-
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.
How much would you pay for a chainer plugin?
- Thread starter toader2
- Start date
hesnotthemessiah
Member
I don't feel UAD should charge for a chainer as this should be seen as part of the standard UAD operating system. By using a chainer you can reduce latency when using more than one UAD plugin in series which gives the user more options to use UAD plugins in realtime and is an extra selling point (at least until the other DSP card manufacturers introduce a chainer). For realtime use a chainer is a must!! 
Plus I have just had another thought, with the introduction of a chainer, the UAD1 user will be encouraged to use more UAD1 plugins. Using more UAD1 plugins means needing/wanting more UAD1 cards. More UAD1 card sales for UAD. Everyones happy. \/
Plus I have just had another thought, with the introduction of a chainer, the UAD1 user will be encouraged to use more UAD1 plugins. Using more UAD1 plugins means needing/wanting more UAD1 cards. More UAD1 card sales for UAD. Everyones happy. \
/
hesnotthemessiah
Member
I guess the lack of response to this subject (only about 18 votes and a couple of posts in the thread) means that that the vast majority of forum members are not interested in the idea of a chainer for the UAD1? :?
neil wilkes
Venerated Member
Something that has been talked about AD Nauseam, and is not going to happen as it is not compatible with the way things work right now.chingon said:
It would mean a complete rebuild of the entire system, and complete recoding of everything.
May as well wish for free flights to the moon.
Eric Dahlberg
Purveyor of musical dreams fullfilled.
UA will probably consider every \"free\" vote to be a vote against making a chainer. What it says is that people aren't interested enough in it to want to pay for it, meaning they don't really need it.
RWIL
Established Member
Yes it is a valid argument. Still that I voted free because honestly I really don't know how much may cost for UA doing that! On one side it's the kind of addon imo, if that has all of the anticipated benefits, which could be a nice + for their product line, and on the other side, if UA has to sell it, I trust them enough to ask us a fair price tag.Eric Dahlberg said:
RW
Dan Duskin
Established Member
Personally... I'd pay as much as $500 for one. I'm not saying it should cost that much... but if it did I would not hesitate, I would whip out the card and order to download immediately!
I haven't tried this nor endorse it, but this was just released (for free):
http://news.harmony-central.com/Newp/20 ... r-1.0.html
http://news.harmony-central.com/Newp/20 ... r-1.0.html
toader2
Member
I saw that too... it looks really interesting... but it still wouldn't really have the benefits of a specific chainer for the UAD - like being able to make only one trip through the PCI bus for the entire chain, and being able to keep all of the plugins at 64-bit or whatever the optimal resolution is during processing, before returning the audio to the DAW.
Dan Duskin
Established Member
And lower CPU consumptionRWIL said:
And the ability to build your own channel strips
And less slots used in our software
Agent Cooper
Established Member
It's not my concern to tell a company how much I'd pay for a piece of software, especially since it's more kind of a driver enhancement than a fancy real plugin. At least the way I see a chainer.
But I see a chance that UA will be forced to release a chainer, and that is if the hopefully upcoming new card should rely on (heaven help) a completely outdated protocol like FW or USB.
I'll never understand why there is almost no discussion about bus bandwidth here. As long as you're using maybe 5 to 10 of the big plugins you'll be fine, of course.
But do the math yourself :
Think of a card 4 times as powerful as the UAD 1.
10 big plugins - that's 20 channels to and 20 channels from the card(s).
FW and USB can handle that, for sure.
But what if somebody gets the crazy idea of running Cambridges or 1176 SE for example. That's approximately 100 plugs meaning 100 channels to and 100 channels from the card.
Bye bye FW, bye bye USB.
In a scenario like that a chainer could be more of a necessity than many people want to believe.
Prove me wrong, maybe someone can comment with a comparison of real world bandwidth ?
I'm stii betting on a Magma style solution with PCIe for those reasons.
Cheers, Cooper
But I see a chance that UA will be forced to release a chainer, and that is if the hopefully upcoming new card should rely on (heaven help) a completely outdated protocol like FW or USB.
I'll never understand why there is almost no discussion about bus bandwidth here. As long as you're using maybe 5 to 10 of the big plugins you'll be fine, of course.
But do the math yourself :
Think of a card 4 times as powerful as the UAD 1.
10 big plugins - that's 20 channels to and 20 channels from the card(s).
FW and USB can handle that, for sure.
But what if somebody gets the crazy idea of running Cambridges or 1176 SE for example. That's approximately 100 plugs meaning 100 channels to and 100 channels from the card.
Bye bye FW, bye bye USB.
In a scenario like that a chainer could be more of a necessity than many people want to believe.
Prove me wrong, maybe someone can comment with a comparison of real world bandwidth ?
I'm stii betting on a Magma style solution with PCIe for those reasons.
Cheers, Cooper
wouldn't pay a dime since:
it's only about handeling plugs i already payed for.
the lack of a more powerful card makes a chainer absolutely neccessary!
a friend of mine just added a 3rd card and his \"plugin power\" increased by, well 1 or 2 plugs...
all due to increased PCI traffic. @ 75% his MAC G5 choked.
that's just not right is it? $500 (swedish rates..) to add 2 plugs.
sad!
it's only about handeling plugs i already payed for.
the lack of a more powerful card makes a chainer absolutely neccessary!
a friend of mine just added a 3rd card and his \"plugin power\" increased by, well 1 or 2 plugs...
all due to increased PCI traffic. @ 75% his MAC G5 choked.
that's just not right is it? $500 (swedish rates..) to add 2 plugs.
sad!
toader2
Member
These are all great reasons for us... but what about UA? Maybe they can use it to make the product a little bit more desireable... but will it actually result in greater sales to justify the expense and additional cost of development? This is why I don't mind paying - because if paying is what it takes to motivate them to make it happen, then I'm all for it - as long as it's a reasonable price.Dan Duskin said: