UAD To Go Native ?

[TAFKAT]

Read In Here (http://www.gearslutz.com/board/music-computers/439186-ua-plugins-possibly-native.html)

I haven't received that questionnaire email as yet, anyone else here have ?

[tunetown]

I didn't get the email either. Maybe a random survey??

Not sure I'll be too happy about the depreciation of my quad card if they do this. However, Native would be nice. I just wish they mentioned it before I bought a new card.

Cheers

[tunetown]

After reading that thread, It seems that most are confused. The survey asked "as the owner of a UAD card would you purchase a DSP powered pluging if a Native one were available".

That says to me they a considering releasing 3rd party plugins on the DSP card. If Autotune were available natively, or DSP, which one would you purchase.

I can't see Native UAD plugs any time soon.

Cheers

[MattiasNYC]

Yeah, I got the survey.

I thought hard about some questions too, and answered according to what I think they'd want to hear in order to do what I want.

So as for the question about whether or not I'd buy powered plugins if they had them as natives, of course I wouldn't, but I answered "yes". It seems like they wouldn't want to sell native stuff that'd take away from their profit margin on the hardware side.

[kdm]

It seems one of the questions might have been misunderstood as one poster noted - supposedly this is the actual question: "As an owner of a UAD card, would you purchase a UAD (DSP powered) version of a Universal Audio plug-in if a native (non-DSP powered) version of the same plug-in was available?"

Seems to imply they might pick up 3rd party plugins that have native versions, not necessarily go native with theirs. I would probably buy some of their plugins in native form, but already sold my UAD-1s, so no going back down that road unless it's ProTools XD based on similar dsp as Fairlight's CC-1, or something along those lines.

(... seems tunetown caught it just before I did)

[MattiasNYC]

It seems one of the questions might have been misunderstood as one poster noted - supposedly this is the actual question: "As an owner of a UAD card, would you purchase a UAD (DSP powered) version of a Universal Audio plug-in if a native (non-DSP powered) version of the same plug-in was available?"

Seems to imply they might pick up 3rd party plugins that have native versions, not necessarily go native with theirs.

Well, there were other questions related to 3rd party plugs, but the above I think is clearly talking about UAD plug-ins; native versus powered.

[tunetown]

Well, there were other questions related to 3rd party plugs, but the above I think is clearly talking about UAD plug-ins; native versus powered.
Re-reading, I think your right.

Hmmm...!!!

[Animus]

Yeah the questions were kind of tricky but I think I answered right. They totally need to go native and just use the dsp card as an option for dsp and dongle. With the massive scalable native cpu power they are going to be losing market share, especially considering all the really nice native plugins coming out now in direct competition with UA.

[TerryG]

I got the survey... I was equally puzzled by the intent behind the wording. Possibly intentional (?) In any case, they're either concerned about duplicating plugs that are already available as native (where competitive pricing would be the determining factor for me, already owning the DSP card, as I have complete faith in their ability to create exceptional plug-ins), or they're seriously looking at Native options (perhaps rigged so their DSPs would allow MORE instances).

Or (scary), perhaps they've concluded that their current spiking issues (among any other incompatibilities) are DSP-related, and the only way to avoid them is to go native... (?)

Overall, I like not needing to use my CPU for everything, so if I can use motherboard slots for ANYTHING so the CPU doesn't have to do it, I'm all for it.

Excuse the abundant parentheses. They're a speculator's best friend. :wink:

[Sound Drifter]

Or (scary), perhaps they've concluded that their current spiking issues (among any other incompatibilities) are DSP-related, and the only way to avoid them is to go native... (?)


:willy_nilly:

[tunetown]

We'll all be talking about whether the "emulated" versions work better soon.

I recon we start a pool. Pick your dates. whoever is closest to the crack version release wins. :wink:

UAD going native can only end bad. I'd hate to think some pimply faced newbie is using the same plugs I paid thousands for.

UAD is an exclusive club and should remain so.

Cheers

[TAFKAT]

Well thats the 2 edged sword,

If they go native , there is the risk of them being cracked, if they stick to their DSP Achilles heel without sorting the ASIO Munching / Spiking issues, the resource overhead that will be available with the next wave of Multicore monsters will wipe them off the stage in the next 12-24 months, if they haven't already.

There is also a good chance that the native plugs will sell like hot cakes, opening up a far wider potential audience to the plugs. i.e I will never install a UAD again in any of my personal systems, but I would be tempted to buy the 1176/LA2A, etc natively

The whole line about the algo's being too big to run natively is bullshite, and the penny is dropping as more and more viable native alternatives are being developed, that will run beautifully at the lowest latencies.

I personally can't wait to see the back of the whole DSP genre to be honest, having to tippy toe around arbitration issues introduced navigating DSP's is a dead end.. IMHO, of course.. :wink:

BTW: I have an early rev UAD1 up for sale that has the 1176 and LA2A as standard, if anyone wants one before I sacrifice it at the alter...

[kdm]

I'd hate to think some pimply faced newbie is using the same plugs I paid thousands for.

UAD is an exclusive club and should remain so.

Cheers

What's the difference between UAD and any other audio software app or plugin?

There are pimply faced kids out there using the same software we already have on our systems now. But they aren't competing with me and never will. Theft isn't a business model.

Like others I know of, I've found alternatives to UAD plugins. I liked the UADs when I had mine, but I found plenty of other comparable or better options (without the offline bounce penalty) to suit my studio's work.

Other native plugins are UA's biggest competition - not hackers.

[LEX]

Well thats the 2 edged sword,

If they go native , there is the risk of them being cracked, if they stick to their DSP Achilles heel without sorting the ASIO Munching / Spiking issues, the resource overhead that will be available with the next wave of Multicore monsters will wipe them off the stage in the next 12-24 months, if they haven't already.

There is also a good chance that the native plugs will sell like hot cakes, opening up a far wider potential audience to the plugs. i.e I will never install a UAD again in any of my personal systems, but I would be tempted to buy the 1176/LA2A, etc natively

The whole line about the algo's being too big to run natively is bullshite, and the penny is dropping as more and more viable native alternatives are being developed, that will run beautifully at the lowest latencies.

I personally can't wait to see the back of the whole DSP genre to be honest, having to tippy toe around arbitration issues introduced navigating DSP's is a dead end.. IMHO, of course.. :wink:

BTW: I have an early rev UAD1 up for sale that has the 1176 and LA2A as standard, if anyone wants one before I sacrifice it at the alter...

It wouldn't be an issue if they included native versions with the DSP card and the DSP card was the dongle.

Which I suspect they would do.

LEX

[kdm]

It wouldn't be an issue if they included native versions with the DSP card and the DSP card was the dongle.

Which I suspect they would do.

LEX

That wouldn't gain any ground in the native market though. I got rid of mine because I didn't have PCI/PCIe ports and was tired of building and manipulating systems around them.

I wouldn't buy a card just to get the native versions. I don't anyone else would either - that would just be a seldom used addon for existing card owners.

They either go native with iLok or challenge/response, or stick with dsp cards until the market sinks too far for them to stay in business.

[zvenx]

I would... I already have two UAD PCI and one UAD PCI-express and wish I could use them properly at low latencies without it screwing up my native nuendo performance.....unlike others in this thread, they are still my go to equalizers and compressors.....I suspect with them having problems with the uad solo laptop and apple dumping the express card more or less, and the whole native cpu spiking stuff they may just go native with some kind of draconian copy protection like the DSP card. Maybe I am the only one, but that would work for me, except for I guess the laptop :-)
rsp

[Mfx]

Being a Native user of plugins and a external effects in the rack I notice some sound differences which tend to give different parts of a track some seperation and colour.

I have never looked into any of the DSP options (UAD/TC Electronic/SSL) and was wondering if there is or would there be any sound variations if the DSP was Native or DSP?

After opinions unless of course the DSP is purely an extension of processor power to lighten a DAWs CPU load or as mentioned an elaborate dongle.

[Andrew J]

Mfx, coding is different between DSP and native platforms but if the translation is done correctly the results should be equivalent. However, there are a few reasons why things could be very slightly different:

bit depth of floating point representations can be different (especially affects how filters are coded) - shouldn't lead to an audible difference
instruction sets are different, so optimisations can be different - shouldn't lead to an audible difference unless something was deliberately changed to stay within an execution budget
the coders might take the opportunity for a few tweaks while they're in there
someone, somewhere made a mistake!



After opinions unless of course the DSP is purely an extension of processor power to lighten a DAWs CPU load or as mentioned an elaborate dongle.
This is essentially true.

-Andrew

[colony nofi]

UAD going native can only end bad. I'd hate to think some pimply faced newbie is using the same plugs I paid thousands for.

UAD is an exclusive club and should remain so.

Cheers

Ya reckon?

Technology changes. Use of tech changes. Quickly. Business models change quickly too, especially when tech and ideas behind plugins have moved so fast in recent years.

Tell me this. WHY should UAD be an "exclusive club?" Why shouldn't another company, if they have the $ and resources, release a suite of plugs that are equal to the UAD quality, usability, etc, that are native, and cost much less?

This kind of thing happens all the time.

Why not let that pimpled kid use those plugs?
Hell, we've just commissioned a 80 channel 70's neve for our record/mix room. And we have a 17 y/o pimply young keen as mustard kid coming in next year (on a government assisted scheme no less) who is going to get invaluable time sitting behind this desk. Why not? I would have killed to be able to do that when I was that age.

If we could do it for more, we would.

I remember how much my first orchestral string library cost. LA Scoring Strings beats it many times over, for WAY less cash. I think that is a good thing. I'm not even sorry that I paid what I did for my first library.

When making decisions about any gear / software / stuff you use for music or audio, you need to think if the amount you are going to pay is worth it WHEN you buy it - cause much of the time, it will be worth MUCH less later on.

Ah - maybe I've got what you're trying to say wrong. But I really don't like the whole "exclusive club" sentiment you seemed to suggest.

I may have missed some humor. :icon_eek3:

Back to work. Brendan.

[paulwr]

Why not let that pimpled kid use those plugs?
Hell, we've just commissioned a 80 channel 70's neve for our record/mix room.

I love those neve boards from back then. Magic, they are.

From a composer's point of view, it's great the prices have come down on so much software, but a bit of a curse in that it has caused library music to become so large an industry, it is choking on itself. And now there are so many music libraries, that they are choking on each other.

Can't go backwards, though. Genie is out of the box, and without as many sharp ears out there that care about going to the expense of buying quality, it can make it tougher to carve out a living at the composing game for someone who is actually good at it.

As far as UAD, I think their first focus should be just to make the new cards work with W7 in 64bit land. They won't have trouble just selling their stuff exclusively with the cards for a few more years if everyone knows it is reliable. But they best be thinking what to do next, either expanding the usability of their hardware somehow, or including native.

-Paul

[kdm]

From a composer's point of view, it's great the prices have come down on so much software, but a bit of a curse in that it has caused library music to become so large an industry, it is choking on itself. And now there are so many music libraries, that they are choking on each other.

Can't go backwards, though. Genie is out of the box, and without as many sharp ears out there that care about going to the expense of buying quality, it can make it tougher to carve out a living at the composing game for someone who is actually good at it.


Yes, this is the catch-22. Anyone with enough money (and it doesn't take much of it now), can make something that sounds like cinematic music, or whatever. The difference between real musicians/composers and those that just sound like it by using some prepackaged riffs, runs, effects, and two-fisted chords or staccato strings etc is harder for clients to decipher. The real difference is staggering, but the audible difference based on what clients want now (drones and banging Taiko drums), is not.

Technology is quite adept at both making quality more accessible and ruining the market for it at the same time.

Libraries have killed many formerly viable markets for musicians and composers, as happened with stock art in photography, illustration and graphic design. And ironically, many smaller advertising options are drying up in general as a result of artists/producers closing up shop, leaving companies with few choices for production resources - trends like this work their way up the ladder over time - eventually we'll see the major ad, film and music markets taking a nose dive.

There won't be much of a creative market left in 10 years if artists don't push to maintain the value of it now - and that takes more than just hoping the next client understands the value of music/audio skill.

Kind of back on topic - companies like UA won't exist in 10 years either. Larger companies will simply buy them out and infuse their technology into consumer grade products that put a Neve, SSL or LSO on every laptop sold, no audio/musical skill required. We are very close to that now, though most of the apps still miss the mark by quite a bit. That's my bright cheery OT analysis for the day. :wink:

UA either goes native now and tries to stick it out until the sun sets on the audio industry, and eventually sell their tech to Sony, Apple, Microsoft or Google; or they fade out in the next 2-3 years.

[TerryG]

The Internet has provided access to every cracked plug in the universe over the past decade, including the most expensive... Waves.

Ethical/legal/price considerations aside, this is about the sound.

Regardless of the money I've spent elsewhere, UAD plugs remain my first choice every time. I'll put up with running in XP forever, or using jBridge in Vista and Win7 hands down over denying myself these plugs.
The spiking workaround just isn't that big of a deal that some people are making it out to be...

The distinction in having UAD plugs on a card is one of the very few tools that retains some exclusivity in this hacked and cracked homogenized native world we live in.

I appreciate what my investment delivers... because I seriously doubt I'll ever afford the alternative exclusivity of owning the actual hardware it emulates.

That's right, I'm a fanboy. :wink:
UAD, live long and prosper.

[TAFKAT]

The spiking workaround just isn't that big of a deal that some people are making it out to be...

Really ?

If there was a consensus that it was easily worked around, I am yet to see it .

BTW, the spiking is only half of it, the other factor is the huge ASIO munching overhead imposed in certain instances, which neuters a large portion of the native processing capabilities of the current systems.

DSP cards as copy protection are simply Achilles heels to native DAW scalability, so for those of us who consider that important, it is a big deal.. :wink:

[tunetown]

Ya reckon?

Technology changes. Use of tech changes. Quickly. Business models change quickly too, especially when tech and ideas behind plugins have moved so fast in recent years.

Tell me this. WHY should UAD be an "exclusive club?" Why shouldn't another company, if they have the $ and resources, release a suite of plugs that are equal to the UAD quality, usability, etc, that are native, and cost much less?

This kind of thing happens all the time.

Why not let that pimpled kid use those plugs?
Hell, we've just commissioned a 80 channel 70's neve for our record/mix room. And we have a 17 y/o pimply young keen as mustard kid coming in next year (on a government assisted scheme no less) who is going to get invaluable time sitting behind this desk. Why not? I would have killed to be able to do that when I was that age.

If we could do it for more, we would.

I remember how much my first orchestral string library cost. LA Scoring Strings beats it many times over, for WAY less cash. I think that is a good thing. I'm not even sorry that I paid what I did for my first library.

When making decisions about any gear / software / stuff you use for music or audio, you need to think if the amount you are going to pay is worth it WHEN you buy it - cause much of the time, it will be worth MUCH less later on.

Ah - maybe I've got what you're trying to say wrong. But I really don't like the whole "exclusive club" sentiment you seemed to suggest.

I may have missed some humor. :icon_eek3:

Back to work. Brendan.
Hi Brendan,

That comment was in the context of cracked software. Maybe "pimply faced newbie" was a bad analogy, however my point remains the same. Once UAD goes native it will be the highest priority for crackers, then any person who uses cracked software will have it available to them at no cost.

At the moment it's "exclusive" because if you want to use these plugs you have to pay for them regardless of age or experience.

Cheers

[zvenx]

The spiking workaround just isn't that big of a deal that some people are making it out to be...




I always find it amazing when ppl because of their own workflow and experiences are so quick to dismiss other ppl's pain.
I can tell you that I am not a happy UAD user in the sense that it does take up a lot of my native resources to the point that I haven't bought any new software from them in over six months, and have bought several native effects in the interim. Quite frankly I dont really care about the copy protection and if any pimple faced kid can download it, I would love it to be native. I will continue to pay for it and it will hopefully be a totally plus experience for me whilst right now it is plus it sounds great, minus, it screws with how I work at the latencies I want to work at.
rsp

[MattiasNYC]

DSP cards as copy protection are simply Achilles heels to native DAW scalability, so for those of us who consider that important, it is a big deal.. :wink:

This is an extremely good point I think.

So far I've been able to work with UAD-2 Quad without too much trouble. Granted, it seems a bit "unstable" in the sense that sometimes lower latencies work and sometimes I get playback issues (clicks). Fortunately, I haven't needed those low latencies in a while on Nuendo, so it hasn't been a problem for me.

I've also managed to live with whatever constriction the UAD-2 Quad DSP has. I've yet to max it out. I guess it's just the way I work.

But Vin makes a great point in principle (and practically for some); the great "hope" of native is the scalability that it gives us. Buy a ton of plugs, and upgrading the CPU will give you increased capacity of ALL of your plugs, not just a chosen few.....

[TerryG]

I was one of the first around here to dive headlong into jBridge because I just had to be testing Vista and Win7 in 64-bit with my UAD2 Quad...
It solved the issue. Most people who complain about using jBridge are simply too lazy to implement it properly.

If you're in XP with Cubendo and you have spiking, it's not the known "Quad Core/Vista/Cubendo" issue, so it's not UAD's fault, it's some other quirk in your setup. There are no UAD2 issues with XP in a typical $800 Quad Core system like mine.

Using low latency settings during mixdown is asking for trouble on several fronts with or without a UAD, not to mention senseless in the first place.
Using UAD plugs during live tracking is also unnecessary.

What's the problem that can't be solved with a bit of common sense?

I'm long passed being pissed about this issue, it's been a full year now.
Can't please everyone. :wink:

[Animus]

I was one of the first around here to dive headlong into jBridge because I just had to be testing Vista and Win7 in 64-bit with my UAD2 Quad...
It solved the issue. Most people who complain about using jBridge are simply too lazy to implement it properly.

If you're in XP with Cubendo and you have spiking, it's not the known "Quad Core/Vista/Cubendo" issue, so it's not UAD's fault, it's some other quirk in your setup. There are no UAD2 issues with XP in a typical $800 Quad Core system like mine.

Using low latency settings during mixdown is asking for trouble on several fronts with or without a UAD, not to mention senseless in the first place.
Using UAD plugs during live tracking is also unnecessary.

What's the problem that can't be solved with a bit of common sense?

I'm long passed being pissed about this issue, it's been a full year now.
I got around it, you can too.

Have you tried running a full mix with at least 50% of a UAD2 Quad filled up, running at around a 128 buffer?

[TerryG]

Have you tried running a full mix with at least 50% of a UAD2 Quad filled up, running at around a 128 buffer?
I haven't loaded up my Quad since the first days of installing it way back when you were going ballistic about your munching issues (and I didn't have any problems at a 92% load)... the thread is around here somewhere.

To answer your question directly, no. I haven't tried it.

I set my buffer where it needs to be to maintain headroom.
Typically, I just leave it at 256 and go about my business.

I would see no reason to use a 128 buffer with 50 UAD plugins running if it's going to create issues. Do you burden the system intentionally and then complain that you should be able to do it just because another guy somewhere else says he can? If the systems aren't identical running the same project, what's the point of comparisons?

Just do what works.

I'll load up a project tomorrow and see where my system falters for the hell of it.
All it's going to prove is that it's stupid to push the limits when you don't need to.

You can jack your buffer to 2048 for all that's worth... latency is irrelevant in mixdown, and using a 50% load on a UAD2 Quad should never happen unless you're in mixdown anyway...

[Animus]

I haven't loaded up my Quad since the first days of installing it way back when you were going ballistic about your munching issues (and I didn't have any problems at a 92% load)... the thread is around here somewhere.

To answer your question directly, no. I haven't tried it.

I set my buffer where it needs to be to maintain headroom.
Typically, I just leave it at 256 and go about my business.

I would see no reason to use a 128 buffer with 50 UAD plugins running if it's going to create issues. Do you burden the system intentionally and then complain that you should be able to do it just because another guy somewhere else says he can? If the systems aren't identical running the same project, what's the point of comparisons?

Do what works.


Well that's the thing. It's very random. One day it will work perfect and then the next it won't. I doubt it is computer related since it has been like this over two different build, not mentioning the UAD1 had similiar asio overloading when loading up the cards.

Don't get me wrong. I love the UAD plugs and have been a user since 2001. They just need to go native, or at least just give the option to use the card as a dongle, kind of like the Duende now.

[TerryG]

They'll do whatever they do, and I don't really care one way or another aside from the possibility that my $1700 card will become worthless if they do it the wrong way.

If your issues come and go, can you really pinpoint blame on the UAD?
What else is in common? Sound Card? Intermittent connection somewhere? Failing RAM? Power supply? MBoard?
Virus from a porno site... Cubendo? :wink:

[TAFKAT]

Terry,

If you can work around the Achilles heel, more power to you, some would rather spend their time concentrating on the creative flow than worrying about when the session is about to wig out due to some ASIO/DSP arbitration issue, and it isn't as consistent as some would like to believe.

Its all well and good to bring up the mixing scenario , but that goes south pretty quickly if you decide to add some MIDI VSTi overdubs , for example, so what then, you wind down the latency only to find the system is unworkable and need to unload the UAD plugs ??

Whats the chances of still maintaining any resemblance of a creative flow after navigating that B.S.

Thats only one scenario, I am sure there are plenty more.

Also, I am with Animus, the arbitration issues are not consistent with UAD2, and its been one of my bugbears from day dot with the card.

I know pretty well where the bodies are buried with UAD1/2 on a whole range of recent to current multicore systems , across a whole host of audio interfaces as well , and the only mitigating variable is the UAD.

IMHO , I still say Native all the way, DSP's belong in the Dark Ages i.e , pre Core2... :D

[TerryG]

UAD hater.

:wink:

[zvenx]

If you're in XP with Cubendo and you have spiking, it's not the known "Quad Core/Vista/Cubendo" issue, so it's not UAD's fault, it's some other quirk in your setup. There are no UAD2 issues with XP in a typical $800 Quad Core system like mine.

Using low latency settings during mixdown is asking for trouble on several fronts with or without a UAD, not to mention senseless in the first place.
Using UAD plugs during live tracking is also unnecessary.



see this is what pisses me off. Why is it senseless? Cause you dont' do it?
Without UAD ALL my other plugins I use during mixdown work fine.... ALL...

Also I am not the only person with a UAD on XP that has spiking problems, there are thread about that on the UAD forum. Although granted they areen't as bad as those who have Vista/Windows 7.....and the 5.4 cpu affinity did help lots on my system, yes the same system that you are saying that it is not UAD's fault...

how about I dont' tell you what workflow you should use or latency to work at and you do the same for me?
rsp

[zvenx]

Terry,


Its all well and good to bring up the mixing scenario , but that goes south pretty quickly if you decide to add some MIDI VSTi overdubs , for example, so what then, you wind down the latency only to find the system is unworkable and need to unload the UAD plugs ??




and that is precisely how I work. I usually have a day to produce and finish a project.....whilst I am mixing I am hearing additional parts or parts that need reworking, both midi and audio sometimes.....as it is what I do now is disable DPC which disables the UAD stuff, which means levels are all over the place, redo or add parts then enable it again.....constantly changing my buffer size is a waste of time and slows down my workflow.
rsp

[fishtank]

see this is what pisses me off. Why is it senseless? Cause you dont' do it?
Without UAD ALL my other plugins I use during mixdown work fine.... ALL...


how about I dont' tell you what workflow you should use or latency to work at and you do the same for me?
rsp

+1

This attitude from the UAD zealots about not working at low latency is irritating to say the least. I track at the lowest latency possible (32 sample buffer when I can) as I am competing with studios running PT HD and must be able to provide the same level of service. I never use UAD plug-ins on tracks that I am currently recording, but they do end up on previously recorded tracks and having to disable them to run at low latency is a huge PITA, and quite frankly, just plain unacceptable in this day and age. I DO NOT have this problem with my native plugs. Believe it or not, the most important thing I track that needs the lowest latency is VOCALS. The delay in the headphones causes weird phasing problems and does not sound good. Anything over a 32 sample buffer bugs the hell out of me, and 64 samples is the most I'll ever subject a vocalist to. As vocals are often some of the last things I track, waiting to use any UAD plugs until this point (or having to keep disabling them) is not acceptable. Some of us need to operate this way and should not be criticized for it.

My current system has 4 UAD-1's in a 13-slot Magma - I can run low latency if my DSP card usage is not much above 50%, but there is some host loading (more than I care to see - but it is usable for the most part). The UAD-2 is far worse and even worse yet with Windows 7 64. This is not progress, it is going backwards.

My computer is a lowly old Core 2 Quad running @ the stock 1066 bus speed. Based on the benchmarks Vin has posted, the new i7 system I plan to build soon will run circles around my current one at 32 samples! Add an expensive UAD-2 with some powered plug-ins and it will be severely crippled.

I have decided not to "upgrade" to a UAD-2 and have stopped purchasing UAD plug-ins until UA comes around and releases native versions. I'm seeing others doing the same as well. I do believe UA sees the writing on the wall and is planning to go native at some point - it is just a matter of when. If not, they will probably not fare well in the long run. Piracy does suck, but crippling peoples systems with stone-age DSP cards is not OK in a time when native processing is so incredibly powerful...

[MattiasNYC]

Honestly, this doesn't seem like a big issue to me in a larger perspective.

We know about the issue, we know there is a work-around in some scenarios and not in others, and it's just a matter of either buying the gear and living with it, or live without buying it. Really no need to moan about it.

I only bought their plugs because they sound great, in my opinion. I wanted great sounding plugs, and that's what I invested in. Had they been native I would have gone for that instead. So far I can live with the limitations of higher latency, and when I can no longer do that I'll ditch the card or work without the plugs.

I guess I'm just a bit confused about those who are complaining about the problem. Because I think it's essentially the same old 'know the hard/software configuration before you buy it' issue. If you're going to invest money into something you need to make sure it works before you buy.

Unless of course somewhere along the line UA screwed their customers with false advertising and made no effort to fix it within a reasonable time-frame a la Steiny....

[TerryG]

... I guess m2 is a zealot too :wink:

Guys, I'm not defending UAD for not fixing the problem.
And I'm not criticizing the desire to use low latency.
EVERYONE wants a solution for this.
I'm simply stating the obvious to a one year old issue.

Stubbornly continuing to bang your head against the wall when you know about the problem is senseless. You can choose to modify workflow accordingly within your circumstance, or continue to beat yourself up. Your choice...

Nobody likes it, we just have to deal with it.

Keep in mind that if UAD goes native, many of you will be buying a faster CPU or a new computer anyway.
Since there are computers out there that don't experience any issues, you could solve your problem today.
It's all one form or another of a workaround to get what you want or what you need.

[Pete Leoni]

First, let me state I'm a great fan of the UAD plugs, have had them since inception.
Here are the hard cold facts.
Everything is going ITB, it's not a question of if, it's when. Yes it's all going ITB!
Near real time latency is now paramount.
Real time software monitor mixes with FX are paramount, even live mixing will soon be done in software. I do it now.
Add on DSP is problematic, it always has been, it always will be. The cards are very motherboard dependent, very "geek intensive" I have made a great deal of my living sorting these issues
Hardware dsp cards waste physical resources, it's just a fact.
IK, Waves, and now certainly Lexicon have native plugs that equal UADs
Protection devices are getting harder to crack.
Today's DAWS are POWERFUL, there is no need at all for external DSP. In fact (IMO) we are going to boil it down to mics, pres, control surfaces amps and speakers. The vast rest will be software,
Therefore
UAD *WILL* make native versions of the plugs, they have no choice. And after they port them all native, they will continue to produce even better plugs than ever.

[Animus]

First, let me state I'm a great fan of the UAD plugs, have had them since inception.
Here are the hard cold facts.
Everything is going ITB, it's not a question of if, it's when. Yes it's all going ITB!
Near real time latency is now paramount.
Real time software monitor mixes with FX are paramount, even live mixing will soon be done in software. I do it now.
Add on DSP is problematic, it always has been, it always will be. The cards are very motherboard dependent, very "geek intensive" I have made a great deal of my living sorting these issues
Hardware dsp cards waste physical resources, it's just a fact.
IK, Waves, and now certainly Lexicon have native plugs that equal UADs
Protection devices are getting harder to crack.
Today's DAWS are POWERFUL, there is no need at all for external DSP. In fact (IMO) we are going to boil it down to mics, pres, control surfaces amps and speakers. The vast rest will be software,
Therefore
UAD *WILL* make native versions of the plugs, they have no choice. And after they port them all native, they will continue to produce even better plugs than ever.

Tell em like it is Pete! I believe Terry has finally met his match.

[TAFKAT]

The thing I find amusing and equally frustrating is that I am labelled as being a "hater" or against the UAD plugins, simply because I have a lot lower tolerance level to the DSP arbitration issues, and I voice them.

Two totally different issues, but of course easily blurred by those that want to cloud the debate.

:pop_corn:

[Pete Leoni]

The latency thing is the game changer. Round trip latency will soon become the first figure we look at. Almost eveything else is already been dealt with. Near realtime processing is the key to many, many doors. I think we should publish RTL figures for every interface, and encourage the industry to deal with it now.

[LEX]

The latency thing is the game changer. Round trip latency will soon become the first figure we look at. Almost eveything else is already been dealt with. Near realtime processing is the key to many, many doors. I think we should publish RTL figures for every interface, and encourage the industry to deal with it now.

Great Idea. Is it the same for every system? What is the latency on a Mac Pro vs a i7 PC system?

Vin?

LEX

[Pete Leoni]

It will have to be a given that the computer the DAW is based on will have to be able to handle the load, regardless of platform. Running @ near real-time on an older platform or a system crippled by non responsive hardware or software is automatically pointless, whether PC or Mac.
A fast machine is a given!

It should boil down to the interface and drivers (automatically assuming they are un-crippled by any non-real-time hardware, whether this be network devices or "legacy" DSP cards.)

No hardware device in a DAW built today should be allowed to interfere with real time latency at all, including audio interfaces that do not have properly written drivers.

In this day and age that is simply not acceptable. I'm saying that that simple Round Trip Latency figure should become the first yardstick we measure a DAWs performance by, and machines should be spec'd accordingly.

[LEX]

It will have to be a given that the computer the DAW is based on will have to be able to handle the load, regardless of platform. Running @ near real-time on an older platform or a system crippled by non responsive hardware or software is automatically pointless, whether PC or Mac.

It should boil down to the interface and drivers (automatically assuming they are un-crippled by any non-real-time hardware, whether this be network devices or "legacy" DSP cards.)

No hardware device in a DAW built today should be allowed to interfere with real time latency at all, including audio interfaces that do not have properly written drivers.

In this day and age that is simply not acceptable. I'm saying that that simple Round Trip Latency figure should become the first yardstick we measure a DAWs performance by, and machines should be spec'd accordingly.

Well, as it is Pro Tools is really the only thing out there that has the lowest latency.

LEX

[Pete Leoni]

Pro Tools is not native, not really. We are seeking to eliminate hardware. Anything 5ms or less RTL can be considered RT.

[LEX]

Pro Tools is not native, not really. We are seeking to eliminate hardware. Anything 5ms or less RTL can be considered RT.

Sorry, yes PT isn' native. But sample accurate is what makes PT king when it comes to Post.

But, we need a direct comparison with MAC and PC,
LEX

[Pete Leoni]

We really don't need a comparison there (Pc vs, Mac), we simply need *all* platforms to conform to our RTL standards. <5ms RTL under a decent load is all that is needed.

[TAFKAT]

We really don't need a comparison there (Pc vs, Mac), we simply need *all* platforms to conform to our RTL standards. <5ms RTL under a decent load is all that is needed.

I disagree,

All the test should be done cross platform , as the 2 platforms are nowhere near comparable in performance.

There are inherent differences in how ASIO and Core Audio processes are arbitrated at low latency , Core Audio makes 2 to 3 times the calls per sample than ASIO, so it will not achieve the same performance at low latency .

That is clearly indicated by the huge performance variables in not only our incremental DAWbench DSP and Cubendo DSP tests , but also in the 48K and 96K Real World Sessions we developed and used to do our cross platform scaling tests.

The other things that needs to be noted with the RTL testing will be that its becoming more and more common for the audio devs to pad out the playback latency way above the input latency. Lynx was one of the devs that went that route, much to my disappointment, but have recently released a driver where the added buffering is optional.

Also , we need to be able to accurately measure the actual latency , not what the respective control applets for the specific cards are listing, one way is using the Centrance Latency Tool (http://centrance.com/products/ltu/) and then compare that to the reported latencies in Cubendo, which I have found to be pretty accurate actually. However that doesn't help us on OSX tho, so we will need to reply on the latency reported by Cubendo.

BTW: There is an existing thread in The Test Bench area specifically for testing of audio cards , which I was planning on getting a start on over the X-Mas break.

:009:

[nikki-k]

Well, as it is Pro Tools is really the only thing out there that has the lowest latency.

LEX
Apogee AD16x, DA16x... lower latency than PT HD w/ Digi192.
PT HD w/ Apogee. lower still.

Any DAW @ 32 samples with Apogee is lower than PT HD w/ Digi192.

When Apogee released them, it was the *final* stroke.. leveled the playing field in the latency game. Sort of... with the PT HD w/ Apogee solution providing lower latency still. But, if that 32 samples (be it @ 44.1k or 96k or whatever..) is not a negligible amount of additional latency.. well.. lol...

I won't go all diatribe and babble-on... I used to love PT and all the benefits. But, IMO, Avidesign decided to play a dangerous game, and are losing many hands. The big argument in return being that even with native breaking the latency barrier, the great unknown of available resources in nativeland becomes the new game. Of course, many will counter that native power is so high, this is no longer a true concern either. I am a realist tho, and realize too well that it is indeed one.

Sorry for the detour and diatribe I said I would not post.. :(

[Pete Leoni]

That we use the Centrance tool is a given, and that we test all platforms is a given, The figures shown by the apps mean absolutely zilch! What I was trying to avoid is the old Mac vs PC stuff. Of course we need to test them all, if one platform is not capable of real time RTL, that is a reason *NOT* to use it at all! So we are not in disagreement whatsoever. All tests must be made analog out to analog in using the Centrance tool. Guys, we can make a real difference here, and stop this latency insanity!

I can't imagine why we have tolerated it for so long. I do consulting work from time to time for one of the makers, these guys are my friends. I remember seeing my friends eyes glaze over when I explained to him that the current drivers latency issue was going to bite them in the butt. It did. The devices latency was cut in half with a second party driver! This kind of thing needs to stop and we can drive that campaign.

[TAFKAT]

Hey Pete,

We have all been tippy toeing around the whole MAC v PC minefield for too long in my opinion , simply because of the majority of the debates spiral into these cyclic almost quasi religious shite fights due to the subjectivity and ignorance of the combatants. However I have approached it this year in a very objective manner armed with quantifiable data that anyone can roll their sleeves up and qualify , and apart from some minor odd fanboi mind farts over at Gearsluts in regards to , gasp, running OSx86 Snow Leopard configs, has proved to me that the subject matter can be navigated without it descending into the usual free for all.

I have a whole host of Win7 v OSX shootout reports in the works with a few crossplatform DAW apps , Cubendo, Protools LE ( once they get their Win7 and Snow Leopard version public ) , and for those that can't deal with the fact that the performance isn't comparable across platform, well then thats their glitch.. :wink:

If you haven't seen the threads that cover a lot of the results so far, they are Here (http://cubendo.com/showthread.php?t=241) and Here (http://www.gearslutz.com/board/music-computers/419579-i7-nehalem-hyperthreading-daw-performance.html)

RE Putting the audio hardware devs on notice that we are going to be watching closely , I pretty much have been for years indirectly but was planning on doing it more so with the new interface testing initiative that I started a few weeks back, so we are definitely on the same page. I have already had one dev listen to my concerns that their doubling of the playback buffer on a recent driver build was very disappointing after all of the work I had done over the years supporting their low latency performance. The new version makes it optional, so we already have their attention , and the new initiative will report as the chips fall , warts and all, for all to see.

I have had a journalist friend of mine state that I am either brave or stupid to attempt the new reports, I agreed I am probably both... LOL

[fishtank]

Apogee AD16x, DA16x... lower latency than PT HD w/ Digi192.
PT HD w/ Apogee. lower still.

Any DAW @ 32 samples with Apogee is lower than PT HD w/ Digi192.



You beat me to it!

You don't have to use Apogee converters to beat or at least equal the latency of PT HD. A DAW running @ 32 samples with any reasonably low latency set of converters will get you there.

I'm already doing this most of the time with my current (not so powerful) system. I'm extremely excited to build an i7 (that will eventually be swapped out for an i9) system, as the performance is far better @ 32 samples.

[Pete Leoni]

Just be aware that any latency measurement not done analog out to analog in with the Centrance tool is very likely to be wildly erroneous.

[TerryG]

The thing I find amusing and equally frustrating is that I am labelled as being a "hater" or against the UAD plugins, simply because I have a lot lower tolerance level to the DSP arbitration issues, and I voice them.

Two totally different issues, but of course easily blurred by those that want to cloud the debate.

:pop_corn:

cloud?

You started this thread to speculate on the UAD survey as a proponent for native plugins, simply because we all know you have a lot lower tolerance level to the DSP arbitration issues, and you have voiced it once again.

...nobody said anything about you hating the plugins.

I've looked at clouds from both sides now... :wink:

...and the only latency-free solution is analog... if someone would just invent a quiet small analog tube computer, we wouldn't need all these silly emulations... Vin?

[Pete Leoni]

Anything less than 5ms round trip can certainly be classified as real time for audio. No need to compare to analog. Analog latency? Ever work on a real piano? (-:

[Animus]

How many milliseconds does it take for sound to travel a foot ? I am sure Terry has rocked out on stage and walked all over stage from his amp or out into the crowd, in tight latex and leather. Admit it Terry.
:rotfl:

[TerryG]

Anything less than 5ms round trip can certainly be classified as real time for audio. No need to compare to analog. Analog latency? Ever work on a real piano? (-:

That's why they invented "anticipation"... :wink:

[TerryG]

How many milliseconds does it take for sound to travel a foot ? I am sure Terry has rocked out on stage and walked all over stage from his amp or out into the crowd, in tight latex and leather. Admit it Terry.
:rotfl:
88/100th of 1 millisecond, as sound travels 1125 feet per second.

You have to anticipate 10-20 milliseconds on stage all the time... even though the drums and bass are reaching you within 5-10 milliseconds before or after you're hearing your guitar.... depending on where you are at any given time. No big deal, I'm a human metronome with my songs.
:wink:

I'm a guitarist for chrissakes... don't ask me about latency... 22ms is what we call a decent chorus effect.

[Pete Leoni]

That's why they invented "anticipation"... :wink:

unfortunately it's also known as compensation, a counterproductive action.:wink:

[paulwr]

just gotta say, Pete,............ I didn't before, but will now....... 'welcome to the forum'. I find myself learning a lot here. Lend a hand when I can, but learn more than teach in the midst of this crowd.

-Paul

[Animus]

so Pete, tell us a little about yourself will ya?

[Pete Leoni]

I'm dead meat because my life is on google. Basically I've been in the recording/production biz forever. Wrote a few country songs. Do some consulting for some of the hardware people. I've tried to stay behind the scenes but sometimes I wind up in the audio geek news without really wanting to! Wrote for Mix. EQ. Wound up with the cover spread of EQ once. I suppose I was one of the first serious PC audio guys. especially in the PC hardware scene. I try not to hate that Mac guy on TV. (-:
Here's a funny story, I really am a geek. Started reading all the geek stuff way early on. I was really fascinated with these cool do it yourself music gear projects by a company called PAIA in the 70's, the guys name was Craig Anderton. I met Craig years later when he became my editor @ EQ. A fellow geek and a great guy.

[TAFKAT]

You started this thread to speculate on the UAD survey as a proponent for native plugins, simply because we all know you have a lot lower tolerance level to the DSP arbitration issues, and you have voiced it once again

I am not on an island there.. :wink:


...nobody said anything about you hating the plugins.

You labelled me a UAD hater earlier in the thread, you could have said Native Lover or DSP Hater.. :wink:

I admit I still have a sting in the tail from past encounters, not with you specifically. I have had some of the usual suspects at N.com try to slur my business ethic , professionalism and even my hearing because I dared voice a concern against these beloved Achilles heels, and I have never, ever questioned nor even commented on the sound of the plugs, simply the delivery. You can imagine my retort wasn't overly polite.. :eusa_whistle:


...and the only latency-free solution is analog... if someone would just invent a quiet small analog tube computer, we wouldn't need all these silly emulations... Vin?

Of course, but small wouldn't cut it, it would have to look the part as well, and be a size to match..

http://www.treehugger.com/50-year-old-computer.jpg

Hows this for a rough draft for a prototype.. ?

[paulwr]

I like the big keyboard. Perhaps work in a BUNCH of shortcut/marco keys?

-Paul

[TerryG]

That's perfect Vin.
I like the way they've incorporated the "Jog Wheel" from the Queen Mary.

[fishtank]

Just be aware that any latency measurement not done analog out to analog in with the Centrance tool is very likely to be wildly erroneous.


I ran the Centrance tool with a 32 sample buffer setting on my RME RayDAT and got pretty much exactly the results I expected - 165 samples / 3.74 ms (@ 44.1K). This was using my old Frontier Design Tango 24 converters that are temporarily out of retirement as my SSL Alphalink is lost somewhere in the warranty repair black hole across the pond. :icon_mad:

My Crane Song HEDD 192 measured 191 samples - a bit more converter latency as I expected and was already aware of. The only converter I have that I know the exact A/D and D/A latency in samples is my SSL - I'll verify that whenever SSL finally decides to get me a unit back (it is a bit more than the Tango 24, but less than the HEDD 192 IIRC).

The numbers make sense to me: RME is 96 samples (32 x 2 plus the extra 32 on the input side) plus the converter D/A and A/D latency. I believe PT HD is somewhere around 200 samples.

Pete - I'm curious as to why you thought my numbers would be erroneous?

[Pete Leoni]

No, those sound right to me. RME are the good guys in this latency issue!

[nikki-k]

Just ran this on my MR816 w/ CEntrance... 32 sample @ 44.1k: 153 samples, 3.47ms.

[John Lance]

...and the only latency-free solution is analog... if someone would just invent a quiet small analog tube computer, we wouldn't need all these silly emulations... Vin?

They've had analog computers for years.

With such a computer made of operational amplifiers, an input signal or set of input signals is/are processed to a resulting output, with the computer part made out of various op-amp circuits that are configured to perform "functions" such as logarithms, addition, and subtraction.

They even had these things back in tube days, but good performance was difficult to achieve with the tubes. They came up with all kinds of stabilization schemes to get the amps to produce linear dependable output.

And then we have analog mechanical computers. Ever seen an old adding machine or a slide rule?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_computing_hardware
http://dcoward.best.vwh.net/analog/readlist.htm
http://www.philbrickarchive.org/


I know, I know. This is not quite where you were thinking...

[TAFKAT]

Nikki and Fishtank,

Just out of interest , what was Cubendo reporting back compared to the Centrance tool ?

List the reported In / Out figures, Thanks.

Those MR816 figures being better than the RME/ various ADDA numbers is interesting , but I doubt the scaling performance would be comparable at those latencies.

[nikki-k]

Yeah, scaling favors RME big time. I tried the Cubendo test at 32 and 64 samples, 24/44.1k, and I got lower numbers than reported for RME based scaling graphs...
32 samples: at 51 enabled, thought I heard a fizzle. At 53, definitely heard one every so often.

64 samples: At 104, thought I heard one. At 108, definitely got them.
HT on, EIST, C1, Cx, etc disabled in BIOS, no other tweaks to W7x64 retail or BIOS (yet?), so tweaks might be a factor, or my own error? lol..

Ran that Centrance utility multiple times, same results every time. Attached screens of MR816 panel and C5 device setup..

[TAFKAT]

Hey Nikki,

Thanks for that .

At least the MR setting panel and Cubendo are reporting the same thing

We do need to clarify what the Centrance tools is reporting back as round trip latency in correlation to the Cubendo / MR readout. Its not making any sense to me atm.

Just the MR playback latency is higher than what the Centrance is reporting as RT, unless the Centrance reading is digital and bypasses the AD/DA.

Did you do it digitally or via analog ?

Re the scaling, not overly surprising to be honest. I'll do some head to head with a FF800 when I get a few minutes so we can have a better comparison with just FW interfaces.

P.S: We do need to move this discussion to its own thread, continue here for now until I get some time to tag the relevent posts and copy them to a new thread.

:009:

[nikki-k]

Cool on copy ->new thread :D Was wondering as it got so far OT

I already had a TS/mono guitar cable plugged into mic/line 1, so I simply popped the free end into my patchbay, effectively rerouting the output of chan 1 to the cable (instead of the Blue Sky monitoring system). All in all, about 4-5 meters of cable between analog out 1 and analog in 1 (line input, front).

Nice to be sub 4ms with a native system these days. Even nicer to be able to work at 32 or 64 samples with a pretty good sized song goin. Still, I really miss working with tape and a nice desk some days. For composing though... hehehe..

[TAFKAT]

O.K,

New thread Here (http://cubendo.com/showthread.php?t=1697)

This thread can head back to UAD land.. :D