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
New UAD2 Plugs & Platform In Use: Ampex, Brainworx, SPL.....
Old 10th September 2011
  #31
Gear Addict
 
joemeek's Avatar
TD UAD vs TD native

TD UAD vs TD native:
definively not the same sound

i like the uad version much better btw

i have not tested BXdigial or Vitalizer native vs UAD
Old 10th September 2011
  #32
Lives for gear
 
marchhare's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by serga View Post
I`ve tried native original versions of spl vitalizer and brainworx bx digital 2. I just wanna to say shortly that UAD versions are much better. It`s not because i`m a fun of UAD, it sounds just better. I`m happy with these plugs, they help me to make my works sounding better easely.
Cheers.
+1
Old 11th September 2011
  #33
Lives for gear
 
mirrorboy's Avatar
 

Hey guys-

I was wondering if anyone else is having this issue:

I've got a really heavy session (and I'm on Mac Pro 12 Core 2.93Ghz / 64GB Ram / All SSD's / 3 Quads) and I have to switch to a buffer of 1024 in Pro Tools 9 (not HD) every so often to keep the CPU meter down...

When I do this and try to edit any Ampex plugs...Pro Tools crashes. Only when I have the buffer at 1024. When I have it at 512 I can edit the Ampex all I want without any crashes.

Anyone else notice this??

Going to send an email to UAD support...

Thanks,

Scott
Old 11th September 2011
  #34
Quote:
Originally Posted by mirrorboy View Post
Hey guys-

I was wondering if anyone else is having this issue:

I've got a really heavy session (and I'm on Mac Pro 12 Core 2.93Ghz / 64GB Ram / All SSD's / 3 Quads) and I have to switch to a buffer of 1024 in Pro Tools 9 (not HD) every so often to keep the CPU meter down...

When I do this and try to edit any Ampex plugs...Pro Tools crashes. Only when I have the buffer at 1024. When I have it at 512 I can edit the Ampex all I want without any crashes.

Anyone else notice this??

Going to send an email to UAD support...

Thanks,

Scott
I may be completely jumping up the wrong path here, but did you reset the system after swapping buffer sizes? I don't know how this works on a mac, but when these are changed on a PC running Nuendo it's usually for the best to reset the audio engine.
Old 12th September 2011
  #35
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by andivax View Post
1:1 algo from native version.
????????, ?? ? Waves ???????? ??????? ????????? ????????? ????? ?????? TDM
Old 12th September 2011
  #36
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by andivax View Post
1:1 algo from native version.
Maybe, byt Waves native plugins reacting not the same way as TDM do. So i think the same thing is here.
Old 12th September 2011
  #37
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by joemeek View Post
TD UAD vs TD native:
definively not the same sound

i like the uad version much better btw

i have not tested BXdigial or Vitalizer native vs UAD
I`ve been testing them too, pretty the same result, but differense not relly huge, it usable in native version i think, but I like my UAD version...
Old 12th September 2011
  #38
Gear Nut
 

I have to say something guys. When I got my first UAD 1, plugins were cool but it was possible to compare them to waves TDM and so on. But now last 3 or 4 UAD 2 soft versions (from fatso came out i guess) brang to me amazing stuff. I don`t know what plugin stuff can be compared to them? (But maybe I just don`t know yet?)
Old 14th September 2011
  #39
Here for the gear
 
audiophalanx's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by neilwilkes View Post
The combination of the Studer, VCC and then the Ampex sounds very intriguing.
THAT is part of my secret sauce...I pre-process with the Studer and VCC outside of PT9 (since there's no AS yet...) then bring into the session printed. I find myself using very little additional treatment other than rolling off the lows/highs where needed and maybe a little 'Glue' for fun. A final print through the Ampex and you're pretty much done. The reactions I'm getting from clients has almost completely removed the need for any "maximizers"...everything sounds so good and tight, they end up just turning their volume up a little when referencing...and NEVER complain it's 'too quite'. The output from this thing could help end these wars we're in...

cheers!
AP
Old 15th September 2011
  #40
Quote:
Originally Posted by audiophalanx View Post
THAT is part of my secret sauce...I pre-process with the Studer and VCC outside of PT9 (since there's no AS yet...) then bring into the session printed. I find myself using very little additional treatment other than rolling off the lows/highs where needed and maybe a little 'Glue' for fun. A final print through the Ampex and you're pretty much done. The reactions I'm getting from clients has almost completely removed the need for any "maximizers"...everything sounds so good and tight, they end up just turning their volume up a little when referencing...and NEVER complain it's 'too quite'. The output from this thing could help end these wars we're in...

cheers!
AP
Interested in the pre-processing part here - I need another Quad, maybe 2 once I go for the Studer I suspect. Still - it won't hurt to have the additional DSP. But I digress....sorry.
In the pre-processing, are you doing this as a batch or in a DAW so you can set things up right? In VCC, I am really starting to go for grouping in a big way in addition to driving the inputs of each channel into the group on it's own dial (CTRL/Click on it will get rid of the greyed out bit & allow separate control in the group).
I would have thought the Studer would also need twaking on a per track basis - or does it just seem to work?

UAD are really raising the bar, and VCC is getting to be very special too.
Old 15th September 2011
  #41
Lives for gear
 

To stay on point here - I get, conceptually, the desire for 64 bit compatibility - I do. Real world I haven't for a second even cared or missed it and I've messed with 64 bit

But and this is a big BUTT - why on earth would I bother with UAD when I have BX bundle 1:1 algo's as stated and the SPL bundle as well- same.
Fatso, ect sure..

I've heard UAD on my friends comp and their other emulations are what would tip me to buy an essentially redundant HW dongle (quad i7 here) - UAD stick to your base and do 64bit - this all baffles me tremendously
Old 15th September 2011
  #42
Here for the gear
 
audiophalanx's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by neilwilkes View Post
In the pre-processing, are you doing this as a batch or in a DAW so you can set things up right? In VCC, I am really starting to go for grouping in a big way in addition to driving the inputs of each channel into the group on it's own dial (CTRL/Click on it will get rid of the greyed out bit & allow separate control in the group).
I would have thought the Studer would also need twaking on a per track basis - or does it just seem to work?
I generally do all the pre-processing in another program; in my case, RX2 Advanced. I mix in PT and both UAD and SSD (VCC) aren't Audio Suite (yet). So my flow is to get everything edited; I create a new playlist with a ".prnt" suffix; do the 'consolidate region (even on whole parts, this creates a new version by practice); open in RX2adv and 1) clean, 2) process w/ Studer, 3) Batch everything with VCC at the end. I create presets for all the stems (as there's a lot of them) so I can just fire em through with a little adjusting here and there.

The Studer can give enough compression on its own (through the bias control) that really benefits from the cumulative effect, especially on drums, that you can use any other compression as an effect rather than as a tool trying to 'fix' things. That said, after that processing, once everything is back into the PT session, I find myself needing very little else to do except a few treatments. This also saves a ton of resources not having a plug(s) on EVERY channel and forces you to commit to a mixing decision (and it's non destructive to your original.

I compose in Cubase, and that work flow is somewhat similar. With all the VSTs, I just insert the Studer/VCC, make a few tweaks and print/bounce everything into separate stems. I'll then import those stems into a new project (or session in PT) and do the mix. Again, resources saved and you have a committed, non-destructive project you're mixing in.

As for needing 64bit...I've found that it is the ONLY way to work with Cubase while scoring, and there are a multitude of threads that go through this. In PT, I use VEpro for now until they update to 64bit (Media Comoposer has paved that road). But UAD cards are not dongles, they are what does the processing. My example workflow allows me to utilize the cards that I have to process all tracks with the Studer (which is phenomenal) and mix/final export with the Ampex (and Massive Passive). Which is what this thread's about.

I love using the Ampex on drum busses as an aux channel mixed in parallel. After playing with the Vitalizer: while a great tool for some things, I'm gonna pass for now until I get another coupon or a sale. As for the bx plugin: while I don't see myself getting this, I find that UA going the route of getting 3rd party support is awesome and opens the door for more development

If UA's plan is to just get the boat floating to see the wake, I'm interested to see what happens when they hit the throttle...

cheers!
ap
Old 15th September 2011
  #43
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by frenkonio View Post
There's a huge amount of latency. I got more than 3000ms of samples with 256 buffer in PT HD. Dont wanna imagine how much latency will be there under 512. That's too much even for the ADC engine in PT HD!
I'm not a UAD user but just a little side note: I don't think the latency will be any bigger if you set the buffer to 512, Those 3000ms of is probably how long it takes for the actual processing and is obviously too long to fit inside the 256 samples of buffer. If you increase the buffer, part of that processing will be inside the extra buffer size. The total processing time shouldn't increase. (Someone with a UAD and this plugin should be able to confirm this or correct me).

Alistair
Old 15th September 2011
  #44
Lives for gear
 
grooveminister's Avatar
UAD Ampex ATR-102 on dynamic material

Hi,

UA´s official demo video is using a pretty analog sounding source material.
For those of you who want to know how it performs on material with lots of transients, I did this quick test.

Please keep in mind: Only the first setting was matched to the mix - the presets don´t do the plugin justice because no one would apply an unedited preset to a mix.
I´m showing those presets only to give you an impression in what direction the plug can shape your mixes.

Best wishes, Andreas

UAD Ampex ATR-102 - new demo including LOTS of transients! ;-) - YouTube
Old 15th September 2011
  #45
Moderator
 
narcoman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by andivax View Post
1:1 algo from native version.
You sure? Cus they don't sound the same with the same settings! Maybe the dials have difference scaling or something.....
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
Forum Jump
Forum Jump