To my surprise, new UAD emulations of LA2A are not that great as I think. Demoed it against PC2A and found that difference is very subtle and both versions works nearly same. Gain staging on UAD version is little bit higher so first impression was louder-better  Three versions from UAD sounds almost same and in extreme settings it sounds just like PC2A, even emphasis screw act almost same. So I am staying with Cakewalks emulation  Any other observations?

I did a similar test with the previous UAD LA2A. They are slightly different but not dramatically so. I also tested them both against the hardware LA2A, needless to say neither was that close. There is one advantage of the UAD plugs when used with their Apollo product and that is the ability to use them for live tracking.

Agree with miidleman.  If I had Apollo, there would be no choice...uad all the way.  My hardware 2-1176' Charteroaks scl-1 and even my Avalon 747 sounds better....and thank god....because I had to sell my first born to buy them. 

Hm...that's odd...I found them to be MUCH different than the CA-2A....the CA-2A release time is significantly faster than the UAD stuff and really noticeable when you strap them on drums. I don't know about better or worse, but certainly different (at least to my ears).

I haven't compared to my TLA-100A yet, but I've re-tubed it so it may not be a good comparison anyway.

Dean

I really can't say one sounds better,  but I agree that they sound different. (I have not tried the CA-2A.)

Mostly I use the LA2A, I find it easier to dial in the sound I am looking for. But I don't feel bad if I'm running out of DSP resources, the PC2A is a worthy substitute.

I gave the new UA versions a quick chance, and really liked what I heard. The grey version seemed to be the most colorful on vocals, the LA-2 version worked great on an acoustic lead (probably due to the faster attack time) and also had a ton of color, the silver face was also much improved.

The newest IK versions sound a bit harsh to me (I disappointingly prefer the original IK LA-2A/1176 without the tube/transformer modelling to the new ones), and I wasn't getting that here with the new UA versions.


So far, I only tried them out on an acoustic mix with two guitars and a vocal. Next up will be an electric bass test (which is my favorite use for the hardware). If it holds up much better than my existing options there, I'll probably buy it. 

The Cakewalk version is a non-starter for me until there's a demo to try. Sorry Cakewalk.

If anyone is interested, one of the things I frequently do when I get a new peice of kit is make a bunch of comparisons to other pieces like it. This let's me loop up a region and just play them back one by one to really try and spot differences. I've done that with the new UA LA2A stuff along with LA2A clones from IK, NI, Cakewalk and some hardware that says they do similar things (in this case, a Distressor set to their LA-2A type settings, and Chameleon labs 7802 and a Summit TLA-100A). If anyone is interested you can find it here.

BTW, I got pretty close with the levels but you may need to adjust a bit to avoid F-M type problems.

http://www.fade.net/la2a_comparisons.zip 


Dean

EDIT - one more thing, each compressor was set so that it was compressing to about 5.5 db of GR.

ONE MORE EDIT - realized I had fouled up some hardware settings on the hardware versions. I've changed out the wav files for the hardware comps, so if you already got them it you probably want to D/L them again. 

Middleman


I did a similar test with the previous UAD LA2A. They are slightly different but not dramatically so. I also tested them both against the hardware LA2A, needless to say neither was that close. There is one advantage of the UAD plugs when used with their Apollo product and that is the ability to use them for live tracking.

Yeah but your test was a bit unfair. You got that mutant REAL LA2A that sounds like God made it himself. LOL! The one's I've tried weren't as impressive. Don't ever get rid of that thing Middleman. :)
 
Blue, the only thing you gain in my opinion, is less cpu usage if you use the UAD versions. I think the Sonar version is right up there with UAD and Waves to be honest. The differences are subtle for sure....yet every bit as good. They don't appear to use much cpu, but if you had to use a bunch, I'd max out the UAD stuff to leave the strain off the cpu and fly in the Cake versions after if I needed more.
 
-Danny

Razorwit


If anyone is interested, one of the things I frequently do when I get a new peice of kit is make a bunch of comparisons to other pieces like it. This let's me loop up a region and just play them back one by one to really try and spot differences. I've done that with the new UA LA2A stuff along with LA2A clones from IK, NI, Cakewalk and some hardware that says they do similar things (in this case, a Distressor set to their LA-2A type settings, and Chameleon labs 7802 and a Summit TLA-100A). If anyone is interested you can find it here.

BTW, I got pretty close with the levels but you may need to adjust a bit to avoid F-M type problems.

http://www.fade.net/la2a_comparisons.zip 


Dean

EDIT - one more thing, each compressor was set so that it was compressing to about 5.5 db of GR.

ONE MORE EDIT - realized I had fouled up some hardware settings on the hardware versions. I've changed out the wav files for the hardware comps, so if you already got them it you probably want to D/L them again. 

Thanks!
 
I like the Cakewalk CA2A. Hardware always sound great and give you unique tonality. I was surprised to hear the 7802 had so alot of tonality. It reminds me of Chandler germanium.

P.S. This new 6.5 fixed all my UAD issues you guys may have seen me report on with the 6.4 version. I noticed UAD mentioned something in their notes about a DSP overload in Sonar or something. Whatever they did, I have no problems at all with Sonar 8.5, X1 or X2 using 32 bit and 64 plugs and programs. Whew....thankfully! :)

-Danny