UAD still worth it?

[jamcat]

Well, maybe these new Telefunken manufactured Fairchilds will settle exactly what the 660 and 670 sounded like back when the Beatles were using them.

It is an interesting philosophical question though, whether a Fairchild model that wasn't modeled from an actual Fairchild can still be a true Fairchild model, so long as it plausibly could exist somewhere. Can it be a Fairchild simply by self-identifying as one?

but you've already decided that doesn't matter: they only have to sound good because there is no such thing as a canonical Fairchild limiter. frankly, I agree with the overall stance (though not the lack of a canonical specification) but it's somewhat at odds with your position that uad is the only one to consider out of a small selection simply because they have a specific set of measurements.

I never actually said that it doesn't matter if they were modeled from real units or not. You may note that I start with the assumption that all 3 devs who are confirmed to have component-modeled vintage Fairchilds have done an adequate job at accurately modeling them. But since each model sounds quite different, we ultimately have to determine the best among them from there simply by listening, just as we would if we were rating the best sounding original hardware unit ourselves.

[gaggle of hermits]

But since each model sounds quite different, we ultimately have to determine the best among them from there simply by listening...

well yes, but why does it need to be stamped Fairchild vs a program-dependent vari-mu of the same genus (eg MJUC for the sake of argument)? at this point, all there is is a brand. it might serve to slim down the number of candidates but that's the only purpose insisting on Fairchild emulation serves at that point.

..., just as we would if we were rating the best sounding original hardware unit ourselves.

...which would never happen in the real world in any practical instance. "man, I'm not using lyndhurst, their Fairchild sucks".

also the idea that Fairchild units are so rare you can never obtain one temporarily is something of a myth: https://www.proaudio-hire.co.uk/proaudio/vintage/

[jamcat]

well yes, but why does it need to be stamped Fairchild vs a program-dependent vari-mu of the same genus (eg MJUC for the sake of argument)? at this point, all there is is a brand. it might serve to slim down the number of candidates but that's the only purpose insisting on Fairchild emulation serves at that point.

Because we're talking about the best Fairchild emulation?

[Uncle E]

A friend of mine owns a real one. He said the UAD sounds nothing like it but he says that about all plugins, including ones I’ve compared myself. Clear case of PDS.

[gaggle of hermits]

well yes, but why does it need to be stamped Fairchild vs a program-dependent vari-mu of the same genus (eg MJUC for the sake of argument)? at this point, all there is is a brand. it might serve to slim down the number of candidates but that's the only purpose insisting on Fairchild emulation serves at that point.

Because we're talking about the best Fairchild emulation?

if you don't know what a Fairchild sounds like, why do you care?

[jamcat]

Because our entire social order as audio engineers depends on it.

[jamcat]

That said, I will just say that the UAD Fairchild does something really special that I haven't heard so clearly defined from other vari-mu plugins. This is specifically related to how the TIME CONSTANT affects the pulse of the input audio. I never really "got" the Fairchild thing until I really dove into the UAD model. So if that's not how real Fairchilds operate, it should be.

[elxsound]

well yes, but why does it need to be stamped Fairchild vs a program-dependent vari-mu of the same genus (eg MJUC for the sake of argument)? at this point, all there is is a brand. it might serve to slim down the number of candidates but that's the only purpose insisting on Fairchild emulation serves at that point.

Because we're talking about the best Fairchild emulation?

if you don't know what a Fairchild sounds like, why do you care?

Considering the only context of discussing Fairchild or the Fairchild sound requires discussing “a” sound associated with the brand name.

Now if nobody mentioned Fairchild, maybe then it’d make sense to not discuss Fairchild?

It’s also odd that you use vari-mu as a generic type, when it is brand specific courtesy of Manley.

[Uncle E]

It’s also odd that you use vari-mu as a generic type, when it is brand specific courtesy of Manley.

[gaggle of hermits]

It’s also odd that you use vari-mu as a generic type, when it is brand specific courtesy of Manley.

incorrect: https://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?c ... x=2&page=1

"Applicant’s goods are audio signal processors in the nature of a compressor. Vari mus are special forms of pentodes for use in connection with compressors. Vari Mu is a term of art in the relevant industry. Therefore, applicant’s mark is merely descriptive of the goods. The examining attorney encloses evidence in the nature of excerpts from the internet to show that the wording “VARI MU” is a term of art in the relevant industry."


I believe Manley has an active trademark on Variable Mu. though the reasoning as to how they obtained it is curious given the accepted meaning of variable mu: https://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?c ... =16&page=1

"ha ha, we can trademark it because we *don't* use a cutoff tube. checkmate patent clerks!"

[elxsound]

It’s also odd that you use vari-mu as a generic type, when it is brand specific courtesy of Manley.

Could be worded better but just saying.. if the idea is to not discuss any brand name, then why use a term trademarked and it’s even mentioned on the MJUC website as purposely omitted for legal reasons.

Kinda defeats the purpose of avoiding brand names

[gaggle of hermits]

Could be worded better but just saying.. if the idea is to not discuss any brand name, then why use a term trademarked and it’s even mentioned on the MJUC website as purposely omitted for legal reasons.

Kinda defeats the purpose of avoiding brand names

I'm not avoiding brand names though. I'm just using a commonly accepted term (mu being another way of referring to "gain") for a class of compressor/limiter.

weird hill to die on, but whatever.

[elxsound]

It’s also odd that you use vari-mu as a generic type, when it is brand specific courtesy of Manley.

incorrect: https://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?c ... x=2&page=1

"Applicant’s goods are audio signal processors in the nature of a compressor. Vari mus are special forms of pentodes for use in connection with compressors. Vari Mu is a term of art in the relevant industry. Therefore, applicant’s mark is merely descriptive of the goods. The examining attorney encloses evidence in the nature of excerpts from the internet to show that the wording “VARI MU” is a term of art in the relevant industry."


I believe Manley has an active trademark on Variable Mu. though the reasoning as to how they obtained it is curious given the accepted meaning of variable mu: https://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?c ... =16&page=1

"ha ha, we can trademark it because we *don't* use a cutoff tube. checkmate patent clerks!"

Not quite correct. It seems it depends on what country.

Additionally you can look it up on the Manley website, where they acknowledge Fairchild as a description for Vari-mu compressors

So again… why make the effort to avoid using Fairchild?
https://trademarks.justia.com/780/40/va ... 40792.html

[elxsound]

Could be worded better but just saying.. if the idea is to not discuss any brand name, then why use a term trademarked and it’s even mentioned on the MJUC website as purposely omitted for legal reasons.

Kinda defeats the purpose of avoiding brand names

I'm not avoiding brand names though. I'm just using a commonly accepted term (mu being another way of referring to "gain") for a class of compressor/limiter.

weird hill to die on, but whatever.

Hope to not get lost in the cross posting… I do know what you were intending to do and I get it.

So no hills to die on (for me either).

I’m only going to have fun as the “actually” kid for a moment.

[gaggle of hermits]

So again… why make the effort to avoid using Fairchild?
https://trademarks.justia.com/780/40/va ... 40792.html

it might help if you actually followed the original conversation rather than going down some brand-name rabbit hole.

the only point I was making is that it's a bit pointless comparing to a Fairchild if you have no idea what the actual hardware sounds like and are only pursuing it because you "heard it was dead good". I understand the idea that the overall design approach may well be sound and that is worth emulating but the comparison need only go as far as "which one do I like". the comparison against a specific model is entirely moot.