Originally Posted by BorrelNote ➡️

Yep...like I said, we know where you comming from... Knowing what your understanding of 'shame' is by now I even feel honored to get the ASS clown award from you fuuck..

Go ahead and keep promoting Waves and URS and keep dissing UA... Now THAT's mature.. Yeah, I piss on guys like you pretending to know shit but actually talk from their behindes. You know shit about UA plugins and their ability to run native. Give us some facts if you do..but you can't so stop your whining..

Go fuuck yourself... clear enough for you ?

Originally Posted by Arksun ➡️

This thread concerns me a bit:

UAD Forums • View topic - EDIT: UAD-2 Quad Overloading my CPU

I hope that's just a software driver issue.

Originally Posted by TonyBelmont ➡️

That's the typical response I hear from people.....

I would love to see a session that maxes out a current generation Mac Pro with a few gigs of RAM.

I mix with 140-150 tracks of audio... with a couple HUNDRED fairly CPU intensive plugins going (like Waves SSL channel as an example or URS Strip Pro)... no sweat.

).

Originally Posted by DeBasement ➡️

I'll send you some of mine then... Okay, I'm "only" on a Quad core MacPro with 10 gigs of RAM, and I max it out almost daily just by running a combo of CPU hog plugins like Altiverb, MiniMonsta, Analog Factory, and Kontakt3, combined with a dozen tracks of live drums and then another dozen or so guitars, vocals and assorted noises.

I've got two UAD1 cards and they come in might handy for a) better sounding compression and EQ, and b) relieving the strain on my Mac (especially given Logic's sloppy handling of multiple cores).

I use the Waves

Originally Posted by Bhang ➡️

Hey guys. Where can I find the info on this moog filter. I'm very curious. I sit on the fence on this one. I like most here do not want any corners cut on ANYTHING for the uad-2. However, it does sound crazy for a single filter to eat this much juice. Just curious what this filter has that would make more of a system hog than the neve bus compressor. Is it me or does this sound backwards? As well, in regards to the comments about " I love when they use this much juice ... means they didn't cut corners". That or they have yet streamlined the code. I hear fantastic stuff about the neve plug ins, so I imagine no corners were cut there, yet they use less juice? Is this right? It just seems that it should be the other way around.

Originally Posted by ProducerBoy ➡️

Ok. So you are suggesting that the 1081 is UAD's finest EQ plug followed closely by the 1073 which tops the Helios? So then the 88rs doesn't come close to the UAD's other EQ plugs. Oh, and forget the Cambridge. That thing must be pretty ugly by comparison.

Originally Posted by TonyBelmont ➡️

Really? I have all of those except for Analog Factory and don't have any problems running lots of them... Are you sure it's a CPU issue, or is your hard drive crapping out?

I wonder if it's because I'm running Symphony on my Mac Pro that it's so powerful at low buffers?

Originally Posted by zboy2854 ➡️

There are also plenty of plugins and software that are cracked for Mac. Bottom line, if UAD went totally native, their stuff would be cracked one way or the other no doubt, and it would cannibalize the sales they've got going for them now.

Look, it's clear as day that UA sticks with the UAD card primarily for piracy reasons. In this day and age, NO DSP card can hang with the multi-core computers that are out there now. But so what? The way I see it, the fact that UAD cannot (or has not) been cracked is exactly the reason they were able to get partners to sign on board, such as Empirical Labs, SPL, Little Labs and Neve. Even those companies have said as much, since piracy was a huge fear for them getting into the plugin world, and rightly so.

So as far as I'm concerned, having the UAD be a glorified dongle is fine by me if it means that we can get more companies to license their products as plugins, who otherwise wouldn't because of piracy concerns.

Originally Posted by DeBasement ➡️

Definitely CPU horse power, according to the meters, and my experience. Most of those plugs, except for Kontakt, don't hit your hard drive all that hard, and I've got 4 SATA drives chugging along just fine. It's enough power to get me through just fine, but I wouldn't call the UAD1 "overkill". On my system, I'm fairly certain that if the UAD plugs were native, I'd be using less of them, not more.

Originally Posted by DeBasement ➡️

So arguing about it is about as sensible as debating the color of God's underwear, or any other inherently unknowable fact.

(Though I have heard reliable rumors that the answer is: Blue Boxers)

Originally Posted by Jamzone ➡️

So your songs are hits from the start now??

Would'nt have a PC anywhere near a studio....

Originally Posted by Farshad ➡️

So how come Waves have got SSL and API to approve their plugins WITHOUT any dongles involved?

Originally Posted by kreeper_6 ➡️

Talk about dongles, I think the MAC PRO is the most expensive dongle ever!

Originally Posted by kreeper_6 ➡️

Currently I have a NON-APPLE-MAC PC running the latest OSX Leopard build. They are called hackintoshes and it didn't cost me an arm and a leg and I CAN uprade the CPU at will. Apple has you guys by the balls, its so sad because the OS is much simpler than vista, but definatley not better. Talk about dongles, I think the MAC PRO is the most expensive dongle ever!

Originally Posted by clonewar ➡️

Man OS X must really suck for you to go out of your way to build a hackintosh to be able to run it..

BTW, there's a term for what you're doing: it's called pirating.. not looked at too favorably around here.

Originally Posted by kreeper_6 ➡️

Actually, I just wanted to see if I could do it with my latest PC build, and run Leopard before my friends with MACs did. Shoulda seen their faces! Why is it pirating when I bought OSX Leopard?