• Hi there, Wants & Wishes are better served in the General Discussion forum for better visibility, so we're retiring this subforum. All posts will be migrated to General Discussion!

Alphabetical organization in the plugin list of the UAD Control Panel

Jcalla

Member
I really wish UA would implement a feature to organize the plugins in the Control Panel app, as trying to find a certain plugin in the list can easily become tedious.

I realize they're sorted in the order UA released them, but that's not helpful at all...

I tried clicking on the "Plug-in" and "Status" headers to see if that would change anything but it didn't. The headers are actually non-clickable if you're not on top the list as you'd get a message asking if you want to demo the plugin if you click on the "Status" header after having scrolled down.

I'd say adding the option to stack them alphabetically is really needed.
 

Paquito

Member
Yes! That would be really helpful. Good Idea!
 

TheHopiWay

Active Member
I came here to post that same request. How is having it listed chronologically by release date helpful?
 

Gerk

Venerated Member
I'll add a +1 to this request as well.
 

rodd

Hall of Fame Member
some people might like seeing things by release date, for example if you owned a lot of plugins maybe you would want to see the new ones at the top. But I agree, for most people it's probably more useful to sort by name. Better yet, why not create a release date column, then make it sortable by clicking on the appropriate column name.
 

rodd

Hall of Fame Member
It’s alphabetical in your console settings.
you're right of course! but then if I want to demo it I either have to do it from control panel, or I guess just insert it and demo it from the plugin interface. it's not a big deal, just a minor annoyance. I am not sure why the plugin list even exists in control panel actually, it seems if they moved the "authorize plugins" and "start demo" buttons to console it could just be removed. I usually hide everything I don't own, so putting it all in one place makes sense to me, which of course means it should make sense to everyone ;)
 

Jcalla

Member
It’s alphabetical in your console settings.
Thanks for the tip, but as someone who doesn't use console, I consider it a useless extra step to open it and browse an app I just don't like. A console within a console within a DAW? No thank you. Annoying to say the least. I'm also not a fan of using plugins while tracking (apart from amp sims) so that explains my stance on the console app, I suppose. The control panel is simpler and doesn't get in the way of my creative thinking. Since the list itself within the control panel already exists, there's really no reason to not implement an alphabetical mode of sorting the plugins.
 

Kcatthedog

Hall of Fame Member
All good, as we all develop our own workflows, but not certain what you mean by useless as the whole point of console is to allow low latency monitoring while tracking, yes with UA plugs, but if you don't use ua plugs while tracking, then you don't need console or frankly apollo interface ? :)

Not certain but you don't mention luna either, so if one buys into apollo for the UA recording universe, then the console ap does add value, but, as you point out if you are track gin with UA plugs ?

The other major benefit of console is using its vi channels to route other music into console say for monitoring your mix while tracking or overdubbing; works great, but if you only record in your daw and never use ua plugs, while tracking, you'd be monitoring from your daw at whatever its latency is?

I don't track much with ua plugs, like my OB going in, but I do like the convenience of a UA comfort reverb, which is very easy to set up in console.

Its certainly interesting, the way we all, create our own recording workflows !
 

Kcatthedog

Hall of Fame Member
choice

All good, as we all develop our own workflows, but not certain what you mean by useless as the whole point of console is to allow low latency monitoring while tracking, yes with UA plugs, but if you don't use ua plugs while tracking, then you don't need console or frankly apollo interface ? :)

Not certain but you don't mention luna either, so if one buys into apollo for the UA recording universe, then the console ap does add value, but, as you point out if you are track gin with UA plugs ?

The other major benefit of console is using its vi channels to route other music into console say for monitoring your mix while tracking or overdubbing; works great, but if you only record in your daw and never use ua plugs, while tracking, you'd be monitoring from your daw at whatever its latency is?

I don't track much with ua plugs, like my OB going in, but I do like the convenience of a UA comfort reverb, which is very easy to set up in console.

Its certainly interesting, the way we all, create our own recording workflows !

ps how is logic with the new m1: screaming: pretty close to pulling the trigger and what monitor are you using ? ?
 

Jcalla

Member
All good, as we all develop our own workflows, but not certain what you mean by useless as the whole point of console is to allow low latency monitoring while tracking, yes with UA plugs, but if you don't use ua plugs while tracking, then you don't need console or frankly apollo interface ? :)

Not certain but you don't mention luna either, so if one buys into apollo for the UA recording universe, then the console ap does add value, but, as you point out if you are track gin with UA plugs ?

The other major benefit of console is using its vi channels to route other music into console say for monitoring your mix while tracking or overdubbing; works great, but if you only record in your daw and never use ua plugs, while tracking, you'd be monitoring from your daw at whatever its latency is?

I don't track much with ua plugs, like my OB going in, but I do like the convenience of a UA comfort reverb, which is very easy to set up in console.

Its certainly interesting, the way we all, create our own recording workflows !
Regarding the useless extra step, I meant having to think about and then open and browse console, which I don't enjoy using as an app (consider it a visual and way-of-thought) stimulus that hinders my thinking, much like using a DAW I don't like just because I find it counterintuitive, and I've tried almost all of the major ones. I stuck with Pro Tools because it just works for me and anything new I learn within it makes immediate sense, even though Avid is a nightmare. Same can be said about just opening up and using console. It doesn't click with me. Although as you pointed out, it does have its benefits and reasons of existence, which I never denied.

That being said, my workflow is very simple. Plug and play within the DAW. Edit and add effects later. Considering I have a powerful system for my personal needs, I can always track at low latency. I sometimes even mix at low latency just because I can.

"The other major benefit of console is using its vi channels to route other music into console say for monitoring your mix while tracking or overdubbing; works great"

I might actually see myself doing that, that might give me a reason to use console. But for now, I've never had the need.

I use Universal Audio products for 3 reasons:

1- They sound great.
2- They are always updated, plugins and drivers, so peace of mind regarding longevity.
3- The hardware are built like tanks and the plugins are stable (excluding the random noise bursts like in the Pultec which nearly took my hearing in 2017 and then in the RMX16 which thankfully I wasn't a victim of because I don't use console).

Console is by far and wide the thing I care about the least in my setup. If I could uninstall it like I do with the Avid bloatware that is automatically installed with Pro Tools without breaking the software, I'd do it.

It has its purpose. I just don't need it.

I'm not a fan of Luna because of three reasons:

1- the need to have an Apollo connected and turned on even if all you want to do is recall a session with the UA plugins disabled. Maybe to test a 3rd party plugin within that session or to just check something out.

2- The auto-save feature is a fantastic idea that is implemented in the absolute worst manner possible because of the "versions" or whatever they're called. The idea itself is good, but I can't seem to make it work "normally" as in "logically". It operates in a manner that I consider completely illogical which is to always create new versions instead of a new project altogether when using save-as, and keeps the original name. That's a recipe for utter confusion when recalling test sessions, since how would you remember which Project had that version within it without first opening it?

3- the biggest one: If my Apollo dies, I won't be able to access my sessions. A 50$ dongle is one thing, a 1200$ dongle is another. And while this is true for the UA plugins I would have used in a DAW, I would still have complete and unhindered access to said session if my UA plugins stop working, unlike with Luna.

That being said, I bought the Neve and API summing extensions because they're awesome. Yes, it's a bit of a hindrance to use them if you use another DAW, but it's not the end of the world, considering one might leave it as a last minute thing like adding dither before bouncing. And yes, it would be nice to mix directly into these summing extensions, but I'm not going to switch over to using Luna as a primary DAW (or recording system, sorry UA) just for that reason alone.

It also shows a ridiculous form of grandeur on the part of UA. They already implemented iLok dongle and cloud protection to use Luna and its extensions and that's completely fine, but if they think Luna is more important than any other DAW on the market and thus is in need of DOUBLE protection against theft INCLUDING TWO of the most aggravating forms of protection on the market when the two biggest DAWs on the market use only one (Pro Tools and Cubase, iLok cloud or dongle)... Well then they're just delusional. They could simply disable the use of extensions until you plug in an Apollo and that would be understandable for protecting the extensions. But for Luna itself? That's just completely delusional on their part, I'm afraid.

I'm not here to tell the people that use console that they're doing something wrong. Far from it. Their workflows are most likely far more advanced than mine. But if I have the ability to completely and utterly remove console from my system and never have to look at or deal with it again, I'd do it in a heartbeat, until I'm in grave need of those VI channels.

Regarding the M1 Mac mini. First of all, if you plan on doing a clean install be VERY WARY, it has become a nightmare, and I've been doing clean installs of Macs for nearly 10 years (I never upgrade my os, and rarely have the issues most people complain about).

I haven't tested Logic extensively yet. I've spent more time in Pro Tools testing out my older sessions, nothing new yet, but generally speaking, it works great. It's much better to run Logic under Rosetta 2 (Intel) until all the plugins you use have been ported to Silicon, as running Logic in Silicon and mixing and matching Intel and Silicon plugins has created some issues with some people.

I've noticed there's a bit of a delay of a few seconds when the Apollo is trying to connect. I'm not sure if that's because I had to daisy-chain it into my Satellite to free up one of the Thunderbolt 3 ports or if it's just because it isn't optimized for Silicon yet. Still it's not a huge issue and it works fine for now.

I'm using a Phillips 24 inch 1080p monitor. Nothing fancy although I'd love to switch to 4K. But when I got the Mac mini I hooked it up to my Samsung 43-inch 4K tv because I wanted to update it over ethernet and the router is behind my tv, and it handled it great. Based on what Apple said, it can easily handle more. Graphics are the least of your problems with the M1 Macs that's for sure.

Oh, and 32 and even 16 sample buffering without a hiccup too. Yeah you read that right. That's where the optimization is showing. It's not super duper crazy fast, but it's well optimized. People claim that apps launch faster. I haven't found THAT big of a difference in these small things (and I absolutely hate software that lags, so I should notice such things) but you will find a difference in sample buffering, track count, plugin count, GPU intensive things if that's something you do. And don't forget, this is all still under Rosetta 2. We can't really judge Logic's performance using its native plugins, that's kind of cheating as they're all developed by Apple. We have to wait for a moderately or heavily cpu intensive plugin to be ported to Silicon to run meaningful tests within Logic.

All in all, considering the price, I don't think it's a bad idea at all to invest in one (the only downside is the 2 Thunderbolt 3 ports instead of 4 ports like on the Intel Mac mini). Or you could always wait for the semi-pro models that will come out in 2021, but you never know what issues they will bring, if any, considering they will most likely be using different hardware, hence the wait.

Bounce times in Pro Tools are pretty decent, which means they should also be great in Logic. I'll do some tests in the very near future in Logic (both under Silicon mixed with Intel and Intel) and I'll update this post to let you know my findings.
 

Kcatthedog

Hall of Fame Member
Thx, ya, I still just fool around in Luna, export stuff from logic. I just know logic so well and work very efficiently , that learning any new daw just isn't very appealing to me. I have pro tools adn studio one as well.

I think I could live with the m1 mini and suspect the new mbp 16 inch, will be a lot more expensive, for in my case , not much added value; still mulling it over.

thx for the thoughtful response.

all the best in 21 !
 

Jcalla

Member
Thx, ya, I still just fool around in Luna, export stuff from logic. I just know logic so well and work very efficiently , that learning any new daw just isn't very appealing to me. I have pro tools adn studio one as well.

I think I could live with the m1 mini and suspect the new mbp 16 inch, will be a lot more expensive, for in my case , not much added value; still mulling it over.

thx for the thoughtful response.

all the best in 21 !
If you need more Thunderbolt 3 ports it might be worth it, but you'd have no built-in USB A ports which thankfully the Mac mini still has. Also consider if your screen will require Thunderbolt or HDMI! As that might REALLY complicate things for you. A huge advantage with laptops, considering the display is always connected and doesn't use up any ports.

No problem! I might post an update later today regarding Logic. Happy to do it! I'll also compare it to my 2019 16-inch 8-Core i9 MacBook Pro (which blew away my 2013 6-Core 3.5 GHz Mac Pro btw).

I suspect it would be more appropriate to create a separate thread and post my findings there. I'll post here when I do it so you can check it out.

All the best to you, too! Have a good one!
 

Kcatthedog

Hall of Fame Member
ya, 2 tb3 and the hdmi is really all I need. But I have been reading about the new OWC tb3/usb4 doc. I have older eyes :), so have been thinking about a 4 k monitor.
 

Jcalla

Member
ya, 2 tb3 and the hdmi is really all I need. But I have been reading about the new OWC tb3/usb4 doc. I have older eyes :), so have been thinking about a 4 k monitor.
OWC makes excellent products but I can't comment on docks as I have no experience with them, other than not all products work correctly when used with extensions. Regarding the 4K monitor, higher resolutions on same size monitors means smaller details, which I'm guessing is the opposite of what you're looking for?

In fact, I had to lower the resolution of my 2019 MacBook Pro to make it bearable, and I have normal eyesight. It came with the 4th highest resolution out of 5 as default (1792x1120), less than 2K and I still found it straining my eyes, so I lowered it one step to the 3rd and middle position, where everything is almost the same size-wise as my non-retina 2012 MacBook Pro (1536x940 vs 1440x900).

If you get a 4K monitor, I guarantee you're going to have to decrease the resolution. But if it's something similar to a retina screen, then the image will still look better than a 1080p screen. So you'd benefit from the technology of the screen instead of the resolution, as long as that's what you're actually paying for, and not just a 1080p x 4 screen.

In my opinion, I think the best solution for you would be to wait for the new iMacs. They have great screens and they'll have a Silicon chip.
 
Last edited:

Jcalla

Member
ya, 2 tb3 and the hdmi is really all I need. But I have been reading about the new OWC tb3/usb4 doc. I have older eyes :), so have been thinking about a 4 k monitor.
So I did a quick test and here's what I found using the FabFilter Pro-L2 as it's already been ported to Silicon and has up to 32x oversampling which is great for this test. Here are the results with one instance on each track.

M1 Mac mini (Rosetta 2):

12 tracks at 32x
24 tracks at 16x
46 (less than double) at 8x

M1 Mac mini (Silicon):

18 tracks at 32x (150% vs Rosetta 2, 163% vs 8-Core i9 MacBook Pro)
36 tracks at 16x (150% vs Rosetta 2, 171% vs 8-Core i9 MacBook Pro)
63 tracks at 8x (136% vs Rosetta 2, less than double, 140% vs 8-Core i9 MacBook Pro)

16-inch 2.3 GHz 8-Core i9 MacBook Pro 2019:

11 tracks (1 less vs Rosetta 2) at 32x
21 tracks (3 less vs Rosetta 2) at 16x
45 tracks (1 less vs Rosetta 2) at 8x BUT a 214% increase over 16x whereas the M1 Mac had 191% increase at 8x vs 16x (200% would have been double, but it only ran 46 tracks instead of forty-eight).

Theoretically speaking, we should get about 85 tracks at 4x on the M1 Mac mini (Rosetta 2), about 120 tracks on the M1 Mac mini (Silicon), and 80-90 tracks on the MacBook Pro.

I didn't want to create a separate thread because I didn't want people asking me to randomly test out plugins. I did this test as a geekbench test for audio with meaningful results, not random scores.

For the money, I think it's very good, but not fantastic, considering I got 4 Thunderbolt 3 ports instead of 2, a hi-res retina display that doesn't require a separate connection, excellent speakers, a giant trackpad, a backlit keyboard, touch bar and Touch ID, a long-lasting battery, and 1 TB of storage compared to 512 GB, not to mention higher stability since Intel is the norm (Logic still crashed under Silicon when running Silicon plugins). I'd say I got exactly what I payed for in both cases, but I certainly wouldn't run out and sell my MacBook Pro for the M1. If I had to choose, I'd stick with the MacBook Pro and Intel in general until the Silicon Macs get updated and enhanced further.

Hope this small test helps you choose :)
 
Last edited:
UAD Bundle Month
Top