• 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.

My Fondest Wish For UAD-2: Lower Latency

Suntower

Established Member
I can hear the jeers already, but the latency in UAD-1 has started to -really- get up my nose. Watching the piano roll be out of sync with the playback by updwards of an 1/8th note is starting to get -really- old.

Assuming that -whatever- UAD-2 turns out to be, my deepest wish is that it address this problem.

And it -is- a problem. It's 2007. I don't -want- to have continue to use the 'track then mix' paradigm of 40 years ago. The gigaflops are now there in hardware so I no longer want to have to divide my brain into two totally artifical tasks.

And they -are- artificially separate tasks. They only exist as separate tasks because that's the way it had to be back in the good ol' tape days. This sort of thinking has to change because it lets plug-in developers off the hook.

Better real-time processing simply has to be a higher priority if I'm to upgrade to the UAD-2.

---JC
 

Eric Dahlberg

Purveyor of musical dreams fullfilled.
UAD-1-8I/O could possibly have addressed the issue. Without using their own I/O's, I don't see how UA can do much if anything to help the matter.
 

Suntower

Established Member
One thing I've learned: there's -always- a way. Maybe it will require a new way of thinking about the problem. But, mark my words, -eventually- everything will be ITB with negligible latency and the way people work now, will seem as antiquated as trying to explain why we had to:
a) Buy film
b) Take pictures
c) Wait for said pictures to be developed

---JC



Eric Dahlberg said:
UAD-1-8I/O could possibly have addressed the issue. Without using their own I/O's, I don't see how UA can do much if anything to help the matter.
 

TheHopiWay

Active Member
Unless the laws of physics change dsp processing will introduce some latency and IMO ANY latency is inherently evil. 60 samples, 2048 samples or anything between all create issues I don't want present when tracking.
With that in mind I don't care what the latency is as long as it can be documented and worked around later with ADC.
 
Suntower said:
I can hear the jeers already, but the latency in UAD-1 has started to -really- get up my nose. Watching the piano roll be out of sync with the playback by updwards of an 1/8th note is starting to get -really- old.

Assuming that -whatever- UAD-2 turns out to be, my deepest wish is that it address this problem.

And it -is- a problem. It's 2007. I don't -want- to have continue to use the 'track then mix' paradigm of 40 years ago. The gigaflops are now there in hardware so I no longer want to have to divide my brain into two totally artifical tasks.

And they -are- artificially separate tasks. They only exist as separate tasks because that's the way it had to be back in the good ol' tape days. This sort of thinking has to change because it lets plug-in developers off the hook.

Better real-time processing simply has to be a higher priority if I'm to upgrade to the UAD-2.

---JC
That's why i am waiting for UAD-2 too! I wonder why UA is not able to find a partner that builds a kind of "the poor mans Pro Tools DSP-card"? I mean, that thingy is also nothing else than a dsp-card but as far as i know it is the only one that works (nearly) in realtime! Why??? Okay, it is expensive but the reason for that is Digidesign! I mean, they sell a MIDI-interface for 600.- $ ?????
 

Suntower

Established Member
I rest my case.

TheHopiWay said:
Unless the laws of physics change dsp processing will introduce some latency and IMO ANY latency is inherently evil. 60 samples, 2048 samples or anything between all create issues I don't want present when tracking.
With that in mind I don't care what the latency is as long as it can be documented and worked around later with ADC.
I mean no disprect. But it's a mindset issue. If you're happy with the current state of play, good on ya. It won't last, though.

My guess is that even the separate job of 'engineer' will dramatically decline as the tools get better.


I think we're in an age similar to the dawn of desk top publishing. Maybe 15 years from now the only 'engineers' that will remain will be higher end guys with great rooms or mastering houses. More and more lower-end mixing jobs will be handled by the musicians themselves---yeah, the ones that pay a lot of bills now. It's inevitable---just like with DTP; more and more people do it in-house because the tools will become easier and knowledge more generally dispersed.

---JC
 

Spacey

Active Member
They could fix most of the latency issue's by making that chainer. They won't even comment on it though....so much for listening to their customers.

I can deal with a doubling of the latency but not multiples of that when you have 2 or more uad-1 plugins on a single channel.

Had to add, credit where credit is due..... the coupon deals are excellent though so I suppose they look after their customers that way, but they really could reply about the chainer in the thread.
 
UAD Bundle Month
Top