That one kills me every time they release a new plugin that's not an LA-3A.

I agree. What the world needs now is an LA3a mk2

There's a huge difference between the color Red and the color Blue.

I prefer Blue. If you dont prefer Blue like i do, then you must be blind because
Blue is a much better looking color than Red..

If you dont realize how rediculous you sound, then you may need some meds.

JC

Has there ever been so much irony in a single statement? lol

Is that mean't as an insult?

Clean code, quality code... and, you're guessing it - code. ;-)

Are you truly saying that you believe UAD sound better than anything else? and the reason is clean code! honestly that just isn't true, you may prefer UAD and thats all good but that is just a choice, they don't sound better, different maybe, also UAD don't have cleaner code than anyone else that is just plain ridiculous, have you gone and examined their code in detail against all the other options out there? of course not so what you are saying is just a personal belief with zero facts at all, let's not spread rumours and beliefs as facts, the world has an abundance of these all-ready.

Wow Anon!!!

Steady your horses! Chill man. Are you always thaz hyped? No, I have not gone thru all code. Neither did you! Did you? OK, now that we have cleared that out let me tell you that I am not going into this kind of discussion.

There are coders and there are coders. Some better than others. So, you can see that (hear) in a final product. I do not use UAD at all.

My thougt stays the same. There IS significant difference in quality of coding which results in product quality.

Be good and stay true to yourself man!

Krešo

So you duck and weave but can't back up the claim in any way, and the big bit of info is "There are coders and there are coders. Some better than others." the actual truth when it come to coding is it can be as clean as you can get and still sound terrible or it can be not as clean but still sound fantastic, clean code is actually debatable in many instances, and again the actual facts are that UAD don't sound better, it's all just a preference but lets not lets the facts spoil the make believe.

OK, I admit that the language barrier can hurt the discussion. How should I put it? Hmmm, how about modelling as close as possible insted of coding? Better? I really do hope you can understand what I meant! It's like trying to draw a fractal. The higher resolution, the finer details there are. And then, add a depth, randomness and what not. I meant all of that but I wrote "coding".

How's that working for you? I don't want to start a flame neither I'm trolling you or the others here. What it looks to me is like you started a Thread in one way but now it's like the other way around. Take it from your headline.

And ro answer - I did not duck and waved. I am standing tall here and stating my belief. And with my teue name as you can see. I can't do facts because I am not a programmer (coder). Nor modeller. But as in every single thing in life, a web site (for desktop or any other device), software, photograph etc... There are product and there are - well, hmmmmm, products.

Best to you and all here!

Krešo

It's all cool biksonije, I don't want a flame either, I just want to make it clear that UAD don't sound better and they don't have better code and anyone who claims that is basing that claim on a preference and a belief, neither of which make a fact, so anyone coming to this thread that is new, I encourage you not to fall for the miss-information that has been given, and go listen for yourself, UAD are just one choice of many other equally great choices.

As for modelling and as you put it "The higher resolution, the finer details there are. And then, add a depth, randomness and what not"

UAD aren't the only ones that do modelling, and they definitely can't be demonstrated to be the best at it, let's not start another myth, they make some good plugins but so do others.

Would you mind to name a few examples of plugins from other developers?

Blimey there are loads of plugins that I love, One plugin that I heard (and couldn't stop playing) for the first time only yesterday is the Mercuriall SS-11X tube preamp sim! I have tried extensively all the UAD guitar amp sims and they (to my ears and taste) don't sound all that good, I notice there are many people on the UAD forums that feel the same way, the Mercuriall SS-11X tube preamp sim! on the other hand is IMO stunning, best I have heard, it sounds exactly (to my ears) like the hardware and plays like it as well.

Acoustica Audio Aqua's are mostly (not all) absolutely stunning, Slate VMR Rack has some real gems that compete with anything out there IMO and also some not so good for my taste, Liquidsonics make fantastic reverbs that IMO beat anything UAD has done with reverb albeit IR's, and also Relab reverbs are very hard to beat, I think the new UAD's new Lexicon 480 IMO opinion (from what I have heard so far) doesn't beat Relabs version, altho I think the UAD GUI is better, (never liked working with the Relab one for some reason) Kush Clariphonic, DMG audio equilibrium, Hofa Dynamic eq, PSP audio have some gems, Surfer EQ is very very handy sometimes, OH boy there is loads I don't have the time I am being called for lunch, but I could go on and on, and what is best actually depends on what needs to be done, Softube make some great stuff, I especially love the TLA-100A, I really like the TC VSS3 I used to have a TC Powercore years ago and always liked this one, I have to go get lunch or I'm going to get into trouble but plugins are getting better and better all the time, it's good times in that regard, and in my opinion (I know UAD users don't agree) DSP systems are on the way out, all low latency native is going to be the future.

Softube, Brainworx, Fuse, Acustica, LiquidSonics, Klanghelm. All of them make plugins as good as UAD. In fact, Softube and Brainworx made some of the best UAD plugins.

...and one more thing. As late Steve Jobs would say...

Somebody here made a great point earlier. There are quite a few number of new and fresh coders, modern coders with new approach to sound processing. Completely different from "trying-to-clone-old-cans" kind of coders. One comes to mind - Unfiltered Audio. There are others like (not old though but unique) Klevgrand or u-he (in some products).

So, yeah, there are good, great in fact, who does fantastic job in sound processing and manipulation.

Now, do they sound better than other or not? Well, purely subjective. One can have a million dollar geara and f**k up the sound while others can do miracles with stock stuff...

Just my thoughts.

Krešo

The algorithms are the real thing, those rounding errors beyond 1000dB shouldn't be that audible unless you are batman. The good thing about the plugin is that it is not affected by jitter in its digital path... (I hope I didn't open pandora's box right there).


Yes, it does, although at least it is still turning...

May I be so bold as to inquire what on earth you are referring to? Rounding errors beyond 1000 dB? What does that even mean? 1000 dB should be extremely audible, not to say lethal... And how can a rounding error be measured in dB?

FWIW, I think all this talk about UAD being superior to everything else is about as convincing as the age old chauvinism of the Apple entourage.

/Magnus

I really wish someone would do a mix using all Slate, Airwindows, Kush, Softube, UAD, and SKNote plug ins. No others just each suite. All the developers cover all the bases.

I think you'd get some very cool mixes that wind up being quite different. The thing I do like about UAD is they pay for licensing and try to model specific gear as accurately as possible. Airwindows couldn't care less since it's one guy who marches to his own beat. Kinda the opposite. Kush also does that, and Slate tries to compete with UAD and Softube does also, modeling specific units but calling them something else sometimes with a little spin. Obviously you could use other global developers. But these spring to mind.

I am sure that even if I mix the same song two times from the scratch with the same set of plugins it would sound different.

Just make music.
All these requests for tests and demos get more and more involved and lose sight of the end goal - making music.

Amen to that!

/Magnus

I love UA and use their plugins all the time. They definitely have some of the very best stuff out there but imho other makers such as Soundtoys, Softube and Kush have plugins that are totally on the same level.

I think hardware owners definitely heard the coins fall to the floor under the rack when the plugin was released …

Jeez I never knew that, thx for pointing it out..... Maybe you should find our companion site SongSlutz where they discuss music not gear.......

As I said, I regularly test plugins from other manufacturers. It is fun. At the end of the day, when I start to mix, I take what I have and know. What has done the job hundreds of times.
And I see that colleagues basically do the same thing. Everyone has a workflow with standard tools. I've never actually seen an engineer using completely different tools in each session. It's always the same way. When new plugins come along, it's mostly because they do crazy stuff that hardly ever does anything else.
If you work with someone, work together on a regular basis, it may even be more useful to the end result if both agree on the same tools and not everyone looks for the best.
At the end of the day, you will have the plugins or tools to do the job the fastest and the best - because that's when you earn the most, and often that are the tools you already know.


To UAD.
I get results with the tools that make my customers happy. I'm also happy with my work. I like the way the plugins look like. For many other plugins, I'm often bothered by the fact that you can not switch off, that they show you the values ​​when you turn on a button of the GUI. Sometimes it's the little things that make something unattractive. I would say everyone to his taste and fine.

I would personally wish for UA's future to offer both. A combination of DSP and native. Anyone who has already invested in DSP can continue to use it. But you do not have to buy a new DSP because the computers have enough energy these days if you want to use more plugins. Perhaps also obligatory a hardware device that protects against piracy. I would understand this.

If you think it is valuable, you don't need to wait for "someone" to do it. AFAIK, most , if not all of those companies offer demo periods on all their products. You can easily download the full product line in demo form for free and mix a song for 2 weeks or whatever. Then do the next company and the next.

I am convinced that the main thing we would "learn" from such an exercise is some insight into the person who did the mixing. How he or she liked or disliked or was neutral about the plug ins. So if you do this on your own, the exercise will be a lot more valuable to you than it might be to the rest of us.

amen to that! I would actually be frightened if sounded the same!

There are other problems with such a "test", too. You mix the same song, well one of those mixes is the "first" mix you do. One is the "last" mix you do. Will that be an advantage or a disadvantage to be first or last? I have no idea, it probably will vary all over the place, but I am certain it will have an effect and that effect might be just as strong as the "brand" or "quality" of the plug ins.

Add to that the fact that some companies are really adept at hardware emulations, others excel at complex digital functionality and versatility and still others are into pushing the envelope in a way that might be described as 'psychedelic' or 'science fiction'. These differences will mean there won't be "equivalents" for everything.

I love my UAD stuff, but I also love other stuff. I think most people are like me, they choose a "smorgasbord" of different things for different tasks that they like. We assemble our custom collections. Isn't that part of the fun? For me, no company has all "winners", but many companies have at least a few great products that I like a lot. .

I agree completely. I remember a lot of situations were I mixed a song again cause i thought i can do it better. Sometimes it works but more often than not it is version 1 that has been sent to the client.
The whole equipment market is really hyped at the moment.
Everybody can make music now. A lot of companies offer things that are orientated to both, the guy or girl who wants to make beats at home and the ones that run a commercial studio.
If you try to order a cable in an online store you first have to google which one of the 100 different ones ist really ok.
But the cheap stuff gets better and better. Those home made music some indie bands do gets better and better.

You darn millennials, explaining clean code as a reason for the op.

It's the wires. It's the metal jacks. It's all the crap in the physical box.

The op likes the uad stuff as reproduced by all the crap (technical term for "circuitry-really-all over the-place) in the uad boxes... Not to mention all the teeny tiny electrical prongs in/out of those sharcs....they ain't sendin' no digital around all them lectrical connections.

Wires, solder, signals jumping from one connection to another. That's mojo man!

Even the guys porting their stuff to the uad boxes are doing so "through" all that final-scenario set of tweak setups....ie....the crap in the boxes.

So op sits at home, not liking the softube native Marshall as reproduced by his sound blaster...or audient this-or-that. Or doesn't like waves equalizers through his reaper daw-into-laptop-earbuds. Or doesn't like his lexicon reverbs as sent out his rme into the ssl and then into a set of giant 4350s.

Just means the op likes the uad plugs-as-tweaked for uad's particular piles of wires/circuits-in-the-box.

No mystery. It's the solder man!

What the op will buy is a nice dongle, tweaked to sound a certain predictable way for all his fav plugs.

Two groovy features for the price of one.

I’ve had to do a bunch of mixes of live shows for an artist I’ve worked with a bunch. I did a batch of songs on the road unable to use my UAD plugins. Used lots of other good plugins but the ones with the UAD plugs were much better sounding to me.

Hi! Actually, the UAD SSL mk2 and FG-S sound nearly identical and display nearly identical curves when calibrated the same. The difference you are likely hearing is calibration of the frequency and gain, meaning that setting the plugins exactly the same doesn't create the same curve, and the frequency and gain will have discrepancies. You can check out what happens when we used an analyzer to set the plugins exactly the same:



If you'd like to test yourself with these calibrated files, I can post the hi res files blindly.

Here's a calibrated comparison of their Distressor versus our FG-Stress which also lead to them sounding remarkably similar:



Even the 1176 vs FG-116 sounds really close (probably indistinguishable in a mix context) if you calibrate it properly:



So while I don't necessarily subscribe to the statement that UAD sounds 'better' than everything else, I think it's easy to say that they are one of the best damn audio companies in the business and all their products are top notch. It's a great time to be making music and there are some seriously great tools to choose from!

Cheers,
Steven