How much money do you have invested in UAD software?
Comments
software only? gonna be difficult to say. i bought most of my p
software only?
gonna be difficult to say. i bought most of my plugins with whatever version of the pci card that came with a 400$ voucher, twice. then my first uad card is so old its a mackie card and came with a couple plugins.
then i only buy them when theyre on sale, or i have a voucher.
using a uad2solo i got from jrr shop for like 180$ ?
hardware and software together id say ive spent 3500-4000 in the last 10 years.
and its so easy to do too if you arent a careful shopper ;) id s
and its so easy to do too if you arent a careful shopper ;)
id say the pci cards were 600/600/400, the rest went to plugins.
that tally would be much (2500$) higher if the apollo was compatible with my laptop and i didnt just purchase a zen studio instead.
how much would you guys say youve spent on processing plugins in the last 10 years? i know back then the waves gold bundle was several grand...
I have a quad and a solo and when I was still on the G5 mac I ha
I have a quad and a solo and when I was still on the G5 mac I had another solo card in pci. The list is fairly extensive in the Quad. I got lucky and found a Quad card used with several additional plug-ins. I would hazard a guess that theres two or three grand in that one easily and probably another grand in it before I'm done.
Yeah....NOT the real thing but serious tools that dont seem to add any of the 'digitized' zzzz you hear in some plug ins. Very usable tools at a fraction (really) of the cost of "the real things". I never really care about whether these plugs that emulate a standing piece of hardware sounds like the hardware. I'm sure they dont so I don't go into the use of the plugs hoping for some miracle emulation....I only look at them in a tool type of opinion....Does it do what I want to hear on the source? Yes? Done.
I only have UAD, Waves, and McDSP in my queue.
To me this business of they are not exactly like the real thing
To me this business of they are not exactly like the real thing so don't get them is too condemning.
No 2 pieces of analog gear after being used for awhile are exactly the same either... Some aren't the same brand new.
When my preamps were being built, they are 2 channels per unit.. The builder measured and matched every part as there are differences in parts that have the same value on them.
Part makers allow for a certain tolerance plus or minus.
I think you need to think.. does this make my stuff sound better?. yes or no.. and that's it. Any differences you hear can be compensated for to a degree.
If you are a purest. You shouldn't really be using digital except as a modern tape deck/editor. Work that way and you'll get a bigger slightly fluffier sound.
Work digital in the box and you'll get a slightly smaller but cleaner tighter sound. Everything you use analog adds noise etc... plus you have conversions added if using a daw..
If you use Uad and do analog summing for every track it's pretty damn good. If you do it all in the daw it's still good just the instrument layering stereo spread can be different.
It will depend on what gear,daw and plug ins you use to record.. UAD to me is the most natural sounding of them all..
I also like PSP. Soundtoys, and Softube.
Chris Perra, post: 417640, member: 48232 wrote: To me this busin
Chris Perra, post: 417640, member: 48232 wrote: To me this business of they are not exactly like the real thing so don't get them is too condemning.
No 2 pieces of analog gear after being used for awhile are exactly the same either... Some aren't the same brand new.
When my preamps were being built, they are 2 channels per unit.. The builder measured and matched every part as there are differences in parts that have the same value on them.
Part makers allow for a certain tolerance plus or minus.I think you need to think.. does this make my stuff sound better?. yes or no.. and that's it. Any differences you hear can be compensated for to a degree.
If you are a purest. You shouldn't really be using digital except as a modern tape deck/editor. Work that way and you'll get a bigger slightly fluffier sound.
Work digital in the box and you'll get a slightly smaller but cleaner tighter sound. Everything you use analog adds noise etc... plus you have conversions added if using a daw..
If you use Uad and do analog summing for every track it's pretty damn good. If you do it all in the daw it's still good just the instrument layering stereo spread can be different.It will depend on what gear,daw and plug ins you use to record.. UAD to me is the most natural sounding of them all..
I also like PSP. Soundtoys, and Softube.
Although I question most of what you just said, and would enjoy discussing this with you, what does anything you said have to do with the OP?
audiokid, post: 417346, member: 1 wrote: How much money do you have invested in UAD software?
Chris Perra, post: 417610, member: 48232 wrote: I've had Uad for
Chris Perra, post: 417610, member: 48232 wrote: I've had Uad for 13 years .. At 1 time I had 4 Uad 1's.. Now I have a Quad and a Solo..
probably 5 or 6 grand all totaled.. Hard to say... some plug ins I got on sale..
I dunno Chris... I start looking at numbers like that and I begin to think about how you could have perhaps ended up with a few of the real models that you are currently using virtual plugs of... a real LA2, an 1176, or maybe even a few of the hand-made and custom built clones...like maybe an IGS or something?
I think that the main objective approach to using this stuff is as Dave has mentioned, and that is to look at them as you would any other VST or RTAS processing plug. Don't expect a virtual LA2A to sound like a real LA2A.
Beyond that, I can't comment, because I've never purchased or used any UA plugs.
but the question, fairly asked in return, is how much "non users
but the question, fairly asked in return, is how much "non users" lol... have spent on plugins in the last decade or so?
i know you guys are laughing up your sleeve at the use of "emulated" plugins when youre staring at racks of the real thing.
but you have to consider practicality. im only recently starting to record other people, up to now what use would i have had for a real 1176? so i could bus individual tracks out and back in? no, thats nonsense.
in terms of quality, i could give a crap less if this la2a plugin sounds like the real thing. the 90% i do get is enough to blow every free compressor i have ever tried on kvr. and ive tried alot, so the 79$ i spent on that la2a IS worth it. every cent.
it was especially worth it 10 years ago as processing on a dsp chip when track and plugin count brought your processor to its knees quickly. these are the tools i learned on, these are the tools i know and comfortable with.
just because i started in an all digital environment 'producing' myself doesn't mean my quest for fidelity isnt as just as yours is :)
especially when 90% of your audience is listenjng to a flipping mp3 thru ear buds...
Josh Conley, post: 417666, member: 47953 wrote: now what use wou
Josh Conley, post: 417666, member: 47953 wrote: now what use would i have had for a real 1176? so i could bus individual tracks out and back in? no, thats nonsense.
I wouldn't go and re-process all tracks, but processing the masterbus through my 4-710 (which have a flavor of the 1176) definitly did something good to the mix of Donny the other day... I guess if I had a pair of LA2A or something of that quality. I'd track through it and I might pass the whole mix through it if the musical content calls for it. But is every song in every styles needs that magic ?? maybe not
Making the most with what we've got is the modo of all home recordist !! ;)
My point wasn't to knock those using the plugs... it was more al
My point wasn't to knock those using the plugs... it was more along the lines that if you had spent 5 to 6 large on the plugs - as Chris mentioned that he had - if one were to shop carefully, one could probably have two of either of the real LA2's or 1176's, for pretty close to that figure.
;)
thats funny pc, because i was thinking -though outside the estab
thats funny pc, because i was thinking -though outside the established rule set- if i had gotten my hands on those stems, of making a second mix where i bounce each stem through my G9 first. it makes everything sound better, and sometimes cranking the input all the way makes things so much sweeter :)
I didn't spend it all at once. Also in 2001 or so is when I got
I didn't spend it all at once. Also in 2001 or so is when I got into recording. The first Uad card was around $1300 it came with all the plug ins.
which wasn't very many.. La2a, 1176, Pultec, a channel strip that could be used as the whole thing or the separate stages individually. A cool reverb called Dreamverb that had great room modeling. and Nigel a guitar emulator..
As time went on they started adding 3rd party plug ins and developing specific things for mastering ect.
At the time Waves and the TC electronic powercore were the competition. I liked UAd more than both of them.
As far as buying 1 or 2 high end pieces of gear.. At the time I didn't spend 2 or 3 grand in on shot. for a high end mic pre or compressor.
Plus I had way more than 1 use a song with the Uad. I added 3 more Uad 1 cards as time went on. Now I have a Uad 2 quad and a solo.
I currently have some custom made high end pres and a La610 signature edition. Which is great.
I dunno if you are recording drums or a whole band 1 good pre and compressor ain't gonna cut it. Your vocals or bass or guitar can sound better. But only 1 drum mic will.
Better to spend money on good mics and plug ins.
If you are recording edm with vocals or acoustic stuff one at a time. Then a high end mic/comp will be better.
It depends on what's the most important thing to you musically and your workflow.
For me mics and good plug ins made the biggest difference for the money I had.
We are also talking about the days of Pentium 4's where 1 Timeworks reverb could crash your computer on the highest setting.
This was also before freeze was invented. It didn't take long before you ran out of juice.
I don't know because I'm a uad user since day one. I got myself
I don't know because I'm a uad user since day one. I got myself the uad-1 as a 999 dollar package. Then bought some or most of the uad 1 plugins back then.
Now I upgraded to a uad-2 Apollo quad and a uad single.
Because I was to late for the conversion of the plugins I had to get a lotta stuff again for uad-2..
And now I got mostly everything but the dangerous Bax master eq und the culture culture.
Gonna get them as soon as they are lowered in pricing...
Always bought plugins just to see them with 30-50% of some months later..
Now I'm gonna wait
I think that one of the main issues with plugs - any plugs reall
I think that one of the main issues with plugs - any plugs really, but even more so with the pricey ones - is that people use more of them when they have more of them to use.
And because the UAD stuff is fairly expensive, people who buy them want to use them at every opportunity, whether they actually need to or not, because it justifies the cost. It's human nature.... I'm not saying any one person is more or less guilty than another in regard to this mindset, but when you drop serious money on something - and it could be anything - you tend to want to use it as much as you can.
After all, what would be the point in spending a grand on a plug-in collection and then letting it sit idle, right?
And because of this, many of those that do spend this kind of money on these plugs have a tendency to use them even when they might not need to, and that angles back to the discussion/debate of how many plug processors should we really be using(?) - regardless of caliber - and without regard to just what these plugs might be doing to our mixes that may in fact be detrimental.
I've cut my plug processor usage by at least 50% in the last year or so. Before then, I used to throw plugs on every single track... EQ, GR, Verb, Delay, Spatial Enhancement, Mic Simulators, yada yada yada, you name it... if I had it , I'd use it.... my mindset was that it was great that I could have all these processors at my beck and call.... unfortunately,in doing this, I was ignoring how I had originally been trained, and taught using consoles and tape and OB gear... which was, essentially, to use these OB processors only when it was called for. I forgot my own roots, and had started swamping my tracks and mixes with every processor I had available to me. Why? Because I could! I had them, so why would I not use them?
Until I began to realize that this might not be such a good idea after all, and that by using all these processors, all I was doing was smearing and muddying things up - as well as adding needless taxation to my CPU, and, adding all kinds of issues with phasing, as well as an overall kick in the balls to my mixes that left them weak-knee'd and lifeless, lacking any character or integrity or natural sense and vibe.
It turned out that I didn't really need all that stuff after all, and when I started paying more attention to what I used, where I was using it, and most importantly: why I was using it - my mixes started developing clarity body, punch and silk, and things began to sound substantially better all the way around. Bass was no longer muddy and undefined.... hi frequencies smoothed out and no longer sounded glassy or brittle, mid-range wasn't harsh. And I can point to my own ignorance, and the fact that many of these plugs end up doing a lot more harm than good.
I'm not against plug in usage on general principle, or across the board. I still use them all the time, although these days, I'm much more particular about what, where and how I'm using them, as well as if I really need to use them. And, I tend to stick with the plug ins that came stock with the DAW I'm using, and that have been coded to work with that platform, as opposed to using any third party collections. Currently, I'm using Samplitude Pro X as my production platform, so, I'm sticking with the plugs that came with Samplitude. I've yet to encounter any of the issues that I used to... and, at least of this writing, I have yet to require a particular processor that Samplitude hasn't had. So far, it gives me every tool I need.
IMHO of course. ;)
d/
When you invest in Uad stuff as it is fairly expensive in the pl
When you invest in Uad stuff as it is fairly expensive in the plug in world.. It's not the same as having a crack of this and that and just throwing everything and the kitchen sink on every track. I typically will only use a filtering eq, comp and shaping eq. Or a channel strip on most tracks.
Effect channels like reverb or delay get used as buses as opposed to each track. Things like the Studer 800 I will use on every track if I'm going for that sound..
For me Uad does a better job of handling all the issues you mention with plug in use.. There has rarely been a case that applying a Uad plug in if needed made things sound worse.
How you use it is just as important as what you use of course. I think some PSP, Softube and Sound toys are on that level as well... the SSl Duende is also nice.
I'm not a fan of Waves,... They do have some cool stuff that they designed on their own but comparing models of analog gear they emulate.. For me not as good as the others.
About 5 grand. - An Apollo Quad, UAD-2 PCI quad and Octo card. Q
About 5 grand. - An Apollo Quad, UAD-2 PCI quad and Octo card. Quite a few plugins, maybe 40. I really liked that I could have all the gear I used to use in the studios back in the last millenium. I will be interested to hear whether that, now with Sequoia, they are as good as I think... or not...
Hi Richard, Welcome to RO! Glad to hear of your move to Sequoia
Hi Richard, Welcome to RO!
Glad to hear of your move to Sequoia 13, its quite complete as is, all I need for a DAW. I'm toying with the idea to use an Apollo 16 between two DAW's for the purpose of emulating my hybrid system another way. Currently just an experiment, we shall see.
I see you are asking about two DAW, keep reading, its an evolving topic (y)
audiokid, post: 422359, member: 1 wrote: Excellent response! NO
audiokid, post: 422359, member: 1 wrote: Excellent response!
NOTE: uncoupled DAW's and ideally DAW2 has Sequoia on it.
There would seem to be two issues:
- The use of the summing box, presumably for its high headroom when summing the stems to stereo, compared to simply going stereo analog out to stereo analog in.
- The 'decoupling' of the two DAWs. This needs more expansion (dialectically speaking, not audio ;-) ). How does decoupling the two DAW's time basis improve the clarity, imaging, phase coherence etc. ? I would have thought the opposite - that being clocked by the same master would improve it, but perhaps only if the connection were digital. Given the D/A -> A/D situation, I would have thought it doesn't matter, as any implicit sync relationship would become moot and not pass with the audio.
..Also, you mention that the destination DAW should be Sequoia.
..Also, you mention that the destination DAW should be Sequoia. Can the second DAW be Samplitude (given its identical audio engine) and then simply transfer the captured audio back into Sequoia for mastering processing - or is there some specific reason why Sequoia is necessary?
The biggest thing audiokid is extolling is the separated end pat
The biggest thing audiokid is extolling is the separated end path of your 2-bus. I personally am going for using a Tascam DSD it's just about not making a return trip back into the original DAW. I am still on the fence about this. I have usually bounced down, created a new session then mastered the bounce (in same DAW, nothing else but bounce) , however, I am open to trying something recommended by someone who has far more hands on experience. And, with a lot more stuff over time than me :D.
Makzimia, post: 422384, member: 48344 wrote: The biggest thing a
Makzimia, post: 422384, member: 48344 wrote: The biggest thing audiokid is extolling is the separated end path of your 2-bus. I personally am going for using a Tascam DSD it's just about not making a return trip back into the original DAW. I am still on the fence about this. I have usually bounced down, created a new session then mastered the bounce (in same DAW, nothing else but bounce) , however, I am open to trying something recommended by someone who has far more hands on experience. And, with a lot more stuff over time than me :D.
I guess the first question is what are the reasons for going outside at all? It may be to take advantage of analog summing, and/or to use analog gear in the chain, like the Bricasti reverb. Presumably if you stay inside you are golden. The issue appears to be how to get back inside (no comments about the meaning of life please!). Once out, (I take audiokid to say) you must not go back into a system that is clocked from the same source as that from which you came, if I understand correctly.
rjuly, post: 422373, member: 48681 wrote: .Also, you mention tha
rjuly, post: 422373, member: 48681 wrote: .Also, you mention that the destination DAW should be [[url=http://[/URL]="http://pro.magix.co…"]Sequoia[/]="http://pro.magix.co…"]Sequoia[/]. Can the second DAW be Samplitude (given its identical audio engine) and then simply transfer the captured audio back into Sequoia for mastering processing - or is there some specific reason why Sequoia is necessary?
Because you have Sequoia, I would use that on DAW2, which is the mastering DAW. Samplitude Prox (with the mastering suite) would be choice too or maybe Ozone "". I choose Sequoia as a mastering program but perhaps there are other choices I'm not familiar too.
I am coming from the point of view that the ideal would be to us
I am coming from the point of view that the ideal would be to use Sequoia for both, but it is too expensive for me to afford 2 copies. I need to use Sequoia as the mix DAW, primarily for the VCA automation. Can I use Samplitude to record the stereo track onto, then copy it back over to Sequoia to do the mastering, and get the same audio quality as Sequoia?
Thanks DonnyThompson, I appreciate the suggestion, however, for
Thanks DonnyThompson, I appreciate the suggestion, however, for me it is hypothetical at this point. I have no plans to 'go outside'. It's just that if I were to look at implementing audiokid's method, I would want to know if it could be done like that - essentially; Is Samplitude the same as Sequoia for just the act of recording the 2 track audio in?
rjuly, post: 422392, member: 48681 wrote: I am coming from the p
rjuly, post: 422392, member: 48681 wrote: I am coming from the point of view that the ideal would be to use Sequoia for both, but it is too expensive for me to afford 2 copies. I need to use Sequoia as the mix DAW, primarily for the VCA automation. Can I use Samplitude to record the stereo track onto, then copy it back over to Sequoia to do the mastering, and get the same audio quality as Sequoia?
Indeed, I use Sequoia for both but Samplitude has all you need.
Without writing a long winded post
I capture to Sequoia for 2 big reasons.
- I mix into a master in one step
- I monitor off the master section which is part of the uncoupled signal path in one step.
My DAWs are connected via cat5 so I can move files between each other but this is more for other reasons which have little to do with mixing into a master. (uncoupled between twoo systems)
audiokid, post: 422398, member: 1 wrote: My DAWs are connected v
audiokid, post: 422398, member: 1 wrote: My DAWs are connected via cat5 so I can move files between each other but this is more for other reasons which have little to do with mixing into a master. (uncoupled between twoo systems)
tell us more about this. can this be done with any 2 computers? do i need any other gear ?
Zero.
Zero.