• 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.

Do we really need all of this power?

dusty

Active Member
Personally i don't and i'm shure i'm not the only one! I'm runnig a dual 1.8 G5,2gb of ram,uad-1&PocoMK2,Motu 896HD,FW800 200Gb HDD and like mac donald\"i'm loving it\"!
I've just finished to read the article about the \"quad mac\".Daaaaaaanm!
16GB of ram!! I just want to make music not to control all the satellites that orbits around the word!!!
Beside i don't think there is a DAW outhere able to support such a power yet. I'm currently working at 24-44.1 and I'm fine!! I just wish i can buy one more UAD-1 and that's it!! I don't care if apple come out with a new computer.. I'm gonna change my G F*** 5 ONLY WHEN I MUST TO!! Only when my computer doesn't peform well anymore or when logic gonna crash all the time.Not just because my neighboor it's running a new flamming G5 and don't want to feel \"inferior\".If i had to\"throw\" 3K i'd rather buy a neve preamp, wich would be by far a better investement.

Think about it..
Do You really need to buy a ferrari if the speed limit in most of the roads is 80MPH?
 

replicant

Active Member
I recognize the feeling.
I'm on a Dual 1.25 G4 and I just can't come up with the arguments to go for a new shiny Quadruple G5. Especially since I'm stuck with a Magma with 2 UAD-1's and 3 PoCo's, I just can't see that investing in a new mac would take it to another level. OK, so the CPU meter would jump as much, but that's what freezing supposed to cure. When there's an alternative route that will allow me to hang on to my Magma I will consider it, but why upgrade when I've got what I need under the hood :roll:
 

Trace

Active Member
I'm glad for you guys, however neither of you are POWER USERS. Some of us run much heavier sessions and do require that kind of power.

I am switching to pretty much all VSTi's and I want to run the whole thing at 96k. This is going to require more power than my current system can give me. I have a Dual 1.8 G5 and 4 UAD-1's. Its just a matter of the way a person likes to work. I never freeze tracks, I just never liked working that way. I don't always run huge sessions, but when the need arises, I don't want to run out of power. I may not end up getting a quad, but I can see adding another G5 to my current rig or some other form of DSP. Its just going to be a necessity for me and how I want to work.

TRACE :)
 

replicant

Active Member
If the urge to run everything at 96k is what makes one a POWER USER, I must confess I'm not a power user :wink:

Just can't see it making my stuff sound that much better on the cost-benefit ratio scale 8)
 

F5D

Active Member
Yeah, I guess I also have enough power to run things still for many years. I don't use much native software plugins and I hate all the new software synths. I work mostly with real hardware synths and dsp powered plugins, so in fact I will never have to update my computer again. I have everything I need and I am only interested in TC's & UA's new plugins. :D
 

Ashermusic

Active Member
Trace said:
I'm glad for you guys, however neither of you are POWER USERS. Some of us run much heavier sessions and do require that kind of power.

I am switching to pretty much all VSTi's and I want to run the whole thing at 96k. This is going to require more power than my current system can give me. I have a Dual 1.8 G5 and 4 UAD-1's. Its just a matter of the way a person likes to work. I never freeze tracks, I just never liked working that way. I don't always run huge sessions, but when the need arises, I don't want to run out of power. I may not end up getting a quad, but I can see adding another G5 to my current rig or some other form of DSP. Its just going to be a necessity for me and how I want to work.

TRACE :)
If running VSTs in 96 makes you a power user than buying a Ferrari makes me a race car driver:)
 

pouncey

Member
i'm sure trace's reply had an obvious intent.

not long ago i did a pretty big session all in 24 bit 96 with a ton of analog gear, all the uad1 plugs i could run, and a healthy assortment of plug ins. the extra i/o for console summing and outboard gear on subgroups. this was done with a client sitting right behind me and the studio clock was running.

thing is that i'd like to have a little power to spare. the above session did slow down my computer a little. it all worked fine and sounded great, but if my computer had a little more oomph i'd have been happier. and i presume i'll continue to see more high sample rate sessions come through. i might not need all of the power now, but soon enough i'll probably have a client that needs it.

in this case, i'm waiting on the intel based macs to switch up. i've got a dual 2.5 with a lot of ram and don't think upgrading to another ppc based mac is the move i want to make. i'll look at intel mac's when they are out. between the pcie switch, faster processors, more ram, etc. probably everything about the machine (not just cpu speed) tends to make the machines better. cpu speed is just one narrow way to look at the new machines. i'm not an \"early\" adopter per se, but i'll adopt a faster machine when mine is at least about three years old and the new technology is faster by enough that it's worth it.
 

Demetrious

Active Member
If running VSTs in 96 makes you a power user than buying a Ferrari makes me a race car driver
:?

You lost me with that one.

Why did you buy the Ferrari :?: And would use 96Khz or buy a more powerful computer for the same reason :?:
 

dusty

Active Member
'cmon Trace, you can't say we're not power users just 'cuz we don't work at 96hz :D. BTW don't you know that you gonna downsample at 44.1-16 when you put the stuff on a cd? So what's the point to work at 96? From my point of view it's just a waste of your CPU(s) cycles!
I personally don't need to run 300 VI and/or 500 softsamplers with huge sample libraries with78 tracks filled with plug ins running at the same time..
 

dusty

Active Member
replicant said:
If the urge to run everything at 96k is what makes one a POWER USER, I must confess I'm not a power user :wink:

Just can't see it making my stuff sound that much better on the cost-benefit ratio scale 8)
I totally agree with you.
 

Giles117 DP

Active Member
He is describing HIS power Use.

I am a Mix Engineer proefessional, and I hate bouncing.

Nothing like being in the middle of a mix, ideas flowing, and you feeling the song and BAM!!!!!!, gotta freeze tracks cuz the CPU just said \"NO MORE POWER CAPTAIN!!!!!!\" VIbe lost for that useless wait time (cuz while you are freezing you are not listening to the track. Much different than a bathroom break.

A Quad for me will get rid of that issue. I almost NEVER run out of power for the UAD and a QUAD will further make that a reality with all the native Plugins I run. I have been pushing this 2.0 I have and running it at about 50%, but I have only mixed smaller jazz tracks the past 4 weeks. What happens when I mix my wifes next album with her 60+ tracks of vocals and 30-40+ tracks of music. (if the track is unorchestrated) Last symphonic track she did was 64 tracks of music (before the bouncing and consolidating) and 40 tracks of Choir and BGV's before consolidating and comping. Which was a nuisance cuz I couldnt just grab the one offending track of a segment, automate the move and keep it live realitime. ALways had to unbounce/unfreeze, blah blah blah!!!!! This is a major advantage in workflow for me :)


Also, all these great EQ's comps and verbs can tax a mix with 70-100 tracks with ease.

I earn my living with this crap. So if this crap is crapping out, I need new crap. LOL

SO for a power user (which is who this quad is built for) I am IN :) Screw waiting for intel, I have an album to mix in January that produces a good chunk of my income (Wifes project ;) )
 

Giles117 DP

Active Member
** 2bl Post **
 

Ashermusic

Active Member
Demetrious said:
If running VSTs in 96 makes you a power user than buying a Ferrari makes me a race car driver
:?

You lost me with that one.

Why did you buy the Ferrari :?: And would use 96Khz or buy a more powerful computer for the same reason :?:
Then I'll break it down for you:)

Many of us who are not doing 96 consider ourselves power users. So the fact that you do use 96 does not in and of itself make you more a power user than others here, although you may well be. Or you could merely be a power sucker who is inefficient in your use of your machine's power. Similarly, one could buy a Ferrari and be less of a competent driver able to taker advantage of what that brings to the table than someone driving a Toyota.

So IMHO you should not assume that others who are not running out of power on their present machines are not power users as you maintain that you are.
 

Ashermusic

Active Member
Giles117 DP said:
He is describing HIS power Use.

I am a Mix Engineer proefessional, and I hate bouncing.

Nothing like being in the middle of a mix, ideas flowing, and you feeling the song and BAM!!!!!!, gotta freeze tracks cuz the CPU just said "NO MORE POWER CAPTAIN!!!!!!" VIbe lost for that useless wait time (cuz while you are freezing you are not listening to the track. Much different than a bathroom break.

A Quad for me will get rid of that issue. I almost NEVER run out of power for the UAD and a QUAD will further make that a reality with all the native Plugins I run. I have been pushing this 2.0 I have and running it at about 50%, but I have only mixed smaller jazz tracks the past 4 weeks. What happens when I mix my wifes next album with her 60+ tracks of vocals and 30-40+ tracks of music. (if the track is unorchestrated) Last symphonic track she did was 64 tracks of music (before the bouncing and consolidating) and 40 tracks of Choir and BGV's before consolidating and comping. Which was a nuisance cuz I couldnt just grab the one offending track of a segment, automate the move and keep it live realitime. ALways had to unbounce/unfreeze, blah blah blah!!!!! This is a major advantage in workflow for me :)


Also, all these great EQ's comps and verbs can tax a mix with 70-100 tracks with ease.

I earn my living with this crap. So if this crap is crapping out, I need new crap. LOL

SO for a power user (which is who this quad is built for) I am IN :) Screw waiting for intel, I have an album to mix in January that produces a good chunk of my income (Wifes project ;) )
Wow. It is a good thing for you that you didn't have to make your living using analog. All that time waiting for tape to rewind? Gee, how could you have been expected to be creative? Oh, brother.

I too earn my living with this crap. And before I earned my living with less powerful crap. No doubt in the future I will earn my living with more powerful crap.

And it still will require some patience and ability to delay gratification.
 

Giles117 DP

Active Member
Dont dig too deep asher. You might hit a gas line. LOL

I came from tape. Worked on SSL's and Neve's and AMEK's and EUphonix's. Not some fly by nite kid, I have been in this game for 25 years. I had my days of cutting tape, editing with tape, blah blah, blah. But I love computers. Was bulding them back in the 70's as a hobby. In the late 80's I realized I didnt like building CPU's anymore and just wanted to be productive. Hobbies changed, Building Speakers and AMPS got old. I found more joy in being the Bus Driver and not the mechanic........I love our advancements and as we move forward I plan to be on that edge, if I dont, I lose out. SO now my preference is my preference. If you wanna go back to the wait day,s be my guest. I used to program, I know what is possible and I am grabbing for those possibilities. Now as I was saying......

Big difference between waiting for a tape to rewind and waiting 5-7 minutes for a track to freeze. I Use DP.

I was a TDM user as well, but kept running out of DSP even with a fully expanded system.

I dont want to go back to analog. I hated doing revisions on a mix. Taking almost an hour to reset EVERY component and knob and patch in the studio and using SSL recall (4000/6000 era) Very time consuming. I have been Computer based since 1999 and I am used to the speed. I work faster and way more efficient. Anything that will improve that efficiency is a boon for me. So put your rock down. :)

As the good old boys have on their trucks... Dont tread on me. LOL
 

Ashermusic

Active Member
Giles117 DP said:
Dont dig too deep asher. You might hit a gas line. LOL

I came from tape. Worked on SSL's and Neve's and AMEK's and EUphonix's. Not some fly by nite kid, I have been in this game for 25 years. I had my days of cutting tape, editing with tape, blah blah, blah. But I love computers. Was bulding them back in the 70's as a hobby. In the late 80's I realized I didnt like building CPU's anymore and just wanted to be productive. Hobbies changed, Building Speakers and AMPS got old. I found more joy in being the Bus Driver and not the mechanic........I love our advancements and as we move forward I plan to be on that edge, if I dont, I lose out. SO now my preference is my preference. If you wanna go back to the wait day,s be my guest. I used to program, I know what is possible and I am grabbing for those possibilities. Now as I was saying......

Big difference between waiting for a tape to rewind and waiting 5-7 minutes for a track to freeze. I Use DP.

I was a TDM user as well, but kept running out of DSP even with a fully expanded system.

I dont want to go back to analog. I hated doing revisions on a mix. Taking almost an hour to reset EVERY component and knob and patch in the studio and using SSL recall (4000/6000 era) Very time consuming. I have been Computer based since 1999 and I am used to the speed. I work faster and way more efficient. Anything that will improve that efficiency is a boon for me. So put your rock down. :)

As the good old boys have on their trucks... Dont tread on me. LOL
No stones thrown. Just calling it as I see it.

You missed my point. Implying that you are more of a power user than others because of your desire for more horsepower was intellectually spurious.
 

Giles117 DP

Active Member
Hmmm dont quite uderstand your statment ...intellectually spurious....

N ow because I dont know everthing I find the dictionary very useful

Intellectually - rational or developed or chiefly guided by the intellect rather than by emotion or experience
Spurious - false


Now I picked the definitions basedon the context of our discussion to ensure my understanding of your statement is accurate.

So if I understand you, you are saying that my reasoning for more horsepower is irration or false rationale.

Interesting when I laid out a bunch of SOlid reasonings in MY world for increased horsepower.

Of course these are MY Business reasons, not yours. You have no idea how many projects come through my doors, etc... You can only judge based on your limited experience in my life (Like ... NONE) LOL.

I decided to give a touch of insight into my world and yet you call me intllectually irrational. (By Definition of the words you chose unless you have another definition you prefer.)

Ok Time to put some pipe in my wife. Be back for this interesting pass the time dialogue on a Sunday before a client gets here. :)
 

Ashermusic

Active Member
Giles117 DP said:
Hmmm dont quite uderstand your statment ...intellectually spurious....

N ow because I dont know everthing I find the dictionary very useful

Intellectually - rational or developed or chiefly guided by the intellect rather than by emotion or experience
Spurious - false


Now I picked the definitions basedon the context of our discussion to ensure my understanding of your statement is accurate.

So if I understand you, you are saying that my reasoning for more horsepower is irration or false rationale.

Interesting when I laid out a bunch of SOlid reasonings in MY world for increased horsepower.

Of course these are MY Business reasons, not yours. You have no idea how many projects come through my doors, etc... You can only judge based on your limited experience in my life (Like ... NONE) LOL.

I decided to give a touch of insight into my world and yet you call me intllectually irrational. (By Definition of the words you chose unless you have another definition you prefer.)

Ok Time to put some pipe in my wife. Be back for this interesting pass the time dialogue on a Sunday before a client gets here. :)
I can't believe that you still do not understand what I am saying.

I am not saying that your perceived need for more horsepower is intellectually spurious. I am saying that your seeming conclusion that your perceived need for more horespower somehow makes you more of a power user than others who do not is intellectually spurious. :

You may indeed need more horsepower for the way you choose to work. Choosing to work that way, however, does not make you more of a power user. (Actually, now that I think of it, it may arguably make you less of a power user than one who uses the cpu power more efficiently.)

Hey wait a minute, you're from Detroit, correct? Maybe this analogy will help.: You want to drive an Expedition or Hummer while some others are using a Taurus or even a Prius to get to the same place. That doesn't make you necessarily a power driver, right?
 

Trace

Active Member
Don't worry Giles, I think that he's not understanding that people adjust to the currrent level of convenience. ie. People have Cell phones, faxes and cable modems, so they don't expect communications to take as long as the old days before such things. I remember the days before all of these technologies and even before FEDEX and people were much more patient. NOW tho if i'm doing a session the client doesn't want to wait like they used to for tape to rewind. Everything is instant.

I really don't think that some of you guys are being totally honest in your responses. I think you know what we mean by \"power users\" but you're being deliberately argumentative just to stick it to those of us who demand more from our rigs. If you'll never need another rig and all of your needs are met with your current setup, good for you :)

As far as higher sample rates its not just a fantasy that many processes sound better at higher sample rates, so don't make it seem like there are NO BENEFITS when there clearly are. Synths tend to sound better as well as many plug in processes. Also its not true that we'll only wind up downsampling to 44.1/16bit, since we'll be using 96k/24bit regularly on DVD's. For years now people have dreamt of the day we'd see a Quad Processor Mac and now its here. I think that's a good thing for everyone. Its actually a great value considering it's only a little more expensive than the Duals before it.

TRACE :)
 

Ashermusic

Active Member
Trace said:
Don't worry Giles, I think that he's not understanding that people adjust to the currrent level of convenience. ie. People have Cell phones, faxes and cable modems, so they don't expect communications to take as long as the old days before such things. I remember the days before all of these technologies and even before FEDEX and people were much more patient. NOW tho if i'm doing a session the client doesn't want to wait like they used to for tape to rewind. Everything is instant.

I really don't think that some of you guys are being totally honest in your responses. I think you know what we mean by "power users" but you're being deliberately argumentative just to stick it to those of us who demand more from our rigs. If you'll never need another rig and all of your needs are met with your current setup, good for you :)

As far as higher sample rates its not just a fantasy that many processes sound better at higher sample rates, so don't make it seem like there are NO BENEFITS when there clearly are. Synths tend to sound better as well as many plug in processes. Also its not true that we'll only wind up downsampling to 44.1/16bit, since we'll be using 96k/24bit regularly on DVD's. For years now people have dreamt of the day we'd see a Quad Processor Mac and now its here. I think that's a good thing for everyone. Its actually a great value considering it's only a little more expensive than the Duals before it.

TRACE :)
I agree with all this Trace. And I have been upgarding my computer regularly for years. I guess I was reacting to what I perceived as a condescending attitude of Giles toward those who did not feel the need for more power.

Maybe it is an issue of semantics. AFAIK a "Power User" is somone who knows whatever software and hardware he is using very thoroughly so that he can get more out of it that one who knows less. It is not someone who necessarily uses more tracks and more plug-ins.

I.E., I consider myself a power user of Logic. Though I can get around PT I am in no way a power user of PT even if I use just as many plug-ins and tracks in PT as I do in Logic.

So, are we all talking about thee same thing?
 
UAD Bundle Month
Top