# Switching to UAD plugins - worth it?



## Maestro77 (Jan 12, 2013)

Since joining this forum I've read several posts about the quality of UAD plugins. People say they're game-changing. I've always gotten by with Logic 9's stock plugins along with a few extras I've picked up for mastering (T-racks, iZotope, etc). I haven't been unhappy with what I have but after reading all the praise about UAD stuff I'm starting to think I may be missing out. Purchasing even a basic UAD setup/bundle isn't cheap, so I'd love to hear from some people who've already made the jump to hyperspace. Is it worth it? Do UAD plugins really make enough of a noticeable difference in your work to justify the upgrade? Thanks!


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jan 12, 2013)

Yes.


----------



## windshore (Jan 12, 2013)

hmmm, Always hard to judge another's situation without knowing more details... budget being one of them. Type of music another.

I have prob 90% of the UAD plugins. I love them but could I get along without? Probably, but it certainly would take me longer to get a good sounding mix. For me though, my verbs are probably more important. I really couldn't get along now without the 2C-audio verbs.

For me the game changers in UAD are the compressors and limiters. I also love the UAD 140 plate verb, the Studer tape and Neve EQ's.

The EQ thing has been widely debated - as to if there is technically any difference between digital EQ's. I actually love Logic's EQ's but it's certainly nice to have the workflow options with some of the UAD plugins.

If you have to deliver "mastered" mixes (and who doesn't these days?) there is a lot to recommend many of the high-end UADs.


----------



## windshore (Jan 12, 2013)

EastWest Lurker @ 1/12/2013 said:


> Yes.



LOL.. this is what I should have said!


----------



## wst3 (Jan 12, 2013)

I'm going with "YES"


----------



## ThomasL (Jan 12, 2013)

wst3 @ 2013-01-12 said:


> I'm going with "YES"


Me too.


----------



## Barrie B (Jan 12, 2013)

Another big old YES...


----------



## Maestro77 (Jan 12, 2013)

Wow, it appears to be unanimous. Thanks for your responses. Anyone care to add some feedback to accompany your "Yes"? I'd love to hear exactly how/why these things are such a noticeable difference over, say, stock Logic plugins. Warmer? More/less color? Easier to use? Better on resources? Is there a fader I can raise that gives me instant legendary composer status?


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jan 12, 2013)

Maestro77 @ Sat Jan 12 said:


> Wow, it appears to be unanimous. Thanks for your responses. Anyone care to add some feedback to accompany your "Yes"? I'd love to hear exactly how/why these things are such a noticeable difference over, say, stock Logic plugins. Warmer? More/less color? Easier to use? Better on resources? Is there a fader I can raise that gives me instant legendary composer status?




More color and many of the plug-inshaveno equivalent in the stock Logic plug-ins.

I'll tell you what: since you live in LA, come here with a Logic project and try some if you like.


----------



## Maestro77 (Jan 12, 2013)

Jay, what the hell are we doing up so early?


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jan 12, 2013)

Maestro77 @ Sat Jan 12 said:


> Jay, what the hell are we doing up so early?



I always awaken between 6-7. Old prostate.


----------



## wst3 (Jan 12, 2013)

Take Jay up on his offer... poste haste! If you lived on this coast I'd offer the same, as it really is the only way to make the decision in a sane way.

You asked for more specifics, the reasons I tend to start with UA plug-ins are:

1) I think they sound great, which is to say they impart a sound that I find enjoyable to most of my projects. They do not work every time, but pretty darned close.

2) I find most of them easier to use, but I 'grew up' using a lot of the hardware that they emulate, so I have a pretty good idea what to expect when I turn this knob or press that button.

3) I like the gear that they emulate.

I am not quite old enough to believe that all plug-ins should emulate hardware - there is a lot that can be done in the digital domain that simply can not be done in analog hardware, and I wish more DSP developers would embrace this.

But even if they did, there is good reason to use emulations, we tend to like they way they sound, we are familiar with their operation and sound, and well, it's fun!

Pure speculation here, but I think if you look at some of the more popular plug-in families you'll discover that the people behind them understand analog processing. I think that is part of the reason I gravitate towards UA plug-ins.

Make sense?


----------



## Rctec (Jan 12, 2013)

Really essential to how I work. But then, I come from the hardware they emulate. But at Rcp, every composer uses them and Alan Meyerson and Steve Lipson have them in their mix machines. We have three big Euphonix desks here, and even though they sound brilliant and cost a gazillion dollars, we are mixing more and more in the box with our UAD plugins. ...and we never had a stage send one of my mixes back...


----------



## kgdrum (Jan 12, 2013)

I also love UAD! 
For me many of these plugins are the best in their clas,UA also has great support and customer service.
If you are thinking of jumping into the UAD world,I'd try to wait until they have one of their big sales,preferably a sale that's card oriented.
With NAMM right around the corner chances are there will be a promotion worth looking into in the next couple of weeks.
When UA has a great sale it can save you lots of $$$!
example:The summer of 2011 they had their most recent card oriented sale,if you bought a Quad card they gave you $800 credit towards plugs.At the time if you also bought the newly introduced Studer they gave an additional 30% or 40% off of your plugin purchases.
So all told I bought my Quad card for $1200(it's cheaper now) and I got a credit for $1200 of plugs,so essentially I got the card for free or the plugs whichever way you want to look at it 
I've trained myself to only buy when UA has a sale,promotion or coupon, makes these great plugins much more affordable.
UA has several big sales every year so if you can stay patient and wait for the next sale you will save yourself lots of money.
I advise you to wait to buy until you see what the NAMM sale is going to bring to the table.
Good luck!


----------



## gsilbers (Jan 12, 2013)

im on the same boat. just havent jumped on it cause it seems like an addiction i will start... like looking to buy heroin.. you know u can get stuck on it. (if u are sober person i guess. )

anyways...

since its a UAD and Logic thread mostly...


im having my CPU meter in logic peaking stringly if i have stem inserts plugins. like the string stem buss i add multiband/compresor/space design or altiverb.. . 
sample libearies are all on VEP on a i7 slave so mostly mix plugs and specially mix plugs and inserts on . 

will UAD help with the CPU if i replace those stem plugs? (on insert mode etc)

since logic has the one core issue, im not sure if (and when) logic comes out with a new update to fix this (i am on snow leopard logic 9.02.) maybe i wont need uad card. i also have similar waves/fabfilter/ozone/etc.


----------



## JohnG (Jan 12, 2013)

I use UAD too.


----------



## ThomasL (Jan 12, 2013)

gsilbers @ 2013-01-12 said:


> will UAD help with the CPU if i replace those stem plugs? (on insert mode etc)


Probably so, can't say for sure but that was actually the reason I chose UAD 5-6 years ago. Now I have plenty of CPU but just yesterday I ordered a new Quad.

I'll say the same as Jay, if anyone wants to try a Logic project with UAD be my guest and drop by, I'll even raise that offer with a cup of coffee


----------



## wst3 (Jan 12, 2013)

dang! Now I really wish I still had to do booth duty at NAMM!!!!!!! Coffee??? You are killing me!


----------



## gsilbers (Jan 12, 2013)

ThomasL @ Sat Jan 12 said:


> gsilbers @ 2013-01-12 said:
> 
> 
> > will UAD help with the CPU if i replace those stem plugs? (on insert mode etc)
> ...



thanks. i guess the quad is the best to get. from reading around.


----------



## kgdrum (Jan 12, 2013)

gsilbers @ Sat 12 Jan said:


> ThomasL @ Sat Jan 12 said:
> 
> 
> > gsilbers @ 2013-01-12 said:
> ...




The slut in me craves an Octo!


----------



## christianhowes (Jan 13, 2013)

Since the UAD plugins use processing power from the card rather than the CPU, using them frees up your CPU for more instruments/audio tracks.

Plus they generally sound better than the stock logic plugins.


----------



## TheUnfinished (Jan 13, 2013)

ThomasL @ Sat Jan 12 said:


> I'll say the same as Jay, if anyone wants to try a Logic project with UAD be my guest and drop by, I'll even raise that offer with a cup of coffee


Haha, I love Sweden. Be careful, I might turn up!


----------



## germancomponist (Jan 13, 2013)

What is so special about this plugs? Are they so much better than other VST plugs?

OK, the RAM/CPU thing, but?


----------



## kgdrum (Jan 13, 2013)

For me yes some of the UA plugs are the best in their class.
Ampex,Studer,the new 1176,Manley MassPass,Fatso,DimensionD,Cooper Time Cube,the EMT 140 & 250 reverbs, etc......
The CPU saving is great and from what I've been told very real.
But in the end it's all about the sound!

I've been told when they're 1st developing and testing new plugs at UA natively on their test computers some of these plugs make even the most powerful rigs they have get on their knees.
So the lift the cards provide is most helpful but if they didn't sound amazing who would care or buy them?


----------



## germancomponist (Jan 13, 2013)

kgdrum @ Sun Jan 13 said:


> So the lift the cards provide is most helpful but if they didn't sound amazing who would care or buy them?



Hm, can anyone name a very specific example, a special plug what in its quality is nowhere else buyable?


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jan 13, 2013)

germancomponist @ Sun Jan 13 said:


> kgdrum @ Sun Jan 13 said:
> 
> 
> > So the lift the cards provide is most helpful but if they didn't sound amazing who would care or buy them?
> ...



Cooper Time Cube for one. http://www.uaudio.com/store/delay-modul ... -cube.html


----------



## wst3 (Jan 13, 2013)

Jay beat me to it - The Cooper Time Cube ends up in almost every project, as does the EMT 140 plate. I've tried almost every plate reverb out there, and the UA sounds like the real deal, while the rest - including convolution versions - end up sounding like what I think a plate might sound like, if I'd never used the original - if that makes sense.

Another favorite is the dBX 160 - I know, it's not exactly sought after, but they were all over every studio I worked in way back when, and nothing comes as close to capturing that sound as the UA version.

The Ampex and Studer tape decks are also, at least to me, as close as it gets to running through tape.

But the bottom line, for me, is that all the plug-ins work brillianrly, and sound great - when I want to emulate old hardware.

I have other suites of plugins that I use when I do not feel the need to constrain myself, but none of them can match the sonic realism of the UA plugins.

They really are that good... and worth the price of admission... at least for me!


----------



## germancomponist (Jan 13, 2013)

EastWest Lurker @ Sun Jan 13 said:


> Cooper Time Cube for one. http://www.uaudio.com/store/delay-modul ... -cube.html



Looks interesting, Jay. Can you post one or more audio examples?


----------



## gsilbers (Jan 13, 2013)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CnQOg5OSZM


----------



## germancomponist (Jan 13, 2013)

wst3 @ Sun Jan 13 said:


> Another favorite is the dBX 160 - I know, it's not exactly sought after, but they were all over every studio I worked in way back when, and nothing comes as close to capturing that sound as the UA version.!



I know this hardware too, but for this I always use my hardware Klark compressor, because I like it much more. (I know that it is not popular in the USA)

Audio comparisons could help, but.... .


----------



## chimuelo (Jan 13, 2013)

I would really appreciate someone here w/ a Quad Solo sharing a screenshot of how many EMT Plates can be loaded before the PCI Interupt message occurs.
I want to add an Apollo to my DSP rig, but need to see what Quad Solo card can do with time based effects.
Also interested in realtime parameter modulation of the decay/time on the 3 Plate Algos. If an LFO or EG can be used glitch free I will be in Heaven.

Thanks.


----------



## kgdrum (Jan 13, 2013)

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


----------



## R_FER (Jan 13, 2013)

I've been watching almost every video in the UAD site in the past couple days and I liked very much what I heard. I think their plugins sound really good and they have a very competitive price, but unfortunately, for me, the Accelerators are very expensive.

And something really bothers me: I was wondering... what happens when they release UAD-3? The new plugins probably are going to be only compatible with the new cards, right? Then you're stuck with your old card and old plugins? 

Also, with computer technology growing exponentially these days, do you guys think that these dedicated processing cards will last long in the market? I mean, today, maybe UAD plugins sound better (I think) then the other manufactures, but nothing really prevents other company of releasing better sounding plugins (specially with more powerful computers), right?

I wish they released "native" versions of their plugs. Probably in the future? Isn't it what they're doing with hardware? I mean, we want the sound of those compressors, eqs, reverbs etc, but we (I mean, most of us) cannot buy them (price and physical space). I also think that as plugins these pieces of "gear" offer much more flexibility.


----------



## kgdrum (Jan 13, 2013)

According to someone @ UA who I've dealt with for years and trust, many of the UA plugs could not be used without the cards help.
Many will bring even the most powerful computers down to their knees.
Every now and then UA has a card sale,the last one (summer 2011) I bought a Quad card for $1200 and got a $1200 credit for plugs.
Try to wait for one of these promotions.
Last year(June '12) they had a very generous trade in program for users UAD1 discontinued cards towards UAD2 cards. IMO UA takes care of clients as well as any company in the industry.
The cards also prevent UA plugs from getting cracked so UA would not benefit in going native & as of now most people from my understanding have computers that can not handle many of these plugs.
Who knows maybe they'll have a killer card oriented NAMM sale!


----------



## R_FER (Jan 13, 2013)

kgdrum @ Sun Jan 13 said:


> According to someone @ UA who I've dealt with for years and trust, many of the UA plugs could not be used without the cards help,many will bring even the most powerful computers down to their knees.
> Every now and then UA has a card sale,the last one (summer 2011) I bought a Quad card for $1200 and got a $1200 credit for plugs.
> Try to wait for one of these promotions.
> Last year(June '12) they had a very generous trade in program for users UAD1 discontinued cards towards UAD2 cards. IMO UA takes care of clients as well as any company in the industry.
> ...



Interesting! I didn't imagine these plugins would demand a lot from the system.

Unfortunately these sales and trade programs usually only benefits USA customers.

I won't even tell you how much our government taxes imported products or I'll scare your kids


----------



## yellowstudio (Jan 14, 2013)

R_FER @ Mon 14 Jan said:


> And something really bothers me: I was wondering... what happens when they release UAD-3? The new plugins probably are going to be only compatible with the new cards, right? Then you're stuck with your old card and old plugins?



I think this is asking for a bit of perspective. First of all, the first generation of UAD had been around for nearly eight years before UAD 2 was launched so going from this and correcting for increased market speed, I guess we're only half way into the lifespan of UAD 2. They always use some of the best DSPs available, armed to the teeth, and although chip development is ever improving, I guess the current TigerSHARC generation is here to stay for a while.

Apart from that, once UAD 3 drops, it's not as if your current hard- and software immediately become obsolete. These plugins are some of the finest hardware emulation money can buy, they have been for some years, and the collection is quite broad already and it's being used on records up and down the country. Since the hardware that's being emulated doesn't change anymore either, you won't be forced to update to UAD 3, if you're happy with the "old plugins" the new hardware is only going to buy you more instances. 

Even if there is a new "killer application" that requires new hardware, I think the trade-in promotions are really fair. I had the good fortune of buying a used studio PC for cheap on Ebay that came with a UAD 1 and got the transfers authorized shortly before the trade-in offer went live. The previous owner of the system told me that he had nearly all of the plugs and rushed to get UAD 2 hardware for his new system. He might have kicked himself a bit for selling to me so cheaply though and not getting the trade-in discount 

So I'm going to chime in with the resounding choir of "Yes" to UAD.

so long
Andreas


----------



## Rv5 (Jan 14, 2013)

I have a friend who does music for TV and also does quite a bit of trailer music for big publishers - he only uses the Logic Plug-ins. I on the other hand absolutely love the UAD plug-ins.

The UAD plug-ins are unbelievable, the things they can do is just something I could talk about all day.

The point being, it really depends on what you mean 'worth it'. My composer friend doesn't need them (and other people I know) to make music that makes him his living and gets used on TV. 

Would his mixes sound better with UAD plug-ins in place of the Logic stock plug-ins? I don't know, maybe..! Would they win him more pitches/get him more work? I doubt it, he's crazy busy as it is.

For me, they are inspiring and allow me to explore sonic realms I otherwise couldn't. This alone makes them worth it. Along with the fact they so faithfully emulate some of the greatest hardware around makes them a worthy investment in my mind. The price comparison of the plug-ins and hardware makes them an absolute bargain.

It took me a while working day in day out with music and mixing etc to develop an ear where I could appreciate them so much.

It is expensive, but for what you get it's good value. I've got my mixes sounding like I never thought I would thanks to the plug-ins. UAD has this weird affect on people where it turns you into a rave reviewer type... If you buy them you'll see why! But you can make music that rocks and is perfectly usable without them as proven by those who do!

I'd recommend them and keep trying to push them on my friend, to which he replies he doesn't need them... I think he does, he just doesn't know it yet...


----------



## jamwerks (Jan 14, 2013)

kgdrum @ Sun Jan 13 said:


> I've been told when they're 1st developing and testing new plugs at UA natively on their test computers some of these plugs make even the most powerful rigs they have get on their knees.)



Well if it put a modern cpu (I7-3930) on it's knees, it would probably take about 15 Quad cards just to run one instance. I think your contact at UA may be doing a few too many bong hits! :mrgreen:


----------



## yellowstudio (Jan 14, 2013)

I agree that the latest processor generation has a lot of power, but don't mix up general purpose CPUs with DSPs. The latter are highly optimized for precisely the operations these plugins need to perform, in real time, without having to run an OS, audio host, and a metric crapton of background processes. Comparing a Core i7 to a current DSP and judging on raw GFlops doesn't quite work here. 

so long
Andreas


----------



## jamwerks (Jan 14, 2013)

yellowstudio @ Mon Jan 14 said:


> Comparing a Core i7 to a current DSP and judging on raw GFlops doesn't quite work here.


Sorry, I meant to say: "15 octo cards"


----------



## Martin Brannigan (Jan 14, 2013)

Just one more "yes" vote here, for UAD plug-ins. I use them every day, on every project.


----------



## chimuelo (Jan 14, 2013)

I read the link but would appreciate a screenshot if there are any to be found.
I am a fellow ADSP 21369 user, currently using an 18 x Chip 1U rack from Soniccore and my hardware Solaris synth was Coded by Klaus Piehl and uses 6 x ADSP 21369s, so I am an avid DSP geek, used the older SHARCs for 9 years before getting the recent ADSP 21369 powered gear 3 years ago.

Most Scope DSP users run older Scope and UAD, even PoCo cards on the same machine where the Scope DSP cards are the synths, Mixing, Modular app and FX are realtime, and bring in the DAW and other plugs using the XTC mode.
It is a powerful and still viable solution as guys with P4s are only now switching over to the PCI-e connectors and cards.

FWIW the new Mac laptops using Haswell CPUs and incredibly powerful, low heat speed demons. Been licking my lips at CES last week.

I want to add the Quad Apollo (1U) to my already powerful XITE-1 (1U) hosted by my i7 3770 Supermicro (1U). Portability is the juice for me.

UAD time based effects are that good, that I don't mind dropping a few large.
Already have 13,500 USD in my portable live perfomance rig.
I was going to get a Model 7 Bricasti or the UAD, but I need a little more proof than some chart from the devleopes website. If they had a screenshot on a forum somewhere, that would suffice.
As of now I have only screenshots of UAD/Scope rigs using older 32bit systems.

Thanks so much for any help.


----------



## Dan Mott (Jan 14, 2013)

No. Not worth it.


----------



## mark812 (Jan 14, 2013)

Rv5 @ Mon Jan 14 said:


> I have a friend who does music for TV and also does quite a bit of trailer music for big publishers - he only uses the Logic Plug-ins. I on the other hand absolutely love the UAD plug-ins.
> 
> The UAD plug-ins are unbelievable, the things they can do is just something I could talk about all day.
> 
> ...



I agree with you friend, probably because I'd always spend more time composing rather than engineering. I don't need/use 20 different EQs..I need one, maybe 2. Also, I'm sure that average listener won't notice the difference between UAD and Logic stock plugins..especially on TV. Cinema..that's another story. But if you're composing for features you will likely have the budget for hiring an engineer. 

Regarding UAD..they do look and sound cool, but I think that there are many quality options nowadays that don't require dedicated DSP cards.


----------



## wst3 (Jan 14, 2013)

germancomponist @ Sun Jan 13 said:


> wst3 @ Sun Jan 13 said:
> 
> 
> > Another favorite is the dBX 160 - I know, it's not exactly sought after, but they were all over every studio I worked in way back when, and nothing comes as close to capturing that sound as the UA version.!
> ...



I LOVE KT compressors - I don't think they sound anything like the old dBX boxes, but they are awesome! I don't have any in my rack right now, but I do have Ashly, Symetrix and Drawmer... for more old names<G>!

I will dig through some tracks and see if I can find good naked examples of some of their processors - if not I'll try to create some.


----------



## yellowstudio (Jan 14, 2013)

jamwerks @ Mon 14 Jan said:


> yellowstudio @ Mon Jan 14 said:
> 
> 
> > Comparing a Core i7 to a current DSP and judging on raw GFlops doesn't quite work here.
> ...



Cheeky boy  To be honest, I too would be interested in seeing a live comparison of a UAD plugin compiled for an x64 CPU and running natively, but as of yet, I wouldn't go so far as to say that the UAD hardware is only a glorified dongle. Offloading some of the heavy number-crunching to a dedicated processor that has nothing else to worry about seems a very good idea to me, regardless of th Mojo-factor of the plugins.

so long
Andreas


----------



## jamwerks (Jan 14, 2013)

yellowstudio @ Mon Jan 14 said:


> I too would be interested in seeing a live comparison of a UAD plugin compiled for an x64 CPU and running natively


 Me too.

I could understand anyone doing anything pop, using drums, guitars, basses, etc, being willing to dish out the dough to enter into UAD-land. But for orchestral, imo it might be a waste of money. We don't need eq or comps "with a sound", and all can be had natively for way less.

And I'd say with the $1-5k you save by staying native, you could buy lots of great samples, or even get your girlfriend a nice boob-job. :mrgreen:


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jan 14, 2013)

While it is true that as jamwerks says if all you do is mockup classical pieces it may not be a good investment, but if you are doing modern production with orchestral elements and not solely trying to emulate a classical orchestra, as I suspect is the case with most of us, they are wonderful sounding tools.


----------



## gsilbers (Jan 14, 2013)

jamwerks @ Mon Jan 14 said:


> yellowstudio @ Mon Jan 14 said:
> 
> 
> > I too would be interested in seeing a live comparison of a UAD plugin compiled for an x64 CPU and running natively
> ...



for media you need stems and each stem to have sfx so the dsp side helps a lot imo. 

as for sound, i placed a link above with a video showing waves vs uad. to me sounds very similar. i dont see a reason to buy uad for the sounds. there is plenty plugs out there doing recreations and uad is just one more of the bunch. the dsp is why i would buy it.


----------



## windshore (Jan 14, 2013)

EastWest Lurker @ 1/14/2013 said:


> While it is true that as jamwerks says if all you do is mockup classical pieces it may not be a good investment, but if you are doing modern production with orchestral elements and not solely trying to emulate a classical orchestra, as I suspect is the case with most of us, they are wonderful sounding tools.



+1
Many of us have to deliver orchestral or hybrid orchestral that is ready (or very nearly ready) for broadcast. Having a great pallet of compressors can make a HUGE difference in how these scores come across to the client.


----------



## woodsdenis (Jan 14, 2013)

First of all UAD plugins are fantastic, on a par with any of their competitors.

There is a huge BUT....

1. They are hardware locked, you need their cards.
2. They are CPU intensive so you need a lot of DSP.
3. Both the hardware and the software are relatively expensive.

If I had the money would I buy them, abolutely Yes, but I can't justify it when my compliment of Waves, Cytomic, McDSP, Fabfilter, Softube etc are arguably on a par with them.


----------



## Brobdingnagian (Feb 6, 2013)

One thing here no one has mentioned is latency. How well does it play with Logic in terms of latency?

Can I still run Logic at 256ms whilst using the Neve Plugs? Running MacPros, VE Pro, Logic w/ healthy template here....

Any real world encouragement/experiences appreciated....

-B


----------



## Brian Ralston (Feb 7, 2013)

Brobdingnagian @ Wed Feb 06 said:


> One thing here no one has mentioned is latency. How well does it play with Logic in terms of latency?
> 
> Can I still run Logic at 256ms whilst using the Neve Plugs? Running MacPros, VE Pro, Logic w/ healthy template here....
> 
> ...



Can't speak for Logic...but for any DAW with Automatic Delay compensation for Plugins (Like I have in DP), latency is not an issue at all.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Feb 7, 2013)

With Logic you will want to click the Low Latency button when playing in parts live to temporarily bypass them as you will feel too much latency but then turn it off and all is well.

I reserve them largely for the mix stage of the project but being an old dog, I am less a "mix as you go" guy.


----------



## Per Lichtman (Feb 7, 2013)

One of my favorite UAD plug-ins would be the Neve 33609 compressor. Great compression characteristics as well as a gain stage modeling. I sometimes use it without really kicking the compression much just to use the saturation.

Anyway, look at it from a developer perspective. The UAD cards have resulted in (as far as I've been able to tell) no recorded piracy since their launch. I don't buy the UAD cards to reduce drain on my system, I buy them to enable me to use the plug-ins I like and accept that it helps the developer to ensure a viable profit off of making the plug-ins I want.

Anyway, there have recently been some good native plug-ins as well and I don't only use UAD plug-ins, but the UAD ones are consistently "among the best" or "the best" and they offer several plug-ins that no one else has done a good emulation of.

As to whether they are "that much better", it depends on what you are looking for. I have an artist I work with where despite a large collection of outboard gear, we have literally use the UAD Neve 33609 on every vocal track I can remember since she first got it. We sometimes layer other compressors in with it, but is part of an essential sound for her.


----------



## Rctec (Feb 7, 2013)

For us, it's a simple answer. We mixed the last few movies entirely ITB, because we now have the UAD cards on every system here. Plus, having all the original hardware (Neves, Tridents, Manley, 1176, etc...) we can do real comparisons. Since its separate DSP, it doesn't tax our CPUs. Our systems are totally stable. But, more to the point, the stuff sounds really good. So if you know what you're doing - why you would use a Neve instead of a DBX compressor, for instance, you'll get a lot of variety and color out of the thing. And who doesn't want a Roland Dimension "D" or a lexicon 224. The Emt stuff is wonderful, too.
And Dan-Jay rather brief negative comment surely can't be meaningful in the context of this discussion. Wasn't he going to sell all his gear? You have to have a sense of passion and joy about creating music to get the best out of this stuff. 
It's interesting to think of it in purely orchestral terms. Long before everyone put a custom mic pre onto every channel, people recorded things like "Star Wars" and "Raiders" straight through the console. And that is a fairly colored but ballsy sound right there...
Hz


----------



## Brobdingnagian (Feb 7, 2013)

Thank you comrades for these compelling, constructive and committed comments. I shall peruse the UAD site once again. Being familiar with a fair number of the original units, I am pleased to hear they do not disappoint. The ITB aspect certainly makes it all the more appealing...don't know why I have waited so long?

-B


----------



## Per Lichtman (Feb 7, 2013)

@Brodingnagian One last thing is to keep in mind that not all of their emulations are done to the same level. They've gotten better as they've kept at it so often times the newer ones are better emulated than the older ones (which is part of why they recently redid the LA2A, for example).

In other words, make sure that you don't base an assessment of the entire product line on any single emulation. Oh, and do have fun checking them out - these are some great tools.


----------



## gsilbers (Feb 7, 2013)

Rctec @ Thu Feb 07 said:


> For us, it's a simple answer. We mixed the last few movies entirely ITB, because we now have the UAD cards on every system here. Plus, having all the original hardware (Neves, Tridents, Manley, 1176, etc...) we can do real comparisons. Since its separate DSP, it doesn't tax our CPUs. Our systems are totally stable. But, more to the point, the stuff sounds really good. So if you know what you're doing - why you would use a Neve instead of a DBX compressor, for instance, you'll get a lot of variety and color out of the thing. And who doesn't want a Roland Dimension "D" or a lexicon 224. The Emt stuff is wonderful, too.
> And Dan-Jay rather brief negative comment surely can't be meaningful in the context of this discussion. Wasn't he going to sell all his gear? You have to have a sense of passion and joy about creating music to get the best out of this stuff.
> It's interesting to think of it in purely orchestral terms. Long before everyone put a custom mic pre onto every channel, people recorded things like "Star Wars" and "Raiders" straight through the console. And that is a fairly colored but ballsy sound right there...
> Hz



in terms of sound.. is it much different/better than the native solutions from waves and others. ?


----------



## Dan Mott (Feb 7, 2013)

The reason I do not think it's worth it is because first you have to pay like a grand for the card alone. Then you go by the plugins which are like up to 140 - 200 dollars each. Way too expensive. People would be better off just buying the waves versions which are not much different from the UAD. No cards involved and you can demo anything you want for free.

You cannot even demo the UAD plugins unless you pay for the card. So what if you buy the card, then you buy the plugins and you end up not liking them all that much? 

I do not like the buying approach. The plugins are cool, but unless you are doing pretty well for your self financially, I do not see why anyone would go down that road.

Just my opinion.


----------



## Per Lichtman (Feb 7, 2013)

@Dan-Jay There are pros and cons to various companies approaches.

I would clarify that the entry point to try UAD cards is actually closer to $299 USD - you would only pay more if you wanted a more powerful card.

If you bought into UAD and didn't like it you could sell it - which is the same as with hardware. As you mentioned, you can demo the plug-ins as long as you have the hardware to run them.

Many people have issues with Waves WUP program so that seems like an odd example to contrast with UA but I understand the overall point. There are several vendors of native plug-ins that make it possible to demo their wares without buying additional hardware.

I guess one of the first questions might be how high a priority FX plug-ins are in your work. If the majority of your work is mixing or you very strongly prefer to mix your own work as opposed to hand it off to someone else, then it's a different situation than if mixing is a secondary priority.

The prices you quote per-plugin are fairly consistent with many mixing professionals are accustomed to paying and I honestly haven't found many native plugs of comparable quality at a lower price.

I love the Abbey Road Plug-Ins, but they are in a similar range. I like the sets for Nebula plug-ins, but you have to spend 189 Euros if you want to have the best engine when you're running the libraries (and then buy the libraries on top of that). URS Saturation was $249.99 when it launched, though it's $99 now.

Some people prefer native plugs and I completely respect that (in some cases I'm even one of them) but I don't see much of an argument for saying that the UAD plug-ins are over-priced.


----------



## Dan Mott (Feb 7, 2013)

Per Lichtman @ Fri Feb 08 said:


> @Dan-Jay There are pros and cons to various companies approaches.
> 
> I would clarify that the entry point to try UAD cards is actually closer to $299 USD - you would only pay more if you wanted a more powerful card.
> 
> ...



Sure. I respect that.

I don't think the plugs are overpriced, but I think the cards are. The 299 is the entry level one, and from my perspective, you would obviously want more power than that if you want to run lots of plugins and instances of the same plugins, so you would be paying more. It seems like a hassle to me. I would have chosen UAD plugs for my setup (when I had one) if it weren't for the cards. I guess I just feel that way.


----------



## stonzthro (Feb 7, 2013)

I personally don't know anyone who has the UAD plugs and doesn't use them constantly - I can't say that for Waves (myself included). Again, this is my personal experience but I know quite a few composers and engineers.

You can get into UAD for a very reasonable entry price with a solo card for $299 - that comes with several very useful plugs too!

My biggest issue is with the latency - they sound so good I want to use them all the time, even when writing... dangit!


----------



## devastat (Feb 7, 2013)

For me also, the biggest advantage on native plugins over UAD is latency. I can use most of my Softube, Waves and Brainworx plugins as I am writing and sequencing without any latency issues at all.

I don't know how much there are sonic differences between companies making native and UAD plugins - but there certainly are some UAD plugins that makes me want to grab an UAD octo card one day.


----------



## Per Lichtman (Feb 8, 2013)

For anyone that has an issue with UAD latency, remember that it's essentially a non-issue if you use Apollo. It's more money, but a definite option.


----------



## Brobdingnagian (Feb 8, 2013)

Per Lichtman @ Fri Feb 08 said:


> For anyone that has an issue with UAD latency, remember that it's essentially a non-issue if you use Apollo. It's more money, but a definite option.



Pardon my ignorance, but how so if one is mixing as one writes? Presumably there is still signal flow out of the box into the Apollo and then back again...unless the dual channel potential of T-bolt is molto rapido?

-B


----------



## quantum7 (Feb 8, 2013)

Rctec @ Thu Feb 07 said:


> For us, it's a simple answer. We mixed the last few movies entirely ITB, because we now have the UAD cards on every system here. Plus, having all the original hardware (Neves, Tridents, Manley, 1176, etc...) we can do real comparisons. Since its separate DSP, it doesn't tax our CPUs. Our systems are totally stable. But, more to the point, the stuff sounds really good. So if you know what you're doing - why you would use a Neve instead of a DBX compressor, for instance, you'll get a lot of variety and color out of the thing. And who doesn't want a Roland Dimension "D" or a lexicon 224. The Emt stuff is wonderful, too.
> And Dan-Jay rather brief negative comment surely can't be meaningful in the context of this discussion. Wasn't he going to sell all his gear? You have to have a sense of passion and joy about creating music to get the best out of this stuff.
> It's interesting to think of it in purely orchestral terms. Long before everyone put a custom mic pre onto every channel, people recorded things like "Star Wars" and "Raiders" straight through the console. And that is a fairly colored but ballsy sound right there...
> Hz



I've been back and forth trying to decide to get an Apollo, as to start dipping my feet into the UAD plug-ins that everyone raves about. Now that I am at a point in my life that I am actually feeling confident in my mixing abilities.....and after a nice endorsement for UAD by Mr. Zimmer, whom I have great musical respect for, I see myself getting an Apollo by the end of this year.


----------



## ThomasL (Feb 8, 2013)

Rctec @ 2013-02-07 said:


> And who doesn't want a Roland Dimension "D" or a lexicon 224. The Emt stuff is wonderful, too.


Yes! And cramming a Zebra synthbass hard through an LA-3A in limit-mode and pumping it a bit more with the Precision Maximizer is sooo, sooo sweet!

And an acoustic guitar with some Dimension D with button 2+4 pressed and then through a hall in the 224 is nothing short of “wow”...


----------



## ThomasL (Feb 8, 2013)

There is a nice forum dedicated to UAD, http://uadforum.com/forum.php


----------



## gsilbers (Feb 8, 2013)

im not aware of latency issues with UAD. whats the deal? i thought a DSP solution would help with latency


----------



## Per Lichtman (Feb 8, 2013)

Brobdingnagian @ Fri Feb 08 said:


> Per Lichtman @ Fri Feb 08 said:
> 
> 
> > For anyone that has an issue with UAD latency, remember that it's essentially a non-issue if you use Apollo. It's more money, but a definite option.
> ...





gsilbers @ Fri Feb 08 said:


> im not aware of latency issues with UAD. whats the deal? i thought a DSP solution would help with latency



To answer both, in the case of the normal UAD-1 and UAD-2 cards, the DSP is contained in a different DSP card (housed either in the computer or connected to the computer by a cabled, depending on the version). When that approach was used, latency was added to the soundcard buffer that was fairly significant, meaning that most of the time the plug-ins could not be used during tracking. The amount varied by buffer size and by plug-in and many hosts (though not the older Pro Tools LE) could compensate automatically.

With UA's Apollo, they changed things. The Apollo is an audio interface and DSP card combined into one, so that allowed them to change the latency equation. The plug-ins can be run either using the card's mixer (allowing them to be applied to sounds as they are tracked, for example) or as plug-ins.

They discuss latency with the interface in this review a bit (including listing the few plug-ins that would still introduce latency on the Apollo and how many samples of latency to account for). It's in the table in the "Control mixer" section.
http://en.audiofanzine.com/external-aud ... r-men.html

As you can see, you wouldn't want to run their mutli-band compressor live, but many of the plug-ins have a low enough latency that you can still track when using a small buffer. It all depends.

So, the short answer is: it's better with Apollo than the other UAD solutions and you can get latency out of the equation a lot of the time... but you still need to be aware of which plug-ins cooperate. Hope that helps.

P.S. DSP cards that aren't included in an audio interface normally introduce at least a little latency - that's true whether we're talking the UAD-1/UAD-2, Focusrite Liquid Mix or SSL Duende (the DSP version, though hopefully not for the native one which I haven't tried). I also haven't used the Creamware platform or TC Powercore so I can't comment on those.


----------



## devastat (Feb 8, 2013)

Per Lichtman @ Fri Feb 08 said:


> The Apollo is an audio interface and DSP card combined into one, so that allowed them to change the latency equation. The plug-ins can be run either using the card's mixer (allowing them to be applied to sounds as they are tracked, for example) or as plug-ins.



Do you mean that when using UAD plugins inside a DAW, there is less latency with Apollo audio interface than with a regular UAD PCIe card?


----------



## Per Lichtman (Feb 8, 2013)

@devastat No, I was only referring to the latency improvement when you used them through the UA mixer app, not when applying them in your DAW.

I've used UAD-1 plugs for years and spent some time with the Apollo at shows where I focused on the mixing app latency. I have not used UAD-2 cards so I cannot compare the DAW latency.


----------



## wst3 (Feb 9, 2013)

not sure why I didn't notice earlier... but I did not switch to UAD, I simply added them to the arsenal.

I tend to turn to them first most of the time simply because I like the way they sound, or they sound right for what I'm doing these days - or maybe even because I am familiar with some of the devices which they emulate. Who knows.

What I do know is that I have not abandoned PSP, Voxengo, SoundToys, and Waves - just extended my vocabulary.

As far as latency goes, I don't tend to record with effects in place unless I intend to print the track as-is. And most of the time I only do that with guitar tracks, which I play live, and I use my ancient old pedals for that<G>!


----------



## Lupez (Feb 15, 2013)

Rctec @ Thu Feb 07 said:


> For us, it's a simple answer. We mixed the last few movies entirely ITB, because we now have the UAD cards on every system here.
> Hz



This is something I've been meaning to ask you for quite some time now... what was the last score you mixed OTB? or if you prefer, when did you begin mixing entirely ITB?
If I recall correctly you once declared that Sherlock Holmes Game of Shadows was done entirely ITB.

Although I don't own your complete work I think Pirates II, Inception and TDK are the best sounding albums I ever heard in terms of dynamics, fatness, punch, tonal range, ... simply amazing.

but I am afraid I cannot say the same for Sherlock Holmes ....there's a slight unpleasantness to it, the sound is more sterile, pingy and small in comparison... so I wonder if it has anything to do with it?


----------

