Sonar and UAD-2 review

Re: RE: Sonar and UAD-2 review (kb420)

Sun, 15 Nov 2009 12:54:24 GMT

Sorry. Wrong thread.

RE: Sonar and UAD-2 review (AndyW)

Sun, 05 Oct 2008 22:00:55 GMT

ORIGINAL: Creator

I think that many of us can agree that we would be just as likely (if not more so) to buy UAD plug-ins if they were native as we are now that they are DSP based. I agree that DSP cards end up being an extremely effective dongle with a lot of unfortunate side effects. But...

... the plug-ins make it worth it. There are native plug-ins of the same caliber but often not for the same colors. Many comparisons of the newer Waves JJP collection plug-ins to the existing UAD ones of the same gear found that Waves were anywhere from equivalent to inferior. I have yet to hear any reviews that called them superior, despite the higher price.

However, there are several excellent native plug-ins. The Abbey Road Plugins, for instance, offer vintage emulations that no other vendor does (save for very "neutral" stylistic emulation from the Liquid Mix that don't model gain stage, distortion, etc.).

Good points.

I was a skeptic before and still think the UAD1 is underpowered enough to be called a dongle, however, a simple test I did with the UAD Nigel plug was revealing to me.

http://forum.cakewalk.com/tm.asp?m=1499055#

http://forum.cakewalk.com/tm.asp?m=1499055#

I *don't* view the UAD2 QUAD as a dongle any more that I would view my video card as a dongle because it is equivalent to 3 cores of a 3.0Ghz native CPU power, at least for this one plug. I don't see anything else being different from that by more than a factor of 2 so I think it is probably fair to extrapolate that test to say that a UAD2 Quad is between 1.5 and 3 cores worth of Intel CPU native power at 3.0Ghz.

I decided to try a test with the 33609 compressor. It takes 67% of the UAD1 DSP. It takes 5% of the UAD2Q(22% of one DSP). So it appears that a single UAD2 DSP is about 3 times more powerful than the UAD1 with this compressor. With the UAD2Q viewed as a single DSP, it is 12 times more powerful than a single UAD1. This tracks close to the claimed 10x more powerful so lets conservatively use that number and use the Nigel data to extrapolate how a 33609 would work if run natively. That means if the 33609 was native AND we assume there is no inherent efficiency advantage to DSP over CPU(VERY conservative assumption since we know special purpose DSP is more efficient) AND we extrapolate from the Nigel data that the UAD1 is about 30% of one 3.0Ghz native core, it would take 20% of one core of a native 3.0Ghz quad core to run the 33609. This is about 5% overall native CPU, meaning that for this test, the UAD2 Quad comes out as *equivalent* to the native quad core. Ergo, each core on the Quad is equivalent to a core on the native CPU.

So the Nigel test said the UAD2Q was 75% of a native Q6600@3.0Ghz and the 33609 test says the UAD2Q was 100% of a native Q6600@3.0Ghz. Conservatively(since we are discounting DSP efficiency), the average power of a UAD2Quad has got to be somewhere in that range of 1.5-4x the power of a native quad core. That, to me, is way above "dongle" status. These two comparisons demostrate to me that the UAD2 *Quad* is actually a pretty powerful DSP. Not very impressed with the Solo or Duo.

Now, one could argue that cost is a factor here...$1500 for the UAD2 versus $250 for a quad core native processor that you could use for other stuff. True...you can also get a 4-door sedan from Hyundai or BMW with about the same price spread. If you really like how the BMW drives and you have the cash, you are going to get the BMW.

RE: Sonar and UAD-2 review (Creator)

Sun, 05 Oct 2008 20:16:11 GMT

I think that many of us can agree that we would be just as likely (if not more so) to buy UAD plug-ins if they were native as we are now that they are DSP based. I agree that DSP cards end up being an extremely effective dongle with a lot of unfortunate side effects. But...

... the plug-ins make it worth it. There are native plug-ins of the same caliber but often not for the same colors. Many comparisons of the newer Waves JJP collection plug-ins to the existing UAD ones of the same gear found that Waves were anywhere from equivalent to inferior. I have yet to hear any reviews that called them superior, despite the higher price.

However, there are several excellent native plug-ins. The Abbey Road Plugins, for instance, offer vintage emulations that no other vendor does (save for very "neutral" stylistic emulation from the Liquid Mix that don't model gain stage, distortion, etc.).

RE: Sonar and UAD-2 review (Tom F)

Tue, 09 Sep 2008 14:52:49 GMT

hahaahahah - buy the "top notch dsp powerhorse" with the best sounding plugs on the planet to be forced to set latrency at 20 ms ?????
hahahah i used to run my poco pci-e (which i sold cos it was a silly dongle for average plugs) at 6 or 3 ms with no problems on a PENT IUM 4 single with 3 ghz...

and still the uad-priestst praise their tin god....

as i posted earlier - we tested how many ssl compressors we could run on a 8core mac and arrived at 250 at 3ms we stoped cos it was getting boring...

you really gotta love uad to love uad... " /> and what a great legacy btw. : the 40 bit sharc dsps have been used by behringger since stone age - muahahahahaha !!!!!

RE: UAD-1 V5 (RodC)

Tue, 09 Sep 2008 13:41:41 GMT

ORIGINAL: plainfaced

ORIGINAL: Funkybot

ORIGINAL: plainfaced

Im still getting clicks and pops when adding various UAD plugs in a project.
Neither the UAD meter or the CPU meter is maxed out.. But when I try and add an extra plaugin I get clicks and pops.
To remedy this I take my latency up to around 20ms and it seems to fix??
NOT happy with the new software!!!!

Perhaps it's time to contact UA tech support directly.

Sorry, by "still getting" I mean only with the newest drivers/software V5.. It was running tops on the earlier version..

Does anyone know if I can go back to 4.5 (or whatever it was)??

http://www.uaudio.com/support/uad/downloads/archives.html

RE: UAD-1 V5 (plainfaced)

Tue, 09 Sep 2008 11:23:18 GMT

ORIGINAL: Funkybot

ORIGINAL: plainfaced

Im still getting clicks and pops when adding various UAD plugs in a project.
Neither the UAD meter or the CPU meter is maxed out.. But when I try and add an extra plaugin I get clicks and pops.
To remedy this I take my latency up to around 20ms and it seems to fix??
NOT happy with the new software!!!!

Perhaps it's time to contact UA tech support directly.

Sorry, by "still getting" I mean only with the newest drivers/software V5.. It was running tops on the earlier version..

Does anyone know if I can go back to 4.5 (or whatever it was)??

RE: UAD-1 V5 (Funkybot)

Tue, 09 Sep 2008 11:13:59 GMT

ORIGINAL: plainfaced

Im still getting clicks and pops when adding various UAD plugs in a project.
Neither the UAD meter or the CPU meter is maxed out.. But when I try and add an extra plaugin I get clicks and pops.
To remedy this I take my latency up to around 20ms and it seems to fix??
NOT happy with the new software!!!!

Perhaps it's time to contact UA tech support directly.

UAD-1 V5 (plainfaced)

Tue, 09 Sep 2008 10:57:41 GMT

Im still getting clicks and pops when adding various UAD plugs in a project.
Neither the UAD meter or the CPU meter is maxed out.. But when I try and add an extra plaugin I get clicks and pops.
To remedy this I take my latency up to around 20ms and it seems to fix??
NOT happy with the new software!!!!

RE: Sonar and UAD-2 review (mlockett)

Tue, 09 Sep 2008 10:22:40 GMT

I'm using ASIO with the Echo AudioFire8. I wonder if there's any reason the Solo would perform better than the dual under low latency?

RE: Sonar and UAD-2 review (Funkybot)

Tue, 09 Sep 2008 10:11:15 GMT

I'm seeing the exact same results as the original poster with my UAD2 Duo. Once I get the latency up to approximately 17ms (in either ASIO or WDM) all the clicking/distortion/popping disappears entirely and the CPU usage drops drastically.

It seems like you just can't push the UAD2 to high DSP usage levels at low latencies right now. This is completely fine for mixing, but not the best if you want to track a live vocal directly into a mix with UAD2 plugins. I know I can bounce as a workaround, and I'll do so, but it would be nice to see that improved.

So basically, right now with the UAD2, the more plugins you run the higher latency you'll need. Still, when it comes down to mixing time, this thing has been a God send so far.

RE: Sonar and UAD-2 review (Razorwit)

Tue, 09 Sep 2008 01:57:53 GMT

Hey Mike,
Just curious, are you using WDM or ASIO drivers?

Thanks
Dean

RE: Sonar and UAD-2 review (Sonifferous)

Tue, 09 Sep 2008 00:43:41 GMT

*gets his popcorn*

ORIGINAL: AndyW

Interesting read: http://www.uaudio.com/webzine/2008/september/doctors.html

" So â€¦ the hard part was finding the right processor at the right price, one that could fulfill all the following needs.

â€¢ Run UAâ€™s floating-point algorithms with good average instance multipliers
â€¢ Scalable DSP power at audio industry sales volumes (MFLOPS per $)
â€¢ Interface to PCIe and high-speed memory (to run Reverb/Delay/IR-type plug-ins)
â€¢ Quality development and debugging tools (fast plug-in development)
â€¢ Processor price availability and roadmap (future-proof expansion options)

There are many exotic chips with a great deal of processing power, but when you have to consider all the requirements above, you're quickly reduced to just a few practical options. Since first samples of the 21369 SHARC processor were within our development time window, we selected that as the target processor because it offered the greatest raw computational performance for our needs for the price."

This requirement is the first statement that makes the SHARC choice make business sense. Since audio sales volumes are much lower, there must be more profit to be derived per card to pay for the R&D, therefore a cheaper, less powerful DSP is needed.

RE: Sonar and UAD-2 review (AndyW)

Mon, 08 Sep 2008 21:27:32 GMT

Interesting read: http://www.uaudio.com/webzine/2008/september/doctors.html

" So â€¦ the hard part was finding the right processor at the right price, one that could fulfill all the following needs.

â€¢ Run UAâ€™s floating-point algorithms with good average instance multipliers
â€¢ Scalable DSP power at audio industry sales volumes (MFLOPS per $)
â€¢ Interface to PCIe and high-speed memory (to run Reverb/Delay/IR-type plug-ins)
â€¢ Quality development and debugging tools (fast plug-in development)
â€¢ Processor price availability and roadmap (future-proof expansion options)

There are many exotic chips with a great deal of processing power, but when you have to consider all the requirements above, you're quickly reduced to just a few practical options. Since first samples of the 21369 SHARC processor were within our development time window, we selected that as the target processor because it offered the greatest raw computational performance for our needs for the price."

This requirement is the first statement that makes the SHARC choice make business sense. Since audio sales volumes are much lower, there must be more profit to be derived per card to pay for the R&D, therefore a cheaper, less powerful DSP is needed.

RE: Sonar and UAD-2 review (mlockett)

Mon, 08 Sep 2008 20:47:43 GMT

UADs have always been a bit finicky it seems. Out of curiosity, I tried 18 tracks of 1176LN, but on a UAD-2 Solo. I've got a quad core on Vista 64 with 6GB RAM.
The highest spikes were around 22% in Sonar (multiprocessing enabled). Strangly, when I disable the UAD-2 there is no appreciable difference in CPU usage. This is at 256 samples latency on an Echo AudioFire8. UAD-2 DSP is at 95%; PGM at 10% and MEM at 0%.

I also have 2 UAD-1e's isntalled, but they are not being used. For fun, I assigned the Plate 140 to the UAD-1s, and threw a few of those in the mix, in addition to all the 1176LNs, to see if the UAD-1 usage affected the UAD-2. There was no effect. So at this point, for me everything is better than good!

I hope you're able to work out these issues.

RE: Sonar and UAD-2 review (AndyW)

Mon, 08 Sep 2008 19:54:51 GMT

ORIGINAL: Razorwit
Another interesting note is that at low latency the UAD plugs used more host CPU than the Voxengo, but at higher latencies that was not true.

This, to me, is an "emperor has no clothes" moment...isn't the point of DSP to reduce CPU usage?

RE: Sonar and UAD-2 review (Razorwit)

Mon, 08 Sep 2008 19:36:33 GMT

Just an update. After reading over some of Billy BUcks excellent work over at the UAD forums I decided to try my testing again using WDM drivers. Here are my results:

24 1176 plugs at 2.7ms latency:

24 Marquis Comp at 2.7ms

24 1176 at 20ms

24 Marquis at 20ms

All audio played fine with no distortion.

Looks like the problems I was having under ASIO with multiprocessing at low latencies went away after shifting to WDM drivers. I shifted back to ASIO to see if the problems came back and I can reliably reproduce them. Another interesting note is that at low latency the UAD plugs used more host CPU than the Voxengo, but at higher latencies that was not true.

Dean

RE: Sonar and UAD-2 review (stratton)

Mon, 08 Sep 2008 19:33:24 GMT

Billy is a very through tester and came up with this summary, I'm quoting that post:

"When comparing to my previous
(4) card UAD-1 system, I am able to use the Quad for far more plugins
(equal to about 16 UAD-1's when fully loaded with Neve plugins) at lower
"effective" latencies. The UAD-2 is also much more suited to using IM than
the UAD-1. The one negative consequence of the lower "effective" operating
latency is the perceived higher native CPU usage when compared to the UAD-1.
But, keep in mind that the UAD-2 is operating @ 1/2 the inherent plugin latency
as the UAD-1. When operating at the same "effective" plugin latencies the native
CPU is quite comparable. I have talked to UA about this and they are aware that
this can impact some users who would rather have the latency/ CPU performance
(2x mode) of the UAD-1 and are looking at ways to minimize native CPU usage further.
Hopefully, in a future update. "

RE: Sonar and UAD-2 review (Duojet)

Mon, 08 Sep 2008 18:52:37 GMT

the test in this link had somewhat better results in both reaper and sonar

http://www.chrismilne.com/uadforums/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=10024

RE: Sonar and UAD-2 review (Tom F)

Mon, 08 Sep 2008 18:16:57 GMT

oh yes - i bet with the uad3 cards this will be solved - hahahaah
they will be 20 - 40 % better

RE: Sonar and UAD-2 review (UnderTow)

Mon, 08 Sep 2008 17:03:59 GMT

ORIGINAL: plainfaced
Yeah sorry I was just on a rant, basing my opinion on the old UAD-1 argument..

After re reading the post.. quite concerning.

Not totally related. Im on UAD-1, and downloaded the most recent software.. It seems to have a few problems - like motorboating plugs..
I havent tested it properly yet..

No worries. Hopefully these are just issues with the early versions of the drivers.

UnderTow

RE: Sonar and UAD-2 review (plainfaced)

Mon, 08 Sep 2008 16:12:10 GMT

Undertow..
Yeah sorry I was just on a rant, basing my opinion on the old UAD-1 argument..

After re reading the post.. quite concerning.

Not totally related. Im on UAD-1, and downloaded the most recent software.. It seems to have a few problems - like motorboating plugs..
I havent tested it properly yet..

RE: Sonar and UAD-2 review (UnderTow)

Mon, 08 Sep 2008 16:03:23 GMT

ORIGINAL: plainfaced

The fact is UAD takes a load off your CPU, no matter how big or small it may be..
Why people would complain a product that reduces the load on your CPU as with UAD, against having a product that drains your CPU as with any other plugin..
Is beyond me!!

Look at the CPU meter in the first picture. The PC is nearly maxed out. There is no decrease in load. On the contrary. Anyway, as it doesn't run properly this way, it isn't even worth considering.

The alternative scenario is that it forces you to turn off multi-processor mode so it INCREASES the total load on your system! Look at the CPU graph in the second picture. There is only about 50% of one core left for native plugins. In other words, about 75% of the total system's processing power has been chewed up by the UAD card. There is no way anyone can translate this into "takes a load off your CPU".

Although the Marquis isn't a direct comparison, look at the CPU graphs in that test. There is much less load than any of the tested modes using the UAD cards. The PC can still do plenty of native processing.

Hopefully UA will address these issues.

Also there is the price consideration. At 1500$ the Quad is less powerful than the equivalent cash invested directly in a DAW. These are all important factors when purchasing expensive equipment like the UAD cards.

UnderTow

RE: Sonar and UAD-2 review (dbmusic)

Mon, 08 Sep 2008 15:42:11 GMT

ORIGINAL: plainfaced

The fact is UAD takes a load off your CPU, no matter how big or small it may be..
Why people would complain a product that reduces the load on your CPU as with UAD, against having a product that drains your CPU as with any other plugin..
Is beyond me!!

Oh, give it a break. Given the power of today's computers, this is a moot point. UAD cards are dongles plain and simple. I like UAD plugins (I own 15 of them) but resent being forced to purchase more dongles to run additional instances of plugins I've already purchased.

RE: Sonar and UAD-2 review (plainfaced)

Mon, 08 Sep 2008 15:08:56 GMT

The fact is UAD takes a load off your CPU, no matter how big or small it may be..
Why people would complain a product that reduces the load on your CPU as with UAD, against having a product that drains your CPU as with any other plugin..
Is beyond me!!

RE: Sonar and UAD-2 review (AndyW)

Mon, 08 Sep 2008 15:01:48 GMT

ORIGINAL: tazman

I don't agree that it helps people make an informed decision.

Is anything Tim said not factual?

Everyone's needs are different. Plug-ins are bought for their sounds (or what they do to sounds), not for the power of the cards they run on. I would still have a UAD-1 even if it could only run one instance of the LA2A or 1176LN. The real things cost between $1800 and $3000. The card is much cheaper and sounds really good.

And input like yours balanced against Tim's is how people make *informed* decisions. It's how I made mine..." />

RE: Sonar and UAD-2 review (tazman)

Mon, 08 Sep 2008 13:15:28 GMT

I don't agree that it helps people make an informed decision. Everyone's needs are different. Plug-ins are bought for their sounds (or what they do to sounds), not for the power of the cards they run on. I would still have a UAD-1 even if it could only run one instance of the LA2A or 1176LN. The real things cost between $1800 and $3000. The card is much cheaper and sounds really good.

Are the UAD-2's underpowered? I don't think so, but to be honest, I don't care!!! The cost of a UAD-2 quad (which I will be getting soon) is ~4 times the UAD-1, but it fosters 10x the power. That, to me, is a bargain.

Anyway, the plugs I use all the time are the Neve 1073, 1176LN, LA2A, LA3A, the Pultec's, Fairchild 670 and the 88RS.

If I could only choose one... Fairchild 670 for what it does on the Man Buss. The LA3A is getting to be my go to compressor, but I do like what the LA2A does on bass guitar.

RE: Sonar and UAD-2 review (Boogie)

Mon, 08 Sep 2008 13:12:13 GMT

I hope they get these problems sorted out. Sounds like a lot of the old UAD-1 and Sonar problems still linger. I'd really like to buy a UAD-2, but I don't want to be a guinea pig. Not that I'm not grateful to folks like the OP who are on the bleeding edge. My UAD-1 cards will continue to serve me well until it's time for a new DAW box.

I won't comment on whether I think it's a glorified dongle or not; that horse has been flogged to death already. UAD Powered Plugins are not about the technology or the power of the DSP chips; it's about the plugs. If you believe there are native plugs that are better or equal, by all means buy them and leave the rest of us who enjoy the best alone.

RE: Sonar and UAD-2 review (AndyW)

Mon, 08 Sep 2008 12:41:08 GMT

ORIGINAL: tazman

Dude - get over it. If you don't like them, don't buy them. I buy them cause I like what they do. I do music, I don't sit around playing with the computer all day long. If they do the job, great, if they don't... get on with it. This is about making music and they are just another tool to do so.

Roberto, this is an unfair and emotional assessment. Tim is providing excellent information so people can make an *informed* choice regarding UAD cards. By objective standards(and now empirical evidence) the cards are definitely underpowered compared to both the UAD1(only 2.5x increase in 8 years?) and current technologies. To say anything else is simply a religious statement. Lest I be branded a "hater"(thank you for not being like some others in this regard)...I am about to order my own UAD2 to see what all the fuss is about.

P.S. Can you go over to my other thread and tell me what your favorite plugs are so i can spend my vouchers? " />

RE: Sonar and UAD-2 review (plainfaced)

Mon, 08 Sep 2008 11:51:34 GMT

Yeah.. To ALL the UAD-2 haters!!!

Get Over It!!
" />

RE: Sonar and UAD-2 review (tazman)

Mon, 08 Sep 2008 11:47:37 GMT

Dude - get over it. If you don't like them, don't buy them. I buy them cause I like what they do. I do music, I don't sit around playing with the computer all day long. If they do the job, great, if they don't... get on with it. This is about making music and they are just another tool to do so.

ORIGINAL: timboe

Well ...... if anyone had any doubt about how "ancient" the UAD2 technology already is, the above says it all.

UAD 2 DUO -> 24 x 1176's = ~%70 load

That gives "theoretical" max's as follows - assuming constant steady %100 glitch free use at %100 which you can see from the above you aint going to get:-

- UAD 2 SOLO - 17 x 1176's = ~%100 load

- UAD 2 DUO - 34 x 1176's = ~%100 load

- UAD 2 QUAD - 68 x 1176's = ~%100 load

Remember - as crappy as these figures are, this is a just a COMP - imagine how bad the figures would be if you were loading the NEVE stuff or some of the better Reverbs !

And latency was set to 128samples - 2.9ms - thats OK, but you wouldnt want to go any higher if live input monitoring / tracking is what you want because if you are st to 2.9ms / 128 smaples, your overall "real world" latency taking into account AD/DA conversion, system processing and peripherals etc... will be at least twice the audio config setting - ie: > 6.0ms.

And to further prove why UAD dont post "native" figures, Voxengo's Marquis Compgo - by all reports a brilliant VST thats just as as good as anything UAD in its own ways, uses somthing like 1/3 rd the CPU load in Sonar with no "dongle" UAD 2 card.

Seriously, if you like UAD stuff and want to pay for the out of date UAD 2 technology, more power to you - but saying UAD plugs sound "better" as oppossed to sound "different" to other high end plugs is like saying the lead guitar track I recorded in ProTools last night sounds better than the same lead guitar track recorded in Sonar 7 - its rubbish.

I just want to give major props to Razorwit for posting his genuine results - good on you- I have no doubt as people see more and more posts like this, this whole UAD 1 / UAD 2 myth will finally be busted and then if people want to buy and use them, they can without thinking or beleiving or being "spun" or "hyped" into the illusion that they have the "best and most powerfull" DAW plugs out there.

Tim