Brainworx & SPL plugins on UAD2 - Huh?

[daxliniere]

Sorry, have I missed something here? Why do we want plugins that are already available as native plugins? To use up the DSP power of our UAD-2 cards? To save us money?

bx_digital V2
UAD is $329
native is ~$325

SPL Vitalizer MK2-T
UAD is $249
native is ~$212


EDIT: More information added;

A UAD-2 Solo will run 14 instances of SPL Vitalizer, on Intel I7 930 (3.8GHz) you can run 270 instances. (ref: http://www.gearslutz.com/board/6991309-post55.html)

[bronxsound]

i'm with you. it seems daft to me too. especially you can't resell separate plugins on UAD platform (all or nothing policy).
on a side note the new plgins are really good.

[Compyfox]

Why do we want plugins that are already available as native plugins? To use up the DSP power of our UAD-2 cards?

Two reasons why you might want to "get" another license for UAD:

1) You save on CPU power with native plugins. This can come in handy with very CPU intensive projects.

2) UAD software works for quite a while now. So it should be upgrade proof.


Granted, point 2 might not satisfy you, but then again... noone forces you to buy your tool of choice "again". If you're running native and UAD, stick to what you have. If you're not into the native game - stick with UAD.


I don't see a reason to argue here.

[Grain Bastard]

Don't concentrate on the finger or you will miss all the heavenly glory.....

They might be native plugins aswell but they are important because they were mainly coded by SPL & Brainworx via an SDK which was on the release radar years ago and never happened. As the platform is secure then it might mean that some developers might start coding unique plugs for the uad now that its possible.

Bad points though are the prices....not great are they.

However i hope to see an increase in plugins available to uad and with new developers might come new freebies

Maybe.

[shalako]

The Big one is to save CPU, I have a quad core processor but I still run out of processing power, the Quad UAD card can handle a bucket load of processing.

No i don't own one, but i am seriosly considering getting a UAD card to help with the processor load. This chart to shows what I mean http://www.uaudio.com/support/uad/compa ... chart.html

[jkleban]

So, for example, the Brainworx product isn't the same on UAD as it is native. Interesting comparison over at the UAD forum comparing the native and the UAD2 version. Which one sounds better is an individual thing.

I have 3 UAD2 cards, 2 quads and 1 omni for I run large projects that depend on the UAD plugs to emulate a vintage recording studio in the box. There are so many plugins going on in my base template that native would kill my DAW since I also use 100% virtual instruments as well.

Oh, and the UAD2 stuff does sound magical.

Jim

[bishop666]

The Big one is to save CPU, I have a quad core processor but I still run out of processing power, the Quad UAD card can handle a bucket load of processing.

No i don't own one, but i am seriosly considering getting a UAD card to help with the processor load. This chart to shows what I mean http://www.uaudio.com/support/uad/compa ... chart.html

one average non high end intel = 5 uad-2 quads!

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/new-prod ... -2.html#55


(if you use the strongest intel cpu these days it would be 1 ^= 10 quads)

[Grain Bastard]

The Big one is to save CPU, I have a quad core processor but I still run out of processing power, the Quad UAD card can handle a bucket load of processing.

No i don't own one, but i am seriosly considering getting a UAD card to help with the processor load. This chart to shows what I mean http://www.uaudio.com/support/uad/compa ... chart.html

one average non high end intel = 5 uad-2 quads!

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/new-prod ... -2.html#55


(if you use the strongest intel cpu these days it would be 1 ^= 10 quads)

Its not really about what is more powerfull, there are many uad plugins that are unique to the platform. If you can get native equivelents and your happy with their sound, then even as a uad card user, you can still make a choice or simply forget about how underpowered you assume the cards to be and move on.

I would assume that most small project studios don't usually need hundreds of compressors in a project so most of the time a single quad card imo would be more than enough power to cover eq, comp, reverb and even a 16 track Studer. I have just an original uad-1 and a uad-2 solo and a 3.2gig Intel I5 cpu and its stupidly powerfull imo. Easily does what I want it to do but i don't honestly think just the cpu would be enough. I agree there are faster options these days but for £299, a Solo card adds a great little high quality reverb and dynamics unit to your setup. It obviously won't run 20 Manley Massive Passives but it will allow you to run one and that might be all you need.

Personally I'm really happy that they exist and most likely spur the native market too. Competition is good for consumers and I'm more than happy with my investments in both options.

[daxliniere]

Two reasons why you might want to "get" another license for UAD:
1) You save on CPU power with native plugins. This can come in handy with very CPU intensive projects.

That doesn't make sense. Think about how (un-)powerful a UAD DSP chip is compared to an Intel/AMD CPU. Now think about how expensive a UAD card is compared to a CPU.

They might be native plugins aswell but they are important because they were mainly coded by SPL & Brainworx via an SDK which was on the release radar years ago and never happened.

First of all SPL software is Brainworx and, second, SDKs are for specific platforms. They are directly tied to a particular platform/architecture or set of architectures. The SDK that Brainworx developed with UAD is purely for the interfacing between the SHARC DSPs and their own back-end and has nothing to do with the plugins that were ported.

As the platform is secure then it might mean that some developers might start coding unique plugs for the uad now that its possible.

I beta test for a lot of software companies and developers, not once have I heard someone say they didn't want to or couldn't code a unique plugin because they needed external DSP. (CPUs are very fast these days, though I will acknowledge that some instruction set/commands can be executed faster under the right DSP processor conditions)

However i hope to see an increase in plugins available to uad and with new developers might come new freebies
Maybe.

Extremely unlikely. To use the UAD SDK, you'll need to pay UA a license fee (just like TDM and IIRC RTAS). How many freebie TDM plugins can you name?

The Big one is to save CPU ... the Quad UAD card can handle a bucket load of processing.

But how would you know? There are no native implementations of these plugins that you could test side by side... until now...

As Bishop posted: http://www.gearslutz.com/board/6991309-post55.html
and
http://www.gearslutz.com/board/6991347-post59.html

So, for example, the Brainworx product isn't the same on UAD as it is native.

Hi Jim,
Is that true? Of course I did some research before I posted this and I couldn't see any difference between them.
Can you point me in the direction of that post, please?

[Windsurfer25x]

There is also the legacy of UAD. They've been around a while now, seem to be pretty solid, stable and are growing! A lot of other developers could be a one or two man team and if something unfortunate were to happen your favourite plugin may no longer see development. I think the UAD platform offers more security.

Also the hardware dongle/dsp offers other companies security too so I think it will continue to grow.

I have an i7 950 and I do run projects that eat up most of my CPU with VSTi's and plugin FX, the extra DSP is nice to have.

Native stuff is great, but so is DSP. I use the Massive Passive on almost every project as my go to EQ on the master bus. It sounds great!

The guy who has a great CPU does well,

The guy who has great CPU and DSP does better

[Grain Bastard]

Two reasons why you might want to "get" another license for UAD:
1) You save on CPU power with native plugins. This can come in handy with very CPU intensive projects.

That doesn't make sense. Think about how (un-)powerful a UAD DSP chip is compared to an Intel/AMD CPU. Now think about how expensive a UAD card is compared to a CPU.

They might be native plugins aswell but they are important because they were mainly coded by SPL & Brainworx via an SDK which was on the release radar years ago and never happened.

First of all SPL software is Brainworx and, second, SDKs are for specific platforms. They are directly tied to a particular platform/architecture or set of architectures. The SDK that Brainworx developed with UAD is purely for the interfacing between the SHARC DSPs and their own back-end and has nothing to do with the plugins that were ported.

As the platform is secure then it might mean that some developers might start coding unique plugs for the uad now that its possible.

I beta test for a lot of software companies and developers, not once have I heard someone say they didn't want to or couldn't code a unique plugin because they needed external DSP. (CPUs are very fast these days, though I will acknowledge that some instruction set/commands can be executed faster under the right DSP processor conditions)

However i hope to see an increase in plugins available to uad and with new developers might come new freebies
Maybe.

Extremely unlikely. To use the UAD SDK, you'll need to pay UA a license fee (just like TDM and IIRC RTAS). How many freebie TDM plugins can you name?

The Big one is to save CPU ... the Quad UAD card can handle a bucket load of processing.

But how would you know? There are no native implementations of these plugins that you could test side by side... until now...

As Bishop posted: http://www.gearslutz.com/board/6991309-post55.html
and
http://www.gearslutz.com/board/6991347-post59.html

So, for example, the Brainworx product isn't the same on UAD as it is native.

Hi Jim,
Is that true? Of course I did some research before I posted this and I couldn't see any difference between them.
Can you point me in the direction of that post, please?

I don't understand people like you.

Please don't for one second think that your somehow the only person who has realised that the uad card is less powerfull and more expensive than a modern I7 cpu. We know and don't care a shit but i do find people like you insulting with such an obvious remark. WE HAVE THE SAME CPU'S AS YOU, WE KNOW HOW POWERFULL AND EXPENSIVE OUR COMPUTERS COST US COMPARED TO OUR UAD CARDS. WE BUY THEM FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS, AWARE OF COSTS AND LIMITATIONS.

Uad plugins need to be coded specifically to run on the Sharc DSP so Brainworx most definately did program their plugins again for the uad platform. They are not simply 'bridged' native version as you seem to imply. Suggestions are that the two version sound slightly different which maybe a result of the porting to DSP of their native algo's which wouldn't be the case if both versions were running the native code. SPL are not Brainworx. Brainworx code Spl's plugins for them. Elysia for example are not brainworx but they coded the mpressor plug for them.

By 'unique' plugin I mean a plugin only available on the uad and no native version. UA don't have any piracy issue, the users buy their software and as such it might be a very lucrative market to get into and leave the native market. My point was it might not always be the case that their will be a native and a uad version in the future,not whetherthe coder was capable of coding uad versions. Again, i know what an sdk is....

Universal Audio are not Digidesign so lets see what happens regarding freebies. Your right it might be unlikely due to costs but i would rather give them a chance rather than stereo-typing in your manner.

You know exactly what you going to get instance wise whatever card you buy. The chart has been there for years and will show you usage of the currently available plugins. Obviously future plugins might be a shock but you should always buy a product for what it does now, rather than future development.

If your happy with your native studio then why are you even here in this thread stating the bleeding obvious?

[daxliniere]

Wow, so much rage.
I almost didn't dignify your reply with a response. I believe I kept this discussion truthful, light-hearted and non-aggressive. Your ignorance could be forgiven, but your aggression is too much.

I don't understand people like you.

Let me explain. People like me like to stay well-informed and consider facts. We question things that don't make sense for one reason or another and we discuss those things. We also like to stay on topic.

If your happy with your native studio then why are you even here in this thread stating the bleeding obvious?

Are you actually upset with me for stating a fact?
If you had elementary English comprehension skills, you would understand that I questioned the purpose of releasing pre-existing plugins at a higher cost on a platform that has higher monetary cost-per-plugin-instance.

Please don't for one second think that your somehow the only person who has realised that the uad card is less powerfull and more expensive than a modern I7 cpu. We know and don't care a shit but i do find people like you insulting with such an obvious remark. WE HAVE THE SAME CPU'S AS YOU, WE KNOW HOW POWERFULL AND EXPENSIVE OUR COMPUTERS COST US COMPARED TO OUR UAD CARDS. WE BUY THEM FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS, AWARE OF COSTS AND LIMITATIONS.

And now you'll tell me what I can and can't think? Who is this guy?

They are not simply 'bridged' native version as you seem to imply. Suggestions are that the two version sound slightly different which maybe a result of the porting to DSP of their native algo's which wouldn't be the case if both versions were running the native code.

This was not my inference. When a plugins is ported from one platform to another, it is possible to transfer the DSP algorithm directly, after 'rewording' it for the new compiler. Optimisations are then made based on certain instruction sets that a particular CPU/DSP processor may have. This would explain any potential differences in sound.

SPL are not Brainworx. Brainworx code Spl's plugins for them. Elysia for example are not brainworx but they coded the mpressor plug for them.

SPL Vitalizer MK2-T (native and UAD) were coded by Brainworx. This is fact.


I'm not wasting any more time on this.

[daxliniere]

Just thinking about it more, I'd like to add that I have nothing against Dirk or Brainworx. He's a great developer.
I do wonder why UA decided to pay him to re-create existing plugins, but hey Dirk, it's UA's money to spend as they like, right?

[bishop666]

Just thinking about it more, I'd like to add that I have nothing against Dirk or Brainworx. He's a great developer.
I do wonder why UA decided to pay him to re-create existing plugins, but hey Dirk, it's UA's money to spend as they like, right?

It is a demo for other developers to take the jump to the uad-2 platform sdk.

[kylie]

I do wonder why UA decided to pay him to re-create existing plugins, but hey Dirk, it's UA's money to spend as they like, right?

1) UAD likes recreation of well known brand products which they can market as officially endorsed by the original manufacturer, so it was a logical step to contact SPL sooner or later
2) dirk, as mr. brainworx, and head of development of the spl software division, was a perfect partner to team up with, because he has already experience with dsp development for the sharc environment, since
3) the brainworx bx was released for the creamware/soniccore platform long ago (even before they went native, iirc), later followed by the spl transient designer. he might not have to reinvent the wheel for bringing those plugins to UAD once they decided to give up on their old graphics chip and switch over to the sharc platform

decisions on which platform those plugins to run on may not always be made on facts like the pure mathematical number of instances on dsp vs. cpu. people who own a dsp card are free to choose which version to use, people without most probably decide to go native.

freedom of choice can be a PITA, sometimes... (especially when you consider the variety of platforms bx digital and td can run on. hey, why not consider getting a scope card?)