution of most VST plugins. So your figures account for only 75% of the needed bandwidth in that respect, as compared to 24 bits.

Second, all the audio data must travel both to and from the Firewire based DSP. You can't just send it to the box, then leave it there. So you need twice the bandwidth because the audio stream is bidirectional.

Third, you have to derate the Firewire bus itself as soon as you have bidirectional travel, especially when it's evenly divided, bidirectionaly. That is the worst case scenario for bus efficiency. Add in the very low tolerance of a low latency audio system for momentary chokepoints and spikes that are a fact of Firewire. In the realworld, in this application, it would extremely optimistic to achieve even 50% of Firewire's theoretical bandwidth. And that assumes the external DSP box owns the entire Firewire bus and that no other PCI devices are hampering the Firewire chipset's operation on the PCI bus.

Add it all up and the actual achievable rock solid channel count in this scenario for a 1394a spec Firewire 400 port is probably 25 to 30 channels at 96K, best case on an optimized system with no quirks in the motherboard, OS, drivers or Firewire chipset. Any problems of that nature, and you could easily cut that count in half again.

Any of the plugin developers we are talking about would confirm my realistic numbers, if you were to talk to the the actual geeks in-the-know at the company. Current Firewire is not going to cut it.
Old 9th January 2008
  #155
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianT View Post
Add it all up and the actual achievable rock solid channel count in this scenario for a 1394a spec Firewire 400 port is probably 25 to 30 channels at 96K, best case on an optimized system with no quirks in the motherboard, OS, drivers or Firewire chipset.
But I think the point that many are trying to make is that the UAD-1 card lacks the DSP horsepower to run that many channels of the majority of their most desired plugins, even at 44.1K. If you could run 24 channels at 96K each with a non-SE EQ and a non-SE comp (I'm talking stuff like the NEVE or Helios) on a single card, UA fans would be ecstatic. Heck, they'd probably be relatively pleased if you could get that with 4 cards and using 44.1. Yes freezing works, but that's an interuption of workflow.

They've been touting how much better PCIe is than FireWire ever since the PCIe versions of the card came out. But they put the same amount of DSP on the PCIe card as on the PCI card - so they aren't even using that extra bandwidth.

I think they'd be greatly served by coming out with both a super-powered UAD2 PCIe card AND a FireWire box. Why not go after ALL possible markets? Lots of people these days have their home setups based around iMacs, which have no expansion slots, or laptops, only some of which have expresscard slots.

The quality of their plugs has put them in the position to where people are clamboring for a way to use MORE of them on their systems. More people using more plugins=more sales. More avenues to get into UA plugins=more sales. Right?
Old 9th January 2008
  #156
Lives for gear
 
jacko's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by WindowSills View Post
But I think the point that many are trying to make is that the UAD-1 card lacks the DSP horsepower to run that many channels of the majority of their most desired plugins, even at 44.1K. If you could run 24 channels at 96K each with a non-SE EQ and a non-SE comp (I'm talking stuff like the NEVE or Helios) on a single card, UA fans would be ecstatic.
This is exactly what I mean. I would love to have "limited" version of UAD that would work on FW and run "only" 32 channels of great plugins (as in SSL Duende)
Old 14th January 2008
  #157
Lives for gear
 
peeder's Avatar
 

Those eager for a UAD-2 have been all but shouted down on the UAD forum.

But I will reiterate, if UA doesn't come out with a UAD-2 in CY08 their digital business will crumble right before their eyes.

Old 14th January 2008
  #158
Lives for gear
 

I doubt that. The quality of their plugins keep them at the top. It really is as simple as that. That's my prediction.

Cheers!
bManic
Old 14th January 2008
  #159
Lives for gear
 

i think they will go down first with the price for UAD1 before they would
enter UAD2.
if i can get then an UAD1 for about 100€ i will buy 3 more and just relax!!!!
Old 14th January 2008
  #160
Gear Guru
 
Animus's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bmanic View Post
I doubt that. The quality of their plugins keep them at the top. It really is as simple as that. That's my prediction.

Cheers!
bManic

Never rest on your laurels. I have been an avid UAD fan since the beginning and as of late the thought has been coming into my mind more often to ditch these cludgy UAD1's. That and the fact there are other games in town that are comparable imo. They need to do something. Powercore has had like two hardware updates, most recently the announcement of the x8. If UA don't at least announce something at NAMM that's another rung in the ladder downwards. I am thinking they will though. Hoping at least.
Old 14th January 2008
  #161
Lives for gear
 
jeremy.c.'s Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Animus View Post
Never rest on your laurels. I have been an avid UAD fan since the beginning and as of late the thought has been coming into my mind more often to ditch these cludgy UAD1's. That and the fact there are other games in town that are comparable imo. They need to do something. Powercore has had like two hardware updates, most recently the announcement of the x8. If UA don't at least announce something at NAMM that's another rung in the ladder downwards. I am thinking they will though. Hoping at least.
No doubt, I'm hoping at least too... It seems kind of backwards to keep releasing amazing, card hungry plugins (think Neve) and not be able to run more than a few instances with one card. I generally don't maxout my 4 cards in one session with a ton of 88RS, 1176, LA2A, Plate 140, etc, but it would be nice to add in a few 1073's and 33609's and keep my other counts the same. Also having more power in fewer cards would be a big boon too, Iwouldn't mind ditching that large and noisy Avid expander for a few PCI cards. It would be nice if they did ethernet or firewire too so I could use it with my laptop as well... that said I won't jump ship yet if they don't release a new DSP solution, even my "limited" number of plugins is really convenient and sweet.
here's to wishing!
Old 15th January 2008
  #162
Lives for gear
 

what about this ?

What about an external box, like duende, but instead of connecting via firewire, it is connected with a proprietary PCIe card !! Then, you'd eliminate the problems of firewire ( different chipsets...etc..) and you could have very low latency, as well as only occupy one pci slot... (would make mac users very happy..) Imagine...like a powercore x8 box, with about 10 times the power of the original uad1, and zero conflict problems due to a proprietary interface card. Now...that would satisfy...... me !!heh OK ... no more help for you UA....if you wanna put me on your payroll, I'll be product manager for this project.......pm me !! heh
Old 15th January 2008
  #163
Lives for gear
 

That seems like the worst of both worlds. It would take up a pci slot and some space in the rack plus it still wouldn't work with a laptop or be easily transportable to other computers.
Old 15th January 2008
  #164
Lives for gear
 

But...mann it would sure be nice !

Quote:
Originally Posted by initialsBB View Post
That seems like the worst of both worlds. It would take up a pci slot and some space in the rack plus it still wouldn't work with a laptop or be easily transportable to other computers.

OOPs ! I forgot about you laptop users !! OK... solved.... a cardbus card for you guys so you can use it too !! ( who cares about rack space... this this would be so powerfull, you wouldn't mind the extra slot it would take up !!)
Old 15th January 2008
  #165
Lives for gear
 
Ben F's Avatar
The problem with sticking to the PCIe standard is that it dramatically increases the price of a computer if you are on the Mac platform. If you have a HD3 system then all of your PCI slots are used and you have to buy a Magma chassis.

Many home users and smaller studios would be happy with a firewire solution even if it meant less plug-ins. Many people work on laptops and iMacs now, I personally couldn't justify the price of a Power Mac over a PC. And how many UAD plug-ins do you use in a mix anyway? I'd be happy with 24, 64 would be plenty. They have to acknowledge the other end of the market and bring out a product to suit. They can't keep going with the PCIe argument because they will lose too much business, especially when the competition is racing ahead with Firewire alternatives.

I desperately want a UAD-1 card for home use. The problem is the mastering studio has a PC with the older PCI standard, my iMac doesn't have a PCI slot, and if I bought a power Mac then it's not compatible with the mastering studio as they are different PCI standards. Who knows, maybe Apple will change the standard again and the card will be obsolete. A portable Firewire card would be the perfect answer, even if it does lack power, the convenience would far outway less plug-ins.
Old 15th January 2008
  #166
Gear Maniac
 

Wow....5 pages with no actual information.

People must really want one of these.
Old 15th January 2008
  #167
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by lukejs View Post
OOPs ! I forgot about you laptop users !! OK... solved.... a cardbus card for you guys so you can use it too !! ( who cares about rack space... this this would be so powerfull, you wouldn't mind the extra slot it would take up !!)
Well, I'm not primarily a laptop user. I do have a laptop though. And a mac with PCI. And a mac with PCIe. I can use the same firewire device on all 3 machines. Not so with a UAD product and that's dumb in 2008 IMO. I haven't used a PCI card in years. And anyway in 10 years when firewire is obsolete and we have PCIxyz cards, you'll still be able to buy a PCIxyz card with a firewire interface. But AFAIK you can't buy a PCI to NUBUS converter and that's the kind of obsolescence that these PCI cards are headed for.
Old 15th January 2008
  #168
Lives for gear
 
feck's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by synthdogg View Post
Wow....5 pages with no actual information.

People must really want one of these.
Hilarious! True though.
Old 15th January 2008
  #169
Lives for gear
 
peeder's Avatar
 

Well when it finally shows up, if they haven't completely screwed the pooch, it will be the audio processing standard for the next 5 years.
Old 15th January 2008
  #170
Lives for gear
 

I am a loyal UA user... I have had my cards since my G4, moved to G5 and I have always LOVED the sound of the plugins...

We need a more powerful card... These guys have bee writing amazing algorithms and some of the newer stuff is very hungry... It's a no-brainer that they come up with a solution for the Processing issue... if not make some native plugs Dammit!!!

We'll just have to wait and see.....
Old 15th January 2008
  #171
Gear Guru
 
Animus's Avatar
 

Yup. Native! There was an interesting discussion on another forum about the inherent problems DSP cards have with efficient multiprocessing with modern native cpu's. Basically the UAD cards force the host computer/DAW to work in synchronous" mp threading as opposed to the more efficient asynchronous threading. These DSP cards are actually slowing down these powerful modern systems. Native would solve this imo. Another dsp solution would just tie us down to another card that will become obsolete sooner or later and we will be in this same situation again soon enough. Let the UA plugs scale up with native processors.
Old 15th January 2008
  #172
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Animus View Post
Yup. Native! There was an interesting discussion on another forum about the inherent problems DSP cards have with efficient multiprocessing with modern native cpu's. Basically the UAD cards force the host computer/DAW to work in synchronous" mp threading as opposed to the more efficient asynchronous threading. These DSP cards are actually slowing down these powerful modern systems. Native would solve this imo. Another dsp solution would just tie us down to another card that will become obsolete sooner or later and we will be in this same situation again soon enough. Let the UA plugs scale up with native processors.

Do you have a link to that thread?
Old 16th January 2008
  #173
Gear Guru
 
Animus's Avatar
 

It was talked about over at Nuendo.com, the DAW Bench forums and the Reaper forums apparently. The developer of Reaper was saying that he disliked the UAD cards since they cause the program to get less efficient since it forces him to use some synchronous mp threading code. Which would be cool if you actually got a significant dsp acceleration but as it stands right now the UAD card is nothing more than a dongle that can't even run some of it's own plugins efficiently. I own the Neve 33609 but never can use it easily in a project because of the load balancing issues.
Old 16th January 2008
  #174
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Animus View Post
It was talked about over at Nuendo.com, the DAW Bench forums and the Reaper forums apparently. The developer of Reaper was saying that he disliked the UAD cards since they cause the program to get less efficient. Which would be cool if you actually got a significant dsp acceleration but as it stands right now the UAD card is nothing more than a dongle that can't even run some of it's own plugins efficiently. I own the Neve 33609 but never can use it easily in a project because of the load balancing issues.
I dare you to post this on the UAD forums!!

They'll hunt you down with the ferocity of a pack of rabid dogs on meth for desecrating the holy cult/god of the UAD.

Old 16th January 2008
  #175
Registered User
 

Are we there yet???
Old 16th January 2008
  #176
Lives for gear
 
Mixocalypse's Avatar
 

Id love to pick up the new fatso and the SPL plug, but its pointless for me.
Have no more PCI-e slots for more UAD cards and the plugs I use barely make it on one card... its sad... they make great plugs just nothing to run them on.
Old 16th January 2008
  #177
Gear Guru
 
Animus's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by siddhu View Post
I dare you to post this on the UAD forums!!

They'll hunt you down with the ferocity of a pack of rabid dogs on meth for desecrating the holy cult/god of the UAD.

No thanks!
Old 16th January 2008
  #178
Lives for gear
 
peeder's Avatar
 

In Pro Tools, the load balancing problem is treated easily enough by command-control-clicking the plugs to disable them and then re-enabling them from biggest to smallest. It's a pain but I don't have a problem with it. Forget the UAD Meter readout though...you'll never get that near 100% with 3 cards. False advertising.
Old 16th January 2008
  #179
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by peeder View Post
In Pro Tools, the load balancing problem is treated easily enough by command-control-clicking the plugs to disable them and then re-enabling them from biggest to smallest. It's a pain but I don't have a problem with it. Forget the UAD Meter readout though...you'll never get that near 100% with 3 cards. False advertising.
I guess it depends a lot of the plugins you're using... When I need a lot of power, I can make my 4 cards goes to 93-97% without trouble, and load balancing is right (not for test purpose, on working mixes). The only plugin I never use due to the bad load-balancing is the 33609 (not SE). That's of course a pain but I live with it until they give us more power or better plugin management.

Of course, if you're only use the big players (Neves EQ and Comp, PMB, or RE-201), you can't max the cards, seems logical since they can't be shared on two DSPs.
Old 16th January 2008
  #180
Lives for gear
 

Wow... all this endless speculation can be pretty off-putting. I've been toying with the idea of buying a UAD card for years, but from the outside looking in, things get confusing.

Not being able to use the plugs without first buying a card means that all you really have to go on is user reviews and opinion, and the majority of opinions that are usually expressed online point towards the card being underpowered.

Plus, I gather that they often give out vouchers as discounts on new plugs to existing users. I have read comments along the lines of "oh - I can get that one for free, with the vouchers I have". As a potential new customer that is off-putting - does it mean that the plugs are overpriced to begin with? Combined with the various versions / bundles on offer, it all adds up to a general feeling that I'm really not sure how much I would need to spend in order to have the plugs I want and use them how I want.

The fact that they won't even suggest that they're working on a more powerful card after all these years is peculiar. I wonder how many more people like me are holding back on a purchase until further notice?
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