Gregmang
Max Output Level: -59.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1592
- Joined: 2003/12/31 07:21:57
- Location: Maryland USA
- Status: offline
Re:UAD-1 & SONAR X* 64. I Give Up.
2012/11/30 18:27:54
(permalink)
At Craig - wow, I had no idea ! My continued viewings of Spinal Tap will also now be marred :(
At Fooman - with all due respect I believe my metaphor is/was apt. There is no reason why UAD would update their drivers to disable perfectly working UAD1 other than to force new sales of UAD2. That's shoddy. UAD1 could have easily have been retained and some users actually provided a workaround to do just that - however the wizards at UA killed that in 6.4.
Customer centric behavior to grow your installed base ? I think not.
Tchuess, Universal Audio.
|
Anderton
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 14070
- Joined: 2003/11/06 14:02:03
- Status: offline
Re:UAD-1 & SONAR X* 64. I Give Up.
2012/11/30 22:44:20
(permalink)
☄ Helpful
There's a misconception that if you bought an XYZ plug-in for your UAD-1, you have to buy it again if you get a UAD-2. I checked with UA, and was told you can transfer ownership of UAD-1 plug-ins to UAD-2 at no charge. Here's the link describing the free upgrade program. The only plug-in that's not a part of this program is Nigel, as a UAD-2 version was never produced for the unfortunate legal reasons I mentioned previously. As to new drivers disabling UAD-1, I didn't think to ask about that but I do recall a forum post when I was bemoaning the lack of 64-bit support. Someone who seemed to be knowledgeable but not affiliated with UA said not to hold my breath waiting for 64-bit UAD-1 support, as the hardware is totally different and he didn't think it could ever be made compatible with true 64-bit operation. He thought the best I could hope for was running 32-bit plug-ins using bridge technology. I don't know if that was technically correct or not, but the UAD-1 was introduced 10 years ago so that means the chip it uses is even older. UA ceased production of the UAD-1 around four years ago yet continued to update and support it until this month, which is pretty good compared to the track record of tech companies in general. For example Apple produced computers with PowerPC chips until mid-2006, but the last OS to support PPC (Leopard) was released in 2007 (!). Snow Leopard, released in 2009, was Intel-only. So as far as I can tell, the bottom line is that if you have a UAD-1 card, you have two choices: Keep running it as a 32-bit plug-in in a 64-bit system using a bridge, or buy new hardware and transfer your plug-ins over for free. No new UAD-1 plug-ins have been developed in what, two years (?), so it's already a given you won't be able to run plug-ins currently being designed for the UAD-2 on the UAD-1. I just don't see UA devoting resources to developing new plug-ins for a ten-year-old platform they discontinued four years ago. If you have a mix of UAD-1 and UAD-2 cards, you can either run them under UA's 32-bit software which freezes what they can do (and the plug-ins you can run) to before 6.4 was introduced, or give up on the UAD-1 and go 64-bit with the UAD-2 card. The issue of whether UA is saying good-bye to supporting the UAD-1 for monetary reasons has two sides. One is that they want you to upgrade to the UAD-2, which of course means more sales (although it could also be because they know what they're planning for a year or two down the line, and it definitely won't accommodate a UAD-1 so they might as well stop now). But another possible reason they might not want to broadcast is that legacy support is a resource sink. They may simply not want to have to deal with people asking support questions on how to use their UAD-1 running Sonar X5 under Windows 9 because that takes time and money away from supporting current products and developing new ones. Having been in this biz as long as I have, suffice it to say this is a small industry and companies have to figure out how to allocate a pretty limited set of resources, while navigating the changes in consumer electronics (e.g., computers, and Apple/Microsoft operating systems) that often take companies, as well as consumers, by surprise. I can't really fault companies for the decisions they make, they're not made arbitrarily...companies don't want to upset any of their customers, but sometimes reality intrudes. The most important consideration is that a company stay in business, otherwise nobody gets any support. If I had to choose between devoting resources to current UAD-2 owners or owners of UAD-1s and it was one or the other, I assume current UAD-2 owners would get priority. Of course, this reflects my opinion, not any inside knowledge of what goes on at UA. But, I've seen this scenario play out at so many companies I would be shocked if UA was somehow immune from it. Oh, and if anyone needs some Mac NuBus cards or Windows ISA cards, let me know...and PM me if you want a screaming hot Apple dual G5 PowerPC tower computer. 
post edited by Anderton - 2012/11/30 22:52:13
|
fooman
Max Output Level: -63 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1382
- Joined: 2006/06/26 14:47:44
- Location: Ontario, Canada
- Status: offline
Re:UAD-1 & SONAR X* 64. I Give Up.
2012/12/01 00:28:12
(permalink)
|
SuperG
Max Output Level: -63 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1371
- Joined: 2012/10/19 16:09:18
- Location: Edgewood, NM
- Status: offline
Re:UAD-1 & SONAR X* 64. I Give Up.
2012/12/01 01:23:45
(permalink)
|
Danny Danzi
Moderator
- Total Posts : 5810
- Joined: 2006/10/05 13:42:39
- Location: DanziLand, NJ
- Status: offline
Re:UAD-1 & SONAR X* 64. I Give Up.
2012/12/01 07:59:11
(permalink)
Anderton
There's a misconception that if you bought an XYZ plug-in for your UAD-1, you have to buy it again if you get a UAD-2. I checked with UA, and was told you can transfer ownership of UAD-1 plug-ins to UAD-2 at no charge. Here's the link describing the free upgrade program. The only plug-in that's not a part of this program is Nigel, as a UAD-2 version was never produced for the unfortunate legal reasons I mentioned previously.
As to new drivers disabling UAD-1, I didn't think to ask about that but I do recall a forum post when I was bemoaning the lack of 64-bit support. Someone who seemed to be knowledgeable but not affiliated with UA said not to hold my breath waiting for 64-bit UAD-1 support, as the hardware is totally different and he didn't think it could ever be made compatible with true 64-bit operation. He thought the best I could hope for was running 32-bit plug-ins using bridge technology.
I don't know if that was technically correct or not, but the UAD-1 was introduced 10 years ago so that means the chip it uses is even older. UA ceased production of the UAD-1 around four years ago yet continued to update and support it until this month, which is pretty good compared to the track record of tech companies in general. For example Apple produced computers with PowerPC chips until mid-2006, but the last OS to support PPC (Leopard) was released in 2007 (!). Snow Leopard, released in 2009, was Intel-only.
So as far as I can tell, the bottom line is that if you have a UAD-1 card, you have two choices: Keep running it as a 32-bit plug-in in a 64-bit system using a bridge, or buy new hardware and transfer your plug-ins over for free. No new UAD-1 plug-ins have been developed in what, two years (?), so it's already a given you won't be able to run plug-ins currently being designed for the UAD-2 on the UAD-1. I just don't see UA devoting resources to developing new plug-ins for a ten-year-old platform they discontinued four years ago.
If you have a mix of UAD-1 and UAD-2 cards, you can either run them under UA's 32-bit software which freezes what they can do (and the plug-ins you can run) to before 6.4 was introduced, or give up on the UAD-1 and go 64-bit with the UAD-2 card.
The issue of whether UA is saying good-bye to supporting the UAD-1 for monetary reasons has two sides. One is that they want you to upgrade to the UAD-2, which of course means more sales (although it could also be because they know what they're planning for a year or two down the line, and it definitely won't accommodate a UAD-1 so they might as well stop now). But another possible reason they might not want to broadcast is that legacy support is a resource sink. They may simply not want to have to deal with people asking support questions on how to use their UAD-1 running Sonar X5 under Windows 9 because that takes time and money away from supporting current products and developing new ones.
Having been in this biz as long as I have, suffice it to say this is a small industry and companies have to figure out how to allocate a pretty limited set of resources, while navigating the changes in consumer electronics (e.g., computers, and Apple/Microsoft operating systems) that often take companies, as well as consumers, by surprise. I can't really fault companies for the decisions they make, they're not made arbitrarily...companies don't want to upset any of their customers, but sometimes reality intrudes. The most important consideration is that a company stay in business, otherwise nobody gets any support. If I had to choose between devoting resources to current UAD-2 owners or owners of UAD-1s and it was one or the other, I assume current UAD-2 owners would get priority.
Of course, this reflects my opinion, not any inside knowledge of what goes on at UA. But, I've seen this scenario play out at so many companies I would be shocked if UA was somehow immune from it.
Oh, and if anyone needs some Mac NuBus cards or Windows ISA cards, let me know...and PM me if you want a screaming hot Apple dual G5 PowerPC tower computer.
Pfff...who do you think you are with this long post, me? LOL! I think that's the biggest post I've seen you do. Hahahaha! And a great one at that! Awesome post, Craig. Always great to read your stuff. Even better when you go in depth like this. :)
My Site Fractal Audio Endorsed Artist & Beta Tester
|
michaelhanson
Max Output Level: -40 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3529
- Joined: 2008/10/31 15:19:56
- Location: Mesquite, Texas
- Status: offline
Re:UAD-1 & SONAR X* 64. I Give Up.
2012/12/01 09:43:38
(permalink)
Ha..I think this is the shortest post I have ever seen you do Danny. You must have been between Skeleton Crew sets.
|
Genghis
Max Output Level: -74 dBFS
- Total Posts : 827
- Joined: 2003/11/09 16:09:17
- Location: Huntington Beach, CA
- Status: offline
Re:UAD-1 & SONAR X* 64. I Give Up.
2012/12/01 10:35:09
(permalink)
Great post Craig! Well said and well thought out.
I am glad I took advantage of the offer to trade in my 2 UAD-1's on a UAD-2 Quad last summer. It performs great and now that they have 64bit versions of the plugins I'm not looking back at all. I got a lot of use out of the old cards, but I understand why they had to move on and I didn't mind moving on with them. I suppose if Nigel was one of my go-to plugins I'd be upset about it not working on the UAD-2, but I never really used it for anything beyond the occasional experiment. (I had never heard that story about Christopher Guest regarding Nigel. That is truly a bummer. Kind of ruins Spinal Tap for me too.)
|
ohgrant
Max Output Level: -35.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3966
- Joined: 2007/03/27 22:53:01
- Status: offline
Re:UAD-1 & SONAR X* 64. I Give Up.
2012/12/01 12:16:35
(permalink)
Great post Craig, I have a great deal of respect for your opinion. I am still concerned that there are going to be folks that are going to install that driver without any knowledge they are about to lose their investment. I have been treated well by UAD myself. My old UAD-1 is safe in an old machine I plan to use for mobile recording. I did the upgrade to UAD-2 last year. I still do not see any logic in a killer driver for the UAD-1, I'm sure they could easily have put some kind of detection algorithm in there that simply tells the user "for UAD-2 only" as far as the card being obsolete, I don't believe that for an instant. They are only obsolete because UAD wants them to be. With the power on native CPUs now I'm sure they could tap into native power for whatever they planned on coming out with in the near future. Even though powercore has stopped development a few years back, they are still constantly upgrading their driver support and even their old MK1 cards have never run better. I'm glad they didn't spend the time to write a driver that kills their old hardware. With native power pretty much making DSP processing irrelevant, the remaining UAD users are there because of the quality of the plugs. There are many options out there now and there are even 3rd party UAD plug-ins that are already going native. SPL_Vitalizer [url=https://www.plugin-alliance.com/en/plugins/detail/spl_transient_designer.html]SPL_Transient[url] [url=https://www.plugin-alliance.com/en/plugins/detail/bx_digital_v2.html]BX_digital v2[url] What concerns me most as someone who has a small amount invested in UAD is they really don't have a plan to for the long haul. Now that they are the last ones standing, I would think they would want to really take care of their existing customers instead of spending resources to write a killer driver. I can't say that it has stopped me from buying UAD plugs, but I probably would have much more invested in them if I felt they were in it for the long haul and not just out for short term gains. I think there will probably be legal issues when more and more folks kill their old cards and instead of the mass amounts of people seeking to upgrade to UAD-2, they are going to be more likely to find a native option IMO. I would like to see UAD develop newer and better processing that would include vsti synths that are much more resource hungry like EWQL stuff. I have serious doubts they are going to survive if some serious innovation doesn't happen.
|
fooman
Max Output Level: -63 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1382
- Joined: 2006/06/26 14:47:44
- Location: Ontario, Canada
- Status: offline
Re:UAD-1 & SONAR X* 64. I Give Up.
2012/12/01 12:38:30
(permalink)
This is kinda OT, but after reading this thread I begged a friend to let me A/B the UAD 1176 V2 stuff VS his Waves CLA-bundle stuff. He has a respectable setup and lucky enough to have both. He readily admits the CLA stuff goes untouched 99% of the time.
When I put the 1176 AE (which I also own and use on drums religiously), on a snare track.... it sounded night and day better than the Waves stuff. Same with kick, vox, etc etc. I didn't have much time to sit and mess around, so the CLA-2A didn't get A/B'd but I'm sure there's many threads about it on the nets.
As much as I wanted to go "Oh wow, UAD has nothing over this native plugin", it's just not true from what I've heard. Maybe it's just this one plugin I was able to A/B that it wins hands-down (IMO), I would be willing to bet that if you put UAD up against other similar plugins (SSL, SPL, etc), UAD would hold it's own and shine. So, against my will kinda, I'm going to keep going with what works for me :)
|
Gregmang
Max Output Level: -59.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1592
- Joined: 2003/12/31 07:21:57
- Location: Maryland USA
- Status: offline
Re:UAD-1 & SONAR X* 64. I Give Up.
2012/12/01 13:54:47
(permalink)
Fact is that the UA plugs ARE excellent.
And if I could have upgraded both of my UAD1's then I would have - however I didn't have another slot for it. So now I have a mixed UAD2/UAD1 system.
If UA released a driver that "froze" the UAD1 in place (to be useable again) while at the same time updating the UAD2 then there is a VERY good chance I would have bought more plugs (was looking at the Studer but went with Slates VTM because I cant buy the UA Studer). That's a lost sale of a few hundred dollars - a drop in the bucket to be sure but I'm sure there are a lot out here with the same dilemma.
Nice marketing and sales motion, UA.
|
Gregmang
Max Output Level: -59.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1592
- Joined: 2003/12/31 07:21:57
- Location: Maryland USA
- Status: offline
Re:UAD-1 & SONAR X* 64. I Give Up.
2012/12/01 14:23:33
(permalink)
interesting posts about this over at the unofficial UA Forum here http://www.studionu.com/uadforums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=17085 " neil wilkes wrote:I still have 3 UAD-1 cards and got just over 10 years use out of them - and they still work on older systems.
You cannot seriously expect the UAD-1 card to run properly on a 64-bit OS.
Err, yes, of course you can... if the PC has a PCI slot and the card has run then 32 bit or 64 should not matter at all. It's only a driver issue. UAD1 was working, and with no problems and the accepted fate was no more UAD1 plug-ins. Fair enough, No complaints. With the arrival of new 1176s (and a new driver set) not only were they UAD2 only (no problem), but UA deliberately, cynically and possibly illegal, forced obsolescence of UAD1 cards onto many of their oldest and longest term 'customers'. (big problem) UA have acted in a manner I have never seen. It's a disgrace. I don't know another single example of hardware that stops working if you want to use a new version... Shameful. Bad UA. There was absolutely no need to do it."
|
Anderton
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 14070
- Joined: 2003/11/06 14:02:03
- Status: offline
Re:UAD-1 & SONAR X* 64. I Give Up.
2012/12/01 16:01:05
(permalink)
Gregmang
With the arrival of new 1176s (and a new driver set) not only were they UAD2 only (no problem), but UA deliberately, cynically and possibly illegal, forced obsolescence of UAD1 cards onto many of their oldest and longest term 'customers'. (big problem)
UA have acted in a manner I have never seen. It's a disgrace. I don't know another single example of hardware that stops working if you want to use a new version... Shameful. Bad UA. There was absolutely no need to do it."
If it's no problem that new plugs are UAD-2 only, then it's irrelevant whether or not UAD-1 cards can run under the new drivers because there won't be any increased functionality for the UAD-1 cards. Again, it's either freeze your system and use UAD-1 cards or a mix of UAD-1 and UAD-2 cards, or move on to UAD-2 and 64-bit operation. I'm not a fan of technology progressing at such a rate that it's impossible to maintain older gear. I had a motherboard fail that was two years old and it was not possible to find a replacement. I couldn't believe that the mobo manufacturer didn't at least have one or two around, and the only option was to find a sketchy used model on eBay. TWO YEARS!! But that's a more, uh, "universal" topic than how Universal Audio chooses to adapt to that world. It's never fun to have hardware relegated to a doorstop IF you want to move into next-gen gear, but you can still use UAD-1 cards. I found a couple interesting viewpoints on UA's forum: “I think the reason you see the two differing points of views here is because some realize or know that this happens everyday with technology. The CPU/motherboard example is spot on and I relate to because I just upgraded a few months ago. Every time Intel upgrades a processor, you can guarantee you have to buy either a) memory, b) motherboard, or c) both. Intel never comes back and says, "hey, our new CPU just made your mobo/memory obsolete, so we are going to give you a $50 trade on your old hardware towards your new CPU." Intel will never do that. I am not arguing the point that what UA did is right or wrong. I'm just noting that the fact that UA is even giving a pretty generous $200 trade on a card that is probably only worth $50 on Ebay now is not a bad deal if you are in the US. Try getting a rebate on your iPhone when they make something on it obsolete and you have to upgrade.” And another one: “Either way the PCI slot is done...and obviously UA need to drop UAD1 to support 64 bit. Since it's an EOL product, meaning support resources go towards new profitable products, just like with any company, future dictated the current case. It's that simple. Keep me and use me till they burn up if you want, just use 6.1. If you want to go forward, it's unfortunate but uad1 and uad2 can't co-exist in a 64-bit environment. Since it will be 64-bit going forth, bam. At least they gave us the upgrade deal. "As far as making uad1 work as an independent setup, well that takes money and resources and it would be a bad business decision to use those towards an EOL non-profitable product....just to hear people **** and whine that they can't purchase new uad2 only plugs for heir uad1s. "I agree it's a bummer, but it's the right business decision and UA is a business.”
|
Gregmang
Max Output Level: -59.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1592
- Joined: 2003/12/31 07:21:57
- Location: Maryland USA
- Status: offline
Re:UAD-1 & SONAR X* 64. I Give Up.
2012/12/01 16:12:52
(permalink)
Craig -
Great reply however I counter than no mobo manufacturer ever released a bios update with a "feature" to disable old mobo's. That's just....wrong.
"If you want to go forward, it's unfortunate but uad1 and uad2 can't co-exist in a 64-bit environment" Of COURSE it can.
"As far as making uad1 work as an independent setup, well that takes money and resources " Well yes I guess it does. But not many resources evidently as someone the on the UA forum had a "workaround" that allowed the UAD1 to peacefully co-exist with the UAD2.
That is until UA found a way to get rid of that workaround in 6.4. Not real warm and fuzzy for long term customers methinks...
|
Anderton
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 14070
- Joined: 2003/11/06 14:02:03
- Status: offline
Re:UAD-1 & SONAR X* 64. I Give Up.
2012/12/01 16:41:28
(permalink)
Gregmang
Craig -
Great reply however I counter than no mobo manufacturer ever released a bios update with a "feature" to disable old mobo's. That's just....wrong.
"If you want to go forward, it's unfortunate but uad1 and uad2 can't co-exist in a 64-bit environment" Of COURSE it can.
"As far as making uad1 work as an independent setup, well that takes money and resources " Well yes I guess it does. But not many resources evidently as someone the on the UA forum had a "workaround" that allowed the UAD1 to peacefully co-exist with the UAD2.
That is until UA found a way to get rid of that workaround in 6.4. Not real warm and fuzzy for long term customers methinks...
The BIOS update that disables an older mobo is actually a good analogy, but I think you're drawing the wrong conclusion. Any BIOS update is for that mobo alone, and past a certain point, the company will stop making updates for that mobo and newer updates will be applied only to their newer mobos. So, you can still use the old mobo and freeze its capabilities, or if you want new BIOS capabilities, you need a new mobo. That's exactly what's happening with UA (except that with the mobo, you don't get a free update of your peripherals to be compatible with the new mobo ). I don't know if 6.4 deliberately disabled the option of doing that workaround, or changes in 6.4 made the workaround irrelevant. If it was done on purpose, while that's certainly not an ideal solution (they could have implemented the dual driver system and just said "if you do this, forget about any support for either the UAD-1 or UAD-2, you're on your own") I suspect they simply don't feel they can devote resources to a ten-year-old product that was discontinued four years ago. It's sad that hardware is subject to the same rules as software in this modern world; I have a raft of software plug-ins that are dead in the water due to OS changes or changes in host programs. The difference with plug-ins is I don't have a piece of hardware staring me in the face and reminding me of physical obsolescence. I really think the core issue goes way beyond UA. All companies have to figure out a way to surf technology waves. Some feel Microsoft has been at a competitive disadvantage compared to Apple due to their attention to backward compatibility, whereas Apple is more than happy to tell their users to "get with the program." Each company has made their decision about how to deal with technological change. In this case, UA has followed more of the Apple model, but with more generous upgrade options for users. Also note that UA's entire roadmap involving the UAD-1 was announced in a letter to all UA users in April 2012; if enough UAD-1 users had protested at that time, maybe matters would be different...or maybe not. Of course, none of what I'm saying should be interpreted as "hey, it's cool your hardware won't be supported any more." But the reality is that in today's high-tech world, all hardware stops being supported at some point. Compared to the track record of other companies, I think four years with decent upgrade options is relatively generous.
|
wst3
Max Output Level: -55.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1979
- Joined: 2003/11/04 10:28:11
- Location: Pottstown, PA 19464
- Status: offline
Re:UAD-1 & SONAR X* 64. I Give Up.
2012/12/01 22:07:01
(permalink)
I too have a Mackie branded UAD-1, and I used it for a long long time.
When UA announced the end of the line for the UAD-1 I was a bit bummed. I had kept it, along side a UAD-2, primarily for access to Nigel, and a few more DSP cycles<G>.
But I am going to take the flip side of the argument... I think UA handled the whole matter with about as much class and concern for the existing customers as they possibly could. I don't thing they sold anyone short...
You were provided with two options:
1) since no future plugins would work on a UAD-1 you could 'freeze' your system at rev 6.1 and continue to use your UAD-1. It would not matter that you couldn't upgrade the software - heck, in some ways that's a bonus, you don't have to upgrade your software!
2) you could trade in your UAD-1 on a UAD-2. I don't remember the numbers, but it was a very good deal! I now have two UAD-2/solo cards (couldn't afford to go any bigger unfortunately). I miss Nigel, and I really do hope they bring back the algorithms some day, but I get a lot of processing out of my current cards.
There is one group of users that got caught in the crossfire - if you had a mixed system (as I did) you couldn't keep the UAD-1 and keep updating the software. That is unfortunate.
They laid out their business case for discontinuing support for the UAD-1 in future updates. You can question the wisdom if you like, but we don't get to tell them how to do business. Ultimately they had to make a call, and they did.
Someone mentioned that perhaps more UAD-1 users should have complained when the announcement came out. I read an interview somewhere with someone from UA (Tape-Op maybe?) and they were quite shocked at the volume of complaints that came in.
They just could not justify continuing to support software development for the older architecture. It was PCI based (although the did have a PCIe version I think), and it used a really archaic GPU for DSP. Porting all of that over to the two 64 bit architectures they support at the driver level was just too much.
So they offered to take the cards back... I think that was a good move on their part, and fair to all concerned.
-- Bill Audio Enterprise KB3KJF
|
Anderton
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 14070
- Joined: 2003/11/06 14:02:03
- Status: offline
Re:UAD-1 & SONAR X* 64. I Give Up.
2012/12/01 22:24:32
(permalink)
wst3
I had kept it, along side a UAD-2, primarily for access to Nigel
Pssst...try the AmpliTube Free, Guitar Rig 5 Player, and POD Farm 2.5 free versions. They don't cost you anything, they all work, and it's a nice selection (and you probably have X2 Producer, so you already have the TH2). You won't miss Nigel at all, and you'll probably wonder why you didn't switch sooner. And UA won't make your UAD-2 card stop working if you upgrade to the full version of AmpliTube 3
|
bobguitkillerleft
Max Output Level: -72 dBFS
- Total Posts : 944
- Joined: 2011/05/17 17:28:58
- Location: Adelaide Australia
- Status: offline
Re:UAD-1 & SONAR X* 64. I Give Up.
2012/12/01 22:33:45
(permalink)
Anderton
Gregmang
BTW - I was surprised at how many of my projects had Nigel in them. Nice of UA just to *SURPRISE* make it go away...
Never again....
Actually, you can "thank" Spinal Tap's Christopher Guest for that one. He sued UA for calling the amp sim "Nigel" and UA was in no position to get into a legal fight, so IIRC it was basically a "cease and desist" situation. I don't know the terms of the settlement and whether it precluded doing amp aims in the future, whether Guest demanded a royalty from any amp sim product, or whatever.
He ALSO sued Digidesign for calling their rack "Eleven." Digi had a lot more bucks and a team of lawyers, and again IIRC, told him to go screw himself (in legally polite terms, or course).
Knowing about these incidents kind of reduced my joy in watching "Spinal Tap."
This is very interesting to know,as I found out quite early in the piece[?] that they[Spinal Tap's writers] got a lot[most?] of their material,from going on a short tour with "Saxon"[with Saxon totally unaware,as to how they would be used?] in the very early 80's,and I always seem to treat,serious,so called "satire" with a hefty dose of suspicion. As far as UA,I'm totally 64bit,as I find everything,just a little,or a lot more stable,depending on the situation,and although I'm pleased they're finally getting 64bit Windows capability,what with the cost[especially here!]do I really need more plugins? I know,I know,they're the BEST at emulations,but seriously I'm sure with what Iv'e spent with Waves,Plug and Mix,and Nomads excellent "Pulse Tech",among MANY others,I have more than enough,especially coupled with X2's included[Breverb is amazing] to keep my relatively"new to this engineering thing"braincell depleted mind,busy for the next few years at least! Cheers Bob
https://soundcloud.com/rks26https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hitmen Lenovo W540 Factoryrefurb SONAR PLATINUM,Ozone 7 N.I. KA6 Komplete 9 SSD4 Platinum Epi L/H LP Custom Headstock broken twice and fixed.Gibson L/H Les Paul 2010 Wine Red Studio stupid Right Hand Vol.Tone for Left Hand?LH84Ibanez RS135 gen.FloydRose JB Marshall 100w 2203 4x25w Celestion Green backs "You are what you is"-Frank Zappa "But I'm gonna wave my freak flag high"-Jimi Hendrix
|
wst3
Max Output Level: -55.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1979
- Joined: 2003/11/04 10:28:11
- Location: Pottstown, PA 19464
- Status: offline
Re:UAD-1 & SONAR X* 64. I Give Up.
2012/12/01 23:34:51
(permalink)
Anderton
wst3
I had kept it, along side a UAD-2, primarily for access to Nigel
Pssst...try the AmpliTube Free, Guitar Rig 5 Player, and POD Farm 2.5 free versions. They don't cost you anything, they all work, and it's a nice selection (and you probably have X2 Producer, so you already have the TH2). You won't miss Nigel at all, and you'll probably wonder why you didn't switch sooner. And UA won't make your UAD-2 card stop working if you upgrade to the full version of AmpliTube 3
I have the full version of Guitar Rig, and the free versions of both Pod Farm and Amplitube, all of which offer some cool sounds, none of which covers all the bases. But then if you saw the pile o' pedals I keep around you'd probably wonder about me anyway<G>! I haven't tried TH2 yet - just installed the X2 demo this morning and still finding my way around. But I did want to mention one other amplifier emulator that I use a lot - Flying Haggis from dbaudioware, which was recently reduced to $29. By far the best Vox sound I've heard, and a lot of the other colors are cool too. I also use the hardware Adrenalinn... I do wonder why I did not switch sooner, and now I wonder why I didn't just buy the Octo<G>!
-- Bill Audio Enterprise KB3KJF
|
Freddie H
Max Output Level: -39 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3617
- Joined: 2007/09/21 06:07:40
- Status: offline
Re:UAD-1 & SONAR X* 64. I Give Up.
2012/12/02 05:17:16
(permalink)
UAD is just a hype. Don't buy into it. Sure the plugins sound good too but there are so many other 3part native plugins that sounds so much better then UAD. Some brand are even included in UAD platform too like SPL and Brainworx. Today do we really need any DSP cards? For $2000-4000, for that kind of cash £$€ you can buy a real FAT and FAST computer that will run-over any 32bit Quad-DSP-UAD2card and back it up and run over it twice again. 3part plugins that sounds better or the same are: Nomad Factory - these plugins run over the most out there. http://www.nomadfactory.com/ Plugins alliance - that offer the whole Brainworx series + all the SPL modules for less money then UAD2 plugins. They actually programed many of the included UAD plugins too. http://plugin-alliance.com/en/index.html Native Intruments /Softtube - Softtube plugins and Native Intruments plugins sounds really good. http://www.native-instruments.com/#/en/ Softube - Great plugins http://www.softube.com/ iZotope - Great plugins http://izotope.com/ Wavearts - Great plugins http://wavearts.com/ Waves - http://www.waves.com/ Voxengo - Great plugins EQ and Spectra included in new Cubase 7 http://www.voxengo.com/ Cakewalk Pro Channel - Great plugins inside X2, X1 http://www.cakewalk.com/
post edited by Freddie H - 2012/12/02 05:23:19
-Highly developed spirits often encounter resistance from mediocre minds. -It really matters!
|
Freddie H
Max Output Level: -39 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3617
- Joined: 2007/09/21 06:07:40
- Status: offline
Re:UAD-1 & SONAR X* 64. I Give Up.
2012/12/02 05:27:21
(permalink)
For anyone that need DSP functionality we have that already included today in our Video cards. Start develop the use of CUDA support instead. Much more powerful and faster calculation then any UAD2 cards. It's like UAD try to invent something that already exist? Try to invent the wheel twice...
My two cents....
-Highly developed spirits often encounter resistance from mediocre minds. -It really matters!
|
Psychobillybob
Max Output Level: -73 dBFS
- Total Posts : 882
- Joined: 2003/11/13 20:52:44
- Status: offline
Re:UAD-1 & SONAR X* 64. I Give Up.
2012/12/02 14:43:05
(permalink)
Totally agree with Freddie here, the dsp card thing is no longer the viable path it used to be.
And while I do understand Craigs points about UAD business decisions, I have to say I disagree with these decisions and do not see them as purely business advancements.
The "model" UAD sold ALL of us, is a dsp card that they would write plug-ins for.
SO we buy the cards, buy the software...
I have PCI and a PCI-x cards all UAD-1 software.
So lets think through the business model here...
I do understand the idea that making computer hardware is a limited opportunity window, you need to make hardware for time-limited platforms because of how quickly the technology changes...I get that.
But we have had 64 bit architecture for as long as we have had PCI-X...it has been a clear market path for EVERY platform that 64bit was the future and this information is old old hat.
So UAD supports pci-1e (or express whichever you prefer) with new hardware, this is a bus technology was always 64 bit...it is not simply legacy 32...
Here's my point, there is no reason to limit the delivery of 32 bit into a 64 bit environment, they have been doing it for years, and yes its not exactly apples to apples, I understand the underlying OS makes difference, however to no longer support UAD-1 in a 64 bit environment is not simply a "coding" issue because they have delivered PCI-e which required some sort of coding "wrapper" to get the stuff across the bus in the first place.
This is where I go back the the model they sold us..."We give you hardware and write code for it across a lot of platforms, we do our best to support this in a ton of hardware environments, and we give you software that uses our hardware in you machine"
Its hardware PLUS software if it wasn't my LA2A and 3A and Precision Eq and PLate 140 would have come free with a higher hardware cost...the implied model says I am not just buying HARDWARE I am also buying CODE...
If they stopped supporting the actual physical hardware, saying we have no control over how clean your electricity is, therefore our capacitors are not warrantied, no one would buy their stuff...
I see the software argument as no different.
A case has been made about legacy hardware...but UAD-1 is not simply pci hardware, it is also pci-e and it is software...if they are still supporting the bus architecture with hardware, then by default the software should be supported as well.
There are plenty of current motherboards that will utilize a UAD-1e card...you can go online and buy a UAD-1e card at Guitar Center NEW for about 2k...and for the record you do not buy the card from them anyway you buy it from a dealer, so the UAD-2 card is bought the same way, ALWAYS from a dealer never direct.
We can pretend this is just a business decision that is about evolving technology, but it isn't that cut and dried...
If UAD needed to stop support for the UAD-1 then they should stop selling it NOW...
But I notice they have not.
The fact that the UAD-1 is still on the market from authorized dealers tells me that is NOT about support/code/progress...it is about money.
Which I will not be giving them anymore of.
I'm using SOnar Platinium on a 6 core Lynx Audio machine and a ton of vintage pre-amps/eq's/comps I build for fun and sometimes money, REDD.47/API/Neve I also use the UAD stuff, and also use a Macbook Logic 9 through Apogee...
|
wst3
Max Output Level: -55.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1979
- Joined: 2003/11/04 10:28:11
- Location: Pottstown, PA 19464
- Status: offline
Re:UAD-1 & SONAR X* 64. I Give Up.
2012/12/02 15:02:49
(permalink)
As a customer you have the responsibility to spend your money where you see fit, where you get the most use for your investment. I have no issue with anyone that is upset with UA's decision concerning the UAD-1 card.
But I do take exception to people who wish to tell UA how to run their business. We run into this all the time, many of the developers that we depend on make decisions that infuriate us. So be furious, vote with your wallet! But can we maybe dial back the meanness just a little?
And for those who find native plug-ins that meet their requirements I say good for you!
But again I think a little civility wouldn't hurt!
To my ears there is nothing on the market that sounds as good as the UA versions of hardware like the 1176, dBX 160, Lexi 224, Ampex and Studer tape decks, etc. I'm not saying your ears are made of some soft metal, or that your taste is in your mouth... I'm only saying that to my ears I prefer the UA emulations over any that I've tried, and I have tried many, whenever demos are provided. And it's probably important to note that I grew up with a lot of this hardware, and that working with tape and very limited quantities of hardware has certainly shaped my workflow, and informed my tastes.
FWIW, I do not think that the UA emulations are the end-all of plug-ins. I still use plug-ins from Waves, PSP, Voxengo, dbAudioware, Cakewalk, and even my Kjaerhus stuff, which I realize will eventually have to go away. In fact I only use the UA compressors when I want the track to sound like it went through some specific piece of hardware. Most of the time I use Voxengo Crunchessor, the Kjaerhus Golden Compressor, or Waves C family of compressors because they do things that the old hardware won't do. But none of them will do what the UA emulations will do...
It's good to have so many choices!!!! ESPECIALLY if you can remember having only two or three compressors for 8 tracks<G>!
-- Bill Audio Enterprise KB3KJF
|
Psychobillybob
Max Output Level: -73 dBFS
- Total Posts : 882
- Joined: 2003/11/13 20:52:44
- Status: offline
Re:UAD-1 & SONAR X* 64. I Give Up.
2012/12/02 15:21:58
(permalink)
I hope I didn't come across as uncivil, that is not my intent, I was simply suggesting that the UAD business decision cannot be laid at the feet of simply changing market technology.
You cannot buy Windows 2k from Microsoft, since they no longer support it they no longer sell it.
UAD should do the same.
If it is purely a hardware/code issue with advancing platform incompatibilities then by all means stop support, but stop selling it through your vendors as well.
And here's a little prediction for all the UAD fans, there will come a day when they no longer support UAD-2...in fact they may make a decision to stop selling DSP stuff altogether.
Based on the business model that most people seem to be supporting here...they could do it tomorrow with absolutely NO responsibility to you the customer...and you would all be ok with it.
Apparently.
I'm using SOnar Platinium on a 6 core Lynx Audio machine and a ton of vintage pre-amps/eq's/comps I build for fun and sometimes money, REDD.47/API/Neve I also use the UAD stuff, and also use a Macbook Logic 9 through Apogee...
|
wst3
Max Output Level: -55.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1979
- Joined: 2003/11/04 10:28:11
- Location: Pottstown, PA 19464
- Status: offline
Re:UAD-1 & SONAR X* 64. I Give Up.
2012/12/02 15:39:55
(permalink)
I don't recall exactly which post caused me to post about civility...
Here's the thing - UA has discontinued selling the UAD-1 card some time ago. If some vendors still have them in stock there is probably nothing UA can to to prevent them from selling them.
And, if you want to, you can still use the UAD-1 and ALL the plug-ins that were supported on the UAD-1 by simply using any version of the software prior to V6.1. I may even give it a spin, since my slave machine is XP/SP3/x86.
What you can't do, post v6.1, is run a mixed system. You need to use v6.4 or later if you want the 64 bit drivers and plug-ins. And I think the 64 bit drivers were part of one of the earlier versions, probably the one where they dropped the UAD-1 card.
Do I wish I could still use my UAD-1 and GigaStudio3... you bet. Am I a little torqued that I can't? On yeah!
But at least UA seems to be on-the-ball enough to stay in business...
You might want to report people still selling the UAD-1 cards... I don't think that's kosher.
-- Bill Audio Enterprise KB3KJF
|
Psychobillybob
Max Output Level: -73 dBFS
- Total Posts : 882
- Joined: 2003/11/13 20:52:44
- Status: offline
Re:UAD-1 & SONAR X* 64. I Give Up.
2012/12/02 16:11:55
(permalink)
All of the major vendors are still selling UAD-1, hence my main point.
ALL MAJOR DISTRIBUTORS FOR UAD...
Sweetwater, Guitar Center, Zzsounds, Musicians Friend...
This is about money.
And to note, they haven't even discounted the price...you still pay the premium cost for the card/pak/software.
But I dare you to buy it NEW today install it and update.
I'm just suggesting this is less than honorable and UAD is not clean in this.
I'm using SOnar Platinium on a 6 core Lynx Audio machine and a ton of vintage pre-amps/eq's/comps I build for fun and sometimes money, REDD.47/API/Neve I also use the UAD stuff, and also use a Macbook Logic 9 through Apogee...
|
Gregmang
Max Output Level: -59.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1592
- Joined: 2003/12/31 07:21:57
- Location: Maryland USA
- Status: offline
Re:UAD-1 & SONAR X* 64. I Give Up.
2012/12/02 16:26:28
(permalink)
Indeed !!
Shoddy business practices continue...
Digging my Slate VTM - my exodus off UAD has begun.
|
Gregmang
Max Output Level: -59.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1592
- Joined: 2003/12/31 07:21:57
- Location: Maryland USA
- Status: offline
Re:UAD-1 & SONAR X* 64. I Give Up.
2012/12/02 17:22:27
(permalink)
|
Anderton
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 14070
- Joined: 2003/11/06 14:02:03
- Status: offline
Re:UAD-1 & SONAR X* 64. I Give Up.
2012/12/02 18:01:25
(permalink)
Psychobillybob
If UAD needed to stop support for the UAD-1 then they should stop selling it NOW...
But I notice they have not.
The fact that the UAD-1 is still on the market from authorized dealers tells me that is NOT about support/code/progress...it is about money.
Which I will not be giving them anymore of.
To be fair...UA stopped selling UAD-1 cards around four years ago. The only UAD-1 related product GC is selling (because I presume it's the only one left in inventory) is the "extreme pack," which had ALL UAD-1 plug-ins current as of version 4.5. That version was released in November 2006. The fact that it's still "on the market" means it's been sitting on GC's shelves a long (long) time, not that UA is still selling them. While it's conceivable that someone who's committed to a 32-bit system might consider paying $2K for a UAD-1 card and all 4.5 plug-ins on the assumption it would be amortized over a period of a couple years, I think it far more likely that any remaining extreme packs will be blown out before too long just to get them out of inventory.
|
Anderton
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 14070
- Joined: 2003/11/06 14:02:03
- Status: offline
Re:UAD-1 & SONAR X* 64. I Give Up.
2012/12/02 18:11:31
(permalink)
Psychobillybob
All of the major vendors are still selling UAD-1, hence my main point.
ALL MAJOR DISTRIBUTORS FOR UAD...
Sweetwater, Guitar Center, Zzsounds, Musicians Friend...
This is about money.
And to note, they haven't even discounted the price...you still pay the premium cost for the card/pak/software.
But I dare you to buy it NEW today install it and update.
I'm just suggesting this is less than honorable and UAD is not clean in this.
Your premise is wrong. Neither Sweetwater nor zZounds have any UAD-1 cards for sale. If you search for UAD1 or UAD-1 on the Sweetwater site, you're re-directed to UAD-2 products. On zZounds, you're directed to a product landing page which says the UAD-1 has been discontinued, and recommends alternatives. I went to google and did price searches. The ONLY references I could find to UAD-1 cards for sale was the single outdated item at GC/MF, and used versions on eBay. The UAD-1 card has been a dead product for a long time. That doesn't mean UA shouldn't support it, which is a separate issue. But your claims regarding it being sold currently by UA to all their major distributors, and therefore the conclusions you derive from those claims, are wrong.
|
Splat 
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 8672
- Joined: 2010/12/29 15:28:29
- Location: Mars.
- Status: offline
Re:UAD-1 & SONAR X* 64. I Give Up.
2012/12/02 18:25:35
(permalink)
How about Lick my love pump, or shark sandwich?
Sell by date at 9000 posts. Do not feed. @48/24 & 128 buffers latency is 367 with offset of 38. Sonar Platinum(64 bit),Win 8.1(64 bit),Saffire Pro 40(Firewire),Mix Control = 3.4,Firewire=VIA,Dell Studio XPS 8100(Intel Core i7 CPU 2.93 Ghz/16 Gb),4 x Seagate ST31500341AS (mirrored),GeForce GTX 460,Yamaha DGX-505 keyboard,Roland A-300PRO,Roland SPD-30 V2,FD-8,Triggera Krigg,Shure SM7B,Yamaha HS5.Maschine Studio+Komplete 9 Ultimate+Kontrol Z1.Addictive Keys,Izotope Nectar elements,Overloud Bundle,Geist.Acronis True Image 2014.
|