UAD still worth it?

[vitocorleone123]

I was UAD sceptic until i tried after it went Native. Plugins are great, but so are non-uad, just UAD are better (Pultec for example).

The NoiseAsh Pultecs (“Rule Tec”) are just as good as UAD.

I doubt very much that this is true. I wouldn’t even be sure they’d match the v1 of the UAD pultec.

The UAD ones are good to the level I don’t think I need to try any others.

Separate good from accurate. The NA ones are good but not very accurate recreations. The UAD are both good and accurate.

[theviirus]

UAD hardware is definitely still worthwhile. I chose to retire my Motu Ultralite a while back and now I'm using an Apollo X. I only have a few UAD plugins but they've changed my production for the better over the last two years. Manley Voxbox sounds great on my voice and being able to record the results directly (***rather than having to reroute the input through a bus and back to an armed channel) is a timesaver. The AMS RMX16, Lexicon 224 & 480L are all on my default session template sends.

DSP is still useful. See: Apogee, Antelope Audio, Avid, Motu.

***In the Logic environment editor you can put plugins directly on the physical inputs so when you arm a channel for that input its already being processed by those plugins, and even though this can save a good 30ms off your total latency from the input send to bus return to armed channel route, its still somewhat cpu intensive and difficult to monitor accurately even on decently spec'd machines that I wouldn't trust it in a session. Maybe in a few more years this process could be solid but I'd rather just have something that works right now.

[jamcat]

I was UAD sceptic until i tried after it went Native. Plugins are great, but so are non-uad, just UAD are better (Pultec for example).

The NoiseAsh Pultecs (“Rule Tec”) are just as good as UAD.

I doubt very much that this is true. I wouldn’t even be sure they’d match the v1 of the UAD pultec.

The UAD ones are good to the level I don’t think I need to try any others.

Separate good from accurate. The NA ones are good but not very accurate recreations. The UAD are both good and accurate.

I had UAD Spark for 3 months. I did some pretty extensive comparisons with various plugins. The NoiseAsh and UAD Pultecs were pretty much indistinguishable. So if you’re saying NoiseAsh aren’t accurate, then there’s no way UAD could be, either.

[vitocorleone123]

I was UAD sceptic until i tried after it went Native. Plugins are great, but so are non-uad, just UAD are better (Pultec for example).

The NoiseAsh Pultecs (“Rule Tec”) are just as good as UAD.

I doubt very much that this is true. I wouldn’t even be sure they’d match the v1 of the UAD pultec.

The UAD ones are good to the level I don’t think I need to try any others.

Separate good from accurate. The NA ones are good but not very accurate recreations. The UAD are both good and accurate.

I had UAD Spark for 3 months. I did some pretty extensive comparisons with various plugins. The NoiseAsh and UAD Pultecs were pretty much indistinguishable. So if you’re saying NoiseAsh aren’t accurate, then there’s no way UAD could be, either.

1) I could tell a difference between them, but it wasn't huge
2) As for accuracy, just relaying what I've read, as I've never used the harwdare

[vitocorleone123]

Kvr doubling

[zerocrossing]

I think that accuracy is a way to drive yourself to madness. Better to ask yourself, "is this giving me results that I like?"

[kylie]

The models I am most interested in from Universal Audio aren’t available for Spark. Things like the Helios channel strip.

I guess they're working on it. When I decided to get me Opal I had to install UA Connect and as soon as I entered my iLok account name I got several plugin licenses assigned that I own in DSP and that have already been ported. That's what I expected from what I've read on their website. But in the recent sale I could not resist the Ampex ATR, and as soon as the license was imported for DSP I received an iLok authorization for it. Thing is, there is no native version of it (yet) and this license should not be necessary for a DSP powered version so I assume they might port even more stuff in the background. The Studer is already both DSP and Native, and bot Tape Machines seem to integrate to Luna as well. They might not release everything from their older plugins as a native version but the helios would be nice, yes.

[electro]

DSP is still useful. See: Apogee, Antelope Audio, Avid, Motu.

DSP is very useful because once you start piling on the hungry plugins it gets harder to keep that ASIO RTL at low levels. Its even worse when you're running softsynths live.

[vitocorleone123]

DSP is still useful. See: Apogee, Antelope Audio, Avid, Motu.

DSP is very useful because once you start piling on the hungry plugins it gets harder to keep that ASIO RTL at low levels. Its even worse when you're running softsynths live.

DSP can be avoided if you use more hardware instruments and effects. Just one option.

[musicdoc]

Hardware can indeed be a superior option, but when up against the clock, or doing a acoustic mix with synth elements, working in the box is so much more convenient then diving into the world of sysex, program changes, setting up everything to do a small mix change. That’s why we have better and better analog vst synth recreations like UAD, Softube and others that get you usually 95% there.

So if you are a big time producer or have too much time on you’re hands or do synth based electronic music, knock yourself out.

As for me, I haven’t used my hardware modules in years:)

[jens]

DSP is still useful. See: Apogee, Antelope Audio, Avid, Motu.

DSP is very useful because once you start piling on the hungry plugins it gets harder to keep that ASIO RTL at low levels. Its even worse when you're running softsynths live.

A better native computer-system will always be the more powerful and cheaper solution. DSPs are nowadays redundant for the most part of them, I'd say. And that is exactly the reason why UAD now make the painful step to go native after doing their best for so long to feed the narrative that their ultra-espensive DSP hardware was worthwhile. They never debunked the absurd claims that their stuff would be sonically superior because of the computing architecture they use.

[noiseboyuk]

They never debunked the absurd claims that their stuff would be sonically superior because of the computing architecture they use.

Agreed.

It made logical sense 20 years ago - more computing power meant better sonics. But the notion that the computing power being in its own self-contained box somehow intrinsically makes it sound better is clearly daft.

[jamcat]

People think computers are just super-fast calculators, and math is math.

But surprisingly this is not so. Floating point vs integer math is totally different. DSPs may have specific routines that are particularly suited for audio processing which a floating point CPU can only approximate.

This is partially where these myths come from. Whether or not anyone can actually perceive those differences may be another story, though.

[jens]

Yeah - Apple Silicon sounds so much better for the same reason...

[jens]

Just to make sure I am not misunderstood in regards to what (or whom) I am making fun of:
that is of course complete and utter nonsense. Floating point is more precise that integer. So if your objective is to digitally emulate (.e.g. using something like SPICE) a specific analog circuit/behaviour, FP will be more accurate. Integer might indeed yield slightly different results for certain calculations, but as a direct result it will be less correct.