UAD going Native with Ilok

I have owned the UAD quad, since it came out. I got it to get the amazing quality of UAD plugins AND because of the huge instance-count of plug-ins with the QUAD.

A few things have changed since 2008:
-PC processor speed has grown tremendously and the power a UAD-QUAD/OCTO may take from your CPU is not worth what you pay for a QUAD/OCTO
-What once were the "same sound and quality as the hardware version" ... now, well UAD says the quality can be improved. Which means, the old version of plugiins (such as the legacy 1176 were in fact not the same as the hardware, and UAD knew it). Which means UAD will keep updating their plugins in the distant future. And this updates make the instance-count of any UAD card diminish. And therefor, my investment diminishes too.
-UAD had no competition for its quality at the time ... that has changed too.

So ... since I have a monster PC that cost me 6000 euros ... why on earth would I pay 1400 extra to get a card that would save ... peanut-processing power from my already expensive PC?

One reason why I would do that, or why I did that (although in 2008 the PC I had only cost 2500) was that UAD had no competition able to offer the same quality in plugins.
This ... has changed in years. Thank to Slate Digital ... UAD company decisions look old-fashioned. With Slate Digital I get amazing sound, all the bits and pieces of the analogue sound (which UAD has only started to implement in his updates of previous plugins mostly) for ... either the same or a fraction of UAD plugins. But the difference with Slate Digital is that I do not have to buy a 1400 UAD-QUAD, and after 3-4 years chuck it away and pay again 1400 for an UAD-OCTO. With Slate Digital I can make use of the current PC system I have. And in the future when I have to buy a new PC, more powerful than before ... I know that this money I pay for the PC, and this new processing power I get for that money will ALSO be used with SlateDigital or any other native-plugins ... but lets just concentrate in SlateDigital since their quality is just amazing.

Thanks to Slate Digital appearing in the market ... I am forced to re-think about UAD. I HAVE LOVED AND STILL LOVE UAD PLUGINS ... but ... every new plug in that comes out says to me in my ear "THIS WILL EVENTUALLY FORCE YOU TO BUY AN OCTO ... AND THEN 3XOCTO NEW CARD). You see ... this tells me I will constantly need to buy a new UAD card. Appart from paying big bucks for what ever PC I am using at that point.

So despite my love for UAD ... they look old fashion to me this days. And that has stopped me from getting any new plugin for already more than a year.

If Slate Digital (and/or any other company that in the future offers amazing quality to the level of UAD new plug-ins and Slate Digital for that matter) did not exist, and UAD was reigning the market ... then I would still feel upset for the "constant" need to pay 1400 for a new card in the future ... but I would have no alternative if I wanted the best there is.

So now, that there is an alternative ... UAD is not attractive to my wallet any more. And the quality of plugins out there is so good that I would never feel my projects sound like crap unless I use UAD.

I see no point in keep investing in plugins that would require me an extra 1400 euros every 5 years ... apart from the inevitable PC/MAC update any user has to go through.

So ... in MY case (and probably more than one person shares this view) ... either UAD moves navite (using and ilok) ... or I will not find a strong-enough reason to invest in an old-fashion way of making business (locking the user to hardware in order to use their plugins ...).

But if UAD changes to native ... then I would instantly get their new plugins (1176, LA2A ... and so on) because with my current PC ... I would be able to run lots of instances and make my investment on a PC worth more.

Forcing users to use UAD hardware made business sense at that time, and the reasons they gave us ("it will save you processing power") also made sense at the time.
But now those reasons are ridiculous and UAD competition will not stop here ...


Hope this helps.

If UAD went native I would stop buying.

Strange Leaf said:

If UAD went native I would stop buying.

Click to expand...

And why is that ? That is nonsense.

It would open their market, and iLok2 has proven to pe "piracy proof".

Having to buy an expensive card is not something I like, but as of now we have to deal with it.

kj.metissage said:

And why is that ? That is nonsense.

It would open their market, and iLok2 has proven to pe "piracy proof".

Having to buy an expensive card is not something I like, but as of now we have to deal with it.

Click to expand...

iLok is not piracy proof at all. Many people have cracked iLok plugins and will continue to do so. It is a silly system that only wastes developers money and makes paying customers suffer. After that huge iLok fiasco not too long ago and PACE's terrible handling of it, I am never buying an iLok product again. If UAD went native than they would get cracked eventually regardless of what piracy protection they used.

UAD/Apollo at least has DSP processing which has allowed me to use a Macbook Air to run sessions that I would have never thought possible on a tiny computer weighing less than 3 pounds. That doesn't seem old fashioned to me.

n1kk666 said:

iLok is not piracy proof at all. Many people have cracked iLok plugins and will continue to do so. It is a silly system that only wastes developers money and makes paying customers suffer. After that huge iLok fiasco not too long ago and PACE's terrible handling of it, I am never buying an iLok product again. If UAD went native than they would get cracked eventually regardless of what piracy protection they used.

UAD/Apollo at least has DSP processing which has allowed me to use a Macbook Air to run sessions that I would have never thought possible on a tiny computer weighing less than 3 pounds. That doesn't seem old fashioned to me.

Click to expand...

As of now and since it's been released, and it's been out long enough for crackers to test it to death, iLok2 hasn't been hacked, at all.

coquiboy, all of that just sounds as if it's the best for you to sell your UAD and go 100% native.

My experience is vice versa to yours. Using UAD cards prolonged the life cycle of my computers. Never spend more than 1000 Euros in a computer update or new build (each 2 - 3 years). In my world the computer is an extremely flexible tape machine with endless editing capabilities, UAD replaces outboard equipment I couldn't afford if I'd like to get a comfortable hardware 'instance count'.

Also I wonder what monster of a machine you built for that money. Please post your specs, I'm curious!

Ilok, UAD, PC, MAC, pre-amp, cable, even you head will fail. Nothing can stop a piece of equipment to fail. Have you ever wondered what will happen when your UAD fails? and how long it will take to fix it and get back to work?
We cannot avoid anything from failing, and then, there is also bad luck. So ilok having problems or UAD failing is part of life. But, the problems have been solved.

I also wonder what projects you do with a 1000 $/€ equimpent.

My machine:
2x Xenon X5690 @ 3.46 GHz, 24GB RAM and so on. I can throw anything at it, 250-300 tracks (70 vst-inst, 150 st-audio trks, 18 sends, inserts ...) all in real time ... when I mix and just deal with audio trks I have not reached the PC limits ... Workflow heaven.

Not interested in native UA plug-ins.
Also, the UAD business model is working for UA, why would they change it?

Better idea that doesn't involve iLok 2:

They let you source some DSP to your computer's CPU, as long as your UAD device has at least one plug-in on it, or maybe even is plugged up.

Through that, I'd never have to buy one of those USB vampires.

Strange Leaf said:

If UAD went native I would stop buying.

Click to expand...

If Avid bought Universal Audio, I would stop buying!

coquiboy said:

So ... since I have a monster PC that cost me 6000 euros ... why on earth would I pay 1400 extra to get a card that would save ... peanut-processing power from my already expensive PC?

Click to expand...

coquiboy said:

I also wonder what projects you do with a 1000 $/€ equimpent.

My machine:
2x Xenon X5690 @ 3.46 GHz

Click to expand...

€6,000 is an awful lot to invest in a computer, IMO. With some proper planning one should be able to pair an Octo and a lower-end Xeon and achieve roughly the same performance for a fraction of the overall cost. Along that same premise, the UAD system should help you prolong the usability of that system once it becomes "obsolete".

For native-only systems, to double processing power you would require an exponentially greater investment of money. With the UAD you can double your plugin processing power for much less by simply adding another card, and possibly be rewarded with some free UAD plugins for your troubles! Not so much the case for native plugins...you're on your own there!

As CPUs become more powerful there is no doubt that "native" plugin publishers will recognize that added capacity and take advantage of it. The end result is the same as with UAD or any native plugins: more demands will be placed on the processor and a diminishing number of plugins will be able to be run at any given time. Again, with the UAD it's all about the power of parallel processing, while for a computer of "yesterday" it means having to shop for a new one.

I wouldn't expect Universal Audio to change what they're doing anytime soon because it would mean having to invest more of their time porting plugins to native instead of creating new ones. I think when it comes to the plugin market, UA is heading more toward a company that builds hybrid hardware, like the Apollo, rather than primarily selling PCIe devices. This would mean that the UAD platform would exist for quite sometime despite however powerful the Intel chip becomes, because of the popularity of their outboard gear! It's kind of like a method of self-preservation for the entire UAD line!

kj.metissage said:

And why is that ? That is nonsense.

It would open their market, and iLok2 has proven to pe "piracy proof".

Having to buy an expensive card is not something I like, but as of now we have to deal with it.

Click to expand...

The plugins require the card. The chips simulate analog circuits. If UAD went DSP without the chips, they wouldn't be as good as they are. I agree. If they went native, I'd be out and looking for a refund.

I'm an Apollo user, so I love having the plugins available to me before the audio ever touches my DAW! I can use them purely for monitoring or I can record them into my DAW as if I were using real analog hardware. For this I am very grateful that the plugins run on DSP chips inside my interface.

iLok2 is safe from piracy... for now. But just like the original iLok, its time will come.

UA makes GREAT sounding plugins that are no doubt some of the best in the professional audio business. One factor that I really like is that only people who own UAD hardware can use the plugins, so a certain amount of exclusivity comes with owning a UAD product, and that is something I really enjoy.

drewwebsteraudio said:

UA makes GREAT sounding plugins that are no doubt some of the best in the professional audio business. One factor that I really like is that only people who own UAD hardware can use the plugins, so a certain amount of exclusivity comes with owning a UAD product, and that is something I really enjoy.

Click to expand...

...and don't forget the ever exclusive "Avid Hardware KoOL KiDs kLuB !!!"

Ironically UAD is quite accessible to most if bought used, unlike Avid hardware which retains value a lot better. Everyone's mileage varies when it comes to joining the "UAD Club", but I'd rather have that than always having to pay what Avid demands. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if Avid decides to have a paid PT 11.5 release within a year. It will probably be nothing more than what the original PT11 was supposed to be: A perfectly functional version of PT10 in 64-bit. I'll even guess that the upgrade price will be $299. Now there's exclusive for ya!

coquiboy said:

I also wonder what projects you do with a 1000 $/€ equimpent.

My machine:
2x Xenon X5690 @ 3.46 GHz, 24GB RAM and so on. I can throw anything at it, 250-300 tracks (70 vst-inst, 150 st-audio trks, 18 sends, inserts ...) all in real time ... when I mix and just deal with audio trks I have not reached the PC limits ... Workflow heaven.

Click to expand...

Alright, thanks for the insight. That is a monster

I live in a rock'n'roll-world more or less. Dealing with a lot of real audio and just a few VSTis from time to time. Usually 60 up to 120 audio tracks, 20 - 50 busses/sends. For that, my 1000 Euro stuff is absolutely sufficient, no significant performance problems (the few that sometimes occur have their roots in some old 32 bit plugins I still use respectively the way Cubase handles them).
I know I would have performance problems if I'd like to completely replace my UADs with native stuff of equivalent quality.

UAD2 said:

€6,000 is an awful lot to invest in a computer, IMO.

Click to expand...

Well some musicians own a 10000€ car ... and buy 250000 houses, or pay high rent to live in a nice place ... or own 2x 2500€ microphones. We all have different needs and we all decide where we want the bottle neck to get tight (our pocket, our night life, our studio furniture, our PCs ...) In my case I use 80% of the time my PC and so ... having a system like the one described serves me incredibly well and will continue to do so for 3 years more. In case of microphones ... I know they can retain some value over the years, cars wont, houses ... not now. So ... you decide I guess.

UAD2 said:

With some proper planning one should be able to pair an Octo and a lower-end Xeon and achieve roughly the same performance for a fraction of the overall cost. Along that same premise, the UAD system should help you prolong the usability of that system once it becomes "obsolete".

Click to expand...

I did not get that system to run reverbs, phasers, compressors and so on. I got it to run VST instruments and run an entire project in one file (symphony, pop-band, SFX, foley, VO, and inserts and sends). This way the work flow is as good as it gets, the versatility and options are immense and I can work much faster and produce better results. The faster you work, the more time you have for other things.

Besides that, when I am composing and need realtime/low-latency, I concentrate in that, and spend the minimum time and processing power in using inserts and sends. I use the minimum to ensure the "sound/music" is as intended. Then, when all the composing is done and I concentrate in mixing, that is when I start adding more inserts and sends. And with previous PCs I´ve had, all I had to do to increase the power of my PC (if it was running low) was to increase the latency of the card. Once I start mixing, I absolutely DO NOT require "real time/low latency" whatsoever. Same with any sound engineer, you record first, then you mix, and if you mix inside the box, you could have big latency and it wont hurt a bit! So, in my view, again, UAD save peanut power of a PC nowadays (and it does not need to be a monster). Unless you want to mix all with small latency for some ... crazy and not necessary reason.

UAD2 said:

For native-only systems, to double processing power you would require an exponentially greater investment of money. With the UAD you can double your plugin processing power for much less by simply adding another card, and possibly be rewarded with some free UAD plugins for your troubles! Not so much the case for native plugins...you're on your own there!

Click to expand...

You are only talking about doubling your processing power using reverbs, compressors and so on. The UAD will do nothing regarding VST instruments. UAD only serves UAD plugins, and those are not the only ones used in the industry as you well know.

UAD2 said:

As CPUs become more powerful there is no doubt that "native" plugin publishers will recognize that added capacity and take advantage of it. The end result is the same as with UAD or any native plugins: more demands will be placed on the processor and a diminishing number of plugins will be able to be run at any given time. Again, with the UAD it's all about the power of parallel processing, while for a computer of "yesterday" it means having to shop for a new one.

Click to expand...

I know I will always need to update PCs or any other processors ... that is inevitable. And guess what, a UAD-QUAD is not as powerful as before thanks to the new versions (this time UA swears ... again ... they cannot be improved, I guess). So the same happens ALREADY to UAD. My point was, you could handle ALL that with just one PC if you pay the price for it. The difference with using UAD is that it will be used only for UAD plugins, while a PC/MAC using native will always have ALL of its power available to you, whether for plugins, vst-instruments, audio tracks, playing games or watching 107 youtoube videos at once ... whatever. That was my initial point.

UAD2 said:

I wouldn't expect Universal Audio to change what they're doing anytime soon because it would mean having to invest more of their time porting plugins to native instead of creating new ones. I think when it comes to the plugin market, UA is heading more toward a company that builds hybrid hardware, like the Apollo, rather than primarily selling PCIe devices. This would mean that the UAD platform would exist for quite sometime despite however powerful the Intel chip becomes, because of the popularity of their outboard gear! It's kind of like a method of self-preservation for the entire UAD line!

Click to expand...

Like I said before, the competition will not stop just here. Which is absolutely great for the end-user. Regarding the Apollo, I think it is wonderful, for live-recording/gigs ... a god send. But, I don´t do live recording.

Anyway, there is on right or wrong, I know. Who ever has the means to buy amazing equipment ... do so, whoever does not, plan carefully. I HAVE to plan carefully, and that is why I was suggesting to go native, otherwise I would not have the time or inclination to suggest anything, I would simply have 4 OCTOs and continue working and making loads of money.

sfw said:

The plugins require the card. The chips simulate analog circuits. If UAD went DSP without the chips, they wouldn't be as good as they are. I agree. If they went native, I'd be out and looking for a refund.

Click to expand...

.... ufff, this is abolute nonsense. That sounds like sound engineer in the 1990 saying they would never mix with a PC ...
It always amazes me how some humans think things cannot get better/worse. They are just easy prey to marketing gimmicks. And I also guess they believe politicians when they "swear" they will/will-not do this/that.

sfw said:

The plugins require the card. The chips simulate analog circuits. If UAD went DSP without the chips, they wouldn't be as good as they are. I agree. If they went native, I'd be out and looking for a refund.

Click to expand...

Where on earth are you getting this information? There is no sound advantage to the chips at all, it is purely processing power. If they were to go native it would sound exactly the same.

I think you may have missed my point, but I wasn't addressing your case as to why someone with a "monster PC that costs 6000 euros" would bother to invest 1400 extra for a card with "peanut-processing power" for an admittedly "expensive PC", because they probably wouldn't want to. Rather, I was addressing those that don't have "6000 euros" to spend on a computer and how the UAD platform can help them achieve similar power for just a fraction of the cost when building a production machine. When you start talking about also using a computer for heavy gaming or "watching 107 youtoube videos at once", then that's really outside the scope of the comparison I'm trying to make in terms of value and power for an audio production machine. I'm strictly talking about those that use their computers almost exclusively for audio production purposes. Since you use your production machine for many other uses, you found it best to invest more in computing power, and that's probably a good decision for your case. So I'm just speaking generally about what a UAD card can do for others and not how it necessarily can help you.

coquiboy said:

So ... since I have a monster PC that cost me 6000 euros ... why on earth would I pay 1400 extra to get a card that would save ... peanut-processing power from my already expensive PC?

Click to expand...

So the simple answer to the above question is that if you've already invested that sort of monies then you wouldn't! However, for others that don't have 6000 euros to budget for a production machine, it's still more cost-effective in the long run to leverage off-board DSP power so you don't have to invest so much in top-tier CPUs that are severely overpriced. The UAD is essentially a reusable product that will play nicely with your next computer regardless of how super-fast (or slow) it is.

Like I said, with some proper planning, the UAD can help prolong the usefulness of older systems so you can invest in more powerful CPUs when they become cheaper.

When I wrote that €6000 was an awful lot to invest in a computer, I prefaced it with "IMO", because it doesn't work for me in terms of good value for each euro spent. So I'm providing a case for why the UAD platform can be a better value for most others.

I'm talking about getting the most "bang for the buck" and not arguing why or why not 6000€ is a bad decision for your case. That's for you and only you to decide. However, your argument also suggests that everyone else should follow suit and invest their cash in "monster pc's" because it happens to work well for your needs.

coquiboy said:

You are only talking about doubling your processing power using reverbs, compressors and so on. The UAD will do nothing regarding VST instruments. UAD only serves UAD plugins, and those are not the only ones used in the industry as you well know.

Click to expand...

That is exactly the reason why people should invest in the UAD, because things like "reverbs, compressors and so on" should be off-loaded from a system's CPU so that other things can be run, such as Virtual Instruments.

This is the value of the UAD! Without it, you still need to account for CPU headroom for plugins after loading up Virtual Instruments. The UAD is a savings in CPU power and money spent because you don't have to tax your CPU beyond the things that the UAD can run on its own. And again, when you find yourself wanting a new computer, you can reuse that old UAD2 card that you bought years ago!

coquiboy said:

And guess what, a UAD-QUAD is not as powerful as before thanks to the new versions (this time UA swears ... again ... they cannot be improved, I guess). So the same happens ALREADY to UAD.

Click to expand...

I've brought this up in another thread, but I think a lot of animosity over the UAD has been more on the fact that people are feeling gypped because of the new MkII plugins. All I can say to these people is that it shouldn't matter whether UA "swears" that it's now the best, but whether your ears tell you that you need it. You don't have to buy it just because someone thinks it sounds better in all cases. Frankly, I find myself going back to the MkI versions because they do work better in certain mixes. Regardless of what plugin I use I'm always doing one important thing to make my decisions: listening.

The whole purpose of using these plugins is not to highlight how great any individual plugin is; but rather, to improve the overall mix and add that something "extra" that makes it more interesting overall. I've never worked with anyone who sat there trying to figure out what sort of gear I was using in my mixes instead of listening to the final product. I also have plugin preferences, which means that I have less interest in purchasing MkII versions of the ones that I do not really care for. The Pultec is one example of a plugin that I didn't care for then or now, so I have no reason to invest money in it. I can see why others like it but it's not so much for me, and a MkII isn't going to make me want to use it. So I save a few bucks there. It's just my opinion on how I get better value out of the UAD platform and not about my view on the sonic quality of the Pultec.

If you like the plugins you have, then you don't have to upgrade them to the MkIIs. In essence, you wouldn't be making your UAD less "powerful" by going that direction either.

coquiboy said:

The difference with using UAD is that it will be used only for UAD plugins, while a PC/MAC using native will always have ALL of its power available to you, whether for plugins, vst-instruments, audio tracks, playing games or watching 107 youtoube videos at once ... whatever. That was my initial point.

Anyway, there is on right or wrong, I know. Who ever has the means to buy amazing equipment ... do so, whoever does not, plan carefully. I HAVE to plan carefully, and that is why I was suggesting to go native, otherwise I would not have the time or inclination to suggest anything, I would simply have 4 OCTOs and continue working and making loads of money.

Click to expand...

I agree with most of that when we're strictly discussing audio production machines. Obviously the UAD is only used for UAD plugins, and people should do their due diligence before making any purchase in order get the most value for their needs. If you have deep pockets then maybe going "native" is the best course of action. However, as many people complain about the investment in a UAD card, it still remains a fixed, sunk cost. Were someone to go the Waves route then they'd be dealing with WUP upgrade fees, which I hear a lot of complaints about as well. I would recommend that people take the price of a UAD card and work backwards within their budget to see if the CPU power of a system gives them what they need for their projects.

Excellent example of someone getting value from the UAD platform:

marQs said:

coquiboy, all of that just sounds as if it's the best for you to sell your UAD and go 100% native.

My experience is vice versa to yours. Using UAD cards prolonged the life cycle of my computers. Never spend more than 1000 Euros in a computer update or new build (each 2 - 3 years).

Click to expand...

Most average users probably don't need 250+ tracks or 70+ virtual instruments. But having invested heavily in computing power, I can see how going "native" works for you and your needs and why you're advocating UA to port their plugins to native. However, for some of the reasons that I outlined above, they have more reason not to.

coquiboy said:

My machine:
2x Xenon X5690 @ 3.46 GHz, 24GB RAM and so on. I can throw anything at it, 250-300 tracks (70 vst-inst, 150 st-audio trks, 18 sends, inserts ...) all in real time ... when I mix and just deal with audio trks I have not reached the PC limits ... Workflow heaven.

Click to expand...

To sum up, you've got a nice machine, I'm not arguing that. Though, I think it only fair to point out that the improvement in CPU power still doesn't make the argument against the UAD platform one-sided.

drewwebsteraudio said:

Where on earth are you getting this information? There is no sound advantage to the chips at all, it is purely processing power. If they were to go native it would sound exactly the same.

Click to expand...

Exactly.

It just have to do with fixed point versus floating point processing.