UAD apollo and plugins owners......is it worth it ? HOnestly

[AC222]

There's an operative phrase used in economics to account for variables: "all things equal".

All things equal, a top mixing engineer will get better results with better gear on the same mix. The same engineer could in theory have a better mix on crap equipment than a novice with millions of dollars of equipment. Yes, we all get that. The point is people really want to hold onto the belief that the gear doesn't matter. It does... so let's stop pretending. As far as how much does it matter, that is always up for debate. But acting like it does not matter, that is living in a dream world.

[burnt circuit]

There's no better saying for this situation, "It's the ear not the gear."

You really think you're going to get a recording/mix that sounds as good as recording/mixing at Sunset Studios or East/West as on a Behringer $150 interface?

You're forgetting about the most important part of the equation, the song. How does the song sound and make you feel?

...mixed where ever, how ever, using what ever, but most importantly by who?

The talent, taste, skill and experience doesn't live and breathe inside the gear.... if only it were that easy, everyone would be getting paid.

[burnt circuit]

But acting like it does not matter, that is living in a dream world.

The only ones living in a dream world are those that think it's the gear that makes dreams come true.

Sorry to give you the bad news, but it's lots of time and hard work that makes things reality.

[AC222]

double post

[Passing Bye]

You're forgetting about the most important part of the equation, the song. How does the song sound and make you feel?

...mixed where ever, how ever, using what ever, but most importantly by who?

The talent, taste, skill and experience doesn't live and breathe inside the gear.... if only it were that easy, everyone would be getting paid.

The only ones living in a dream world are those that think it's the gear that makes dreams come true.

Sorry to give you the bad news, but it's lots of time and hard work that makes things reality.

Spot on, you hit the nail on the head!

[Scotty]

AC22 -

I think when you use "invariably superior" in a statement and then follow it up with preference statements you've proven my point. A lot of this market is about preferences and psychology. I have my preferences too and I'll pay good money for them.

I won't quibble over your extreme example of tracking through a $3000 converter vs a $60 interface. But in the murky middle of the market and up "invariably superior" doesn't hold up and a lot of money can be spent to no appreciable effect. Gear snobs don't just visit this place ... they roll up a sleeping bag and live there.

Some of the hardware makes the job easier and that alone could be worth justifying the cost. Mixing on inexpensive speakers can be done and in a poorly tuned room at that... I've done it but it is harder to achieve good results with any kind of consistency. Putting money there is almost certainly going to make your job easier and will likely lead to happier clients especially if they are paying you by the hour.

So I would say... when it comes to "superior" equipment leading to superior results... it "invariably" depends.

Truly, I appreciate the engagement and I thank you for making your points in good faith. Some by now would be hurling insults. I'd happily visit your studio if invited. I'm sure I'd learn some things.

Respect... Scotty

[AC222]

AC22 -

I think when you use "invariably superior" in a statement and then follow it up with preference statements you've proven my point. A lot of this market is about preferences and psychology. I have my preferences too and I'll pay good money for them.

I won't quibble over your extreme example of tracking through a $3000 converter vs a $60 interface. But in the murky middle of the market and up "invariably superior" doesn't hold up and a lot of money can be spent to no appreciable effect. Gear snobs don't just visit this place ... they roll up a sleeping bag and live there.

Some of the hardware makes the job easier and that alone could be worth justifying the cost. Mixing on inexpensive speakers can be done and in a poorly tuned room at that... I've done it but it is harder to achieve good results with any kind of consistency. Putting money there is almost certainly going to make your job easier and will likely lead to happier clients especially if they are paying you by the hour.

So I would say... when it comes to "superior" equipment leading to superior results... it "invariably" depends.

Truly, I appreciate the engagement and I thank you for making your points in good faith. Some by now would be hurling insults. I'd happily visit your studio if invited. I'm sure I'd learn some things.

Respect... Scotty

Scotty, I like your post. Very well said and on point. I'm a big believer in maximizing the tools I have even for marginal benefit, which is why I actually upgraded some of the aspects of the signal chain (converter mods, linear power supply, and external clocking) and it doesn't negate your message and takeaway. Some of those mods are relatively inexpensive (linear power supply mod can be as cheap as $50 - $75 usd, to very expensive for what it is ($700 usd for converter mods). The external clocking is something I swear by and out of those mods the best bang for the buck and somewhere in between the two. Lastly, you can upgrade the power cable but imho I think that is getting to the point of diminishing returns. Some of those cables run $600 and up and mastering studios will shell out for that but for most people just not worth it.

Admittedly, I've wasted time in search of better gear at the expense of honing the craft . But happy finally happy with my gear quest after figuring out what I like and willing to pay for.

I guess you could say that the whole gear doesn't matter thing when taken to extremes is a pet peave thing because I think dismissing it altogether is not wise so it's a passionate subject for me lol even though I personally never decided to pay the premium Universal Audio is asking for it's interface, which I stand by does have some sonic advantages over the lower end interfaces (whether one believes it is marginal or dramatic).

Done with my rant on this topic for now. Thanks for bringing us back on point

Scotty

[burnt circuit]

"UAD apollo and plugins owners......is it worth it ? HOnestly"

I believe we can all agree now that the UAD Apollo and plugins are overpriced and not "worth it" for the average musician, engineer or producer that has a good ear and a wise sense of financials.

It will always come down to the songwriting, song, performer, performance, engineer and their creativity abilities to mix and produce something that other people actually want to hear.

Everyone else is just trying to sell you a dream, snake oil or a myth...

[V0RT3X]

Burnt circuit is just using the poor mans argument of "I can make a Casio sound like a moog"

which is a common theme here at kvr.
.

He/she/? does have a good point though in saying the craftmanship and level of artistry is important.

You can buy a very expensive professional piece of kit and make absolute garbage with it. Doesn't matter what it is.

[AC222]

Burnt circuit is just using the poor mans argument of "I can make a Casio sound like a moog"

which is a common theme here at kvr.

[Passing Bye]

Burnt circuit is just using the poor mans argument of "I can make a Casio sound like a moog"

which is a common theme here at kvr.

You got that wrong, he's debunking the running theme that you need nothing less than Moog Voyager to make good quality music and actually that you need Moog to make music.

[burnt circuit]

Burnt circuit is just using the poor mans argument of "I can make a Casio sound like a moog"

which is a common theme here at kvr.
.

He/she/? does have a good point though in saying the craftmanship and level of artistry is important.

You can buy a very expensive professional piece of kit and make absolute garbage with it. Doesn't matter what it is.

As we're dealing with audio and music, which relates closely to songs....

The argument shouldn't be how to make a Casio sound like a Moog, but how do you make a song with a Casio? The answer isn't gear, trust me.

Things some people that dabble in music will learn in time. It's not about how perfect or expensive you make something sound, it's all what emotions it invokes.

Things some people never learn or quite master in song form...

[Passing Bye]

Things some people that dabble in music will learn in time. It's not about how perfect or expensive you make something sound, it's all what emotions it evokes.

Things some people never learn or quite master in song form...

Exactly

[burnt circuit]

Agree to disagree.

[V0RT3X]

Burnt circuit is just using the poor mans argument of "I can make a Casio sound like a moog"

which is a common theme here at kvr.
.

He/she/? does have a good point though in saying the craftmanship and level of artistry is important.

You can buy a very expensive professional piece of kit and make absolute garbage with it. Doesn't matter what it is.

As we're dealing with audio and music, which relates closely to songs....

The argument shouldn't be how to make a Casio sound like a Moog, but how do you make a song with a Casio? The answer isn't gear, trust me.

Things some people that dabble in music will learn in time. It's not about how perfect or expensive you make something sound, it's all what emotions it invokes.

Things some people never learn or quite master in song form...

Ok I fully agree with the artistry involved in making a good song, but a part of the "great sound" can be definitely captured with decent gear.

The thought that UAD-2 has no place anymore is a bit much when there are plenty of people who make absolutely great records with their stuff.

I also agree with the argument that UAD is overpriced when there are other native plugins that sound equally as good or better such as stuff from Cytomic, U-he etc.

But UAD-2 does have a place.

The idea you can have all your plugins on one DSP powered platform is kind of attractive.


Sure there is the DSP power argument where modern CPUS have eclipsed the design of the sharc. But then again the DSP system also works differently too.

I'll use a video game analogy here, but if you know anything about video game emulation then you'll find tons of software emulations. Thing is many of these emulations are super super inaccurate and in order for them to be cycle accurate it requires a LOT of processing power from a regular computer.

https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2011/08/ ... -emulator/

However if you run them in a FPGA based design which is also (underpowered) in comparison to a PC processor, you can get the system to run cycle accurate because of how the FPGA can emulate the various parallel processes with ease.

It could be that the SHARC design they use works in a similar way. I could of course be very very off base and I'm sure there are DSP experts who actually coded for UAD-2 who could explain.

Anyways