I Must Not Spend My $50 Voucher!

[Suntower]

:mrgreen:

I can't help myself. The desire to not purchase the newest plugs keeps building within me. It started with the Roland series and now that the CPU munch has grown to, practically, 1 instance per card, I don't know how much longer I can help myself.

Is there a 12 step program that can teach my how to love my UAD-1 again no matter how weak and powerless it now seems?

I... I feel so... helpless.

Desperate In Dublin

 

[baronluigi]

by another card, and get another voucher...........

 

[svs95]

Definitely buy a second card or more. But also try being a little more judicious about when/where you use the cpu-hawgs. They are basically the ones with which a little goes a long way.

IMHO, others have disagreed here, the 33609SE is VERY close to the 33609 when you stack it in a mix, and the EX-1 can do some close approximations as well on a track here and there.

The 33609SE keeps the tonal and envelope neutrality of the full version, and lacks only a little top end \"liveliness\" which is mostly harmonic distortion, which I have proven to my satisfaction with phase-cancelling listening tests. I think if you used SE on several submixes, and the full version on the master bus, you'd get 99% of the sound of the upsampled version in all locations.

I'm all for pushing the envelope on hardware limitations. Especially if when something more powerful comes along, I get to transfer my license to the new processor! So go for it! Own it now, and use it a little, then enjoy it even more when you migrate to the UAD-2 (or whatever comes next).

 

[saemskin]

I just dont get the whining about the 33609 being a cpu hog? Its a BUS compressor, meaning you ought to only be putting 1 instance of it at a time.
What's the big deal? (my new token expression, today anyhow)

 

[Normandyrocks]

I just dont get the whining about the 33609 being a cpu hog? Its a BUS compressor, meaning you ought to only be putting 1 instance of it at a time.
What's the big deal? (my new token expression, today anyhow)

It IS a buss compressor! but it takes up 3/4 of the power of one whole card to use one instance!! I have 2 cards that are pretty maxxed out during a normal mix. the point being, unless I buy another card I simply cannot use this plugin during normal mixing, which would ideally be where I want to use it. so, instead of one instance costing me $250, it cost me $750!!! I hate the thought of buying a card just to run one plugin
I think it is a very good sounding compressor! I want it! I am wrestling with the idea of buying it or waiting til UA reveals the new plan. I want to go 96k. But even with the max 4 cards installed at 96K I still cannot run this plug in a normal mix situation.
You may call it whining, but I call it disappointment coupled with mild frustration. Because UA have placed something within our grasp that is really cool but is seriously bordering on impractical given the power of the cards and 4 card limitation
Say what you will, but I want to know what UA is planning at this stage!! Not necessarily a time line, just an overview.

 

[Resonant Alien]

I just dont get the whining about the 33609 being a cpu hog? Its a BUS compressor, meaning you ought to only be putting 1 instance of it at a time.
What's the big deal? (my new token expression, today anyhow)

It IS a buss compressor! but it takes up 3/4 of the power of one whole card to use one instance!! I have 2 cards that are pretty maxxed out during a normal mix. the point being, unless I buy another card I simply cannot use this plugin during normal mixing, which would ideally be where I want to use it. so, instead of one instance costing me $250, it cost me $750!!! I hate the thought of buying a card just to run one plugin.

Well....$750 is a helluva lot cheaper than the $5000 you would pay for a hardware unit.............

 

[svs95]

It IS a buss compressor! but it takes up 3/4 of the power of one whole card to use one instance!! I have 2 cards that are pretty maxxed out during a normal mix.

His point is that this isn't really suited to a normal mix situation. A couple of thoughts:

1) Try the SE on tracks.
2) Freeze tracks.
3) Mix into the SE, then change to the full version for bouncing/rendering
4) Something else really smart.

Come on! If I can toss off three that fast, you ought to be able to come up with one or more! :wink:

There's always:

5) Buy the hardware 33609, and leave the UAD-1 free for other things.

svs95

 

[wishingwell]

I agree with many that have posted about the need for more powerfull uad-1 cards. This is'nt a unreasonable request and hopefully one day prayers will be answered, but i also believe in quality before quantity. I'd rather get only one instance of a truly high quality plugin like Neve 33609 then 30 instances of a garbage plug, i'm glad UA does'nt hold back quality for the sake of high instance count on the main plug but only on SE versions. I think all developers should do this. It would be nice if all developers put out two versions of a good plugin, the high quality cpu gobbler for those like me and the cpu efficient versions for those trying to save.But quite often other developers try to go for higher instance count only.

Sometimes we can't have it both ways as far as high quality but low cpu/dsp consumption in the same plugin while in the toddler stage of computer music making, for high quality there must be a heavy price at this point. I have only one uad card and i say bring it on, i don't care if the plug takes 95% of my card (actually i care but still prefer quality). I'll just have to make smart decisions when using the plugins that eat up alot of card power, some of the ways to save power that svs95 listed.

I used my $50 voucher today because i know i'll have no regrets and because there is not alot of time to use it. If you truly like the plugin and feel you'll benifit very much from it then not purchasing it may be a bigger price.

 

[saemskin]

It IS a buss compressor! but it takes up 3/4 of the power of one whole card to use one instance!! I have 2 cards that are pretty maxxed out during a normal mix.

His point is that this isn't really suited to a normal mix situation. A couple of thoughts:

1) Try the SE on tracks.
2) Freeze tracks.
3) Mix into the SE, then change to the full version for bouncing/rendering
4) Something else really smart.

Come on! If I can toss off three that fast, you ought to be able to come up with one or more! :wink:

There's always:

5) Buy the hardware 33609, and leave the UAD-1 free for other things.

svs95

I wonder if one could FX Teleport another computer with an additional 4 cards on it? Latency aside, I wonder it that could work.

 

[stonefree]

AES is only 2 weeks away and UA is promising new products, so hopefully we'll finally see the next generation UADs. The dilema of what to do with my UADs has kept me from upgrading my computer long enough!

 

[Normandyrocks]

It IS a buss compressor! but it takes up 3/4 of the power of one whole card to use one instance!! I have 2 cards that are pretty maxxed out during a normal mix.

His point is that this isn't really suited to a normal mix situation. A couple of thoughts:

1) Try the SE on tracks.
2) Freeze tracks.
3) Mix into the SE, then change to the full version for bouncing/rendering
4) Something else really smart.

Come on! If I can toss off three that fast, you ought to be able to come up with one or more! :wink:

There's always:

5) Buy the hardware 33609, and leave the UAD-1 free for other things.

svs95

I appreciate the input! I will look at track freezing at an option, but I don't think this is fully implemented in Cubase SX2.2. But even if it is (in some limited fashion) Track freezing with VSTis is slow and awkward at best. I assume it would be the same for audio tracks. Definitely not conducive to fast work flow when you are on the clock

 

[svs95]

FT Teleport works fine here! Certainly that's something you should look into. :idea:

It has a 14-day unlimited demo - give it a try on your network, and tell us what you think.

svs95

 

[Normandyrocks]

I wonder if one could FX Teleport another computer with an additional 4 cards on it? Latency aside, I wonder it that could work.

That may be worth looking into should a better solution be long in coming

 

[Normandyrocks]

FT Teleport works fine here! Certainly that's something you should look into. :idea:

It has a 14-day unlimited demo - give it a try on your network, and tell us what you think.

svs95

I guess the question being... will FXteleport allow you to use more than 4 cards on a mix? That being the "real" issue at hand! Not the price of the plugins or cards, but the serious limitations this new plug adds to the equation.

 

[svs95]

FT Teleport works fine here! Certainly that's something you should look into. :idea:

It has a 14-day unlimited demo - give it a try on your network, and tell us what you think.

svs95

I guess the question being... will FXteleport allow you to use more than 4 cards on a mix? That being the "real" issue at hand! Not the price of the plugins or cards, but the serious limitations this new plug adds to the equation.

How many cards do you want to buy? How many workstations can you network together? Yes, FX Teleport will allow you to do that. And if you need that much dsp power, then it really does look like a good option to me right now. I don't know when the next big dsp thing from UAD will arrive, but I wouldn't advise holding your breath. When it does arrive, if you've already gone a different route, I think they'll get over it.

 

[svs95]

Track freezing with VSTis is slow and awkward at best. I assume it would be the same for audio tracks. Definitely not conducive to fast work flow when you are on the clock

I understand that. In that case, you may want to look at the other options. Have you tried the 33609SE? I don't know how many instances of such a processor you might need, but surely not THAT many. The SE should leave you enough cpu for your other usual processors.

If to your ears, on your music, there's a significant difference between the two, you could certainly use the SE until it's time to mix down, and then just copy your settings to the full version. Your host application (and the UAD-1) can offline process way more than it can playback in real time.

"You think you can't do these things, Nemo - but you CAN!" [Marlin in Finding Nemo - deliberately misquoted]

svs95

 

[Normandyrocks]

How many cards do you want to buy? How many workstations can you network together? Yes, FX Teleport will allow you to do that. And if you need that much dsp power, then it really does look like a good option to me right now. I don't know when the next big dsp thing from UAD will arrive, but I wouldn't advise holding your breath. When it does arrive, if you've already gone a different route, I think they'll get over it.

Well I have 2 cards maxed at 48k. I want to move to 96k without being so maxed out. simply adding 2 more cards only allows me to change sample rates without increasing my processing capability. I would guess that if the 33609 plugin takes 70% @44.1k as stated by UA and verified my myself , then it would take 2 cards to run one instance of the Neve buss comp @ 96k!! So, in that seneario, I would need at least 5 additional cards AND a second computer with teleport to get what I want. I am upgrading my DAW anyway, so the computer is not as much an issue. except for the extra hardware and fan noises in the control room. But what ever it takes I guess

I have tried the SE version. While have yet to put it to the full test, it sounded significanlty different to me on the material I tried it on. I do mostly heavy rock and hiphop. I can only guess at this point that the sucess use of the SE version is dependant on how you are using it, and of course the program material.

 

[Akis]

The 33609 should take approximately the same amount of DSP @ any sample rate, since it's internally upsampling @ 192K.

 

[Normandyrocks]

The 33609 should take approximately the same amount of DSP @ any sample rate, since it's internally upsampling @ 192K.

If this were true that would be very cool indeed! You wording suggest that you are assuming this is true..Can anyone verify that DSP usage doesn't go up @ 96k? In my current (pre upgraded) setup it is a bit of a pain to record in 96K, but if I get a chance and a few hours I'll test this myself and report back. But is someone actually using it at this sample rate?

I guess I have sorta hijacked this thread er.. what about those vouchers eh?

 

[dbmusic]

by another card, and get another voucher...........

UAD just LOVES that option! Build quality plugins without updating your junky old card. That will forced UAD users to pay, pay, pay!!!

Yes...UAD just LOVES it faithful customers whom they can gouge, gouge, gouge!

What BS!

db