UAD plugins themselves do not offer enough distinction to compel new users, young or old.

The emulated sonics of multitrack tape & analog summing are too subtle to be a compelling distinction. And this emphasis may prove to be too much of a trendy throw back that is more about selling software to audio engineers than really being a some magic bullet for music making.

The best opportunity for LUNA to have distinction from other DAWs is workflow. LUNA is where Studio One was at about 12 years ago. A clean slate to rethink what a DAW can be. Studio One had a pedigree of Cubase developers, LUNA has a pedigree of Pro Tools developers. There is a huge advantage of being 12 years further down the road in music production practices. And UA has the name recognition to attract many tire-kickers. Clean things up by ditching legacy workflow options that only came into being due to either limitation of past technologies or legacy habits. Think what the essential functions at hand are and how to best offer them to the user.

Please don't set up a system to trap users in the LUNA ecosystem. Potential users can see those chains and will resist. Let people move projects in/out of the LUNA environment and win them over with superior workflow.

free daw, a lot of new users will jump, specially the non deep-editor and mixers people. the majority of home studio guys owning an Apollo will jump. good for them.
some pros might produce a bit in it, uses the VI and go back and forth ( most already do it).

nice little daw. lots will embrace it. revolutionize nothing, nor is it pure useless crap, right in between and it will slowly take on.
( take on too slow and it's too in-between for me to jump, but good for UA or some happy producers).

Time will tell. I think they've got a long game. regardless of the sales hype, you don't really need anything revolutionary, just a slightly better implementation. There are a lot of hot emotions around this, which is confusing to me. I'm curious how it's going to unfold over time. Hopefully, it will be a benefit to us the consumers rather than the other way around.

Maybe I missed it (long thread), but my experience with systems that are designed to reduce latency to imperceivable levels is dependent on there being sufficient resources available to the low latency path. It's where resources get close to the edge or where signal flow gets tricky (busses, sends) that they may fall apart.

So, am I to assume the following?

- The record path can only include UA effects (no AU)
- If you're using sends on the record path, they must be UA effects
- Those UA effects must run on the Apollo with the related input channel

This isn't a gripe - just want to understand the limits.

Totally agree. I wrote the following a day or two ago but it got lost in the mayhem of the launch (TL;DR - UA know exactly what they're doing!):

Let’s see this for what it is - a very clever piece of sleight of hand by UA. Anyone who doesn’t see this DAW as all about marketing is completely missing the point IMO. As we know, UA has devised a genius way to rake in vast amount of cash in exchange for hoards of old DSP chips that are worth peanuts. And, after that, people then pony up much more cash to purchase their plugins, which still retail at prices most devs have moved away from in 2020. So far so good for UA.

Yet they’re aware that some people are seeing through this peddling of cheap 16 year old technology for $$$$, and more are starting to do so. So if they can conjure up a “oh look, a DAW” distraction, which enables them to continue to rope people in to buying more SHARCS, get more people on board, and justify their whole DSP paradigm (a doubling down, really) then it helps UA perpetuate this business model for longer. Very smart, at least for those of us that don’t see right through it. It’s pure consumerism and, for me at least, pretty cynical. I’m sure the marketing meeting was something “how can we “add value” to our DSP system”, and this isn’t a bad answer from their point of view as it locks people in even further!

So to those who question their underpowered DSP and press for change, why the hell would UA move away from their virtual crack-dealer business model? They sell both the razors and the blades for top dollar! (yes, I know, that's another business model...). I think it’ll make business books in the future; think how much they effectively make per plugin compared with every other dev. It’s dark genius! I mean come on, they’ll milk this thing as long as they can – and it looks like they just made a play to extend the shelf life of the ancient UAD-2 tech for years to come.

And look, I’m not hating on UA, I’m sure this DAW will be good for those that want it. I’m just struggling to see any true innovative motivations behind it other than purely marketing and to double down on selling these ancient SHARCS and hoping no one notices... (ie whereas most DAWs are built with the motivation of doing something better, LUNA has been built to sell SHARCS). And I think it's fair game for this to be flagged up. For those who call those who question “the haters” – wise up! When we’re being sold something (and make no mistake, “free” or not) it’s dumb not to ask questions.

OMG!!!!!

Explains why I wasn't hitting this wall. I'm usually tracking through plugs with zero added latency or keeping it below 5ms (which works for me). Thanks for the link. Seeing the Tweed add almost 5ms itself is a bit eye opening.

You have some valid points.. But, by your own statements, you would add AVID/Pro Tools and their HDX DSP circ 2010 Tech to your statement. For about

Look, today, content creators want a solid "ecosystem" that works and is stable. Where you some others think we have all of the DAW solutions we'll ever need, others like me, think that there is room "at the table".

I place a post two weeks ago asking "Why hasn't Avid Baked in Console emulations into Pro Tools". That where I want to see a way forward for all DAW's.. Now, it seems that UAD is making an attempt as well as Presonus Studio One.

I welcome the competition ...

more bitching about something that is free.

remarkable.

starting to remember why i stopped coming to this board.

sure ain't what it used to be.

carry on.

i'm sure there are more things to complain about.

personally..i'm very interested in LUNA and find it to be exactly what i have been looking for.

i may actually be able to have my radar/console/outboard gear workflow on a laptop and a few apollos.

which will work great for me because i love recording bands remotely. setting up in old houses, warehouses, practice rooms, churches, etc.

LUNA gives me a way to do that natively without the investment in a protools hdx rig, and without carrying a ton of outboard gear and mic preamps with me.

2 apollo 8p's, a satellite, a laptop, some powered monitors and headphone cue system, a monitor, mouse, keyboard, case for cables and mics and stands...and i could probably fit the whole rig in my bmw x3.

being able to track with unison preamps, through plugins, with effects and multiple cue sends, all with low enough latency i can punch in and out of full band recordings...and be able to get a pretty solid mix going with bussing, parallel compression, fx, tape saturation, etc at the same time/

i'm in.

bring it on.

haters keep hating.

this thing sounds amazing to me.

How much less?

The VERY LAST thing I actually want and need, is another DAW. I really couldn't care less!

Using an UAD Octo card and a Quad satellite, I love their (really heavily priced!) plugin quality.
As a Windows10/Thunderbolt soundcard user, I have only two simple interests towards UAD
- that they FINALLY offer more powerful chips at fair current prices(!), to be able to make better use of their plugins.
- that they offer refined VAs and digital instruments besides effects for the plugins

Everything else, especially Luna, is lunatic nonsense to me, rasing exactly ZERO interest.
And I also doubt, that many existing DAW users would really want to consider Luna, not even for a moment. Too much hassle, MUCH too much investement (if Luna becomes a nonsense reason for more UAD hardware), MUCH too little essential gain in perspective for everyday use. A really whack marketing gag for a tiny minority of possible users.

So, Luna has a pedigree from former Digidesign/Avid Developers. Just like Presonus Studio One had a solid pedigree with former Steinberg developers. Nice!!

The near exclusive focus vis-a-vis ProTools is interesting. As a Logic user this whole thing has kind of been a side show for me, a blessing having spent the entire week in bed with my iPhone under a wicked case of the flu. The entertainment value has been a welcome distraction.

Beyond the obvious. The question that still begs is: why now? why UA? I still ask what was the "compelling need" for a company to embark on a strategic quest outside of it's core business. When we hear things the likes of "we approached all of the major DAW'S, none were interested so we built LUNA", it smacks of a "compelling" need from UA's vantage point, certainly not the market (which wasn't exactly crying out for it). The was a business decision not a "gift" to pro audio mankind. What drove UA to make this kind of investment now (clearly targeted at PT).?

As for free: not so free as you think. Nothing is free in life. Nothing. They'll be a cost in there somewhere, it's just not obvious yet. Does someone really think UA poured that kind of money and resources into this thing to give it away? Plenty off add-ons, lock-ins, exclusives on the way. All you have to do is stop thinking like musicians and more like hard-nosed business people.

Never been happier with Logic, my Apollos and Satellites. None of this was failing me yesterday, and LUNA introduction won't change that one bit. Maybe PT folks get all lathered up, maybe not. Will be fun to watch.

Cdlt

All this looks basically the same as what PreSonus did with their audio interfaces and Studio One. Nothing new here, folks.

can you track with unison plugin mic preamp emulations and other plugins live with very little latency and setup multiple cue mixes...live with very little latency and have live effects sends and bussing going with very little latency with the presonus interfaces and studio one ?

can you punch in a whole band recording with multiple inputs without complicated routing and switching keeping the cue mixes to the musicians with all the effects and plugin processing exactly the same ?

i think many people are missing exactly how this LUNA system is integrating the low latency paths of of the apollo system and console...directly with a recording medium.

most daws have some configuration for low latency input monitoring while tracking...but none can do what LUNA is apparently able to do.

the latency of an HDX or older TDM system is the only other way to do what LUNA is offering with the added benefit of being able to track THROUGH plugins on the way to disc while monitoring it all live with very little latency.

LunA Livestream.. Impressed!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tseCDSuwXPo

I’ve never met anyone who uses windows for music production. All artists and producerS I’ve ever met all use Mac OS. Just an observation. Maybe the newest generation is on Windows?

I’ve heard that hip hop producers use Windows—so that they can use FL studio. I primarily produce Pop, Rock and Country.

Yes, all this and much more. I just watched UA's live stream and I'm sorry to say but it seems like a rushed premiere. So many basic things are missing in Luna I'm wondering who is actually going to use it instead of their favorite DAW...

I get that. But following your own argument, namely that some (of the coolest) UAD plug-ins have a lot more latency than native AU, surely you can conclude that having a (free) system where this latency is much reduced, can be quite appealing to UA hardware users?

I didn’t mean to reduce your otherwise interesting arguments, but you can see i think the comparison with native is always flawed. As to the marketing hype of no latency, that is indeed misleading as even PT has latency. But then there are no no-latency DAWs, so everyone will have to decide of the latency of LUNA is too much for them or not. And also part of me believes now UA are building a direct signal path between DAW and hardware, latency improvements are probably on the horizon, too. Maybe they can hire some guys/gals from RME.

Exactly, but they have nothing to show for music producers/songwriters like what Studio One offers feature wise.

what daw and which interfaces are you using to do this ?

This may tell more about your musical biotope, than about the current global developments in music business...

When you say integrated multitrack tape are you talking about an external tape machine or builtin tape simulation?

Tape= tape sim
Neve Summing= console sim

This is a totally inappropriate statement. I've read your posts about latency and it sure seems like you know what you're talking about. It also seems like you have an unusually deep understanding of the issue on a level that no one else does.

To characterize Fab's statements as lies rather than misstatements or an incomplete understanding presumes a motivation to deceive people and you're simply not in a position to know that.

I think you should apologize in this thread for choosing to characterize any incorrect statements of a clearly complex issue as a lie rather than an error.

While Fab may be contracted by UA to do product demonstrations, as far as I know he's not an employee which may mean he's excluded from proprietary details.

He's also has very high standards for himself and I bet he'd take the time to understand your explanation if it was communicated without unnecessary presumptions of motivations.

It seems to me that the issue is "no latency" vs "no discernible latency" which is a fairly pedantic difference by most people's standards. I'm sure you consider "discernible" subjective, and you wouldn't be wrong about that, but it's grossly inappropriate to assassinate Fab's character over a detail that small in a context that the vast majority don't understand.

Maybe you don't care being in another country, but if you made these statements in the US and they affected his income, you'd be liable for those losses if you couldn't prove that he knew otherwise and chose to lie.


Having read your posts, I'm surprised UA isn't willing to buy back all of your gear. If you're this agitated, they should help you cut ties. The fact that you want to keep an Apollo is a little dubious. There are plenty of other interfaces you can use and not have to deal with UA's communication ever again.


You have a valid concern, but the way you go on about it in every single UA thread isn't constructive - even if it's crucially important information for all users to have.

Write out one clear explanation, and if you need to notify everyone everywhere, post a link to that. It's not only less rude, but you'll find it reaches more people and is far more effective. You'll come across far more professional and you won't be slandering people who are making their best efforts and possibly leaving a single word out.

I read somewhere that this is not using Core Audio.

Will it be possible to use UA's engine for routing tracks between DAWs digitally?

Currently Core Audio has a limit of 32 internal routing tracks, which is frustrating since I need only a few more for certain recurring transfers.

Wow, this is just not true. People do care about latency and notice minute differences and should be aware of the specs in comparison to the competition.

I'm a producer not a scientist and I feel the latency when stacking plugs in the Console. I run a multi-room facility and own and have experience with each of the main DSP systems.

0.7 through HDX with minimal plugs in PT is great.

Then try the 0.3ms latency directly in Logic through an Apogee Ensemble TB with DualPath. Now THAT is low latency. Feels amazing.

Whether it matters to you or not is one thing, but don't suggest that we should all be okay with blurry specs and lazy language.

That said, I'm a big UA fan and am really looking forward to checking out Luna.

Real World ... lets see how it performs under stressful situations ... is it Crash Proof !! nothing else is immune on a MAC ...

if you have tested it in real world how has it performed ???? honest Answer(s) Please !!!!

BTW the Tube Tech Comp MK2 is latency free (opposed to its MK1 counterpart).

I avoid any latency inducing plugins on vocalist headphone monitoring altogether, as my experiences are similar to yours.