-
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.
Finally, UAD and Powercore will have some competition!
- Thread starter lordward
- Start date
Captain Caveman
Member
AAAHHH! THAT's why the Waves SSL plugs don't work on the Waves APA box.
:roll:
:roll:
bah...
nothing compared to THIS:
http://www.sonicstate.com/news/shownews.cfm?newsid=2882
check out the video!
nothing compared to THIS:
http://www.sonicstate.com/news/shownews.cfm?newsid=2882
check out the video!
Ashermusic
Active Member
My best guess is that the SSL stuff will sound better than the Focusrite based on their history.Felix said:
This is really great news! And the price is not frightening either (for SSL fame, that is) - RRP of 1.600 euros for guaranteed 32 channels of SSL eq/dyn at 96khz!
Now, all that is needed for perfect DSP based studio is AMS/NEVE stuff from UA!! =P~
P.S.
Maybe Lexicon is watching this, so maybe they decide to release 480L as a dsp card!?
[-o<
Now, all that is needed for perfect DSP based studio is AMS/NEVE stuff from UA!! =P~
P.S.
Maybe Lexicon is watching this, so maybe they decide to release 480L as a dsp card!?
[-o<
Eric Dahlberg
Purveyor of musical dreams fullfilled.
What's your plug-in count with the SSL Bundle running natively?lordward said:
Dan Duskin
Established Member
DITTO!Felix said:
Hi, I haven't really tried to max out or to see how far I can go. I bought the bundle last week and I'm right in the middle of a mix so I just used a few plugins to give it a try. When I've finished this production I will really put it to the test. Anyway, it seems not very CPU hungry - not like the free SSL talkback compressor, which really takes a chunk out.Eric Dahlberg said:
DW
secretworld
Active Member
Yes you are! You are right, convolution it is, dynamic to be preciseFelix said:
Every convolution reverb I've ever heard so far has been, IMHO, sonically inferior to conventional reverb boxes it tried to emulate (I would allways pick real PCM91, 480L or TC VSS DSP algorithms or UAD plate), especially for ordinary music production. It may be that this subjective conclusion is based on many years of listening to and mixing with classical reverb boxes or poor quality of some "professional" impulses or bad coding of deconvolving/convolving process in some implementation - anyway, I'm allways open to new technology; convolution just need to get a little bettersaemskin said:
However, for sound for picture convolving has one huge advantage - you take impulse response (works for surround too) of the location where you are shooting production, and then in post production (dialog replacement, etc) you match original space through convolution.
Speaking of dynamic convolving, we will see in the very near future how UA Neve emulations and SSL thingy will compete with, let's say Waves Q-clone(which is static convolution, I guess) or Focusrite Liquid emulation (sorry for making terminology confusion Felix; I'm aware of liquid channel's convolving technology, but we can assume that convolving is really just another way of emulating something!
).And we already have on our UADs probably THE BEST sounding DSP Pultec, LA2A and 1176! :wink:
Cheers
saemskin
Established Member
that would be the evidence then :wink:
However, in the interest of historical accuracy, isn't a Lexicon PCM/480/etc series just another computer in a smaller box? My question must then be, what is the difference? Is it the physical components? Where is the line between these things? It's just the motion of particles anyway. What constitutes better or more real then?
as an aside and this is not directed at anyone at all just something that's been brewing in my head lately.
I may be young and arrogant (haha, 30 in August mind you), but I really think that alot of \"older\" people like the sound of \"vintage\" gear strictly because that's what they are/were used to hearing, not because its better because how the hell does one subjectively measure \"better\"? I think it's born of the stubborn refusal people implement to accept anything new. Like the idea that a 1960 (whatever) chevy is the only \"good\" car. Or black and white tv shows are the only \"good\" ones there ever were. It's a rather closed minded approach that everyone (so it seems) adopts as they get older. Is it the need for Nostalgia that closes a person off from everything else? I dont get it. What are we afraid of?
Anyone care to explore this with me?
Maybe I just like asking pointless questions.
However, in the interest of historical accuracy, isn't a Lexicon PCM/480/etc series just another computer in a smaller box? My question must then be, what is the difference? Is it the physical components? Where is the line between these things? It's just the motion of particles anyway. What constitutes better or more real then?
as an aside and this is not directed at anyone at all just something that's been brewing in my head lately.
I may be young and arrogant (haha, 30 in August mind you), but I really think that alot of \"older\" people like the sound of \"vintage\" gear strictly because that's what they are/were used to hearing, not because its better because how the hell does one subjectively measure \"better\"? I think it's born of the stubborn refusal people implement to accept anything new. Like the idea that a 1960 (whatever) chevy is the only \"good\" car. Or black and white tv shows are the only \"good\" ones there ever were. It's a rather closed minded approach that everyone (so it seems) adopts as they get older. Is it the need for Nostalgia that closes a person off from everything else? I dont get it. What are we afraid of?
Anyone care to explore this with me?
Maybe I just like asking pointless questions.
Eric Dahlberg
Purveyor of musical dreams fullfilled.
UA made a strong case against using dynamic convolution for dynamics processing in an old webzine:saemskin said:
http://www.uaudio.com/webzine/2004/july/index2.html
I'm still very much looking forward to using the Liquid Mix for EQ's & other tone shapers.
Dynamic convolution inferior??
When i compare my 2 liquid channels set to Fairchild with the UAD-1 Fairchild plugin both at the same settings the liquid channels sound better (to me) of course what i don't know is what the original Fairchild sounds like and how close the respective units are to it.
5am
When i compare my 2 liquid channels set to Fairchild with the UAD-1 Fairchild plugin both at the same settings the liquid channels sound better (to me) of course what i don't know is what the original Fairchild sounds like and how close the respective units are to it.
5am