Oh please. Not this again.

Huge UAD fan here. I really like their plugins. But it would never occur to me in a million years that which chips you were running things on had anything whatsoever to do with it.

That is not the "reason why". In fact I would say half of the blowback at the OP is his implication that there IS a "reason why" - other than that somebody talented worked very hard on them.

This would also explain why certain other companies also make excellent products. Products that - IMHO - can sound just as good as the UAD stuff. It would also explain how other people's opinions differ and not everybody thinks the UAD stuff is the be-all and end-all. Let's get a grip, here, people!

If there was totally unanimous agreement then we might start looking for "why". There is no point in coming up with theories to explain "why" something is happening until after you can prove THAT it is happening.

Which nobody has done yet. People's opinions are all over the map.

There's no "secret sauce", just craftsmanship. All other 'theories' are just personal taste desperately looking for the backing of 'science'

So, you’re saying the answer to my question is no?

I read a while back from a coder that the way you program for a Sharc DSP is totally different than X86 intel chips. That’s why it would be difficult to port natively.

People always mention that brainworx and softube have both native and UAD versions so this is false. But what people are forgetting is that Brainworx developed a UAD wrapper so the plugins will work on the UAD platform.

So it’s about writing code directly for Sharc DSP or porting it to work on a Sharc DSP. That’s the debate.

I’m not saying this is factual info. I’ve just read this argument several times from the internets. I want to know from people that actually code, if this is true.

Read my reply above about Softube and Brainworx...

What does difficulty to port (or even to write) have to do with 'innate quality'? If someone WROTE the code in platform X and did not need to port it, there would be no 'difficulty'.

No, the debate is about some idea that there is a "reason why" UAD plugs "sound better". In the first place, no can ever prove that they do sound better. It's an opinion. In the second place, plugs that have not been 'ported' are what is being compared: UAD's LA-2A vs Wave's LA-2A for example.

I don't have to 'port' the Waves plug to my Apollo's chips to compare it. I can just stick both on a track and bypass them back and forth. I have apples and I have oranges. Prove to me that what CHIP they are running on is the 'thing' that is making the difference. How do you 'isolate' that? If you "port" one to the other platform, and it does NOT sound the same, then for all you know, you have simply screwed up the porting, not made a valid point about the chips sounding better.

Even if you were to accept that there was an inherent difficulty or inherent ease in writing code on this chip or that chip, that difficulty may only have to do with how hard you have to work, not how good a job you can do. Shoveling snow off the driveway might be 'easier' with shovel A vs shovel B, but the difference will not have to be how clean your driveway is at the end. ("quality") The difference might be simply that you will be a little bit more tired at the end.

The "quality" of the driveway will up to your work ethic. Not the shovel. I am not sure how anyone can prove the chip matters for "sound quality". I think it is clearly a fantasy based on incomplete understanding of how digital audio works.

I am not sure how anyone can even say 'factual' has a place in the discussion. Since in the end, the criteria for judgement is just people's taste.

which is the best neve 1073 plugin? UAD? Waves? Arturia?

Is in any ways this thread sponsored by Universal Audio?

I don't think you get what I'm saying. If you read my whole post, I'm just playing devils advocate. This thread turned into, "This is better than that because that's what I think!" Instead of, "I wonder what scientific reason,—if any—is behind coding for dedicated audio DSP chips vs multipurpose Intel chips.

I've been told there is a different method for coding for audio DSP that could make a difference. Apparently, it would make certain code difficult to reproduce on Intel. Ported code (using Brainworx development kit) from Intel CPU's to Sharc doesn't count... apparently. I'm looking for people the prove this wrong.

The folks at Access (who make the Virus TI2) use Sharc chips in there hardware synths. The Virus line, as well as the Kemper amp, are built around these chips as well. They also claim that they would have to rewrite most of the code to get it to work on Intel—and that would change the sound too much. Just info you can find for yourself if you search for it. Again, not my opinion, just what I've read and heard from people. I'm not a coder. I'm not claiming it as truth.

It this is true, the different—not necessarily better—type of code could be a reason why UAD has a different vibe.. along with the UAD development team of course.

I'm simply trying to create constructive conversation instead of baseless babble.

PLUG:

Vintage King Basic Series Microphone Cable - Studio Essentials - Recording - Vintage King



IN:

Neve 1073N - Vintage King



This will bring you pretty damn close.



Sorry just kidding.

But this is what you really need to find it out:

Universal Audio Apollo Twin MkII DUO Thunderbolt Audio Interface - Audio & MIDI Interfaces - Interfaces - Computer Audio - Recording - Vintage King

I know it is not as easy as downloading any demo of a plugin. But a lot of stores offer a thirty day trail period for their products.

You can try then all UA Plugins for 14 days.

You have to try it out yourself. And consider also the workflow. If the plugins really suit your style of mixing. A friend of mine would never use any emulation plugin. He does not like the GUI. He is a Fabfilter / DMG fan.

I am glad that in the mixrack of slate is not anything that I can not find somewhere else. Cause the rack alone would be the dealbreaker cause I use a control surface and it would be impossible to map the plugins somehow useful.

Also, PS:

Some of my favorite plugins are from Slate (amazing!!!), Softube, Brainworx... Tons of amazing native plugins!! I'm not a UAD only guy. I just get bored of the, "UAD is a dongle" and the, Sharc DSP tech is dated and underpowered" comments. Zzzz

I would not use the word "most", actually, a lot of UAD plugins are between the bests of it's kind.

The fact to me is that they are not the only options anymore. Almost all UAD plugins I can remember, has a native option that sounds as good. Not the same, but as good.

If I'm not mistaken, I was reading on the UA forum that the bx VSM-3 nulled almost completely with the UA version. I was interested when I bought it. There was discussion about negligable difference between native and UA versions. People weren't happy since UA had more of an exclusive profile, and they were wondering why they'd paid a premium. Part of the answer is it took a while to be ported to native......

The UAD hardware may very well BE a dongle, and considering the demand for their plug-ins, a dongle many are willing to pay extra for. So what? It is their right to set up their system in whatever way works for them and they take whatever risks might arise from customer dissatisfaction. Many satisfied customers may justify a dongle. And I will be the first to admit that the Sharc chips definitely ARE dated and underpowered, and yet, people still love the UAD plug ins. I consider this evidence against your hypothesis the the "chips" are a factor in the sound.

I don't think you are getting MY point. The idea of looking for a "scientific reason" for proving people's taste 'correct' is:
a) not necessary
b) offensive to those who do not share the same taste
For all you know, they got a "deal" on Sharc chips by the ton and are saving money, or they have been already using the chips since way back when and can build on their already begun software platforms. Thus saving money.

At least: "This is better than that because that's what I think!" folks are being honest. I would rather read about their taste than more tired old digital audio myths. IMO, there is no "deeper level" to the discussion. Desperately grasping for a pseudo-scientific 'basis' is just a smarmy attempt to elevate your taste above the others.
Saying it's difficult to 'switch' does not imply sonic superiority or even innate sonic difference. It is a statement about the logistics of making the switch.

Actually, the burden of proof is on those who make strange claims about the "chips" sounding different to prove that their myths are correct. Isn't this just more Audio Bigfoot? I say, bring us a live or dead Bigfoot and stop telling us stories about what your friend "saw" crossing the road. It is not on me to prove your friend did NOT see a Bigfoot.
It would only "change the sound " if they cut corners or messed up in the re-writing. "Porting" is a red herring and beside the point. It is on you to prove that if they had written them on Intel in the first place that they would not have been able to achieve the same sound.

How would you go about proving that?

Again, your task is to first prove that it is not the development team alone. The differences are already explainable right there without resorting to magic or pseudoscience. Occam's razor. Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Proof.
Repeating tired old digital audio myths is the very essence of baseless babble. I'd rather read someone's opinion about his taste! "This is just what I read somebody else say" is not an excuse. If you wish to make a scientific hypothesis, you should start with some hard scientific evidence.

If you have any, let's see it.

joeq;13626784]The UAD hardware may very well BE a dongle, and considering the demand for their plug-ins, a dongle many are willing to pay extra for. So what? It is their right to set up their system in whatever way works for them and they take whatever risks might arise from customer dissatisfaction. Many satisfied customers may justify a dongle. And I will be the first to admit that the Sharc chips definitely ARE dated and underpowered, and yet, people still love the UAD plug ins. I consider this evidence against your hypothesis the the "chips" are a factor in the sound.

Zzzzz

I don't think you are getting MY point. The idea of looking for a "scientific reason" for proving people's taste 'correct' is:
a) not necessary
b) offensive to those who do not share the same taste
For all you know, they got a "deal" on Sharc chips by the ton and are saving money, or they have been already using the chips since way back when and can build on their already begun software platforms. Thus saving money.

At least: "This is better than that because that's what I think!" folks are being honest. I would rather read about their taste than more tired old digital audio myths. IMO, there is no "deeper level" to the discussion. Desperately grasping for a pseudo-scientific 'basis' is just a smarmy attempt to elevate your taste above the others.

again... I'm not supporting this theory. I'm trying to make this thread interesting. Are you a coder? Do you have experience with Sharc DSP? If so, great! You answered my question. Thanks man!! If not, you are basing your your "Facts" on your opinion... Boo


Saying it's difficult to 'switch' does not imply sonic superiority or even innate sonic difference. It is a statement about the logistics of making the switch.

Huh?

Actually, the burden of proof is on those who make strange claims about the "chips" sounding different to prove that their myths are correct. Isn't this just more Audio Bigfoot? I say, bring us a live or dead Bigfoot and stop telling us stories about what your friend "saw" crossing the road. It is not on me to prove your friend did NOT see a Bigfoot.

I don't think you understand that different code for different DSP/CPU platforms aren't always compatible—if at all sometimes. In a lot of cases code has to be re-written to work on a different platform. This may not be the case with Sharc. I don't know. But apparently the developers at Access say that is so. Softube and Brainworks use the Brainworx/UAD dev kit to port the plugins into the UAD platform. The dev kit may not take advantage of Sharc specific instruction sets. Or perhaps it does.


It would only "change the sound " if they cut corners or messed up in the re-writing. "Porting" is a red herring and beside the point. It is on you to prove that if they had written them on Intel in the first place that they would not have been able to achieve the same sound.

How would you go about proving that?

Wow, this is getting intense. I don't need to prove anything because I'm the one asking the question if this is true! lol. You think I'm fighting that this is my point. wow dude. You're having a one way argument.


Again, your task is to first prove that it is not the development team alone. The differences are already explainable right there without resorting to magic or pseudoscience. Occam's razor. Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Proof.

Repeating tired old digital audio myths is the very essence of baseless babble. I'd rather read someone's opinion about his taste! "This is just what I read somebody else say" is not an excuse. If you wish to make a scientific hypothesis, you should start with some hard scientific evidence.

If you have any, let's see it.

I think you need to re-read my earlier posts. You seem pretty upset. I'm not saying you have bad taste.. or whatever. Just asking if this "myth" is true. Your answer is a clear NO—with absolutely nothing to back it up. Awesome. Have a good day.

Perhaps this thread qualifies for closing now?

......please?

Sorry but I do not understand you. Why are you doing this? This is your first post in this thread. Why are you asking for closing the thread if you have not even took part of it?

Ok there is some discussion going on, but their posts contain some things about chips and other information that I did not know.

I agree, 85mat.

It's not like we are off topic. This is the literal meaning of a forum.

I would vote to close the thread when someone develops a plugin which could remove aliasing from a source.

It does not matter if something has to be rewritten, x86 is Turing complete thus any output you could get from a SHARC you can also get from x86!

Well SHARC is dated and underpowered, if you don't like hearing the truth then I suggest you don't read these threads.

The Virus does not use SHARC, it uses 56K!

56K can be ported to (or emulated on) x86 with no change what so ever in how it sounds (56K is limited to 24bit integer, not even any floating point to deal with FFS) and it has been done before (see Nord Modular G2 demo)

Thanks for your input. I'm no coding expert, like I said several times. Just repeating the argument, wondering it if true...

You are correct about the Virus. I forgot it uses 56K.

Well, I digress. perhaps playing Devils Advocate can make you seem like you are the devil itself! Interesting how heated people get about UAD. Very polarizing!

Regardless of how it works or how underpowered it is, it sounds incredible!! I also love the DSP off-loading from my computer. It leaves room for more demanding native plugins.

Steinberg missed the boat. They shoulda stuck a vacuum tube in their Steinberg key right from the beginning. And then connected the dots.

We are definitely in the twilight zone here folks.
Carry on, it is highly entertaining....

I agree lol. Twilight zone for sure!

I don't even care how its done. I don't care about clock speeds or out-dated tech. Like I said, I'm no expert on coding. Just wanted to ask the question about how coding for a different DSP architecture can effect the nature of DSP plugins. According to this thread, absolutely zero. Sounds good to me if thats the case. But again, not my opinion, this is the argument about DSP that people use in these flame wars.

But, I am an expert on classic outboard gear. I own most of the real gear that these UAD plugins are modeling (Lexicon 480L, Many Neve 1084's (same as 1073 but more EQ points), 1176's, LA-3A's 2A's, SSL and on and on. UAD gets it damn close. I know because I have compared them directly. I'm not needing to use the real thing as much as I used to. Its awesome. Love total recall. Its a PITA to recall analog gear.

Do you need UAD to achieve a killer mix? Nope. But I love them because I'm used to what classic gear does because that's what I've used my whole career. UAD gets the sound right, personally.

So to answer the OP, Why are UAD plugins sounding that much better? I guess the answer is totally subjective. But it has nothing what so ever to do with DSP, that is for sure!

Sharc DSP used by UAD are so old and their actual processing power so low that you can probably run a virtual machine for their software in current CPUs without any problems, just for perspective:

Sharc DSP ADSP-2158x, ADSP-SC58x (highest models but not sure if it is what UAD uses): 3600 MFLOPS
Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4790K CPU @ 4.00GHz [x86 Family 6 Model 60 Stepping 3]: 43.67 GFLOPS

Trick question.

A: None of the above. Sonimus Burnley is the best Neve 1073 plugin. (Like all of the comments here, that is my subjective opinion, of course.)

Friend,

please read posts #37 and #40 . Obviously it is you who is not reading
the thread before posting, and before accusing the ones
posting in the thread before you for "not even took (sic) part in it".

But you are happy to see it go on
a tangent from the earth's surface to space where it is currently.

I tend to use more analog than plugins these days but couldn’t agree more. Universal Audio is king to my ears. When I do pull for a Plugin it’s 9 times out of 10 a UAD plugin. I’ve used a lot of plugs over the past 20 years and to my ears UAD takes the cake. Cheers!

Sonimus are great.

I love your products. I would love to prefer the sound of VMR, I own both, but the differences are not subtle. When I crank the lows on 50hz on overheads the UAD performs way different than the VMR, it distorts and the boost is way more pronounced. I can´t make the VMR to distort, it sounds always polite.
On the other hand the UAD MK 2 acts like a guitar amp, you push it, you hear it.
If I am boosting highs on strings for instance, I choose the VMR, because it is more subtle, clean, broad. If I want the snare to stay clean and snappy I choose VMR.
But if I want to colour a plain jane kick, I crank the highs and lows on the UAD mk2 and it acts like decapitator.

Both have its applications, and both are great tools. But they don´t sound the same, and I don´t have golden ears.

Best regards and keep up the good work.

BTW I really love the Distressor shootout video, they sound the same and you have a great sense of humor.

I'm a BIG slate fan. I can tell you that the FG-76 is close to spot on to my vintage 1176's! Great plugins. The Distressor is every bit as good as the UAD one. I think the Slate VMR is the best deal in the plugin world! Must have for everyone.

The SSL Slate EQ isn't modeling the output VCA's (pretty sure). That's the distortion you are hearing the UAD version. My only grip is that I wish Slate had a full SSL channel, rather than just the EQ. The EQ is damn close to the UAD version. Just as good. Yes, cleaner, because there isn't the VCA distortion.

The saturation is a big part of the SSL sound...