Tons of off-topic BS inside! Sweet!

[bmanic]

I don't need to work for them or spy on them to see him trying to hype those plug-ins in many ways. It's probably ok, but one needs to filter out some stuff and I see you do it too to some extent. They are modelled, no doubt about it, but imo that's false advertising to put it the way he did. You don't doubt those interviews are adverts, do you? My point is simple: be carefull and don't believe the hype. And don't be afraid to accept that there's a huge step forwared to make for one with UAD-1 even tho it was a step forward at some point as well. I mean huge. It shows a lot when you start using them. In fact some UA gear is marvelous for getting that smooth top and unfortunately the plugs modelled after them just don't cut it. Kiitos keskustalusta

You're probably right. I've never used the 1176 nor LA-2A in a real mix situation. Only the 1176 in a direct A/B, not much use in that in the end, true. I do recognize that there is a difference but is it really that big (and I'm usually the one defending minimal subtlenes to the bitter end!).

Anywasy, kiitos ku pääsi pysyy kylmänä. Ei tarvii turhii liekkejä threadiin.

Kippis!
bManic

[bmanic]

Aleksey! thank you! my point exactly, of course the UAD la2a "mimics" the sound of the optical process, but saying that the la2a has code to "model" photons values, well that's just silly...everyone see the point now I hope!?

Snooky, everyone has seen the light already way earlier.

The point was, UA are using modelling, period. No need to get anal about it (picking on details). Like I already stated a few pages back and what omo has been saying, the dude in the review obviously uses the mag space for some advertisement as well but that doesn't make their claim about modelling false.

- bManic

[billybk1]

My point is simple: be carefull and don't believe the hype. And don't be afraid to accept that there's a huge step forwared to make for one with UAD-1 even tho it was a step forward at some point as well. I mean huge. It shows a lot when you start using them. In fact some UA gear is marvelous for getting that smooth top and unfortunately the plugs modelled after them just don't cut it. Kiitos keskustalusta

I don't need to believe the hype when I can trust my own ears. You do have ears don't you? These aren't some pimply-faced college dropouts coding simple audio plugin algorithms, in their spare time, on the weekends, to make a few extra bucks. Who better to design the plugin algos (1176,LA-2A)than the company that builds the actual hardware. Tell me a native plugin that better emulates the 1176 or LA-2A than the UAD-1. I didn't think so. Why do you think many UAD-1 users buy a 2nd, 3rd or 4th card, do you think we are all a bunch of zombies. I would not have bought a 2nd card for my DAW, 18 months after I bought my first one, if I did not think they were the real deal. I don't throw good money after bad.
Nobody is saying they are better than the hardware, let alone UA, after all, they would love to sell you their hardware versions, at a significantly higher price. But, for mixing ITB, UAD-1 plugins, like the classic EMT Plate 140, Fairchild 670, LA-2A,1176LN, Pultec etc., are in a class, of their own. Their Precision Mastering Series plugins are superb and I am quite sure their new Precision Multi-band Mastering Compressor will add to that legacy.
Should we believe an anonymous omo with zero credibility and probably some dubious motives (a rival plugin developer perhaps ) or the credibility and humble words, of one of the DSP doctors behind the UAD-1's golden algo's, who does know what he's talking about and has the resume and reputation to back it up. You know the ol' phrase You don't need to be a rocket scientist, well when it comes to designing the UAD-1 plugin algorithms, being a rocket scientist sure comes in handy:

http://www.uaudio.com/webzine/2004/november/index1.html

Hey omo, what in your opinion, is better than my (2) UAD-1 cards, for ITB mixing, on my ol' PIII 1Ghz DAW and please don't tell me the Blue Tubes

[fab m.]

My vintage initial release UAD-1 LA-2A sounds better than the later Mackie UAD-1 LA-2A. The newer ones lack definition. Maybe they just need to be broke in longer. Or it could be they started using inferior imported Pacific rim code produced in labor shops on the cheap.

Ehm, I can say there's a bit of confusion in this statement: first, the UAD-1 card is not changed. It was only branded as Mackie years ago because of a distribution deal. Since a couple of years UA distributes it simply as UAD-1 (in several versions related to the number of plugs authorized as bundle).
AKAIK, there is no change in alghorythms of the old plugs neither. They just developed new plugs. Only with the recent release 4.0 they improved a couple of old plugs with a sync to host feature which was missing.
Anyway, if you have any problem, contact the UA support. In my experience one of the best I've ever seen.

[SJ_Digriz]

My vintage initial release UAD-1 LA-2A sounds better than the later Mackie UAD-1 LA-2A. The newer ones lack definition. Maybe they just need to be broke in longer. Or it could be they started using inferior imported Pacific rim code produced in labor shops on the cheap.

Ehm, I can say there's a bit of confusion in this statement: first, the UAD-1 card is not changed. It was only branded as Mackie years ago because of a distribution deal. Since a couple of years UA distributes it simply as UAD-1 (in several versions related to the number of plugs authorized as bundle).
AKAIK, there is no change in alghorythms of the old plugs neither. They just developed new plugs. Only with the recent release 4.0 they improved a couple of old plugs with a sync to host feature which was missing.
Anyway, if you have any problem, contact the UA support. In my experience one of the best I've ever seen.

There wasn't any confusion, but most likely a lot of sarcasm.

[fab m.]

Uhm, ok. I just did not get it. Thanks.

[beej]

Actually Joe Bryan is someone I have a huge amount of respect for - he's an absolute engineering genius behind some of the music industry's groundbreaking technologies, including but not limited to design work the Wavestation and Seer Systems Reality. And he's just *one* of the class leading engineers at UA.

But to be honest, in the same way some of you guys get tired of what you perceive as UA 'hype', I also get tired of the perennial "but you can get native stuff that is as good" etc.

They are all tools, and will all achieve a given job with variable degrees of success, depending on the application and the taste of the operator.

I gotta say though that many (not all) of the UA plugs work for me in a way that other tools haven't. I love the apparent simplicity of the LA-2A (which basically just has a variable "goodness" knob) and the 1176, and for me they have a character that I haven't found in other plugs, including the good stuff like Sonalksis etc.

The Fairchild is something you have to really spend time with to understand it and use it effectively, but all these plugs make stuff sound "right" in a very appealing way - I guess probably as so much music I hear has the LA2A and 1176 "sound", especially in the more rock/band kinda way rather than the IDM/trance kinda way, so the more I can make my stuff sound like a record, the better

I can't really be bothered to get into the "better/best" games. Basically, the UA stuff is largely superb, they work for me (and many other people) and I ain't giving them back

I just wish I could fit the card inside my laptop...

[fab m.]

beej, I can't tell it better than you did.

[billybk1]

My point is simple: be carefull and don't believe the hype.

Joe Bryan/UA Dev, in his own words, in a post, at the UAD-1 forum responding to the UAD-1's detractors:


The irony is the processor we use is more powerful than anything in its class, and because no one else has managed to do what we've done, it's dismissed as marketing hype, or "because it's so affordable", it must not be good. In the dark ages they burned witches because they did unusual and extraordinary things, but now everyone's a cynic, so it must be marketing hype when something truly extraordinary is done. (Still, burning marketing types isn't as bad an idea as it sounds.

Our DSP gurus, Drs. Dave Berners and Jonathan Able, are well known Stanford University CCRMA Ph.D.s that have written their share of papers already. It's unfortunate (for grad students) that serious professionals are willing to pay them for their intellectual skills and they don't give it away for free anymore. That's called intellectual property. If you made your living fishing, would you give away all your fish? Only amateurs and sportsmen give it away.

Not only have we've created a DSP system that's exceeded the standard performance/cost ratio of existing systems tenfold, we've developed algorithms that have redefined the standard of quality previously experienced on these system, and we've offered these to our customers at a reasonable price with well tested drivers. That's not a small feat.

The fact that we get a lot of flack from our competitors is a compliment.

-Joe


Yes, the UAD-1 must be voodoo science, audio plugins are not supposed to work and sound so good.

[nuffink]

Joe Bryan/UA Dev, in his own words, in a post, at the UAD-1 forum responding to the UAD-1's detractors:


The irony is the processor we use is more powerful than anything in its class, and because no one else has managed to do what we've done, it's dismissed as marketing hype, or "because it's so affordable", it must not be good. In the dark ages they burned witches because they did unusual and extraordinary things, but now everyone's a cynic, so it must be marketing hype when something truly extraordinary is done. (Still, burning marketing types isn't as bad an idea as it sounds.

Our DSP gurus, Drs. Dave Berners and Jonathan Able, are well known Stanford University CCRMA Ph.D.s that have written their share of papers already. It's unfortunate (for grad students) that serious professionals are willing to pay them for their intellectual skills and they don't give it away for free anymore. That's called intellectual property. If you made your living fishing, would you give away all your fish? Only amateurs and sportsmen give it away.

Not only have we've created a DSP system that's exceeded the standard performance/cost ratio of existing systems tenfold, we've developed algorithms that have redefined the standard of quality previously experienced on these system, and we've offered these to our customers at a reasonable price with well tested drivers. That's not a small feat.

The fact that we get a lot of flack from our competitors is a compliment.

-Joe

Mandy Rice-Davis Applies.

[bmanic]

Nuffink

[omo]

My point is simple: be carefull and don't believe the hype. And don't be afraid to accept that there's a huge step forwared to make for one with UAD-1 even tho it was a step forward at some point as well. I mean huge. It shows a lot when you start using them. In fact some UA gear is marvelous for getting that smooth top and unfortunately the plugs modelled after them just don't cut it. Kiitos keskustalusta

I don't need to believe the hype when I can trust my own ears. You do have ears don't you? These aren't some pimply-faced college dropouts coding simple audio plugin algorithms, in their spare time, on the weekends, to make a few extra bucks. Who better to design the plugin algos (1176,LA-2A)than the company that builds the actual hardware. Tell me a native plugin that better emulates the 1176 or LA-2A than the UAD-1. I didn't think so. Why do you think many UAD-1 users buy a 2nd, 3rd or 4th card, do you think we are all a bunch of zombies. I would not have bought a 2nd card for my DAW, 18 months after I bought my first one, if I did not think they were the real deal. I don't throw good money after bad.
Nobody is saying they are better than the hardware, let alone UA, after all, they would love to sell you their hardware versions, at a significantly higher price. But, for mixing ITB, UAD-1 plugins, like the classic EMT Plate 140, Fairchild 670, LA-2A,1176LN, Pultec etc., are in a class, of their own. Their Precision Mastering Series plugins are superb and I am quite sure their new Precision Multi-band Mastering Compressor will add to that legacy.
Should we believe an anonymous omo with zero credibility and probably some dubious motives (a rival plugin developer perhaps ) or the credibility and humble words, of one of the DSP doctors behind the UAD-1's golden algo's, who does know what he's talking about and has the resume and reputation to back it up. You know the ol' phrase You don't need to be a rocket scientist, well when it comes to designing the UAD-1 plugin algorithms, being a rocket scientist sure comes in handy:

http://www.uaudio.com/webzine/2004/november/index1.html

Hey omo, what in your opinion, is better than my (2) UAD-1 cards, for ITB mixing, on my ol' PIII 1Ghz DAW and please don't tell me the Blue Tubes

Very ignorant. As for your childish question, boy, there's nothing great for ITB mixing (compressors, eq, etc) because there's so much better gear OTB. If your 2 UAD-1's are better then anything for you then great, that was not the topic in my posts anyway. I really suggest you to read my posts here again and then see what you replied to me. Completely offtopic unrelated crap. So get a grip, oh mighty UAD-1 beholder!

[JeffSanders]

This thread is getting nauseating.


I prefer my UAD compressors to anything ITB. I'm sure if I had money for an OTB LA2A or Fairchild I'd prefer it. It is what it is. I love the UAD-1. And that's... o...k...

[JeffSanders]

http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1438113

[defjamm]

^^not the same