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
UAD-2 : facts and figures Audio Interfaces
Old 1st September 2008
  #31
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by computa View Post
that Fairlight card is $28,000
No it isn't. The Fairlight Xynergi product is that price. That includes the full DAW software, all the I/O (up to 230 channels of I/O) and the very cool OLED and large LCD based control surface: YouTube - Fairlight Xynergi

Fairlight's $28,000 XYNERGI keyboard makes Optimus look Minimus - Engadget

Also, there are many different level FPGAs with different costs. The good thing about them is that once you have ported your product to one chip from a particular manufacturer, you can very quickly port it to a more powerful chip. It is all about a planned growth path. Don't forget, FPGA chips have been around since 1985. This is not something new that Universal Audio couldn't have known about.

Alistair
Old 1st September 2008
  #32
Gear Nut
 
lazzaro's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by animix View Post
Well,

I'm obviously not at your level when it comes to this stuff. Are you saying that it would have been just as easy, could have been delivered at the same price point to have gone with a much more powerful architecture back around 2006?
With respect to "easy" ... the class I taught here at Cal 2004-2006
put 20-year-olds into groups of 4, and in 16 weeks each group built a running
pipelined RISC CPU with full caches and a DRAM interface on an Xilinx board.
If I can teach 20-year-olds how to do it in a semester, that's "easy" in my book.

As far as price-point and performance goes, about 50,000 high-end DSP
products per year base their designs on FPGAs -- it's a mainstream design
choice. Xilinx and Altera wouldn't both be giving workshops at AES
next month in San Francisco on their platforms if there wasn't a
good market fit. Much of the RME product line is FPGA-based, for example.

Last edited by lazzaro; 1st September 2008 at 09:10 PM.. Reason: Removed animation
Old 1st September 2008
  #33
Lives for gear
 
Macaroni's Avatar
 

No sooner does UAD-2 come out and already it's not good enough for some people.

Each of the 3 cards does run many more instances than the previous UAD-1, with the Quad running significantly more than 4 UAD-1s together. I can only imagine that the very biggest projects, ie: over blown songs or movie sound tracks, would use up the full power of 3-4 Quad cards, what to speak of integrating additional high quality native plugins into the mix.

This is exactly what we all wanted, and precisely what UA delivered. It's not like mixes are going to change that much in the next 4-6 years. For the most part, we're still all doing the same basic types of music recording and mixing that's been going on for decades. The UAD-2 fits right into that paradigm quite well, and should be good for another 4-6 years, which means it will be a worthwhile and cost effective investment during that period.

Certainly there will continue to be amazing advances in processing power, which will no doubt raise the various processing bars, but if you can't make it happen in your mixes with a couple of UAD-2 Quad cards, then the problem isn't the SHARC chips.

I also understand that some parts of these inevitable discussions are academic, and that's fine too. Carry on.

The market is a wide open place, so let's see if anyone else can duplicate UA's innovative and standard setting work with better, more powerful cards and better plugins.

Those who can, open companies like Universal Audio - those who can't, teach.
Old 2nd September 2008
  #34
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macaroni View Post
No sooner does UAD-2 come out and already it's not good enough for some people.
Not in 2008. Look at this product that started shipping in 2000: Harmony Central®: Soundscape Ships mixpander Cards, Releases Version 3.2 Software

Quote:
Each of the 3 cards does run many more instances than the previous UAD-1, with the Quad running significantly more than 4 UAD-1s together.
That isn't exactly true. Some of the plugins haven't gained that many instances. In the extreme case of the Cambridge EQ, the UAD-2 runs less instances than the UAD-1. I find that a bit strange so many years down the line.

Quote:
I can only imagine that the very biggest projects, ie: over blown songs or movie sound tracks, would use up the full power of 3-4 Quad cards, what to speak of integrating additional high quality native plugins into the mix.
With an RRP of $1500, four UAD-2 Quads cost 6000$ Octo core Intel processors (with each SSE unit doubling in speed compared to current Intel's) will be out this year. In light of that, the UAD-2 cards don't seem like a particularly good investment.

Quote:
This is exactly what we all wanted, and precisely what UA delivered. It's not like mixes are going to change that much in the next 4-6 years. For the most part, we're still all doing the same basic types of music recording and mixing that's been going on for decades. The UAD-2 fits right into that paradigm quite well, and should be good for another 4-6 years, which means it will be a worthwhile and cost effective investment during that period.
This is what I don't agree with. For me personally, the UAD-2 cards seem underpowered right now let alone 4-6 years from now.

Quote:
but if you can't make it happen in your mixes with a couple of UAD-2 Quad cards, then the problem isn't the SHARC chips.
For me the problem right now is the cost of these cards. It is just too much for too little.

Quote:
I also understand that some parts of these inevitable discussions are academic, and that's fine too. Carry on.
Absolutely and IMO that is quite important although, even so, there are very real and non-academic alternatives available.

Quote:
The market is a wide open place, so let's see if anyone else can duplicate UA's innovative and standard setting work with better, more powerful cards and better plugins.
There are already much more powerful DSP cards available. Well, at least one. It is in a different price league as it comes bundled with other stuff but still, the bar is already much higher. Native computing is also much more powerful today. So IMO, there isn't much innovative about the UAD-2 card hardware.

Quote:
Those who can, open companies like Universal Audio - those who can't, teach.
That is a cheap shot. One might as well say that those who can mix/master/compose/etc and those that can't open companies like UA. Either way, it is an attack on the person, not the arguments.

Alistair
Old 2nd September 2008
  #35
Lives for gear
 
animix's Avatar
Quote:
With an RRP of $1500, four UAD-2 Quads cost 6000$ Octo core Intel processors (with each SSE unit doubling in speed compared to current Intel's) will be out this year. In light of that, the UAD-2 cards don't seem like a particularly good investment.
The reason I buy the UAD cards isn't because of how many plugins they can run. It is because of the quality of the plugins themselves. If I wanted quantity I'd go native.

Quote:
This is what I don't agree with. For me personally, the UAD-2 cards seem underpowered right now let alone 4-6 years from now.
I really never had any complaints with the capability of 4 x UAD-1 cards, unless I was mixing at higher sample rates. the quad should solve that problem.

Quote:
For me the problem right now is the cost of these cards. It is just too much for too little.
Then the UAD-1's are gonna be a hell of a bargain. I just sold 4 x of them for $100.00 each.heh

Quote:
There are already much more powerful DSP cards available. Well, at least one. It is in a different price league as it comes bundled with other stuff but still, the bar is already much higher. Native computing is also much more powerful today. So IMO, there isn't much innovative about the UAD-2 card hardware.
......but they're not running UA DSP code. They may be running a code that is more to your liking though. I use the UA plugins because the come very close to emulating the same kinda' hardware that makes it easy and fast to nail a mix. there's a reason that those hardware boxes that UA emulates are popular. Grab a couple of knobs and twist till you're happy and move on instead of getting all hung up in menus and tweaking.

Quote:
That is a cheap shot. One might as well say that those who can mix/master/compose/etc and those that can't open companies like UA. Either way, it is an attack on the person, not the arguments.

Alistair
I don't agree that those who can't succeed go into teaching. I do think that teachers often become myoptic, but that's their job.....to specialize. It doesn't mean that they don't have the acumen to take that specialty and integrate it into a more generalized context. That's just not their job. That's the job of the overall MBA program and/or just getting a job in the real world and sorting out what you have been taught in the context of what you're trying to achieve whilst having a life.

Old 2nd September 2008
  #36
Gear Nut
 
lazzaro's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Macaroni View Post
This is exactly what we all wanted, and precisely what UA delivered. It's not like mixes are going to change that much in the next 4-6 years. For the most part, we're still all doing the same basic types of music recording and mixing that's been going on for decades.
The current version of your DAW of choice probably runs on the
top-of-the-line machine Apple shipped 4-6 years ago. But many
DAW users happily write a check for a new Mac Pro every two
years, because given the way they use the platform, they can put
newer hardware to work to make their job easier or their productions
better (or both).

All that we're saying here is, its painful for everyone -- system
vendor, third-party plug-in developers, and end-user customers ---
to switch to a new platform. And so, when you see a new
platform introduced that doesn't look particularly scalable going forward,
it's a cause for concern.
Old 2nd September 2008
  #37
Lives for gear
 
ProducerBoy's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arksun View Post
Not so much a 'lot' of plugs as you put it but rather a 'few' plugs. Those plugs also seem to be amongst the oldest plugins made for UAD-1. My guess is its using such old code that wasn't soo compatable with the new SHARC chips that its either very inefficient or having to emulate.

Either way, the latest plugins have even better than 2.5x more instances on the Solo, up to 4x even!.

So I'm sure as more new plugins get created they'll take full advantage of the SHARC's processing abilities first and foremost. This could possibly mean leaving UAD-1 users behind, but I think thats inevitable really.

They've already hinted at new eq's and comps on the way and I doubt it'll be long before they're out.

What concerns me far more is that one thread on the UAD forum from a guy with a pretty high spec quad core computer, using an RME soundcard (hardly a slouch in the driver/latency department) seeing his entire cpu being swallowed up when the UAD-2 quad is in heavy use.

Granted thats at 128ms latency, but still, to have to go upwards of 1024 for the cpu hit to be low?. Hmmmmm
Yeah, not "a lot", i should have said, about 1/3. Well... that's still alot to me...
I'm disappointed that the Plate count only went up 50%. Not cause I want to run a bunch of Plate verbs, but because I don't want it eating up space I need for other plugs.

Nevertheless, I'm pleased that they cards are optimized for the Neve plugs & 1176. Those, the LA2A & Plate are the main draw for me.

Not complaining tho! I'm counting down the days till I can snatch up a duo!
Old 2nd September 2008
  #38
js1
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by lazzaro View Post
As far as price-point and performance goes, about 50,000 high-end DSP
products per year base their designs on FPGAs -- it's a mainstream design
choice. Xilinx and Altera wouldn't both be giving workshops at AES
next month in San Francisco on their platforms if there wasn't a
good market fit. Much of the RME product line is FPGA-based, for example.
Yeah, but it's different when you have to bet your company on it. You're not choosing a part, you're choosing a partner that can make you or break you. I've had to make these same decisions, and made them different ways during my career.

FWIW, my first Gate Array designs predate FPGAs (1980 at IBM).

I've bet on an FPGA vendor before (not named to protect the guilty), and had the pleasure of seeing my part choice prematurely end of lifed. More than once. I've had to do last time buys that hit company cash flow hard. I've had to do board spins/redesigns in record time.

Now, in those cases, I chose a part that was most suited to the board design, but wasn't the most mainstream. The company wasn't huge (about $50M revenues), but certainly bigger than UA. We were buying the parts in qty 5000. We had ZERO weight with the supplier in the end.

This doesn't mean that I never used these parts again. But I would never use them in a place where it would be impossible to design them out. And DSP is one place that once in, it stays in. Code ports are NOT fun.

The AD DSPs are good devices with a solid track record and well supported. I can understand why UA would have chosen them.

js
Old 2nd September 2008
  #39
Quote:
Originally Posted by lazzaro View Post
In UAs defense, putting together a third-party development platform
based on FPGAs is a leading-edge endeavor ... but I think UA could
have pulled it off. They are geographically in the right place to assemble
the team that could do it, and they have the business model that could
fund it ... it would have solved their platform problem more or less
permanently, whereas moving to SHARC chips really doesn't.
I think the issue is that the Chromatics chip was quite different
architecturally from the SHARC. The SHARC has a *much* better
upside. But, some of the older UA plugs were heavily tweaked to
squeak everything out of the Chromatics chip they could. I expect,
once they've transitioned the customer base to the UAD-2, that you'll
see some re-writes of these plugs to take better advantage of the
SHARC.

FPGA's, while really cool aren't gonna tweak out the FLOPs that
the Analog Devices chips can do. UA's only other option would have
been full custom silicon .. and they aren't that well heeled .. Digi
is .. but not UA.

Give UA some time .. I think they're on the right track with this one.

jeff
Old 2nd September 2008
  #40
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by animix View Post
The reason I buy the UAD cards isn't because of how many plugins they can run. It is because of the quality of the plugins themselves. If I wanted quantity I'd go native.
I want quality and quantity.

Quote:
I really never had any complaints with the capability of 4 x UAD-1 cards, unless I was mixing at higher sample rates. the quad should solve that problem.
I use a lot of channels and processing but I know my use isn't typical. 150 audio channels is quite typical for my work.

Quote:
Then the UAD-1's are gonna be a hell of a bargain. I just sold 4 x of them for $100.00 each.heh
Well that is the rub isn't it. The market is going to be flooded with 2nd hand UAD-1 cards. I still have PCI slots available on my mother board...

Quote:
......but they're not running UA DSP code. They may be running a code that is more to your liking though. I use the UA plugins because the come very close to emulating the same kinda' hardware that makes it easy and fast to nail a mix. there's a reason that those hardware boxes that UA emulates are popular. Grab a couple of knobs and twist till you're happy and move on instead of getting all hung up in menus and tweaking.
That is besides the point when discussing the UAD hardware. I am not saying anything bad about the plugins themselves. I'm just very disappointed in the hardware UA are delivering in 2008. :(

Alistair
Old 2nd September 2008
  #41
Hey,

Can I ask you guys a favor?
Please, when you get an UAD-2, try to puting a 1073+1176 on channels until it chokes... so we can get some real numbers on how powerfull the cards are...
or something like...
a few 1073+1176 + a few fairchilds+pultec pro + a plate + some LA-2A...
something we could use on a session instead of just... twenty something 1073, twenty something pultecs...
Old 2nd September 2008
  #42
And, going back on topic, if there is a REAL chance to do tracking with the new cards.
I honestly still can't get it.
Old 2nd September 2008
  #43
Gear Addict
 

I'm on a tight budget here so my plan is to sell one of my (two) UAD-1 cards and pick up a solo.

With the 10% discount, and the $150 (say) from the uad-1 along with whatever I fancy from the plugin shop with the $175 voucher, it's a pretty good deal for $300
Old 2nd September 2008
  #44
Gear Maniac
 
dione's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeronimo View Post
Hey,

Can I ask you guys a favor?
Please, when you get an UAD-2, try to puting a 1073+1176 on channels until it chokes... so we can get some real numbers on how powerfull the cards are...
or something like...
a few 1073+1176 + a few fairchilds+pultec pro + a plate + some LA-2A...
something we could use on a session instead of just... twenty something 1073, twenty something pultecs...
The exact figures are on their website...: Universal Audio | UAD Charts

A friend of mine tested his new UAD-2 Quad and was able to run 17 stereo instances of the 33609...pretty impressive...

Ordered my UAD-2 Quad yesterday...
Old 2nd September 2008
  #45
I have to say UAD-2 has awesome power.

I have UAD-1 x 2 and that is pretty much all I need already! On most mixes I end up having to do submix burn downs to free up some more plugs, but only very near the end of the mix. With UAD-2, that's beyond what i'll ever need.

The important issue is:

(1) How stable is it?

Used alongside UAD1 cards)
Used on it's own or with other UAD2 cards?

My only disappointment is the Transfer fee?! Hadnt come across this sales concept before. It's probably going to 'force' me into upgrading before xmas cause i hate the idea of spending cash on something useless.

I gather new computers dont have large PCI slots, only express slots, is that correct? So i'm going to have to upgrade my 2xUAD1 cards when I upgrade my computer anyway.


(PC Intel, Cubase 4.1)
Old 2nd September 2008
  #46
Quote:
Originally Posted by dione View Post
The exact figures are on their website...: Universal Audio | UAD Charts

A friend of mine tested his new UAD-2 Quad and was able to run 17 stereo instances of the 33609...pretty impressive...

Ordered my UAD-2 Quad yesterday...
The exact figures are useless... I don't plan to use 21 instances of 1073 by itself on a card... do you know what I mean?
Old 2nd September 2008
  #47
Lives for gear
 

what happens with the CPU load at 88.2?
will it jump from 37% to 74% with the QUAD?

if that happens how should we use multiple QUADs then even at 44.1?
Old 2nd September 2008
  #48
Gear Addict
 
Electronique's Avatar
 

Where are the new PlugIns?
Where are the new PlugIns?
Old 2nd September 2008
  #49
Lives for gear
 
macgee's Avatar
i think the UAD2 solo package may be decent in regards to power but only 4 bundled plugins is a joke of which the one is SE

i'm glad i bought the powercore compact, love that box and it comes with incredibly useful plugins from the outset and you don't even need anything else. i loved it so much i bought the X8 along with CL1b & VSS3 and now i'm as happy as can be and it's firewire.

although i feel TC should get more developers onboard i'm quite happy with the available plugins and i'm able to achieve very low latencies with a mac pro!

i also can't believe they have ditched Nigel which i believe was quite good - TC's Tubifex is brilliant and quite natural sounding
Old 2nd September 2008
  #50
Gear Addict
anyone actually WORKING with a UAD-2 now and willing to post about stability ?
Old 2nd September 2008
  #51
Lives for gear
 

I'm kinda cheesed at UAD-2 after having a few days to calm down from the fact that it actually came out.

I use UAD-1 and am quite happy with it... I DO have to freeze a ton of tracks if I'm using the plugs on buss tasks and whatnot, sure. But they get the job done. More instances would mean faster project workflow, but whatever.

What I've very worried about is if nobody is really jazzed about instance counts now, what will happen when the newer plugs start coming and they take up more DSP than the current plugs? Then the card will seem under powered prematurely, right?

And I'm also a bit cheesed that nobody is talking about mixing in 96k yet. I've been told that doing so would be a decent idea and help quality of the audio. However, without more of a power leap it's not possible.

I run a small studio, and I can't afford much outboard gear. I also can't afford to run out and throw $1.5k on a new DSP card that doesn't meet my expectations. Kind of a downer, but o well. I still can use my UAD-1 card.
Old 2nd September 2008
  #52
Gear Addict
 
gransonik's Avatar
 

Did i miss something or will the old plugins just be rewrites for the new DSP with no further improvements? I was hoping UAD2 to be a clear step up in emulation quality.
Old 2nd September 2008
  #53
Here for the gear
 

UA mentions in their webzine why they chose the SHARC processors:

Quote:
Although we have our fair share of 4-card UAD professional power users, the majority of our customers own just one or two UAD-1s. It is these customers who helped to establish the UAD platform so rapidly, and account for its continued growth. The UAD is an unusual product in that it offers the best sounding plug-ins in the business but at a price that is actually affordable to amateurs and home studios. One of the core design parameters and challenges was that the lowest-cost UAD-2 had to be able to reach the market for under $500, while offering a “pro” solution with the power to beat all the high-end audio DSP accelerators out there!

The Mpact-2 Media Processor used on the UAD-1 provided a great price/performance ratio that has been very hard for anyone to beat. Chromatic, who designed the Mpact-1 and Mpact-2, became defunct (and was acquired by ATI in 1998), so there was no natural code-compatible successor. So … the hard part was finding the right processor at the right price, one that could fulfill all the following needs.

• Run UA’s floating-point algorithms with good average instance multipliers
• Scalable DSP power at audio industry sales volumes (MFLOPS per $)
• Interface to PCIe and high-speed memory (to run Reverb/Delay/IR-type plug-ins)
• Quality development and debugging tools (fast plug-in development)
• Processor price availability and roadmap (future-proof expansion options)

There are many exotic chips with a great deal of processing power, but when you have to consider all the requirements above, you're quickly reduced to just a few practical options. Since first samples of the 21369 SHARC processor were within our development time window, we selected that as the target processor because it offered the greatest raw computational performance for our needs for the price.
Full article is here: Universal Audio Webzine | Ask the Doctors
Old 2nd September 2008
  #54
Lives for gear
 

For what its worth..

3.6Ghz E6850, Hyperx8500 2gb, Asus P5Q-E, 1x UAD-1e, 1x UAD2 Quad, Cubase 4, RME Fireface 400 running through that Agere Chip...

Setup real easy, and the new format installs the authorizations on the card itself, so you can switch to another rig with your card and its ready to go..

Opened up a project where I was at 95% running two UAD-1's (mix of Cambridge, 1073SE's, and 1176LN & SE), and it showed 25% on the Quad. That for me happily demonstrated the rated 8 to 10 times a UAD-1 power of the card...

So I started ramming the card full of plugs and saw that above 90% full my Asio driver spiked, with CPU usage of around 20-30% (just plugs, no audio) at a latency of 256. If I stayed at 90%, no spikes and everything fine...

Moved the latency to 512, and absolutely no issues whatsoever with spiking or whatever, with Quad at 99% and CPU usage lower.

Overall extremely pleased with the power (went completely nuts on my last mix, and barely hit 35% of the Quad), and wondering whether the spiking I saw at 256 is due to the Agere Chip.. Waiting on my TI chipped firewire card to try again.
Old 2nd September 2008
  #55
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by r.staettler View Post
anyone actually WORKING with a UAD-2 now
If not, I know there are already a few over in the Chris Milne UAD forums.

Take Care
Old 2nd September 2008
  #56
Lives for gear
 
Faderjockey's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by the_Chris View Post
I can't quite figure out why the UAD-2 is getting bashed so bad myself. People have been waiting years for this and while it may not be the smoothest product launch around, it seems like UA is being pretty fair here. They're offering vouchers to original UAD-1 owners (let's be real here - how many companies support older products like that?). With computers, you're essentially S.O.L. because they're constantly getting upgraded and consequently enough get devalued very quickly. The UAD-1 has been around for a long time (it's been supported for a long time as well) and I have no doubts in my mind that the UAD-2 will be around for a long time as well.

I was looking at purchasing a UAD-1 for a while, I was almost tempted to jump on their Xtreme pak they had going on for a little more than 2k. Now I can purchase their top of the line Quad model with all of their Neve plugins (which were the most costly anyways) for less money (unless I'm missing something - UA doesn't appear to be very greedy here). If I am to complain about anything it's that it's only PCI-E, but if UA decides to release an Xpander for it to support MBP Express Cardbus technology, I'll be happier than a pig in ****e.
I'd agree.. Some of these guys must have not been old school Pro Tools users..
I mean I don't feel as left in the dust with UA as I did years ago with Digi.
It sucks for me right now because my Mixing machine PC.. Only has PCI slots..
I have one for my RME Digiface and three UAD cards in the others..

Only my office Quad PC has PCIe.. (Which the funny thing about that runs reaper better then my mixing PC).

So in order for me to use a UAD2 I will not only have to buy it. Then transfer plugs..but also get another PC with PCIe slots..and maybe (if it works) use my SBS 13slot expansion chassis from my Pro Tools rig jut so I can still use my RME and 3 other UAD cards.

But that's not UA's fault that I have to deal with that... I don't get the bashing either.. I'm more in interested now to go UAD2 then PCIe Duende. Mostly because I know I already have a ton of UAD plugs and I can get more use out of them then 32 ch's of the SSL..(Which I'm sure sounds awesome).. But I'll get more use from my UAD stuff.
Old 2nd September 2008
  #57
adl
Gear Addict
 
adl's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kasprouch View Post
3.6Ghz E6850, Hyperx8500 2gb, Asus P5Q-E, 1x UAD-1e, 1x UAD2 Quad, Cubase 4, RME Fireface 400 running through that Agere Chip...

Setup real easy, and the new format installs the authorizations on the card itself, so you can switch to another rig with your card and its ready to go..

Opened up a project where I was at 95% running two UAD-1's (mix of Cambridge, 1073SE's, and 1176LN & SE), and it showed 25% on the Quad. That for me happily demonstrated the rated 8 to 10 times a UAD-1 power of the card...

So I started ramming the card full of plugs and saw that above 90% full my Asio driver spiked, with CPU usage of around 20-30% (just plugs, no audio) at a latency of 256. If I stayed at 90%, no spikes and everything fine...

Moved the latency to 512, and absolutely no issues whatsoever with spiking or whatever, with Quad at 99% and CPU usage lower.

Overall extremely pleased with the power (went completely nuts on my last mix, and barely hit 35% of the Quad), and wondering whether the spiking I saw at 256 is due to the Agere Chip.. Waiting on my TI chipped firewire card to try again.

That sounds good! Thanx for sharing these impressions

Hopefully my Quad arrives next Monday. I than have 3 UAD1 and 1 UAD Quad...guess that´ll do
Old 2nd September 2008
  #58
Lives for gear
 
duckoff's Avatar
 

Got mine installed nicely - works fine in my 8 core Mac Pro ( 12 Gig RAM )

I sold my UAD1 4 years ago cos I thought they were bringing out a new one, so it's great to have one back in action !!

I've also tested out the 'Live Track' feature & have to say I'm impressed - it really appears to work well - it puts a fair amount of stress on the CPU tho ( is it running native I wonder ....... the more DSP intensive plugs seem to give the computer ( CPU ) a bigger hit..... very interesting )
Old 3rd September 2008
  #59
Lives for gear
 
Bhang's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by adl View Post
He also mentioned that with 256 Samples everything works pretty well. I never even could use UAD1 with 128 Samples so for me it really doesn´t matter as i record with 256 Samples only (i have a ESI [email protected] Soundcard)

Ordered my UAD2 Quad today, will get it Monday / Tuesday next week (live in germany) and will see how good it performs.
Do you know the sample rate he's using? I always work in 24/96 but specs for DSP cards are usually slated for 48. At least thats what most cards seem to quote. I'm curious how this thing behaves at 96. If I can get the thing buzzing along at 256 samples with a generous track count I will be pretty damn happy. I use a lot of stuff and I constantly get pushed back to 1024 by the end of a track and it really suX.
Old 3rd September 2008
  #60
Lives for gear
 
Bhang's Avatar
 

UAD-2 VS Duende

Does anyone have both a UAD-2 and Duende? It would be very interesting to hear some comments comparing the two.
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
Poopants / So much gear, so little time
3
celebritymusic / So much gear, so little time
1
Jonkan / Work In Progress / Advice Requested / Show and Tell / Artist Showcase / Mix-Offs
4
Jonkan / Work In Progress / Advice Requested / Show and Tell / Artist Showcase / Mix-Offs
1

Forum Jump
Forum Jump