New Ujam Multi-Effect - Finisher Retro

[Kronkmannen]

Is it comparable to the XLN RC-20?

[jens]

No, I wouldn't say so at all.

TBh I think it's usefulness is pretty limited - it's doing some weird stuff for the most part of it - and I already had it in my cart and was about to press the purchase-button - but then I decided to demo it first after all - thanks God I did!

[Lotuz2019]

Is it comparable to the XLN RC-20?

No, I don't think so either. Afaik you can't make your own combinations. It's more like the Reason Audiomatic Retro Transformer with a bit more control.

[Lotuz2019]

[jens]

Is it comparable to the XLN RC-20?

No, I don't think so either. Afaik you can't make your own combinations. It's more like the Reason Audiomatic Retro Transformer with a bit more control.

Yes, I think that is quite an adequate comparison - come to think of it, actually Finisher Retro's marketing reminds me a bit of Retro Transformer - I don't think it impossible that it actually was highly inspired by it.

I am not sure I would agree though that FR has more control than RT - the latter has independent "Transform" and wet/dry controls while FR seems to kind of have rolled both into one, which - as I mentioned before - tends to give weird results that are either too little or too much.

Personally I love Retro Transformer - it's such a great-sounding and useful nice little thing - and light on the CPU too - the Props really know their stuff. And of course they don't claim to have modelled this or that.

[woodsdenis]

Tried it, uninstalled it after 10 mins. Way too much CPU for what it does, I get the idea but it not that special, YMMV of course, for $49 if it floats your boat it's a good deal. Although more expensive KiloHearts is a better bet.

[SirkusPi]

I admit I like the sound(s), and think it may be useful. I haven't really noticed the CPU hit -- I'll have to pay attention to see if it's a problem for me -- but previously have rather liked certain of UJAM's drum line, and may go for this as well. To each their own, obviously.

[Jazzguitar]

I like Finisher RETRO a lot like the most of UJAM tools,  I use it more freely and intuitively and less from an over analytic point of view, without dissecting the creature with the scalpel of radical comparisons. So, it brings myself that dose of fun I need without losing the needed critical sense. I have to admit that Retro has fulfilled very well what promises for what I have used it for. 

As for the CPU use, I downloaded Retro on release day and I have used it in three projects and tests. I get 9 instances working flawlessly for a sum to 13% to 16% total of CPU consumption in Reaper 6.24 and slightly higher in Cubase 10. Test with one instance there is 0.8 %  to 1.2 %  depending on the preset.  My desktop CPU is a 7 years old AMD 4 Core at 3400 MHz, 16 GB RAM. . In the laptop, with an Intel I5, 8 GB RAM,  the CPU load increases considerably to 22 % for 6 instances. For my standards that is great in my desktop PC.

[soulata]

Any thoughts on UJAM Voodoo, Jazzguitar?

[BONES]

It is just a few fixed presets for a modular multi-fx (think HOFA SYSTEM, Kilohearts Multipass, Nomad Magma, Blue Cat PatchWork) and it has quite a limited set of parameters and these parameters are on top of that even partly severely limited in their range/settings. It mostly doesn't sound at all as it claims to do and it uses too much CPU for what it does.

No, it's not. It's 50 different algorithms in a single plugin. If you want to compare it to MultiPass, it's like MultiPass with a full set of Snap-ins, which would cost you several hundred bucks. At full price, Retro is $2 an algorithm. You only need to find a few algorithms you can use for it to be a real bargain. I don't know how you can't see that.

I always thought your music was cold, clean and mechanic on purpose so I would have assumed you are pretty much "mojo"-agnostic, if not even outright averse to it - so in the light of this you liking it might be the best proof that the plugin is basically a complete fail.

A complete fail at what? Do you honestly think it doesn't sound good? That it can't be used to do all kinds of useful things? I've just been comparing it to a few of the other distortion plugins I have and, honestly, it shits all over them. Yes, it's got a lot of awful sounding reverbs and delays and other krap I have no interest in but the saturation and distortion stuff they've made is worth every penny of the $99 they've priced it at. For the $49 I paid, it's an absolute bargain.

did you also think small stone was a pebble?

No, I actually thought it was a joke. I've never picked up a guitar in my life, why would I know what a Small Stone was? But it doesn't mention it by name, the algorithm is called Littlerock Phaser, which made me think of Arkansas, not ElectroHarmonix (who I only know because they made a synth in the early 80s and I bought one).

uni-vibe some sort of intimate massage device?

I still have no idea what that is, and no interest in finding out. All I know is that when I select the World's First Sampler preset and tweak the Vari knobs, it turns a nice arp pattern out of DCO-106 into the end of the world.

[vurt]

for sure, something can sound good and useful, but not be a good emu.
depends what you're after of course, but marketing matters too.
if a company lists known products and they don't match up, it can lead to bad press...
look at guitar rig, some great fx in there, but if someone is looking for a specific phaser emu, im not going to recommend guitar rig as it doesn't capture that phasers sound

[jens]

It is just a few fixed presets for a modular multi-fx (think HOFA SYSTEM, Kilohearts Multipass, Nomad Magma, Blue Cat PatchWork) and it has quite a limited set of parameters and these parameters are on top of that even partly severely limited in their range/settings. It mostly doesn't sound at all as it claims to do and it uses too much CPU for what it does.

No, it's not. It's 50 different algorithms in a single plugin. If you want to compare it to MultiPass, it's like MultiPass with a full set of Snap-ins, which would cost you several hundred bucks. At full price, Retro is $2 an algorithm. You only need to find a few algorithms you can use for it to be a real bargain. I don't know how you can't see that.

No, it appears you completely misundestood what this is and how it works. You are confusing things.


If anything, it's 26 algorithm, but then again you do not have direct access to their parameters. Different combinations of these 26 algorithms are used to come up with the 50 "Modes" with their curated and very limited set of parameters (it's basically macro knobs where three of then control a diffrent parameter-combination for each mode).

I already explained that in my original post of this thread (with a reference to the manual) but as we already established days ago, that one flew way over your head, so you've got a pretty valid excuse for still posting such nonsense.

Perhaps you are overwhelmed by the manual, so here's a quote for you:

Effect Algorithms and Modes

The 50 Modes in Finisher RETRO are built using 26 different effect algorithms as building blocks.There are three parallel busses fed into a MasterBus, plus a Dry Bus that feeds the unprocessed, but level-adjusted input signal to the Finisher plug-in’s output

Got it now?



edit: fixed messed up quoting

[jens]

Do you honestly think it doesn't sound good?

Yes, I honestly think that - a least for the most part of it - it does sound weird and not very useable to me. It sounds to me as if it is done by people who have not much of an idea what the stuff they seek and claim to emulate actually sounds like. And neither do you obviously. And you don't care - which is totally fine.

But here's the bizarre bit: You criticize me for pointing out that Finisher Retro doesn't really do what it claims to do, arguing that it doesn't matter as long as it sounds good. And that's the same as criticizing somebody for pointing out that the carton of "milk" in a supermarket doesn't really contain milk but apple-juice instead, by saying "so what? Can you really say you don't like that apple juice?!"* It's a completely nonsensical argument.

I love all sorts of vintage stuff and stuff that emulates vintage stuff - both in plugin and hardware form, be that analog or digital or hybrid. All that matters to me is that I like what it does. Finisher Retro is not one of those.



*which is of course not a valid comparison, because it's as easy to fill that carton with apple-juice as it is to fill it with milk, while it is much much harder to emulate specific gear than it is to semi-randomly chain a couple of effects and set up a sawmiller's handful of macros and come up with something that some people like for some reason in some cases.

[Ah_Dziz]

I can get down with this. I love this sort of thing. I generally prefer stuff like Vybz or Speakerphone that are very tweakable. Having a simple interface can be fun too. If it's super heavy on cpu I may like it less.

[BONES]

No, it appears you completely misundestood what this is and how it works. You are confusing things.

Sorry, it's not me who doesn't udnerstand.

If anything, it's 26 algorithm, but then again you do not have direct access to their parameters. Different combinations of these 26 algorithms are used to come up with the 50 "Modes"

A combination of algorithms is, in itself, also an algorithm. Hence 50 algorithms.

with their curated and very limited set of parameters (it's basically macro knobs where three of then control a diffrent parameter-combination for each mode).

Exactly! That's what makes it so easy to work with. As I said, it's like Analog Lab in that respect.

I already explained that in my original post of this thread (with a reference to the manual) but as we already established days ago, that one flew way over your head, so you've got a pretty valid excuse for still posting such nonsense.

The problem, still, is yours. You made the absurd assumption that having those macro knobs is something everyone will dislike, just because you do. OTOH, Ujam have been doing the same thing over several products now - Neo, Fluxx and Voodoo. Do you really think that if nobody found that paradigm useful that Ujam would continue to do exactly the same thing? They do it because it's what their customers want.

Perhaps you are overwhelmed by the manual, so here's a quote for you:

Why would you need to read the manual? It's only 5 knobs and two sliders, FFS! Surely you can work out how to use it without having to read the manual? Honestly, I'm surprised they even bother with a manual for it. I suppose it's a German thing.

But here's the bizarre bit: You criticize me for pointing out that Finisher Retro doesn't really do what it claims to do, arguing that it doesn't matter as long as it sounds good. And that's the same as criticizing somebody for pointing out that the carton of "milk" in a supermarket doesn't really contain milk but apple-juice instead, by saying "so what? Can you really say you don't like that apple juice?!"* It's a completely nonsensical argument.

If they were giving you a free sample, you'd be happy to take it whether it was milk or apple juice or vodka and if it was good apple juice or good vodka, why wouldn't you pay money for it next time? Or think of it like this - if a litre of milk was $3 but you could buy a pack with 1 litre of milk plus 1 litre of apple juice for $2, why wouldn't you buy the $2 pack, even if you just threw the apple juice away? That's how I look at this - lots of it is stuff I will never use but for the bits I will use, it is a) very good and b) cheap.

I love all sorts of vintage stuff and stuff that emulates vintage stuff - both in plugin and hardware form, be that analog or digital or hybrid. All that matters to me is that I like what it does. Finisher Retro is not one of those.

First of all, you not liking it is a very different thing from you saying it is no good, which is what you've been saying. How hard is it for you to understand that you are not the target market for this product? Secondly, if the only thing that matters is how it sounds, why has 90% of your commentary been about how poorly you think it emulates certain gear, rather than how it actually sounds?

*which is of course not a valid comparison, because it's as easy to fill that carton with apple-juice as it is to fill it with milk.

If you are thirsty, would you care whether you were offered milk or apple juice? Similarly, if you want to fatten up a track in a mix, do you care how it's done if the result is what you wanted? I am very much results-driven, you seem to care more about the process, which means you are definitely not part of Ujam's target market. I'd have thought looking at the UI on the website would have told you that. That you went to all the trouble of trying out the demo and reading the manual tells me that there is something about it that piqued your interest, beyond the name "Retro".