Search form

[johnny h]

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?

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!

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.

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 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.

...if you are starting out thinking what to buy, I'd strongly advise anyone to steer well clear of this system.

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.

This is almost like we're agreeing with each other!

[jellyjim]

I’m not aware of any desktop plugins that do that?

Good! Quick delete the thread mods, let's not give them any ideas!

I'm waiting for over zealous AI/machine learning driven suggestions and auto correct ...

"Hi! Sorry to interrupt your music making. If you like that delay on the main vocals then you're gonna love this one! [CLICK TO LEARN MORE]

"Hi! Sorry to interrupt your music making. The chord you just chose isn't in this key. Don't worry I've fixed it for you!"

"Hi! Sorry to interrupt your music making. My algorithm tells me the song you're writing is unlikely to be a hit. Have you tried Country and Western?"

Etc :)

The ones I find most annoying are Izotope and Waves, who both seem to have permanent “sales” on, a bit like DFS.

At least you can sit on a sofa.

[Hugh Robjohns]

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.

Ah. I obviously missed that. Thanks for the clarification.

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.

We'll have to wait and see... I'd be a little surprised if they introduced a 16-DSP card option, although that might be a possibility for more demanding customers. The UAD boffins are clever people and they have a sensible development roadmap. It would obviously make sense to move to a new generation of more powerful hardware processors at some point in the future -- UAD3 -- and when the time comes my understanding is that porting the code to new hardware platform would not actually be too difficult. But I don't see that happening any time soon.

This is almost like we're agreeing with each other!

:lol: Hey, it does happen sometimes! :thumbup:

[blinddrew]

"Hi! Sorry to interrupt your music making. My algorithm tells me the song you're writing is unlikely to be a hit. Have you tried Country and Western?"

Etc :)

:bouncy:

[jellyjim]

Great, so I just bought an Apollo Twin MKII Quad on the way home from work (damn you GAK!) I got suckered by one of the one-time only registration bundles, but it seemed like a good deal, and I am now happily downloading software!

I am excited.

Plenty to learn but looking ahead; If I want more DSP I can get a Satellite, correct? If I want more inputs I can get something like a Focusrite Scarlett OctoPre connected by ADAT?

A couple of those and I don't really need a mixer anymore do I?

Looks like I've gone Back in The Box! :headbang:

[ConcertinaChap]

Plenty to learn but looking ahead; If I want more DSP I can get a Satellite, correct? If I want more inputs I can get something like a Focusrite Scarlett OctoPre connected by ADAT?

I've done both of those things with my UAD kit with no issues at all. In the end I sold my preamp and Satellite and bought a Silverface secondhand to increase both my DSP and preamp count. I did this because I quickly came to prefer setting preamp gains in Console and being able to save them between sessions to fiddling around on the preamp itself. One of the really nice things with UAD kit is if you add a second Apollo (or more) then it automatically gets aggregated with the original unit and appears alongside the original unit in Console and is available in Logic with no further action. Simple and sweet.

A couple of those and I don't really need a mixer anymore do I?

'Fraid so.

Looks like I've gone Back in The Box! :headbang:

Come on in, the water's lovely!

CC

[jellyjim]

In the end I sold my preamp and Satellite and bought a Silverface secondhand to increase both my DSP and preamp count. I did this because I quickly came to prefer setting preamp gains in Console and being able to save them between sessions to fiddling around on the preamp itself.

Do only UA audio sources appear in console or can other audio inputs?

I'd use the Octopre 'statically', as in there'd be external gear more or less permanently plumbed in

[Watchmaker]

I have 3 UAD quad core, one in my Apollo 8 and 2 satellites and a late 2013 iMac with 3.GHz i5,16G. I LOVE my system. Works great. I plumb both a focusrite 8PreX and an audient ASP880 through the apollo, though I can only get 4 channels from each because UAD's through put on toslink is limited. This is totally configurable in the UAD console and renaming flows through to Studio One i/o

The fact that UAD bundles their plug-ins as a single library is a pain point, but you can hide them if you want though it's a clunky interface and the weak point imo. I don't see why they can't auto hide. You will have to hide them in both the control panel and your DAW. But it's a one and done so if you like the quality, it's worth it.

Compared to Waves, it's much, much better - for the way my mind works. And everything in the land of computers eventually gets put aside by the manufacturer for exactly the same reason so that whole train of thought, to me anyway, is a complete red herring. Scales and all. You will at some point have to commit to one system, all that's required is deciding which one and then learning to accept its limitations.

[ConcertinaChap]

Do only UA audio sources appear in console or can other audio inputs?

All the inputs on the Apollo appear in Console, so all the ADAT inputs each have their own channel. As you'd be attaching the Octopre by ADAT that's where it's outputs would show up. Of course you would have to set the output level of the Octopre preamps on the Octopre itself, which was why I eventually sold my Mackie Onyx 800r because I found digitally controlled preamps addictive.

Personally I like Console quite a lot. I'm told the RME equivalent is more versatile but with a higher learning curve. That may be so but Console hasn't stopped me doing anything yet and some things like comfort reverb are wondrously easy.

CC

[jellyjim]

Do only UA audio sources appear in console or can other audio inputs?

All the inputs on the Apollo appear in Console, so all the ADAT inputs each have their own channel. As you'd be attaching the Octopre by ADAT that's where it's outputs would show up.

Ah yes, good point. They're effectively Apollo inputs as they come via its ADAT input

Personally I like Console quite a lot.

Yes, I'm enjoying it so far, even on a cramped 11" screen! :headbang:

Gizmo for big screen is in the post

[MOF]

Personally I like Console quite a lot.

You can also save different setups in Console, so for example a unison enabled guitar amp’ with reverb and delays that are recorded with or without effects then another for vocals with a unison enabled compressor and effects there to give you a nice wet sound but only the dry compressed sound is recorded.

[ConcertinaChap]

You can also save different setups in Console

This is part of the charm of the thing. For instance I sing with a three part close harmony group and I know which mics to use for which voices. I have a console template saved for the group and a Logic template also. To record I have to rig the mics, of course, but then I can just call up the templates and be recording in seconds. I love templates and have loads for both Logic and Console.

CC

[jellyjim]

Can you expand its outputs? I’m thinking not as it has ADAT in only, although I have read ADAT is bi-directional. I ask because i saw something that suggested otherwise as I was stumbling around the internet, though it was vague.

Edited: I meant outputs not inputs!

[ConcertinaChap]

Everything is in the image:



Optical (i.e. ADAT or S/PDIF as you choose) is input only. You'd have a second port if it was output as well. So you're limited to the four line outs plus the headphone socket on the front.

CC

[jellyjim]

Thought so, thanks

And, all good! Not needing them, just wanted to clarify

[Hugh Robjohns]

...although I have read ADAT is bi-directional.

Erm... the physical implementation is often bi-directional, using pairs of fibre connections, but each individual fibre connection carries up to eight channels one way only!

[jellyjim]

...although I have read ADAT is bi-directional.

Erm... the physical implementation is often bi-directional, using pairs of fibre connections, but each individual fibre connection carries up to eight channels one way only!

Thanks. I obviously stumbled into some very ill-informed corner of the Internet. Thank the Internet Gods for SOS! :)

[Hugh Robjohns]

:D :thumbup:

[John Christopher]

Thanks all

Further research reveals to me that you're forced to download their entire library regardless of what you own! Urgh. Aggressive sales techniques or what?

But also terrible user experience if I can't hide the plug-ins I don't own. When or wherever I might select a UAD plug-in, will I always see those I don't own?

That'd be a deal breaker because for me it would be passion killer, so to speak, or at the very least an irritation ready to interrupt one's flow.

Although UAD requires downloading/installing the entire plugin library in one go, after the installation you can save disk space by deleting all individual unused/not-owned plugins simply by dragging them from your system to the trash. It's tedious but effective.

Also, if you choose not to delete unused plugins (to keep them available for Trial periods), UAD Console provides an option to Hide any individual plugins you choose not to view.

[desmond]

Although UAD requires downloading/installing the entire plugin library in one go, after the installation you can save disk space by deleting all individual unused/not-owned plugins simply by dragging them from your system to the trash. It's tedious but effective.

Yes, but they all come back when you update to UAD software. :headbang:

Much better imo to "hide" them in your DAW if you can, as you only need to do it once, it's non-destructive, and updates won't affect anything...