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
Universal Audio Releases Empirical Labs® EL8 Distressor Compressor Plug-In Dynamics Plugins
Old 5th December 2017
  #241
Lives for gear
 
Pro5's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by SWAN808 View Post
the way the hardware clouts then releases the sound and packages all the frequencies together into a solid mass - is something I have not heard a plugin do yet (invariably it sounds 'like it' but doesnt hold it together esp low freq)... so I am curious about this emulation considering people are saying nice things about it...



EDIT: this demo suggests to me it is the normal situation. The UAD plugin sounds very close to the original hardware, but lacking in the low end punch of the hardware.

I think Slate (and team) have some awareness of the common lacking of low end punch of software and they code/devise a way to add this in to their models, and you can hear in the demo the transients are a bit more aggressive. the same this is apparent when you compare his FG-Grey with other SSL emulations. I think its a good attempt and improves on plugin models, however this process is perhaps a little simplistic and the transient can sound a bit plastic and exaggerated (presumably from some low end saturation or something)...whereas hardware doesn't have this fake quality...quite a subtle detail tho...

True, you can definitely tell that slate emus have been 'fkd with' for want of a better term (yet I use FG-Grey, blue 1176s, VTM etc here and like them). He does seem to tweak them to get around plug-ins drawbacks but sometimes it takes it quite far from what it's emulating (when pushed).

Here I prefer the hardware in this video, I'd put slate and UAD as joint runners up even if the UAD sounds closer to the hardware it has the unfortunate flattening effect, lacking bottom, less 3D, transients and groove have gone vs the hardware. Meanwhile slate (at least how its set here) is so OTT vs the hardware settings that it's hard to compare them meaningfully only to say the slate sounds overdone here and the hardware sounds 'perfect', transients, depth, width, 3D, smooth. I think with tweaks you could get the slate closer to the hardware and it definitely has some vibe/mojo, while the UAD version sounds like a flat photograph of the hardware, like old plugs used to? Obviously very close tonally but not so close in smoothness, depth or transient response/handling. Switching between hardware to the UAD makes my body stop responding to the groove, it sounds constrained.

Listening to the rest of the video (other than just drums) on Vox and Bass too I can hear the UAD is simply flatter and pinched, small. The slate honestly sounds better overall here to me. More lively, more 3D, more mojo, more like the hardware but off in the settings and tonally different but dynamically similar. UAD is tonally similar but dynamically lacking. No horses in this race so just my honest opinion. I'd take the slate over the UAD after hearing this. Because for compression, dynamics and openess are more important (just) than 'tone' which you can get elsewhere with eq or saturation. Without lively dynamics you have yet another flat, boring digital mush plug...

Both have one thing in common though, both are held hostage or to ransom (one to a stupid cheap as sharc chips dongle sold at a ridiculous placebo price and the other to a virtual rack system that should be optional) - thank you Arouser for not having that issue!

And that guy in the video is wrong, you can also track through SLATE just fine. I track through his VMR Preamps, Blue 1176 and custom EQ on vocals just fine. zero latency and in Studio One using the new 'instant' monitoring/dropout protection it works perfectly. You don't need an Apollo for that.

Now I'm a big ELI Arouser user and honestly feel spoiled as, while it's NOT a 'pure distressor' clone I still feel it could get closer than those two other plugs to at least retaining the transients while also having mojo.

Also the extra options are killer on the Arouser!


and re the SSL bus comps, I use I.K Bus Comp and FG-Grey and find they act and work differently for different things. On Mix bus I'd probably prefer FG-Grey in a subtle mode, or even arouser (blended in parallel perhaps), but on drums the I.K seems to have less fakeness and more real sound (warts and all) for drums. So at least for now I'm using IK SSL bus comp on drum buss and FG-Grey on Mix bus (and Arouser sometimes in place or addition to either in small doses).

Last edited by Pro5; 5th December 2017 at 11:21 AM..
Old 5th December 2017
  #242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pro5 View Post

Listening to the rest of the video (other than just drums) on Vox and Bass too I can hear the UAD is simply flatter and pinched, small. The slate honestly sounds better overall here to me.
I know what you mean, but check out this comparison test...you can see that the SLate in order to get close to the hardware in terms of punch-which I think is responsible for the 'mojo' you refer to, creates a larger transient...if you match by RMS it sounds impressive, but if you peak match (and I assume peaks will have to be controlled at 'some' stage down the line) - the UAD sounds better IMO...

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/12963318-post1.html

I recommended peak match settings here:

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/12973715-post41.html
Old 5th December 2017
  #243
Lives for gear
 
Pro5's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by SWAN808 View Post
I know what you mean, but check out this comparison test...you can see that the SLate in order to get close to the hardware in terms of punch-which I think is responsible for the 'mojo' you refer to, creates a larger transient...if you match by RMS it sounds impressive, but if you peak match (and I assume peaks will have to be controlled at 'some' stage down the line) - the UAD sounds better IMO...

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/12963318-post1.html

I recommended peak match settings here:

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/12973715-post41.html
TBH It was more about the hardware vs the UAD than the slate thing (which I don't use nor intend to buy as very happy with Arouser).

Slate's stuff can get a bit tricksy sometimes, you can hear stuff that's been added to try to help get that 'mojo' and sometimes it works sometimes not. As said I'm not too concerned about FG-Stress vs UAD's one cos I'll own neither but from that video and another comparision it's pretty clear that tonally the UAD and HARDWARE almost blend together (so meaning they are close) but dynamically (even ignoring the slate as I did when I formed this conclusion) going between hardware to the UAD = Flat, uninspiring, unemotional photograph (dynamically and feeling wise). Just doesn't seem to dance in the same way as the hardware (on the hardware the bottom end seems to stretch back into space very open and likeable), and the Arouser gets closer to that feeling even if it's different tonally and feature wise.
Old 5th December 2017
  #244
Lives for gear
 
Silver Sonya's Avatar
 

Another unnecessarily depressing GS thread
Old 5th December 2017
  #245
Lives for gear
 
ionian's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver Sonya View Post
Another unnecessarily depressing GS thread
It would have been more clever if you said "Another unnecessarily distressing GS thread"
Old 5th December 2017
  #246
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pro5 View Post
...I would hope Mr Derr didn't try even harder to help UAD make their plug a LOT better than Arouser...
I would hope Mr. Derr tries to make both just as good as is absolutely possible!
Old 7th December 2017
  #247
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SWAN808 View Post
the way the hardware clouts then releases the sound and packages all the frequencies together into a solid mass - is something I have not heard a plugin do yet (invariably it sounds 'like it' but doesnt hold it together esp low freq)... so I am curious about this emulation considering people are saying nice things about it...



EDIT: this demo suggests to me it is the normal situation. The UAD plugin sounds very close to the original hardware, but lacking in the low end punch of the hardware.

I think Slate (and team) have some awareness of the common lacking of low end punch of software and they code/devise a way to add this in to their models, and you can hear in the demo the transients are a bit more aggressive. the same this is apparent when you compare his FG-Grey with other SSL emulations. I think its a good attempt and improves on plugin models, however this process is perhaps a little simplistic and the transient can sound a bit plastic and exaggerated (presumably from some low end saturation or something)...whereas hardware doesn't have this fake quality...quite a subtle detail tho...
I'm calling bullshat!!!Sorry but YouTube compression isn't ideal for listen to the difference int plugins. Neither is dry arse drums!!!UAD wins
Old 7th December 2017
  #248
Quote:
Originally Posted by freshstyle View Post
I'm calling bullshat!!!Sorry but YouTube compression isn't ideal for listen to the difference int plugins. Neither is dry arse drums!!!UAD wins
call it what you want but I got most of it right on this thread:

Distressor shootout! UAD/Slate/Analog hardware

UAD is good IMO when you match to RMS or similar...I still prefer the HW when it comes to sound.
Old 8th December 2017
  #249
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SWAN808 View Post
call it what you want but I got most of it right on this thread:

Distressor shootout! UAD/Slate/Analog hardware

UAD is good IMO when you match to RMS or similar...I still prefer the HW when it comes to sound.
Uad plugins work really nice as a system, great to know the sound and meters are accurate!
Old 2nd January 2018
  #250
Lives for gear
 
Crazy4Jazz's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonderbird View Post
This is by far the best emulation of the distresser up to date.

Have I tried it? No.
This is the best Distressor emulation I have tried.

Have I tried any others? No.

But seriously, it sounds really good.
Old 4th January 2018
  #251
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SWAN808 View Post
call it what you want but I got most of it right on this thread:

Distressor shootout! UAD/Slate/Analog hardware

UAD is good IMO when you match to RMS or similar...I still prefer the HW when it comes to sound.

do you have the metric halo chanel strip to compare? it might be intresting
Old 7th January 2018
  #252
Gear Addict
 
leckel1996's Avatar
I've tried Slate, SKnote, and Arousor. I've never used the hardware, but I will say the UAD Distressor is the easiest to set up and works the best in my mixes. I'll be buying another DSP card just so I can use more instances. Haha
Old 10th January 2018
  #253
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred_Abstract View Post
do you have the metric halo chanel strip to compare? it might be intresting
Metric Halo Channelstrip? Sorry for my ignorance, but what's the connection?
Old 2nd March 2018
  #254
TNM
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by tkaitkai View Post
I keep reading about UAD cards being "overpriced, underpowered dongles" that kill creativity and impede workflow. I have never found this to be the case.

Is the Apollo/UAD system perfect? No, but EVERY music production tool has its limitations and drawbacks.

One of the most under-appreciated aspects of Apollo/UAD is its reliability. The Apollo is a rock solid system that just f*ckin' works. I've never dealt with anything worse than minor hiccups, most of which had nothing to do with the Apollo itself. The plugins sound great, and being able to track through them with zero latency is awesome. This feature alone has prevented me from jumping ship on numerous occasions. Factor in things like the Unison preamps and being able to commit FX processing pre-DAW, and instead of impeding my workflow, this actually speeds it up. And more importantly, it makes things fun.

Would I love more DSP? Of course. But it's incredibly easy to learn the limitations of what you have and work around them. When I run out of DSP, the world doesn't end. My Apollo doesn't spontaneously combust. I just use whatever else I have and get the job done. If I absolutely MUST use a UAD plugin at that point, I can easily freeze/print and free up some DSP. Given that most DAWs preserve plugin settings after making an insert inactive, is this really that much of an inconvenience?

Sure, the Apollo may not be the be-all-end-all of mic preamps and conversion. Sure, it'd be nice to use as many UAD plugins as I want whenever I'd like. But in spite of this, the Apollo has still managed to make a drastic improvement to my workflow, even with my oh-so-primitive Twin Solo. Shocking, I know.

I know this was a bit off-topic, but there's just way too much vitriol directed towards UA in almost every UAD release thread, and it always seems to be predicated on theoretical usage scenarios rather than actual firsthand experience, which, on the contrary, tends to be quite positive.

On-topic: I'm looking forward to testing out the new Distressor. I'll put it up against Disto and post some results.
just want to say, there is no such thing as zero latency on apollo except for the very old plugins from 2007, rev 1 stuff. All the new upsampled plugins add over a ms latency *each* at 44K.
The fender guitar amp on it's own adds almost 3ms latency,. so to track through apollo console at 44K, just using the raw console without effects (~2.1ms RTL at 44k) and the one guitar amp, is ~5MS rtl through console without adding anything like a distressor or api 2500 for example. Nada. You could only add 1176 mk1 era stuff to that channel to not get the latency over 5ms!

There are native systems that far exceed this RTL performance (i.e lower) and you can use stacks of zero latency native plugins (on powerful CPU's).
And of course the UAD accelerators are overpriced LOL.. they are probably about 1700% markup.

The benefit with Apollo is that there is no hit on the host computer.. This DOES matter on machines pre the very latest, when trying to run at 32 or 64 samples, especially on mac os.

The Apollo latency thing however is a big snake oil myth they started, and they have their disclaimer in very tiny print if you look carefully.. "when using zero latency plugins".
I have routinely, 8 or 10ms RLT through an apollo channel with 4 plugins inserted (remember, 55 samples each is the minimum latency for the new plugins, some are much more)
and what people don't realise, is that this means that whatever is being fed live into console, is playing back 8 or 10ms out of time with what is playing back in your daw, like audio tracks and Vi's.

I recently approached UA about this and they not only confirmed it, but were incredibly evasive when i brought up other points about it in general. Besides the basic confirmation that console is not time aligned with the DAW, they were of no help at all. You have to record to audio to get everything time aligned.

This is why i am desperately trying to get out of apollo and into HDX or maybe a very powerful native system.. I love the guarantees with Apollo but I want my whole project delay compensated on playback including live inputs, and HDX does this as do all modern native DAWs, as well as not needing a separate mixer app for it. Personally, as much as i like UAD plugins and I do, particularly the verbs and using no cpu for them (unlike eg abbey road plates mega cpu hog), native quality really has caught up, it just has. Sometimes I want to pretend that the UAD plugin sounds better when it doesn't LOL, just cause it's so expensive and "exclusive". But for example, the fast attack of the old IK black 76 plugin, is preferable to me to the fast attack of the MK2 1176 UAD.. the one that everyone raves about.. It's still a great plugin don't get me wrong but slate 76 is also just as good. The UAD fairchild is special, as is API 2500, and i will try the distressor soon.. but most of the plugs easily have native equivalents.

Just wanted to state the facts re RTL, as this monitoring through console at zero latency is just not true.. at 44K a presonus quantum matches console's base RTL, and the quantum is going through the DAW.
Old 3rd March 2018
  #255
TNM
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by doom64 View Post
I certainly have the money to buy into UAD products but my question is… Why? It would be like purchasing a Pentium 4 processor for $800 then paying a premium price on Windows XP. Less performance for more money makes zero business sense.

The only thing UAD really has going for it is real time processing, which for me only comes into play when recording vocals.
as i said it's just not true.. if you want to monitor a vocal in "near" realtime, then you need to use console at 96K and NO uad plugins other than a tiny selection of the very old ones..But you can have the same near realtime with any modern interface through plugins in the DAW.

If you are not talking about using plugins at all, then you might as well just use direct hardware monitoring of many modern native interfaces (which is faster than console in most cases of current interfaces)

UAD benefits for monitoring equals no host cpu load and unison. That's it. Unison has some lovely lovely things you can do to inputs, granted, and for many that alone will be worth it.

Uad benefits for mixing equals some nice plugins with no host cpu being used. Latency not an issue as all good DAW's have competent ADC.

They got me big time as i didn't read the fine print about zero latency monitoring with up to 4 UAD plugins in a row (that it's only the very few old mk1 plugins that have no additional latency). They got me good alright, 10K ish so far, maybe more. Then i started noticing timing issues and way too high realtime latency when I had 3 or 4 of the new plugins on a track.. and started to investigate...

Using Console as an analog mixer replacement sucks because it's not time aligned with DAW as i said. UAD's advice for me was to send midi timing offsets to all my synths via pro tools itself, to tighten up the timing LOL, to compensate for *console's* latency.

They also have the dumbest support in the history of expensive pro audio products. I am sorry but they do. When i was trying to get help with apollo word clock, it took so many emails and i ended up working out the solution myself, which was not once suggested by their 'help'. And it was the most obvious solution.

Or the other classic is they tell you to disable IDC (input delay compensation) if you have latency issues.

let me explain something.... IDC simply enables the correct latency reporting to the DAW so things record on the timeline sample accurate. It also will delay other console tracks the same amount as the channel with the longest latency, so they are all in time with each other.
But it does not magically make the plugins zero latency LOL.. if a UAD plugin has latency, then the channels monitoring through said plugin(s) still have to travel through that plugin latency and back, regardless of whether IDC is on or not. In the realtime world, that monitoring latency still exists.

"The REAL latency of Apollo Console" is what should be a hot topic of discussion, but no one seems to really care for some reason and keep calling it near realtime or zero latency.

NO, rme total mix is that. it's RTL is like 1ms through their comp and EQ at 44K on their latest interfaces. THAT'S "near" realtime.
at 96k it's like 0.6ms.

Please trust me on this.. unless you absolutely must have the specific unique UAD plugins, it is the pro audio scam of the century. And once you're in, it's so hard to get out cause you can't sell plugins individually and you get jack all back for it (relative to what you paid). So you keep investing more.
Luckily i haven't bought a UAD plugin for almost a year now as I wised up.

Slate VMR is wonderful and is zero latency, even with a VCC, Distressor, EQ and 1176 in it.
You can put a FF proR on your aux send which is a light zero latency reverb and can cover all monitoring duties.

Apollo's REAL WORLD latency when using the MODERN plugins (and once again, each distressor instance in serial adds 1.25 ms latency at 44k in console), is akin to about 128 buffer through the DAW and using zero latency native plugins (of which there are just SO many and good ones too).. but, get this, even 128 buffer RTL with very modern interfaces like quantum is faster than apollo with 4 of the new plugins in series in console! It's true! Haven't you heard people say that they need 32 buffer to feel the latency is low enough for vocals? You will NOT get a 32 native buffer equivalent in console if you use the newest UAD plugins to monitor through. It's actually higher! than going through your DAW! Again the main real gain is to save CPU and perhaps unison pres, but all that money spent on overpriced plugins and over decade old overpriced DSP could have been used to buy a kick ass 10 core 4ghz 7900X PC and have change left over. (i say 4Ghz as that's what I would aim for as a permanent clock with turbo disabled, very easily achievable even with air cooling, base is 3.3ghz).

Apollo becomes more useful latency wise, at 96K, but if you have an apollo 8 and want 16 ins, 8 onboard, 8 adat, make sure you get an adat that can do 8 channels a/d at 96k via s/mux. I screwed that one up too with the focusrite octopre MKII.. Thankfully the scarlett octopre fixed that.
But then of course, for anyone using 50 outputs of 90's digital synths with 16 bit 44k or even lower D/A, recording at 96K is just completely ridiculous. Only benefit is for real instruments in big studios, and even then, if you use any sampled drums, almost all are at 44k so you'd be upsampling them on import and then down at the end again to stream your music.

UAD are geniuses.. at first it was a legit idea that they somehow milked and fooled many of us into investing into even now at the current highway robbery prices. I really envy those who saw it for what it was and avoided it. They reinvented it with some fancy buzz words with UAD-2 and we SO fell for it. They are laughing all the way to the bank, AT us. I truly believe that.

HEY, if they offered a way to use all the plugins in non upsampled mode when monitoring through console, a simple user's choice checkbox, and could be re enabled if printing to audio recording, which i have suggested umpteen times to no avail (like the mk1 plugins which are not upsampled), then Apollo would indeed be able to use plugins all over the place in console at "near zero" latency. But as it is now, it simply can not and so many people are being fooled.. And don't forget every time you record something in your DAW, it is not compensated on playback with what's still feeding live in console...

so once again, finally, apollo console is not realtime when using 2012 and beyond plugins. Only when using old 2007 MK1 plugins where there are now way better native equivalents.

If you want to save CPU, fine. If you want specific UAD plugins, fine. If you want pre amp emulations, fine. If you want ultra low latency through killer plugins, use a native system instead. Hilarious since that's what Apollo was supposedly designed for LOL.. Even when the first Apollo came out, the firewire one, they already had the scam well and truly organised. Well done, UAD. hats off to you. And somehow you still command single plugin prices which could give a user an entire native suite. Well done, indeed. Professional tricksters.

PS I just found out they have dropped their accelerator hardware prices in half. Thanks UA.. now the brand new sealed octo i have which i got free with apollo is worthless to sell. Might as well keep that too. I just lost about 4 grand in the reselling of everything I had planned. UA do NOT give a flying toss about existing loyal customers.. never have never will. Remember that too!

Last edited by TNM; 3rd March 2018 at 12:33 AM.. Reason: just added the PS
Old 4th March 2018
  #256
Lives for gear
 

Thanks for the information. I will never get an Apollo and probably never anything from UAD, unless some of these issues gets solved.
Old 4th March 2018
  #257
Lives for gear
 
Mercado_Negro's Avatar
I just can say that we're pretty happy with our Apollo 8p, 2 Satellites and a Twin setup. We've recorded lots of musicians, including percussionists who always are very picky about latency, since last October when we switched to that setup and never had a single problem or complain. In fact, it's been great to able to run our projects at 1024 while recording because we can add much more processing during the sessions without stressing our MacPro. Singers, musicians, etc., can overdub just fine without feeling any doubles or such. The converters are espectacular (we prefer the Apollo 8p AD/DA over our previous Apogee Symphony) and the integration with Softube Console 1 is fantastic.
Old 4th March 2018
  #258
TNM
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mercado_Negro View Post
I just can say that we're pretty happy with our Apollo 8p, 2 Satellites and a Twin setup. We've recorded lots of musicians, including percussionists who always are very picky about latency, since last October when we switched to that setup and never had a single problem or complain. In fact, it's been great to able to run our projects at 1024 while recording because we can add much more processing during the sessions without stressing our MacPro. Singers, musicians, etc., can overdub just fine without feeling any doubles or such. The converters are espectacular (we prefer the Apollo 8p AD/DA over our previous Apogee Symphony) and the integration with Softube Console 1 is fantastic.
sure it can do that, and you can leave your daw buffer at 1024 if not needing to play Vi's via keyboard.

But it depends on what effects you use in console..

if you happen to be at a high sample rate, even better.

But if you are at 44 or 48K, and just have a reverb aux for the vocalist, and use the very first gen 1176/LA2A/Pultec/Channelstrip/Precision Series (except the limiter), then you won't have any issue whatsoever.. the vocalist will be doing all that with a 2.1ms total latency or 1.1 ms at 96K.. both fast enough for almost all duties.

It's when you start adding the new, way better plugins that it's a problem.
Old 4th March 2018
  #259
Lives for gear
 
Mercado_Negro's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by TNM View Post
sure it can do that, and you can leave your daw buffer at 1024 if not needing to play Vi's via keyboard.

But it depends on what effects you use in console..

if you happen to be at a high sample rate, even better.

But if you are at 44 or 48K, and just have a reverb aux for the vocalist, and use the very first gen 1176/LA2A/Pultec/Channelstrip/Precision Series (except the limiter), then you won't have any issue whatsoever.. the vocalist will be doing all that with a 2.1ms total latency or 1.1 ms at 96K.. both fast enough for almost all duties.

It's when you start adding the new, way better plugins that it's a problem.
Well, I don't use the old plug-ins while recording but most of the MKII's. I've even done shows with a couple of artists with just a Twin and a MacBook Pro. Using the SSL Channel Strip MKII on Unison (HP, EQ, Comp, everything) and one Auto-Tune in the UAD console insert and it's been awesome. We do everything at 96kHz, though. I have zero complaints about UAD, to be honest.
Old 4th March 2018
  #260
I record vocals and print through Unison, at 44k. Typically either the Neve 1073, Or Manley Voxbox, and Tubetech CL1b or MkII of either the LA2A. I rap, so need to hear myself in the pocket, I also many times add or re-record vocals after I've started mixing with plenty of UAD plugins and don't notice any latency when recording.

I'm syre you dissatisfaction is genuine, but I don't quite understand hte issue. Maybe it's a workflow thing.
Old 4th March 2018
  #261
Lives for gear
 
tkaitkai's Avatar
 

Yeah, I track through the MKII 1176, 1073, and 610-B at 48kHz all the time, and I've never had any issues with monitoring latency.

Then again, the issue TNM is describing sounds like a sample-accuracy discrepancy when sounds are being committed to DAW. Which I've admittedly never investigated.
Old 5th March 2018
  #262
TNM
Lives for gear
well that just means the latency that unison adds, as well as the MK2 plugins, is ok for you guys, that's all. We all have different tolerances.. I need no more than 3.5 roundtrip maximum, that's my threshold for guitar and vocal

cheers
Old 12th March 2018
  #263
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TNM View Post
well that just means the latency that unison adds, as well as the MK2 plugins, is ok for you guys, that's all. We all have different tolerances.. I need no more than 3.5 roundtrip maximum, that's my threshold for guitar and vocal

cheers
It’s 1.7...
Old 13th March 2018
  #264
TNM
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by freshstyle View Post
It’s 1.7...
i just explained *exactly* why it is not..

it's 2.1ms at 44k actually through console with no plugins. 96K is 1.1ms with no plugins.

And once again, if you use the NEWER plugins and use like 4 in series, the latency will be 8ms at 44k. You can only use MK1 plugins to not add additional latency.

Once again, if you work at 44K and monitor through console with just the fender guitar amp and nothing else at all, NO other plugins, it is 5ms RTL.

That is a scam. That is NOT near realtime or zero latency. The fender guitar amp adds 3ms of latency to console on it's own. One plugin.

Your "facts" are 100% wrong and i have no idea where you plucked that figure from.

There's also an additional 32 samples on the aux bus.
Old 13th March 2018
  #265
Quote:
Originally Posted by TNM View Post
i just explained *exactly* why it is not..

it's 2.1ms at 44k actually through console with no plugins. 96K is 1.1ms with no plugins.

And once again, if you use the NEWER plugins and use like 4 in series, the latency will be 8ms at 44k. You can only use MK1 plugins to not add additional latency.

Once again, if you work at 44K and monitor through console with just the fender guitar amp and nothing else at all, NO other plugins, it is 5ms RTL.

That is a scam. That is NOT near realtime or zero latency. The fender guitar amp adds 3ms of latency to console on it's own. One plugin.

Your "facts" are 100% wrong and i have no idea where you plucked that figure from.

There's also an additional 32 samples on the aux bus.
'Scam' is a bit of an exaggeration if many users have said their experience is 'near real time' when recording, even with newer or MKII plugins in the chain in the Console.
Old 13th March 2018
  #266
TNM
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by blayz2002 View Post
'Scam' is a bit of an exaggeration if many users have said their experience is 'near real time' when recording, even with newer or MKII plugins in the chain in the Console.
they claim a zero latency monitoring solution with up to 4 uad plugins in series.

Then you read the fine print LOL.

it just means that people are a lot less sensitive to latency than they realise..

It's the placebo effect.

I can guarantee you there are many clueless Apollo users regarding how high the latency can get.

Now why do I say placebo effect?

Because I have personally witnessed people that had a 5ms RTL at 44k using an RME interface, monitoring through zero latency native plugins in their DAW, complaining that 5ms was way too high.. and now they are using console and the chain they are using is around 6.7ms RTL and suddenly "it's great" LOL. I find stuff like that really funny. Always have. I even proved it to one of them with an RTL test. You should have seen his face.

Apollo is fine in almost all scenarios for 96K users, except a couple pf plugins that double the latency at 96k which makes their effective latency the same as at 44K.

But through a couple plugins each channel, IDC on low, at 96K, yeah, apollo feels quick enough.

44K is an entirely different story. Unfortunately, 96k is not a practical solution for many of us who use VI's that use more than twice the cpu they do ay 44K.

Not to mention the complete waste of time it is for anything other than real instruments, vocals or pure analog hardware synths. Yes for many people 96 is fine and usable.. for many it isn't.

Notice, not ONE, and i mean not ONE, not avid, not focsurite, not apogee, not UAD etc.. will post their official 44/48K RTL figures

Only 96K to sell interfaces and "trick" people when they see that number. Most people will see 1.1ms and not check the asterix portion in tiny print that it's at 96K.

PS you can not monitor through say a massenburg EQ, an la2aMk2 and a 1176MK2, (which is a very reasonable channel recording chain to expect isn't it?), at 44K with low latency through console. At 96k that chain is 2.6ms RTL which is absolutely fine.

But add an amp sim to that, even at 96K, especially the uad amp sims,and it's way higher than most daws through native.
Old 13th March 2018
  #267
TNM
Lives for gear
there you go:
YouTube

check out 0:45 to 0:53

They show mark 2 and new plugins as they say the words, you can monitor with NO latency, just like an analog mixer.

This was the video that fooled me.

i found out after buying 2 interfaces , 2 satellites and buckets of plugins , a year after actually, that all the newer plugins each added additional latency.

so, yes - it's a scam.
Old 14th March 2018
  #268
Lives for gear
 
tkaitkai's Avatar
 

@TNM How are you measuring Console latency? Are there figures from UA that we can see?

I’ve just never experiened anything close to the latency you’re describing, even when piling on DSP-heavy plugins in Console at 48kHz. Trying to monitor through the DAW, however, is a different story — anything slower than a 128 buffer at 96kHz is virtually unusable for me.
Old 14th March 2018
  #269
@ TNM,

Placebo?

I've used UAD plugins way before Apollos appeared. I've tracked loads of vocals with Apollo and at least one or two newer plugins (can't see using more than 2 in series for vox recording) and I print with the plugins on. So no not placebo.

I will say though I have to put Logic into 'Low Latecy Mode' when I track (if I already have plugins in the DAW (UAD or other). But "Scam" is still an exaggeration.

I've just been watching a serious of videos showing multiple professional studios (that record all sorts of bands and artist) using Apollo along with many of the classic sort after hardware gear, and being more than happy with them.
Old 16th March 2018
  #270
TNM
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by tkaitkai View Post
@TNM How are you measuring Console latency? Are there figures from UA that we can see?

I’ve just never experiened anything close to the latency you’re describing, even when piling on DSP-heavy plugins in Console at 48kHz. Trying to monitor through the DAW, however, is a different story — anything slower than a 128 buffer at 96kHz is virtually unusable for me.
official uad plugin latency figures..

backed up with test.

You're not hearing the latency cause you are not that sensitive to it then.

128 buffer IS unusable for me at 96K. But that's about what you are getting through apollo if using 4 MK2 plugins in series at 96K

Since you can work at 128 RTL at 96K, i would say we have way different sensitive to latency.

64 at 96k is absolute max for me with most interfaces, and 32 at 44k.

32 samples at 44K is much faster with a good thunderbolt interface, going through the daw itself with native plugins, than console is at 44K with 4Mk2 plugins.

I can monitor through Logic or Cubase using a guitar amp at 32 buffer, faster then console with a guitar amp at 44K.
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…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump