UAD 3 card?

After reading the "do you want UAD to go native" I think the biggest question is when is a UAD 3 card coming out. Just running Studer and Massive Passive EQ's on your tracks will require a Quad DSP card. The UAD 2 is no longer powerful enough to handle their newer plug ins. Now the Lexicon is coming out soon as well which I am sure will require a lot of power. I don't mind spending money on a DSP card if it can provide enough power to run enough plug ins. But to pay over $1,000 for a DSP card only only have enough power for Studer and Massive Passive on your tracks is not too impressive.

Funny, to me the biggest question is: How is it possible for people to have four UAD-2 Quad Cards and four UAD-1 cards and not be able to run anything they want on a mix!? I'm assuming everyone complaining that the cards are not enough have a maxed out 8-card system, right?

I've got 4 UAD'1s still and 2 UAD-2s and I seem to be okay, but then again, I'm not running a Fatso/Massive Passive/Studer on each channel either.

LFranco said:

Funny, to me the biggest question is: How is it possible for people to have four UAD-2 Quad Cards and four UAD-1 cards and not be able to run anything they want on a mix!? I'm assuming everyone complaining that the cards are not enough have a maxed out 8-card system, right?

I've got 4 UAD'1s still and 2 UAD-2s and I seem to be okay, but then again, I'm not running a Fatso/Massive Passive/Studer on each channel either.

Click to expand...

I think many of us are not willing to spend the cost of 4 computers for 4 UAD Quad cards for our computers when there are so many good native plug ins out there. What bothers me the most is the cost it cost for their under powered DSP cards (on their latest plug ins), especially since they cost UA so very little. Not to mention with the latest computers giving so much power, we don't need DSP cards anymore. Look at Pro Tools going Native. However if the DSP cards were updated so you could run multiple Massive Passive's and Studers for a lower price, I would not mind as much. Look what you can buy for the cost of a Quad DSP card. http://www.dell.com/us/p/xps-8300/pd?oc ... d=xps-8300

Like another guy said on a thread, if they had a UAD Solo 3 card that had the power of a Quad, and a Duo the power of 2 Quad's...at the same price, I would gladly pay for these DSP cards as I could run multiple Massive Passive's, and Studers.

This is done intensionally. Cards serve two purposes: copy protection and instance limiting. If you're a power user who needs to run more instances of those heavy plugins, then you need to buy more cards. If you could just run all the plugins you wanted on a single card then how would UA sell more cards? If you don't like it, buy native. It's that simple.

Once bitten twice shy

I'm sure there's a lot of people outhere like myself who bought a stack of UAD-1's (I bought 3) and are not prepared to do the same with UAD-2, I bought 1 Quad and now I'm not prepared to buy anymore hardware to run UAD plugins.

Oh well...
Keep on buying new dongles...
When I bought the UAD2, I thought I'd have twice the power but the plugs (new) keep eating more resources so your right BACK where you were before!
I think they should go hybrid IMHO that way they still have a dongle but your not boxed in with the hardware to run the plugs.
Give people the choice.

cane creek said:

Once bitten twice shy

I'm sure there's a lot of people outhere like myself who bought a stack of UAD-1's (I bought 3) and are not prepared to do the same with UAD-2, I bought 1 Quad and now I'm not prepared to buy anymore hardware to run UAD plugins.

Click to expand...

Exactly my point, you bascially have to pay for the price of a computer for another UAD Quad card. We don't have to do that with other native plug ins. We just buy the plug ins, not hardware cost on top of it. Now since the UAD plug ins are really good, we then accept buying hardware costs as well to use these plug ins. However when the DSP cards do not meet your power requirements and you already shelled out over $1,000 on cards, many are just not willing to pay more hardware costs. Let's face it, the economy is doing very poorly and we have to be even more careful how we spend our money. Our new computers are powerful enough to handle powerful plug ins from other software company's so we don't have to incurr more money for the additional hardware.

That is why I am saying if they either;
A. Removed Solo cards and made the Duo the price of a Solo card and the Quad the price of the Duo or,
B. Come out with a UAD 3 card where the price of the new solo card offers the power of a Duo, and Duo the power of the Quad, etc.

The one thing no one has raised issue with, is if UA's program code is actually efficient.

Is the programming code making the best use of the DSP chips? could UA actually get the DSP load down, by more carefull programming? As I am sure UA would like us to go out and buy more DSP cards all the time, so it's not necessarily their prime objective to create compact efficient code?

Before the UAD Studer, one of my favorite things to use was the Digidesign ReelTape Suite. I have a Q6600 QuadCore based DAW that I built a couple of years ago and guess what? I can't run more than 8 instances of the Saturator on this thing. I doubt that if I get an i7 (which I will be doing later this year in order to run PTLE 9, which doesn't run on XP) that I will be able to run 32+ instances of the Saturator.

Also related, the ReelTape Delay, a while back I had 4 of them in a session and wanted to crank the feedback on one of the sections and the mix and my DAW started crackling like crazy because the CPU was spiking big time!

Sorry, this idea that you can run any native plug-in and not have any CPU spikes or limits is just not realistic (at least not for me it's not). I plan on getting an i7 simply to run PTLE9 and more instances of the Slate VCC, which is another CPU hog. Somehow I doubt I'll be able to run as many instances as I want once I build my new i7 DAW. The better plug-ins do demand higher amounts of processing, no doubt about it.

fancy_terry said:

This is done intensionally. ... If you don't like it, buy native. It's that simple.

Click to expand...

and many people are.

i wouldnt be surprised if they unveiled something like this using Thunderbolt. Either a UAD3, or a more powerful UAD2, like an Ocho or something lol

Revelation said:

That is why I am saying if they either;
A. Removed Solo cards and made the Duo the price of a Solo card and the Quad the price of the Duo or,
B. Come out with a UAD 3 card where the price of the new solo card offers the power of a Duo, and Duo the power of the Quad, etc.

Click to expand...

This is a logical conclusion considering that I believe that the price for the cards are simply too much. The Sharc chips that are being used in the UAD2 card are around $20 each when bought in quantity. Which means $80 for a quad. When adding in the cost of the board, packaging and advertising we're talking around $200. Buying one Quad at $1499 was difficult enough but buying more to host more dsp-intensive plug-ins to run on a normal sized mix is simply not going to happen for many people.

LFranco said:

Before the UAD Studer, one of my favorite things to use was the Digidesign ReelTape Suite. I have a Q6600 QuadCore based DAW that I built a couple of years ago and guess what? I can't run more than 8 instances of the Saturator on this thing. I doubt that if I get an i7 (which I will be doing later this year in order to run PTLE 9, which doesn't run on XP) that I will be able to run 32+ instances of the Saturator.

Also related, the ReelTape Delay, a while back I had 4 of them in a session and wanted to crank the feedback on one of the sections and the mix and my DAW started crackling like crazy because the CPU was spiking big time!

Sorry, this idea that you can run any native plug-in and not have any CPU spikes or limits is just not realistic (at least not for me it's not). I plan on getting an i7 simply to run PTLE9 and more instances of the Slate VCC, which is another CPU hog. Somehow I doubt I'll be able to run as many instances as I want once I build my new i7 DAW. The better plug-ins do demand higher amounts of processing, no doubt about it.

Click to expand...

This is very true. If people think all native plug ins are low DSP they are having a laugh. Once a native plug ins gets upsampled, which many recent ones do, the CPU usage can go up quite considerably. Something like SoundToys Decapitator has a very noticeable effect on my PC cpu, which is very good spec.

You may be able to tons and tons of older plug ins native, but this is also true of many of the UAD plug ins, which use very little CPU at all. It's only the more recent plug ins that are really CPU intensive.

Personally I love having the DSP available for the UAD plug ins, even if I do find that I am now running out on some mixes and have no intention of buying a second quad...

Off topic, but: I'm always surprised that I see calls for a more powerful UAD, but not similar calls to DAW manufacturers for functionality like the ill fated Cubase VST system link to seamlessly offload plug in load to a second PC...


.

More powerful and less expensive - its got to be that. Because based on UA's current pricing, here's what I came up with:

UAD-3 $2998
UAD-3 Flexi $3298 with $500 voucher
UAD-3 Omni $5998 with all plugs and the kitchen sink

... hypothetically speaking of course. But the thing is that even two Quads (or one 8-core UAD3 hypothetically) would still be pressed to do an entire mix if Studer A800 is used on every channel. The Sharc chips employed in current cards are $20 each if bought in bulk, $80 for a Quad - even with labor, chip boards, packaging and advertising, around $200? Meaning around $400 cost for UAD3 8-core cards? They must make money to survive - got that - but man. Its become so expensive (as much as a computer each) and the cards so underpowered (for what they need to do) that I wonder about the long-term practicality of it.

LFranco said:

Funny, to me the biggest question is: How is it possible for people to have four UAD-2 Quad Cards and four UAD-1 cards and not be able to run anything they want on a mix!? I'm assuming everyone complaining that the cards are not enough have a maxed out 8-card system, right?

I've got 4 UAD'1s still and 2 UAD-2s and I seem to be okay, but then again, I'm not running a Fatso/Massive Passive/Studer on each channel either.

Click to expand...

Simple. People are over-producing and over-engineering. Simple as that.

The same reason that someone would record a singer on a song. Use compression on the singer when they record. Then compress the vocal again, (albeit with a different flavor, but compression none the same) after they track the vocal. Then go to the record plant and comopress it again on an SSL console during mixdown . . . trying go get that analog feel, but throw the compression on anyway.

I have seen tracks come to me with 5-6 plugins on every track of a 30 track 8 bus mix. I think the final plugin count was 207 including the busses. To me that makes absolutely no sense at all. Then the client wonders why their mixes sound squashed and the stereo imaging is gone. Yes, people are trying to run a Fatso/Massive Passive/Studer on every track. And they want totall recall. They DO NOT want to freeze tracks. Then they complain they don't have enough power because they can not strap a massive passive on everytrack (even though the EQ was not made for that purpose). Thank goodness though, at least I can remove some of the mess before I can mix it down.

It's the I can because I can mentallity, my computer can handle it so why not. Add to that the lack of education out there about audio engineering. Not just some kids on youtube or in forums, but real professionals educating future engineers/producers. So you see a lot of poor production techniques, and crazy things being done. I always get the arguement that "well the only rules in music is that there are no rules." And that is true. But if it sounds bad, then why did you break the rule?

Okay I am now down off my soapbox. Buy your Fatso/Massive Passive/Studer scenario hit the nail on the head.

bysbox001 said:

Simple. People are over-producing and over-engineering. Simple as that...

Click to expand...

Plus everything else you wrote, thumbs up!

LFranco said:

bysbox001 said:

Simple. People are over-producing and over-engineering. Simple as that...

Click to expand...

Plus everything else you wrote, thumbs up!

Click to expand...

Agreed. Good post.

I did not mean to get preachy, but that's the reality of it all. And the sad part about it is sometimes these people think their squashed/slammed out mixes sound great.

bysbox001 said:

I have seen tracks come to me with 5-6 plugins on every track of a 30 track 8 bus mix. I think the final plugin count was 207 including the busses. To me that makes absolutely no sense at all. Then the client wonders why their mixes sound squashed and the stereo imaging is gone. Yes, people are trying to run a Fatso/Massive Passive/Studer on every track. And they want totall recall. They DO NOT want to freeze tracks. Then they complain they don't have enough power because they can not strap a massive passive on everytrack (even though the EQ was not made for that purpose). Thank goodness though, at least I can remove some of the mess before I can mix it down.

Click to expand...

I agree with you and I'm sure many people overdo it, but would say two things:

Sometimes lots of plug ins on a track, if it's a key element can easily be warranted. Two slightly different comps e.g. LA2A and LA3A, an eq for niceness and another more functional eq for cutting (or pre and post compression), one or two effects like distortion, chorus, a low pass filter, a delay... That fills my eight slots in a cubase channel quite easily, though I'd only do this in some cases.
**I have had occasion to route to a group channel to use more fx on one track, and still felt all plugs were justified (though with more fx) - but I've also set up multiple plugs, improving the sound with each plug in, and then gone back and bypassed earlier plugs in the chain and not noticed any discernible effect!

I have a QUAD and I have been loving a Massive Passive on main buss, and often on another bus or two, a FATSO in parallel for my drums, and sometimes in parallel for main buss. This ends up taking quite an amount of DSP, sometimes tipping a project over the brink in terms of UAD CPU. Of course I can get close with pultecs or Precision Maximisers instead of these, but there is a bit of a compromise there that I sometimes struggle with. If it's a track with an MP (somtimes) or FATSO (less often), then I can bounce and free up DSP - but I am less inclined to want to bounce down a group, simply because it would take too much time to go back and redo it further down the line.

.

Leras said:

bysbox001 said:

I have seen tracks come to me with 5-6 plugins on every track of a 30 track 8 bus mix. I think the final plugin count was 207 including the busses. To me that makes absolutely no sense at all. Then the client wonders why their mixes sound squashed and the stereo imaging is gone. Yes, people are trying to run a Fatso/Massive Passive/Studer on every track. And they want totall recall. They DO NOT want to freeze tracks. Then they complain they don't have enough power because they can not strap a massive passive on everytrack (even though the EQ was not made for that purpose). Thank goodness though, at least I can remove some of the mess before I can mix it down.

Click to expand...

I agree with you and I'm sure many people overdo it, but would say two things:

Sometimes lots of plug ins on a track, if it's a key element can easily be warranted. Two slightly different comps e.g. LA2A and LA3A, an eq for niceness and another more functional eq for cutting (or pre and post compression), one or two effects like distortion, chorus, a low pass filter, a delay... That fills my eight slots in a cubase channel quite easily, though I'd only do this in some cases.
**I have had occasion to route to a group channel to use more fx on one track, and still felt all plugs were justified (though with more fx) - but I've also set up multiple plugs, improving the sound with each plug in, and then gone back and bypassed earlier plugs in the chain and not noticed any discernible effect!

I have a QUAD and I have been loving a Massive Passive on main buss, and often on another bus or two, a FATSO in parallel for my drums, and sometimes in parallel for main buss. This ends up taking quite an amount of DSP, sometimes tipping a project over the brink in terms of UAD CPU. Of course I can get close with pultecs or Precision Maximisers instead of these, but there is a bit of a compromise there that I sometimes struggle with. If it's a track with an MP (somtimes) or FATSO (less often), then I can bounce and free up DSP - but I am less inclined to want to bounce down a group, simply because it would take too much time to go back and redo it further down the line.

.

Click to expand...

Depends on how you're using that processing too. If you are using a 5 band EQ, are you using 2 bands and disabling the rest? Are you using a comp without compression to get the transformer vibe from the Comp? That's a bit different. But if you are actually hammering all those comps and eq's I think that's overkill. When I write, If I have to use 2 compressors and 2 eq's to make a part sound right, then I feel I don't have the right part for that mix.

It also depends on sampling. Some of the sampling sets are so overproduced that you feel like you have to use the processing to get your sound.

I've been doing a lot more sound design lately, creating the source from scratch. That way I am not bound to the sample or the processing of the sample. I can shape as I want and more than likely I use less processing.

As far as busses, I have never used more than 3 Massive Passives/Fatso's in a Mix yet or felt the need to anyway. I never use the fatso on the main bus or really any ITB processing. I got a summing mixer last year and it's really helped in that department. I run outboard off the summing mixer so I my mixes ITB are pretty lean, even with the 3 UA cards.