• 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.

Where Is The Chainer?

electro77

Venerated Member
What happened?
 

Spacey

Active Member
This actually gets on my nerves, as we have been asking for it for AGES!!!!

Even if Ua just give us a few combinations, I mean we have been pretty damn loyal and sold more cards and plugins for them than their advertising ever has. Word of mouth and forum whoring about uad quality does more than any advertising ever could......

So you'd think they might actually listen to us and help us out.

Running 2 or 3 Uad plugins on a track triples the overal latenc of a project, if you use soft synths at all this totally sucks. Yes I know you COULD turn off the delay compensation but it doesn't really work as the whole groove of the project goes out the window.

All we need is a few plugin combinations linked like mini racks:

1176 to 1073
1073 to 1176

LA-2A to 1073
1073 to LA-2A

Fairchild to 1073
1073 to Fairchild

the same options with the 1081 and the pulteq's and the same set again with the SE versions.

Would save sooooooo much hassle and latency, and it should be a freebie :)
 

Dan Duskin

Established Member
Spacey said:
All we need is a few plugin combinations linked like mini racks:

1176 to 1073
1073 to 1176

LA-2A to 1073
1073 to LA-2A

Fairchild to 1073
1073 to Fairchild

the same options with the 1081 and the pulteq's and the same set again with the SE versions.

Would save sooooooo much hassle and latency, and it should be a freebie :)
No need to do both Compressor before EQ *AND* EQ before compressor plugins. The plugin itself should have a "FLIP" function that reverses the order. I don't care if it changes the graphic or not.

Let's see... here's the complete list:
1176 & 1073
1176 & 1081
1176 & PultecPro
1176 & Helios
LA2A & 1073
LA2A & 1081
LA2A & PultecPro
LA2A & Helios
Fairchild & 1073
Fairchild & 1081
Fairchild & PultecPro
Fairchild & Helios
33609 & 1073
33609 & 1081
33609 & PultecPro
33609 & Helios

DAMN! That's 16 plugins!!! And I haven't even listed Cambridge, or any of the Precision stuff! FUCK IT! JUST GIVE US A GOD DAMN CHAINER!!!
 

Spacey

Active Member
16 Plugins in a seperate folder called \"Chained\" is workable, I'm just worried that making a chainer is maybe too hard for them, so maybe linking eq's and compressors together might be more feesable for them to look into.

I prefer the chainer though.

COME ON UA!, can we finally get some official responce on the forum that sings your praises to all and sundry..... give us a little love back :D
 

electro77

Venerated Member
imdrecordings said:
I don't think there was ever going to be one. :(
Hopefully they will spend some time rewriting their drivers.
Solve a few problems and increase performance.
Fingers crossed :|
-S-
What do you call added CPU overhead per UAD plugin?

and what do you call +1X latency per UAD plugin?

Chainer would reduce all those in addition to eliminating some 32bit float dither between UAD plugs.
 

Spacey

Active Member
It's not like we haven't asked for it before, and I can't remember getting any feedback from them. We know they read this forum a lot, so do the people who are going to buy a uad-1. So I don't think it's a lot to ask for a good discussion with Ua on this forum about this.

Communication is key :)
 

Fundy

Established Member
Perhaps the VST 3 architecture can help and this was technically infeasible until now. If you already have the routing in your sequencer why would you need a second mixing facility? Surely if the purpose would be reduce latency and load, a bigger and better APU would be the answer.
 

Spacey

Active Member
It's not about routing so much Fundy, if you read the whole thread :) you'll see it's about latency. Say you're tracking at 2 ms, then you add a 1073 then an 1176 on the inserts... you are now tracking at 6ms.

With a chainer you could be able to have a load of Ua plugins and only have a doubling of latency, also the plugins would go straight from one to the other instead of having to go Cubase to 1073 to Cubase to 1176 to Cubase.

At higher latencies it makes the whole mix sluggish. At 10ms if you have 2 plugins on any insert it brings the whole projects latency to 30 ms.
 

Paul Woodlock

Established Member
Spacey said:
It's not about routing so much Fundy, if you read the whole thread :) you'll see it's about latency. Say you're tracking at 2 ms, then you add a 1073 then an 1176 on the inserts... you are now tracking at 6ms.

With a chainer you could be able to have a load of Ua plugins and only have a doubling of latency, also the plugins would go straight from one to the other instead of having to go Cubase to 1073 to Cubase to 1176 to Cubase.

At higher latencies it makes the whole mix sluggish. At 10ms if you have 2 plugins on any insert it brings the whole projects latency to 30 ms.
It's also about PCI badnwidth as well as latency. It woudl reduce the number of audio channels travelling to the card and back
 

Eurocide

Active Member
Paul Woodlock said:
Spacey said:
It's not about routing so much Fundy, if you read the whole thread :) you'll see it's about latency. Say you're tracking at 2 ms, then you add a 1073 then an 1176 on the inserts... you are now tracking at 6ms.

With a chainer you could be able to have a load of Ua plugins and only have a doubling of latency, also the plugins would go straight from one to the other instead of having to go Cubase to 1073 to Cubase to 1176 to Cubase.

At higher latencies it makes the whole mix sluggish. At 10ms if you have 2 plugins on any insert it brings the whole projects latency to 30 ms.
It's also about PCI badnwidth as well as latency. It woudl reduce the number of audio channels travelling to the card and back
And because Cubase 4 has obvious problems with the stability of the PDC & UAD-1 it *could* solve that problem.
 

Trace

Active Member
In this age of greater consservation and not being wasteful, i'm shocked that UA hasn't made an attempt to solve this LONG standing problem. We've asked for it and asked for it and NOTHING!!! I hope they don't think we've forgotten about it. I think about it every time I use my DAW and think about all that PCI taffic. It's just a waste. Also I hate having to load all those separate instances of basic tools. We all know how common EQ + Comp is. It's like PB&J. They even have combined their own hardware recreations so why can't we get something along those lines for the DAW?
 

Spacey

Active Member
Some work flow loving needed there for sure. I forgot about the pci traffic, this would certainly solve a lot of congestion.

I was thinking about going completly native a few weeks back, but I can't as nothing comes close for compressors and eq's. But everything felt so much snappier and less hassle when I tried a session using native plugs.

So I think either a chainer or combo's of the most used plugins is a must.

What pisses me off though is that UA used to post in here, now it's starting to feel like Cubase.net or the NI forums. No company interaction leaves a cold feeling when discussing issues that companies should be involved in at the root level.

It wouldn't take much for Ua to pop their head in and say \"we have taken your idea on board and will discuss it, the problems are etc...\"

So come on Ua take 5 mins out at show us you listen or at least acknowledge this long time request. If it worked well I would pay a small fee, like $20 for the upgrade, but I think it should be free. :?
 

Fundy

Established Member
You all bring up valid points and now I understand what you lot are on about, I shall join your small hippie like protest [Raises placard and chants]
 

Dave Bourke

Active Member
Threads like this on ANY forum are a complete waste of time. The reality is that UA employees rarely have the time to come read all the posts here because they're paid to WORK, not surf the interwebs.

Flooding their mail server with individual requests might be counterproductive and unfriendly. But here's something that might get their attention:

First, a new thread here – \"Chainer Petition to UA.\" Add your voice with a simple \"Me too\" post. When the thread has enough posts to matter, one of us writes the petition email to UA for a chainer. The email adds all of our individual signatures to the bottom.

Trace has been suggesting a chainer since I first joined this forum a couple of years back. Whatcha think, Trace?

Anyone?

Kind regards.
 

Richard Hunter

Active Member
electro77 said:
Chainer would reduce all those in addition to eliminating some 32bit float dither between UAD plugs.
Im not sure what DAW you are using, but my DAW keeps things 32 bit float all the way till the master buss...are you mixing in 64-bit or something??? I cant imagine going from 64-bit to 32-bit to 64-bit is really going to ruin your mixes.

And what is the big deal with latency? Who uses UA plugs while tracking? seems kinda silly. I guess for playing VI's? just disable the UA card while tracking VI's...ugghh i hate the latency and cpu needs that VI's have. they sound great, but man are they a bitch and half to use.

so i dont care too much for a chainer, unless it really improved performance (like letting me squeeze in 3 1073's and 3 1176's per card or something...)

otherwise...bring on the UAD-2, screw the chainer for now!
 

Akis

Sadly, left this world before his time.
Moderator
Dave Bourke said:
First, a new thread here – "Chainer Petition to UA." Add your voice with a simple "Me too" post. When the thread has enough posts to matter, one of us writes the petition email to UA for a chainer. The email adds all of our individual signatures to the bottom.
Here it is, though I'd prefer if you posted your full names and e-mail addresses, rather than just a 'me, too':

http://www.chrismilne.com/uadforums/vie ... 7497#57497
 

Mark Edmonds

Active Member
I'd be gobsmacked if UA weren't aware of this request and I reckon the reason we haven't got it is because although the idea might be easy to talk about, actually implementing it is a totally different prospect.

If you want just one simple example, think of load balancing. Chained plugins would have to be on the same card so the existing problems with load balancing immediately get worse.

Then what about automation? How is that going to work in a chainer? Each time you change the chainer config, your automation gets screwed.

Combos aren't a solution either because each one would still need developing and the more plugins UA release, so the more combos would be needed.

The latency benefit of chainging is only going to be significant on the main bus anyway.

So rather than talking about having wanted this thing for years (I'd like it too!), just think about the problems that exist with the concept. It can't be that straight-forward or they would have already done it.

Mark
 

Spacey

Active Member
Well, not all of us use automation on Ua plugins, so it would be nice to have the option of having at the very least some favourite combinations hard wired together.
 
UAD Bundle Month
Top