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 Vs Waves Reverb & Delay Plugins
Old 2nd March 2017
  #91
qwe
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Louie1 View Post
Wow

So the graph indicates that the CLA-2A is adding harmonic distortion that high in level compared to the input 1khz sine tone.

I'm curious, are you positive the source tone is a true 1 kHz sine wave?
The source waveform doesn't have those harmonics--see first attached image. :-)


Maybe I should have rescaled the chart--the 2nd harmonic is about -60dB down from the fundamental. That's at -18dBr in with the 'Full Reset' preset; according to the Waves manual:

"The hardware was modeled at reference levels of -18 dBFS = +4 dBu, meaning that a signal of -18 dBFS from the DAW to the hardware unit will display a meter reading of 0 VU (+4 dBu)"


Hmm--actually the 'Full Reset' has the gain control at 32.28 which results in -18dB reading on the plug-in's meter for -18dBr in. I'd assumed 'Full Reset' would set it so -18dBr in was a nominal '0dB'.

Setting the gain control to 100 gives a 0dB reading on the plug-in's meter with -18dBr in. See second attached spectrum analyser plot. ('Peak Reduction' set to 0.)
Attached Thumbnails
UAD Vs Waves-1khz-sine.png   UAD Vs Waves-waves-cla-2a-gain-100-peak-reduction-0-1khz-sine-18dbr.png  
Old 2nd March 2017
  #92
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by qwe View Post

So I think H-Reverb is excellent, but I'm stumped as to why H-Delay keeps cropping up as a recommendation? EchoBoy is far better IMO...

I've always felt this way, too. I frequently try the H-delay in hopes to strike that magic im always hearing about, only to try the EchoBoy after, and prefer it.
Old 2nd March 2017
  #93
qwe
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reverb View Post
H Delay sounds great, and has simple necessary controls. With the EQ, and lofi button you can basically cover most uses quickly. It's quick and simple. I wouldn't put it on par with Echoboy given the feature set, but it gets the job done and is dirt cheap on sale or if you get the gold bundle on sale.

Some of the waves plugs sound dated or simply dull, i was just pointing out those as solid examples that are useable.
H-Delay always adds harmonic distortion to the Wet signal--even with the 'Analog' mode off!

With 'Analog' mode on it also adds harmonic distortion to the Dry signal (!)

Whereas 'EchoBoy' this is not the case (with the Wet signal--the Dry signal is clean)--set to 'Clean' mode (with all saturation controls (including those in the 'Style edit' panel) at minimum) and keep levels under 0dBr.

Which is not to say don't use H-Delay if you like it, but just be aware of what it's up to. :-)
Old 3rd March 2017
  #94
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by PassionFlower View Post
Again, the workflow would be the primary reason to invest in C1. As good as it sounds, it really isn't the selling point. The point is to have fast and easy hands on access to the basic mixing tools. It has allowed a lot of people to pull together a good sounding mix a lot quicker, which means that it will pay for itself in no time.
Oh definitely it's about the hands on workflow, and it's the thing that attracts me to it.

I'd probably already have it if I could use it with the plugins I already have. SoftTube could have done that. It's not a DSP that requires their plugins to run on it. But clearly they wanted to do more or a closed approach, and they have every right to. I'm not disgruntled by it, just slightly disappointed.

Although it is good news for UAD users and that's something worth noting. UAD DSP and a Console One would make an incredibly powerful setup. If you have that kind of cash floating around.
Old 3rd March 2017
  #95
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by qwe View Post
They couldn't be more different in concept other than having the 'Hybrid' branding attached to them.

H-Reverb is, AFAIK, the latest iteration of Waves' reverb technology. (Which happens to have 'Drive', 'Analog' and 'Digital' (Truncation) settings tacked on, possibly for marketing reasons.) It has a very good set of controls for tweaking purposes.

H-Delay seems to be a very basic delay, as far as I can tell in the worst sense (i.e. basic controls not affecting anything interesting in terms of underlying behaviour)... which just happens to have a ridiculous (and IMHO extremely ugly) 'Bakelite' GUI, with 'Lo-Fi' and 'Analog' controls. (The interpolation used for the modulation might be better than e.g. SuperTap though?)

So I think H-Reverb is excellent, but I'm stumped as to why H-Delay keeps cropping up as a recommendation? EchoBoy is far better IMO...
Well actually H-Reverb isn't your regular convolution reverb nor is it a standard algorithm if reverb. It's actually kind of a combination of both done with new FIR technology. And the quality shows. There's your Hybrid there.

H-Delay models 4 different delay units ranging from digital to analogue tape. That's what the Analog dial does. While the Lo-Fi button does some kind of bit-crushing by dropping it's resolution down to 12-bit I believe to emulate early digital units. The modulation controls are there to introduce tape wow & flutter into the signal. You are able to combine these parameters in various, even contradictory ways to create different tones. There's your Hybrid there.

I love the Waves Hybrid series, very creative, very expressive, does things in ways other processors don't do.

Yeah Echoboy is quite amazing too with more emulations available, but you can't mix'n'naych in the same way you can with H-Delay. With that many emulation types you probably don't need to. I agree though, it is also an awesome delay plugin.
Old 3rd March 2017
  #96
qwe
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by simon.billington View Post
Well actually H-Reverb isn't your regular convolution reverb nor is it a standard algorithm if reverb. It's actually kind of a combination of both done with new FIR technology. And the quality shows. There's your Hybrid there.
'Convolution' really just refers to a DSP process which has all sorts of applications. In reverb, 'convolution' has come to mean a reverb process that uses an impulse captured externally.

Waves H-Reverb is algorithmic. Perhaps Waves are somehow saying that the FIR processing matches the 'quality' of a conventional convolution reverb (as there's no feedback/recirculation)? But these have serious limitations in the first place. (IMHO it's an awful idea. :-()

Best of both? Algorithmically generation is not likely to have much in common with an acoustically captured IR.

So I'm not saying that Waves don't have some nice technology in H-Reverb. I am saying that the 'H' bit is marketing/branding. It's just not a way of expressing what's going on that would pass muster in, say, a formal technical publication.

Quote:
Originally Posted by simon.billington View Post
Yeah Echoboy is quite amazing too with more emulations available, but you can't mix'n'naych in the same way you can with H-Delay. With that many emulation types you probably don't need to. I agree though, it is also an awesome delay plugin.
I don't think it has a 'bit crusher,' but it does have a lot of different 'saturation' modes...
Old 4th March 2017
  #97
Quote:
Originally Posted by qwe View Post
The source waveform doesn't have those harmonics--see first attached image. :-)


Maybe I should have rescaled the chart--the 2nd harmonic is about -60dB down from the fundamental...
Ok, 2nd harmonic 60db under the fundemental--that makes more sense!

I used the word "transparency" to describe the little to no audible compression artifacts--in my case I'm gentle with the peak reduction on mostly acoustic instruments I record. I agree maybe not quite an technically accurate word describing the sound overall. Sometimes I just run audio through without gain reduction. This seems to enrich clean electric guitars (or maybe my imagination). But I can't hear compression artifacts unless I crank the peak reduction way up.
Old 4th March 2017
  #98
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by qwe View Post
'Convolution' really just refers to a DSP process which has all sorts of applications. In reverb, 'convolution' has come to mean a reverb process that uses an impulse captured externally.

Waves H-Reverb is algorithmic. Perhaps Waves are somehow saying that the FIR processing matches the 'quality' of a conventional convolution reverb (as there's no feedback/recirculation)? But these have serious limitations in the first place. (IMHO it's an awful idea. :-()

Best of both? Algorithmically generation is not likely to have much in common with an acoustically captured IR.

So I'm not saying that Waves don't have some nice technology in H-Reverb. I am saying that the 'H' bit is marketing/branding. It's just not a way of expressing what's going on that would pass muster in, say, a formal technical publication.



I don't think it has a 'bit crusher,' but it does have a lot of different 'saturation' modes...
There's algorithm and there's algorithm. For the last 20 or so years algorithmic reverb I believe is based on an IIR algorithm because it's computationally cheap, but flawed especially in terms of quality. It's the compromise you make to produce a DSP efficient algorithm.
When you SAY the term "algorithmic reverb" this is the type of reverb people come to expect.

If you went around and said it isn't your standard IIR reverb people have no idea what you are talking about and think maybe you are talking about IR reverbs which would be wrong.

So to make the point it becomes important to disassociate "algorithmic reverb".

Technically it's true, it does use an algorithm, but not conventional IIR one. They use their own patented FIR algorithms to produce a much more rich, less flawed result. But the downside is it uses more DSP. The early reflections are convolution based which is something a few others as done.

So in effect it has a convolution E/R engine and an FIR algorithmic tail.

The 4 analogue modes of H-Delay do saturation as you suggest, but listen closely to 3 and 4 they are tape-based sounding saturation modes. While 2 sounds analogue, but not tape. Off sounds digital, not sure where setting one stands.

[quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by qwe View Post
'Convolution' really just refers to a DSP process which has all sorts of applications. In reverb, 'convolution' has come to mean a reverb process that uses an impulse captured externally.

Waves H-Reverb is algorithmic. Perhaps Waves are somehow saying that the FIR processing matches the 'quality' of a conventional convolution reverb (as there's no feedback/recirculation)? But these have serious limitations in the first place. (IMHO it's an awful idea. :-()

Best of both? Algorithmically generation is not likely to have much in common with an acoustically captured IR.

So I'm not saying that Waves don't have some nice technology in H-Reverb. I am saying that the 'H' bit is marketing/branding. It's just not a way of expressing what's going on that would pass muster in, say, a formal technical publication.



I don't think it has a 'bit crusher,' but it does have a lot of different 'saturation' modes...
There's algorithm and there's algorithm. For the last 20 or so years algorithmic reverb I believe is based on an IIR algorithm because it's computationally cheap, but flawed especially in terms of quality. It's the compromise you make to produce a DSP efficient algorithm.
When you SAY the term "algorithmic reverb" this is the type of reverb people come to expect.

If you went around and said it isn't your standard IIR reverb people have no idea what you are talking about and think maybe you are talking about IR reverbs which would be wrong.

So to make the point it becomes important to disassociate "algorithmic reverb".

Technically it's true, it does use an algorithm, but not conventional IIR one. They use their own patented FIR algorithms to produce a much more rich, less flawed result. But the downside is it uses more DSP. The early reflections are convolution based which is something a few others as done.

So in effect it has a convolution E/R engine and an FIR algorithmic tail.

The 4 analogue modes of H-Delay do saturation as you suggest, but listen closely to 3 and 4 they are tape emulations. While 2 sounds analgogue, but not tape. Off sounds digital, not sure where setting one stands.


Quote:
Originally Posted by qwe View Post
'Convolution' really just refers to a DSP process which has all sorts of applications. In reverb, 'convolution' has come to mean a reverb process that uses an impulse captured externally.

Waves H-Reverb is algorithmic. Perhaps Waves are somehow saying that the FIR processing matches the 'quality' of a conventional convolution reverb (as there's no feedback/recirculation)? But these have serious limitations in the first place. (IMHO it's an awful idea. :-()

Best of both? Algorithmically generation is not likely to have much in common with an acoustically captured IR.

So I'm not saying that Waves don't have some nice technology in H-Reverb. I am saying that the 'H' bit is marketing/branding. It's just not a way of expressing what's going on that would pass muster in, say, a formal technical publication.



I don't think it has a 'bit crusher,' but it does have a lot of different 'saturation' modes...
There's algorithm and there's algorithm. For the last 20 or so years algorithmic reverb I believe is based on an IIR algorithm because it's computationally cheap, but flawed especially in terms of quality. It's the compromise you make to produce a DSP efficient algorithm.
When you SAY the term "algorithmic reverb" this is the type of reverb people come to expect.

If you went around and said it isn't your standard IIR reverb people have no idea what you are talking about and think maybe you are talking about IR reverbs which would be wrong.

So to make the point it becomes important to disassociate "algorithmic reverb".

Technically it's true, it does use an algorithm, but not conventional IIR one. They use their own patented FIR algorithms to produce a much more rich, less flawed result. But the downside is it uses more DSP. The early reflections are convolution based which is something a few others as done.

So in effect it has a convolution E/R engine and an FIR algorithmic tail. On top of that it also combines it with other tools, some more unique than others, to help sculpt the tone.

The 4 analogue modes of H-Delay do saturation as you suggest, but listen closely to 3 and 4 they are tape emulations. While 2 sounds analgogue, but not tape. Off sounds digital, not sure where setting one stands.

The Lo-Fi isn't a "bit-crusher" as such, it's not nearly as flexible, but it does crush your bits. It downsamples for a retro effect.

Quote:
LoFi – In early digital delay devices, the sample rate was often reduced to allow greater delay values using the same memory chip, causing reduced frequency range. In LoFi mode, H-Delay emulates this behavior, while the delay time range remains the same.

From the manual...
H-Delay Analog Delay Plugin | Waves
But again I state, the Hybrid isn't just a marketing term, but it does provide a blend of analogue and digital or a blend of processes or tools that can be combined and exploited in different ways.
Old 4th March 2017
  #99
qwe
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by simon.billington View Post
So to make the point it becomes important to disassociate "algorithmic reverb".
Actually, Waves themselves call it an 'Algorithmic FIR Reverb.'

I'm not sure they were the first to do a commerically available synthetic FIR reverb, doesn't Space Designer (Logic) also do this?

A disadvantage of FIR-based reverbs is that the modulation has to be applied to the input or the output. As the manual says:

"Modulation options include AM Depth and Rate, which are applied to the input of the reverb and create a more airy and stereo-spread reverb; and FM Mix, which creates a chorusing and flanging effect at the reverb output."

Quote:
Originally Posted by simon.billington View Post
So in effect it has a convolution E/R engine and an FIR algorithmic tail.
OK, I think you mean 'convolution' as in based on a sampled impulse? I don't think that's the case--I think the ERs are synthetic as well.

Technically FIR is convolution--an FIR EQ, for example, convolves the input signal with the calculated EQ impulse response.

(e.g. 2 sample (for convenience) long impulse response--for the 2nd input sample, the output sample = (2nd input sample x 1st impulse sample) + (the 1st input sample x 2nd impulse sample.))

It would be interesting if any of the 'reverb experts' around here could say whether or not the manual is making a reasonable claim in this section (my emphasis):

"FIR vs. IIR Reverb: Finite Impulse Response (FIR) filters are fixed in length, whereas Infinite Impulse Response (IIR) filters are based on a feedback loop and decay through a recurring attenuation factor inside the feedback loop.

"The IIR approach takes the same amount of calculation resources for short reverb times as it does for long ones. The feedback loop creates a comb filter that requires the use of further dispersion filters designed to break regularities, but some signature coloration remains. Another limitation is that the decay of an IIR filter is linear, preventing the creation of real-gated, reversed, and similar types of reverb. "



Quote:
The 4 analogue modes of H-Delay do saturation as you suggest, but listen closely to 3 and 4 they are tape emulations. While 2 sounds analgogue, but not tape. Off sounds digital, not sure where setting one stands.
I measured H-Delay and 'OFF' still adds distortion to the 'wet' signal but leaves the 'dry' signal untouched. Modes 1-4 all add distortion to both the 'wet' and the 'dry' signals.
Old 9th March 2017
  #100
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by qwe View Post
Actually, Waves themselves call it an 'Algorithmic FIR Reverb.'

I'm not sure they were the first to do a commerically available synthetic FIR reverb, doesn't Space Designer (Logic) also do this?
I'm nit sure if they are the first either, but it's extremely uncommon. Space Designer doesn't have anything mention of using FIR convolution, the DSP overhead, is also quite conservative, even in Synthesised IR mode, thats a sure sign it isn't an FIR-based reverb

Quote:
A disadvantage of FIR-based reverbs is that the modulation has to be applied to the input or the output. As the manual says:

"Modulation options include AM Depth and Rate, which are applied to the input of the reverb and create a more airy and stereo-spread reverb; and FM Mix, which creates a chorusing and flanging effect at the reverb output."
The other disadvantage is DSP overhead, but there are a few perks to make it more worthwhile pursuing over conventional IIR reverbs.

Quote:
An FIR filter has a number of useful properties which sometimes make it preferable to an infinite impulse response (IIR) filter. FIR filters:
  • Require no feedback. This means that any rounding errors are not compounded by summed iterations. The same relative error occurs in each calculation. This also makes implementation simpler.
  • Are inherently stable, since the output is a sum of a finite number of finite multiples of the input values, so can be no greater than ∑|b(i)| times the largest value appearing in the input.
  • Can easily be designed to be linear phase by making the coefficient sequence symmetric. This property is sometimes desired for phase-sensitive applications, for example data communications, seismology, crossover filters, and mastering.

The main disadvantage of FIR filters is that considerably more computation power in a general purpose processor is required compared to an IIR filter with similar sharpness or selectivity, especially when low frequency (relative to the sample rate) cutoffs are needed. However many digital signal processors provide specialized hardware features to make FIR filters approximately as efficient as IIR for many applications

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite_impulse_response.
IIR filters are subject to sounding metallic or clangy, or ringing, whereas you don't seem to experience that side effect in FIR. Which is how, I assume it can make such lush, smooth sounding reverbs.

Quote:
OK, I think you mean 'convolution' as in based on a sampled impulse? I don't think that's the case--I think the ERs are synthetic as well.

Technically FIR is convolution--an FIR EQ, for example, convolves the input signal with the calculated EQ impulse response.

(e.g. 2 sample (for convenience) long impulse response--for the 2nd input sample, the output sample = (2nd input sample x 1st impulse sample) + (the 1st input sample x 2nd impulse sample.))
I did state in a previous post that if I mentioned FIR convolution, no one would know what the hell I was talking about and would assume that maybe I'm referring to regular IIR convolution. Many only know of it as "convolution" or IR reverbs. So it was important i used a basic terminology without confusing people, to point out that it is not the same type or reverb nor is it the same type of process.

Yes, strictly speaking it is a "form of convolution", but not the form everyone has grown accustomed to. I needed to delineate the difference.

Quote:
It would be interesting if any of the 'reverb experts' around here could say whether or not the manual is making a reasonable claim in this section (my emphasis):

"FIR vs. IIR Reverb: Finite Impulse Response (FIR) filters are fixed in length, whereas Infinite Impulse Response (IIR) filters are based on a feedback loop and decay through a recurring attenuation factor inside the feedback loop.

"The IIR approach takes the same amount of calculation resources for short reverb times as it does for long ones. The feedback loop creates a comb filter that requires the use of further dispersion filters designed to break regularities, but some signature coloration remains. Another limitation is that the decay of an IIR filter is linear, preventing the creation of real-gated, reversed, and similar types of reverb. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite_impulse_response.
Difference Between IIR and FIR Filters | Difference Between
https://www.minidsp.com/applications...-iir-filtering
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convol...rding_impulses


It seems to be the general understanding of the nature of FIR. So it does do what it says on the tin.

Moreover, you can craft many type of delays with H-Reverb. You could make a realistic plate sound, a lo-fi 80s algorithmic sound, a spring reverb sound and with the clever use of Build Up and the Echoes you can even have it simulate an actual acoustic space quite realistically. Plus there are other tools to help you sculpt the sound. it does all this without the use of "room" or "device" impulses.

So the nature of the way you craft your variable reverb sound must be closer to algorithmic in nature. Yet it doesn't sound like an algorithmic reverb and does indeed use an FIR technology as you well know. It's a very interesting beast and really is a "hybrid" of a few different technologies enabling you to produce such a broad range of sound.

Quote:
I measured H-Delay and 'OFF' still adds distortion to the 'wet' signal but leaves the 'dry' signal untouched. Modes 1-4 all add distortion to both the 'wet' and the 'dry' signals.
That is interesting indeed. I just used my ears and modes 3 & 4 sound very tape like, one more grungy than the others. For all intents and purposes, it sounds like a tape delay when used in the mix too, especially if you add a little modulation.
Old 2nd February 2018
  #101
Here for the gear
 

For those lucky enough to have a Mac and Logic the new 10.4 vintage eq collection, particularly the pulteq emu, sound real nice.
Old 8th July 2018
  #102
Here for the gear
 

This article from Gearshoot.com has a great, easy-to-use shootout browser with sound samples from both the UAD and Waves for side-by-side comparisons.

To my ears, the UAD sounds MUCH cleaner, crisper, higher quality.
Old 8th July 2018
  #103
Old 12th July 2018
  #104
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by audiodistortion View Post
Waves + UAD =
Good answer if you can afford both.
Old 13th July 2018
  #105
Lives for gear
 
midmost's Avatar
I highly doubt that anyone would hear the differences between Waves or UAD in a finished mixdown.
It's all about the person using these tools. If anyone claims the opposite, prove me wrong
Old 13th July 2018
  #106
Lives for gear
Like others here I had/have both and like both especially with unique offerings from both. As far as individual plugins that are the same models I tend to favor UAD. Although sometimes I prefer Waves in particular their 1176. The La2a I could nearly match up identical. I prefer the UAD Pultec Pro hands down. I know Waves doesn't have the Pro version unless you add the midrange section but I still prefer the curves on the UAD. For Reverbs it's UAD all the way, especially the EMT 140 which is still great on UAD and not even close with Waves. The only reverb I even like with Waves is the IR-1 especially the library. The APi stuff a wash.

Prices : UAD can be more expensive but reasonable if you buy on sale. I sold my Waves Gold Bundle years ago but was recently lured back in with their $39.00 offers but I kept it at a few so I don't have to pay a large WUP fee when I upgrade to a new machine which almost negates the current sale prices. With UAD no such headache. When I first transferred my UAD-1 card from Win XP to Win 7 64 a bunch of years ago I simply installed the card in my new machine. Done. With Waves I would have paid WUP (I keep my licenses on machine) and when I move to another machine again soon. When I upgraded to UAD-2 all my plugins were still good with the new card, and will be still when I upgrade to a new machine. With UAD you only pay once with updates and transfers free which may be even cheaper than Waves/WUP in the long run.

Power : Waves wins this one but since I never use UAD exclusively it's nearly meaningless to me.

Latency : Again Waves wins this one but I have other native plugs for that so it doesn't mean much to me but it would still be nice to use the same plugs to track and mix with.

Future Waves vs UAD threads : I will bookmark my response here so I can copy&paste it into the next several hundred in the near future and beyond.
Old 14th July 2018
  #107
Lives for gear
 
proxy's Avatar
 

I lean heavily on UAD which I love for the rock, folk, and indie stuff I do where I want things to sound both better and different.

But I still bought C4, Super Tap and Doubler from Waves because I couldn't find anything in UAD that did quite what those did, or had as nice an interface.
Old 14th July 2018
  #108
Lives for gear
 
Quetz's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by CeretoneAudio View Post
/\ This is a great post

What you are describing is the Plugcebo effect.

The effect of having name realistic and photo realistic GUIs of all the emulations, so instead of the kids saying "I'm using a CLA76" they can say "I'm using a Universal audio 1176", "I'm tracking to a studer A-800" etc. This has been the key to the success of the UAD cards and they know it.. its the reason they have gone out of their way to rebrand several plugins such as the 4K and the 160VU after release.
I was surprised that they didn't manage to keep the licensing for the RE-201 and CE-1.
I bought a 2nd hand account, whose original owner must have bought those before the licensing deal ran out, because I still have the original Roland GUIs on mine, even when I update the plugs/software, which is curious.

Quote:
Originally Posted by choukette View Post
with the UAD remember you have to buy a very expensive dongle DSP before using any UAD plugin
Do you though?
You don't need to buy these things new. They are very reasonable if you shop around, especially if you buy a collection of plugs 2nd hand as well.
Plus nobody buys the plugins at full price.

There are always sales on and extra money off through vouchers each month plus you get a voucher every time you buy a plug as well.
If you buy everything new and at full price, then yeah it's damn expensive!
But there's no need.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tube World View Post
To me it's not do you use Waves or UAD, it's which UAD and Waves do you want to use together on a song, and there is no right or wrong answer.
That's the common sense talking right there.
I have UAD, Waves, IK and Softube plugs; those form the core of my plugins, then the odd one from Valhalla etc.
I haven't doubled up on anything, so I have the Waves LA-2A but not the New UAD collection, likewise I have the IK 1176 not the UAD collection, and the IK 670 not the UAD.
I went for Softube Tape instead of the power-hungry UAD tape sims, and use Console 1 which saves me having to go for again the resource hungry UAD SSL or API strips, but that decision was based as much on the hardware as the soft.
So some of it is strategic. But it's also because those non-UAD plugs like Waves H-Comp and SSL G Buss Compressor (which go on sale for less than £20) just sound great, they're certainly not the thing holding me back from a pristine mix.

There are UAD-only plugs which are lovely though as others have said, and they are worth the price of admission if you're into the flavours they offer.

These 'traditional equipment' plug emus have their attractive characters, and it's not really important if it's not an exacting emulation - if it brings that character and it sounds good, then it did its job.
And Softube, UAD and Waves have done their jobs well, as far as I'm concerned.
Old 17th July 2018
  #109
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by midmost View Post
I highly doubt that anyone would hear the differences between Waves or UAD in a finished mixdown.
It's all about the person using these tools. If anyone claims the opposite, prove me wrong
This is my sentiment exactly. I feel the same with "deep sampled" software libraries.

Don't get me wrong, they all sound great, but some of them are just marginal improvements, then when you through these instruments into a mix with the where everything has been pommelled to death with processing and hidden in a mix with loads of other instruments, you won't be able to tell the difference between that and a library with "less" samples.

There are other benefits, but how they come up in a mix 90% of the time isn't one of them.

I think people split hairs too much about emulation vs emulation, developer vs developer. We have reached a stage where almost everything is good quality. UAD vs Waves, isn't a question of quality, what really differentiates companies like these now is workflow, good tech support and innovation.

By innovation I don't mean emulations, because that's the opposite of innovation as you're just copying someone else's design!! Innovation like we see in plugins like Cobalt Saphira, Torque, even taking a vanilla idea like a regular channel strip and offering us innovative workflow features, like what you see in the Scheps Omni. Flux EVO is another good example there.

It's things like this that really set developers apart to a point you can use them together too compliment each other, as long as its viable.

So if you were deciding between Waves and UAD I'd say focus on what unique things they are offing that are useful to you, also check to see how good the tech support is and have a close look to see if the workflow features and price points are also worth it.
Old 18th July 2018
  #110
Eh I don't care either way. Im sure each one is just fine. If I had UAD available, Id use that. But I don't so I stick with the Waves emulations I grab once in awhile when they go on sale for my 'vintage flavored' stuff. Other than that, I just grab the plugins that come with Logic for most other things heh. Those work fine enough for most stuff. Even Logic now, is giving Waves a run with the compressor plugin. The ones I always use are the API eq's and the CLA compressors, but the Waves one's modeling is pretty damn decent and it was 'free' with the DAW. Still haven't tried their new Vintage EQ yet though..
Old 5th August 2018
  #111
Here for the gear
 

I don't understand why audio "engineers" or "technicians" act and judge so emotional, when in fact, the first paradigm of a so-called "technician" should be unemotional, rational thinking in the first place.
I own plugins from both companies, UAD and Waves, and both sound great.
Are there any differences in terms of sound quality? NO!
Is there a measurable or calculable proof of anyone having a better sound quality? NO!
Why?
Because it doesn't matter how the individual perception is, in the end, it's just another digital audio-software working with the same algorithms every digital software uses.
There are not a lot of options when it comes to manipulating an audio signal digitally.
90% of every software uses a mathematical algorithm called "convolution".
For more info -> Convolution - Wikipedia

When I read statements from UAD or WAVES enthusiasts such as "Company XY emulates device XY by recreating the original circuit" I have to cringe a lot.
There is no original "recreation" of circuits in a digital realm.
The only thing you can do is plug in a cable in the input, sending a test signal through the unit, record the output and try to measure/recreate the difference between the in and the output signal.

It is crucial to clear up this load of baloney and la-la-land beliefs when you want to make clear and reasonable decisions.
In general, most of the decisions humans tend to make are based on emotions and that's perfectly fine.
But it becomes a problem when the brain stage is missed out and that's what marketing campaigns encourage you to do.

How else can you explain a company, that sells an outboard DSP in 2018 for 999$ and claiming it to be "powerful"?
The truth is it is not.
UAD uses SPARC processors which are tremendously outdated.
The only reason for an outboard DSP in this era of i7 Processors is, that it can be used as a dongle and that's probably the only reason UAD is doing it.
I have bought an UAD-Quad in 2017 and I keep using the plugins because of the Low-Latency mode during recording sessions.
Would I buy an Apollo soundcard or another UAD unit?
Hell no!
RME and Focusrite do their job pretty well, without bothering me and my intelligence with stupid marketing phrases.

AL
Old 6th August 2018
  #112
Lives for gear
 
Quetz's Avatar
Old 6th August 2018
  #113
Gear Nut
 

Who DA FUG willingly buys special hardware to run plugins?



So much shaking my head.

UAD is like that giant, ugly lamp in the movie "Christmas story." People who actually bought in to it ... think it's the damn holy grail of DSP. While those around them just sort of shake our heads in bewilderment.


Old 10th August 2018
  #114
Lives for gear
 

If anyone wants to compare UAD vs Waves, plugin quality isn't the way to do it, because that's highly subjected to opinion, not actual fact.

If they want to compare something they should compare the UAD DSP options vs the Waves Soundgrid options. Price vs performance. That's something people can be objective about, where we are able to draw on factual information as opposed to speculation.
Old 10th August 2018
  #115
Gear Maniac
 
Andy Gone's Avatar
That's a good point. Or otherwise we need to define what is plugin quality, then it becomes something measurable and objective. Before that, it is just an opinion.
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