# Anyone using UAD-2 solo?



## dcoscina (Jul 27, 2012)

I'm thinking of buying one. I have a MOTU 2408mk3 audio interface that works fine so I don't need an Apollo but would like to use the UA card for plug in processing. Comments or thoughts?


----------



## JT3_Jon (Jul 27, 2012)

it all depends on what plugins you plan on using. I personally use the studer often, and I love the fatso on drums, the Manley massive passive EQ is awesome, LA2A, 1176, pultec EQ are all great, but when you start getting into their heavy plugins (like MP, studer, fatso, etc) you'll quickly hit the limits on a solo card. Heck, I've hit the limits on my quad very easy on large mixes! 

I personally would recommend at least a duo. Check out this instance chart. http://www.uaudio.com/support/uad/compatibility/instance-chart.html (http://www.uaudio.com/support/uad/compa ... chart.html)

What is attracting you to the UAD? Many people would argue that now is not the time to purchase UAD as native is getting so much better / closer and UAD is pricey in comparison. UA use to be the only game in town for "professional" plugins, but that seems to have changed. 

Though their plugins are all OUTSTANDING, if I was buying today I dont know if I would go UAD in all honesty...


----------



## ThomasL (Jul 27, 2012)

Get at least a Duo, those plugs will invade your mixes sooner than you think 

I don't care if it's native or not, the plugins sound excellent. I would buy them again.


----------



## José Herring (Jul 28, 2012)

JT3_Jon @ Fri Jul 27 said:


> it all depends on what plugins you plan on using. I personally use the studer often, and I love the fatso on drums, the Manley massive passive EQ is awesome, LA2A, 1176, pultec EQ are all great, but when you start getting into their heavy plugins (like MP, studer, fatso, etc) you'll quickly hit the limits on a solo card. Heck, I've hit the limits on my quad very easy on large mixes!
> 
> I personally would recommend at least a duo. Check out this instance chart. http://www.uaudio.com/support/uad/compatibility/instance-chart.html (http://www.uaudio.com/support/uad/compa ... chart.html)
> 
> ...



Do you know of anything out there that's as good?

Mixing plugs has never fully been my forte, but I ran across some plugs from a company called Stillwell and I must say that I'm having a hard time hearing the difference from what I've heard of UAD stuff. But, I'm afraid to trust my ears in this area too much.

Wondering if other's can check them out and let me know how they compare to UAD. Stillwell is quite inexpensive and also are very generous with their demos.

http://www.stillwellaudio.com/


----------



## dcoscina (Jul 28, 2012)

I'm mostly looking at it from the processing pov. To off set some of the demands on my CPU.


----------



## JT3_Jon (Jul 28, 2012)

dcoscina @ Sat Jul 28 said:


> I'm mostly looking at it from the processing pov. To off set some of the demands on my CPU.



Then welcome to the club!  But do go for at least the Duo if you can.

Don't know if you've heard of this company, but they are an official authorized UAD dealer, and if you type "forum" as a coupon code you save 15% (best deal I've seen!) http://www.jrrshop.com


----------



## kgdrum (Jul 28, 2012)

+1 
I love my UAD plugs,I recommend at least a Duo card.
I use the Quad ,love it but not gotten the Manley Massive Passive or the new 1176 because of their CPU demands.
I will add them once I add another card 
Many of the newer plugs use up lots of resources.
Go for the Duo and if you can swing it better yet go for the Quad.
UA is great but I'd find the Solo too limited.


----------



## dcoscina (Jul 29, 2012)

How many instances can you get out of a solo?


----------



## kgdrum (Jul 29, 2012)

"How many instances can you get out of a solo?"


It depends on what plugs your using,refer to the info on UA's site that JT3_Jon posted the link for in the 2nd post.

http://www.uaudio.com/ support/uad/compatibility/instance-chart.html


----------



## wst3 (Jul 29, 2012)

I spent many years using a lot of the hardware that is available as UAD plugins. So clearly I have a certain bias.

Some of their plug-ins are frighteningly accurate, and sometimes that is exactly what I want. I have found nothing else that comes close!

Sometimes you want more than what a model of a vintage device offers. But if you want a spot on virtual 1176, or dBX 160, or Pultec, or plate, or even tape deck then you want the UAD2.

The solo will eventually run out of gas, and if budget allows I'd suggest the Duo. But I'm pretty happy with a pair of Solo cards. They fit my budget because I bought them about a year apart, and I seldom run out of DSP now. When I do I freeze tracks... till I can afford a Quad or two<G>!


----------



## jamwerks (Jul 29, 2012)

dcoscina @ Sat Jul 28 said:


> I'm mostly looking at it from the processing pov. To off set some of the demands on my CPU.



From a processing point of view, UAD cards have very little "bang for the buck" compared to native power. I would consider the card only if I was very interested in their plugs (of which there are of course many).


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jul 29, 2012)

I have a Duo and a Solo, and you would have to pry my UAD plug-ins from my cold, dead, hands.


----------



## kgdrum (Jul 29, 2012)

jamwerks @ Sun 29 Jul said:


> dcoscina @ Sat Jul 28 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm mostly looking at it from the processing pov. To off set some of the demands on my CPU.
> ...



I don't know if I can actually agree with that,someone I know & trust who works @ UA has emphatically told me that MANY of the UAD plugs running natively will bring even the most powerful computer to its knees.
Of course we all wish we could get unlimited instances with a card but the fact is these plugs sound amazing because of all of the great coding and the help of the cards to help w/ the heavy CPU lifting these cards are doing,it's not just UA's secret sauce and cards limiting the # of instances to make us want to buy more cards.


----------



## kgdrum (Jul 29, 2012)

jamwerks @ Sun 29 Jul said:


> dcoscina @ Sat Jul 28 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm mostly looking at it from the processing pov. To off set some of the demands on my CPU.
> ...



I don't know if I can actually agree with that,someone I know & trust who works @ UA has emphatically told me that MANY of the UAD plugs running natively will bring even the most powerful computer to its knees instantly.
Of course we all wish we could get unlimited instances with a card but the fact is these plugs sound amazing because of all of the great coding and the help of the cards to help w/ the heavy CPU lifting these cards are doing,it's not just UA's secret sauce and cards limiting the # of instances to make us want to buy more cards.
Unfortunatley I think many people are working with the false assumption that the cards are just anti- piracy dongles,I don't think that's actually true.
Yes the cards help UA from getting cracked but I do think the cards are doing some heavy lifting ,if they weren't UA could easily do away with the cards and sell with a iLok and fold the lost revenue into the price of the plugs.
If the cards weren't doing some intensive processing there wouldn't be a logical reason why many of the newer more CPU dependant plugs wouldn't work with a UAD1 card.


----------



## re-peat (Jul 29, 2012)

I don’t know. The UAD doesn’t really offer much that is BOTH unique in the sound processing field AND — and this is the important bit — that is also of particular benefit to people who produce mock-ups. ‘Accurate colour’ has always been a large part of the UAD’s appeal (the pseudo-vintage, fake-analogue flavour of its sound), but colour is precisely something which, in my opinion, is completely wasted on mock-ups.
Mock-ups, I believe, are much better served with very precise, surgical, transparent and clean-sounding production tools rather than with a collection of characterful plugins, a lot of which hope to emulate the analog sound of yesteryear.

Sure, its EQ’s and compressors and whathaveyounot, it is all of the finest Quality Street quality, but run sampled strings through these plugins and you still end up with bloody sampled strings, don’t you? And what good is ‘finest quality, pseudo-vintage processing’ if your source is the mediocre sound of a sampled brass library, or the clumsy, poor-sounding antics of a sampled bassoon? 
It’s a different story when you’re working with quality audiotracks — well-recorded audio that is alive, has dimensions and true dynamics — because then you can really tap into the very power which sets the UAD apart from a lot of the competition. But the flat, barely breathing sound of sampled instruments is hardly going to bring out the best in these plugins.
The better your source audio, the more value a UAD has, it seems to me. And since mock-ups are, by definition, intrinsically incapable of sounding good (I mean *really* good), the UAD is of fairly limited use in that particular niche of music production. Is my opinion.

Having said that, if you approach your productions a bit more imaginatively and creatively than merely and tediously trying to “sound real” (mock-orchestrally speaking), the UAD has indeed a whole lot to offer. 

But people who claim that an orchestral samplelibrary, run through the UAD Pultec, Ampex, Fairchild, Trident, Studer, Fatso or LA2A, sounds better than without it, are wrong. Believe me, it’s snobby, self-delusional nonsense. Sampled instruments processed with the UAD do not come out sounding better. Different, maybe, but certainly not better.
I used to think it too, you know (that self-deceiving phase we all go through after having spent serious money on some software or equipment): process virtual instruments with the UAD and things will surely sound better, warmer, richer, creamier, deeper, better-defined, maybe even more believable … but the truth is, they don’t. Well, they do, a tiny little bit, maybe, but it’s definitely not the sort of improvement that can only be achieved with a UAD.
I happen to own a few pieces of hardware — things like the Thermionic FatBustard (a valve summing mixer) and an AnaMod ATS-1 (analog tape simulator) — but even these decadently expensive units are utterly incapable of fundamentally improving the quality of a mock-orchestral production. (The only piece of hardware that I find effectively extremely useful in my situation is the KushAudio Clariphonic Parallel Equalizer. Truly stellar piece of equipment that actually does make a profound difference, in any mix.)

But back to the UAD. There is no UAD compressor that can improve a mock-up mix in ways that other (native) plugins can’t. There is no UAD EQ that will impart something special on samplebased tracks which other (native) EQ’s can’t. And it’s not the fault of the UAD, certainly not, it’s because samplebased audio lacks the life, detail, richness and ‘organic’ qualities to coax quality plugins into giving us their very best. You can process, say, the Appassionatas all you want, with a dozen UAD’s if necessary, the result will always be a fake, synthetic sounding and lifeless stringsection.

Producing decent sounding sample-based productions requires the use of several well-chosen plugins, absolutely, and the better the plugins, the better your chances at getting somewhere, but none of those plugins are to be found exclusively among the range that is currently available for the UAD. Two exceptions maybe (in my humble opinion): the two EMT plate emulations (140 and 250). Both of these are really quite special and the sensational sound of the 140 in particular is something I haven’t heard from any other software. 
But if I were to make a list of plugins which I’d consider genuinely useful for mock-up productions, it wouldn’t contain many UAD plugins.

_


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Jul 29, 2012)

re-peat:

I would love to know your list of to-go plugins if you are willing to share!

I do agree with almost all of what you have said. It is more about accurate writing, orchestration, natural instrument balance and proper gain staging inside your DAW. 

I wanted to move to UAD at one point but realised that I already had some really high quality plugins that sound as good as UAD. 

I love using Vienna Suite, SPAT and a few other plug ins which get the job done very well. 

The other reason to move to UAD can be to off-load processing. This has been an issue with me for quite sometime and I really was seriously considering UAD just to off-load my processing. But, I really like the native plugs I have right now specially SPAT and Vienna suite. So, I am back to square one!



Thanks.

Regards,

Tanuj.


----------



## dcoscina (Jul 30, 2012)

Unfortunately I cannot afford a Pro Tools Hd Omni or such so I was merely looking at a reasonably affordable addition to my existing set up. I find QL Spaces really nice but makes my LA Scoring strings sound too strident and brash. I was hoping some UAD plugs could soften up my mixes.


----------



## ThomasL (Jul 30, 2012)

dcoscina @ 2012-07-30 said:


> I was hoping some UAD plugs could soften up my mixes.


They will.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jul 30, 2012)

I both agree and disagree with Piet on several points. I will not call what i do personally mockups, but sample based compositions. If by mockups, he mean reproduction of pieces that were not written for samples than my comments may not apply or will apply less.

1. "Mock-ups, I believe, are much better served with very precise, surgical, transparent and clean-sounding production tools rather than with a collection of characterful plugins, a lot of which hope to emulate the analog sound of yesteryear."

Not necessarily. Before the digital age, orchestras were recorded on analog gear and some of us still prefer those less precise recordings. And with many of the new sample libraries, while they are better than the older ones, transparency is not what you want, because transparency makes their sterility and lifelessness more obvious

2. 'Sure, its EQ’s and compressors and whathaveyounot, it is all of the finest Quality Street quality, but run sampled strings through these plugins and you still end up with bloody sampled strings, don’t you?"

Yes, but you end up with better sounding sampled strings, which is my goal when working with them, not trying to make them sound as real as possible. When I want them to sound wide and sit back in a mix, putting the Roland Dimension D on my strings buss works great.

3. "Having said that, if you approach your productions a bit more imaginatively and creatively than merely and tediously trying to “sound real” (mock-orchestrally speaking), the UAD has indeed a whole lot to offer. "

Absolutely agreed, and surely that is what we all SHOULD be trying to do with our sample based compositions

4.."But people who claim that an orchestral sample library, run through the UAD Pultec, Ampex, Fairchild, Trident, Studer, Fatso or LA2A, sounds better than without it, are wrong. Believe me, it’s snobby, self-delusional nonsense. Sampled instruments processed with the UAD do not come out sounding better. Different, maybe, but certainly not better. "

Horse pucky. If it sounds "different" with/without to someone, than it is also going to sound better/worse to that someone. That does not mean that there is an empirical way to assess it but after 30 years of this, I am confident that if I think it sounds better.most of my clients will also. 

5."There is no UAD compressor that can improve a mock-up mix in ways that other (native) plugins can’t. There is no UAD EQ that will impart something special on sample based tracks which other (native) EQ’s can’t. And it’s not the fault of the UAD, certainly not, it’s because samplebased audio lacks the life, detail, richness and ‘organic’ qualities to coax quality plugins into giving us their very best. You can process, say, the Appassionatas all you want, with a dozen UAD’s if necessary, the result will always be a fake, synthetic sounding and lifeless string section. "

Let's say for the sake of discussion, that this is all true. Nonetheless, I use the UAD Plate 140 on every track and there is no native plug-in IMHO that sounds quite like it. I see that Piet does indeed remark on is specialness later in his post.

I bounce almost every mix using the Manley Massive Passive and there is no native plug-in IMHO that sounds quite like it. 

When I have a complex mix and I am not getting it quire right sonically, the Precision Multiband bails me out quickly, for which I am extremely grateful.

I put the Ampex emu on my two buss on almost every final mix and I love what it brings. Better? To my ears, yes and once again, if you do not trust that if you like something your clients also will, it is hard to work in this business.

If you are using any kind of pop vocals, as I did with the 2 Realivox demos I posted, UA's Lexicon 244 gives them that sheen that only the very expensive lexicon native plug-ins or hardware can give.

And if you really are going to get creative, plug-iins like the Cooper Time Cube, EP-34 Tape Echo, Little Labs VOG, UAD Roland RE-201 Space Echo, give you wonderful tools for creating unique stuff, 

Finally, once you have bought the card(s). most of the plug-ins are either not more expensive or are cheaper than similar quality plug-ins. And the EQs and compressors are _very_ good. Also, you could not deal with a better company. I have beta tested for a ton of them and the UA folks are the very best.

I am not btw, paid by UA but I do beta test for them and they give me lots of free stuff. But everything I have written, I firmly believe to be true and I am not a snob about this or self-deluded.


----------



## Peter Emanuel Roos (Jul 31, 2012)

I have a UAD Solo and soon became severly addicted to their excellent plugins (for a pop/rock project). I wish I had started with a Duo or even a Quad right away. But I still have one spare slot 

I haven't used any UA plugin on something orchestral, but I can imagine that the Studer multitrack might do wonders on strings.


----------



## dcoscina (Jul 31, 2012)

I'm sold. Thanks for all the info guys


----------



## gsilbers (Jul 31, 2012)

kgdrum @ Sun Jul 29 said:


> jamwerks @ Sun 29 Jul said:
> 
> 
> > dcoscina @ Sat Jul 28 said:
> ...



well, the UAD helps but i think the point is that if you get a UAD card you are limited in slots which is dependent on the card while on a native solution you could get a lot more instances of the same type of plugin (from waves for example) and keep going until the pc runs out of power which is a lot nowadays. 

the days of needing a dsp cards are gone. now you can have so much on your computer, having an extra card is more of a "luxury" and worth more as a dongle. 

with that said, not only having specialty plugins be on a dsp card is cool but also helping the computer out on dsp always help.

for UAD it worked out since they went the "recreation route" and coded all the famous analog plugins, thus the DSP was just extra. 
but for tc electrnoics didnt go so smooth as we know they stopped the powercore.


----------



## dcoscina (Jul 31, 2012)

I have a 2006 Mac Pro that I cannot upgrade anytime soon.


----------

