# The UAD EMT 140 is blowing my mind



## jneebz (Jan 23, 2015)

I honestly don't have a lot of experience with plate reverbs in general, but I got the UA EMT140 last month on sale and it sounds INCREDIBLE! Just adding the "Acoustic Ambience" preset to drums and percussion blows my mind...can't wait to dig in deeper.

Anybody have favorite presets/uses they want to share?  

Just had to share in my excitement. Returning now to regular scheduled programming...

-Jamie


----------



## pavolbrezina (Jan 24, 2015)

I have same feeling about UAD EMT250.


----------



## Dryden.Chambers (Jan 24, 2015)

At $99 when on sale at Xmas perhaps the best bargain for a reverb plugin there is next to the Vahalla.

I been playing with the AMS demo, another stunner.



jneebz @ Sat Jan 24 said:


> I honestly don't have a lot of experience with plate reverbs in general, but I got the UA EMT140 last month on sale and it sounds INCREDIBLE! Just adding the "Acoustic Ambience" preset to drums and percussion blows my mind...can't wait to dig in deeper.
> 
> Anybody have favorite presets/uses they want to share?
> 
> ...


----------



## ThomasL (Jan 24, 2015)

The EMT 140 is one of the few reverbs that actually can be used on anything.

I have the same feeling on the Lexicon 224. Stunning.


----------



## tmm (Jan 26, 2015)

Does the EMT 140 require a UAD interface to work? I think so, just checking.


----------



## tokatila (Jan 26, 2015)

tmm @ Mon Jan 26 said:


> Does the EMT 140 require a UAD interface to work? I think so, just checking.



I haven't found a native alternative for EMT140. For EMT250 there are at least two; from Sknote and Empty Room Systems.


----------



## tmm (Jan 26, 2015)

Not totally sure what your answer means... do I need a UAD peripheral to run UAD EMT 140?


----------



## tokatila (Jan 26, 2015)

tmm @ Mon Jan 26 said:


> Not totally sure what your answer means... do I need a UAD peripheral to run UAD EMT 140?



Yes, you do. (Native = plug-ins are designed to work by using the processor within the host computer).


----------



## tmm (Jan 26, 2015)

Ah, okay, thanks for clarifying!


----------



## db0007 (Feb 14, 2015)

Op have you tried it on backing vocals, or any stacked vocals?


----------



## rayinstirling (Feb 15, 2015)

I use the Altiverb EMT 140 emulation and use it more often than any other reverb plugin I own.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Feb 15, 2015)

rayinstirling @ Sun Feb 15 said:


> I use the Altiverb EMT 140 emulation and use it more often than any other reverb plugin I own.



There is a huge difference in the sound of the UAD version and that IR.


----------



## rayinstirling (Feb 15, 2015)

EastWest Lurker @ Sun Feb 15 said:


> rayinstirling @ Sun Feb 15 said:
> 
> 
> > I use the Altiverb EMT 140 emulation and use it more often than any other reverb plugin I own.
> ...


I don't give a toss.............I don't spend my life thinking about what I don't have, I just make the best of what I do but, thanks anyway for your input.
Let me continue on with my humble PC and Cubase while you lord it with a mac and logic.

Cheers
Ray


----------



## Jack Weaver (Feb 15, 2015)

OK Jay, 

You've got me intrigued. Someday I'll get around to that EMT 140 plugin (along with the AMS RMX 16).

Who knows, maybe you're right about it. (condescension smilie unavailable)

You'd think I'd just get off my rear end and try it out for free. I just keep waiting for the right time to try my 15 day free trial period. 

.


----------



## reddognoyz (Feb 15, 2015)

I've been considering getting a UA audio interface. Partly because I believe it will be a little more hi-fi than my aged 2408's, and partly because so many people rave about the quality of the UA plug-ins. 
I'm on a mission to take the load off of my DAW computer. I'm running a 2012 12core Mac Pro and using a 2008 eight core Mac Pro as a slave, but I'm hosting a ton of the VI's on the desktop and the new series I am scoring has a my computer is on its knees

I just invested in a brolic VisionDaw slave to host the majority of my vi's and I'm thinking of investing in a pile of the UA plug-ins to replace the host based plugs I'm using now.

I'm pretty sure the compression options on the UA will be an upgrade, how do we feel about:

A UA convolution reverb versus Altiverb?

A UA guitar amp modeler versus Guitat Rig?

A UA mastering suite versus Ozone?


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Feb 15, 2015)

rayinstirling @ Sun Feb 15 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Sun Feb 15 said:
> 
> 
> > rayinstirling @ Sun Feb 15 said:
> ...



Perhaps a wee bit of defensive overreaction there, Ray? I wasn't criticizing you, just giving my opinion.

After all, the topic is "The UAD EMT 140 is blowing my mind."


----------



## reddognoyz (Feb 15, 2015)

Hey Ray,

Understood, but I come here for info, so it's helpful to me to hear comments like Jay's, especially from someone who I know has a well informed opinion on these products. I think he wasn't ragging on your use of Altiverb impulse(which i use as well btw), as much as expressing his valuable opinion to all the readers hear that the UA plug-in version was better... in his opinion. 

It wasn't like he was saying Taylor Swift was a waaay better singer than you : )


----------



## Blackster (Feb 15, 2015)

Funny thing, I read this thread and I thought I am totally fine with reverbs. Just out of curiosity I activated the demo for the EMT 140 ..... and I totally confirm that this thing is AWESOME! :D ... 

Thanks for pointing me to that! It's in my arsenal from now on!


----------



## wst3 (Feb 15, 2015)

There are a handful of UA plugs that I really like, and often recommend. Of those, I usually warn folks to have their checkbooks or credit cards handy before starting the trial period, because they are just amazing.

Among those would be the Plate 140, the Lexi 224, Ocean Way, the Cooper Time Cube, and the Studer and Ampex tape decks. Oh, and I know it sounds odd, but the dBX 160 is on that list too.

What makes these all so appealing is that there really are no comparable (to me anyway) plugs from other sources. I spent quite a bit of time trying various EMT IRs, and they just didn't work for me. Oddly, there are a number of Lexi IRs that I think sound just fine.

There are a lot of plugs, the MAAG EQ and SPL Transient Designer come to mind, that are available for both UA and native, and I can't really hear a difference between them.

But the ones that are magical are tough to stop using when the trial period ends!


----------



## JT3_Jon (Feb 15, 2015)

Jack Weaver @ Sun Feb 15 said:


> You'd think I'd just get off my rear end and try it out for free. I just keep waiting for the right time to try my 15 day free trial period.
> 
> .



FYI, incase you didn't know this but UA resets all demos when you purchase a new plugin, so its not like you can only try it once and thats it. They also I believe they will reactivate a demo for you if you ask nicely. However I completely get where you are coming from in holding off.


----------



## rayinstirling (Feb 15, 2015)

reddognoyz @ Sun Feb 15 said:


> Hey Ray,
> 
> Understood, but I come here for info, so it's helpful to me to hear comments like Jay's, especially from someone who I know has a well informed opinion on these products. I think he wasn't ragging on your use of Altiverb impulse(which i use as well btw), as much as expressing his valuable opinion to all the readers hear that the UA plug-in version was better... in his opinion.
> 
> It wasn't like he was saying Taylor Swift was a waaay better singer than you : )


He didn't post the comment towards you or the general reader here. It was specifically at me. Let me say this, I do not doubt the differences not just in this plugin comparison but in many available for our cash. The bottom line for me is, music can be magical and the processing while recording is a relatively small percentage of that magic. My life will never centre on plugin comparison.


----------



## jamwerks (Feb 16, 2015)

How does the UAD Lexi 224 compare to the real Lexicon plugs?


----------



## JT3_Jon (Feb 16, 2015)

jamwerks @ Mon Feb 16 said:


> How does the UAD Lexi 224 compare to the real Lexicon plugs?



According to UA the Lexi 224 does not use the modern algorithms that are found in the current plugins from Lexicon, so they should sound different. Plus UA likes to model the whole chain including noise of the physical unit, etc, where as Lexicons are just the algorithms from their later hardware boxes in plugin form. Seems you have more control over the "real" lexicon plugins, but there is something to say about that old 224 charm.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Feb 16, 2015)

rayinstirling @ Sun Feb 15 said:


> reddognoyz @ Sun Feb 15 said:
> 
> 
> > My life will never centre on plugin comparison.



Ane yet you chose to comment on a specific plug-in, one btw, that you apparently have no interest in buying.

I swear, I think sometimes some people post just for the sake of posting.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Feb 16, 2015)

Do you guys think Logic's Sample Designer has any EMT offerings in its Plates category?


----------



## rayinstirling (Feb 16, 2015)

EastWest Lurker @ Mon Feb 16 said:


> rayinstirling @ Sun Feb 15 said:
> 
> 
> > reddognoyz @ Sun Feb 15 said:
> ...


Man, if I had a dollar for every irrelevant reply you've chosen to post in this forum I'd be a wealthy man and I do include the above. 
Get a life brother and as a matter of fact, my very first studio recording session way back in 1968 included the use of an EMT 140. So, to spell it out for you, I very much enjoy using my Altiverb Wendy Carlos EMT 140 ir regardless of how it compares with the UAD version. What I don't know or think about won't hurt me. We're talking about the varying quality of icing sugar on a very tasty (hopefully) cake.


----------



## David Donaldson (Feb 16, 2015)

rayinstirling @ Tue Feb 17 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Mon Feb 16 said:
> 
> 
> > rayinstirling @ Sun Feb 15 said:
> ...



That's a good comeback, love it. Feisty words over reverb.
You guys reminded me about the Altiverb EMT 140, which I'd kind of forgotten about. Spent a pleasant couple of hours reacquatinting myself with it (and also that huge spring IR!) It's definitely good quality icing sugar.


----------



## Anders Wall (Mar 21, 2015)

> Anybody have favorite presets/uses they want to share? Smile



-->I use the Plant A / B / C presets and tweak the pre-delay times depending on what´s sent to it. 

-->The Orchestral is a beast with, for my taste, too much bass in it.
(as a preset, it's really easy to apply EQ to get rid of the bass....)
But(!) I use it in almost every session, it's in my template.

The String Section is also a good starting point.

In ProTools I send my different sections to the EMT.
IE all the Woodwinds has one send, all the Brass has one send etc...

Congrats to a great investment!

Regards,

/Anders


----------



## windshore (Mar 21, 2015)

Always fascinating how talk of the quality of a plugin can provoke such wounded egos. I wonder if it's the same in other professions. Do you think plumbers have passionate debates about different brands of pipe-cutters?

My own experience is that the 140 is a very high-quality and useful plugin. If you have any UAD plugins at all, that should be one of the first things to get.


----------



## germancomponist (Mar 21, 2015)

Sometimes I use my 33 years old Ibanez SDR 1000+ hardware reverb, and you know what? It sounds great! o/~ o=< o-[][]-o


----------



## chimuelo (Mar 22, 2015)

I do love the UAD and Scope DSP stuff. It is markedly better quality as they understand algo's play a huge role in Mac/PC based time based FX.
They sound very good and only folks brought up in hardware (prior to VST) can hear the difference.

I agree with GermanComp though that hardware still has the edge.
I have many great DSP based verbs, my pals have the UAD collections and swear by the 224 and EMT.

I swear by the TC Electronics Fireworx these days.
It's cheaper than plug ins, no 6db insertion loss as it is ADAT 48k.

The old SDRs and DEPs from 30 years ago sound great.
Even at 12bit.

Something about taking the source audio and letting hardware wrap around it, as opposed to in the box or DSP FX laying underneath it, waiting for source audio decibels to trail off to be heard.
These FX are in your face from the second the audio source plays.
No need to wait for a pause to hear the effect........


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 22, 2015)

I remember sitting in a studio, maybe 1997, when a friend (an amazing engineer who I'm proud to have recommended for the gig) was creating factory presets for a relatively inexpensive Yamaha multieffects processor. He A/B-ed his tweaks against the studio's real plate reverb - through the big studio mains.

You categorically could not tell the difference.

I'm not saying good plate simulations are a dime a dozen, nor am I pshawing UAD. But good plate emulations are not a rarity.


----------



## wst3 (Mar 23, 2015)

sticking my nose in where it doesn't belong...

Nick has a good point, GOOD emulations of various hardware exist all over the place, in plugins and even sometimes in ancient hardware itself.

I think my point is that truly mind-blowing emulations do not happen every day... nor do they need to. But is is fun when they come along.

Some examples from my experience...

The UA dBX160 - the first time I tried it I was literally transported back in time when that was pretty much the only game in town. Their emulation reminds me so much of the hardware! And I used a LOT of those little buggers over the years. I think I know what I want them to sound like.

The UA 1176 - when the Mackie branded UAD1 first came out this was the litmus test. I used a ton of 1176s over the years, and even spent several years repairing them. Again I have a pretty clear image of what I want one to sound like, how I want it to react to program material.

And that first emulation delivered. They've made improvements over the years, but that introduction sticks in my mind.

And yes, the UA Plate 140 sounds exactly like I remember - or want to remember - what plates sound like. So yes, it blew my mind.

Some of their emulations seem to be based on gear that behaved/sounded different than the stuff I used. So while very cool, (sometimes extremely cool) they aren't in the mind blowing category, if that makes sense.

And then there are plugins based on gear I've never used, or used so infrequently or so long ago that I have no preconceived notions.

In these cases I sometimes can't live without them, even though I have no idea how "accurate" they are. So cool? Yes. Mind blowing? I have no frame of reference.

So for me it's about sound, useability, and fun-factor. Some things, like the dBX 160 and the EMT 140 are just so much fun!


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Mar 23, 2015)

As usual, Batzdorf is wrong 

Seriously, i don't believe any convolution IR will match the UAD Plate 140. 

"Close enough" of course is however a subjective judgement.


----------



## Daryl (Mar 23, 2015)

EastWest Lurker @ Mon Mar 23 said:


> As usual, Batzdorf is wrong
> 
> Seriously, i don't believe any convolution IR will match the UAD Plate 140.
> 
> "Close enough" of course is however a subjective judgement.


I would imagine that people who use the real thing would say the same about the UAD emulation.

D


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Mar 23, 2015)

Daryl @ Mon Mar 23 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Mon Mar 23 said:
> 
> 
> > As usual, Batzdorf is wrong
> ...



Perhaps, but in my experience with all three I would say there is a greater difference between the UAD Plate 140 and and IR than between the UAD Plate 140 and the hardware.

Anyway the price differentials are not really comparable, are they?


----------



## Daryl (Mar 23, 2015)

EastWest Lurker @ Mon Mar 23 said:


> Daryl @ Mon Mar 23 said:
> 
> 
> > EastWest Lurker @ Mon Mar 23 said:
> ...


Fair enough. I don't know any of them well enough to be able to comment on that.


EastWest Lurker @ Mon Mar 23 said:


> Anyway the price differentials are not really comparable, are they?


Possibly, but price is also subjective, I think, according to how much value you put on a tiny difference to the finished product. In my view there are many things that need to be vastly improved in most stuff I hear well before the quality of plugs or hardware comes into play. But now I'm rambling off topic. Sorry. As you were....

D


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Mar 23, 2015)

I will happily spend a little money to get a small improvement but not a lot of money to get a small improvement.

If I were rich, I might feel differently. Or not.


----------



## wst3 (Mar 23, 2015)

Daryl @ Mon Mar 23 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Mon Mar 23 said:
> 
> 
> > As usual, Batzdorf is wrong
> ...



and Daryl wins today's cigar!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 23, 2015)

Of course Batzdorf is always wrong, but this was a few years before software convolution reverbs were around.

It wasn't a convolution processor, it was Yamaha multieffects hardware unit. I don't remember the model number - this would have been almost 20 years ago - but it was a half-rack processor that sold for maybe $350 (that's a guess).

And Daryl may win the cigar, but I'm telling you: this studio had a real plate reverb to compare it to. It was Sound Chamber in NoHo (which eventually got sold to Dr. Dre) a big commercial studio with an orchestra room, etc.


----------



## wst3 (Mar 23, 2015)

my gift of a cigar was for the very last bit, about folks comparing hardware to software vs people comparing one software version to another... just to be clear<G>!

I still have an SPX-90 in my guitar rack, and and SPX-900 in the studio. They still sound great for what they do and I have no plans to sell either one of them, even if I could get anything for them<G>! I remember the half rack unit as well, almost got one for the guitar rack but I was too lazy to reprogram all my favorite patches, and too cheap I suppose - that whole incremental thing!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 24, 2015)

It was even earlier, but remember how groundbreaking a product the SPX-90 was when it came out? Yamaha was amazing in those days. They'd introduce a product and restrict the supply intentionally to build excitement. You couldn't get them at first, they were in such high demand.

And then people realized you could only do one of those effects at a time, so the next thing came out.


----------



## Jack Weaver (Mar 24, 2015)

Ah yes, then came the Yamaha SPX-90 II and the Roland DEP-5. Fun devices all. I don't have any of them anymore sadly. But I treasure the i/o of my audio interfaces too dearly to chase after getting them again. If I'm going to have dedicated, single-use hardware tied to these limited i/o then I really want some serious reality machines. So I've ended up purchasing more recent hardware. Those old boxes were fun but a bit fuzzy around the edges, if you know what I mean. 

Back to the topic at hand. I recently got an offer from UAD and have decided to purchase two plugs. I'm pretty happy with my current collection of EQ's and dynamic range processors so I think I'll get a couple reverbs. (Who would've thought that?) 

I took a look at the EMT 140 and thought it's pretty good, but I'm currently covered for plate sounds. I then I listened to the Lexicon 244 video and they had back-to-back hardware/software comparisons. The very first example played the hardware first and then the software and some expert saying in effect, 'Wow, it's just the same!' Except that it took me 1.5 seconds to hear a significant difference - even on the Youtube video. It sounds just like the real one when you put a blanket over the speaker when using the real one and removing it when you use the plug. 

Hardware reverb is so much cooler, so much cooler. Trust me, my brothas and sistahs. 

With that being said, and it clearly being true simply because I have said it, I'm probably going to buy the UAD Lex 244. Even though it isn't the same it's still a sound that's significantly different that my current palette of reverbs. Here's what matters - Does the sound work for you? It'll work for me enough, not optimally but enough. The last thing I want to do is buy a hardware 244 and try to nurse along 35 year old digital hardware. 

I'll also get the AMS RMX16. I had one when they came out. It took me six months to get one. I love, love, loved it. Same sound situation thing here as with the UAD Lex 244. It's a sound that I don't have now and it'll still work for me. I was recently in Avast in Seattle, a great studio with all the best vintage hardware, and what did I see laid bare on the tech bench - an AMS RMX 16. Love them. Don't want to own them. 

.


----------



## impressions (Mar 24, 2015)

how can you guys demo the plugin if it needs the hardware for it?


----------



## Jack Weaver (Mar 24, 2015)

Hi Ariel,

Yes, you need to have their hardware to demo their plugins.

.


----------



## impressions (Mar 25, 2015)

okay thanks. by the way-is the video tutorial in the product's website considered a good example of its power? I didn't noticed any dramatic change when they activated it-could my weak tech ears too though.


----------



## Living Fossil (Mar 26, 2015)

Has anybody compared the UAD - emt140 to izotope's plate algorithms?
(i like ozone's plate reverb but have no uad)


----------



## kavinsky (Jul 30, 2018)

EastWest Lurker said:


> As usual, Batzdorf is wrong
> 
> Seriously, i don't believe any convolution IR will match the UAD Plate 140.
> 
> "Close enough" of course is however a subjective judgement.


UAD 140 is a hybrid, its actually mostly convolution based


----------

