View Single Post
Old 1st September 2018
Lives for gear
~ufo~'s Avatar
Yeah it could be just software.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again.

1. They should allow their plugins to run natively.
2. This should be in addition to running on UAD2.
3. Eventhough the power of UAD2 is limited compared to modern CPUs, it’s relative power increases as buffers decrease, meaning it’s most effective “on the way in”.
4. I don’t expect them to launch a new generation of DSP hardware since the offering from their current supplier is just a dual core of the UAD2 chip, porting to yet another platform would be an R&D nightmare. But they could do it and UAD X could be it.
5. With powerful multi core chips being the norm in even laptops, UA have to ask themselves if DSPs really offer that much benefits over drawbacks.
If a user can opt to upgrade their processor for 200 bucks to be able to run at least an UAD2 octo worth of extra plugins at lowest buffer.
6. Lowest recording buffer native performance used to be the main problem why DSP systems increased stability and use ability. My 8 year old Mac Pro 3.33 6 core can stably run at 96k 64 sample buffer, the amount of plugins (vertigo or maag) that an UAD2 octo can run at 44.1. My 2014 2.8GHz quad core can stably run two octos worth. Similarly specced modern machines will perform 30-50% better?

Open it up to native WHILE still allowing for DSP operation and we’ll all be happy, no?
I certainly won’t be buying their plugins UNLESS they can run natively.
It’s 2018, enough with schlepping boxes Around unnecessarily.