It's about time that UAD copped onto itself and released it's plugins in VST/AU/RTAS format.

I accept that they are a hardware company, but even TC Electronics realised when the writing was on the wall for Powercore. WIth Macbooks hosting 4 cores, surely it's time for UAD to wake up to the 21st century and provide their wear in various options.

They are a smart company, but they need to cop on to the fact that binding their software to external DSP is an outmoded paradigm. Jazzmutant didn't realise this in time so the iPad wiped them out; so unless UAD develop a software only strategy that works for them, they'll find themselves unable to adapt when, very shortly, external DSP becomes totally unacceptable. They have a decreasing window of opportunity to find the software-only business model that users will accept. Even AVID realise this is the way forward.

Kevin.

i disagree...

hardware DSP is the only model that solidly protects them from piracy...

and UAD are simply better at development and support than TC ever were.

I also understand they've already said they'll be doing a thunderbolt (lightpeak) equipped version as well....

so moving on, and keeping pace with technology, seems to be their ethos...

Hi Kevin,

Quote Kevin Nolan:

---

It's about time that UAD copped onto itself and released it's plugins in VST/AU/RTAS format.

---

They already do all of the above. I take it you meant native plug-ins

Quote:

---

even TC Electronics realised when the writing was on the wall for Powercore.

---

But why did they realise that? Is it because computers are powerful, or because they saw that UAD was their main competitor and that companies were increasingly looking to UA to do uncrackable software models of their gear — so there was little room for expansion of powercore sales? I suspect that UAD sales and plug-in sales are far greater than those for the powercore.

Quote:

---

WIth Macbooks hosting 4 cores, surely it's time for UAD to wake up to the 21st century and provide their wear in various options.

---

Well... they have just released a version with FW which makes it usable with laptops.

Quote:

---

They are a smart company, but they need to cop on to the fact that binding their software to external DSP is an outmoded paradigm.

---

I don't agree. I'd love them to go native, but I don't think they 'need' to. In fact, it's quite a risky approach from their point of view when you consider the issues of piracy and the potential impact of that on Avid, Lexicon, SSL and others who have recently opted to go fully native. Convenience for the consumer cannot be the *only* factor. Business continuity is important if we want them to continue to have a profit motive for making all those damned fine plug-ins we enjoy!

Quote:

---

Jazzmutant didn't realise this in time so the iPad wiped them out

---

IIRC, it did nothing of the sort. They spotted a niche in the market and had a commercial product that filled that niche. As the consumer market matured with the iPad (and all those other touch-tablet devices, for that matter) the JazzMutant guys have taken their knowledge and expertise into other arenas. That's them being strategic and adapting their business model; not them being wiped out.

Quote:

---

so unless UAD develop a software only strategy that works for them, they'll find themselves unable to adapt when, very shortly, external DSP becomes totally unacceptable. They have a decreasing window of opportunity to find the software-only business model that users will accept. Even AVID realise this is the way forward.

---

I'm not quite sure the DSP model will become 'unacceptable' that quickly while it supports unique plug-ins, and provides protection to the official software versions of gear from third-party manufacturers. I do agree that UA will eventually need to find a software only way of doing things, but I suspect they have rather longer to find that way — which I imagine would mean finding an ultra-secure way of protecting them. iLok and eLicenser don't appear to be fool proof. And bear in mind UA already have quite a large captive market who own their hardware to which they can sell newly developed plug-ins.
You might as well ask "isn't it about time that Apple realised they'll have to sell their PCs for a reasonable price?" OK, that's a little tongue-in-cheek, and I don't intend to start a Mac/PC flame war... but it's illustrating a point: Apple don't have to do anything of the sort, because people are happy to pay through the nose for their particular brand of processing power and the unique software that runs on it. There's still a healthy market for their computers, and unless people decide not to buy them ,they'll continue with that model. That's not all that different to what UA are doing.

...from a selfish point of view, of course, I'd love to see native versions

They won't go native.

*If* the DSP card market dies, then they'll have to make some strategic business decisions, but all the info I've seen says UAD2 cards are selling very healthily.

UAD going native threads have been done to death and all the arguments have been said many a time: eg: http://www.studionu.com/uadforums/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=14839

And might as well:

IF they decided to simply go native and offer the plugins for a similar price to the UAD2 plugin price (which is probably what the market would bear)... then I think in the near term at least they'd have some pretty miffed loyal customers who have invested so much in their DSP cards. I spent c. £1.4K on my UAD2 quad.

But I don't think they will. They go from strength to strength and are not really cutting prices much these days. And the cards are a great revenue stream, psychologically lock users into their brand, and as said are a great dongle.

There's also a few other considertaions...

DSPs are far better at the kind of processing needed for audio work than CPUs are and they can be carefully optimised for peak performance despite running under very heavy load.

It's always better to run this kind of stuff on dedicated hardware (even if it does run inside a computer) for a whole load of practical reasons.

Although I don't (and probably never will) own any UAD stuff, I do admire them for sticking to their way of doing things.

We've had this debate a dozen time. Right now, UAD are crack free and piracy free, and long may it continue so they can continue to invest in great products, unlike rivals who have sunk without trace.

Jazzmutant was a one-trick pony, an advanced but high priced product which enjoyed no popular market following whatsoever. There is no comparison.

When UAD want a new CEO to develop a major strategic shift for them, I'm sure they'll give you a call.

--------------------
Dynamite with a laser beam...

It's irrelevant how many times you've had this discussion. The point is valid, even more so at this juncture, what with the launch of an Apple quad core laptop, and subsequent to AVID realising the validity of this argument only recently.

Many do not share your comfort with proprietary DSP for plugins that can run native. Grand if that's your outlook, the points made in the original post are completely valid and completely worthy or repeated discussion as technology develops.


Oh and yes – it’s not your forum. Other member frequent it less than you do, and new member come along all the time – and we’re all equal to you and entitled to start any new discussion worthy of the forum title.

The UAD is a hardware platform with a software front end. It is not, nor has it ever been, a native software platform, and like all hardware platforms, it has resource limits you need to work within - this is true whether it's an SPX90, Eventide Orville, or Powercore or Duende system.

If you do not want a hardware platform or DSP, then don't invest in a UAD system - there are plenty of native alternatives. The UAD system is what it is, and I can't see it being anything else, especially while at the moment cards are selling, plugins are selling, the products are desirable and still selling at a premium, they are getting exclusive licensing deals that otherwise would not happen (eg Manley, Studer etc), all of their customers are paying ones and to a certain extent locked in to the platform, they are not affected by piracy, and because of all that they are still significantly investing in developing both software and new DSP hardware products within the UAD platform.

None of those are business reasons to shelve DSP and go native. I understand some consumers would like it and find it convenient, but that's not a business reason to do so (I'd quite like it and find it convenient if Ferrari's were fifty quid ).

Most of the other companies who have taken DSP systems and gone native have largely done so because their platform died (for all kinds of different reasons) and desperation forced them to do *something* to try and pull back some revenue - none of which applies to UA, at least in 2011, and for the last decade or more.

And yep, as was mentioned above, everyone seems to think they know how to run UA's business as if UA are somehow incompetent to do so - and yet their business is doing just fine, and there are plenty of smart people over there perfectly capable of developing a viable product strategy. If you don't like their products or design choices, then perhaps your money would work for you better by being spent elsewhere... :shrugs:

Quote Kevin Nolan:

---

It's irrelevant how many times you've had this discussion. The point is valid, even more so at this juncture, what with the launch of an Apple quad core laptop, and subsequent to AVID realising the validity of this argument only recently.

Many do not share your comfort with proprietary DSP for plugins that can run native. Grand if that's your outlook, the points made in the original post are completely valid and completely worthy or repeated discussion as technology develops.


Oh and yes – it’s not your forum. Other member frequent it less than you do, and new member come along all the time – and we’re all equal to you and entitled to start any new discussion worthy of the forum title.

---

UAs reasons for producing a DSP platform have absolutely nothing to do with "power" or "maths".... despite what they may claim!!

It has absolutely everything to do with creating a more secure market for themselves - and good for them. They've created a successful set of plugins, bought by many, not cracked. They'd be crazy to even consider going native. They've managed to achieve what very few other s/w companies have - a desire for their product, and one not replaceable with cracks.

There is no debate to be had - no point in saying "they should do this , tech is ready".... just not important. They have a product, people want the product. Economics rules ALL business's, they have a solid economic reason to do exactly NOT what you'd like!! The power of machines has been their since the days of the G5 to run decent plugins natively....

Good for them, no matter how much I may resent it!!

Quote Kevin Nolan:

---

It's irrelevant how many times you've had this discussion. The point is valid, even more so at this juncture, what with the launch of an Apple quad core laptop, and subsequent to AVID realising the validity of this argument only recently.

Many do not share your comfort with proprietary DSP for plugins that can run native. Grand if that's your outlook, the points made in the original post are completely valid and completely worthy or repeated discussion as technology develops.


Oh and yes – it’s not your forum. Other member frequent it less than you do, and new member come along all the time – and we’re all equal to you and entitled to start any new discussion worthy of the forum title.

---

As you point out it's not anyone's forum, but nevertheless it can be tedious discussing the same issues over again, so fair comment from Steve to point out the obvious.

Now I may well be wrong, but what I observe in threads on this topic, is that established users of UAD are happy with the current set-up and are loyal to the brand. It's the wannabes who can't understand the argument that UAD's policy provides a secure environment for them to further invest in development of their very good products.

As a committed user I am very happy to invest in this company, I'm happy to pay a higher price for a superior product, and don't much care if that is conditional on me buying a rather lavish security dongle/DSP, call it what you will.

You, as a consumer, have a choice. You can buy currently available native plug-ins, or invest in some up-market ones that have a secure future and excellent track record of continued development.

Espousing what you think the company should do is tiresome. Are you a UAD user by the way?

Bob

--------------------
www.bickerton.co.nz

it would be nice if you needed more power than the card you have in your machine that it would allow you to run them off the cpu as well,but it would have to be a machine with one or multiple dsp cards in it authorised by uad.

No UAD here (two other chaps here have them) but I totally get why they stick to what they have!! I'd do exactly the same!!

Evolution always moves away from hardware, which takes up space, consumes energy, introduces noise, introduces latency, is hard to upgrade, is another potential point of failure, is expensive, uses up natural resources, causes pollution, and has audio quality that is increasingly indistinguishable from native apps.
Also, functionality ends up being a higher priority than anti-piracy robustness.

I bet my seemingly excellent CLA Vintage Compressor plugs would not sound very much better on a super-duper Sharc chip, at least for my needs. I guarantee, also, that the end consumer could give a rat's butt. Spiffy hardware doesn't make dodgy content much better anyway -not enough to justify lining the pockets of a harware manufacturer.

How many peole want to go back to relying on a hardware-crammed million dollar studio?
All that circus is now just about crammed into an off-the shelf personal PC.

Evolution means less hardware.

Quote narcoman:

---

There is no debate to be had - no point in saying "they should do this , tech is ready".... just not important. They have a product, people want the product. Economics rules ALL business's, they have a solid economic reason to do exactly NOT what you'd like!! The power of machines has been their since the days of the G5 to run decent plugins natively....

---

Quite. I'm typing this on a 6 year old G5. My main studio computer is an 8-core MacPro, and even that's 2.5 years old. UAD have had nearly a decade to go native if they wanted to (with the less-hungry UAD1 platform).

Quote Kevin Nolan:

---

Other member frequent it less than you do, and new member come along all the time – and we’re all equal to you and entitled to start any new discussion worthy of the forum title.

---

It's not "my" forum, but I am a moderator. We have a search function and it is courteous to other members (1 million unique visitors a month) to use it occasionally. You can always resurrect an existing topic if you've got something to say.

You might also find that phrasing the question in neutral terms like "Why don't UAD go native?" rather than "It's about time UAD copped on" gets a warmer response. The latter is not a question; it's a rant that claims you know better than they do.

It's your choice if you want to go down that route, but if so there are some seriously knowledgeable people hereabouts who will not hesitate to tell you if you're wrong.

--------------------
Dynamite with a laser beam...

Quote CPU toast:

---

Evolution always moves away from hardware, which takes up space, consumes energy, introduces noise, introduces latency, is hard to upgrade, is another potential point of failure, is expensive, uses up natural resources, causes pollution, and has audio quality that is increasingly indistinguishable from native apps.
Also, functionality ends up being a higher priority than anti-piracy robustness.

I bet my seemingly excellent CLA Vintage Compressor plugs would not sound very much better on a super-duper Sharc chip, at least for my needs. I guarantee, also, that the end consumer could give a rat's butt. Spiffy hardware doesn't make dodgy content much better anyway -not enough to justify lining the pockets of a harware manufacturer.

How many peole want to go back to relying on a hardware-crammed million dollar studio?
All that circus is now just about crammed into an off-the shelf personal PC.

Evolution means less hardware.

---

hahahahr! you wish!

Why do you think there are so many £15k plugin based project studios with people looking for work. The work (although there is less of it) comes to the places with the stuff the everyman CAN'T get..... New tech is great - it has allowed the single user to make great music and realise his artistic expression like never before - but it hasn't opened the doors for high end work.... ho ho ho no!

Another thing when talking about going native is to consider the alternatives. Waves produce high quality plugins that run natively on the host. Fine. But there's no Waves products chez moi :

- I don't like their pricing
- I don't like their update policy
- I don't like their fascist bully attitude towards piracy
and
- I quite _like_ the idea of a dedicated DSP box... I have two! I was planning to get at least one more!

(OK, Waves is pretty much top of the 'Evil' scale, but the point is still valid)

But fundamentally, I have a choice - I can choose to go down the native route, or to go DSP. I _like_ having a choice! SSL have just hacked me off because they have taken away that choice - I was on the verge of going hardware Duende when the ditched it. So there's no benefit to me in buying their software alone - a card will allow my (already ageing quad core Mac) to continue for a goodly long time running the same channels of processing. All it takes is one update to one plug to get hungry and I'm stuffed.

Sorry Kev, but I really do hope that UAD doesn't listen to your advice.

--------------------
Veni, Vidi, Aesculi
(I came, I saw, I conkered)

Stephen, I normally don't get involved in tit-for-tat debates in forums and always want to stay technical and on topic; but I have to say in this instance that you really are overstepping your bounds.

This is a forum for discussion - and I wanted to make a point and read 'on topic' reactions (which I find very interesting and are shifting/amending my stand point).

I have to say that I find it unacceptable that you're telling me how to behave on this forum on the basis that you find the topic tedious. In this instance, as in about now, I genuinely do feel it is time there is UAD choice across software-only and hardware, feel this point is worth repeating and purposely made the subject header a bit edgy to prompt reaction. It's not offensive but it's edgy - that was the point. So again with respect - I think you need to re-examine your role as moderator and exercise a little more judgment before ticking people off.

Back on topic - while I accept the points to UAD hardware being a valid medium and for it to continue so, UADs portable option for laptops is, IMO, inadequate. At a minimum, I believe it would server their future, as well as musicians who use laptop, macbook and iMac platforms, to have a native UAD plugin option too. Let them charge a lot for the native version as do Lexicon, so as not to reduce revenues but, IMO, what with the current crop of more portable computers being so powerful, UAD native plugins would be massively desirable to a large cohort of potential users, and surely a step in the right direction for UAD also?

IMO, UAD are locked into designing hardware for historical reasons and to me this is probably one of the main reasons why they are still committed to hardware. The plugins sell because they are extraordinarily good, but I believe that native only versions would sell just as well, and probably in multiples of numbers. But the migration of a company from hardware to software is not an easy one – and I genuinely fear from the future of this company or part of Universal Audio unless the figure out how to transition to software-only – I personally believe they have no choice but to go in that direction sooner rather than later.

Having said all of that - it is very interesting (and informative) to hear how many people like the DSP option - I've always steered clear of considering DSP cards but it sounds like UAD hardware works very well and that's useful - thanks.

Kevin.

i've no idea why you are trying to deliberately pick a fight with Steve

. but it really doesn't do your argument any favours...

all he did was comment that we've had this discussion before.... not imply in any way that we should not have it again.... or that you were out of line /...


one could even simply have taken it as a pointer that there may be useful material already extant that you maybe had not read or allowed for in your original premise
rather than getting aggressively confrontational about it....

as to your argument.



frankly, there are already multiple UAD solutions for Mobile and non PCI equipped machines, with more in the pipeline....
both PCIexpress card , and firewire.... with Thunderbolt coming...


that covers most of the Macs suitable for audio any how....


so... there are no really valid grounds for insisting they have to go native to be of use....



the only reason i can really grasp for people putting forward the move to native processing, is secretly hoping someone can crack the native ones so they don;t have to pay for them.


which rather colours my view ....



any how...

any software security that does not essentially affect the ability to process data, is circumventable....
iLOk is leaking like a sieve, and was always to some extent vulnerable... syncrosoft has always been so.... even the logic key was not infallible....


serial numbers are easily obtained, and challenge response systems are straight forward to break....

and then there's the possibility of simply editing the core code to remove the security coding altogether...




only running the core processing on dedicated DSP is realistically secure.... as it requires that you actually physically have the DSP....

frankly, i think more companies should follow the UAD route.... and that TC are simply chickening out... or lacking the expertise required, given their protracted inability to deliver a stable and fully functional release on snow leopard....

i'd be quite happy to have more hardware.....



(arguably, in the extreme sense, it is possible to model the DSP CPU and architecture, but it is always far slower, and less efficient , and much harder to do.... for an example, witness how relatively inefficient Virtual PC was when running on older PPC Macs.. and AFAIK, this has never been successfully done to a DSP processing device... )

Quote Kevin Nolan:

---

I genuinely do feel it is time there is UAD choice across software-only and hardware, feel this point is worth repeating and purposely made the subject header a bit edgy to prompt reaction.

---

Most of these threads are like this though. If they were "Oh, I really wish I could use my UAD plugins natively" that's one thing - but they are mostly along the lines of "UAD are incompetent and have a clearly antiquated and dead platform and they are obviously idiots for not going native" - which is why they are so tiresome because those arguments are clearly false. That's why it gets the backs up of the people who have been around for a while and lived through these arguments hundreds of times.

It's like the PC/Mac thing. It doesn't prove anything, and doesn't get anywhere. Largely it just seems to be a bunch of people venting. And posting threads with provocative content to "get a reaction" is called trolling - so please respect the other users of the forum by engaging in sensible discussion - no-one should be provoking anyone else with their personal agendas, thanks.

Quote Kevin Nolan:

---

Back on topic - while I accept the points to UAD hardware being a valid medium and for it to continue so, UADs portable option for laptops is, IMO, inadequate.

---

Baby steps. At first there was no solution for laptops. Then came the Expander, which begat the UAD2 Solo/Laptop. Now we are moving into the Satellite range which can let laptop users (and iMac users) put a Quad on their system.

Come Light Peak, laptop users will be able to put enough quads on their system to keep them busy for some time. And that's without increasing the ability of the cards with new, more powerful DSP chips.

Quote Kevin Nolan:

---

At a minimum, I believe it would server their future, as well as musicians who use laptop, macbook and iMac platforms, to have a native UAD plugin option too. Let them charge a lot for the native version as do Lexicon, so as not to reduce revenues but, IMO, what with the current crop of more portable computers being so powerful, UAD native plugins would be massively desirable to a large cohort of potential users, and surely a step in the right direction for UAD also?

---

Do you not think that the fact that they haven't done this in over a decade of people moaning about native solutions *proves* that they do not at all feel this way? If native would be a good, successfull business model to them, *they would have done it already*.

As Narc says, the UAD platform hasn't been about power since the first few years of the UAD1. Those that keep coming back to the "But I get more power on my computer" argument are just not getting it - whether it's true or not, it's *irrelevant* to UA's business model.

Quote Kevin Nolan:

---

The plugins sell because they are extraordinarily good, but I believe that native only versions would sell just as well, and probably in multiples of numbers.

---

This is a simplistic argument. The fact that the plugins would be "available" to everybody, means that now people have a path to using them that requires neither purchasing a UAD2 card, *or* the plugins. Many people now that want them buy them *because that's the only way they can get them* - and they wouldn't if they didn't have to. Also, the fact that everybody *can't* have them helps keep the product desirable, and thus sustains it's fairly premium pricing - lose that, and UA join the race to the bottom that other software has to content with.

Seriously - if you really look at the facts without the tinted glasses of your personal wishes, you'll see that UA have a good business model that *works* for them - and any company would be *crazy* to change a working business model into a unproven, risky one unless there was a massive strategic need for it - which I don't see is the case.

Quote Kevin Nolan:

---

But the migration of a company from hardware to software is not an easy one – and I genuinely fear from the future of this company or part of Universal Audio unless the figure out how to transition to software-only

---

And here we go again - this fairly common "I fear for UA" claptrap. UA are doing just fine, and are being run by smart guys. If there comes a time where they have to change direction, they will no doubt do that. That time is not in the near future imo - fives years on, who knows, but certainly for now, your "fear" is a projection of your feelings that UA are somehow incompetent, out of touch with the needs of their users, and slowly dying. You may think that, but it doesn't necessary have any bearing on reality.

Would I like native UAD plugins? Sure. Would there be some consumer advantages to having them? Absolutely. Do I moan that the DSP system I bought isn't something other than what I bought into? No. Do I think UA are making the wrong decision for their business by sticking to DSP and not going native, at least at this time? Absolutely not.

Quote Kevin Nolan:

---

Having said all of that - it is very interesting (and informative) to hear how many people like the DSP option - I've always steered clear of considering DSP cards but it sounds like UAD hardware works very well and that's useful - thanks.

---

As people have pointed out, it's nothing to do with liking DSP cards.
As UAD I would never ditch an uncrackable system for one that will be cracked and all over the internet within days (or sooner).
If people 'like' UAD's cards it's because they know it means the company have an assured finance stream that will enable them to continue to develop quality plug ins.
I would guess that no great increase in sales would result in going native. I would predict that a not insignificant number of the people who currently buy into the system would no longer pay for new plugs. Any call for them to go native has to be all about demonstrating why you think UAD's income would increase in the context of the product being 'freely' available.
I'm no business guru but I think UAD would be crazy to go native.

I think UAD are fully copped and always have been.

As I've said, I can see the reason for the DSP solution. It prevents piracy, pure and simple. It also means that they have only one driver to write for the various platforms, as they can guarantee each plug-in runs on their own platform.

What *would* be interesting is:

(1) having scalable DSP system, whereby you can add/upgrade processors/memory, without having to buy a full, expensive card. Eg. if it prevented the piracy, I'd happily have a networked 1U computer with a bespoke UA operating system if it gave me more power to run the plug-ins. I do resent just a wee bit having to have multiple cards if I want the freedom to experiment with ridiculously over the top systems (eg a console made of Massive Passive, 33609 and Studer on every channel) — when the host machine has enough power to spare. More so when that host machine can be assembled for half the cost of purchasing a UA Quad. The Quad has plenty of grunt right now, though it's still possible to run out and require more, and each new plug-in seems to be getting thirstier.

and/or...

(2) if UA were to release a limited bundle of plug-ins as a native demo. Currently the DSP system means you either have to know someone running UAD stuff, or to take the plunge before you can even tell what they might sound like. Pretty much all native stuff can be demoed with no hardware, or at most an iLok, which isn't several hundred quid. I mean, if you decide you don't like it (unlikely, I'll admit), you've splashed a hell of a lot of cash to find out.

Audio guys are a funny lot by and large, there is definitely a romanticism associated with hardware - even computer hardware like DSP that doesn't make the blindest difference to quality.

If you have a bang-up-to-date PC it's frustrating to shell out very significant amounts on DSP that serves little purpose other than to get you to pay twice to run a handful of plug-ins.

That said the plug-ins are very good and they are very stable and reliable and they look very pretty. People are clearly still buying them and the DSP - and UAD have excellent marketing.

Actually I'm convinced lots of people love the fact it's an expensive club to join. It gives the whole thing an exclusivity factor. And I can't blame them for sticking with an uncrakable platform. The premium for a few crappy Sharc DSPs does seem a lot, but they're still obviously selling well as they'd be surely dropping the price otherwise.


If UAD did go native the potential market for their products would obviously be larger, but they'd be loosing out those probably significant DSP profits and there's the almost certain warez issue. It's not a clear cut winning formula - certainly whilst audio guys are still enjoying investing in hardware (or software that requires hardware to emulate other hardware).

Just to add my two bob to this.

A few years ago we moved from Logic to Reaper, because we are on the PC and needed to upgrade to XP to run a new firewire interface and Logic wouldn't work properly on XP etc. Anyhoo, no problem, hohum...

I'd got right into plug-ins using Logic, but when i transfered old projects to Reaper, no setting went with the tunes obv, and i became fustrated trying to emulate the mixes i had going with Logic plug-ins etc... So i said "oh bollocks" and just put a compressor on the master and plumbed in a hardware reverb and that's been pretty much that ever since.

And i get great CPU performance with lots of spare for the drum sampler.

So, in short, pug-ins? Pita, can't be bothered with them.

One thing that stands out for me, as a part-time (non-audio) hardware developer, is that I have never found a situation where a general purpose machine comes anywhere near the performance and reliability of dedicated hardware - of the same class.

On top of that, if you write software that has to talk to the hardware, this becomes dramatically more reliable as well as simpler if there is only one (or a severely limited) set of hardware that need to be handled.

Obviously this pushes up the price even without any vendor lock-in considerations so, as someone still struggling to manage what I have, I don't see myself selling the car and rushing out to buy the kit. I can certainly see that a studio would find it very attractive though.

--------------------
It wasn't me!
(Well, actually, it probably was)

Kevin ol' chap - you're asking a none question. You're basing your point entirely upon "they should do this to benefit those who don't have UAD cards" which is absolutely not the way to run a business! The key in any business is exclusivity and desire for the product.

They've done that - they're selling well (better than ever actually!) - and they're making the target money within their business targets. You NEVER run a business with the mentality that "as much short term money as possible" is the way..... that is the error of many companies.... grow too fast - and you last half as long.

Currently UA is doing very well maintaining a business strategy that keeps there products in the hands of legitimate users only. I see no reason why they'd want to change, why they should and what advantage they could possibly have in letting their stuff go native! It's a none argument - there is no point in native versions....

DSP cards are ALWAYS the better way to sell plugins - not for ability (since any computer from the past 5 years is capable of running UAD type plugins) - but because it absolutely pushed piracy as an afterthought. Why? - because even if you DO pirate the plugs you HAVE to have a card! Makes perfect business sense.

SO - as everyone else seems to be saying - it's a none debate. Give one advantageous reason that UAD could possibly have by going native and I'll join your debate!! And i STILL don't have a UAD card in my machine so.....


As for Steve moderation - I'm afraid a forum is NOT a democracy. You have no rights, what the mods say is t"the word" ..... and he's hardly come down on you hard!! It's just someone brings this up pretty much bi-monthly!

UA are a good company. How do I know? I have a mid-1960s LA4 hardware compressor in my rack which works as well as the day it was made (even the lamp on the meter). I've also had 1176s and LA2s there in the past. Which generally I've sold at a profit.

I'm not about to tell them they don't know what they are doing when they've been running a successful business which is older than most of the people reading this.

--------------------
Dynamite with a laser beam...

I'm not an expert on the subject but I won't be buying any more plugins for my UAD-1 card. It was a great idea when it was first available but there are some superb plugins available free of chage, donationware or much less expensively now (and without latency issues) - this for example:

http://vladgsound.wordpress.com/plugins/molot/

I WOULD love a collection of UA hardware processors though!!!

--------------------

Quote Steve Hill:

---

UA are a good company. How do I know? I have a mid-1960s LA4 hardware compressor in my rack which works as well as the day it was made (even the lamp on the meter). I've also had 1176s and LA2s there in the past. Which generally I've sold at a profit.

---

Great products, poor business - there's not a lot of profit in selling hardware that outlasts its owner. Henry Ford figured that one out in the forties.

Anyway, I'm willing to bet that the UAD platform has less than three years left. A simple extrapolation of Intel's roadmap suggests that by 2014 a brand-new Mac Pro will have at least 24 cores, each more than twice as powerful as a current Gulftown core. Intel have a 10-core Xeon due out this year. The implications for developers are enormous.

The cost of developing a plug-in is dropping dramatically as the requirement for them to be CPU efficient is dissolving. It's now possible to develop top-quality plugins on a shoestring budget thanks to convolution and the huge amounts of BSD-licensed DSP and circuit emulation code available. This will commoditise plugins that emulate hardware, to the point that I expect to see a major DAW include a mixer with a choice of emulated busses within the next couple of years. UA won't be beaten by a competitor, they'll just be commoditised into irrelevance. Pro Tools is unbundled from hardware, TC have given up on Powercore, Duende have gone native and Jazzmutant are out of business entirely. Moore's Law always wins in the end.

Quote uphillbothways:

---

Anyway, I'm willing to bet that the UAD platform has less than three years left. A simple extrapolation of Intel's roadmap suggests that by 2014 a brand-new Mac Pro will have at least 24 cores, each more than twice as powerful as a current Gulftown core. Intel have a 10-core Xeon due out this year. The implications for developers are enormous.

---

Indeed. And yet it still won't be able to run UAD plugins.

And where UAD plugins are desirable, and people want to run them, they'll buy the hardware necessary.

Quote uphillbothways:

---

Anyway, I'm willing to bet that the UAD platform has less than three years left. A simple extrapolation of Intel's roadmap suggests that by 2014 a brand-new Mac Pro will have at least 24 cores, each more than twice as powerful as a current Gulftown core. Intel have a 10-core Xeon due out this year. The implications for developers are enormous.

The cost of developing a plug-in is dropping dramatically as the requirement for them to be CPU efficient is dissolving. It's now possible to develop top-quality plugins on a shoestring budget thanks to convolution and the huge amounts of BSD-licensed DSP and circuit emulation code available. This will commoditise plugins that emulate hardware, to the point that I expect to see a major DAW include a mixer with a choice of emulated busses within the next couple of years. UA won't be beaten by a competitor, they'll just be commoditised into irrelevance. Pro Tools is unbundled from hardware, TC have given up on Powercore, Duende have gone native and Jazzmutant are out of business entirely. Moore's Law always wins in the end.

---

No way. Developing emulation plugins to UAD quality is very difficult. There are only a small handful of developers who have truly succeeded to date. UA, Waves.... ??

The + of my UAD card is that I don't need to buy a £1500 mega PC for many, many years to come, if ever. I already have that processing power. I have never actually used more than 50% of grunt the UAD2 quad, it is well over-specced for my needs.

This discussion is boring now. If people don't like the UAD model, don't subscribe. Simples. Let's talk about something more interesting.

Desmond,

I genuinely believe that if Avid, Lexicon and TCElectronics have acknowledged the need for software only rleases, UAD will have to go this way.

And, am I wrong on this - isn't it the case that iMac users, for example, cannot use UAD if they also want a Firewire Audio interface or HD? With computing increasingly going portable and with fewer peripheral busses, surely it's in UAD's interest to offer a software solution? Ultimately it's the quality of their plugins that's the real issue. The fact that you have to buy hardware is mostly because it's the only available option right now.

I'm sure if software only versions were available, virtually everyone would not buy the hardware versions and UAD can't afford for that to happen right now. But as soon as they work out a business strategy or are forced to, I'm 100% confident we'll see software only versions (and IMO that should be happening now).

As an aside - can anyone here comment on whether added latency with UAD is an issue beyond the normal host-based latency (please ignore this quesiton if I'm pushing the thread off topic or if it's been covered to death elsewhere).

Cheers,
Kevin.

Quote Kevin Nolan:

---

I genuinely believe that if Avid, Lexicon and TCElectronics have acknowledged the need for software only releases, UAD will have to go this way.

---

ProTools is a whole different ballgame. And they *still* support TDM, and TDM is still required I believe if you want everything (ie, zero latency monitoring) - op they haven't abandoned external DSP, they've just added a native option. But as I say, different ballgame with different reasons entirely. Oh yes, and PT9 has been cracked too I believe. Start a different thread on that one if you want to explore it

TC had a failing platform with overpriced plugins and hardware and support issues that they decided to terminate. They were in a very different place than UA are in terms of a thriving platform.

Lexicon choose to go native, despite for years saying they never would. I don't know the reasons behind this, but I suspect declining hardware sales was probably the biggest factor - though I have no evidence for this, so I could well be wrong. But yes, every warez kidz has their top end technology now, just like they feared.

Just like SSL's Duende native plugins got cracked in a small handful of days. I wonder how many more of those plugins SSL will sell now?

Quote Kevin Nolan:

---

And, am I wrong on this - isn't it the case that iMac users, for example, cannot use UAD if they also want a Firewire Audio interface or HD?

---

Eh? Currently, iMac users can't use *any* UAD system at all, so I don't know where you got that from.

Quote Kevin Nolan:

---

With computing increasingly going portable and with fewer peripheral busses, surely it's in UAD's interest to offer a software solution? Ultimately it's the quality of their plugins that's the real issue. The fact that you have to buy hardware is mostly because it's the only available option right now.

---

UA obviously don't feel so, or they would have done it. No, it is not in UA's interest to terminate (good) hardware sales (healthy profit margin on those cards), nor give away their technology to everyone willing to copy them for free, or cannibalise their plugin sales as now users who were paying for UAD plugins can now join the "payment optional" ranks.

No, I very much feel it is not in UA's interest at all to chase some extra native sales compared to what they would lose. As we've all mentioned already in this thread.

Quote Kevin Nolan:

---

I'm sure if software only versions were available, virtually everyone would not buy the hardware versions and UAD can't afford for that to happen right now. But as soon as they work out a business strategy or are forced to, I'm 100% confident we'll see software only versions (and IMO that should be happening now).

---

Good for you. I am willing to lay down a gentlemen's wager and say that there will be no UAD Native plugins for a *minimum of two years. After that, it's difficult to predict how the market will be, things might be different then. But even then I'd be skeptical. It seems obvious to me that UA want to remain a hardware platform, and their (thriving) business model is working for them - so they'd be *crazy* to change it.

*Let's face it, it's a win-win situation for me, because if I'm wrong, at least I get to get native UAD plugins on my computer. I find it's unlikely for me to invest again in another new format of the same card just because my computing platform changes (done that three times now, it gets tiresome. No wonder UA are doing so well - we're all suckers to pony up for their koolaid..!

Quote Kevin Nolan:

---

As an aside - can anyone here comment on whether added latency with UAD is an issue beyond the normal host-based latency (please ignore this quesiton if I'm pushing the thread off topic or if it's been covered to death elsewhere).

---

UAD systems add to the latency because the host still has the normal buffer i/o cycle, but also has to buffer the audio data to and from the DSP cards. Again, latency compensation sorts this out automatically on playback so for mixing it's not really an issue. For tracking, the UAD2 offers a low latency mode that is higher on the CPU, but doesn't offer much increased latency over native plugins (plugin dependent of course, some plugins just require more buffering due to the way they operate.)

Quote desmond:

---

Quote Kevin Nolan:

---

I genuinely believe that if Avid, Lexicon and TCElectronics have acknowledged the need for software only releases, UAD will have to go this way.

---

---

UAD have something which can't be copied. What is the point in distributing their crown jewels for free?

Only steinberg seem able to prevent piracy these days. Perhaps in the future we will see plugins fully integrated with DAWs using extremely strict copy protection and a reduction in add-on VST format plugins?

It just seems crazy that lexicon, TC et all allow decades of hard work to be downloaded for free everywhere. UAD are the only company with the right idea about this.

indeed...

Some here are still arguing this as if it's a power thing!! It's not! Even a Mac mini runs DSP circles around a UAD card.... that isn't the point. It's a dongle to stop piracy. Long may they thrive!!

the "power" of the mac has absolutely, unequivocally, unimportantly and unarguably no bearing on the matter!

Quote narcoman:

---

Some here are still arguing this as if it's a power thing!! It's not! Even a Mac mini runs DSP circles around a UAD card.... that isn't the point. It's a dongle to stop piracy.

---

Yep.

Well... "dongle with benefits"...

Quote narcoman:

---

indeed...

Some here are still arguing this as if it's a power thing!! It's not! Even a Mac mini runs DSP circles around a UAD card.... that isn't the point. It's a dongle to stop piracy. Long may they thrive!!

the "power" of the mac has absolutely, unequivocally, unimportantly and unarguably no bearing on the matter!

---

Agreed: I couldn't make my 8 core MacPro fall over with any conceivable combination of tracks and plug-ins three years ago. We're into diminishing returns with CPUs now. If hey make a 28-core Mac tomorrow, do I care? It might speed up lengthy processes like video rendering for people into that sort of thing, I suppose, but it's not adding anything for me and the way I work.

The UAD product does interest me. I'll probably buy more plugins as and when they are released. The cost of the card(s) is trivial, frankly: I've probably spent $7,000 or something on plug-ins already and I know that the next plug-in, at say $299, will be fairly priced for something which is almost certain to be pretty special.

I like the company, and its products. The packaging is trivial. The card is just a peripheral - like a printer or keyboard. (And no, I'd never use an iMac for serious music work).

--------------------
Dynamite with a laser beam...

While I agree that the piracy thing is a major driver behind the business decision there is in fact another:

Support costs!
A plugin running on a precisely known, limited set of hardware where the company defines the entire environment will be significantly cheaper to both develop and support then one running in the mess that is the X86 world.

UAD almost certainly know almost everything there is to know about their cards architecture, right down to the VHDL for some of the custom sand. The same thing cannot be said for anyone developing on the PC where even the documentation for the OS is often wrong (or just has odd edge cases), never mind things like the system management mode functionality (that differs between motherboards and can make the processor invisibly disappear for ms at a time).

Given a choice between supporting something where the tricky bits are on a custom DSP board and doing the same where everything is native I would take the DSP every single time.

Never underestimate the importance of customer support, or what it costs to provide (Or the annoyance to the customer of having to call for support).

Regards, Dan.

--------------------
Audiophiles use phono leads because they are unbalanced people!

good points chaps!

While I accept there are valid reasons for sustaining hardware, I cannot see the argument for hardware-only.

And I have to say, it looks to me that those defending the hardware stance here are very, very insistent – almost OTT on it; without agreeing with what is a valid and inevitable software option approach needed for the like of iMac and indeed for UAD’s survival. That doesn't make sense to me. It looks like your defending a position you know is changing, but you're doing your damndest to try to convince as many as possible to hang onto a valid argument for hardware. I understand your passion if that's what you believe is superior; but it just doesn't add up even in the medium term.


As was pointed out on another post - massive numbers of cores are the future - I saw a news item recently where IBM are now housing 1000 cores, liquid cooled; due for miniaturization for desktops within a decade.

I'm sorry - I really believe you’re clutching straws on this one. And - the whole piracy things is a dud argument at this stage - the likes of NI and Spectrasonics are doing quite well thank you very much.

So, although DSP hardware may be legitimate up to now, I do believe UAD will have to go software only quite soon - I'm convinced of it - and I do believe they should be there already for the 'iMac' generation. And I strongly suspect you know that all too well too!!

Kevin.