Skip to main content

New UAD plugs at NAMM - LA-2A M2 and more

So far, nothing that exciting for most people from the http://www.uaudio.c…"]Universal Audio booth at NAMM.[/]="http://www.uaudio.c…"]Universal Audio booth at NAMM.[/] But they have introduced the plugin that I've personally been waiting for - the Mark 2 version of the LA-2A . Their old version of the plug is one of my favorites, but it was developed 10 years ago, and it's not as good as some of their more recent plugs. Last year they introduced a Mark 2 version of their 1176 which was a definite improvement over their original emulation. If the LA-2A shows as much improvement it's an immediate buy for me. (I use a half dozen instances of the old plug on most songs.)


RemyRAD Tue, 01/29/2013 - 08:55
Bob what were the real audible differences you've heard? Cleaner brighter? More responsive? The way it does its thing? I guess just better algorithms? Which would certainly be more highly refined than 10 years ago. I guess? So just smoother? What? Just more like the real thing if one can make that kind of comparison? I mean there is a bunch of different sounding 1176's out there that were made. And they're probably trying to emulate the most popular ones of that variety. So maybe one of the 1176 emulations was more like their transformer less later 1176's? Compared to their older blackface versions? You know? And so what would the improvement be of the LA-2? There was only one version of that. So their earlier emulation was sucko? I'm still using the Bomb Factory 1176 that came with my ProTools 7.0 LOL. And I rather like it. So this is just that much different? Cool.

Simulations are good if they're good. What's perfection?
Mx. Remy Ann David

gdoubleyou Wed, 01/30/2013 - 15:51
Remy, in my opinion because UA has a rich history making analog hardware they do a more detailed analysis than the software only shops.
They have a better understanding about how circuits react.

They also have access to the original circuit designs, and the designers.

Scroll down to the Massive Passive vid for a better understanding of the process UA uses.
[[url=http://[/URL]="…"]Manley Massive Passive EQ Powered Plug-in Trailer for UAD-2 - YouTube[/]="…"]Manley Massive Passive EQ Powered Plug-in Trailer for UAD-2 - YouTube[/]

RemyRAD Wed, 01/30/2013 - 17:50
Well, that was interesting. It really doesn't say anything though. They really didn't mention their algorithms in this marketing video. So while the look and the features may appear to be the same, has anybody really compared this to a Manly Massive Passive? Or just from a YouTube video?

And what's with Eva Anna? Remember their ads in the magazine, early on? How the heck did she get into that tight leather pants and jacket? Can you say Photoshop? I mean she looks like she has gained 100 pounds? Not 10 or 20 like video does. Maybe she's been a little too successful and has spent too much time at the Chinese Trough a.k.a. buffet? Or maybe that's why David married her to begin with? And now she looks like this. I mean that was one good looking broad and those magazine advertisements for her products. Body double? Yeah... about double the size.

I'm 57 and I've kept the weight off. Probably because I don't make any highly costly audio products?
Mx. Remy Ann David

BobRogers Wed, 01/30/2013 - 18:11
Remy -

Compared to the original UAD plugin, the new 1176 plugins sounded smoother, less grainy to me. The distortion in the more aggressive settings was more like an analog unit - smoother, less abrupt. They had three different units they modeled, and I generally like the anniversary edition best of the three.

As far as comparison with the hardware, I have done the following completely objective test.

Hardware 1176 - $1,999 per unit
UAD 1176 plugin - $150, three versions, as many instances as you have DSP for.

Hardware Manley Massive Passive - $5,0000 per unit (slightly more for the mastering unit.)
UAD Massive Passive plugin - $299, as many instances as you have DSP for.

The Manley sounds good compared to other plugins..doesn't really make much sense to me to compare it to the hardware.

RemyRAD Thu, 01/31/2013 - 14:20
Right Bob and that's what I am implying here. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it must be an 1176. LA-2 A or anything else. We live in a visual world after all. And if it looks right, you'll hear what you're looking at. It's called the power of suggestion or the placebo effect. But I do indeed respected value your observations in what you perceived to be accurate. You have to be accurate, you're a math professor. Right? And I flunked math miserably.

Every little tweak that's made is obviously audible. The same as it would be on the analog hardware. Change the attack or release times ever so slightly and you get audible differences in everything that we do. That doesn't necessarily mean that their algorithms have been changed or improved? But perhaps that's exactly what it means? I don't do any computer programming nor do I have that knowledge base. I just realize how disingenuous so much of this digital software folderol frequently is. And why I am generally a skeptic. Change the rolloff of the brick wall DB per octave Nyquist filter slightly and you get an audible difference. So it's really hard to determine what exactly is going on behind the nice GUI cartoon graphic on the screen. And why I also know that their EMT plait emulation really isn't. But unless you have one, had one, used one, everybody thinks it sounds like a plate and it doesn't. Because really, no one's doing any direct comparisons. And our computers are not up to the task of that kind of nearly infinite density of that plate. But we still have to have something that comes close and I guess that's it? And who can't justify the those cost differentials? It only makes practical digital PCM sense.

The only thing I've heard in recent years that has actually excited me was DSD.
Mx. Remy Ann David


Your recently read content