Originally Posted by FLYINGJAY ➡️

And its all true,so if defending UA makes you feel better fine.they received more than $3500.00 from me(that's more than any other software company,native instruments being close if not more.

I'm a uad fan boy!

But I'm already have native,you and UA WILL make me go all native!

As far as new customers as you stated,the platform is very expensive to get into these day.

UA can lose more old,than gain new.keep us happy first.

Do people discard something that has been proven to work?

Going on 3rd quarter!I'm running cubase 64 bit....screw that port!

Sent from my PC36100 using Gearslutz App

Originally Posted by mirrorboy ➡️

You cut and snipped my quote to the point where it makes no sense. What an odd thing to do.

Didn't someone else call you out on that a while back?

Anyways, it's no competition for your post, my friend. Now that TRULY makes no sense in any language on any planet.

In all seriousness, I haven't a clue what you're talking about or what point you're trying to make.

I also haven't a clue whether you're attacking or defending UA. Simply put, what the hell are you taking about?!?

It never looks good to belittle or attack one's opinion when you can't form even the most basic of sentences.

In reality, it comes off as foolish, inexperienced and immature.

Even if English is your second language, I'd still consider this completely alien to the language.

Or any language for that matter.

--

Would love some clarification.


Thx.

Scott

Originally Posted by scruffydog ➡️

It's official.....some if not all UAD users have gone mad...this ghostly affliction will be know in years to come by the classical latin name of 'reaccuring thirtytwobit itus'....

symptoms range from a simple self delusional rant about the plugins working perfectly in 64 bit..to the more severe state of making no sense on any subject to do with audio recording at all.

alas..for some...the end did not come soon enough and a long and painful bounce down in a 32 bit environment was the only release...

Originally Posted by FLYINGJAY ➡️

Your complaining about people complaints,period.

I didn't change what u wrote,I simple preserved the complaints you chose to mention 'in your post',which were perfectly valid,if a end user feel that way.

And yes someone has called me out on miss quoting them!

But it actually was not a miss quote,I actually stated that a GUI and mixing technique/workflow can change the out come of a mix!

Then he(the guy I quoted) admits to using a hardware desk protools controller.so I quoted him saying just that.

So the mods gave me a strike and band because they must feel,mouse strolling is just as good,as using a $10k protools controller with all kind of faders and short cuts?

That's doesn't change how I feel,nor does it change anything by pointing out what we already expressed or disliked.

Maybe that's why I was invited back!because it was not a miss quote!but thanks for remembering such a minute 6 month old detail about me hehe.I'm blushing!

I didn't miss quote you either...

We always got along bro,but I didn't miss quote you.

Sorry if you don't understand.

I actually text a lot will driving or doing other things.but you understand every word.

But maybe this will help,I'm.unhappy with the update.

I'm waiting for 64 bit.your not helping UA,by correct people,or by defending them.you've done it twice in this thread(and yes you didn't address me the 1st time).

Sorry we don't feel the same way about this release,and that's a good thing I hope?I respect how you feel,try to respect my opinions.

I hope they're reading so things can sway in the right direction.

Peace Scott.

Sent from my PC36100 using Gearslutz App

Originally Posted by polybonk ➡️

This Eq does not null with the Cambridge.

Also it does not null with the native version. Particularly with the low shelf cuts.

That said I prefer the native every time in blind a/b so far.

Originally Posted by OldTimey1 ➡️

I got it to null with digital performer's bundled MW EQ pretty easily...

Originally Posted by Herb ➡️

Is that nulling 100%?

I don't have digital performer so I can't try.

Originally Posted by polybonk ➡️

If its only phase cancelling to -70 -80 that is not enough. I still pick the differences in blind tests.
The Brainworks Eq is a classic example of this. The naive one sounds blurry on the micro transients compared to the UAD version. I pick UAD every time as better even when they are phase cancelling to this amount.

Originally Posted by polybonk ➡️

The naive sounds blurry on the micro transients compared to the UAD version.

Originally Posted by FoxMulderFBI ➡️

I love when people find the differences between UAD and Native only they can hear. I am gonna make me some popcorn and read through all this nonsense again, just for laughs.

Originally Posted by K-Slash ➡️

Well, maybe that's because this version is too innocent. That said you really must have some golden ears heh.

Originally Posted by polybonk ➡️

If its only phase cancelling to -70 -80 that is not enough. I still pick the differences in blind tests.
The Brainworks Eq is a classic example of this. The naive one sounds blurry on the micro transients compared to the UAD version. I pick UAD every time as better even when they are phase cancelling to this amount.

Originally Posted by FLYINGJAY ➡️

I actually text a lot will driving

Originally Posted by polybonk ➡️

Well all the "tiny little transient details are better" doesn't sound as good.

Don't even get me started on limiters that preserve the micro dynamics.

Regardless the sonox wont null with Cambridge etc.

The difference is bigger than high end converter shootouts with people that swear that one is horrid vile filth not fit for my dead grandmothers hearing aids and the other is like a heaven of silken perfection has descended upon us. I just want to point out the devils view in light of the relentless deluge of pointless complaints lamenting yet more bothersome freedom to choose.

Originally Posted by polybonk ➡️

Regardless the sonox wont null with Cambridge etc.

The difference is bigger than high end converter shootouts with people that swear that one is horrid vile filth not fit for my dead grandmothers hearing aids and the other is like a heaven of silken perfection has descended upon us. I just want to point out the devils view in light of the relentless deluge of pointless complaints lamenting yet more bothersome freedom to choose.

Originally Posted by polybonk ➡️

Nice catch on my Freudian slip.

Not golden ears. Its really easy to pick the difference. I am using a setup that is hand made and I had custom modified using the drivers out of the Focal grand utopia. Very big and very revealing.

And like I said. I pick the UAD every time in a blind test.

Originally Posted by polybonk ➡️

In my particularly heretical philosophical approach to all this, the point of testing an Eq (like the sonox vs Cambridge) for me is, not to see if I can find a way make it null. But if under real world working conditions of say a few boosts and cuts there are significant audible differences.

Now call me stupid to base approaching things like null testing and shootouts from such a radical place as I probably am biased towards practicality, given that its my job to be able to hear and choose gear settings on other peoples music and is something I do full time.

Under such unscientific conditions as null testing a low cut + a mid boost + a high shelf boost I get a phase cancellation of -27.1dB when matching the numbers and checking eq types between sonox/Cambridge. Its pretty easy to find settings on one that you cant null on the other. As far as i can see biggest practical difference is in graphical interface and that's about it.

Could I find a single setting that nulls to an inaudible amount on a given sample, probably.

The next thing I do is really silly and thoroughly unscientific.
I take no less than five reference tracks from my client folder and find useful settings for the given track and match them on both eqs. Then I sit with a button and a/b between the two with no way of telling what I am starting on and finishing on. This is done by turning off the screen. Then I see if I can pick one as better for the program material than the other! Crazy I know. If I can pick it every time, say 10 times in a row then, (and perhaps I am mistaken to assume this) I tend to think there is a difference worth paying attention to.

To me shootouts are about being able to distinguish differences, not look for sameness. Then to find if there is a practical use for those differences in my work flow. In this respect I find the sonox is not made redundant along side the Cambridge.

Originally Posted by polybonk ➡️

The next thing I do is really silly and thoroughly unscientific.
I take no less than five reference tracks from my client folder and find useful settings for the given track and match them on both eqs. Then I sit with a button and a/b between the two with no way of telling what I am starting on and finishing on. This is done by turning off the screen. Then I see if I can pick one as better for the program material than the other! Crazy I know. If I can pick it every time, say 10 times in a row then, (and perhaps I am mistaken to assume this) I tend to think there is a difference worth paying attention to.

Originally Posted by mpod ➡️

there is really no difference in any PRACTICAL mean when you compare sonnox vs Cambridge. They even sound same and they null (that's why i responded since you claimed that you can hear difference each and every time which seems impossible if two products are giving 99% same sonical and practical result).