Is the UAD plugs really THAT much better?

[SJ_Digriz]

1. For every damn plugin you want to use you need to buy another card, cause they take so much dsp.

hmm...I have 35 Cambridge Eqs 5 LA-2As and a couple of Dreamverbs running as I type. Somehow I don't think my PC has 35+ PCI slots.

2. Doesn't work that well with Sonar.

Also not true. I believe you use the VST adapter instead of the dx version and it works great. I may have my Sonar verbage messed up, but there are many people who have got it working great in Sonar on the UAD board.

3. No plugin chainer.

this is silly. The only thing a plugin chainer would potentially do is allow for single plug latency for multiple plugs and possibly cut down on a little pci traffic. It really has nothing to do with the "sound" of the card or its usability.

[SJ_Digriz]

How many people here have ACTUALLY USED a UAD-1? Do you own it, use it at a buddy's place, demo it in a store, etc?

I own 2 and bought the first one about 2 weeks after they came out.

How long did you use it? What did you think of it?

years...love it.

Thus far, it seems that all the people who have used it agree that it's pretty decent. No one is arguing that it is as mind-blowing as a Manley Massive Passive, but it's also $3,000-$4,000 less expensive.

Actually, nuffink and Henchman and a couple others are arguing exactly that these high dollar eqs are now obsolete and unecessary. And only us dinasours still believe there is a difference.

[nuffink]

Actually, nuffink and Henchman and a couple others are arguing exactly that these high dollar eqs are now obsolete and unecessary. And only us dinasours still believe there is a difference.

Nah. That's not what I'm saying. If it works for you (and you can afford it) it's neither obsolete nor unecessary. Just don't pretend it's objectively better.

[nuffink]

In another one of our thrilling occaisional looks back at subjectivist audio history...

Manley are not the first to make a feature of passive e.q. Many years ago an exotic preamp appeared from the US under the name Rappaport. It's main selling points were Passive RIAA equalisation and an, at the time, unprecidentedly beefy front panel. It was highly rated by the UK audio press and it's young designer lauded as a boy genius (Andy Rappaport was a first year degree student and the preamp was bankrolled by his dad).
Years later, after the company got into a bit of trouble involving inadequate heatsinks and burned customers, Andy got out of the industry.
He also admitted that the only reason the famous preamp used passive e.q. was that he couldn't do the maths for an active version.

[mauseoleum]

i'd really like to see something dedicated (seems like likes of receptor, carillon, neko .. arre showing the way) - namely a dedicated rackmount with some custom(ized) os or appropriate solution that would run your sequencer/instruments and editor flawlessly and sync nicely to your graphics box. plus having all necessary i/o and dacs builtin and clever storage options. so it'll become - a sort of a hardware unit if so to speak

For my part, I don't think that hardware emulation is a holy grail. That's only one thing that software can do. As computers get more powerful, we will be able to have super-sophisticated algorithms that will leave outboard hardware and their software emulations in the dust. We're on the cusp now--evidence the Waves and Voxengo plugs, and generics like convolvers--there is no hardware like HarmoniEQ. Most mastering studios use hardware because they're 10+ years in the business and made their investments during the last millenium. Give me a really fast computer, 8+ GBs RAM and good coders any day. The computer is the future--it will be whatever you want it to be and do it much better. It's already better in most areas. We've had this arguement (hw v sw) each time the computer + software started to replaced the hardware and it will continue until all the archaic little hardware devices are just museum displays. Horses are very nice, but their just not as efficent as getting you where you're going as automobiles. You could probably genetically engineer a horse that runs 80mph, but why not just use a '57 Chevy. One of the great ironies of "cutting-edge" contemporary music production is the number of reationaries who inhabit it. It is quite possible that the composer will be able to do without recording and mastering engineers as well as performers too along with dinosaur appliances. It is really comical--like the old Flintstones strip come to life. And music really isn't a jobs program for these people. The composer is going to fully absorb the performance and engineering aspects of new music production eventually, so dust off your CVs. Incidently, composers tend to have "golden ears" too--it's not a rarity in that end of the business, it's more like a prerequiste. So that's my rave for the month.

[Kingston]

Funny how there are so many self proclaimed old dogs or references to good ol' days in this thread. And only these people seem to have a semi hostile attitude towards everything digital.

Oh the outcry when the spinning jenny came out. "The labor saving devices threatened workers and in 1768 a group of spinners broke into Hargreaves' house and destroyed his spinning jenny machines, fearing that the machines would take work away from them."

<- Kingston with his spinning jenny.

[Kingston]

i'd really like to see something dedicated (seems like likes of receptor, carillon, neko .. arre showing the way) - namely a dedicated rackmount with some custom(ized) os or appropriate solution that would run your sequencer/instruments and editor flawlessly and sync nicely to your graphics box. plus having all necessary i/o and dacs builtin and clever storage options. so it'll become - a sort of a hardware unit if so to speak

and DAMN were we close to something like this when emagic and steinberg were porting to BeOS. The day Be announced their new direction, scaring away all respectable developers (eventually leading to their demise) was a sad day indeed.

[SJ_Digriz]

In another one of our thrilling occaisional looks back at subjectivist audio history...

Manley are not the first to make a feature of passive e.q. Many years ago an exotic preamp appeared from the US under the name Rappaport. It's main selling points were Passive RIAA equalisation and an, at the time, unprecidentedly beefy front panel. It was highly rated by the UK audio press and it's young designer lauded as a boy genius (Andy Rappaport was a first year degree student and the preamp was bankrolled by his dad).
Years later, after the company got into a bit of trouble involving inadequate heatsinks and burned customers, Andy got out of the industry.
He also admitted that the only reason the famous preamp used passive e.q. was that he couldn't do the maths for an active version.

I can't find a thread asking for a Rappaport, oh yeah cuz no one wants one. So again, your little run down history lane has nothing to do with the subject.

I can find about 40000000 threads asking for a proper MMP or Neve or API. The requests are coming from *cough* people who use them but would rather do it inside the box but don't have a viable option at the moment. I count myself on that list.

[nuffink]

In another one of our thrilling occaisional looks back at subjectivist audio history...

Manley are not the first to make a feature of passive e.q. Many years ago an exotic preamp appeared from the US under the name Rappaport. It's main selling points were Passive RIAA equalisation and an, at the time, unprecidentedly beefy front panel. It was highly rated by the UK audio press and it's young designer lauded as a boy genius (Andy Rappaport was a first year degree student and the preamp was bankrolled by his dad).
Years later, after the company got into a bit of trouble involving inadequate heatsinks and burned customers, Andy got out of the industry.
He also admitted that the only reason the famous preamp used passive e.q. was that he couldn't do the maths for an active version.

I can't find a thread asking for a Rappaport, oh yeah cuz no one wants one. So again, your little run down history lane has nothing to do with the subject.

I can find about 40000000 threads asking for a proper MMP or Neve or API. The requests are coming from *cough* people who use them but would rather do it inside the box but don't have a viable option at the moment. I count myself on that list.

You're probably right. However, one thing I have noticed about pretty much all areas of endeavour is that amateurs try to impress with their toys whilst professionals try to impress with their results.

[dharmawan]

the manley massive passive is in fact based on pultec design, which is in turn based on an older passive eq design inteded for phone lines..

i think software EQs can be very good but they do lack the complex interplay between the actual physical processes involved in a hardware eq.

[dharmawan]

this may be the case for some hardware, but certainly not manley. everything is hand made in the US in their own factory, where workers are treated as professionals they are. they even wind their own inductors and transformers. they dont outsource designing to any "twit", everything is done in house.

Thus far, it seems that all the people who have used it agree that it's pretty decent. No one is arguing that it is as mind-blowing as a Manley Massive Passive, but it's also $3,000-$4,000 less expensive.

I'm quite happy to. Since the comparison is entirely subjective why shouldn't I (or anyone) consider the UAD to be better?
Until somebody finds a way of turning the subjective experience of listening to music into an objective measure of audio goodness (the Digriz?), this will always be the way.

As a side note, a little objective reality about the MMP. From an objective point of view it is a disaster. Attenuation followed by amplification always leads to an increase in the noise floor. This is exactly the case with the Manley.
It conforms to the tried and tested approach of US high end audio gear. Get some twit to design your circuit (in this case a certain Craig 'HUTCH' Hutchison) and pretend he's a famous, respected designer. Make a sales feature of the circuit's (passive) limitations. Do a licensing deal with another name (Manley) and plaster this all over the front panel. Front panels are important, make sure that yours is at least 1/4" thick or you're out of the game. Manufacture all but the front panel somewhere nice and cheap like China or Malaysia. Flog loads of said boutique junk to bedroom superstars who think they actually can buy talent.
Nice work if you can get it.

[SJ_Digriz]

However, one thing I have noticed about pretty much all areas of endeavour is that amateurs try to impress with their toys whilst professionals try to impress with their results.

This is rhetoric garbage.

In my case "amateur" I am quite happy with what I have available to me at unbelievable prices. Yet, if I had disposable income I would be shopping for either an MMP or Neve strip or both.

As a person who works with the "professionals", they don't whine about it and they don't try to impress people with what they used to do the job. In fact it only comes up if you ask. For the most part they are just trying to get the job done.

[nuffink]

However, one thing I have noticed about pretty much all areas of endeavour is that amateurs try to impress with their toys whilst professionals try to impress with their results.

This is rhetoric garbage.

So I'll just paraphrase it...

As a person who works with the "professionals", they don't whine about it and they don't try to impress people with what they used to do the job. In fact it only comes up if you ask. For the most part they are just trying to get the job done.

[SJ_Digriz]

So I'll just paraphrase it...

Sorry, left out the important part. IF YOU DO ASK THEM. They will hunt you down and kill you if you touch their channel strips.

[Kingston]

All this mythical massive passive bullshit is getting out of proportions. Here's a quote collection from a recent thread in gsluts.

Until now, it sound very musical good depth, though it's quite 'unusual' with all those interactions(resonnant Q, shelves etc...)
There is so much phase shift going on that I loosed my "mark" and it's kinda like I play lotery (tweaking the knobs until it make kaboom once all those interaction match the song... )

Sometimes using the mid bands in "shelf" mode can do things that no other equalizer on this planet can achieve... I have found it to be a unique feature that has saved my balls on several occassions.

i would never push a lot of high with it.

the high sounds FANTASTIC but most of the time it doesn't feel right for me...
it kinda stands out of the mix...
personal opinion....

Those mids (and himid in a lesser manner) are really organic in a way I like. It's very surprising because you don't hear the EQ itself a first... (but the music change of course)

Interesting what "the dice" said about its highs;
I've never really liked it (the highs on MP, I mean).
It sounds a bit like parallel filtering, a kind of
"add on", not integrated.

The MP adds shine even with no adjustments (just the blue "EQ" in lights on), which can be good or bad.

That's a pretty good subjective summary of a group of people who actually use it. It's no holy grail: sometimes it does the trick, sometimes it doesn't.

It should be pretty clear that many plugins can even outshine the thing, provided the user actually knows what he is doing.