Native vs. UAD, comparisions....

[fmr]

I have the latest v3 Powercore Sonnox Plugins that have a button on them
that can switch to Native.There is a big sound difference when switching in
the Native versions which to me do not sound as good.And the 2 version do not Null
so there is some DSP Mojo going on I guess.

No, there's not.
The difference comes most likely just from different ways to handle roundings etc. But both ways are accurate enough to not make a qualitative difference.
http://www.siliconrecords.de/reverb/SONNOX.pdf
You want to tell me, you actually hear the differences and one sounds better than another?
Read that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo

How could it be that the very same algorythm (piece of code) would sound "different", just because you change the processor. It would be like saying that Cubase or Pro Tools sounds different on the Mac than on the PC.

[dirty oscillators]

Since I made not a single comment on the sound, I don't need to have a founded opinion on that one.
The sound of the plugins was never part of the point I (and other people before) made.
You should learn to differenciate.

you didn't have to say anything about it's sound. you mentioned it is outdated, it's performance is ridiculous, and that it's overpriced.

Watch out for that question people round these part see UAD's DSP as an expensive dongle with lots of hostility

With right!
The concept of UAD is just outdated. The processing power is rediculous low (counts for the UAD2 as well). Today it's really not much more than a very well working copy protection and way to earn some additional money by selling those cards.

my point is that you are addressing inconsequential things and in doing so, you are inferring that the UAD is junk.


by the way, you should learn to spell:

You should learn to differenciate.

But you should take a reading-course since I already adressed...

[Tony Ostinato]

not sure if it was covered, but the likely reason all these companies sign on with UA is the stuff doesnt end up in the pirate bin.

and once again in the either/or arguments the answer is both. the answer is always both.

and as far as hardware yeah, hardware is cool but think of all those power supplies and all the coal youre burning.

[dirty oscillators]

I just wanted to point out, that the concept is outdated and should be discontinued, since it's not done for the reason some people still think it'd be for. The plugins should be available native, since it's more user-friendly, less waste of hardware and cheaper.
The only reason because they still sell it with those cards is because of marketing and money.

Nothing to wrong about that. If the plugins are really so good, that it's worth the price/hassle anyways, then go for it. Just wanted to point out, that you're not really paying for processing-power (or if that's actually one of your motivations, you get a pretty bad deal price-wise on THAT point).

and you fail to realize that the WHOLE POINT is being able to free your onboard CPU processing for other plugins... not to mention, your Intel processor is also running the DAW, OS tasks, and various other activities in the background.

[Nokenoku]

"you should learn to spell"
Thanks for the hint. English is not my native language, so it might happen, that I make some mistakes.

my point is that you are addressing inconsequential things and in doing so, you are inferring that the UAD is junk.

I'd not say "junk". I'd rather say, the concept makes not much sense for the user anymore. The card -for what if offers processing wise- has a very high price. To high in my opinion.

and you fail to realize that the WHOLE POINT is being able to free your onboard CPU processing for other plugins... not to mention, your Intel processor is also running the DAW, OS tasks, and various other activities in the background.

No, I haven't "failed" any point.
What I'm saying is, that for most user the power of their CPU is simply totally enough. And if they'd actually need more power, they could buy a better CPU for less money than a UAD-card (which is offering much more additional processing power than such a card).

[dirty oscillators]

I'd not say "junk". I'd rather say, the concept makes not much sense for the user anymore. The card -for what if offers processing wise- has a very high price. To high in my opinion.

price that a recent UAD-1 card went for on Ebay:

http://cgi.ebay.com/UNIVERSAL-AUDIO-UAD ... 240%3A1318

What I'm saying is, that for most user the power of their CPU is simply totally enough. And if they'd actually need more power, they could buy a better CPU for less money than a UAD-card (which is offering much more additional processing power than such a card).

which is WHY you use the card to free your computer's CPU to run additional native plugs, which is what several people on this thread keep saying.

and i don't know about you, but being able to run five or six plugins for compression and other effects is plenty for me. if you need more than that get the UAD-2 and/or use your native plugins along with the UAD plugins.

[The Chase]

I have the latest v3 Powercore Sonnox Plugins that have a button on them
that can switch to Native.There is a big sound difference when switching in
the Native versions which to me do not sound as good.And the 2 version do not Null
so there is some DSP Mojo going on I guess.

No, there's not.
The difference comes most likely just from different ways to handle roundings etc. But both ways are accurate enough to not make a qualitative difference.
http://www.siliconrecords.de/reverb/SONNOX.pdf
You want to tell me, you actually hear the differences and one sounds better than another?
Read that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo

How could it be that the very same algorythm (piece of code) would sound "different", just because you change the processor. It would be like saying that Cubase or Pro Tools sounds different on the Mac than on the PC.

That's the point - it doesn't change the sound.

To many people its about the sound they end up with rather than the plugin count drag-race you seem bothered about.

Importantly, the responses comparing the processors are in no way making the tools any less about their sound. It's still about sound to everyone.

Everyone here seems to agree that they sound great. The thing is that there are still people who claim that the reason they sound great is on the basis of CPU vs. DSP, which is on the whole incorrect, misleading, and IMO detrimental to how people think about their tools.

[sounddesigner]

not sure if it was covered, but the likely reason all these companies sign on with UA is the stuff doesnt end up in the pirate bin.

and once again in the either/or arguments the answer is both. the answer is always both.

and as far as hardware yeah, hardware is cool but think of all those power supplies and all the coal youre burning.

+1, To every point you made in this post. But i won't say 'always' both for me.

[WillieJenkins]

Who cares about Gigaflops - we're making music arent we at the end of the day?

Exactly. The point of the UA cards, as well as Creamware, E-mu, etc. is to reduce the strain on your CPU so you can use more plug-ins when your CPU can't.

I'm sure the reduction isn't that much. Look at how much CPU the native Sonnox plugins need for example .. almost nothing. And before they were available on PC people also spreaded myths like "They need the power of the Powercore-card, CPUs are to slow".
I bet on a Q6600 you could already use more UAD-plugins than on a UAD2-Quad, if they'd actually do PC-versions (which of course makes no sense to UA atm).

You dont HAVE to run a UA2D quad...there are cheap ways to do it. Pick up a UAD1 card secondhand bundled with some plugs...

No, you don't have to, but every UAD-user I know is at least "not impressed" with the processing power of the UAD cards. Most people already have/had 2 UAD1 cards, and now they added another UAD2-Solo card (sometimes replacing one of the UAD1 cards).
That are at least a few hundret euros for basically a dongle since the CPU on their systems still has loads of reserves and don't need that little bit extra processing-power of a UAD-card.

Different chip architectures. You're comparing apples and oranges. Take an engineering course.

Funny, I'm studying engineering.
But you should take a reading-course since I already adressed that point (just in the part you quoted).

Then study harder. Cause right now you're failing 101.

[The Chase]

Then study harder. Cause right now you're failing 101.

Like what? So far no one has really provided any compelling falsifications to his claims.

[dirty oscillators]

Then study harder. Cause right now you're failing 101.

Like what? So far no one has really provided any compelling falsifications to his claims.

the point was that he was comparing processing power between two processors which are not designed to do the same set of tasks. i could be wrong but it seemed that he was in fact comparing apples to oranges to make his point.

[The Chase]

Then study harder. Cause right now you're failing 101.

Like what? So far no one has really provided any compelling falsifications to his claims.

the point was that he was comparing processing power between two processors which are not designed to do the same set of tasks. i could be wrong but it seemed that he was in fact comparing apples to oranges to make his point.

That's why gigaflops are such a good comparison though. Had he been comparing partially architectural things like Ghz then it wouldn't be a fair comparison, but FLOP/S is purely a performance spec and therefore a reliable comparison between different types of systems.

[dirty oscillators]

That's why gigaflops are such a good comparison though. Had he been comparing partially architectural things like Ghz then it wouldn't be a fair comparison, but FLOP/S is purely a performance spec and therefore a reliable comparison between different types of systems.

ah, okay... i stand corrected.

[eduardo_b]

I have the UAD1 and lots of plugs for it. Nothing to complain about. And yet, it's not as if I couldn't have been satisfied with other native stuff. It's all in how you look at it. The music will still be good regardless of the tool if it is used wisely. Or it will still be crap no matter what tools are used.

[bmanic]

Just a quick little note here that native versus DSP versions of seemingly identical plugins can sound different at identical settings. Good examples are the Waves RTAS versus Waves TDM plugins. I've posted the wave files here several times. The differences are quite subtle but they are there. Also notable is that doing a phase cancellation revealed small "spikes" which means that the transients were not processed the same in both plugins.

Waves themselves have said several times that the algorithms are identical but that some differences can be had due to the nature of floating point versus fixed point.. go figure.

Oh, and in my humble opinion, the TDM versions sounded better. This was noticeable on the compressors that sounded a tiny bit smoother, less "blocky/spiky". So I'm not at all surprised if somebody has heard similar differences in the Sonnox plugins.

Cheers!
bManic