Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
UAD-1 and Plugins
Hello Everyone,
I would like to ask the opinion of the group members on the UAD-1 card and the plugs. Is it efficient enough to offer realtime processing? And, most of all, how do the plugs sound - how close did they get to the originals (Pultec and Fairchild interest me especially)? I appreciate any and all responses to this, as I trust your experienced ears (which im sure heard the originals!) much more than mine. Cheers, Serge |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
UAD-1 and Plugins
Hi Serge,
I love my UAD-1. I can't compare the plugs to the sounds of the original vintage units, but I think they are all very useful. As to your other question, the plugs are run on the UAD-1 board and use no host CPU. They are designed to run in real-time. Mark "Serge" wrote in message ... Hello Everyone, I would like to ask the opinion of the group members on the UAD-1 card and the plugs. Is it efficient enough to offer realtime processing? And, most of all, how do the plugs sound - how close did they get to the originals (Pultec and Fairchild interest me especially)? I appreciate any and all responses to this, as I trust your experienced ears (which im sure heard the originals!) much more than mine. Cheers, Serge |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
UAD-1 and Plugins
I would like to ask the opinion of the group members on the UAD-1
card and the plugs. Is it efficient enough to offer realtime processing? That's the whole point with DAW plugins. The UAD does the processing onboard the card, lightening, but not eliminating the load on the CPU. You will still run into track count vs # of plugin issues. I notice I can get WAY more native Waves instantiations than UAD instantiations, using a fast dual G5. The best sounding UAD plugs seem to be the most CPU intensive. Recently I had 4 Pultecs, 1 Dreamverb, & 1 Cambridge EQ running on the UAD. Adding a 2nd Cambridge EQ choked the whole system & brought it to its knees. That's not a lot of plugins for a dedicated card, IMO. So, you have to balance the UAD plugs with your others to keep the system running. And, most of all, how do the plugs sound - how close did they get to the originals (Pultec and Fairchild interest me especially)? All the UAD plugs I've used sound really good. I use the Pultecs all the time, the Cambridge EQ is very good. I tend to prefer Waves compressors. The UAD Plate is very good. Do they sound like the hardware? I don't know, everything sounds different in a computer. They sound good, & are very useful. I've never heard a plugin that convinced me I was hearing hardware. These plugins sound good, so I use them, when mixing. I use hardware when I'm tracking, & I don't worry much about whether the software version sounds exactly like the hardware. Personally, I'd rather have a $2500 LA2A sitting in my rack than a $250 LA2A software emulation sitting on my hard drive. Scott Fraser |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
UAD-1 and Plugins
Mark Robinson wrote:
Hi Serge, I love my UAD-1. I can't compare the plugs to the sounds of the original vintage units, but I think they are all very useful. As to your other question, the plugs are run on the UAD-1 board and use no host CPU. They are designed to run in real-time. Mark, Thanks for the response. I currently mix at 128-sample latency as I have a number of outboard synthesizers that I need to hear in realtime as I'm writing the song. My mixes usually don't take more than 60% CPU, and that's with a lot of Waves Renaissance and other plugs running. My audio interfaces are MOTU 24I/O and MOTU 2408mk3 with the PCI-424 card. The system is a P4 3.4GHz 1MB cache with 2GB of RAM and is extremely stable when working on audio, so I am a bit wary about adding such a bandwidth-hungry PCI device like the UAD-1. I read on a few forums that if I add the UAD-1 card my audio latency will at least double. Is this truth or myth? Thanks again. Cheers, Serge |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
UAD-1 and Plugins
Scott Fraser wrote:
I would like to ask the opinion of the group members on the UAD-1 card and the plugs. Is it efficient enough to offer realtime processing? That's the whole point with DAW plugins. The UAD does the processing onboard the card, lightening, but not eliminating the load on the CPU. You will still run into track count vs # of plugin issues. I notice I can get WAY more native Waves instantiations than UAD instantiations, using a fast dual G5. The best sounding UAD plugs seem to be the most CPU intensive. Recently I had 4 Pultecs, 1 Dreamverb, & 1 Cambridge EQ running on the UAD. Adding a 2nd Cambridge EQ choked the whole system & brought it to its knees. That's not a lot of plugins for a dedicated card, IMO. So, you have to balance the UAD plugs with your others to keep the system running. Hi Scott, Thanks for your reply. What you're describing is exactly what's been holding me back from buying the UAD card. I have a VERY stable system and the entire Waves suite and this setup is serving me very well. I am thinking whether adding a UAD card would thus be beneficial to me at all, or if the quality gain would not be *that* jaw-dropping. I am thinking in terms of convenience/performance-to-benefit ratio. If, as you say, this card will only let me run a couple of instances of the UAD plugs, then I'd rather stick with running my Waves plugs natively and save up for a real TDM system instead in the future (PT HD). I've worked on TDM systems (both PT5 and 6) and absolutely love the stability of TDM, so I was hoping the UAD card would give me something approaching that, but from what I've been reading online it seems an UAD-1 is similar to buying a multi-purpose outboard unit. I think I will stick with my Waves for now, as I only have one PCI slot left anyway, so buying more than one UAD card to get more processing power for the plugs is out of the question. I really wish there was a DSP card that accelerated all plugins, not just ones made for that specific card - but then again, that's just called a "faster computer." Cheers, Serge |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
UAD-1 and Plugins
Serge -
I use (and love) the UAD plugs on my Mac G5 - especially the compressor plugs and the mastering plugs (eq, limiter and new multiband limiter). I also use Waves plug ins, PSP plug-ins etc. The UAD plugs are the ones I'll try first when mixing or mastering becuase they usally sound the best and it allows me to off-load the CPU cycles to the UAD board. Scott mentioned the limited plug-in count. This points out the fact that the performance of the card varies according to the host computer. For example, many of the newer G5 Mac's have a PCI-X bus implementation that constrains the throughput to and from the UAD card (a compatibility issue). You can't load very many plugs before you hit the choke point of the PCI bus . . . On my non-PCI-x-bus Mac, I can load many plug-ins . . . with two cards, I've never run out of horsepower for the plugs. Since you are on a PC (or actually, no matter what computer you use) I suggest you check out this forum: http://www.chrismilne.com/uadforums/index.php You can see about compatibility and throughput etc. There's lots of folks contributing there and UAD keeps their eye on the discussions and jumps in when they can be helpful. My experience with UAD customer support and technical service has been great. I agree with others . . . it's not whether they sound "just like" the real thing, it's how good they sound. They sound really, really good . . . I until UAD had everything ready for OSX (on the Mac) before upgrading my studio because I won't mix without them. Good luck with your decision! Peter in St. Louis Serge wrote: Scott Fraser wrote: I would like to ask the opinion of the group members on the UAD-1 card and the plugs. Is it efficient enough to offer realtime processing? That's the whole point with DAW plugins. The UAD does the processing onboard the card, lightening, but not eliminating the load on the CPU. You will still run into track count vs # of plugin issues. I notice I can get WAY more native Waves instantiations than UAD instantiations, using a fast dual G5. The best sounding UAD plugs seem to be the most CPU intensive. Recently I had 4 Pultecs, 1 Dreamverb, & 1 Cambridge EQ running on the UAD. Adding a 2nd Cambridge EQ choked the whole system & brought it to its knees. That's not a lot of plugins for a dedicated card, IMO. So, you have to balance the UAD plugs with your others to keep the system running. Hi Scott, Thanks for your reply. What you're describing is exactly what's been holding me back from buying the UAD card. I have a VERY stable system and the entire Waves suite and this setup is serving me very well. I am thinking whether adding a UAD card would thus be beneficial to me at all, or if the quality gain would not be *that* jaw-dropping. I am thinking in terms of convenience/performance-to-benefit ratio. If, as you say, this card will only let me run a couple of instances of the UAD plugs, then I'd rather stick with running my Waves plugs natively and save up for a real TDM system instead in the future (PT HD). I've worked on TDM systems (both PT5 and 6) and absolutely love the stability of TDM, so I was hoping the UAD card would give me something approaching that, but from what I've been reading online it seems an UAD-1 is similar to buying a multi-purpose outboard unit. I think I will stick with my Waves for now, as I only have one PCI slot left anyway, so buying more than one UAD card to get more processing power for the plugs is out of the question. I really wish there was a DSP card that accelerated all plugins, not just ones made for that specific card - but then again, that's just called a "faster computer." Cheers, Serge |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
UAD-1 and Plugins
I am
thinking whether adding a UAD card would thus be beneficial to me at all, or if the quality gain would not be *that* jaw-dropping. It's not so much a quality gain as an alternative set of flavors. Prior to getting the UAD I relied primarily on Waves, which are great, but you want some variety in the palette. The UAD plugs aren't necessarily better than the Waves, they're different. More personality is how I'd characterize them. I am thinking in terms of convenience/performance-to-benefit ratio. If, as you say, this card will only let me run a couple of instances of the UAD plugs, then I'd rather stick with running my Waves plugs natively and save up for a real TDM system instead in the future (PT HD). What you save by not buying a UAD is not going to get you much closer to a PT HD system, unfortunately. You'll get more than a couple instances, but not so many more that you'll never again have to watch your system performance meter. Peter mentioned the bandwidth limitation on the G5 PCI-X implementation. I think this means the UAD runs at around 80-85% of its full potential on my machine. I've worked on TDM systems (both PT5 and 6) and absolutely love the stability of TDM, so I was hoping the UAD card would give me something approaching that, but from what I've been reading online it seems an UAD-1 is similar to buying a multi-purpose outboard unit. Stability is unaffected. It's just not a bottomless pit of processing power. Neither is TDM. Eventually, with enough tracks & plugs, even the biggest PT system will run out of gas. I think I will stick with my Waves for now, as I only have one PCI slot left anyway, so buying more than one UAD card to get more processing power for the plugs is out of the question. I really wish there was a DSP card that accelerated all plugins, not just ones made for that specific card - but then again, that's just called a "faster computer." I think "faster computer" is something you can definitely count on, rather like the sun rising in the east. And it will be announced the week after your next computer purchase. Scott Fraser |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
UAD-1 and Plugins
Peter in St. Louis wrote:
Serge - I use (and love) the UAD plugs on my Mac G5 - especially the compressor plugs and the mastering plugs (eq, limiter and new multiband limiter). I also use Waves plug ins, PSP plug-ins etc. Good luck with your decision! Peter in St. Louis Hello Peter, Thanks for all the info! The forum you linked is very helpful. I am currently considering either the Project Pak ($399) or the Flexi Pak ($699). I might just get the Project Pak for now to save money and then buy plugs one by one later. At $149 a pop they're not bad at all. My computer is listed as a compatible configuration on the forum you linked (I have an Asus P4C-E800 Deluxe board), so I should have no problems, I hope. I don't have PCI-X, just PCI and AGP. Once I get the card and do some mixing I will report back with what my ears have decided. Thanks a lot for your help! Cheers, Serge |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
UAD-1 and Plugins
Scott Fraser wrote:
It's not so much a quality gain as an alternative set of flavors. Prior to getting the UAD I relied primarily on Waves, which are great, but you want some variety in the palette. The UAD plugs aren't necessarily better than the Waves, they're different. More personality is how I'd characterize them. That's what others have said as well, so I get your point, I will just have to use them for a bit and let my ears decide. Variety and versatility is key. What you save by not buying a UAD is not going to get you much closer to a PT HD system, unfortunately. You'll get more than a couple instances, but not so many more that you'll never again have to watch your system performance meter. Peter mentioned the bandwidth limitation on the G5 PCI-X implementation. I think this means the UAD runs at around 80-85% of its full potential on my machine. Stability is unaffected. It's just not a bottomless pit of processing power. Neither is TDM. Eventually, with enough tracks & plugs, even the biggest PT system will run out of gas. I understand that neither the UAD or TDM aren't bottomless processing power pits. All I was concerned about was that I don't destabilize my current config (I can run full 48 I/O at 128-sample latency with no skips or clicks at 60% CPU load when lots of plugs are on). From the forum Peter linked it seems my current config should be fine, so I guess I'll give it a go and if it doesn't perform well (worst case scenario), I will return it. I think "faster computer" is something you can definitely count on, rather like the sun rising in the east. And it will be announced the week after your next computer purchase. Scott Fraser True that. I subscribe to the "buy last year's latest and greatest" policy. I will let the early adopters beta-test the latest gadgets and then buy them once they've matured through a few firmware/hardware/driver revisions (I wish I could say that about Cubase!). I really appreciate your and Peter's replies, and I will report back once I get the card and have mixed on it for a bit. Cheers! Serge |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
UAD-1 and Plugins
Just my 2 cents:
I used the Waves plug-ins for years and added a UAD-1 Ultrapak when it came to market. I cannot say one is better than the other. It depends.. But I find myself using the UAD plug-ins more and more. The bottleneck seems to be the PCI bus load. Especially the UAD Precision series (EQ, limiter and the new multiband compressor) are really worth every cent. The decision should go for both and in addition I would even buy a TC powercore (what I will do next week) in order to run the wonderful Sony plug-ins. br GS |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
UAD-1 and Plugins
"Scott Fraser" wrote:
I think "faster computer" is something you can definitely count on, rather like the sun rising in the east. And it will be announced the week after your next computer purchase. For the first time ever, I'm starting to wonder if that's the case anymore? My recent look at laptops revealed machines that are much slower than my two year old Vaio. The focus now seems to be on heat and power efficiency. This has come at the expense of raw performance. In the case of desktop machines, it seems like the clock race is slowing down. Look how quickly clock rates climbed for the P4. How long ago did we get ~3GHZ CPUs? One might expect that we should be seeing 4GHz models by now, but it seems like attention is being devoted to other matters than raw speed. Apple has added horsepower at the top of the line, but the rest of the stable seems to be concentrating on nifty over nasty. Admittedly we are now seeing boxes that can do more than one thing at a time (multi-core and multi-cpu), and somewhat more efficient internal busses, but it makes me wonder if the muscle race is slowing down. All this from one who knows only just barely enough about computers to run a Pro Tools session and post a message on usenet! g -- "It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!" - Lorin David Schultz in the control room making even bad news sound good (Remove spamblock to reply) |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
UAD-1 and Plugins
In article ,
Serge wrote: Hello Everyone, I would like to ask the opinion of the group members on the UAD-1 card and the plugs. Is it efficient enough to offer realtime processing? And, most of all, how do the plugs sound - how close did they get to the originals (Pultec and Fairchild interest me especially)? I appreciate any and all responses to this, as I trust your experienced ears (which im sure heard the originals!) much more than mine. Cheers, Serge I love the UAD card and couldn't mix without it. I use the 140 plate so much that I sold one of my high priced hardware reverbs since it sat idle most of the time. The Fairchild is amazing across the stereo buss. The LA-2, 1176, etc. all sound close enough to the real thing that it's not an issue for me. Most of the vintage hardware ones don't sound the same anyway. At least the plug-ins sound and work the same every time. It's not a lot of money for what you get, in my opinion. -- Bobby Owsinski Surround Associates http://www.surroundassociates.com |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
UAD-1 and Plugins
"Bobby Owsinski" wrote in message news In article , Serge wrote: Hello Everyone, I would like to ask the opinion of the group members on the UAD-1 card and the plugs. Is it efficient enough to offer realtime processing? And, most of all, how do the plugs sound - how close did they get to the originals (Pultec and Fairchild interest me especially)? I appreciate any and all responses to this, as I trust your experienced ears (which im sure heard the originals!) much more than mine. Cheers, Serge I love the UAD card and couldn't mix without it. I use the 140 plate so much that I sold one of my high priced hardware reverbs since it sat idle most of the time. The Fairchild is amazing across the stereo buss. The LA-2, 1176, etc. all sound close enough to the real thing that it's not an issue for me. Most of the vintage hardware ones don't sound the same anyway. At least the plug-ins sound and work the same every time. It's not a lot of money for what you get, in my opinion. I'll second that. I have a pair of UAD-1's and all the plugs (except the multiband that just came out, haven't got that one, yet...). Learning to use the delay compensation in a PTLE system is a little tricky, but once you figure it out, it's a minor inconvenience compared to the results you can get. Yep, worth every penny several times over. malachi |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
UAD-1 and Plugins
malachi wrote:
I'll second that. I have a pair of UAD-1's and all the plugs (except the multiband that just came out, haven't got that one, yet...). Learning to use the delay compensation in a PTLE system is a little tricky, but once you figure it out, it's a minor inconvenience compared to the results you can get. Yep, worth every penny several times over. malachi So how much latency does using the UAD introduce exactly? Can I still have realtime or near-realtime monitoring with the plugs on (I'm talking 128 or at most 256-sample latency)? That's my big question before I put the money down for the card. Serge |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
UAD-1 and Plugins
Serge wrote:
malachi wrote: I'll second that. I have a pair of UAD-1's and all the plugs (except the multiband that just came out, haven't got that one, yet...). Learning to use the delay compensation in a PTLE system is a little tricky, but once you figure it out, it's a minor inconvenience compared to the results you can get. Yep, worth every penny several times over. malachi So how much latency does using the UAD introduce exactly? Can I still have realtime or near-realtime monitoring with the plugs on (I'm talking 128 or at most 256-sample latency)? That's my big question before I put the money down for the card. Serge Actually nevermind, I found my answer he http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/apr0...pcmusician.htm Seems like I'll either forget about the card for now or change my creative process (write THEN mix, as opposed to write AND mix simultaneously). Serge |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
UAD-1 and Plugins
So how much latency does using the UAD introduce exactly? Can I still
have realtime or near-realtime monitoring with the plugs on (I'm talking 128 or at most 256-sample latency)? That's my big question before I put the money down for the card. Depends on your software. With Digital Performer the latency is automatically compensated, so you never have to think about it. Scott Fraser |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
UAD-1 and Plugins
Scott Fraser wrote: Depends on your software. With Digital Performer the latency is automatically compensated, so you never have to think about it. Scott Fraser I use DP also and I'm grateful for the automatic delay compensation . . .. I think that Serge was asking about latency between the sound picked up by the microphone (or direct line or whatever) and heard in the monitors / headphones during tracking. Since the UAD plugs do add to that latency, it works against what he's trying to do . . . FWIW, I think it'd be worth owning the UAD plugs and tracking without them and then mixing with them. Peter |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
UAD-1 and Plugins
Peter in St. Louis wrote:
I use DP also and I'm grateful for the automatic delay compensation . . . I think that Serge was asking about latency between the sound picked up by the microphone (or direct line or whatever) and heard in the monitors / headphones during tracking. Since the UAD plugs do add to that latency, it works against what he's trying to do . . . FWIW, I think it'd be worth owning the UAD plugs and tracking without them and then mixing with them. Peter Hey Peter, Yeah, that's my main gripe, I'm very used to being able to hear everything I'm doing in realtime, including all my FX that is applied to live line inputs. My studio is basically 12 hardware synths and an FMR RNP+RNC combo (I make various types of elecronica). I use Cubase SX3 to both sequence and mix my music, so my problem with the UAD would introduce audible delay after a MIDI note is sent to a synth and the audio comes back from it processed through the UAD. Cubase has automatic latency compensation on all paths for both MIDI and audio, so I don't have this problem with all-native plugs so far, but after I read the SOS article on DSP-aided processing I understand my current workflow (write and mix at the same time) is the opposite of what the UAD-1 and other DSP-aided systems are geared for - mixing pre-recorded material where you can just shift your prerecorded audio accordingly to compensate for processing delay. Perhaps I should just change my creative process; I'm curious how other people deal with this - Compose and then mix? Or compose and mix at the same time? Serge |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
UAD-1 and Plugins
Serge wrote in
: Peter in St. Louis wrote: I use DP also and I'm grateful for the automatic delay compensation . . . I think that Serge was asking about latency between the sound picked up by the microphone (or direct line or whatever) and heard in the monitors / headphones during tracking. Since the UAD plugs do add to that latency, it works against what he's trying to do . . . FWIW, I think it'd be worth owning the UAD plugs and tracking without them and then mixing with them. Peter Hey Peter, Yeah, that's my main gripe, I'm very used to being able to hear everything I'm doing in realtime, including all my FX that is applied to live line inputs. My studio is basically 12 hardware synths and an FMR RNP+RNC combo (I make various types of elecronica). I use Cubase SX3 to both sequence and mix my music, so my problem with the UAD would introduce audible delay after a MIDI note is sent to a synth and the audio comes back from it processed through the UAD. Cubase has automatic latency compensation on all paths for both MIDI and audio, so I don't have this problem with all-native plugs so far, but after I read the SOS article on DSP-aided processing I understand my current workflow (write and mix at the same time) is the opposite of what the UAD-1 and other DSP-aided systems are geared for - mixing pre-recorded material where you can just shift your prerecorded audio accordingly to compensate for processing delay. Perhaps I should just change my creative process; I'm curious how other people deal with this - Compose and then mix? Or compose and mix at the same time? Serge You might have more success in finding out info at the UAD forum...UAD techs hang the http://www.chrismilne.com/uadforums/ Good Luck! -- Now Go Play! Craig Ramseur( owner of 2 x UAD-1 cards) |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
UAD-1 and Plugins
Craig Ramseur wrote:
You might have more success in finding out info at the UAD forum...UAD techs hang the http://www.chrismilne.com/uadforums/ Good Luck! Thanks Craig, I've been reading those forums, and so far what I wrote above seems to be the case. My latency will essentially triple on tracks that have a UAD plug on them, but not on others - on those, I would have to put the UAD delay compensator plugin so that all tracks are delayed equally. This works fine for mixing, but not for playing/composing. I will research this further and see if there's a middle ground. Serge |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
UAD-1 and Plugins
I use DP also and I'm grateful for the automatic delay compensation .
.. I think that Serge was asking about latency between the sound picked up by the microphone (or direct line or whatever) and heard in the monitors / headphones during tracking. Since the UAD plugs do add to that latency, it works against what he's trying to do . . . FWIW, I think it'd be worth owning the UAD plugs and tracking without them and then mixing with them. Yes, you do get latency when monitoring through the software mixer with UAD plugins instantiated. Since plugins are only in the playback path, I don't track with them instantiated. I need to know what's getting recording. Scott Fraser |
#22
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
UAD-1 and Plugins
Perhaps I should just change my creative process; I'm curious how
other people deal with this - Compose and then mix? Or compose and mix at the same time? Well, if the system works for you, it'd good. You shouldn't have to change the way you work just to accommodate a different tool. Personally, I view recording as well as composing, as gathering data. The data gets edited, altered, rearranged, mixed, & effected after the initial recording. Thus I don't need to record with the eventual effects in place. It sounds like you have a perfectly good hammer, & if you add a screwdriver to the toolkit, it will require rethinking the building process. Scott Fraser |
#23
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
UAD-1 and Plugins
Scott Fraser wrote:
Yes, you do get latency when monitoring through the software mixer with UAD plugins instantiated. Since plugins are only in the playback path, I don't track with them instantiated. I need to know what's getting recording. Scott Fraser Thanks Scott, that's the info I was looking for. |
#24
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
UAD-1 and Plugins
Scott Fraser wrote:
Well, if the system works for you, it'd good. You shouldn't have to change the way you work just to accommodate a different tool. Personally, I view recording as well as composing, as gathering data. The data gets edited, altered, rearranged, mixed, & effected after the initial recording. Thus I don't need to record with the eventual effects in place. It sounds like you have a perfectly good hammer, & if you add a screwdriver to the toolkit, it will require rethinking the building process. Scott Fraser I think you're 100% correct here. Too often we get blinded by the desire to add something new and shiny to our toolbox, especially after hearing how awesome it is from others. I think since my setup works nicely now, I will only consider getting new tools when I completely outgrow the ones I have now. Thanks again! Serge |
#25
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
UAD-1 and Plugins
"Serge" wrote in message ... Scott Fraser wrote: Yes, you do get latency when monitoring through the software mixer with UAD plugins instantiated. Since plugins are only in the playback path, I don't track with them instantiated. I need to know what's getting recording. Scott Fraser I tend to record with no software effects and only a little compression via a hardware unit going in. The UAD plugs aren't really usable as real time effects during tracking/monitoring because of their inherent delay. I monitor through a mixer to avoid the latentcy issue all together, but that's just my creative process. The UAD is great to have at mixdown, though. malachi |
#26
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
UAD-1 and Plugins
Hi Serge,
I think you will have similar latency problems when trying to real time monitor with native waves (or any) plugins. The 128 sample latency figure you are quoting is the ASIO buffer only. This does not include any buffering done by the plugin to perform its DSP. Have you tried to run a test of the waves plugins to see what they introduce into the monitoring? I suspect they are adding a significant amount of additional delay beyond 128 samples. 128 samples at 44.1khz is about 3ms. You double this value when doing real time monitoring, so you end up with about 6ms total delay if using no plugins. You can get away with 20ms or so depending on how sensitive you are to the effect of the delay. That is equal to a path of about 20' from a amp (if you were a guitar player, for example). I would give a call or email to the people at UA and ask the questions you posed here (they have very good support for their products). Also note that Cubase SX3 has a "constrain delay" function which sacrifices the automatic delay compensation for better latency when doing live monitoring. See page 290 of the manual for more info on this. Mark "Serge" wrote in message ... Scott Fraser wrote: Yes, you do get latency when monitoring through the software mixer with UAD plugins instantiated. Since plugins are only in the playback path, I don't track with them instantiated. I need to know what's getting recording. Scott Fraser Thanks Scott, that's the info I was looking for. |
#27
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
UAD-1 and Plugins
Mark Robinson wrote:
Hi Serge, I think you will have similar latency problems when trying to real time monitor with native waves (or any) plugins. The 128 sample latency figure you are quoting is the ASIO buffer only. This does not include any buffering done by the plugin to perform its DSP. Have you tried to run a test of the waves plugins to see what they introduce into the monitoring? I suspect they are adding a significant amount of additional delay beyond 128 samples. 128 samples at 44.1khz is about 3ms. You double this value when doing real time monitoring, so you end up with about 6ms total delay if using no plugins. You can get away with 20ms or so depending on how sensitive you are to the effect of the delay. That is equal to a path of about 20' from a amp (if you were a guitar player, for example). I would give a call or email to the people at UA and ask the questions you posed here (they have very good support for their products). Also note that Cubase SX3 has a "constrain delay" function which sacrifices the automatic delay compensation for better latency when doing live monitoring. See page 290 of the manual for more info on this. Mark Hi Mark, I found out what I needed about the UAD plugs, they will essentially at least triple my current latency and I will have to use their delay compensator plugs on tracks that aren't using UAD plugs (same thing with the PowerCore plugs and even plugs on PT TDM systems). As for the Waves plugs running natively I haven't had any audible problems to date, and I've been using them for a few years now. As far as I understood, automatic delay compensation would have me covered while using native plugs, and as long as they all get their processing done within the alloted ASIO buffer time, all audio will come out in sync in the end (if they don't, audio skips and stutters, and buffer has to be increased). The latency issue gets even more complex in my case because I am using hardware synths as my sources, and I assume each has a different inherent MIDI *and* audio latency. At this point I'm not even sure how to properly measure and compensate for such a thing, as the synth manuals don't give any numbers nor even mention such problem exists (or maybe it's just in my head?). I already made sure I am using identical MIDI interfaces across the board, and am currently reexaming my monitoring situation. I cannot afford the cash or space for a large format console now (I am running 32 analog and 16 digital I/O) to go around it and I still like hearing what things sound like as I'm working on a song. I guess I'll keep looking. I am curious how large digital facilities deal with such a thing - they probably sequence and record their material, THEN mix it?. Serge |
#28
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
UAD-1 and Plugins
Hi Serge,
If you are using SX3, there is no need to use any of the funky UAD delay comp plugins. Cubase now handles this automatically. However, automatic delay comp will do nothing to help your real time monitoring problem. When monitoring in real time with a CPU based effect (be it on a UAD or a native VST plugin) or instrument, the audio must pass through the plugin and any buffer it contains. Delay comp is used only on tracks that have been previously recorded to assure that everything lines up. On modern DAW programs, that get a bit complicated because of group channels, sends, inserts, and busses. Effects can appear on any of them and they all have different processing delays. Cubase has to keep track of all of the pathways and make decisions about how to delay each of the streams of data so that they are properly aligned at playback. There should no issues using external MIDI as long as you have a decent interface. MIDI events will be output by Cubase at the correct time just as audio is. Keep in mind that MIDI being a serial data stream at a relatively low baud rate has inherent delays that cannot be avoided. It takes almost 1ms to send a single note on command to a MIDI synth. If you play a 10 note chord, MIDI cannot sound all of the notes at he same time. The skew will be nearly 10ms. VSTi's have a big advantage here because the internal data flows to the instrument at a very high speed. Playing them in real time however, can be problematic due to the ASIO buffer and any internal processing time. If you are interested in the UAD-1, why not see if your local dealer will let you try it out on your system. Since it is a hardware device, I would expect that it would be returnable. Mark "Serge" wrote in message ... Mark Robinson wrote: Hi Serge, I think you will have similar latency problems when trying to real time monitor with native waves (or any) plugins. The 128 sample latency figure you are quoting is the ASIO buffer only. This does not include any buffering done by the plugin to perform its DSP. Have you tried to run a test of the waves plugins to see what they introduce into the monitoring? I suspect they are adding a significant amount of additional delay beyond 128 samples. 128 samples at 44.1khz is about 3ms. You double this value when doing real time monitoring, so you end up with about 6ms total delay if using no plugins. You can get away with 20ms or so depending on how sensitive you are to the effect of the delay. That is equal to a path of about 20' from a amp (if you were a guitar player, for example). I would give a call or email to the people at UA and ask the questions you posed here (they have very good support for their products). Also note that Cubase SX3 has a "constrain delay" function which sacrifices the automatic delay compensation for better latency when doing live monitoring. See page 290 of the manual for more info on this. Mark Hi Mark, I found out what I needed about the UAD plugs, they will essentially at least triple my current latency and I will have to use their delay compensator plugs on tracks that aren't using UAD plugs (same thing with the PowerCore plugs and even plugs on PT TDM systems). As for the Waves plugs running natively I haven't had any audible problems to date, and I've been using them for a few years now. As far as I understood, automatic delay compensation would have me covered while using native plugs, and as long as they all get their processing done within the alloted ASIO buffer time, all audio will come out in sync in the end (if they don't, audio skips and stutters, and buffer has to be increased). The latency issue gets even more complex in my case because I am using hardware synths as my sources, and I assume each has a different inherent MIDI *and* audio latency. At this point I'm not even sure how to properly measure and compensate for such a thing, as the synth manuals don't give any numbers nor even mention such problem exists (or maybe it's just in my head?). I already made sure I am using identical MIDI interfaces across the board, and am currently reexaming my monitoring situation. I cannot afford the cash or space for a large format console now (I am running 32 analog and 16 digital I/O) to go around it and I still like hearing what things sound like as I'm working on a song. I guess I'll keep looking. I am curious how large digital facilities deal with such a thing - they probably sequence and record their material, THEN mix it?. Serge |
#29
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
UAD-1 and Plugins
Mark Robinson wrote:
You can get away with 20ms or so depending on how sensitive you are to the effect of the delay. That is equal to a path of about 20' from a amp (if you were a guitar player, for example). Just ot be clear, that is a microphone 20ft from the amp. Not 20ft of cable. -- Eric Practice Your Mixing Skills Download Our Multi-Track Masters www.Raw-Tracks.com www.Mad-Host.com |
#30
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
UAD-1 and Plugins
Mark Robinson wrote:
Hi Serge, If you are using SX3, there is no need to use any of the funky UAD delay comp plugins. Cubase now handles this automatically. However, automatic delay comp will do nothing to help your real time monitoring problem. When monitoring in real time with a CPU based effect (be it on a UAD or a native VST plugin) or instrument, the audio must pass through the plugin and any buffer it contains. Delay comp is used only on tracks that have been previously recorded to assure that everything lines up. On modern DAW programs, that get a bit complicated because of group channels, sends, inserts, and busses. Effects can appear on any of them and they all have different processing delays. Cubase has to keep track of all of the pathways and make decisions about how to delay each of the streams of data so that they are properly aligned at playback. There should no issues using external MIDI as long as you have a decent interface. MIDI events will be output by Cubase at the correct time just as audio is. Keep in mind that MIDI being a serial data stream at a relatively low baud rate has inherent delays that cannot be avoided. It takes almost 1ms to send a single note on command to a MIDI synth. If you play a 10 note chord, MIDI cannot sound all of the notes at he same time. The skew will be nearly 10ms. VSTi's have a big advantage here because the internal data flows to the instrument at a very high speed. Playing them in real time however, can be problematic due to the ASIO buffer and any internal processing time. If you are interested in the UAD-1, why not see if your local dealer will let you try it out on your system. Since it is a hardware device, I would expect that it would be returnable. Mark Hi Mark, Thanks for the reply, it clarifies a lot and syncs up with the bits and pieces of info I managed to find on Google. It appears that as of version 3.1, Cubase SX automatically compensates for MIDI output latency as well: "MIDI Output Delay Compensation for External Instruments: MIDI output delay compensation means that proper timing is maintained even when using external MIDI instruments that are mixed through the VST audio mixer." So this seems to solve my monitoring issue. Your tryout idea sounds good - I think I will simply purchase an UAD-1 Project Pak from Swee****er and see if it works for me - they have a 30-day return policy after all. Cheers, Serge |
#31
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
UAD-1 and Plugins
Hi Eric,
.....or the cable can be 20' long with you ear located 20' from the speaker. Mark "EricK" wrote in message ... Mark Robinson wrote: You can get away with 20ms or so depending on how sensitive you are to the effect of the delay. That is equal to a path of about 20' from a amp (if you were a guitar player, for example). Just ot be clear, that is a microphone 20ft from the amp. Not 20ft of cable. -- Eric Practice Your Mixing Skills Download Our Multi-Track Masters www.Raw-Tracks.com www.Mad-Host.com |
#32
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
UAD-1 and Plugins
Serge wrote:
Mark Robinson wrote: Hi Serge, I think you will have similar latency problems when trying to real time monitor with native waves (or any) plugins. The 128 sample latency figure you are quoting is the ASIO buffer only. This does not include any buffering done by the plugin to perform its DSP. Have you tried to run a test of the waves plugins to see what they introduce into the monitoring? I suspect they are adding a significant amount of additional delay beyond 128 samples. 128 samples at 44.1khz is about 3ms. You double this value when doing real time monitoring, so you end up with about 6ms total delay if using no plugins. You can get away with 20ms or so depending on how sensitive you are to the effect of the delay. That is equal to a path of about 20' from a amp (if you were a guitar player, for example). I would give a call or email to the people at UA and ask the questions you posed here (they have very good support for their products). Also note that Cubase SX3 has a "constrain delay" function which sacrifices the automatic delay compensation for better latency when doing live monitoring. See page 290 of the manual for more info on this. Mark Hi Mark, I found out what I needed about the UAD plugs, they will essentially at least triple my current latency and I will have to use their delay compensator plugs on tracks that aren't using UAD plugs (same thing with the PowerCore plugs and even plugs on PT TDM systems). As for the Waves plugs running natively I haven't had any audible problems to date, and I've been using them for a few years now. As far as I understood, automatic delay compensation would have me covered while using native plugs, and as long as they all get their processing done within the alloted ASIO buffer time, all audio will come out in sync in the end (if they don't, audio skips and stutters, and buffer has to be increased). The latency issue gets even more complex in my case because I am using hardware synths as my sources, and I assume each has a different inherent MIDI *and* audio latency. At this point I'm not even sure how to properly measure and compensate for such a thing, as the synth manuals don't give any numbers nor even mention such problem exists (or maybe it's just in my head?). I already made sure I am using identical MIDI interfaces across the board, and am currently reexaming my monitoring situation. I cannot afford the cash or space for a large format console now (I am running 32 analog and 16 digital I/O) to go around it and I still like hearing what things sound like as I'm working on a song. I guess I'll keep looking. I am curious how large digital facilities deal with such a thing - they probably sequence and record their material, THEN mix it?. Serge Serge, I don't know why you think you need to use delay compensation. I use the UAD, and definitely not on all tracks, and have never had to do this. I happen to use Sonar 4/5 and it is handled automatically. UAD does provide a simple compensation delay plugin, but I think that is intended for older systems that don't manage this for you. And BTW, I think the delay time of each UAD plug is listed in their user's guide (PDF), which you might be able to download. They also provide some data on how many instances of each plug you can run on a card. The problem I have is I could really use a second card, and often have to put plugs on the buses to get everything working... My impression, however, is that if you are intending on using this for live performing situations, you'll need (outboard) hardware to do it in real time. --Peter |
#33
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
UAD-1 and Plugins
Peter Sylvester wrote:
Serge, I don't know why you think you need to use delay compensation. I use the UAD, and definitely not on all tracks, and have never had to do this. I happen to use Sonar 4/5 and it is handled automatically. UAD does provide a simple compensation delay plugin, but I think that is intended for older systems that don't manage this for you. And BTW, I think the delay time of each UAD plug is listed in their user's guide (PDF), which you might be able to download. They also provide some data on how many instances of each plug you can run on a card. The problem I have is I could really use a second card, and often have to put plugs on the buses to get everything working... My impression, however, is that if you are intending on using this for live performing situations, you'll need (outboard) hardware to do it in real time. --Peter Hi Peter, I did my research and found all the info I needed. Here's a little bit of info to clarify my setup. I make electronica using 12 hardware synths and Cubase SX 3.1.994. My audio interface is a MOTU PCI-424 system with the 24I/O and 2408mk3 units to pipe all the audio from the synths into the computer. I also use some softsynths (FM7, Atmosphere, Absynth,etc). Up to this point I've been mixing with 128-sample latency which let me mix and compose at the same time, i.e., I can edit MIDI data in Cubase as the song is playing and hear my changes instantly, with processing. My dilemma was that using UAD plugs would increase my latency enough to hinder my realtime mixing process, and furthermore delay my audio enough for it to fall behind the MIDI data Cubase sends to the synths that generate the audio in the first place. However, I found out that my version of Cubase automatically compensates all MIDI data for realtime mixing via software, and also has full delay compensation in all signal paths for plugins, so either way I'll be fine. And also, I figured that by making a simple change in my creative process I can easily get around the latency issue - I can compose most of the song in realtime with "light" native plugins, and then put the "heavy" plugins on for mixing and final mixdown. I am ordering my UAD-1 card Thursday morning and I will test-drive it for a few days to make sure it integrates into my workflow well. If it works well, it stays! To all group members: thank you for your replies and all the information you've given - I will report back on my experience with the UAD after I've worked with for a little. Cheers, Serge |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
PRO TOOLS PLUGINS FOR SALE AWESOME DEAL LOOK NOW! | Audio Opinions | |||
PRO TOOLS PLUGINS FOR SALE ALL 40 AWESOME DEAL LOOK NOW | Audio Opinions | |||
PRO TOOLS PLUGINS FOR SALE ALL 40 AWESOME DEAL LOOK NOW | Vacuum Tubes | |||
PRO TOOLS PLUGINS FOR SALE ALL 40 LOOK NOW AWESOME DEAL | General | |||
PRO TOOLS PLUGINS FOR SALE ALL 40 AWESOME DEAL LOOK NOW! | Tech |