I didn't say there was anything wrong with making money out of music or music technology. Many software and hardware manufacturers take my money, and I'm happy for them to do so!Hugh Robjohns wrote:Maybe it's just me, but you seem to have a nasty chip on your shoulder about UAD. It's as if you just resent their success for some reason. I can't quite fathom it out...
I don't see how the Sharc DSP tech, or the price of the raw chips, matters. It does what it needs to do. They make a profit from it... which enables them to invest in more plugin development. What's so wrong?
UAD have to be respected for what they've achieved in pushing the quality of digital plugins. My point was that there appears to be a perception from consumers that hardware "should" cost more money than software and that isn't necessarily linked to the cost of production.
This is purely zeros and ones we're talking about. UAD have somewhat backed themselves into a corner; they can't keep up with the increasing power of native forever without refreshing their DSP, yet the development costs of rewriting all their plugins is not only a massive undertaking but risks alienating some of their large user base.Its Pentium III era technology they are selling here.
Yes... but so what? There are cheap-as-chips NE5534 op-amps in all manner of current analogue equipment, and they were invented way before the Pentium III. Oh the horror! :lol:
This is almost like we're agreeing with each other!Fair enough. I agree that there are a lot of excellent native plugins available that are as good (or maybe even better in some cases), and don't involve the cost and inconvenience of the DSP hardware. So yes, some thought should be entertained before deciding on which route to follow....if you are starting out thinking what to buy, I'd strongly advise anyone to steer well clear of this system.