Universal Audio Releases New Flagship UAD-2 OCTO Ultimate 5 DSP Accelerators - Page 4 - Gearslutz
The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Universal Audio Releases New Flagship UAD-2 OCTO Ultimate 5 DSP Accelerators
Old 21st November 2016
  #91
Quote:
Originally Posted by classictunz View Post
I still own 2 UAD 2 solo cards so what's the point of you telling me they don't sell them anymore?
Because the discussion is about the UAD-2 Octo, which is UAs current best offering.
The Solo came out as a successor of UAD-1 so the purpose of it was obviously to run the now legacy plugins, not the Culture Vulture. I believe the most resource intensive plugin back then was the Neve 33609.

Would this discussion about the new 2016 MBP make sense to you?

- Man, that machine can't even run two instances of U-He Bazille reliably!
- Yes it can, it can run several of them just fine.
- No it can't. I have a 2011 13" MacBook Pro and it can't run more than that!
- Well, that's not the 2016 MBP they are selling now is it?
- No, but I still own it, so what's your point about them not selling it?
Old 21st November 2016
  #92
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by PassionFlower View Post
Because the discussion is about the UAD-2 Octo, which is UAs current best offering.
The Solo came out as a successor of UAD-1 so the purpose of it was obviously to run the now legacy plugins, not the Culture Vulture. I believe the most resource intensive plugin back then was the Neve 33609.

Would this discussion about the new 2016 MBP make sense to you?

- Man, that machine can't even run two instances of U-He Bazille reliably!
- Yes it can, it can run several of them just fine.
- No it can't. I have a 2011 13" MacBook Pro and it can't run more than that!
- Well, that's not the 2016 MBP they are selling now is it?
- No, but I still own it, so what's your point about them not selling it?
no you're not making sense as said an otco instance count is still low. No matter what you try to say, it's outdated processing power. Just multiply 8 x 6 and there you have the answer to your $1500 purchase in a pretty box.

Look I don't care how you feel it's time for UAD3 or go native

That's how I feel and I should be able to post my feelings without you trying to change that. Just accept it and move on. The octo is still under powered and over priced. There's nothing you can say to change that.

And yes people can complain about newer weaker Mac Mini's and MBPs if they are lesser machine for more money. Who are you to tell them not to?

If you like paying more and getting less, that fine, but to protect that backwards way of thinking is just silly.

Last edited by classictunz; 21st November 2016 at 04:23 PM..
Old 21st November 2016
  #93
Quote:
Originally Posted by classictunz View Post
Look I don't care how you feel
So why do you bother responding?

Quote:
Originally Posted by classictunz View Post
That's how I feel and I should be able to post my feelings without you trying to change that.
If you take every response to your comments as a direct attack towards your emotional being then that's your problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by classictunz View Post
And yes people can complain about newer weaker Mac Mini's and MBPs if they are lesser machine for more money. Who are you to tell them not to?
I'm just putting your strange arguments into a different context.

Quote:
Originally Posted by classictunz View Post
If you like paying more and getting less, that fine, but to protect that backwards way of thinking is just silly.
Look, if you paid any attention to what I've written you would know that I also think that the DSP needs to be upgraded and that the price/performance ratio isn't good. We don't disagree on that one.
What we do disagree on is how useful/useless the current products are.
Old 21st November 2016
  #94
Lives for gear
 

And can something at UA fixed this email? I logged into my UA account and the advertised Unison pres aren't $149 they come up $179 even in my cart. I don't have a $149 option, thanks.
Old 21st November 2016
  #95
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by classictunz View Post
With Cubase I don't have any issues with latency as long as I keep UAD plugins off the master buss if I want to add to the composition. If I'm tracking guitar or vox, I don't have any issues with latency.
Hey classic,

I wasn't expecting there to be any issues with latency compensation. My point is different: As the audio has to be transported from the CPU to the DSP cards and back to be processed, it adds latency to the signal.

From my understanding (I just looked at the manual and some stuff on the UAD site), inserting a UAD plugin will add latency equivalent to the audio interface latency. So if you are running at 64 samples, it will add another 64 samples. If you are running at 128 samples, it adds another 128 samples. If you insert 2 or 3 UAD plugins on a track, each instance will add more latency. So you end up doubling, tripling or more your total latency. (Unless you use Live Track mode which doesn't add latency but does cause CPU load). (Firewire UAD cards have an extra 512 samples buffer to take into account).

Clearly people can live with this extra latency or they couldn't work with UAD plugins. My suggestion is that they might be better off simply increasing the latency of the main interface and reducing the load on the entire system this way instead of using UAD cards. (At least if the aim is to reduce load).

Increasing the latency of the main interface makes a huge difference to processing power compared to running at very low latency settings (32, 64 and even 128 samples). Even more so on Mac OS than Windows. People with UAD cards might not realise that each time they add UAD plugins, they are increasing the latency. So the gained performance might be simply due to the extra latency and not the DSP cards at all!

One would have to run proper benchmarks to see exactly how much offloading is (or isn't) happening with these UAD solutions.

Here is a comparison of native versus an UAD Quad done in 2011:
The Native Truth vs UAD-2 vs TDM power !

Already then that native setup was between 5 and 10 times as powerful as the UAD Quad. With advances in CPU processing power, we are now talking between 15 and 50 times more powerful depending on which CPU one chooses. Regardless, the UAD DSP cards don't seem like a very good investment in 2016.

Quote:
But in Logic, if you create a track stack(which is likegroups in Cubase) trying to add live takes within that stack with DSP plugins, they new track will off timing.
Yikes!

Alistair
Old 21st November 2016
  #96
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
Already then that native setup was between 5 and 10 times as powerful as the UAD Quad. With advances in CPU processing power, we are now talking between 15 and 50 times more powerful depending on which CPU one chooses.
CPUs hasn't actually advanced that much in terms of processing power. The focus in the recent years has been on making them more power efficient. In fact even a 50% increase would be a stretch.

Also, there's the real world practical view to look at it.
One of the native compressors that I find comparable to UAD in terms of quality is MJUC. But I can't run more than 45-50 instances of that reliably on my 2,5GHz i7 MBP. That's about as many 1176s, LA2As or Vari-Mus that I can cram into a UAD-2 Octo.
So in a practical sense those two perform about equally in terms of sound and processing in that specific case.

Also, I think the Waves AR Plate and the AKG BX20 compares pretty equally in terms of sound. Yet I can actually run more instances of the BX20 on an Octo than I can of the AR Plate on my MBP. So in that case the Octo wins.

But yeah, I can run far more instances of the ENGL E646 on my MBP than on my Octo. It's not even comparable. So native certainly wins there.

I have no clue how well BX optimize their plugins for SHARCs. I know that one of the few plugins they don't offer a native version of (SHMC) is very efficient on UAD. Could be that it won't even make a dent in a CPU, could also be that it's coded specifically for SHARC.

But my point being that it doesn't really matter in the practical sense. The top native plugins which use oversampling (like UAD) are often CPU hogs and you can't stack a lot of them on a laptop without screaming fans and unreliable playback.
Given the quality of the UAD plugins I certainly think it's a good way to take some load off the CPU and get a comparable sonic performance.

But for other people it's not that way. If you're happy with Slate plugins for example, you will probably be just fine with only native processing and there's certainly no need for external DSP.
Old 21st November 2016
  #97
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by PassionFlower View Post
C
One of the native compressors that I find comparable to UAD in terms of quality is MJUC. But I can't run more than 45-50 instances of that reliably on my 2,5GHz i7 MBP. That's about as many 1176s, LA2As or Vari-Mus that I can cram into a UAD-2 Octo.
So in a practical sense those two perform about equally in terms of sound and processing in that specific case.
Whu did you have to answer? Then you used a laptop CPU in your example

There's was nothing logical in this post, ZERO!
Old 22nd November 2016
  #98
Quote:
Originally Posted by classictunz View Post
Whu did you have to answer?
I didn't. But I did it anyway. Just for you. <3

Quote:
Originally Posted by classictunz View Post
Then you used a laptop CPU in your example
Plenty of people use laptops for making/mixing music these days. And it's actually pretty powerful. Like I said, a practical real world example.
Old 22nd November 2016
  #99
Lives for gear
 
Squawk's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by classictunz View Post
Whu did you have to answer? Then you used a laptop CPU in your example

There's was nothing logical in this post, ZERO!
There's no need for rudeness here.

I think UnderTow and PassionFlower have actually both raised excellent points, and both illustrate that it really depends on how you work, and the plugins that you are working with, the sessions you are doing, etc.

By your logic classictunz, it could also be argued that you have nothing to add to the conversation either, as you've been using UAD-1 and solo cards in your comparisons throughout this entire thread!

To illustrate PassionFlower's point, if you take your session in a production session environment with multiple VSTi's, additional gear like a Virus T2i via usb, etc. your system can get fairly loaded down. Even more so at 96k, which is normally what I'm working at, as are a lot of producers these days (deliverable specs often require it). Add to that a few CPU intesnsive native plugins, and you easily hit a wall.

I tested this extensively in my sessions when moving primarily to 96k before going Octo. Especially with some of the great sounding but CPU intensive plugins with oversampling (ie. T-Racks and others), it quickly becomes too much for most computers to handle @ 96k.

If you are at 44.1 most of the time or 48k, and don't use a lot of VSTi's, it's likely that these are issues you just won't have, and in those cases native is probably the much better way to go over UAD.

In any event, this is actually a new product announcement thread about an Octo card bundle, and like every other UAD thread, is just devolving into the endless native vs. DSP debate. I'm guessing mods will lock it soon, as it's just going to continue to go around in circles...
Old 22nd November 2016
  #100
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Squawk View Post
There's no need for rudeness here.

I think UnderTow and PassionFlower have actually both raised excellent points, and both illustrate that it really depends on how you work, and the plugins that you are working with, the sessions you are doing, etc.

By your logic classictunz, it could also be argued that you have nothing to add to the conversation either, as you've been using UAD-1 and solo cards in your comparisons throughout this entire thread!

To illustrate PassionFlower's point, if you take your session in a production session environment with multiple VSTi's, additional gear like a Virus T2i via usb, etc. your system can get fairly loaded down. Even more so at 96k, which is normally what I'm working at, as are a lot of producers these days (deliverable specs often require it). Add to that a few CPU intesnsive native plugins, and you easily hit a wall.

I tested this extensively in my sessions when moving primarily to 96k before going Octo. Especially with some of the great sounding but CPU intensive plugins with oversampling (ie. T-Racks and others), it quickly becomes too much for most computers to handle @ 96k.

If you are at 44.1 most of the time or 48k, and don't use a lot of VSTi's, it's likely that these are issues you just won't have, and in those cases native is probably the much better way to go over UAD.

In any event, this is actually a new product announcement thread about an Octo card bundle, and like every other UAD thread, is just devolving into the endless native vs. DSP debate. I'm guessing mods will lock it soon, as it's just going to continue to go around in circles...
What's rude is you 2 guys trying counter others opinions. This would've been over if you'd stop giving bad examples of power the system ARE NOT. That last horrible attempt about a MBP was rude. This thread is misleading because I thought it was a new DSP box like some others here thought as well.

Very misleading as was my email this morning about Unison pres for $149. Ive tried to upload the screen shot but it won't upload.

Anyway, most of us want next gen performance and not old tech. I just built an Intel i5 6500 rig and there are many additions to CPU besides lower power consumption. This 6500 has new instructions and a chipset that allow higher throughput.

Systems going from Sata drives to PCIe based solutions for higher SSDs performance is a great touch.

As long as UAD use those same chips from 7 years ago, many of us will not be happy. I'm not here to convince you, I'm here to post my opinion and comparing this octo to a slow laptop is just cheesy. Many people have their feelings on the new MBP, key word "their fellings".

There's not need for 1 or 2 guys to quote everyone in the threat. That seem to be how manufacturers do here on GS. People are smarter than you guys give th credit for.

We see right thru the BS.
Old 22nd November 2016
  #101
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by PassionFlower View Post
I didn't. But I did it anyway. Just for you. <3



Plenty of people use laptops for making/mixing music these days. And it's actually pretty powerful. Like I said, a practical real world example.
First off, UAD does help me off load CPU. I've always had the option to get a slightly older computer because UAD does just that.

My issue is that I've been holding on for years now waiting for something that will make me want to invest in. 5 more cores than I already have isn't going to change much.

The math of 30 more 1176 MKlls isn't compelling when I'm already getting that on the native side. Do I think UAD is better? Yes! Do I think UAD has forgotten its loyal costomers? Yes!

I recieved $200 in credits for trading in my iad2 cards! That was a very good deal!

Looks like something nice like that will come along again when I'm old as dirt!

So yes I'm very disappointed to see this new promotion.

I don't see why they couldn't do the Satelite's at 40% off since they're giving them away for with an Apollo purchase. The people with under powered system could be greatful, but maybe they don't care.

I'm done lol.
Old 22nd November 2016
  #102
Lives for gear
 
Squawk's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by classictunz View Post
What's rude is you 2 guys trying counter others opinions. This would've been over if you'd stop giving bad examples of power the system ARE NOT. That last horrible attempt about a MBP was rude. This thread is misleading because I thought it was a new DSP box like some others here thought as well.

Very misleading as was my email this morning about Unison pres for $149. Ive tried to upload the screen shot but it won't upload.

Anyway, most of us want next gen performance and not old tech. I just built an Intel i5 6500 rig and there are many additions to CPU besides lower power consumption. This 6500 has new instructions and a chipset that allow higher throughput.

Systems going from Sata drives to PCIe based solutions for higher SSDs performance is a great touch.

As long as UAD use those same chips from 7 years ago, many of us will not be happy. I'm not here to convince you, I'm here to post my opinion and comparing this octo to a slow laptop is just cheesy. Many people have their feelings on the new MBP, key word "their fellings".

There's not need for 1 or 2 guys to quote everyone in the threat. That seem to be how manufacturers do here on GS. People are smarter than you guys give th credit for.

We see right thru the BS.

Actually you're being completely nonsensical and just keep complaining about the same thing, and trying to now make it personal. Clearly you are not going to be satisfied unless everyone in the world agrees with your crusade, is that it?

How many times in this thread have I agreed with both sides of the argument here? I get it. But you know what, it is what it is for now.

The fact that you have an axe to grind against UA doesn't for one minute take away from the facts I've pointed out for the work that I and many others do, with what is actually available from UA today that is providing value and benefit.

You are using UAD-1/core cards and are getting mad about the cards being underpowered? Seriously? For real? And then you chastise others who aren't as upset with UA as you are because they aren't running up against the same limitations? Well, your options now are:

1) go fully native
2) upgrade to a UAD2 Octo card (which is what this thread is actually about)
3) keep contacting UA with your complaints until you get satisfaction from them

Continually going in circles about it here is not going to change things, nor are you providing a very persuasive argument for your point of view. If you were on an Octo card and continually running out of DSP in your work, then I'd be inclined to take your rants more seriously. You do have upgrade options if you want, or not. Your choice.

PassionFlower and UnderTow are actually providing clear and consise and most importantly CIVIL and respectful conversation in this thread from very different perspectives. Why don't you either do the same, or go start your own anti-UAD thread in the Moan Zone instead of calling people out who are actually adding value to the discussion?

It's just gear for fvcks sakes, not politics.
Old 22nd November 2016
  #103
Quote:
Originally Posted by classictunz View Post
That last horrible attempt about a MBP was rude.
Why is that? It's commonly used by pros in the business and It has a higher geekbench score than the base trashcan Mac Pro. Sure, it's not the best performing computer out there, but hardly a slow one, especially not for a laptop.

Quote:
Originally Posted by classictunz View Post
There's not need for 1 or 2 guys to quote everyone in the threat.
And yet you keep at it!
Old 22nd November 2016
  #104
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by PassionFlower View Post
Why is that? It's commonly used by pros in the business and It has a higher geekbench score than the base trashcan Mac Pro. Sure, it's not the best performing computer out there, but hardly a slow one, especially not for a laptop.



And yet you keep at it!
Save it, thanks!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Squawk View Post
Actually you're being completely nonsensical and just keep complaining about the same thing, and trying to now make it personal. Clearly you are not going to be satisfied unless everyone in the world agrees with your crusade, is that it?

How many times in this thread have I agreed with both sides of the argument here? I get it. But you know what, it is what it is for now.

The fact that you have an axe to grind against UA doesn't for one minute take away from the facts I've pointed out for the work that I and many others do, with what is actually available from UA today that is providing value and benefit.

You are using UAD-1/core cards and are getting mad about the cards being underpowered? Seriously? For real? And then you chastise others who aren't as upset with UA as you are because they aren't running up against the same limitations? Well, your options now are:

1) go fully native
2) upgrade to a UAD2 Octo card (which is what this thread is actually about)
3) keep contacting UA with your complaints until you get satisfaction from them

Continually going in circles about it here is not going to change things, nor are you providing a very persuasive argument for your point of view. If you were on an Octo card and continually running out of DSP in your work, then I'd be inclined to take your rants more seriously. You do have upgrade options if you want, or not. Your choice.

PassionFlower and UnderTow are actually providing clear and consise and most importantly CIVIL and respectful conversation in this thread from very different perspectives. Why don't you either do the same, or go start your own anti-UAD thread in the Moan Zone instead of calling people out who are actually adding value to the discussion?

It's just gear for fvcks sakes, not politics.
Save it, thanks!

My opinion didn't change, thanks!
Old 22nd November 2016
  #105
Gear Guru
 
Jeezo's Avatar
Guyz , let s chill , both opinions have been clearly exposed , no need to go further ...

One thing we can all agree on , is that this marketing annoucement is Misleading at least .... i can understand the frustration around ... and this for both side
Old 22nd November 2016
  #106
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by PassionFlower View Post
CPUs hasn't actually advanced that much in terms of processing power. The focus in the recent years has been on making them more power efficient. In fact even a 50% increase would be a stretch.
I can't agree with this. I think many people conflate the very small increase in clock speed (or the lack of increase in clock speed in some cases) with a lack of performance increase but that isn't really how it works.

The addition of AVX, AVX2, FMA3 and FMA4 extensions to the instruction set can make a huge difference to audio plugins. (If the plugin developers support it of course). This is probably the biggest CPU efficiency gain for audio in years.

More importantly, the instruction schedulers and pipelines have gained quite a bit of efficiency, the increase of on-chip memory (L1, L2, L3 cache) also adds to the efficiency gains. And of course the increase in core numbers also helps a lot for large projects. Alls this applies to all existing plugins even if they have not been optimized to the new instruction sets.

My current CPU was once a flagship model (The 980X) when it launched 5 years ago. The current flagship (6950X) has a base clock speed increase of only .1 GHz but it has about a 200% increase in floating point performance and that is without using the new instruction sets. If the software is optimized to use them (as is slowly starting to happen with plugins) there is another huge performance gain.

Quote:
Also, there's the real world practical view to look at it.
One of the native compressors that I find comparable to UAD in terms of quality is MJUC. But I can't run more than 45-50 instances of that reliably on my 2,5GHz i7 MBP. That's about as many 1176s, LA2As or Vari-Mus that I can cram into a UAD-2 Octo.
So in a practical sense those two perform about equally in terms of sound and processing in that specific case.

<Other comparisons snipped for brevity only>
I think it can be misleading to compare different plugins even if they seem to give similar results. We have no idea how these plugins were coded. But I hear you on the results side. In the end that is what you are going to be comparing if you are looking for alternatives to whatever you are using currently.

That said, I don't think it tells us much of how the UA plugins _could_ perform if they ran natively.

Quote:
But yeah, I can run far more instances of the ENGL E646 on my MBP than on my Octo. It's not even comparable. So native certainly wins there.
This conclusion is also supported by the comparison tests with other cross-platform plugins I linked previously.

Quote:
But my point being that it doesn't really matter in the practical sense. The top native plugins which use oversampling (like UAD) are often CPU hogs and you can't stack a lot of them on a laptop without screaming fans and unreliable playback.
Given the quality of the UAD plugins I certainly think it's a good way to take some load off the CPU and get a comparable sonic performance.
I have a feeling there is a strong bias by UAD owners about the sound of UAD plugins. I remember reading the rave reviews of the Cambridge EQ back in the day. I tested it on a friend's system and it turned out to be a bog standard digital EQ with no analogue emulation going on at all. I discovered the same thing with the VoG plugin. A bog standard resonant digital hi-pass filter that can be matched by the built-in EQ in any DAW. Yet people raved about this plugins and how "analogue" they sounded.

Once UA started doing real emulations of the non-linear behaviour of the hardware they were imitating (which was long after they marketed their plugins as analogue emulations), you saw the instance count of their plugins drop drastically. This is not surprising considering how little power the DSP cards have.

My point is that I am not convinced people are really comparing like for like when comparing to native plugins. I think that with the exception of the recent heavy load plugins, the native equivalents actually model much more than most UAD plugins. This gives a skewed view on the performance of UAD plugins.

And lastly, I hear you on laptop usage. I admit I don't often think of that. I am mainly thinking of workstations for in the studio. I don't really follow the laptop market and how much (or how little) power these systems have.

Alistair
Old 22nd November 2016
  #107
Lives for gear
 
Avantmidi's Avatar
I dont understand al the fuzz at all. I am a longtime UAD user. Since UAD1.
For me it has always been the best platform for genuine UI's and very good sounding plugins.
That they run on a dedicated DSP is a big professional plus.
Clearly allot of theory posters here giving crap about the Shark performance.
I rarely encounter a max load on my quad Apollo 16.
How many plugins do you guys use anyway?

Yes it has a price tag and yes it has the best in class quality. And yes the plugins just look the sexiest too.
I'm rocking a Apollo 16MK2 with FREE Satelitte QUAD. They give a Satellite QUAD for free now if you buy an Apollo! Just like they did last year..The simplicity of a dedicated platform is just so appealing. Hook it up to a macbook and its a serious workstation.

I really want my macbook to do as little as possible. I learned that over the past 15 years of using any OS/DAW as my master platform.I like to use my DAW as a high-tech recording device/Sampler with the benefit of Topclass UAD FX running on stylish dedicated HW. Stability and performance headroom are key for my state of mind in the studio.

Besides that my setup consistst of Analog HW synths / gear and an iPAD Pro (A seriously powerfull external DSP that runs all kinds of virtual instruments with ease)

If you want to use Native go ahead and be happy. In the end a highspeced Windows DAW with virtual instruments and native plugins is the cheapest way probably. Then again my experience is that it does not change that much in overall costs if you pay for the software u use I will never go back the budget windows/native (Cracked pluginn) unreliable DAW route myself.
Old 22nd November 2016
  #108
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Avantmidi View Post
I rarely encounter a max load on my quad Apollo 16.
How many plugins do you guys use anyway?
Well let me send my Sonnet Box back and get the version that allow 2 PCIe cards vs 1 so I can add my other solo card! Man I can't wait to add one more core so I'll never max out like you
Old 22nd November 2016
  #109
Lives for gear
 
malekmusic's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
That said, I don't think it tells us much of how the UA plugins _could_ perform if they ran natively.
its so easy to compare, summit tla100 for uad, i can open 6 instances on my duo. i can ran over 80 native on my 2012 mac mini quad core i7 with 2.3ghz at low latencies.

this is so embarassing... whoever thinks you can off load cpu to the uad... if you have quad-core i7 which is not older than 3 years, than you are about to offload at the highest 5 % of your cpu. and a duo-satellite costs more than a 3 year old computer.
Old 22nd November 2016
  #110
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by malekmusic View Post
its so easy to compare, summit tla100 for uad, i can open 6 instances on my duo. i can ran over 80 native on my 2012 mac mini quad core i7 with 2.3ghz at low latencies.

this is so embarassing... whoever thinks you can off load cpu to the uad... if you have quad-core i7 which is not older than 3 years, than you are about to offload at the highest 5 % of your cpu. and a duo-satellite costs more than a 3 year old computer.
One of few facts in this thread. Thank you!
Old 22nd November 2016
  #111
Lives for gear
 
Avantmidi's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by malekmusic View Post
its so easy to compare, summit tla100 for uad, i can open 6 instances on my duo. i can ran over 80 native on my 2012 mac mini quad core i7 with 2.3ghz at low latencies.

this is so embarassing... whoever thinks you can off load cpu to the uad... if you have quad-core i7 which is not older than 3 years, than you are about to offload at the highest 5 % of your cpu. and a duo-satellite costs more than a 3 year old computer.
Great for you man! I love my uad setup. Its beatifull and very powerfull! My 2011 macbookpro is running Great still with this setup! But offcourse UAD is not for everyone...if you have the money I highly recommend. Especcialy now you get a quad sattelite with a value of 1000€ for free with the purchase of any Apollo!! Now Thats just cheap even..
Old 22nd November 2016
  #112
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avantmidi View Post
That they run on a dedicated DSP is a big professional plus.
Why is it a professional plus? That is the whole question isn't it?

Quote:
How many plugins do you guys use anyway?
I just checked the project I am working on right now. 12 VST Instruments and 239 VST FX over 206 stereo channels.

Quote:
Yes it has a price tag and yes it has the best in class quality.
That is debatable. (UA make good plugins but so do many others).

Quote:
And yes the plugins just look the sexiest too.
That is VERY debatable! Personally I much prefer modern interfaces like DMG Audio and FabFilter (for example) but anyway, I think this isn't very important compared to other aspects.

Quote:
If you want to use Native go ahead and be happy. In the end a highspeced Windows DAW with virtual instruments and native plugins is the cheapest way probably.
And by far the most powerful. Both running on a single box or used as a distributed system through something like VEPro. Another powerful solution is something like Waves' DigiGrid. (Due to the amount of available power thanks to the Intel CPUs).

The bottom line is that no one can keep up with the R&D might of Intel and the (lack of) available power in different solutions clearly shows that.

Quote:
Then again my experience is that it does not change that much in overall costs if you pay for the software u use I will never go back the budget windows/native (Cracked pluginn) unreliable DAW route myself.
So you are conflating unreliable native DAW behaviour with your past use of cracked plugins? That is silly. Clearly the only thing you can conclude is that using cracked plugins is asking for trouble.

Alistair
Old 22nd November 2016
  #113
Lives for gear
 
Avantmidi's Avatar
Blue Windows screens of death. Damn you use allot of plug-ins. Winder how your music sounds
Old 23rd November 2016
  #114
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
I have a feeling there is a strong bias by UAD owners about the sound of UAD plugins. I remember reading the rave reviews of the Cambridge EQ back in the day. I tested it on a friend's system and it turned out to be a bog standard digital EQ with no analogue emulation going on at all. I discovered the same thing with the VoG plugin. A bog standard resonant digital hi-pass filter that can be matched by the built-in EQ in any DAW. Yet people raved about this plugins and how "analogue" they sounded.
Yes, that bias is true with any companies fan club for sure. We tend to perceive things differently within different contexts and with certain expectations. It's human nature.
It's the same reason we can tweak an EQ and hear the changes only to find out that the EQ was bypassed all along.

That's why I try to do blind tests before purchasing a plugin as it can be difficult not to get caught up in the hype.
Of course, the sound is only part of it. Workflow, aesthetics, price, company relations are all important factors for me too.
Old 23rd November 2016
  #115
Lives for gear
 

I love UAD plugins as much as anyone here, but this low track per project argument is silly. Is high track count, the only non-compelling criticism in haste to say-more tracks equal less professionalism going echo this thread over and over?

Biggest issue with this product is that you still can't run much more than 40 of the newest versions of the offered plugins.

I'd say called it Ultimate 2 captaining 2 Octo Satelite's for the asking price. They are already giving away a quad core Satelite with a $2k Apollo.

No need to defend this package because even with all of the back and forth, no one here defending UA will be buying it.

Give me a quad for half price and I'm sure I'd pick one up! But no I'm forced to buy a $300 Sonnet Box because I'm simply not going to invest $1k to run 30 or so plugins. I'd rather pop in i7 in my new PC build than blow money for such a great limitation.

Yes UA, this song has been playing too damn long. Throw is a freakin bone! And I have $4000 already invested! It's my most expensive software investment regardless of the great deals you've gave me over the years.
Old 23rd November 2016
  #116
Quote:
Originally Posted by malekmusic View Post
its so easy to compare
No it's impossible to compare as the UA plugins only exist on the UAD platform.
We can make an assumption based on the third party plugins, but even with those there are unknown factors. We don't know how well they were optimized for SHARCs. Are they making good use of the hardware acceleration provided by the chip?
UA are designing their plugins specifically for the SHARC so it might be that they are more efficient than the third party ports. Or not. We just don't know.

But yeah, I think it's safe to say that modern CPUs are far more cost effective compared to UAD-2. I don't think anyone here would disagree with that.
Old 23rd November 2016
  #117
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by PassionFlower View Post
Yes, that bias is true with any companies fan club for sure. We tend to perceive things differently within different contexts and with certain expectations. It's human nature.
It's the same reason we can tweak an EQ and hear the changes only to find out that the EQ was bypassed all along.
Ok to make some peace here, I agree that a lot of the UAD plugins are not matched in the native world! Trust me I would've sold my gear long ago!

To be honest, I could sell my Twin and go for the cheapest rack mount Apollo and get that free quad! That'll give me 8 cores or 9 if I keep my Sonnet Box. So basically I'm disappointed that they aren't addressing us Twin owners knowing we need cores! Give us a sale or something, I've only been waiting for almost 3 years!

I have almost every plugin I want, but I can barely use them. Give us Twin users something too. Give loyal customers that have a decent UAD library something! We don't need an everything bundle because(like me), we've been buying into the brand since 2001.

Truth be told, i purchased something similar as a package deal with a UAD1 card. It cost me a couple grand and gave me 90% of all of their plugins. Then within 2 years that 90% was down to 70%. I was happy to then update to the new mklls.

I'm feeling left behind lately tho...

Last edited by classictunz; 23rd November 2016 at 02:48 AM..
Old 23rd November 2016
  #118
Lives for gear
 
Squawk's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by classictunz View Post
Ok to make some peace here, I agree that a lot of the UAD plugins are not matched in the native world! Trust me I would've sold my gear long ago!

To be honest, I could sell my Twin and go for the cheapest rack mount Apollo and get that free quad! That'll give me 8 cores or 9 if I keep my Sonnet Box. So basically I'm disappointed that they aren't addressing us Twin owners knowing we need cores! Give is a sale or something, I've only been waiting for almost 3 years!

I have almost every plugin I want, but I can barely use them. Give us Twin users something too. Give loyal customers that have a decent UAD library something! We don't need an everything bundle because(like me), we've been buying into the brand since 2001.

Truth be told, i purchased something similar as a package deal with a UAD1 card. It cost me a couple grand and gave me 90% of all of their plugins. Then within 2 years that 90% was down to 70%. I was happy to them update to the mklls.

I'm feeling left behind lately tho...
I agree with you guys that it's freaking expensive! No question. I wouldn't buy the bundle advertised in this thread, no way, not at that price. As I've mentioned, I got my Octo on ebay for a lot cheaper than normal retail.

A friend of mine also just transferred me a bunch of his plugins and his authorization the other week as well as he bailed on UAD, so I got about 10 plugins for a few hundred $...

My point is that you kind of have to check around and be a bit thrifty with UAD stuff if you are going to buy it, until they do actually update the processors and hopefully come down in price a bit. Otherwise you are paying a lot for it.
Old 23rd November 2016
  #119
Lives for gear
 
~ufo~'s Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by PassionFlower View Post
No it's impossible to compare as the UA plugins only exist on the UAD platform.
We can make an assumption based on the third party plugins, but even with those there are unknown factors. We don't know how well they were optimized for SHARCs. Are they making good use of the hardware acceleration provided by the chip?
UA are designing their plugins specifically for the SHARC so it might be that they are more efficient than the third party ports. Or not. We just don't know.

But yeah, I think it's safe to say that modern CPUs are far more cost effective compared to UAD-2. I don't think anyone here would disagree with that.
Do you think it's relevant anymore if the plugins are making efficient use of the hardware acceleration of SHARCs?
What is the potential gain of this optimisation?
20%? 50%? 100%?

Surely not 1000% I would imagine. Which is kinda the balpark at which Intel CPUs are outpacing DSPs it seems.

So I think the fact that they are more efficient than intel CPUs has come to a point where that is rather meaningless, because the Intel ones are so much more effective.

I can't help but think about when Apple made the decision to ditch PPC for Intel.
One of the reasons must have been, that even though the PPC architecture was fundamentally superior to the Intel architecture, the R&D invested into the PPC platform had stalled (or at least had moved away from desktop chips) and the architecture was simply being outpaced by Intel development, who were building on an inferior platform but were so effective at advancing that platform that there was just no keeping up to it.

There was a a time where DSP plugins were too heavy to run on normal CPUs and this was the time where DSP systems were necessary, for pro multitrack performance.
This time is long past us, if you're talking about horsepower, even at the lowest buffer, intel CPUs can outperform DSP processors, no problem.
IO latency asside.

There are still advantages to DSP, surely. For me they are outweighed by the disadvantages, even though i miss TDM sometimes.
It's the same thing with physical faders. They have advantages, but for my workflow the cheaper touch screen brings much more to the table than the advantages physical faders give.

YMMV.

I wonder, latency aside, if you would create a virtual sharc running on an Intel machine, how much instances of the UAD plugs it could run.
Then, after doing a recode optimised for Intel, how much that would run.

Interesting stuff.
But not as interesting as making music is.
Later!
Old 23rd November 2016
  #120
Quote:
Originally Posted by ~ufo~ View Post
Do you think it's relevant anymore if the plugins are making efficient use of the hardware acceleration of SHARCs?
If anything I think it's interesting. I haven't developed for SHARCs and I'm honestly not up to date with the latest features in Intels CPUs. The last time I was involved in DSP development was 10 years ago.
It would be interesting to hear what an experienced DSP developer who has worked with SHARCs has to say about it. The rest of us can really only make guesses and assumptions as we're not comparing apples to apples.
The Bricasti for example is said to utilize memory access features of the DSP chips that would be very difficult if not impossible to do as a native plugin. I'm sure there are other approaches that can be made that would yield a similar result however.
📝 Reply

Similar Threads

Thread / Thread Starter Replies / Views Last Post
replies: 12226 views: 1410234
Avatar for juiseman
juiseman 2 hours ago
replies: 295 views: 57079
Avatar for anguswoodhead
anguswoodhead 26th March 2013
replies: 1296 views: 154036
Avatar for heraldo_jones
heraldo_jones 1st February 2016
Topic:
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…
🖨️ Show Printable Version
✉️ Email this Page
🔍 Search thread
🎙️ View mentioned gear
Forum Jump
Forum Jump