|
|
Post by nick8801 on Oct 8, 2024 17:17:25 GMT -6
Yeah I think those chips are over. Just a matter of time till everything is native. Whatever the future holds for Apollo, I think it has to be something new. I’m glad they’ve finally stepped up the sound quality on paper although there was always something I couldn’t get past on my older silver and black models. I’d like to see them do something like the McDsp box, where there is some real hardware inside the unit that the native plugs hit for some real analog tone. Doubt that will happen, but it would be cool.
|
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Oct 8, 2024 17:17:53 GMT -6
If it ran on the DSP, I could sell my Axefx...maybe. Or not. It runs natively, you don’t need ua dsp ? |
|
|
|
Post by wiz on Oct 8, 2024 17:21:02 GMT -6
If it ran on the DSP, I could sell my Axefx...maybe. Or not. shut your mouth.....!!! 8) |
|
|
|
Post by wiz on Oct 8, 2024 17:23:04 GMT -6
I understand how console and Sonarworks work: think losing a sharc chip, instead of turning off one plug in: a high dsp price to pay. I run my luna sessions like this... everything goes to a MIX bus.... the output of the MIX bus goes to the MAIN BUS.... Sound ID goes on the MAIN BUS... when I bounce out the mix... I bounce out the mix bus, not the main bus... When I listen outside of LUNA I can enable Sound ID system wide..... cheers Wiz |
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Oct 8, 2024 17:24:43 GMT -6
Why run the guitar plugs on ua dsp, if you don’t need to? I understand Quint, you are pointing out UA’s inconsistency, which I am sympathetic to: exactly my point a few year’s back when it launched subscription. That shipped has obviously sailed. It really comes down to preferred workflow, if you track with UA plugs, you need apollo/dsp, if not, is there any other reason to buy apollo and pay an inflated price for its dsp. The superior latency is why you'd run those guitar plugins on DSP. But, yeah, the DSP is by far the biggest reason to buy an Apollo. Otherwise, why bother. Some people might say that native latency is fast enough for these purposes, but that's a separate discussion and, regardless of which side of the fence someone might sit in that debate, UA has historically always sat on the side of "DSP is better/faster". That's why it's so disingenuous now for UA to be talking out of one side of their mouth, seemingly going all in on native, while talking out of the other side of their mouth, continuing to say that DSP is the backbone. The lack of new DSP plugins in last two years, plus all of the new native-only plugins (many of which "should" have been on DSP, such as the new UAFX pedals plugins), plus the new weak sauce Apollo release, is kind of showing UA's cards. I spent a lot of money/time making the move to Mac, in order to use the low latency DSP workflow in Luna. On a related note, I also spent a lot of money on Apollos and plugins before and after this move. Hell, I've spent the last year working on creating a Stream Deck app (of sorts) to use with Luna, that I was going to share with people for free. That was all based on the idea that UA was serious about DSP. After today, I'm not so sure about UA's commitment to DSP anymore. UA is trying to have their cake and eat it too. They want to continue to milk the DSP crowd as much as they can, all while not actually really doing anything to back up the claims they keep making that DSP is still the backbone of the system. Actions speak louder than words. |
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Oct 8, 2024 18:03:00 GMT -6
I completely hear you Quint.
As you know, I bailed on apollo, my octo and all my uad2 plugs a few year’s back, very happy with Aurora N.
I never took to Luna, at the time , it still required apollo, but I get along fine in logic and have bought some uadx strictly on sale.
You have to do what’s right for you, but maybe the time has come to start experimenting with other daws and plugs and see?
|
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Oct 8, 2024 18:07:26 GMT -6
I completely hear you Quint. As you know, I bailed on apollo, my octo and all my uad2 plugs a few year’s back, very happy with Aurora N. I never took to Luna, at the time , it still required apollo, but I get along fine in logic and have bought some uadx strictly on sale. You have to do what’s right for you, but maybe the time has come to start experimenting with other daws and plugs and see? Yeah, I'm maybe kind of getting to that point.... At the very least, I likely won't be buying any more UA products. I've just about completely lost trust in them. |
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Oct 8, 2024 18:28:47 GMT -6
I know the feeling.
|
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Oct 9, 2024 9:47:15 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by andersmv on Oct 9, 2024 9:53:20 GMT -6
I need all the outputs on my x8p for the time being, but I'm looking forward to messing with the bass management settings sometimes soon (I just updated the Apollo Console App). I've been running a cheaper Kali sub with my Barefoot MM45's. The electronics in the Kali are kind of noisy and the crossover probably isn't great. Now I can just run an output to the sub separately and deal with all of that without running the Barefoots through the Kali. That will be nice...
|
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Oct 9, 2024 10:41:50 GMT -6
My take on this is that UA had to offer things to incentivize people to actually want to buy the new Apollos, as nothing else was really changing all that much between the existing 1st Gen X series Apollos and the new 2nd Gen X series Apollos. That's why all of this monitor management stuff wasn't released until now. It'll only work on the X series Apollos, and I doubt that's because of technical limitations. It's the same DSP it always was. So, when UA didn't want to actually spend the money or effort to release a new Apollo with upgraded DSP, they had to come up with something to try to get people to buy it. All they did was recycle the conversion that already existed in the x16, and slap it inside the rest of the Apollo line, and then add on the new Sonarworks integration with an artificial floor, preventing it from working on previous generations (Silver and Black) of Apollos. This is why the x16 Gen 2 is exactly the same as x16 Gen 1, other than a new faceplate. They didn't want to actually do any work. They just wanted to recycle what they could from the x16, and use it everywhere else. Upgrading the x16 would have required actual effort. |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Oct 9, 2024 17:44:54 GMT -6
If it ran on the DSP, I could sell my Axefx...maybe. Or not. shut your mouth.....!!! 8) I just spent about 10 minutes this morning with Ruby and Dream. They’re both excellent. Still prefer the Axefx. Plus - these don’t appeal to me quite as much with not being dsp for the latency. I just don’t understand why they wouldn’t do it. Other than it maybe stealing market share from the pedals if they actually didn’t have latency. |
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Oct 9, 2024 17:51:22 GMT -6
shut your mouth.....!!! 8) I just spent about 10 minutes this morning with Ruby and Dream. They’re both excellent. Still prefer the Axefx. Plus - these don’t appeal to me quite as much with not being dsp for the latency. I just don’t understand why they wouldn’t do it. Other than it maybe stealing market share from the pedals if they actually didn’t have latency. The Sharcs can't handle the UAFX plugins. The ARM processor in the pedals is the equivalent of four Sharcs, per UA. Apollos couldn't run the new UAFX plugins even if UA wanted you to be able to do so. But I don't think UA wants people to be able to do that anyway. So there's also that. This is why I took the new Apollo release as such a line in the sand. If UA was actually interested in giving customers, who use the DSP workflow, access to UA's latest and greatest plugins, and truly supporting DSP into the future, they would have released the new Apollos with upgraded ARM processors or some other equivalently powerful DSP. But they chose not to. I think there's a lot of writing on the wall to be read in that decision. |
|
|
|
Post by veggieryan on Oct 9, 2024 18:52:08 GMT -6
I spent about a half hour comparing the new UAFX amp plugin demos to my Amalgam captures in Tonex and it was not even close. Pretty sad for UAD honestly. Their DSP can't even run their new amp plugins which sound terrible compared to Tonex anyhow. It's a lose/lose situation.
It's like they don't have any real musicians testing their stuff or at least nobody honest enough to give real criticism? Or do they just lack the talent now?
I think its fascinating how Amalgam is just one guy with a vintage amp collection and his captures somehow completely smoke the stock Tonex captures and the UAFX amps...
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Oct 10, 2024 7:53:41 GMT -6
I spent about a half hour comparing the new UAFX amp plugin demos to my Amalgam captures in Tonex and it was not even close. Pretty sad for UAD honestly. Their DSP can't even run their new amp plugins which sound terrible compared to Tonex anyhow. It's a lose/lose situation. It's like they don't have any real musicians testing their stuff or at least nobody honest enough to give real criticism? Or do they just lack the talent now? I think its fascinating how Amalgam is just one guy with a vintage amp collection and his captures somehow completely smoke the stock Tonex captures and the UAFX amps... the uadfx amps sound like sheeny, digital plastic crap. Worse than overloud spark (use different irs), newer neuraldsp, later softube like the Lemmy murder one and flexible Engl savage II, the black rooster orange tiny terror, and fuse tweed. The Lemmy is the opposite of sheen; it’s just a Marshall super bass. Run it into a different ir than Lemmy or celestial shaper and instant orangey hazey Hendrix sound. The black rooster tiny terror is free too. Run it into an free it of a real cab and it’s way better than the uadfx. |
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Oct 10, 2024 8:59:00 GMT -6
I tried the plugin amp sim thing for a while. I just can't get on with them. My preference is a real amp first. Always will be. But if I've gotta go with a digital model, give me a standalone box with knobs. I can't stand mousing around a digital plugin amp.
As for the UAFX pedals. I've never tried one. Probably never will. For multiple reasons.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Oct 10, 2024 10:21:07 GMT -6
I tried the plugin amp sim thing for a while. I just can't get on with them. My preference is a real amp first. Always will be. But if I've gotta go with a digital model, give me a standalone box with knobs. I can't stand mousing around a digital plugin amp. As for the UAFX pedals. I've never tried one. Probably never will. For multiple reasons. Pedals showing up broken is some behringer bs |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Oct 10, 2024 14:55:05 GMT -6
Hmm. I thought the Dream and Ruby sounded pretty fabulous. I still prefer my AxeFX…but Ruby in particular does the thing…will take the paint off the walls. If you’ve ever played a 60s JMI, that’s what they sound like for sure. But yeah - I just don’t understand why you bother with the plugs if they don’t run on the dsp.
|
|
|
|
Post by bossanova on Oct 10, 2024 15:43:25 GMT -6
Hmm. I thought the Dream and Ruby sounded pretty fabulous. I still prefer my AxeFX…but Ruby in particular does the thing…will take the paint off the walls. If you’ve ever played a 60s JMI, that’s what they sound like for sure. But yeah - I just don’t understand why you bother with the plugs if they don’t run on the dsp. I’m guessing they’re banking on the UAD legacy for someone that doesn’t already have an ITB amp sim of their choice, or is GASsing for alternatives. It makes sense within the subscription where you’re not paying anything extra to have access to all the models vs someone shelling out for a perpetual VST of one of them. The marketing is already there with the comparison videos they made for the pedals. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Oct 10, 2024 19:22:15 GMT -6
Hmm. I thought the Dream and Ruby sounded pretty fabulous. I still prefer my AxeFX…but Ruby in particular does the thing…will take the paint off the walls. If you’ve ever played a 60s JMI, that’s what they sound like for sure. But yeah - I just don’t understand why you bother with the plugs if they don’t run on the dsp. i will have to check it out. i tried ruby and it was a bit wtf and lion was like... really sheeny cleaned up boring marshall tone. are they really better than what we already own in the mix? I own the Softube Marshall suite (good but the dirtiest here but perfectly fine tbh in a mix if you eq them), I've used the Mercurial Spark and Overloud (perfectly fine in a mix with a sheen and slight veil respectively), have the Lemmy Super Bass plug (awesome and you can get motorhead or something else with a diff ir and can be pushed harder than any plexi thing and sounds somewhere in between an orange and a marshall in a cool way) and I dig it a ton
150 bucks for an amp sim that will be 30 in a year is a hard sell.
|
|
|
|
Post by skav on Oct 11, 2024 1:14:29 GMT -6
Neural DSP is great for amp sims
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Oct 11, 2024 9:13:17 GMT -6
Neural DSP is great for amp sims and has 50% off sales and usually spices it up more than a standard 60s amp. 150 for an amp sim of a plexi is a hard sell when you can get the softube amp room bundles, th-u, or one of the updated neuraldsp suites. The softube Engl II is the best high gain sim I’ve found and can do a ton of clean and other tones through the various channels and buttons and goes on sale for 50. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Oct 11, 2024 9:31:00 GMT -6
Hmm. I thought the Dream and Ruby sounded pretty fabulous. I still prefer my AxeFX…but Ruby in particular does the thing…will take the paint off the walls. If you’ve ever played a 60s JMI, that’s what they sound like for sure. But yeah - I just don’t understand why you bother with the plugs if they don’t run on the dsp. Ruby normal channel with a fuzz in front of it is good. The brilliant does the thing. |
|
|
|
Post by Mister Chase on Oct 11, 2024 10:42:44 GMT -6
My x8p is fine for my mobile rig. However I have been disappointed with how little of their own plugins I can run on the unit while tracking. I like to print through them. A Neve channel strip and Studer on each channel seems like a modest ask for me and isn't really possible in practice. To me that is kind of the whole point. Not enough DSP to handle it. Super lame. Still just a Hexa core in this new one? I would have at least tried to get more in there so that you could show people you can have a 1073, Tape and compressors on each channel plus reverb monitoring for this "analog sound" they are selling. Also "Built for the stars, ready for your studio" - Lines like that are so  I hate to sound so critical, but... it's modern UA so... |
|
|
|
Post by veggieryan on Oct 11, 2024 11:30:26 GMT -6
Exactly it's borderline false advertising. The console is so frustrating to use with its limited routing AND you can't even run the plugins you want on a single channel anyhow.
Now that Mixwave is light years ahead of anything UAD is doing its just silly.
UAD have thrown in the towel on DSP not only because their platform is hopelessly anemic but also because they lack the talent or leadership to produce quality plugins even with 4x the DSP power as seen in the UADFX amp pedals.
The UADFX amps make it clear to my ears.
The spin is "well I guess we should do a monitor controller with room correction now because we have to do something with this DSP"
BTW: You can download the free version of Tonex and then download 20 of the free versions of Amalgam captures from tone net and you have tone and feel that no modeler plugin can even remotely get close to. It's absurd that this is FREE.
just search "amalgam" once you login to tone.net in the tonex section....
|
|
