Question: Is it pointless to run BOTH a UAD2 and UAD Native on the same DAW

[Vocalpoint]

All

I am just about to build out a new DAW for 2024 over the holiday break and this time - I am really stripping back the installed plugins - so I will actually use my "go-to" plugins rather than wasting time trying this and that endlessly.

As part of the last DAW build in 2021 - I of course jumped all over the UAD Native (UADx) offerings when they first arrived - but in my case - I only get native options for less than half of the plugins that are part of my UAD-2 lineup. Having both installed representes duplication I do not need - so I am thinking I might just ditch the UADx completely (except for PolySynth - which I do use).

Anyone else do the same or are you simply installing everything without thought or concern?

Or maybe you ditched the UAD2 in favor of the Native options - even at the expense of leaving some (yet to be converted) plugins out of your world due to them being only UAD2? From a pure performance level - I would think the UAD2 would still be the more powerful option regardless of today's modern CPUs.

Curious to get your thoughts on this.

VP

 

[hotspot]

From a pure performance level - I would think the UAD2 would still be the more powerful option regardless of today's modern CPUs.

That's the point. The number of UADx plugins eat your CPU power.
So, combining UAD2 and UADx would be wise.
I use both, but always keep an eye on both the CPU utilisation and the UAD2 DSP utilisation. Depending on where the bottleneck is tightest, I decide in favour of the alternative.

 

[Vocalpoint]

That's the point. The number of UADx plugins eat your CPU power.

But I guess that's my point too.

I have two UAD2 cards installed and my projects would never gobble all the juice in both cards regardless of what I piled on for UAD plugs - so throwing the UADx plugins into the DAW makes no sense - especially with the duplication.

All I know is if I am going to lean on an 1176 for a mix - it will always be the UAD2 version so I can leave my CPU for more pressing matters like VST instruments etc.

Also - my workflow is such that I rarely use ANY plugins while tracking. I do a dry "tracking" session for all performances, render everything to audio (like VSTis) and then create a "mix" session afterward - where I am always dealing with just pure audio tracks and there is no "going" back to fix something.

In this template - since it's clean audio with plugins assigned as needed - the overhead - even with 24-36 tracks is tiny and the UAD2 cards handle it with no trouble.

Cannot really see the point to have the UADx around at all (especially since more than half my plugs are not native) - if they will never see action.

VP

 

[hotspot]

That's all right so far.
I also work in such a way that I do separate projects for songwriting, recording and mixing. I also work exclusively with audio in mix projects, without exception.
But otherwise it's not really a problem, more of a luxury

I like to use UADx from time to time for compatibility reasons. That way I can also work on the same projects on another computer with less UAD2 power.

 

[Vocalpoint]

I like to use UADx from time to time for compatibility reasons. That way I can also work on the same projects on another computer with less UAD2 power.

I get that - but in my case - there is no other computer

I think in the essence of reducing the "paralysis of choice" - I may just start with my UAD2 lineup and see where it goes. I can always install the native at any time.

VP

 

[EoSNJ]

I run everything I can on DSP also - keeping cpu for for heavy-hitting instruments too. But I'd still keep the UADx versions installed.

 

[kcatthedog2]

Seems like such a theoretical problem how much cpu is used if uadX is just installed : any ?

 

[rodd]

For me I pay attention to the first 4 slots in Luna and use uad2 in those if I want to hear them while recording. Otherwise I don’t worry about it too much unless I get the “not enough dsp resources” error, which doesn’t happen a lot these days.

 

[LesBrown]

I write in Logic with UADx, then switch to UAD2 versions after the move to Luna, or later while mixing in Luna. Once I am mixing, I use DSP versions as much as possible, which is usually 100% aside from native-only plugins.

 

[Joe Porto]

For a native DAW, UADx will offer noticeable lower latency when monitoring while tracking.

UAD plugins on playback tracks however, will free up CPU processing to keep your buffer size low when carrying out said tracking.

There is certainly a use for both in a native system.

 

[squeakyanimal]

I use both, for several reasons. First, I like to have unison preamps (UAD) for recording. Second, it’s nice to have the flexibility to put things on either the DSP or system processor to optimize resources and system responsiveness. Finally, the UADx plugins have resizable interfaces, which is enough to make me prefer them in many cases

 

[XL_Erate]

So I guess you don't use any of the UADx only plugins?

 

[Bruce_Sokolovic]

But I guess that's my point too.

I have two UAD2 cards installed and my projects would never gobble all the juice in both cards regardless of what I piled on for UAD plugs - so throwing the UADx plugins into the DAW makes no sense - especially with the duplication.

All I know is if I am going to lean on an 1176 for a mix - it will always be the UAD2 version so I can leave my CPU for more pressing matters like VST instruments etc.

Also - my workflow is such that I rarely use ANY plugins while tracking. I do a dry "tracking" session for all performances, render everything to audio (like VSTis) and then create a "mix" session afterward - where I am always dealing with just pure audio tracks and there is no "going" back to fix something.

In this template - since it's clean audio with plugins assigned as needed - the overhead - even with 24-36 tracks is tiny and the UAD2 cards handle it with no trouble.

Cannot really see the point to have the UADx around at all (especially since more than half my plugs are not native) - if they will never see action.

VP

you sure? Some of the more hungry plugins take up a chip by themselves. Personally I'd install all my UAD stuff.

 

[squeakyanimal]

So I guess you don't use any of the UADx only plugins?

Good point—there are a few really nice UADx plugs not available on DSP (and of course a lot of great ones only on DSP).

 

[danisalat]

I have disables all UAD2 plugins I own as native from Logic's Plugin Manager. Fortunately my computer can handle very big mixing sessions so I really don't worry about CPU.

Using many UAD2 plugins increments the bouncing times A LOT, so I try to avoid them if possible

 

[dnr]

Not really. I do. However, the thing to watch out for is latency with UAD2. I don't generally use UAD 2 until mixing, sticking with UADx until then.

 

[marQs]

UADx is liberating for me beside the card powered processing. Wouldn't want to be without the cards still (2 x Octo + 1 x Quad installed), they're still a relief for the CPU. This might change of course but with my current built it's true for me.

 

[yve]

In my case, i use a Sattellite Octo USB, works great, but needs more time for the audioexport.(not important for 3Min. Mixdown) But when i work in Projects with long Audiofiles (30Minutes) to Mixdown, i try to use UADx, they are much faster( no USB bottleneck)

 

[Matt Hepworth]

I lean on UADx when available, especially when I'm doing long sessions, as I really appreciate the greatly reduced bounce time. I also track mostly with Apollos, so there's plenty of DSP utilized as well.

 

[klong]

Personally I try to only use UAD DSP for tracking and getting the sound I want into the DAW. I try to avoid adding any UAD2 plugins in my DAW, because two things that annoy me greatly are: Running out of DSP, and opening a session on my laptop without my Apollo and having plugins not load as a result.

I'm not fully convinced by the argument that we still need to offload processing to DSP while mixing in 2023. CPUs are crazy powerful, and you can always freeze and unfreeze tracks, usually in seconds.