Hi all
 
Just a quick one.
 
We did some load tests today with the TB ReelBus ...... figures speak for themsleves.
 
- 4.2gig  6 Core i7
- 6 gig DDR3
- X1D
- RME FireFace UC
- ASIO Driver   @  88.2k  @  24 Bit  @  48 Samples  @  3.97ms Real Time Latency  [ as measured with CEntrance Utility ]
 
Yes -  it is a very fast machine, but all results are relative.
 
- 36 Stereo Tracks
- All Set to Live Input Monitoring
- 36 TB ReelBus Instances, each with a different preset variation
- All  TB ReelBus instances ON and ENGAGED
 
CPU Load as measured with Windows Task Manager
 
- all 12 CPU  " cores " sitting flat end even on  ~ %72
- eveything running smooth as silk - no glitchs etc.....
 
Still a stack of head-room left.
 
Points I'd like to make:-
 
- am I or you ever likely going to need to run  36  Tape Sims at such extreme low latency settings - probalby not
 
- am I amazed / astounded at the efficiency of this plugin at such extreme low latecny settings - YES !!!!!
 
Tim
 
PS:-  I couldnt let this go without my regular  " UAD dig "
 
-    you can spend  ~$1500 on a UAD Quad and then spend another ~$250 on the Ampx/Studer plugin
-    in theory, that will allow you to run   12 x Ampex or  24 Studer,  *BUT*  your UAD card will be max'ed out and it wont run ANYTHING else
-    and if thats not bad enough,  your UAD Quad will never run and handle such extreme low latency live input monitoring at such high loads anyway
-    and did I mention this plug does pretty much  %99.99 of what the UAD Ampex and studer does !!
 
Sorry, I couldnt resist !!
 

I think the first thing UAD owners will tell you is that UAD is not an alternative to CPU, but a complement. So they could run all the same 36 ReelBus above, many others PLUS UAD powered plug-ins on top of that. 

I still haven't tried the demo of the UAD tape sims simply because I don't want to find out I want them.  I am quite pleased with the sounds I'm getting with the ReelBus, so that's part of the reason I haven't tried the demos of the UAD tape sims.  I don't really know if the UAD is any better, but I'm sticking with the ReelBus based on price/performance and my needs.

That said... you really don't know WTF you're talking about with the constant UAD bashing.  If you don't like it, don't buy it and stop whining about it.  Makes you come off as a jealous child. 

The Quad is a very powerful processor and I have quite a few plugins that simply blow away anything else I've tried.  (And yes I'm still afraid to demo the tape sims for fear that I WILL like them just a little bit better than ReelBus. LOL)  The biggest CPU pig in my UAD arsenal is probably the Fatso, but there is nothing in the native world that comes close.  I generally use a couple of instances of that in most songs and have enough CPU left to use just about anything else I want on the UAD side without taking the UAD CPU over 75%.  And as Rain already mentioned, that's on top of running native plugins and softsynths for other things as well.  The CPU power of the UAD definitely complements the CPU power of the computer, but the sound of the plugins is what really does it.  I mean just when a few native companies are starting to come close to the level of the original UAD 1176 plugins, they release an updated version that models the finer details much closer than the original and raised the bar that much higher.  (Nothing comes close to the new series.)

I know I'm wasting my time arguing with a life-time hater of UAD, but I felt that I had to get that off my chest.  Cheers for ReelBus.  Great plug at a great price.

What's the point of the test, timboe? I wouldn't expect a tape sim to be a particularly CPU-intensive effect. It would be more remarkable if you couldn't run 36 instances. Did you benchmark similar products for comparison and find ReelBus to be more efficient than others? Or was the objective just to demonstrate that ReelBus was a viable alternative to hardware DSP?

Hi all !

Just a couple of clarifications:-

Rain - you are correct - the issue remains though that even if a Quad will load and run 12 x Ampex's - it will never be able to run them at  settings anywhere near @ 88.2k @ 24 Bit @ 48 Samples @ 3.97ms Real Time Latency

Genghis -  relax and chill-out man.  Really no need for comments like  "  .... you really don't know WTF you're talking about ...   " - if youve read my  ongoing series of UAD comments [  :)  ]  you will see that  (a)  I have no issue with their sound - my issue is with their hardware dongling  etc.....  and  (b)  I spent quite a bit of time using them every month in my colleagues mixing room ..... but either way, please, just lighten up ..... your coment that some UAD plugs   " simply blow away anything else I've tried   "  my be true for you, but are simply not accurate in a broader real-world  comparison to hi-end native plugs

bitflipper -   " ReelBus was a viable alternative to hardware DSP   "   -  pretty much exactly what I am trying to say.  Also  trying to highlight how efficient the plug is  as compared to  ~$1800 just to run 12 Ampex's - again, no saying the UAD plugs sound crap - quite the opposite - but serioulsy, ~$1800 of hardware and software to run 12 x Ampex's ...... as the inimitable Foghorn Leghorn would say  "  that just dont add up "

Peace to all .......... a new UAD installment is on its way !!!!!

Tim

Timboe - sorry if some of my post was a little over the top, but you hit me wrong first thing in the morning after a rough week... and frankly when someone comes on here bashing something time after time it really starts to grate on one's patience.  Especially when it's something I find to be very useful and high quality. 

I haven't read all of your posts on UAD, but I've read several.  When it comes to overstating an opinion, I think that saying the Quad is simply a hardware dongle is about equal (and opposite) to saying that some UAD (not all) plugins blow away anything else I've tried.  So call us even on that.  The ironic thing about the dongle argument is that the UAD DSP card is just about the only form of copy protection I've ever heard of that actually works against piracy... AND it benefits the user by adding to the power available for plugins.  (I think that's the dictionary definition of WIN-WIN.)

While it's well known that the UAD tape sims do eat a lot of UAD resources, they have many other great sounding plugins that you can use many more instances of, even over 200 instances of a few.  Nobody mentions those when they complain about the "dongle" because they don't create controversy.  For me, I'll stick to using ReelBus for tape sims and save the UAD for some of the slightly less CPU intensive plugins.  That's one area where I'd say we agree. 

I don't think anybody has ever bought a UAD Quad to use it for 12 Ampex's.  (Another over the top shot.)  I think most users figure out what works well in native and what works well in UAD and balance sound quality vs CPU usage and/or take advantage of freezing or bouncing tracks when necessary.  I know when I use some creativity and a little common sense I can get a whole lot more effects and synths running by mixing native and UAD than I need on most songs, and my computer is somewhat moderate by today's standards.  I rarely freeze tracks unless I'm doing a lot more synth stuff than usual.  When I freeze it's because I'm running out of native CPU headroom, not UAD processor headroom.  I know that some of the UAD plugins take a lot of CPU, but not all of them do. Many of these lower or moderate CPU plugins are quite useful and very good sounding.

Again, sorry for being a bit over the top with some of my earlier statements, but the bottom line is that I do agree with you that ReelBus is a great plug at a great price, both in money and in CPU hit.  And personally I think it stands up fine on it's own without having to put down UAD in order to do so.  In fact I first heard about ReelBus in a thread where someone mentioned it as a viable alternative to the UAD and Waves tape sims.  They did so without putting down the UAD and Waves offerings (and indirectly insulting their users).

Peace to you as well!

Just like to chime in and say that the 
ToneBooster plugs are exceptionally high quality,
especially for the cost....

Jereon is obviously in this for the ART and NOT the money...
but I'm sure he'lll still make a BUTTLOAD of money...

He has the RIGHT idea...unlike the Corporate mentality...

It's better to sell a MILLION of something and make $1 apiece rather then
to sell 100 of something and make $100 apiece..

AND add to that the QUALITY of his plugs...and it becomes quite apparent that
he's NOT about the money...
 

 
Well one thing I agree on is the quality and price of the Tone Boosters plugs are very cool. 

 As with the others I'm a bit lost as to why you are on this crusade against DSP products. Not sure why you choose a mastering plug like Studer to do your theoretical test. The only real test that I would be interested in is possibly an A/B comparison from someone that is not just trying to come up with evidence to back up their already existing beliefs. It doesn't seem practical to me to use the Studer as anything else but icing on the cake. So I'm going to have to call shenanigans to your entire first post.

 I'm not upset with you or anything but I'm wondering why someone would go to such great lengths to repeatedly try to belittle UAD users. My guess is you have an unsettled debate going on with that colleague of yours with Pro Tools and UAD?
You once again refer to the price of UAD's most expensive card. As far as cost....If you paid retail for your RME fireface I have less invested in my, UAD-2, both powercore's focusrite Liquidmix and the new I5 DAW I just built combined. 

 I'm certainly not suggesting to anyone that DSP's are the only way to go but here is an example. 99% of this was mixed on my old single core P4 win XP, started in Sonar7 studio finished in X1. I would have to say 95% DSP powered.  This is a remix of a forum collab here.
Rocker  No way could I have done that with my old P4 and native plugs. My 3 dongles weren't helping out much either.
 Now that I have got a workflow going with the DSP plugins I'm likely to stay with what I have and give my CPU a break in between games.
 

Hey ohgrant- sorry to veer off topic a bit here.

How does the liquidmix work with 64bit. There seem to be quite a few cheap units floating about and the occasional horror story as well. Have you had good luck with yours?

backwoods


Hey ohgrant- sorry to veer off topic a bit here.

How does the liquidmix work with 64bit. There seem to be quite a few cheap units floating about and the occasional horror story as well. Have you had good luck with yours?

Well, I don't have 64 bit yet but I have a feeling the LM is 32 bit only. It's in legacy support already so I doubt any future driver development.  Finally got the LM working well on my new build and must say. My favorite channel strip for comp and EQ My favorite buss compressor for the vocals as well. Great thing about it, nothing more to buy. Just download their presets (impulse files) each file is an IR of a different hardware unit. They have to use code words for the actual name of the hardware being emulated. You can download a PDF that tells you what they really are. I can't express enough my appreciation for the liquid mix. I think you're out of luck with 64bit though.