Is the UAD plugs really THAT much better?

VST, AU, AAX, CLAP, etc. Plugin Virtual Effects Discussion
Post Reply New Topic
RELATED
PRODUCTS

Post

donkey tugger wrote: Well said, apart from use of the word 'chops'. Bit cringeworthy that, almost on a par with 'DAW' and 'rompler'
I know... :hihi: Couldn't think of another word.

But I would just hate to tell someone I did my album on a "DAW"

Too close to "DOH!"

And I've outgrown "Romper Room". So I prefer sound module. (you know, I once heard someone call it a sound modular :shock: I couldn't help but laugh :lol: )

Post

nuffink wrote:
SJ_Digriz wrote: What I am saying is that the difference between the signal coming off a $2500+ channel strip and any vst analogy is not yet at the same level.
You are now. Previously you were saying the difference was "huge". How huge? 3 miles? 17 tonne? 45dB?
Again, do my test.

Listen to Bela Fleck Acoustic Planet II....sounds great...

then listen to Bela Fleck Acoustic Planet I

You will go holy shit, that last one sounded terrible, what happened?

The difference IS huge. It's off scale. There is no comparison. Same engineers....one recorded analog, mixed digital, mastered analog to digital...the other all digital in the box.

I use that as an example because you guys seem to think I'm calling your sounds crappy. This is not the case. I'm saying that the signal off of a good analog EQ sounds way better, more open and you have more control with it than a digital counterpart. I AM NOT BAD MOUTHING VST OR UAD. I have 2 of the f**king things. I liked my first one so much I BOUGHT ANOTHER!!! and I'm about to get a 3rd.

But, when I go into a studio that has the good stuff there is no comparison. NONE. NADA.

Also, I am not claiming to be some superman engineer. In fact I'm just the opposite. I'm a used up old guitar player who has twiddled around enough studios over time to have heard most of this stuff.
If you have to ask, you can't afford the answer

Post

twiddle has now become my official word of the day.
If you have to ask, you can't afford the answer

Post

SJ_Digriz wrote:I'm not insane. I'm reality challenged.
from now on I'll just ignore your ramblings and trust your sig.

Post

SJ_Digriz wrote: But, when I go into a studio that has the good stuff there is no comparison. NONE. NADA.
Again, the best piece equipment any pro studio has is the engineer.

And besides, Bela Fleck Acoustic Planet II was released on June 22, 1999. That's a lifetime ago in digital...

Post

mjones4th wrote:
ericj23 wrote: but surely when mixing you could compensate for any failings in the recording
According to the pros, that's a very bad strategy. And I've come to agree with them.
alas mr four tet is a pro

and he uses a soundblaster

and his records don't sound reedy, tinny lacking in bottom or any other such metaphysical tosh put about by people seeking to describe vanishingly small differences in sounds
I believe every thread should devolve into character attacks and witch-burning. It really helps the discussion.

Post

ericj23 wrote:
mjones4th wrote:
ericj23 wrote: but surely when mixing you could compensate for any failings in the recording
According to the pros, that's a very bad strategy. And I've come to agree with them.
alas mr four tet is a pro

and he uses a soundblaster

and his records don't sound reedy, tinny lacking in bottom or any other such metaphysical tosh put about by people seeking to describe vanishingly small differences in sounds
Yeah, but he made it sound good on the way in, not on the way out :D

Post

SJ_Digriz wrote:
nuffink wrote:
SJ_Digriz wrote: What I am saying is that the difference between the signal coming off a $2500+ channel strip and any vst analogy is not yet at the same level.
You are now. Previously you were saying the difference was "huge". How huge? 3 miles? 17 tonne? 45dB?
Again, do my test.

Listen to Bela Fleck Acoustic Planet II....sounds great...

then listen to Bela Fleck Acoustic Planet I

You will go holy shit, that last one sounded terrible, what happened?

The difference IS huge. It's off scale. There is no comparison. Same engineers....one recorded analog, mixed digital, mastered analog to digital...the other all digital in the box.

I use that as an example because you guys seem to think I'm calling your sounds crappy. This is not the case. I'm saying that the signal off of a good analog EQ sounds way better, more open and you have more control with it than a digital counterpart. I AM NOT BAD MOUTHING VST OR UAD. I have 2 of the f**king things. I liked my first one so much I BOUGHT ANOTHER!!! and I'm about to get a 3rd.

But, when I go into a studio that has the good stuff there is no comparison. NONE. NADA.

Also, I am not claiming to be some superman engineer. In fact I'm just the opposite. I'm a used up old guitar player who has twiddled around enough studios over time to have heard most of this stuff.
Bela Fleck? You're having a f**king laugh.
That's your benchmark?
Last edited by nuffink on Thu Mar 10, 2005 10:04 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Post

Indeed, a good mastering house will use good hardware. A "budget" mastering house will use in the box. The difference is huge.
Right. I guess that's why when Mark Linett remastered Pet Sounds he used that high dollard peice of hardware called the .....uh, the UAD-1. Yep, with a rack of great hardware staring him right in the face.

Post

nuffink wrote: Bela Fleck? You're having a f**king laugh.
That's youre benchmark?
No, not a benchmark. It's an example of the same very experienced people doing something both ways. One sounds good...the other sounds amazing.
If you have to ask, you can't afford the answer

Post

SJ_Digriz wrote:
nuffink wrote: Bela Fleck? You're having a f**king laugh.
That's youre benchmark?
No, not a benchmark. It's an example of the same very experienced people doing something both ways. One sounds good...the other sounds amazing.
Not to me. They both sound like shit.

Post

mjones4th wrote:
SJ_Digriz wrote: And besides, Bela Fleck Acoustic Planet II was released on June 22, 1999. That's a lifetime ago in digital...
WHich means they probably used PT's. Which is still a recipe for shite.

Post

craigmorris74 wrote:
Indeed, a good mastering house will use good hardware. A "budget" mastering house will use in the box. The difference is huge.
Right. I guess that's why when Mark Linett remastered Pet Sounds he used that high dollard peice of hardware called the .....uh, the UAD-1. Yep, with a rack of great hardware staring him right in the face.
There is a bit of an overstatement that it was re-mastered with "just" the UAD-1. Regardless, the original Pet Sounds master tracks would hardly be considered an audiophile source. And, I have the remaster and well, lets just say it sounds like a CD remaster.
If you have to ask, you can't afford the answer

Post

Henchman wrote:WHich means they probably used PT's. Which is still a recipe for shite.
lol, so we have hate for PT now, how original. I can understand not likeing the price and other aspects of the business model, but recipe for shite? whatever
If you have to ask, you can't afford the answer

Post

mjones4th wrote:
ericj23 wrote:
mjones4th wrote:
ericj23 wrote: but surely when mixing you could compensate for any failings in the recording
According to the pros, that's a very bad strategy. And I've come to agree with them.
alas mr four tet is a pro

and he uses a soundblaster

and his records don't sound reedy, tinny lacking in bottom or any other such metaphysical tosh put about by people seeking to describe vanishingly small differences in sounds
Yeah, but he made it sound good on the way in, not on the way out :D
eh it was recorded on the free microphone that came with his soundblaster - not the very expensive channels trips being advocated here

go look up the sound on sound article about him

the talent surely lies in the hands of the user not the equipment

so the fact that many pro's doing the job now favour analogue (or expensive shit anyway) does not make it better for me - just them

if the record sounds good it is
I believe every thread should devolve into character attacks and witch-burning. It really helps the discussion.

Post Reply

Return to “Effects”