Personally I think it would be a disaster for CW to get into a fight with plugin developers. It sure wouldn't benefit us users.

Also to me CW is not in the business of plugin development. CW is a DAW developer. To antagonize the plugin developer community can't be good for the end user.

  I agree Jind, Its all about choices. I think that UAD will always be a serious consideration for anyone looking at high quality plug-ins.

 In the example of UAD cards, it seems those older cards are not going to work with the more recent UAD-2 and 64 bit drivers. Someone correct me if I'm wrong on this one.

  This is likely something they tried to avoid, but there was no moving forward to 64 bit without a significant hardware change. No matter how you slice it this leaves older customers in the dust with regard to upgrades.

 This scenerio is a repeat  of what  happened with other companies. In the end this has left many unhappy customers in the dust...other examples that come to mind are NI and some of the past policies of Waves.

 I would not want to be the person who just made a major investment into UAD and two weeks later I am told that my upgrade path requires I buy another card.

 UAD make an excellent product but I can see some growing pains ahead for them and their customer base.

 I don't see Cakewalk as a direct competition to UAD. A potential buyer will look at all options and make those choices. In the past computers were straining to record and use good onboard effects and there was a real need for something like UAD...now that cpus are plenty fast enough and Win7 allows for use of more memory  than previous versions, the UAD is not as much of a necessity as it once was from that aspect.

 If looking at the quality of the plug-ins in UAD there isn't much of an argument to counter that they aren't good plug-ins. I'm noticing that comparisons are made to UAD and not the other way around. Noone is saying, " I regularly use my PC and I had this old UAD 1 laying around and I thought I would compare it to PC".

 Most UAD users are happy with their hardware/software.

 Where the line might be drawn is if the PC manages to do the same things or very similar to UAD for less hassle and less expense,especially in light of UAD 1 becoming more obsolete. Then it might be a wise business decision to use something else.

 The faster hardware and better software in newer computers might very well offset the advantages that UAD once offered,especially if the plug-ins are written to the same standards.

 

 

has anyone done AB testing of Cakes 1176, UAD's original 1176 and the real thing

There have been numerous comparisons between real 1176s and various software (and hardware) emulations, most inconclusive as to whether or not the software accurately emulates the hardware. The difficulty is that no two hardware 1176s sound exactly alike, so you'd likely hear differences even if the AB test was between two genuine 1176s.

Starise


  I agree Jind, Its all about choices. I think that UAD will always be a serious consideration for anyone looking at high quality plug-ins.

In the example of UAD cards, it seems those older cards are not going to work with the more recent UAD-2 and 64 bit drivers. Someone correct me if I'm wrong on this one.

This is likely something they tried to avoid, but there was no moving forward to 64 bit without a significant hardware change. No matter how you slice it this leaves older customers in the dust with regard to upgrades.

This scenerio is a repeat  of what  happened with other companies. In the end this has left many unhappy customers in the dust...other examples that come to mind are NI and some of the past policies of Waves.

I would not want to be the person who just made a major investment into UAD and two weeks later I am told that my upgrade path requires I buy another card.

UAD make an excellent product but I can see some growing pains ahead for them and their customer base.

I don't see Cakewalk as a direct competition to UAD. A potential buyer will look at all options and make those choices. In the past computers were straining to record and use good onboard effects and there was a real need for something like UAD...now that cpus are plenty fast enough and Win7 allows for use of more memory  than previous versions, the UAD is not as much of a necessity as it once was from that aspect.

If looking at the quality of the plug-ins in UAD there isn't much of an argument to counter that they aren't good plug-ins. I'm noticing that comparisons are made to UAD and not the other way around. Noone is saying, " I regularly use my PC and I had this old UAD 1 laying around and I thought I would compare it to PC".

Most UAD users are happy with their hardware/software.

Where the line might be drawn is if the PC manages to do the same things or very similar to UAD for less hassle and less expense,especially in light of UAD 1 becoming more obsolete. Then it might be a wise business decision to use something else.

The faster hardware and better software in newer computers might very well offset the advantages that UAD once offered,especially if the plug-ins are written to the same standards.

Nah Starise, the UAD 1's have been pretty obsolete for some time now as far as new stuff goes. Anyone owning not seeing the big picture was just in denial. LOL! You'll be able to use them still just as they are. But they haven't put out anything for them in a while. You can't use any UAD 2 plugs on them at all anyway and in my opinion, that's where the true horsepower is. Of course the NEVE and Precision stuff are faves of mine, but they can still work well for peole that use UAD 1's. In my opinion, anyone not going for a UAD 2 that has a 1 is only getting half of the picture.
 
It's like anything else really that evolves over time. Look at Windows 7....for me, I had to update all my hardware because it just wouldn't work for me. My new DAW didn't come with enough PCI slots, so this forced me to retire my UAD 1 cards to another machine...which I'm greatful for. I would have never made the switch to be honest. All my USB camera's no longer worked on Win 7, quite a bit of my software wouldn't work even in compatibility mode, so I had to buy new stuff...my main midi controller was not supported for Win 7...so instead of just getting something else, I got mad and bought a Tascam DM4800 console. My point is, we know sooner or later something is going to run its course. UAD users have known well in advance that the UAD 1 was dead as far as plugs or additional updates. As a matter of fact, I can't even recall when the last new plug was released for UAD 1. My guess would be the DBX 160 or the NEVE 31102 series...which have been out for a while now. So in my opinion, the UAD 1 users knew once they saw all the attention the UAD 2 was getting, that their days would be numbered.
 
Anyone worried about 64 bit should stop worrying. If you have a fast enough machine, you don't need it unless you run massive amounts of softsynths. I run crazy track counts here with numerous synths in 32 bit mode....I've yet to freeze a track on either of my recording boxes. Besides, I still use some pretty killer DX plugs that I'd never part with which of course can't be used in 64 bit. I've crashed Sonar more times in 64 bit mode than any other version because of that bit bridge server thing. Until 3rd party plugs really get with the program, (or at least the ones I use) it's not something *I* really care about. If I use 64 bit Sonar with all of its own stuff, it never gives me a hard time...it's all the other stuff that makes it a pain to use for me. But even still, 32 bit has never failed me and I'm lucky if I ever see 45% cpu at 4096 buffers. :)
 
-Danny

 Hi Danny,

 This is the only thing about advancing technology that I am not happy with. It seems like we get to a point where we have something that works and then it soon becomes obsolete. It takes a long time to get a system down pat,honed to where we like it and then for technology sake we need to change up every 5 or so years.

 I suppose if compatibility were no issue then upgrades would be so much less painful. FWIW I don't see 64 bit going to 128 bit any time soon or even in the next ten years. So all of the growing pains associated with  going from a 32 bit system to a 64 bit system are short lived.

 Most of the larger plug-in companies have already made the switch. In some ways I wish there never had been a bitbridge because then it would have forced the makers to move things along faster.Having bitbridge was a convenient  way to keep things working in both worlds.

 Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-32 bit. It works well for a lot of people. It is usually the bread and butter program loaded into pretty much everything. I'm guessing you mean that you run a 32 bit OS with no more than 4gb of memory? This doesn't really show its head unless, like you already said, you run a lot of soft synths. Using UAD helps in that department a lot . And if it works,why change it? 32 bit was all we had for years and it did the job well,still does. I guess I mainly don't like to feel like I'm stuck in the middle of something, know what I mean? Like being on the fence with 32 and 64 bit....If we are going to make the change then they should get on with it.

   I'm still happily using my quad core Q8300 chip because I usually buy in the middle of the technology price points. I am running Win7 64 bit on it and getting on well. My machine is already several years old but I have no real reason to change anything because it does everything I need it to do.I'll probably upgrade this setup after the new i7s come out and I can get the middle chip for less.

 In the past I upgraded because I thought it was the right thing to do. Now I am a little more apprehensive to make a sudden change just because a new chip came out. Compatibility and system effeciency are my main objectives.

 I run Sonar X1d expanded on the Q8300 with no problems.

The next big thing in DAW's will be an a complete Abbey Road or Trident or Olympic or even cooler Electric Lady DAW a DAW that actually emualtes a studio. 


You might be onto something there Neb. 

Starise


 Hi Danny,

This is the only thing about advancing technology that I am not happy with. It seems like we get to a point where we have something that works and then it soon becomes obsolete. It takes a long time to get a system down pat,honed to where we like it and then for technology sake we need to change up every 5 or so years.

I suppose if compatibility were no issue then upgrades would be so much less painful. FWIW I don't see 64 bit going to 128 bit any time soon or even in the next ten years. So all of the growing pains associated with  going from a 32 bit system to a 64 bit system are short lived.

Most of the larger plug-in companies have already made the switch. In some ways I wish there never had been a bitbridge because then it would have forced the makers to move things along faster.Having bitbridge was a convenient  way to keep things working in both worlds.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-32 bit. It works well for a lot of people. It is usually the bread and butter program loaded into pretty much everything. I'm guessing you mean that you run a 32 bit OS with no more than 4gb of memory? This doesn't really show its head unless, like you already said, you run a lot of soft synths. Using UAD helps in that department a lot . And if it works,why change it? 32 bit was all we had for years and it did the job well,still does. I guess I mainly don't like to feel like I'm stuck in the middle of something, know what I mean? Like being on the fence with 32 and 64 bit....If we are going to make the change then they should get on with it.

  I'm still happily using my quad core Q8300 chip because I usually buy in the middle of the technology price points. I am running Win7 64 bit on it and getting on well. My machine is already several years old but I have no real reason to change anything because it does everything I need it to do.I'll probably upgrade this setup after the new i7s come out and I can get the middle chip for less.

In the past I upgraded because I thought it was the right thing to do. Now I am a little more apprehensive to make a sudden change just because a new chip came out. Compatibility and system effeciency are my main objectives.

I run Sonar X1d expanded on the Q8300 with no problems.

Hi Starise,
 
I totally agree with the "something that works and soon becomes obsolete" theory. I actually hate that part to be quite honest. I have a little column I write for a site and one of the things I had mentioned in a previous write-up was "I could care less if I ever buy another piece of software or update my DAW. Sonar 8.5 on Windows XP on my dual core box is just fabulous and if Cakewalk went out of business and said they'd not be doing Sonar anymore, I'd be perfectly happy with what I have for the rest of my life".
 
That's a pretty powerful comment in my opinion. The reason being, everything was just perfect in my realm at that time. I had all that I needed, still never scratched the surface of what 8.5 could do and probably used 40% of it, had a nice little pc that didn't give me any problems, all my hardware worked, my midi controller (which I still miss because it was so perfect for my work-flow) was at my disposal...I was just living high on the hog. LOL!
 
That said, lightning took out my main recording machine eventhough it was hooked up to some good protection and was not turned on and I was forced to get another pc. Though this totally sucked (I only lost one song that I wasn't able to back up at the time) it was one of the best things that could have happened to me. My business was really taking off and the day my Jim Roseberry pc arrived, it changed my world for the better. I thought my other one was so grand...which it was for the time, but what an eye opener to have an i7, 64 bit os and 12 gig of ram. I liked it so much, I built another box and modeled it from Jim's.
 
No I'm 64 bit os here and know all about the limitations of 32 bit applications etc. I just seem to have no problems with 32 bit. All my plugs work, Sonar doesn't just shut down on me at random and like I say, I know I'm a dinosaur with some of these old DX plugs I love, but they have really made a difference in how I achieve certain things. You know...kinda like the old Italian Grandmother that uses a hundred year old wooden spoon to make pasta sauce because something in the wood adds flavor. :) LOL!
 
I'll tell ya, in my opinion there is nothing worse that being backed into a corner to have to upgrade something when you have a well-oiled machine in the DAW world. It almost makes me want to buy a new pc for each major upgrade I make so I can leave the old pc the way it was working perfectly. I may just do that because in my line of work, I can never have too many pc's. I have a system to where I do jobs on the major boxes and then do all the rendering on other boxes so that I can continue working. The more I have, the better. LOL! But honest, I see your point and am with you. I just think most of the UAD users had to have seen this was coming. I think it's something you follow along with when you have their stuff moreso than someone that may just read about it from time to time. They are really great about informing us about stuff with their newsletters and free coupon code offers. I love that company. :)
 
Ben: I don't think powerful pc's will put an end to DSP anytime soon due to the quality of what you get using that method. I think you would probably change your mind about UAD if you had the UAD 2 card man. The new plugs are simply off the hook. Not to mention, as you have said, you want a fairchild....they have one of the best emulations I've ever tried. One less thing for you to buy somewhere else, ya know? The UAD also has a Trident if you get the UAD 2 model plus the Fatso Jr. and Sr. which have now become standards in my work. The Studer 800 is the best tape sim I've ever used and is a must have for anyone attempting to get a more analog sound as well as those that are more experimental or of the classic rock genre. As I told James Collins....I wish I needed more cards because if you guys bought them and didn't like them, I'd buy them from you. But I have quite a few now and don't really need anymore. But I sincerely feel you're one of the guys that should definitely consider the jump to the UAD 2 if you can afford to at some point. It obliterates what the UAD 1 can do. When you start using some of the really powerful plugs and you see how they hit the usage on the UAD meter, you get thankful really fast that these plugs are not inside a DAW because I think they would cripple it if you had to rely on system resources. The Manley is a good representation of that as well as a few others.
 
Here's another thing to think about too. As much as we all love looking at loads of buttons and gizmo's all the time, some of this stuff has too many things to touch and tweak, sometimes it takes you away from your work. I sometimes just miss the days of tweaking a 4 band eq in my console and letting it go. This is why we have pro channel...it's simple, you make your tweaks, it's not rocket science and you can have a cool sound going in seconds. So though these classic consoles and other goodies are cool additions, Andy Johns said something in the recent UAD video that made sense about the new 1176's. "You fire it up, you set the input, it gets a good sound, you're done". I think this is the way of the future. Bells and whistles are great, but some of this stuff is just off the hook with options.
 
For example, like Billy (ba_midi) I too have been bragging about the Brainworx plugs and M/S processing. Though I do not feel it is something everyone needs, it can make a difference in certain situations to where I'd be lost without it. But the other side of the coin is....for the love of God, have you seen their plugs? More buttons, knobs and little switches than anything I've ever seen! It's not only intimidating at first, it can force you to mess around way too much because of all the possibilities. And most of all...that company lives up to its name as each plug they offer makes sure that your "brain worx" just to use the stuff. LOL! :)
 
-Danny  

Hey Danny I have UAD/Laptop so no2 card and a Fairchild Limiter, they are no longer supporting the laptop card thats what's pissing me off.  $1000 with plugs, no point in buying more plugs because I have to buy the Apollo next otherwise if my card goes down or I have to buy a new PC I cant use the plugs I have brought.

I am also with you on the constant upgrade thing, I try not to get caught up on that too much.

And I suggested a few months ago, were at the point were computers are so cheap, that it would be better to buy a new computer everytime you upgrade software hardware. this is the new paradigm.

Neb

Dan , i was looking for the appolo too ...but one thing i always do : Do not buy some new without having some mature feedback/at least 6 months of life !

For that price an UFX + Waves Horizon and you can chill for years with absolutly no limitation !

John


Please don't take Kontakt away or Ozone either.

Sorry to go a little OT here, but I have a dumb question - why are there such precise track instance limits listed on the UAD website? Surely processing power isn't limited to the DSP card? I have an i7 2600k @ 4.5GHz - I'd have thought that with that CPU as well as UADs DSP card, I'd have pretty much unlimited track instances? But I'm thinking maybe it's not a horsepower issue, that maybe UAD place restrictions on their cards so we'll all want to buy Quads?!

You've almost convinced me Danny, but this is one thing that's bugging me. I'm trying so hard to resist, but the fact that you rave about them makes me think that maybe this is one of those extremely rare cases where buying new gear will actually make me a better engineer!

I have a UAD 1 and UAD 2 with the Neve plugs and most (but not all just yet) of their other plugins. I also own both a hardware LA-2A, a 1176 and a 610 Preamp. I am not the slightest bit worried about Universal Audio. They make exceptional products (they always have) and the best plugs in the world. When someone demands the very best, there is simply no alternative. But you gotta pay to play.

pianodano


I have a UAD 1 and UAD 2 with the Neve plugs and most (but not all just yet) of their other plugins. I also own both a hardware LA-2A, a 1176 and a 610 Preamp. I am not the slightest bit worried about Universal Audio. They make exceptional products (they always have) and the best plugs in the world. When someone demands the very best, there is simply no alternative. But you gotta pay to play.

Thats fine but we are caught in this constant upgrade cycle, I mean what is the point of me buying more UAD plugs unless I am going to buy a Apollo unit which isn't even PC compatible yet.
 
After the AB tests I just heard Sonar's offerings are close use the softtube knob and your there.
 
I just don't want to be locked into this constant upgrade cycle.
 
Yes UAD do some fine emualtions, but what are suppose to do, go and pay $2000 every 2 or three years to keep using their plugs, then there is the cost of there plugs.
 
My point of this thread was if Sonar can come up with the emulations that I now use with UAD, they may just loose a customer.
 
But as I already said and answered my own question, one 1176 does not sound like another, so once again what are we suppose to do??
 
Neb 

Why don't  they release them in Native versions like SSL did with the Duende series?

They are going to have to soon otherwise the market will eat them alive.

backwoods


Why don't  they release them in Native versions like SSL did with the Duende series?

They are going to have to soon otherwise the market will eat them alive.

I don't think they'll ever need to, backwoods. It's like...they found their niche. People will either buy their specialty plugs with the card, or they won't. Until someone smokes them while remaining native while also conserving cpu power, (then they may have a problem.) I really don't think they'll lose any business.
 
It's kinda like me in a sense. I'm pretty much a specialty studio. When I don't do favors for friends or special clients at reduced rates who have become friends, I charge insane prices. Why? Because people pay for something when you deliver exceptional services and they come to you by way of "you were recommended by so and so". 
 
When you establish yourself as having some sort of "specialty" you go into it knowing you're not going to have loads of customers and you may even have periods of nothing coming in. Then again, it also puts you at another level for clients where less of them can mean more money due to them being a bit higher end.
 
I have a friend that will not take anyone in his studio unless they book an entire block of time for several songs. He's tired of working with the little kids that come in during summer vacation that may want to just record one song or two songs. It's more of a headache than a chance to make money, believe me. That said, it's affected his business model because now he's not getting the business he used to get. He's not a specialty engineer either and doesn't have clients in high places...so he either needs to eat crow and accept what walks through the door, or he's going to have to close shop.
 
With my business, it's a totally different animal. Like UAD, (Thank you Jesus) I'm in a position to where I've established myself, made my contacts and have a business of a different nature that caters to specialty situations or "higher end clients" if you will. Two big clients of mine can support me for over a year so it puts me in a differnent place. I don't advertise, my number is not listed in the phone book, my website is not a business site and it's been all word of mouth from people from all over just like UAD. They got a few pro's that used their stuff, word caught on and it's pretty much a specialty situation that you either accept for what it is, or you don't and stick with Native. As long as they stay at the front and put out that awesome quality to where you can't get it anywhere else, I don't see them losing any business or being forced to go Native.
 
SSL switched over because they were tanking. All they dealt with was high end gear for super high end clients. When the industry shifted to where a big expensive console was no longer the in thing for everyone, they jumped on the "scale down and sell to the little guys" band wagon. You see this same thing with the high end car manufacturers. Porsche, Jaguar, BMW, and even Ferarri have models that are more affordable to a wider range of people. I remember when you couldn't get one of those cars (you still can't with Ferarri lol) for under 50k. But when you do super high end stuff, when times aren't so good, you have to come up with alternative plans. SSL also made a few bad business decisions in the past that put a strain on their company. So it was for the better that they offered some scaled down versions and entered into the plug world. :)