• 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.

I love UA !!! - What do you think?

I really love this company for their products and all the quality they put into their products. I have the 2-610 preamp and 2 UAD-1 cards which i like a lot.

What i don't understand: most of the people here in the forum seem to nearly explode when there is a new Namm Show and can't wait for UA to release new products. And in the last months i read a lot of people complaining about the lack of power of the UAD-1, they should raise the card limit, that they sell old technology, they will loose customers, etc.

A Nemann U-47 tube mic is very old technology. But it sounds phantastic. Yes there are modern mics with less noise floor, more features that cost not very much.
But there are people who still spend 4-8 thousand dollars for a 60 year old mic and make great records.

Why is that?

The EMT 250 or the 140 reverbs are considered as some of the best sounding reverbs. People pay 8-10 thousand for a working EMT 250.

And imagine: They can use only ONE instance in their mixing sessions !!!
ONE !! Its not very mobile, cause its so heavy. You have to be careful with them.

Think about that.

A lot of great engineers tell you in interviews, they use as little EQ as possible for normal corrective EQ approach. Bruce Swedien says he almost never uses compression (because of the loss of transients and the killing of the overall drama of the music).

I tell you what:
If i had the luck to own 2 great Neve preamps i would just love them and respect them. They do not have all the new features like DA conversion, soft limiter, deesser, whatsoever. but they just sound great.

for me it's just the same with the UAD-1. I really like the fact that it is a cheap old video chip that runs the best plugins that i know.
When mixing mostly i choose a UA plugin first, because they sound very musical to my ear. They sound as if they are done for making music and i realize, that the people who developed those plugins are not just simple technical people. They have good sets of ears.

I would not sell an old U-47 or an old Neve preamp, just because there are more powerful, feature loaded new preamps.
Slow is good!
Don't get crazy if you own a 2 Ghz Computer with 4 UADs and a POCO and UA needs another year for a more powerful solution.
Thats a lot of power! I only have 2 cards. They could be faster maybe, i don't know.
If i run out of UAD-power i have to use my creativity and my imagination. Thats a fact that really turns me on. I like challenges and i like limitations.
They let you get creative. how do do what you want with the limit you have. And the brain starts working. Isn't that great.
I doesn't mean that this is the easy way...

How did the people that recorded the first hendrix album or the beatles with just 4 tracks and some EQ and 4 compressors (not on every channel).
Led Zeppelin on 8 or 16 track. listen to dark side of the moon.
It's the way how the people that used the (limited) equipment, that made those records possible.

For me the UAD-1 plugins sound really great, most of the plugs are version 1.0 not in 3.2.11r4.
Just put in one of those fantastic underpowered cards in your computer and use your ears. The sound is wonderful.

And they will sound wonderfull in 10 years from now with the same old underpowered video-chip. Thank you for that fact.


Kevin from Berlin
 

afone1977

Active Member
If i had the luck to own 2 great Neve preamps i would just love them and respect them.
UA plug are only soft emu not hardware

How did the people that recorded the first hendrix album or the beatles with just 4 tracks and some EQ and 4 compressors (not on every channel).
Led Zeppelin on 8 or 16 track. listen to dark side of the moon.
It's the way how the people that used the (limited) equipment, that made those records possible.
if you need only 4 track for your project it's your own problem

but think about those who have 32 and more tracks project

hey i love also this 70's music but we are in 2007

more is perhaps not perfect, but many people want more power, and when customers massively want more you give more,

if you only need one 33609 good for you, but my project needs 33609, 1176, plate 140, somme EX1, 1073 or 1081, pultec ect ect...

I have 2 cards too, no have more place for another card, except with an expensive, noisy, magma chassis that i dont want...

What i want is more power on 1 card or 1 rack
 

Paul Woodlock

Established Member
It's great to read a really positive post for a change and for that I thank Kevin.

I'm not blinkered. I always try other plugins and will give everything the benedit of the doubt, but time and time again, after trying something else I always end up coming back to UAD plugs. It ain't cheap. I have URS plugs sitting here pretty much redundent. But at least I tried. :)

Even though the UAD-1 is ridiculously underpowered by today's standards, and I am confident a UAD-2 solution will appear soon, I still invested in a 4th UAD-1 card and expansion chassis recently.


:) :) :)
 

macmusic78

Active Member
I think most people here love UA Stuff - thats why we are here - we all just want UA to do well now and in the future. And basicly we want new reasons to give UA our money for we love them and their products :)
 

Ben Logan

Active Member
Great post Kevin. I share your philosophy. The two biggest areas in which my setup is underpowered is in terms of time and money. So 1 UAD-1 card works perfectly for me - a real \"big bang for the buck\" tool. I love that even the included RS-1 early reflection engine sounds great with very little tweaking. Same with the LA-2A ,1176LN, and Pultec. Being a Dad means after I record a little project on a Friday night I've got about 30 minutes to mix the thing, period. UA makes it possible to make my ears satisfied with just a few twists of the virtual knobs. Then again, I'm a dedicated \"hobbyist\" and lots of folks on this forum are pros whose projects may require more horsepower.
 

tkingen

Active Member
I'm a serious hobbiest running 2 UAD-1 cards with all of the plugins except for the PMB, BOSS CE-1 and the Space Echo (just don't have a need for them.) I feel grateful to have these great plugs and would be satisfied if they never added anything else again - but I'll buy more when they do!
 

mission

New Member
honestly... i love the product, love the company and support.

numerous times ive had to be on the phone with UA regarding my ignorance with their system. ive had no problem talking to someone immediately and its always been a guy who knows his shit. even asking for a demo for more test drive, and getting it no problem, makes me want to financially support their company more. smart way to operate guys.

as far as the tech side of things, it's of little concern to me. i run a lot of things outboard anyway ... i just love how the 1081 sounds, my demoing of the precision limiter has been good and will probably buy it soon. im just excited to hear what's next!

im new to following the line but will be doing it more intensely now... :)

:BIGUP UA!:
 

A Gruesome Discovery

Active Member
UA's one of my top favorite companies, and a lot of UA gear makes my \"desert island\" list. I have three UAD cards, almost all of the plugins, some 610 preamps, an 1176, and I have a 2192 on order- I'm also looking at the 2-LA-2 whenever that comes out. UA is awesome, and I love them as much as a man can love a gear company without getting too creepy.
Still, I feel they're not going to be attracting any new customers with their latest products. Popular opinion outside of these forums (hell, inside these forums too) is that the UAD-1 is underpowered by modern standards, and given that a more powerful solution must be around the corner, it's pointless for a new customer to buy in right now. I tend to agree- there's no better plugins out there, but I don't think I could recommend the UAD-1 to a first-time buyer, especially if they built/bought their PC without the UAD platform in mind.
Going back to the original post- yes, classic albums such as DSOTM and Sgt Pepper were recorded on fewer tracks, but with much time-consuming bouncing down of many more tracks. I can stretch out my processing power by freezing or rendering tracks with UA plugs on them, but I went digital to avoid that hassle. My workflow would be a lot more enjoyable if I could just run what I wanted to run in real time, being able to tweak the individual elements all the way through the mixing progress. This wasn't the method used on Sgt Pepper or DSOTM, but then again, I'm not Sir George Martin or Alan Parsons.
So I do love UA, but I'd also hate to see them fall behind in the plug-in market, which I fear they will if they don't keep up with the competition. Not that the competition has anything on the sound of UA plugs, but I get the feeling that people are passing the UAD by because of its age and limitations.
 

O.

Member
afone1977 said:
If i had the luck to own 2 great Neve preamps i would just love them and respect them.
UA plug are only soft emu not hardware
Please go read Kevin's bit again and this time try to understand what he's saying before posting an ignorant and snobbish reply.
 

Arys Chien

Active Member
Hi Kevin,

Welcome to the UAD-1 user family!

I agree with most of what you said. I'm sure most users here are like me too. The reason why you read negative posts recently is because you came here too late. We have been saying good things about UAD-1 for years, most of which were like what you said in the beginning of the thread.

Yet there are still some room for your statement to stand 100% undisbutable.

For example, we know that classic albums use no more than 24 tracks. Yet how about music like Enya's? There are people that love this kind of music, which sometimes takes 100+ tracks to accomplish.

And, while it's true that some people can use almost no compression at all to make great mixes, it's also true that some music simply need compression.

And don't get us wrong. We complain because we are still sticking to UAD-1. I don't go to a product's forum and keep complaining when I already replace it with something else. :wink:
 

Resonant Alien

Active Member
Kevin makes some very good points. As with all things, the trick is in the balance. On one hand, a lot of classic albums were made on an 8 track. BUT, they were not made with only 8 tracks. There was a lot of bouncing and dubbing going on, which would not have been done if they had a 16 or 32 track recorder to begin wth. There is an argument that more is better and we shouldn't limit ourselves to just what was around when the \"classics\" were made.

OTOH - there is something (a lot in fact) to be said for being forced to make decisions and compromises in a mix. Too many choices and limitless power often work against you and can create a bad mix. If you are in a studio with 5 hardware 1073s, one 33609 and 2 1176s, it gets really hard to overuse them and abuse your mix - you have to WANT to f-it up. But when you have the ability to strap on 50 1176s, 14 33609s and 45 1073s, you can get lost sometimes.

If you get to a point in your mix that you have 5 1176s, 2 1073s, a 1081 and an LA2A on every track, the ability to add another 4 1073s may not be what your mix needs - there may be something wrong on the input side (i.e. mic and mic pre) - address that and you may not need that much juice.

I'm not saying there aren't situations where you wouldn't use that much processing, or want to use that much processing - I'm just saying there are generally two categories of people that end up in that situation - 1) people who really know what they are doing and are doing it on purpose, and 2) people who don't really know what they are doing and are trying to fix a bad recording by putting a lot of post-processing in the mix.
 

afone1977

Active Member
Please go read Kevin's bit again and this time try to understand what he's saying before posting an ignorant and snobbish reply.
this is not a snobbish way of thinking to say that,

i don't attack kevin, so keep quiet, i'm not a bitchy one, but i'll be clear if i want to say i'm not agree i say it

i'm agree with him on this :UA make good job, good price, good support,

but UAD-1 is underpowered, and say it is not is false,

i don't want native version of their pluggin but sometimes i compare UAD-1 just as a dongle too

compare original hardware ans software emulation is a bit ridiculous, perhaps those emu are the closest, but they are 2 differents products,

and compare pink floy way of working, with actual way of mixing is like we denie all the technology we have today

if some want to put \"made without a computer\" on their product they can, but personaly i want more,

ans it's not a snobbish way of thinking,

UA is not my god, if i think i'm not agree with them i say it
 

tkingen

Active Member
I think there is a difference between a UAD-1 card and a dongle. To my understanding a dongle is a key that a program continues to ping to confirm that the license is legit. Native DSP must still be used to house and run the plugins. The UAD-1 card is it's own processor that houses and runs the plugins.
 

s_sibs

Member
But when you have the ability to strap on 50 1176s, 14 33609s and 45 1073s, you can get lost sometimes.
Hey, I want to strap an 1176, a 33609, and a 1073 on every one of my shaker tracks! :lol:

\"With great power comes great responsiblity\"
 

Arys Chien

Active Member
s_sibs said:
But when you have the ability to strap on 50 1176s, 14 33609s and 45 1073s, you can get lost sometimes.
Hey, I want to strap an 1176, a 33609, and a 1073 on every one of my shaker tracks! :lol:
You're over-compressing then....

You should put a 1081 first, to take out the problematic frequency of your shaker trackS. Then apply a 33609 to pump the hell out of those motha-f***ing-shakaz. Then apply the brutal 1073 to make them dominate the mix. 8)

And remember use them on EVERY TRACK. The settings have to be different to acheive better seperation among different shakers.

------

Jokes aside, I really want more power.

We must remember one thing: no software is on par with its hardware counterpart (or "origin") yet.

Therefore, even while we are applying 1081 or 1073 on every track, using a good hardware mixer that has a good analog EQ on every channel still might give better result.

I know it takes much more than a Mackie 1604, and costs more than 4 UAD-1s + a magma + license for the plug-ins, but you get the idea.
 
UAD Bundle Month
Top