UAD still worth it?

[Uncle E]

Lately I'm doing Studer -> Verve (Drive 0) -> Ampex. It sounds great and makes mixing easy. If I cared more, I'd be concerned that this will sound like too much to me after a few months.

[secretrobotics]

What other plugins sound the same as the 1176 Collection?

The Studer is one of those plugins that sounds good cumulatively. Once you have it on 20+ tracks, you’ll appreciate it. The IK Tape arguably sounds better but it uses a lot more CPU, so the cumulative thing is tough. A good system would be Studers on individual tracks and an IK on the main bus.

In my case its not that something else sounds the same, its more of a "devil you know" situation (for better or worse). I definitely need to test them some more and do some critical listening.

[jamcat]

I found I was easily able to jump right in with the UADx 1176 models and easily get the same or better than what I was getting with the off-brand 1176 models I had previously been using. And I was able to fine tune the nuances in a way I wasn't able to before, by choosing the particular UADx 1176 model I use for its unique characteristics.

[Uncle E]

In my case its not that something else sounds the same, its more of a "devil you know" situation (for better or worse).

Yes, it’s a “devil you know” situation for me, too. In my case, I’ve been using the UA plug-ins for years, so that’s the devil for me. But I’ve been finding Neve plug-ins that I prefer over the UA ones.

[jamcat]

But I’ve been finding Neve plug-ins that I prefer over the UA ones.

The ones from NoiseAsh?

For me, NoiseAsh are the only ones I could confidently swap with UAD, but I still prefer the UAD 1073 as my goto preamp model because it is a 100% authentic 1:1 model with all the quirks of the hardware.

[Uncle E]

Yes, along with Acustica and VoosteQ. Also, I need to test the new Console 1 Vintage Preamp.

[jamcat]

Yes, along with Acustica and VoosteQ.

I don't have a lot of experience with Acustica. I understand it is essentially dynamic convolution, similar to what IK is doing with their Tape Machines. And likewise, they are ridiculous CPU killers.

When I checked out Acustica Nebula years ago when it first came about, I felt like it was a bit of the emperor's new clothes going on. Since then, I've heard some demos where it did sound like they were doing something, but there is that "convolution veil" there, which I also hear in IK tape machines.

As for VoosteQ, the preamp sounds nothing like the UAD or NoiseAsh 1073 preamp models (which sound VERY similar to each other) so maybe you like what VoosteQ is doing, but whatever it is, it's not a 1073 to my ears.

[Uncle E]

I don't have a lot of experience with Acustica. I understand it is essentially dynamic convolution, similar to what IK is doing with their Tape Machines. And likewise, they are ridiculous CPU killers.

Yes

When I checked out Acustica Nebula years ago when it first came about, I felt like it was a bit of the emperor's new clothes going on. Since then, I've heard some demos where it did sound like they were doing something, but there is that "convolution veil" there, which I also hear in IK tape machines.

Fair enough. Definitely Emperor's New Clothes in many case, but then so is UA at times. I love the UA's EQ, just not the preamp section. For example, when I listen to the differences in the Jacquire King and Rabea shootouts, I hear the same difference that I hear between the UA preamps and my hardware Neve-style preamps. Acustica Gold sounds more like my hardware. That said, I'm not buying it because I already own some Acustica plugins that I nearly never use, and I'm pretty sure the same thing would happen if I buy Gold. There's just something about the user experience that makes me never use their stuff.

As for VoosteQ, the preamp sounds nothing like the UAD or NoiseAsh 1073 preamp models (which sound VERY similar to each other) so maybe you like what VoosteQ is doing, but whatever it is, it's not a 1073 to my ears.

The 31 and MOD preamps sound good. The 84 preamp is way over-the-top. Definitely easy to get seduced by the saturation and go too far with it (same with the new Verve plugin).

[0degree]

But I’ve been finding Neve plug-ins that I prefer over the UA ones.

The ones from NoiseAsh?

For me, NoiseAsh are the only ones I could confidently swap with UAD, but I still prefer the UAD 1073 as my goto preamp model because it is a 100% authentic 1:1 model with all the quirks of the hardware.

Interesting - how do Noiseash plugins compare to usual suspects in general and (more importantly) to hardware? I'm asking because I saw some mixed reviews on KVR. What about their Pultecs?

[jamcat]

That depends on who you consider to be the usual suspects.

As for NoiseAsh's Pul-Tecs, they get a

Likewise, they're the only plugins I would feel confident replacing UAD's Pul-Tecs. The sound is the same.

[0degree]

That depends on who you consider to be the usual suspects.

UAD and Acustica Audio

[jamcat]

Like I said, I don't have a lot of experience with Acustica. I remain skeptical of them.

As far as vs UAD goes, I have found NoiseAsh to be extremely very similar in all of their versions of the same kit as UAD.

I give the slight edge to Universal Audio because they're always going to be a little more authentic to things like the precise layout and options of the real gear, since they have the licensing rights to it.

On the other hand, NoiseAsh has the Nuance Deviation (on everything BUT the 31002 ), which is basically the same thing as Brainworx's TMT. So that is a point in their favour. Really, you can't go wrong with either NoiseAsh or UAD.

I think where they both shine is when you put them across the entire mixer to create a virtual console. The cumulative effect sounds more natural than other plugins that may start to get phasey or hollow out a bit. I would include Lindell Audio among those.

[0degree]

Like I said, I don't have a lot of experience with Acustica. I remain skeptical of them.

As far as vs UAD goes, I have found NoiseAsh to be extremely very similar in all of their versions of the same kit as UAD.

I give the slight edge to Universal Audio because they're always going to be a little more authentic to things like the precise layout and options of the real gear, since they have the licensing rights to it.

On the other hand, NoiseAsh has the Nuance Variation (on everything BUT the 31002 ), which is basically the same thing as Brainworx's TMT. So that is a point in their favour. Really, you can't go wrong with either NoiseAsh or UAD.

Awesome, very helpful - thanks!

[jamcat]

For example, when I listen to the differences in the Jacquire King and Rabea shootouts, I hear the same difference that I hear between the UA preamps and my hardware Neve-style preamps.

Have you seen this?



Looks intriguing, and while expensive ($3,000), not unobtainably so.
Perhaps something you might get in the shop?

[vurt]

I've been using the Warm setting with Drive under 50%. I don't see the point in buying the full version since Thicken and Vintagize are already too over-the-top for me.

I can’t help thinking the closest thing to new in this market is bloom.

This to me seems targeted at the next generation and is likely a smart move.

I jumped on the UA stuff because I like learning how things were done, what was used but can’t help thinking there might be less interest for the next ones to follow especially as newer tools make their own mark on popular music (or the newer old music replaces our old music).

"hello"