# UAD Studer A800 - opinions?



## JT3_Jon (Jun 30, 2011)

I'm demoing this plugin and it could go either way. If it was $300 out of pocket I would have said no, but I have a voucher to spend, so its still in play. In general I do like what its doing to my current prog rock mixes, but its SO subtle I doubt anyone hearing the final product would notice. Its hard enough sometimes to hear whats its doing in a direct A-B comparison unless you really listen! 

For those of you who have tried it or own it, whats your opinion of the UAD Studer? Is it a placebo effect or do you find its really helping your mixes?


----------



## doubleattack (Jun 30, 2011)

Can't tell anything about, but maybe this helps?

http://www.vi-control.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=21540


----------



## chimuelo (Jun 30, 2011)

The RCA LoFi Phonograph plug uses Sine or Random LFO to control needle crackles and is great for old Big Band, Texas Swing and early C & W styles.
The fact they actually used IR's from Sun Studios in Memphis shows the developers never ending reaches to bring accurate emulations to the virtual instrument emulations we need.


----------



## Blackster (Jun 30, 2011)

I'm using the Studer on almost every track. Somehow it glues everything together and adds some little extra in sound. 

So, in brief, I recommend it


----------



## Ashermusic (Jun 30, 2011)

I like it as well.


----------



## wst3 (Jun 30, 2011)

I think it is one of their best... it works everywhere, it sounds great, it behaves (mostly) as one would expect!

I highly recommend it! If you have any specific questions just holler!


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Jun 30, 2011)

It is a game changer.
An incredible plug.
Lately, UAD has delivered the Lex 224, the Massive Passive and the Studer.
All must-haves IMHO

Subtle only if you want it to be.
There are many possibilities for tweaks under the hood...

It isn't a master bus plugin BTW...


----------



## JT3_Jon (Jun 30, 2011)

Ok, so I'm working on a Prog Rock song (no vocals yet, but everything else is basically in place) and I decided to try mixing the song into UAD Studer from the start, and I'd love your opinions on the two mixes and which one you prefer. Do you hear a noticeable difference? Which one do you personally like better? 

http://www.noblepirate.com/jon/LG-Studer2.mp3
http://www.noblepirate.com/jon/LG-NoPlugins2.mp3

I'm going to try out the Studer on a more complex song that in "rough mix" phase. I wanted to start with something simple like the above mix to see if I could hear a noticeable difference. I do hear a difference, but I'm still unsure if its helping or not...


----------



## germancomponist (Jun 30, 2011)

I always get a smile into my face when I read about this convolution based tools. 2 weeks ago we did a comparison between my old Klark compressor and different plugs. Not only one plug was able to produce the same cool sound, not only one.... .

When it comes to sound, I prefer the hardware!


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Jun 30, 2011)

Hardware is nice, but using a 24 tracks Studer is not necesarily the way to go these days, and the price difference is pretty huge, and mainteance is a PITA... 
and this is not convolution... 
and UAD is in a class of its own.

You have these top engineers now using their plugins rather than dealing with the hardware versions. Claim is that they can't hear the difference


----------



## germancomponist (Jun 30, 2011)

Patrick de Caumette @ Thu Jun 30 said:


> ...Claim is that they can't hear the difference


What do you think is the reason for this?


----------



## JohnG (Jun 30, 2011)

Hi Patrick,

What sort of material -- pop, ambient, orchestra, brass etc. -- does the Studer help most?

------------

Separately, regarding the hardware / software debate, my preference for software or UAD combination hardware and software plugs comes from this:

1. Cost

2. Exact recall of settings

3. Fewer conversions (A/D, D/A)

4. Less hardware, fewer cables, and the like; lower power consumption, fewer things to break.

So for me, the hardware would have to sound a lot better than the plugins for me to be tempted to buy it.


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Jun 30, 2011)

Gunther: it must be that they really nailed the emulations. Some of the engineers working for UAD used to be rocket scientists (littlerally)
I think that over the years UAD has gotten better and better. 
Check out the Lexicon 224 if you have a chance: brilliant!

John: I only have tried the Studer for 2 weeks, in demo mode and the project I used it on was my world fusion stuff.
It works great on drums, bass, guitars, both acoustic and electric, horns and piano was great too.
Basically, anything that would benefit from being recorded to tape.
Extra nice when you need the coloring that tape saturation produces.

For orchestral instruments, I'd guess that it would benefit samples that didn't go through analog circuitry during the recording stage.
I should be great for VSL.
Maybe not so useful for "warmer" libraries.

The flexibility of the tape emulation is really nice, and there are many parameters that you can tweak to get the sound that you are after: tape speed, bias, filters, noise...etc

I'm buying it next.


----------



## JohnG (Jun 30, 2011)

Thanks Patrick. For strings, I used to love the sound of tape at 15 ips, with Dolby SR. The lows were great.

So if this sounds like that, it would be wonderful.

Appreciate your thoughts very much.


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Jun 30, 2011)

Anytime John!

If you already own a UAD card, try out the Studer (and definitely try out the Lex 224 too) it may produce what you used to like about strings on tape....


----------



## JohnG (Jun 30, 2011)

next time I am mixing -- thanks for the tip.


----------



## JT3_Jon (Jun 30, 2011)

Not to get too far off topic (but I did start the topic, so maybe its ok  ) but how does the UAD Lex 224 compare to Lex's own PCM reverbs? I have not had a chance to try the UAD lex, but I did try the PCM reverbs at a friends studio and they were AMAZING! I'm a big fan on those lush, clean, warm hall reverb sounds. If the UAD lex can do that too...


----------



## Frederick Russ (Jun 30, 2011)

JT3_Jon @ Thu Jun 30 said:


> I'm demoing this plugin and it could go either way. If it was $300 out of pocket I would have said no, but I have a voucher to spend, so its still in play. In general I do like what its doing to my current prog rock mixes, but its SO subtle I doubt anyone hearing the final product would notice. Its hard enough sometimes to hear whats its doing in a direct A-B comparison unless you really listen!
> 
> For those of you who have tried it or own it, whats your opinion of the UAD Studer? Is it a placebo effect or do you find its really helping your mixes?



The UAD2 Studer A800 is excellent but please realize that it works best in a cumulative scenario - meaning every track in your mix - which is when you actually begin hearing the overall effect to the mix. Also know that if you're using a UAD2 Quad, 24 stereo instances of Studer (or 40 mono) and you've effectively maxed out the card so there is an economic decision involved:

*UAD Instance Chart*

... meaning if you want to use your other UAD2 plug-ins, you're going to have to consider another card to run them. The other way to simply place the Studer on busses but again an entire mix from tape is an awesome thing to behold. I know some producers who buy the UAD2 Quad just to run four Manley Massive Passive exclusively (of which will max out a UAD2 Quad card). The other option of course is to save these high-end dsp intensive plug-ins until stem mixing time and use a batch processor to print Studer to each of your stems premix - then port the resulting stems to your mixing template.


----------



## gsilbers (Jun 30, 2011)

how does it compare to some of the airwindows plugins that does similar things?


----------



## Frederick Russ (Jun 30, 2011)

I also have Airwindows ToTape and it is excellent actually for what you pay. Its light on resources but gets the job done natively without the need for a dsp accelerator card. Another good tape emulation is the Waves MPX which models Ampex 350 transport and 351 electronics.

Part of the draw I guess for the UAD Studer A800 is emulating the nonlinearlities of a particular machine and letting the dsp card handle the math crunching versus letting your daw do it. Airwindows on the other hand does it without relying so much on modeling a specific machine but uses resources from your daw.


----------



## JT3_Jon (Jun 30, 2011)

Wow! So are you saying Airwindows ToTape is as good as the UAD Studer? I wish I would have tried this out before I used my voucher. :(


----------



## gsilbers (Jun 30, 2011)

just tried the demo. its good 

still my fav airwindows plug is CHANNEL which is free


----------



## chimuelo (Jul 1, 2011)

Frederick summed it up nicely.
Up intil a few years ago DSP effects had an edge in quality 
in all areas, now the gap is closing with the exception of Reverb
and synths emulating Analog, not digital or hybrid, but Analog.
The biggest advantages are realtime parameter modulation, 
and processing outside of the DAW.

When you open up a Virus, Solaris, Nord, Lexicon or Bricasti 
you see DSP chips with attached RAM. No Intel chips in sight.

Even the aged Motorola DSP's are archaic in comparison to the AD21369's used in top shelf DSP rigs.
My favorite rig aside from the XITE-1s' with i7 laptops, are 
the XITE-1s' for synths and mixing, that also have UAD Cards.

These rigs are as good as it gets, and they can be run with Kontakt instruments all off of an E8600 Core2Duo.

UAD developers are just kicking ass since 2010, and the agreements with Manley are what really got my attention.
I will buy the baddest UAD card if they can do the dual sloped Manley SLAM limiter. FET and ElectroOptical Limiting is my favorite way to master, and having this in your live rig would be devastating...

Here's a guitarist/vocalist rig he uses live that he has tied to his 
Mesa Boogie rack. Very portable and he blends pads and effects 
with his sounds and uses the ancient Wolfdale P4 CPU still...

I am trying to do the same thing by using the DAW as a MIDI automation tool to replace my aged QX-1/MC500-MkII rig.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jul 1, 2011)

Frederick Russ @ Thu Jun 30 said:


> JT3_Jon @ Thu Jun 30 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm demoing this plugin and it could go either way. If it was $300 out of pocket I would have said no, but I have a voucher to spend, so its still in play. In general I do like what its doing to my current prog rock mixes, but its SO subtle I doubt anyone hearing the final product would notice. Its hard enough sometimes to hear whats its doing in a direct A-B comparison unless you really listen!
> ...



I nstantiate them on my busses for strings, brass, winds, rhythm, and percussion just before I do my final bouncing.


----------



## SvK (Jul 1, 2011)

I downloaded MPX from waves....

What do you tapeheadz think of it?


SvK


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Jul 1, 2011)

For inserting over the mix bus, MPX is the way to go
For inserting over individual tracks, the Studer is the one...


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Jul 1, 2011)

JT3_Jon @ Thu Jun 30 said:


> Not to get too far off topic (but I did start the topic, so maybe its ok  ) but how does the UAD Lex 224 compare to Lex's own PCM reverbs? I have not had a chance to try the UAD lex, but I did try the PCM reverbs at a friends studio and they were AMAZING! I'm a big fan on those lush, clean, warm hall reverb sounds. If the UAD lex can do that too...



Those two do not compare.
The Lex 224 has an entirely different sound.
It can go beyond reverb and be used as an fx as well, which colors the track in a beautiful way... rich, lush tails, separate time control over low frequencies and hi freq...etc

This is the sound that I was looking for in software verbs but never found until now...


----------



## chimuelo (Jul 1, 2011)

Patrick. 
That's probably due to excessive delay lines used that can create unrealistic, but awesome tails.

Rumor has it that UAD is looking at doing the Ursa Major Space Station.
That would also be similar in design, but the original 3U hardware unit had 12 seperate delay taps and had an incredible sound.

The first time I ever heard Piano with a time based effect was a Yamaha Electric Grand with an Ursa Major Space Station.
That was in '79, and they had to pry me from the Piano after soundchecks... _-)


----------



## gsilbers (Jul 1, 2011)

wish someone would post wav files to compare. and even compare to airwindows plugs which are very cpu friendly.


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Jul 1, 2011)

chimuelo @ Fri Jul 01 said:


> Patrick.
> That's probably due to excessive delay lines used that can create unrealistic, but awesome tails.
> 
> Rumor has it that UAD is looking at doing the Ursa Major Space Station.
> ...



Good point dude.

Never heard the Ursa unit, but if you say it's good, it's sparking my interest...

Cheers


----------



## mikebarry (Jul 1, 2011)

The A800 is subtle and brilliant. 

The only three plugs in from UAD I use are the Presice buss compressor - the A800 and the Massive Passive.

These things are heaps above the embedded logic plug ins. 

I tried the tape em on the master but it is too active - not really in a pleasing way for orchestral music. It also robs the Massive Passive of its magic.


----------



## wst3 (Jul 2, 2011)

mikebarry @ Sat Jul 02 said:


> The A800 is subtle and brilliant.



That's an excellent description... and I'm afraid the subtlety is slowing sales!

Folks that used an A800, or even 2" decks from MCI or Ampex will remember that when properly set up these machines did not add a huge "tape effect". The tape, the magnetics, the transformers (in the older Ampex and MCI signal paths), all add their own fingerprint, but it did not have to be over the top obvious, and in fact all these companies spent a lot of R&D time and money trying to get rid of artifacts.

I think the A800 plugin sounds a lot like a well setup tape deck. It sounds better than my poor aging JH16 in fact. I wish it were a little lighter on resources, I'm probably going to need to upgrade my Solo to a Quad one of these days.

And as has been pointed out before, it is a cumulative effect, so if you can run it on multiple tracks you'll realize a slightly more obvious effect than if you run it on a 2-mix. Which, oddly enough, is exactly how it is supposed to work!



mikebarry said:


> The only three plugs in from UAD I use are the Presice buss compressor - the A800 and the Massive Passive.



The entire precision line is brilliant, and not like any hardware I ever used! And the Massive Passive is, well, MASSIVE.

But I also find the 1176, Pultec Pro, and dBX 160 to be essentials. I've had a ton of fun with the SPL Transient Designer, but haven't pulled the trigger on it yet.

Other favorites include the Plate, the Tape Echo, the Helios EQ, and Nigel (keeping my Mackie UAD-1 around just for that!). I like the LA-2 and LA-3, but I grew up on the LA-4, which is different enough that I don't always think to use the older ones. I was also thoroughly surprised and pleased with the Dimension-D, didn't expect it to be so cool, since I never heard two hardware units that sounded remotely similar!

I mention all of these (and I use the SSL and Neve emulations as well, just not as often) so that anyone considering the A-800 as their entry into UA realizes that they have a broad range of plug-ins that are just amazing.

Oh, and stay as far away from the Lex 224 as possible. The only reason I do not own it yet is because I decided I needed CineOrch more. By next month I hope to remedy that. I have a hardware PCM-90 that remains my goto reverb, but only because I haven't licensed the 224 yet. It is, to my ears, on a par with the A800 in terms of accuracy, subtlety, and usefulness.

I'm not sure if the DreamVerb is still bundled with the cards, but if it is you should check it out as well. It is not a 224, it's more of a roll-your-own kind of tool, and it can create some really interesting environments!!!


----------

