-
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.
Just to let you Mac Quad Hogs know......
- Thread starter mikeyb
- Start date
Or at least a statement from UA saying they plan to support current and future Macs w a vague timeline. ....I think it may be quite while however. There was a post from a UA employee a while back saying that UA may not *start* to develop a solution until desktop Intel Macs ship (fall?).
The Beatsmith
Active Member
lol.
cue the usual pro-ua/anti pci-e brigade
cue the usual pro-ua/anti pci-e brigade
peter893
Active Member
I personally like the Waves SSL com[p better.beubbo said:
But over at gear slutz some folks lke the 1980 better.
It works better for me as drum overhead comp. and I also use it on the main bus.
a side ramble for you.....
I like URSs EQs better though... But they all have their place.
I can say that all the plugs i have now get used and I think they are of the highest quality in the daw world. im very happy will my current set of plugs.
Peter
Yeah, I've seen the thread on GS...peter893 said:
You use 1980 either across the main bus although you prefer the Waves one... so, I guess it depends on the situation ?! Could you elaborate a little bit, please ?
I've heard that 1980 compressor's attack is somewhat *grabby* compared to Waves SSL one... as you own both, what do you think ?
Thanks
peter893
Active Member
I started to prefer the Waves SSL comp on Drum overheads. it just seemed a little more transparent. the 1980 or even the 1970 comps just seemed to do weird things to the cymbals.
On the mix buss it was a different things... harder to tell the differnece but still seemed a bit more transparent.
but... what the hell do I know ...
the best thing to do is to hear for yourself. both let you demo before you buy. checkem out.
Peter
On the mix buss it was a different things... harder to tell the differnece but still seemed a bit more transparent.
but... what the hell do I know ...
the best thing to do is to hear for yourself. both let you demo before you buy. checkem out.
Peter
I just bought the new uad external box. scsi 2 rocks ! it's even backward compatible with my old IIci. And in the morning the uad box actually makes me breakfast. A great start for a new day of mixing! Only thing is normalizing still takes about 45 mins for a 4 min song and my audiomedia III still gets DAE errors.
Why I invested money in a company like this is baffling. No question the plugins are great BUT if you can't use them on a new computer .......They should be on top of the technology. They have customers that are spending money and want to spend more money on their products .
Business 101 ??????????? I wish I bought a powercore. Spent to much money on UAD already and I'm sorry I did. Now I'm stuck
Why I invested money in a company like this is baffling. No question the plugins are great BUT if you can't use them on a new computer .......They should be on top of the technology. They have customers that are spending money and want to spend more money on their products .
Business 101 ??????????? I wish I bought a powercore. Spent to much money on UAD already and I'm sorry I did. Now I'm stuck
demonsp
Active Member
C'mon people;
It's not that bad!
Remember that while it's exciting to be on the cutting edge of technology, when you're doing serious work it's not good to be a \"techno guinea pig\".
Letting the dust settle is a must.
I do feel though that UA should be quicker with releasing new plugs. As we are dependent on them alone for our software.
Would love to see other developers get into the UAD-1 platform.
It's not that bad!
Remember that while it's exciting to be on the cutting edge of technology, when you're doing serious work it's not good to be a \"techno guinea pig\".
Letting the dust settle is a must.
I do feel though that UA should be quicker with releasing new plugs. As we are dependent on them alone for our software.
Would love to see other developers get into the UAD-1 platform.
Giles117 DP
Active Member
Still chumming along with my dual 2.0 G5... I will get ancy when the new Intel Power Macs release in august. then I will complain cuz UB will be a reality need for us and ua on PCIe will most likely be a necessity. unless apple decides to add a couple PCI x slots for the rest of us who still have magma chassis'
Christian Baum
Member
Yup, it's 'ere... PCIe by UAD. Nice and sympathetic, especially the FAQ with some crossgrade ideas...
finally here - was expecting a whole lot more dsp - come on - it seems like the same card with pci to pcie bridge - seems a bit lame that most macs - G5 - have only 3 slots - 1 usually required for soundcard - so you can still only max 1/2 available power unless you go magma chassis! It only uses 1x pcie slot - minimum in current macs is 4x - what a total waste of potential bandwith. Ok - i would agree that a 4x uad would have probably been prohibatively expensive but a 2x card ( and then another!) would have been a very nice solution tot keep it all in the mac.
Me thinks they should have put the time into the uad alla magma 4 slot chassis - probably used the same bridge set as well!
A whole lot of time for a whole lot of the same :roll:
Me thinks they should have put the time into the uad alla magma 4 slot chassis - probably used the same bridge set as well!
A whole lot of time for a whole lot of the same :roll: