AMS Neve DMX 15 80S Delay - Q&A with Will Shanks
- Thread starter Matt Hepworth
- Start date
I agree. Incredible insight!
Ah, the DMX - for me it’s the sound of it. There something about the combination of the digital processing and the analog circuitry that makes for a very characteristic tone. The AMS RMX has that same sonic signature.
Used in almost every one of hundreds of sessions I assisted and ultimately engineered, in the eighties and early nineties - almost always as a vocal thickener, sometimes for bass chorus , flying vocals, or sampled snare replacement. The other option - H3000 - while a great box in it’s own right, doesn’t sound the same (more sterile, which sometimes works better).
A true studio mainstay. Seen in every (professional) studio rack I ever went to - usually just above or beneath the AMS RMX. I have been waiting for this since I started with UAD in 2012.
Kudos to to UA and AMS.
- Richard
Last edited:
Will, fantastic info!
sirthought
Established Member
I just watched the hour-long YouTube covering this plugin. It offers all the sounds I've wondered how were achieved over many albums of my youth. And the plugin-only features are really forward thinking, as the original box is a challenge to master.
Honestly, UAD sat on this one too long, because I can pretty much get everything this does with Sound Toys suite of effects AND you can buy the whole suite of 21 plugins for less than the one UAD plugin.
They were working hard not to use the word shimmer in the video, although Ben did slip it in there once. But many of those sounds can be created with the Crystalizer, or even easier with Valhalla's Shimmer or the free SuperMassive. Plus with those, you don't need the addition of the 224.
Man, when I was researching how Eno and Lanois created the shimmer effects for U2 and Peter Gabriel I was really wishing UAD had that original combination. I even attempted trying the Korg delay with no satisfaction. Had UAD released this only about seven years ago they would have likely avoided competition from all these other companies making all these spaced-out effects.
I really want to own this thing, but considering the price and that I own the other stuff, I'm wondering what's not already covered and if it's worth the investment?
I have not demo'd it yet because after loading 9.15 my UAD plugins are no longer working on my new MBP, but I'm working on fixing that.
Honestly, UAD sat on this one too long, because I can pretty much get everything this does with Sound Toys suite of effects AND you can buy the whole suite of 21 plugins for less than the one UAD plugin.
They were working hard not to use the word shimmer in the video, although Ben did slip it in there once. But many of those sounds can be created with the Crystalizer, or even easier with Valhalla's Shimmer or the free SuperMassive. Plus with those, you don't need the addition of the 224.
Man, when I was researching how Eno and Lanois created the shimmer effects for U2 and Peter Gabriel I was really wishing UAD had that original combination. I even attempted trying the Korg delay with no satisfaction. Had UAD released this only about seven years ago they would have likely avoided competition from all these other companies making all these spaced-out effects.
I really want to own this thing, but considering the price and that I own the other stuff, I'm wondering what's not already covered and if it's worth the investment?
I have not demo'd it yet because after loading 9.15 my UAD plugins are no longer working on my new MBP, but I'm working on fixing that.
Get the current 3+1 bundle with the additional promo discount and you're away! 4 plugs for almost the price of just the DMX
Mengelking
Established Member
Another use case that makes it worth purchasing is low latency tracking / ARM mode for LUNA users. I have valhalla shimmer, but I won’t track with it on guitar since it’s native. Maybe you don’t need it for tracking, in which case your reason to pass on it makes sense.
For me, the GUI is still on the small side. The resolution is good; but I still find myself leaning in to look at it.
The big thing missing for me is a "wet solo" lock; so I can step through programs when setup on a send.
Sonically, I love it. I grew up using this and the RMX-16, so it feels very familiar. None of the vast array of other cool delay plug-ins sound like this. I don't know why... I've tried so many different pitch and delay plug-in combos to get that sound, but here it is. The presets are really killer.
The big thing missing for me is a "wet solo" lock; so I can step through programs when setup on a send.
Sonically, I love it. I grew up using this and the RMX-16, so it feels very familiar. None of the vast array of other cool delay plug-ins sound like this. I don't know why... I've tried so many different pitch and delay plug-in combos to get that sound, but here it is. The presets are really killer.
jezjezjyyjyy
Member
I've only been demoing the plugin in short settings on vocals and had to try it using longer settings reading Ewan's post.
There seems to be similar tempo sync issues in Logic X (10.6.3), Big Sur 11.5.1 if there is pitch shift used on the left and right channels.
Here's a short sample using 1/8d on the left and 1/4 on the right, 120 bpm. (Pitch shift -7 on the left and +7 on the right).
And one without pitch shift.
I also included a sample with same settings using Echoboy.
https://we.tl/t-jEWK3TFVjd
Is it normal behaviour that the plugin is out of sync when using pitch shift (no depth used on the VCO section)?
There seems to be similar tempo sync issues in Logic X (10.6.3), Big Sur 11.5.1 if there is pitch shift used on the left and right channels.
Here's a short sample using 1/8d on the left and 1/4 on the right, 120 bpm. (Pitch shift -7 on the left and +7 on the right).
And one without pitch shift.
I also included a sample with same settings using Echoboy.
https://we.tl/t-jEWK3TFVjd
Is it normal behaviour that the plugin is out of sync when using pitch shift (no depth used on the VCO section)?
Will Shanks
Universal Audio
Ewan Pearson indeed found a bug. This was a regression from an earlier bug caught during development where additional delay was in the delay path. The regression snuck in very late in development. This definitely causes 'drift', affects tempo sync, and changes the "metallic resonance" of the very short delay times. A patch is coming soon.
Last edited:
Will Shanks
Universal Audio
Wet Solo seems to be working as expected when auditioning presets on my system.
UniversalAudio
Official UA Representative
Be sure you're using our Preset Browser, not the one in PT.
Yes, you mean the little folder icon at the bottom left?
Not to sound like I'm complaining, but that is even more tedious of a workflow process: click, click, double-click, click, listen. In PT, I can at least arrow up and down and step through presets instantly, which is why it would be handy to have an actual Wet Solo lock on the interface that overrides the preset.
UniversalAudio
Official UA Representative
Yeah, this is beyond our control I'm afraid.
Notice in Console and when you use our preset browser, all is well, the Wet Solo will persist.
That's great news!! Thanks Will
Equalizer85
Member
I've been waiting for the AMS DMX 1580 for years and often named it as a plugin I wish UA would develop, here in the forum and in surveys.
Now I'm having mixed emotions about it. Why was the "lock"-functionality left out? Many artists that helped to make this unit famous were using it (Martin Hannett, Jeff Lynne etc.). I also hope we see the patch to fix the timing issues mentioned by Will Shanks soon.
Btw, I'm a bit confused about the user ratings since the first one was done by Will himself (find screenshot attached). If the "Plug-In Development Product Manager UA" rates a product that was just released by UA this clearly cannot be labelled a user review!
Instead, I'd love to see an in-depth user review by Ewan, who is a well known artist and long-time DMX user. Hands up also for Krikor Kouchians review btw. I own his Pacific Alley LP on which he used the hardware and appreciate him pointing out what is still missing comparing old and new.
I feel tempted to buy this plugin but I'm not sure if it's worth the price currently. Will rather wait until the bugs are fixed and might want to wait for a discount.
Now I'm having mixed emotions about it. Why was the "lock"-functionality left out? Many artists that helped to make this unit famous were using it (Martin Hannett, Jeff Lynne etc.). I also hope we see the patch to fix the timing issues mentioned by Will Shanks soon.
Btw, I'm a bit confused about the user ratings since the first one was done by Will himself (find screenshot attached). If the "Plug-In Development Product Manager UA" rates a product that was just released by UA this clearly cannot be labelled a user review!
Instead, I'd love to see an in-depth user review by Ewan, who is a well known artist and long-time DMX user. Hands up also for Krikor Kouchians review btw. I own his Pacific Alley LP on which he used the hardware and appreciate him pointing out what is still missing comparing old and new.
I feel tempted to buy this plugin but I'm not sure if it's worth the price currently. Will rather wait until the bugs are fixed and might want to wait for a discount.
Attachments
Last edited:
Will Shanks
Universal Audio
As I mentioned earlier in this thread, Lock In (sample capture and playback system) was left out as an unnecessary feature for modern use. The final feature set was deliberated and decided on with input from our DMX artist design panel, AMS and UA staff. You could argue AMS should have kept the feature for a 'completist' experience, but it was decided any DAW the plugin runs in is a much better tool for such functions.
On my 'review': On the contrary, I am definitely user too! I have also waited for well over a decade for this one.
FYI, for years I have been putting in test/placeholder reviews during web page development and testing, before the product page goes live. As some point, the marketing folks thought it would be fun to leave these in, it has become a bit of UA tradition now.
Last edited:
Equalizer85
Member
Sorry but who decides what "modern use" is? If you recreate the hardware as a plugin, why would you leave out features that are essential to the original. I own 50+ UAD plugins and see features rather being added instead of being left out. I also find it a bit odd to label this a "completist experience" and refer to using "any DAW" for a specific function. I tend to buy your plugins because UA seems to have a certain sense and love for details that other companies lack. I mean the "All Button"-mode also got recreated on the 1176, although not everybody might want to use it. And after all, we're talking about a plugin that costs more than complete DAWs like Logic. In addition I find that artists like Krikor or Ewan (both hardware owners) have a point with mentioning what is missing after comparing the functions of the plugin to their hardware.
Regarding your post. Of course you're a user but also an employee of UA. For me this puts you in a position where your review simply cannot be neutral. It's no "these are the pros and these are the cons"-review. Instead it's overly enthusiastic and reads like an ad, this is what I don't really find helpful.
Last edited: