UAD vs. Powercore

[honeydont]

I'm planning to get my first DSP card, and wanted to know your opinion of which is best: UAD or Powercore?

I'll have to stick with only one entry-level board 'cause my budget is preety tight.

My current specs:
1) Hardware:
- Asus P5W-DH Deluxe
- Intel Core2 Quad Q6600
- 4Gb RAM DDR2 800MHz
- M-Audio FW1814
- 2 x Seagate Barracuda 250 Gb 7200:10 (OS + Audio)
- 1 x Seagate Barracuda 500 Gb 7200:12 (Samples)
2) Software:
- Windows XP SP3 32bits
- Cubase SX 3

I've done a bit of reading and surfing, and I'm quite inclined to buying the UAD-2, especially because of the new DSPs. Nonetheless, I'm getting noob's cold feet :icon_redface:

Thanks in advance for the advice.

[MattiasNYC]

I'm willing to bet that most people would recommend UAD-2 over PoCo. And also over Duende for that matter.

My recommendation would be for you to do the following:

1) Make sure that the ones you are considering are working properly with your computer and software

2) Make a list of processing types that you are "missing" in your setup: you may have reverbs that aren't good enough, or perhaps you have everything you need but want a more "colored" sound, especially from certain types of gear, like compressors....

3) Put a cap on how much you want to spend

4) If you want vintage models, perhaps you can do some research on the original units and check how they were used and how they sounded

5) See if you can try the cards out, or perhaps the hardware originals that some were modeled after

6) Check closely for where the best deals are. The difference can be quite substantial.

My gut-feeling says UAD. They have a nice selection of both vintage and contemporary plug-ins running on a pretty powerful card. In my opinion, v4 of Cubendo really did give us acceptable processing. The EQ's and dynamics processing can definitely be used for "bread and butter" kind of stuff. I'd look at complementing that with UAD's vintage modeled gear that has a decent amount of color to it.

It's hard to give more detailed recommendations without knowing what you're looking for specifically, so maybe you can explain a bit more and I'm sure others will chime in as well.

m

[Sam]

also check out the cost of buying plugins for that platform once you own the card....UAD are very reasonably priced I think...POCO seem expensive - but their VSS3 reverb is pretty highly regarded, second only to hardware some say....

If you are specifically looking for a great reverb/delay box POCO is good, if you are looking for a digital SSL 'console' solution....Duende...
If you are looking for a wide range of (the best IMO) classic emulations and very useful mixing/mastering tools go with UAD - keep in mind now UAD have modeled SSL 4K channel so it can have that aspect covered for SSL sound....

Even buying a UAD Solo will give you the power of around 2.5 UAD-1's, which is what I used to mix for years till I got my UAD Quad....I had to be creative to squeeze what I wanted out of them, but I just made desicions and commited to the sounds - you work with what you got huh....

A UAD Duo (if you can afford it) would probably be the best $$/functionality UAD option...I have a Quad and I rarely fill it up!!...keep in mind you get a pretty generous plugin voucher when you buy UAD2 (not sure what the current offer is but it is several hundred dollars) - and they always have specials and discount off their plugs...

happy decisions!!!

[D]

TC software/drivers are less reliable than UA software and drivers. Much less (their native stuff is okay).

I've owned both. I now only own a UAD-1 and a UAD-2 Duo.

The Powercore reverbs are okay, but the only other standard plugin I used regularly was the delay/chorus. Their other plugins were only fair.

As has already been said, the UAD plugins have better pricing, and are higher quality. UAD plugins already work on 64 bit systems. Who knows when 64 bit will be available to Poco owners?

After awhile, the UAD plugins are the first ones you will reach for, IMO. They can always do what you need, especially the EQs. IMO there are more transparent dynamics plugins (Flux wins this), but none more colorful than the UADs.

[TAFKAT]

.. the lesser of the 2 evils is definitely the UAD IMHO

I'll mimic much of what has already been offered up, and add a few..

The Powercore is even more archaic than UAD1 , the drivers are average at best, the support from TC is absolutely non existent , there are less plugs available , the range/quality is arguably not as good and expensive to boot.

Buy one of the smaller UAD2's and build the plugin list as required.

Just be aware that running the system at low latency can/will cause ASIO munching issues with certain configurations.

[Sound Drifter]

I have a very similar setup loaded with uad1, uad1e and uad2 quad. Works like a charm.

The other effect kits you're looking at are firewire, right and your current interface is firewire, correct? This may pose a problem. Maybe the other folks would know for sure.




I'm planning to get my first DSP card, and wanted to know your opinion of which is best: UAD or Powercore?

I'll have to stick with only one entry-level board 'cause my budget is preety tight.

My current specs:
1) Hardware:
- Asus P5W-DH Deluxe
- Intel Core2 Quad Q6600
- 4Gb RAM DDR2 800MHz
- M-Audio FW1814
- 2 x Seagate Barracuda 250 Gb 7200:10 (OS + Audio)
- 1 x Seagate Barracuda 500 Gb 7200:12 (Samples)
2) Software:
- Windows XP SP3 32bits
- Cubase SX 3

I've done a bit of reading and surfing, and I'm quite inclined to buying the UAD-2, especially because of the new DSPs. Nonetheless, I'm getting noob's cold feet :icon_redface:

Thanks in advance for the advice.

[Sound Drifter]

Oh, on my setup, when you load up the UADs with plugs and run low latencies, asio usage rises due to the UAD card. They are wonderful plugs and worth it.

[MattiasNYC]

I would also check out Alto Music... I think it's in New York (state), or maybe Connecticut... Great prices on some stuff, probably including UAD-2's...

[Michael Tibes]

Very easy imho: Poco for Reverbs, UAD for about anything else (while the UAD plate is very good as well). I'd strictly stay away from anything non-pci/pcie. I've nothing to add regarding the TC support, it is not even a joke. They are still lightyears away from 64 bit drivers.
Duende might come into play again once the new software is out - if it works properly and if the new reverb was nice it might be a good solution between both worlds. Again, only the pcie version to choose. Firewire is for video cameras only!

Michael

[honeydont]

Thank you all for the input! I really didn't expect this responsiveness to such a newbie question. I'm very grateful indeed.

I guess I'll try out the UAD-2 (have to import it here to Brazil, so it may take some time + 88% in taxes!!!). I'll get back to you guys at a latter time and tell you how it all went down.

Once again, thanks a lot for your prompt support. Felt at home.

[MattiasNYC]

You're welcome honey!

[Sid Chigger]

You're welcome honey!

Thought I was in the wrong place there for a sec.... :D

[paulwr]

Just be aware that running the system at low latency can/will cause ASIO munching issues with certain configurations.

Is running at 256 samples going to be asking for problems with UAD2 ? They're on my short list, too.

-Paul

[D]

Is running at 256 samples going to be asking for problems with UAD2 ? They're on my short list, too.

-Paul

No, I've gone down to 64 samples. My ASIO driver won't go any lower.

[Michael Tibes]

...have to import it here to Brazil, so it may take some time + 88% in taxes!!!

You don't have friends in some other country which might send it to you privately, or as a gift, or a broken one for evaluation?

Michael

[honeydont]

You don't have friends in some other country which might send it to you privately, or as a gift, or a broken one for evaluation?

Michael


Hey Michael,

In fact, I do have friends abroad, but unfortunatelly it is no use, since the brazilian tax system for mail import is, as they say, "simplified": 88% on all imports (gifts included!):098:. And this includes private companys (DHL, UPS, FedEx...). Only books/mags, software & meds are exempt.

However, I'm going to Germany in july. Maybe I'll get better prices there. I'll do some research.

Thank you for the ideas.

[TAFKAT]

Is running at 256 samples going to be asking for problems with UAD2 ? They're on my short list, too.

-Paul

Hey Paul, 256 is usually O.K from my experience across multiple audio devices, its at the lower latencies when its gets more noticeable, and substantially so in some instances.

Its also depends on the audio interface , for example some firewire interfaces will actually work better than PCI/PCIe I have found, as their drivers usually have disproportional playback buffers for respective settings. i.e much higher output than input, which some drivers for PCI/PCIe cards are also starting to display. Lynx/MOTU. In thoe instances it lessens the ASIO munching as well.

Kind of kills the whole round trip latency angle, but helps smooth out running at lower input latencies for VSTi's for example. Its similar to the trick Logic does internally , so when you see those reports of Logic being so good at low latency , its because the playback is more than double.. :-)

[unanimity]

Only books/mags, software & meds are exempt.

UAD is software, is it not?

[TAFKAT]

.. that needs a piece of dedicated hardware to run.

[Michael Tibes]

Hey Michael,

In fact, I do have friends abroad, but unfortunatelly it is no use, since the brazilian tax system for mail import is, as they say, "simplified": 88% on all imports (gifts included!):098:. And this includes private companys (DHL, UPS, FedEx...). Only books/mags, software & meds are exempt.

However, I'm going to Germany in july. Maybe I'll get better prices there. I'll do some research.

Thank you for the ideas.

www.thomann.de
www.musicstore.de

are the biggest / normally best prices shops in Germany. Buying a UAD2 quad should kinda already pay the flight?

Michael

[Daryl]

Its similar to the trick Logic does internally , so when you see those reports of Logic being so good at low latency , its because the playback is more than double.. :-)
I've heard this said before, but I don't really understand it. I'd be grateful if you could explain it in words even a composer can understand. :icon_redface:

D

[honeydont]

www.thomann.de
www.musicstore.de

are the biggest / normally best prices shops in Germany.

Wow! Thanks! I'll look into it...



Buying a UAD2 quad should kinda already pay the flight? ...but don't get me started on the brazilian plane tickets market... Even worse than the import tax system I've mentioned earlier.:wink:

[Animus]

I can relate to everyone's issues with the UAD but they really all some of the best plugins. I couldn't work without them. I think the UAD2 family is a step in the right direction. They will get any driver issues worked out I trust.

[unanimity]

It isn't only drivers though, it's the plug in specifications. They are too backward looking IMV.

[Animus]

What do you mean by plugins specifications? That they model vintage stuff? I personally like that as those classics do the things they do that are good to have in the digital realm, at least an approximation of it.

[unanimity]

Hi,

The specifications in relation to the plug ins themselves, eg the VST spec.

[MattiasNYC]

Why don't you like the specs?.... Can you elaborate on it...?

[Animus]

Hi,

The specifications in relation to the plug ins themselves, eg the VST spec.

The vst spec is Steinberg's deal. It will get even better though when VST3 becomes the norm.

[John Lance]

It isn't only drivers though, it's the plug in specifications. They are too backward looking IMV.

I wouldn't mind having them to apply their expertise at designing a "pure" series of plugins using what they now know: Absolute unerring purity being the goal, while yet remaining musically expressive.

I am not putting down the hardware emulations at all. I think many of them are absolutely essential to arrive at a destination with a given sound.

This could be an absolutely foolish idea, but I think it has merit.

[MattiasNYC]

I wouldn't mind having them to apply their expertise at designing a "pure" series of plugins using what they now know: Absolute unerring purity being the goal, while yet remaining musically expressive.

"absolute unerring purity" and "musically expressive" seems mutually exclusive to me....

[John Lance]

"absolute unerring purity" and "musically expressive" seems mutually exclusive to me....

Not really. It is for those times you want nothing but the cleanest processing possible to attain a goal, something that adds no additional coloration in that classic sense of the word. That can be musical in itself, not adding to or taking away other than that final touch of whatever you needed. Musically expressive to me means if dynamics are involved, it would be applying their findings to result in the cleanest possible plugin without any particular tube, transistor, or photocell device nonlinear "colorations" to be added in the process. EQ wise or channel strip wise, no added color other than what you did intentionally with an adjustment.

No, this is not at all mutually exclusive in my opinion. It would just be another tool along the way towards the desired musical end result.

Honestly though, this should be more the domain of the DAW software application, but I think UAD probably has quite a bit of understanding at least about compression most folks don't have.

[D]

I wouldn't mind having them to apply their expertise at designing a "pure" series of plugins

If you want purity, I recommend you check out the Flux plugins. IMO they are the most transparent plugins available.

[unanimity]

I am not putting down the hardware emulations at all. I think many of them are absolutely essential to arrive at a destination with a given sound.

Not foolish at all, if you go into the fundamental design of some of the plug in's you willl find this "purity" you seek.

Take for example the Harrision, it simply alters the bandwidth as the frequency is altered, emulation or not it's a pure function.

[foxysounds]

Sorry for the late response but as someone mentioned earlier that the UAD-2 Solo is about 2.5 times the power of the UAD-1 I just thought I ought to clarify that this is very dependant on the particular plug-ins you're using.

With the newer plug-ins, the UAD-2 comes into its own but with some older plug-ins a single UAD-1 will actually run more instances than a UAD-2 Solo. There used to be a really good chart comparing instance counts on the UAD website but I'm struggling to find it since the site has been redesigned :-(

Simon.

[D]

There used to be a really good chart comparing instance counts on the UAD website but I'm struggling to find it since the site has been redesigned :-(

Simon.

http://www.uaudio.com/support/uad/charts.html

[foxysounds]

Ah, thanks D. Actually it's not quite as bad as I thought. Only the Cambridge EQ in mono (which happens to be a plug-in I use a lot) and Nigel of course (unsupported on UAD-2) support fewer instances on a UAD-2 solo than on a UAD-1.

Simon.

[D]

I own the Cambridge, and I used to use it until I got the Precision EQ. I prefer the organic response of the Pultec/Pro and the Precision EQ. I also love the 1073 and 1081 and the Helios. I also just got the Harrison 32. These all have a warmth and character that the Cambridge lacks, and I understand that is the appeal of the Cambridge for some.

The Cambridge is very surgical, but I rarely have anything that needs a surgical EQ, so I prefer to add color with my tone shaping.

I never use Nigel, but kept one of my four UAD-1 cards just in case.

[foxysounds]

I use the Pultec Pro from time to time but I don't have the other EQs you mentioned (they are so expensive!) but I must confess that if I examine the instances of the Cambridge EQ in most of my projects I would probably find that more than 60% of them are just being used to apply a high pass filter :icon_lol: