-
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.
WAVES API!!!!
- Thread starter dusty
- Start date
imdrecordings
Venerated Member
SWEET! 8)
But I'll never be able to afford it.
Might as well buy a real one.
-S-
But I'll never be able to afford it.
Might as well buy a real one.
-S-
TheEastGateMS
Active Member
No need to rebut, it was only an opinion.Pigcat said:
Eric Dahlberg
Purveyor of musical dreams fullfilled.
"Literally"? This is a subjective matter, there's nothing literal about it. I subjectively agree with the original poster that Waves is not as good as UA at making vintage emulations.Pigcat said:
Arys Chien
Active Member
Yeah. The OP should say "vintage gear emulation" instead of "vintage emulation gear". But Pigcat you got his point anyway.Pigcat said:
Now anybody that can make A/B clips for us? 8) I'd also love to know how the Waves API sounds. In the PSW forum, Mr. Ross Hogarth said the Waves API sounds awesome, and it's rare that he says good words about something in public. Last time it was the Chandler Germanium Pre.
Woops, I did mean his phrasing... :wink:Pigcat said:
By the way, I did mean the whole phrasing but not the wordings. I know the original poster was speaking upon his personal opinions but he did not state so. The post read like he prefer xx doing emulation but has nothing to do to 'who did the better emulation' - which he didn't state that it was his opinions.
cane creek
Established Member
Thats because waves have to balance CPU use with sound quality UA dont have to :wink:afone1977 said:
cane creek said:
What??????? This is pure BS....
Any DSP plug-in has to be written with regard to how much CPU load it will take - period. What about the UA 33609? It sure is a processor hog and I constantly hear people complaining about the amount of resources it requires. I'm a big fan of the UA 33609, but I would certainly not use it as much if I didn't have 4 cards.
Furthermore - code can be optimized to run more efficiently, so it is possible that processor load can be reduced AND the quality of the plug-in be improved at the same time. This is true with hardware as well - my Core 2 Duo DAW consumes far less power than my old AMD Dual MP2600 system (plus runs much cooler and quieter), yet it runs circles around it performance wise.
Why must people speculate (poorly) and then state things as fact?
All that's true, but you can only optimise something so far before the quality is compromised. You can expect say, a full 33609 to be optimised to run on 1% of a card without there being some corners cut (Hence the SE versions, right?)
UA do have to worry about some optimisation, but there's only so far they are willing to go, hence a) the high dsp usage and b) the superlative sound quality. I can live with that. People who might complain if, as Pigcat stated, hypothetical UA-native plugs made the cpu shoot up are kind of missing the point. It's the eternal balancing act of quality versus efficiency, albeit tempered by optimisation.
I'll take sound every time, and have faith that UA will do their level best to reduce dsp load as much as they can. Let's be honest, they are hardly slouches in the programming field, so I am sure they do whatever they can without compromising their 'sound comes first' policy
UA do have to worry about some optimisation, but there's only so far they are willing to go, hence a) the high dsp usage and b) the superlative sound quality. I can live with that. People who might complain if, as Pigcat stated, hypothetical UA-native plugs made the cpu shoot up are kind of missing the point. It's the eternal balancing act of quality versus efficiency, albeit tempered by optimisation.
I'll take sound every time, and have faith that UA will do their level best to reduce dsp load as much as they can. Let's be honest, they are hardly slouches in the programming field, so I am sure they do whatever they can without compromising their 'sound comes first' policy
Richard Hunter
Active Member
yawn.
my emu is better than yours.
I thought v-series was kind of sexy, but i don't know. UA gives me plenty of vintage sounding plugs. id rather spend my native power on altiverb, soundtoys, and VI's.
and waves, ill never go back to dealing with those people. UA customer support is soooo much better.
my emu is better than yours.
I thought v-series was kind of sexy, but i don't know. UA gives me plenty of vintage sounding plugs. id rather spend my native power on altiverb, soundtoys, and VI's.
and waves, ill never go back to dealing with those people. UA customer support is soooo much better.
Exactly! And this goes for BOTH Waves and UA and they both make great products. If you prefer the sound of one plug-in over another that is fine, but quit speculating about DSP compromises etc. as that is all it is - speculation.Macc said:
It is just a shame that again we have misinformation being spread.....
Eric Dahlberg
Purveyor of musical dreams fullfilled.
The Waves Renaissance plug-ins used to sound better than they do now but were \"optimized\" about 9 years ago in version 3.5 & never recovered. I don't know what sorts of \"optimizations\" Waves is doing these days but it seems clear that sound quality was sacrificed in favor of low CPU usage as recently as a few years ago, evidenced by the fact that the TDM versions of their plug-ins sounded better than the native versions at that time.