UADs Paradise Guitar Studio

[zerocrossing]

I played around with DDMF PluginDoctor to make this a bit more objective than me trying to read my DAW's CPU meter.

Here's some Helix Native preset vs. loading the Ruby in Paradise Studio:

HelixNativeVSParadise.png

The upper line is the UA Paradise Studio.

As for what it means:

Performance: how many milliseconds are really spent in your plugin’s audio processing callback (as a function of buffer size)

So, the UA takes significantly longer to process the buffers.

For comparison, here is the UA Ruby plugin (also top, bottom line still Line 6):

HelixNativeVSRuby.png

The version in the Paradise Studio is significantly faster! (But still heavy in terms of processing time.)

It's funny seeing the faster plugin update the line several times while the slower one is still busy rendering the line once.

Yesterday's gear, requiring the computers of tomorrow.

This, of course, says nothing about the quality, the dynamic response, the closeness to a particular original unit, etc. But you need a bit more oomph to run it.

I expect a high quality model to need more resources, that's for sure, and something like this has to account for arbitrary parameter changes in a way that something like Tonex does not.

So, I spent the morning doing more of a "deep dive," and boy oh boy, that is difficult. So many different factors that have to be accounted for. I was literally running sine waves though them and trying to match harmonics.

My end feelings are, based on only the Lion model and various IK Marshall models, is that the UAD is plain and simply a bit better when it comes to dynamics. There's just something a bit more natural sounding about it, while the Amplitube models seem like they're being compressed and a bit band limited. That said... who doesn't like to compress their guitar a bit? In a mix, the Amplitube really stood out nicely without anything. It does have a very mid-forward tone, which is great for someone like me who does a lot of synth stuff as well. I put it on a busy track that I just finished mixing and it took a lot of EQ to make it fit in the track, compared to the previous plugin, which was just Tonex.


No doubt that I got great sounds from Amplitube, but when you really compare them, I've got to admit that the extra CPU cycles that UAD are using are doing something. If you're into classic sounds and guitars are featured in a sparse mix, it's worth it. I sort of wish it wasn't just classic amps, and there were some high gain models in there, like at least an SLO-100 or Triple Rectifier. As my friend Dee would say, "I want to rock."

So, for fun, because everyone knows me as a paragon of all that is fun, I put some Super Lead captures from Tonex against Lion. Now the difference is not as apparent, or maybe none. Hard to say because there's no way to know how the amp was set up, mics, etc. Just going on a general idea of quality and vibe, I'd say that Tonex is on par with Lion. So, that's great, but it means going though captures instead of just loading up a model and setting it up as you'd like. There's tweaking to be done in Tonex, for sure, but it's just not the same. That said, I found something that was pretty close to what I'd set up Lion to do in about 6 tries, which probably took less time than setting up something myself.

So, to close, I preferred Amplitube when I wanted something modern and tight. I could never really get Paradise to get there with boosts, EQ or gain effects. I also miss being able to just "move a mic around" to find a sweet spot. It would be nice if I could load my own IRs into it, as well. I found a bug with the volume effect where it seems to go from -60 db to infinite and if you've got some gain stuff happening, you get a bump when controlling it with a MIDI pedal (FCB1010) Super annoying. I also love Amplitube's room convolution. It's seriously great and no one has anything nearly as good.

I preferred Paradise when I wanted something more 60s-70s vintage sounding. There's something loose and natural about the sound that's really pleasing in some respects. Harder to fit in a busy mix, but on it's own, it was beautiful sounding. Maybe I will plunk down the $99 for it. What else am I going to do with my money? Save it?

[zerocrossing]

Funny, I continued on and tested Ruby against Amplitube's British Copper TB30, and I preferred the Amplitube model, and when over driven, it was by a lot. I couldn't get Ruby to sound like I like a driven Vox to sound. So... maybe Amplitube just doesn't have a good Super Lead model? Hard to say.

[miloszz]

I don't like the Greenback 4x12 cabs in this - they sound weird and nasal to me. Lack of an IR loader is a big miss - if you want to bypass the UA cab and use an IR loader you give up all the post-amp effects possibilities.

Surprised that I was mostly enjoying the Enigmatic (Dumble) amp model - I've never had any interest in those, being the blue chip amps of the dorkiest kinds of guitar music. I may have to look at Dumble clones/preamp pedals/etc. at some point out of idle curiosity.

With the Helix Stadium/new Fractal offerings I've been looking at modelers again (feeling a bit bored with my Marshall JMP clone 'in the room') but nothing is making me jump.

[Uncle E]

I don't like the Greenback 4x12 cabs in this - they sound weird and nasal to me. Lack of an IR loader is a big miss - if you want to bypass the UA cab and use an IR loader you give up all the post-amp effects possibilities.

Excellent point!

Surprised that I was mostly enjoying the Enigmatic (Dumble) amp model - I've never had any interest in those, being the blue chip amps of the dorkiest kinds of guitar music. I may have to look at Dumble clones/preamp pedals/etc. at some point out of idle curiosity.

FWIW, I built a clone of Keith Urban's Dumble for Greg Wells, and they both use it for sweet Fender-y clean tones, nothing like the Larry Carlton/Robben Ford tones Dumble's are more known for.

With the Helix Stadium/new Fractal offerings I've been looking at modelers again (feeling a bit bored with my Marshall JMP clone 'in the room') but nothing is making me jump.

Have you tried the Woodrow by itself? That's my favorite UA amp and it's a very different vibe from a JMP. It's also a lot cheaper than Paradise and can be bought as part of the UA Mix Tape Pro bundle.

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

You said my new trigger word: Woodrow. I have some thoughts on Woodrow I posted on Gearspace this morning.

Universal Audio, can we discuss how much UNLIKE a 5E3 Woodrow actually is for a bit? I'd really like to see UA fix this and get a good 5E3 model out, because Woodrow, in it's present state, isn't that.

First, and largest issue: the jumping. I'd say 90% of the time, 5E3 players are plugging into one channel (usually Instrument 1), and then using the unused channel's Volume knob as a mid or gain cut knob. The unused volume is great for tone shaping, but it's also the #1 best trick for getting clean headroom out of the amp. Every 5E3 owner eventually discovers the Instrument Volume 4 to 6, Mic Volume 11 to 12 trick to clean up a 5E3. Diming the unused channel pot's load bleeds signal to ground, inadvertently increasing headroom. So not only does that unused channel volume act as a semi-midrange control, if you know what you're doing with it, it's the single best way to increase clean headroom on a 5E3.

You can't do that on Woodrow. At all. That whole range of single-channel tones is non-existent.

Instead, Woodrow is permanently jumped, as though the player is hooked up to a Y-splitter of some kind. And even there, the correct behavior would be, amp is super lofi sounding with one channel around 1.5 and breaking up at 2.2 unless you back off your guitar volume. But instead, you run into the second issue with Woodrow: there's all this clean headroom that doesn't exist on a 5E3. The manual says you increased the volume "slightly", I'd suggest you increased the clean range of the knob massively to the point where it's unrecognizable as a 5E3 Tweed Deluxe.

I really think Woodrow is the least authentic [to the original] responding amp in the batch by a country mile. If the plan was not to accurately emulate the quirks of the 5E3, I'd have said, "well, then do a Tweed Bassman instead, because it's so much less quirky and more straightforward [and also the basis for the JTM45]".

My suggestions would be this:

• Have 3 input options available: 1) Instrument input 1, 2) Mic Input 1, 3) Instrument 1 with a patch cable jumping Mic 1 to Isntrument 2. Don't need the low-gain inputs as options because we can trim down gain on the way in.
• That would make a lot more sense for the "3 channel options" on Woodrow, then having things like an EP boost IMO. The boost volume knob could've just been pure clean gain and bipolar to simulate the low gain inputs.
• Build in the missing channel interactivity when plugged into just one channel and using the unused channel's volume control
• Do this, at least for Paradise Guitar Suite's Woodrow, then consider if there's a way to push this out to the Woodrow pedal via a firmware update.

Right now, Woodrow doesn't respond at all like a 5E3 Tweed Deluxe, and even the jumped behavior isn't accurate. This is like "generic Tweed-ish amp". In terms of replicating the Tweed Deluxe in the box [or in a pedal], it brings me no joy to say I'd give this a failing grade. I'd love a great 5E3 from Universal! But if the UA 1176's were this unlike an actual 1176, you guys would've been laughed out of the DSP business two decades ago.

I was always a little suspicious of Woodrow from day 1 with that video where Rhett Shull and some other players went into the studio with James Santiago to compare the initial UA amp pedals with the OG amps. It was like a 30-minute video that spent all of about 10-seconds on how Woodrow sounds, before quickly moving on and focusing all the attention on Ruby and Dream 65.

Universal Audio, your company can do much better with Woodrow. Paradise Guitar Studio is a great vehicle for fixing it.

I could see someone playing Woodrow, a highly idealized 5E3 (more than that even), and thinking, "this is cool, I want the real deal, let me go buy a reissue or clone" and finding out the hard and expensive way that the real is amp is nothing like Woodrow. There's almost zero clean headroom, you have to goose it different ways to get clean tones, it distorts differently, etc.

[Uncle E]

Agreed. I owned a real 5E3 before and the Woodrow isn't accurate at all. Woodrow is still my favorite of the UAFX amps, though, and I think it sounds and responds like a great amp.

[jens]

I may have to look at Dumble clones/preamp pedals/etc. at some point out of idle curiosity.

My normal go-to amp-sim plugin is the PA Fuchs Overdrive Supreme, which is (i.e. the hardware the plugin models) apparrently sort of a Dumble Overdrive Special clone. My advice is to check that too out while you're at it. (On top of sounding marvellous and having great dynamics it's rather low on the CPU - as such it's something whoever coded these UAD amps would if they could... )

[GreyLion]

I sort of wish it wasn't just classic amps, and there were some high gain models in there, like at least an SLO-100 or Triple Rectifier. As my friend Dee would say, "I want to rock."

I'm betting that we'll see those this year.

UAD has the Knuckles Dual Rec and Anti 1992 (5150 emu) hardware pedals out already. It's an obvious step to port the code over to VST, then likely offer them up as separate plugs and also additions to Paradise. The integration will come at a price, of course, with nice loyalty discounts.

Not sure what other amps are must-haves, different enough to be worth it, unless you're a real tone-sniffer. Orange, maybe? JC-120?

I bought Paradise the first day it was out, enjoying it a lot, but I already had all of the separate amps, except for the Dumble, of course.It's really nice to be able to mix 'n match components in the chain, as well as the additional effects that I'd have had to buy separately before. Those alone pretty much cover the money I'd have otherwise eventually spent.

[Uncle E]

Hiwatt, bass amps.

[GreyLion]

I may have to look at Dumble clones/preamp pedals/etc. at some point out of idle curiosity.

My normal go-to amp-sim plugin is the PA Fuchs Overdrive Supreme, which is (i.e. the hardware the plugin models) apparrently sort of a Dumble Overdrive Special clone. My advice is to check that too out while you're at it. (On top of sounding marvellous and having great dynamics it's rather low on the CPU - as such it's something whoever coded these UAD amps would if they could... )

I'm not sure how deeply they've intertwined, but PA/BX and UAD have a long-time relationship regarding their plugs. My guess is that there's been a fair amount of code-sharing over the years.

Here's a (despised AI) take on it:

Plugin Alliance (PA) and Universal Audio (UAD) are two separate plugin companies, but they have a close relationship where PA develops plugins (often under their Brainworx brand) that are also available as licensed versions for UAD's DSP hardware (Apollo interfaces), using UAD's special "Unison" tech for hardware-emulating preamps, but PA also offers native versions for all DAWs; so "PA UAD coding" refers to the development of these dual-format plugins (Native + UAD).

I'm pretty sure that this UAD Fuchs is just the rebranded (maybe tweaked) BX plug.

https://www.uaudio.com/products/fuchs-o ... mp-plug-in

I have a copy from the old PA days when everything was dirt cheap, and remember it as being good. For some reason I gravitated toward their Chandler Limited GAV19T. It just felt better, more dynamic, more rockin'. I'd love to have it integrated into Paradise.

[Uncle E]

Yes, all the early amps, aside from the Fender 55, were made by either Brainworx or Softube. The Chandler was good and I liked the Fuchs Train quite a bit at the time. Now, though, I personally find them a bit flat and harsh compared to the Woodrow and Showtime.

[jens]

Now, though, I personally find them a bit flat and harsh compared to the Woodrow and Showtime.

I certainly don't. Whenever I try new amp-sims I compare them with the two Foxes - and typically for my taste and use-scenario they can't really compete for one or the other reason.

"Flat and harsh"? Nah... not back when they were realeased and not now.

[Uncle E]

FWIW, I never liked the Fuchs Overdrive Supreme. Train was the one I liked, and I prefer Showtime (which is still available for free) for that kind of sound.

[jens]

I have all the individual UAD native amp-sims, but even cpu-usage aside still prefer the Foxes... Overdrive Supreme for most anything, the Train sometimes for soli or perhaps some rockier (relatively speaking - no mettel here) bits...

(it's not that I don't sometimes experiment with other amp-sims (e.g. Guitar Rig is great) but the Foxes I can always fall back on)

[aMUSEd]

I bought it on offer and like it very much, but it really is lacking in good modulation pedals