Hello fellow recording head cases (but only if this applies to you, it sure does to me!). You may have read my diatribes about digital stuff in other parts of the forum. Of course, I actually use digital stuff even though I mostly prefer the analog versions. I have two reasons for this: 1. Time; and 2. Money. Time is the main factor because clients need to have fast turnarounds on ad sessions, and I can recall a session fully if it's in the box. Money, because for reasons relating to #1, I sold my racks full of analog gear, tape machines, and analog console about 8 years ago, lost my rear end, and I am not re-buying that stuff.
So, except for guitar amps, basses, vocals, some synths, mic preamps, compressors, speakers and acoustic instruments, I'm in the box now. This means I rely a lot on plugins. And for a guy who really prefers the sound of analog gear, plugins have been hit-or-miss for me. Mostly miss. Though I've held my nose and used them.
About a year and a half ago, my old computer audio interface died, and it was time to upgrade to newer stuff anyway. I decided to go with a Thunderbolt Universal Audio Apollo. This turned out to be a good move. Not only does the unit sound very, very good, but even the mic preamps sound good, and the plus is that they can both electronically and in combination with a plugin, model various classic mic preamps. How well they do this is actually surprising, since I've used all the preamps they model.
The thing has a UAD-2 card built in. I made the error of buying the dual instead of the quad version. I told my salesperson, "I already have a bazillion plugins, I'm probably never going to need the UAD plugins." That was a truly dumb move, as I'll describe below when I get to the meat of this article. I monitor via Event Opals, with built in amps having about 750 Watts of very clean power. They're very accurate speakers and they don't distort at anywhere near reasonable playback levels. And I use a variety of headphones. In any case, you now understand my rig.
Over the years, I've used lots of signal processing plugins, starting in the early days of Waves, and moving right along with many, many plugin makers. My main complaint about plugins is that so many of them have the right frequency balance, and the right general sonic character, and would probably measure well on a 'scope, but they sound like cardboard -- in other words, they sound very two-dimensional when compared to running the signal through the actual hardware. If you've used the hardware and certain plugins that copy the hardware, it's not all that difficult to hear.
Can they still be useful? Certainly. And I've used them since the late 90s. But with reservations.
So back to the UAD-2 platform for a moment...over the past year and a half I've made an investment in UAD-2 plugins. Many of their plugins have replaced similar plugins from other makers. As an example, my UAD-2 plugs replaced my Softube, URS and Waves versions of certain emulations; in direct comparisons they were much more 3D and I liked the signal better through them than through other plugs.
But the question comes up - it's not a one-for-one comparison. Using the very same plugin, would the UAD version sound different/better than, say, the native version of the very same thing? I am now in a position to say, "Yes, at least on my system."
A company called Brainworx makes a few plugs that are identical for both native systems and UAD systems. I have all of the Brainworx plugs, a while back I bought the full "everything" set. And they are very good sounding, and very useful plugins. Some of them do things nothing else does, and they're brilliant. But how do they stack up to the identical UAD-2 plugins?
I decided to concentrate on the ELysia mPressor and Alpha Compressors to start this comparison. Not only are the UAD versions of the plugins identical in appearance, they share the same presets. I ran both plugins on live electric and acoustic instruments, high end samples, and both analog and plugin synths. I used my DAW of choice, Logic Pro.
I chose the Elysia processors because I use the Brainworx native versions of both and rely on them. So I simply loaded the native plugins along with the UAD plugs on the same channel, and went back and forth comparing them, first, preset by preset, and then, playing with the controls myself. I also very carefully noted the levels, because obviously louder sounds better to the ear. I made sure levels were identical.
I can report that in every instance, the UAD-2 version of these two processors sounded more three dimensional and natural to my ear. The native stuff was also very good, but not quite as natural sounding, a little harsher. The particular settings didn't matter, I preferred the UAD versions at every setting.
This was NOT what I wanted to see happen, by the way. Because I wound up buying the UAD versions when I already freaking HAD the native versions. But you see, I'm a perfectionist, and if I can audibly improve something, well, I'm going to do it.
Next I tried the native version of the Vertigo VSC-2, a wonderful hardware compressor out of Germany that's just so expensive as hardware it's almost crazy and of course I'd love one please. However, the plugs...here the native version almost stacked up to the UAD-2 version, but in the end, similar differences crept in. The native version doesn't have the same sound quality. I tried also the Maag EQ. Same thing.
At this point I stopped. I decided that I really don't want to buy that much software in a short time! And now I need another UAD box to handle all the plugins at once, so there's even more money down the audio toilet!
I can't explain why Digital A native is different from Digital A UAD-2 when it's made by the same company. Don't shoot the messenger 'cause I dunno. I can't explain it.
What I can say is this: The UAD platform sounds a little different from native. The UAD plugins are more expensive, and they're probably worth the extra dough. If you have a UAD system, it's probably worth investing in the UAD plugins you think you'll use often. The ones that you probably wouldn't use much, you're OK with some native plugins.
As for me...well...I'll gradually transition to more and more stuff on the UAD platform. That's today's report! :dontknow:
So, except for guitar amps, basses, vocals, some synths, mic preamps, compressors, speakers and acoustic instruments, I'm in the box now. This means I rely a lot on plugins. And for a guy who really prefers the sound of analog gear, plugins have been hit-or-miss for me. Mostly miss. Though I've held my nose and used them.
About a year and a half ago, my old computer audio interface died, and it was time to upgrade to newer stuff anyway. I decided to go with a Thunderbolt Universal Audio Apollo. This turned out to be a good move. Not only does the unit sound very, very good, but even the mic preamps sound good, and the plus is that they can both electronically and in combination with a plugin, model various classic mic preamps. How well they do this is actually surprising, since I've used all the preamps they model.
The thing has a UAD-2 card built in. I made the error of buying the dual instead of the quad version. I told my salesperson, "I already have a bazillion plugins, I'm probably never going to need the UAD plugins." That was a truly dumb move, as I'll describe below when I get to the meat of this article. I monitor via Event Opals, with built in amps having about 750 Watts of very clean power. They're very accurate speakers and they don't distort at anywhere near reasonable playback levels. And I use a variety of headphones. In any case, you now understand my rig.
Over the years, I've used lots of signal processing plugins, starting in the early days of Waves, and moving right along with many, many plugin makers. My main complaint about plugins is that so many of them have the right frequency balance, and the right general sonic character, and would probably measure well on a 'scope, but they sound like cardboard -- in other words, they sound very two-dimensional when compared to running the signal through the actual hardware. If you've used the hardware and certain plugins that copy the hardware, it's not all that difficult to hear.
Can they still be useful? Certainly. And I've used them since the late 90s. But with reservations.
So back to the UAD-2 platform for a moment...over the past year and a half I've made an investment in UAD-2 plugins. Many of their plugins have replaced similar plugins from other makers. As an example, my UAD-2 plugs replaced my Softube, URS and Waves versions of certain emulations; in direct comparisons they were much more 3D and I liked the signal better through them than through other plugs.
But the question comes up - it's not a one-for-one comparison. Using the very same plugin, would the UAD version sound different/better than, say, the native version of the very same thing? I am now in a position to say, "Yes, at least on my system."
A company called Brainworx makes a few plugs that are identical for both native systems and UAD systems. I have all of the Brainworx plugs, a while back I bought the full "everything" set. And they are very good sounding, and very useful plugins. Some of them do things nothing else does, and they're brilliant. But how do they stack up to the identical UAD-2 plugins?
I decided to concentrate on the ELysia mPressor and Alpha Compressors to start this comparison. Not only are the UAD versions of the plugins identical in appearance, they share the same presets. I ran both plugins on live electric and acoustic instruments, high end samples, and both analog and plugin synths. I used my DAW of choice, Logic Pro.
I chose the Elysia processors because I use the Brainworx native versions of both and rely on them. So I simply loaded the native plugins along with the UAD plugs on the same channel, and went back and forth comparing them, first, preset by preset, and then, playing with the controls myself. I also very carefully noted the levels, because obviously louder sounds better to the ear. I made sure levels were identical.
I can report that in every instance, the UAD-2 version of these two processors sounded more three dimensional and natural to my ear. The native stuff was also very good, but not quite as natural sounding, a little harsher. The particular settings didn't matter, I preferred the UAD versions at every setting.
This was NOT what I wanted to see happen, by the way. Because I wound up buying the UAD versions when I already freaking HAD the native versions. But you see, I'm a perfectionist, and if I can audibly improve something, well, I'm going to do it.
Next I tried the native version of the Vertigo VSC-2, a wonderful hardware compressor out of Germany that's just so expensive as hardware it's almost crazy and of course I'd love one please. However, the plugs...here the native version almost stacked up to the UAD-2 version, but in the end, similar differences crept in. The native version doesn't have the same sound quality. I tried also the Maag EQ. Same thing.
At this point I stopped. I decided that I really don't want to buy that much software in a short time! And now I need another UAD box to handle all the plugins at once, so there's even more money down the audio toilet!
I can't explain why Digital A native is different from Digital A UAD-2 when it's made by the same company. Don't shoot the messenger 'cause I dunno. I can't explain it.
What I can say is this: The UAD platform sounds a little different from native. The UAD plugins are more expensive, and they're probably worth the extra dough. If you have a UAD system, it's probably worth investing in the UAD plugins you think you'll use often. The ones that you probably wouldn't use much, you're OK with some native plugins.
As for me...well...I'll gradually transition to more and more stuff on the UAD platform. That's today's report! :dontknow:
