Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Serge
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mark Robinson
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Fraser
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Serge
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Serge
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Peter in St. Louis
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Fraser
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Serge
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Serge
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
GS
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Lorin David Schultz
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Bobby Owsinski
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
malachi
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Serge
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Serge
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Fraser
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Peter in St. Louis
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Serge
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Craig Ramseur
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Serge
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Fraser
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Fraser
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Serge
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Serge
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Malachi
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mark Robinson
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Serge
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mark Robinson
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
EricK
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Serge
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mark Robinson
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Peter Sylvester
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Serge
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
PRO TOOLS PLUGINS FOR SALE AWESOME DEAL LOOK NOW! Jonathon Audio Opinions 0 November 7th 03 10:50 PM
PRO TOOLS PLUGINS FOR SALE ALL 40 AWESOME DEAL LOOK NOW Jonathon Audio Opinions 0 November 7th 03 10:50 PM
PRO TOOLS PLUGINS FOR SALE ALL 40 AWESOME DEAL LOOK NOW Jonathon Vacuum Tubes 0 November 7th 03 10:49 PM
PRO TOOLS PLUGINS FOR SALE ALL 40 LOOK NOW AWESOME DEAL Jonathon General 0 November 7th 03 10:48 PM
PRO TOOLS PLUGINS FOR SALE ALL 40 AWESOME DEAL LOOK NOW! Jonathon Tech 0 November 7th 03 10:47 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:06 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"