• Welcome to the General Discussion forum for UAD users!

    Please note that this forum is user-run, although we're thrilled to have so much contribution from Drew, Will, and other UA folks!

    Feel free to discuss both UAD and non-UAD related subjects!

    1) Please do not post technical issues here. Please use our UAD Support Forums instead.

    2) Please do not post complaints here. Use the Unrest Forum instead. They have no place in the the General Discussion forum.

    Threads posted in the wrong forum will be moved, so if you don't see your thread here anymore, please look in the correct forum.

    Lastly, please be respectful.

1073SE/1073 upsampling question

KaNeT

Active Member
If I understood UA right, the 1073SE is the original 1073 plugin without upsampling. So the 1073SE used in a 192kHz project should sound exactly the same and use the same amount of CPU than the 1073. My audiocard can't do 192kHz, did someone had the curiosity to verify this theory ?

It could seems to be a useless question but I will soon go from 44.1kHz to 96kHz, so if my guess about the 1073SE is right, it should sound already better (\"half as good\" as the 1073)... ;)

Thanx.
 
I guess it should sound more like three quarters as good, since most of the unpleasant artefacts are removed from the high band. :) I think I'll do a comparison at 88,1 or 96 when I'm at the studio.
 

neil wilkes

Venerated Member
You'll also find you will get fewer 1073SE instances at 96KHz, but the count on the 1073 will stay the same.
(It does here - same DSP usage at both 44.1, 48 & 96 with the 1073)
 

electro77

Venerated Member
If the 1073SE is just the 1073 without upsampling shouldn't there be a 1073SE/1073 switch on one plugin instead of having 2?
 

RWIL

Established Member
living sounds said:
We all think so, UA obviously doesn't...

electro77 said:
If the 1073SE is just the 1073 without upsampling shouldn't there be a 1073SE/1073 switch on one plugin instead of having 2?

Maybe on paper that could be a nice feature but in action?
Most of time my card is near to full, so a toggle state will only raise a dialog saying that not enough resource and fx must be disable! What I have to do in that situation? Click-disable, click-disable..., until enough cpu! Yes that is possible, but...
Who knows about how the plugin resources are disperse between the use of many cards? Maybe in that situation to try to change the status from SE to :D of a 1073 already loaded on the first card when all of the 3 cards are already full loaded is a headache or even impossible? We are not native here. Or it could be as simple that Neve don't want to have that kind of quality switching feature found on an emulation? I don't know..., but I'm sure that UA knows that could be a nice feature but they have all the good reasons not to do it.
RW
 

cAPSLOCK

Active Member
living sounds said:
We all think so, UA obviously doesn't...

electro77 said:
If the 1073SE is just the 1073 without upsampling shouldn't there be a 1073SE/1073 switch on one plugin instead of having 2?
This seems like a good idea at a glance, but I think I know why they didn't do it, besides the usual benefit of "Two plugins in ONE!!!" marketing there is also the dangers of PDC reporting.

I assume the UA plugins (at least the newer ones) are using a FIR filter to do the lowpass for the up/downsample. This is why there is slightly more latency with these plugins. (That's a convolution process technically, btw. ;)

If you all of a sudden turned it back and forth between the two version, there would be all kinds of problems with latency reporting to your host. Suddenly, while the audio engine is running your plugin no longer needs the extra 31 samples. It would cause problems with audio sync, and possibly confuse the host into a crash.

cAPS
 
UAD Bundle Month
Top