If UA does not fix the platforms' DSP limitations, count me out when it comes to new interfaces. I did not post this in the Wants and Wishes category because it is a necessity, not a feature upgrade I'd like to see.
I was going to respond to the thread about waiting for TB3 on new UA interfaces. As I started to write my reply, I found myself writing, "I don't care if a new interface has TB 1, 2 , 3 or 33!"
That got me to thinking. No incremental improvement in the UA platform will be nearly enough of an incentive for me to purchase any other hardware (and maybe plugins) from UA. Not TB3; not full MIDI implementation, not dual core SHARCs on Apollo; not AVB; not even a digital only in/out version of Apollo.
Don't get me wrong, I am a huge fan of UA. I have made a huge investment in plugins, an Apollo 8 Duo, and a SF Quad.
Nor am I planning to leave the platform. I am selling my Apollo Quad SF and my Apollo 8 Duo to buy a new Apollo 8 Quad. I will do so because of the promo. The Quad Satellite offer entices me enough to go with the current limitations. But I am not going further with UA. At this point, we are stuck.
So at the risk of stating and repeating the obvious:
One DSP per track just doesn't cut it. Period. And not being able to use chips across multiple Apollos is ridiculous. Multi-threading and multi-core technology on native systems has been available for more than a decade. No, I am not asking for or wanting native versions of UA plugins. I am simply making the point that other systems are not limited in this manner.
I understand that there are physical reasons for the DSP limitations with respect to the PFGA chips in Apollos.
So I challenge UA: Even if you have to charge more for an Apollo with a PFGA capable of using DSP across hardware and more than one chip on a track, just do it. At that point I will buy.
When I bought my Apollo 8 in 2015, I did not understand these limitations. That is on me. I should have done more research into the platform.
But it is two+ years later. When you consider the entry level cost for an Apollo 8, you should not have to put up with this situation. The number one reason I bought into the UA world was I wanted to be able to access the UA plugins. I thought that having the hardware host the plugins with on board DSP would be a plus. Then I ran into the DSP limitation issues.
Winter NAMM is upon us. The big rumor is a Twin single with a TB3 connector. Why on earth should we care? Sure, I am all for any updated feature set like TB3, MIDI implementation, etc., for Apollo. But without a DSP limitations fix, it is simply not enough.
As a group, those of us on this forum over the last few years have generally accepted this state of the UA universe. I believe it is high time we stopped accepting a system with a basic design flaw. What do you think?
I was going to respond to the thread about waiting for TB3 on new UA interfaces. As I started to write my reply, I found myself writing, "I don't care if a new interface has TB 1, 2 , 3 or 33!"
That got me to thinking. No incremental improvement in the UA platform will be nearly enough of an incentive for me to purchase any other hardware (and maybe plugins) from UA. Not TB3; not full MIDI implementation, not dual core SHARCs on Apollo; not AVB; not even a digital only in/out version of Apollo.
Don't get me wrong, I am a huge fan of UA. I have made a huge investment in plugins, an Apollo 8 Duo, and a SF Quad.
Nor am I planning to leave the platform. I am selling my Apollo Quad SF and my Apollo 8 Duo to buy a new Apollo 8 Quad. I will do so because of the promo. The Quad Satellite offer entices me enough to go with the current limitations. But I am not going further with UA. At this point, we are stuck.
So at the risk of stating and repeating the obvious:
One DSP per track just doesn't cut it. Period. And not being able to use chips across multiple Apollos is ridiculous. Multi-threading and multi-core technology on native systems has been available for more than a decade. No, I am not asking for or wanting native versions of UA plugins. I am simply making the point that other systems are not limited in this manner.
I understand that there are physical reasons for the DSP limitations with respect to the PFGA chips in Apollos.
So I challenge UA: Even if you have to charge more for an Apollo with a PFGA capable of using DSP across hardware and more than one chip on a track, just do it. At that point I will buy.
When I bought my Apollo 8 in 2015, I did not understand these limitations. That is on me. I should have done more research into the platform.
But it is two+ years later. When you consider the entry level cost for an Apollo 8, you should not have to put up with this situation. The number one reason I bought into the UA world was I wanted to be able to access the UA plugins. I thought that having the hardware host the plugins with on board DSP would be a plus. Then I ran into the DSP limitation issues.
Winter NAMM is upon us. The big rumor is a Twin single with a TB3 connector. Why on earth should we care? Sure, I am all for any updated feature set like TB3, MIDI implementation, etc., for Apollo. But without a DSP limitations fix, it is simply not enough.
As a group, those of us on this forum over the last few years have generally accepted this state of the UA universe. I believe it is high time we stopped accepting a system with a basic design flaw. What do you think?