kats wrote on Wed, 01 December 2010 18:15 |
Another example of selling lies and fantasy - the pro audio standard practice these days. |
J.J. Blair wrote on Wed, 01 December 2010 18:44 |
As far as native goes, I have a hard time believing that 20 instances in native wouldn't tax your processors. |
J.J. Blair wrote on Wed, 01 December 2010 20:44 | ||
I don't think anybody with any real experience expects any plug-in to sound "just like the real thing." And no marketing department would be doing their job if they didn't sell it as being "just like the real thing." The thing for me is that UAD plug-ins consistently please my ears more than just about every other manufacturer, and for the most part give me the flavor of their real life counterparts to the extent that my ITB mixes are pretty goddamn close to analog mixes. As far as native goes, I have a hard time believing that 20 instances in native wouldn't tax your processors. |
kats wrote on Wed, 01 December 2010 19:59 |
I have a hard time understanding how this plug in will model the sound of music that has not been converted... ITB |
Les Ismore wrote on Wed, 01 December 2010 22:08 | ||
I know what you mean, however I was reading a thread somewhere where Paul Frindle was answering a question about this very thing. He stated that if you could hear a sound on a finished digital master, you could authenticly model it in a simulation. So that means that if it can be recorded through converters and heard on a cd, you can simulate it. Of course the conversion has artifacts, but the character of something like tape can be simulated theoretically to the degree that you can notice it on any digital recording. I found that very interesting as a way of thinking about it. |
Quote: |
[Mr. Katz, It is an honor to have you here with us. I have so much respect for your work. For those of you who don't know who you've been follishly arguing with, take a gander... Bob Katz - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia With that said, no disrespect intended, I want the plug-in so bad it's not even funny. For my personal setup, it will save time and I honestly feel it will affect my recordings positively. It may not be tape, but if I could buy any 1 hardware unit for $350 to do what this unit claims and have it integrrate with my itb setup at home, I'd be all over it as well. This plug-in is a dream come true. I hated when I left Nuendo 3.2 and upgraded to Cubase 5. I lost Magneto which was an integral tool I used to maximize signals, provide a bit of 'modeled' saturation and 'girth' to my mixes. I feel it did that well. Since then, I've been using the Fatso, but it doesn't do the same thing. I'm very excited about this plug-in my friends. |
arconaut wrote on Thu, 02 December 2010 17:12 |
Well, maybe somebody should cut to the chase and do an op-amp simulator plug-in. Here's your 2520, your 5532. Get that classic 741 sound. |
Quote: |
Ok it's not exactly the same and it will never be...but it comes so close that it becomes more and more useful and cheaper to use that kind of product.... |
Quote: |
The best thing about it is you can hear it working while you're doing overdubs, something the originals did not allow. And the real thing cost $250,000 isn't made anymore and the spare parts have been destroyed. |
MDM, wrote on Thu, 02 December 2010 09:19 |
All this plug-in stuff just makes me want to use better microphones and pres, personally. |
scott_s wrote on Thu, 02 December 2010 13:31 |
...for this kind of thing the URS Saturation plug is working for me. |
scott_s wrote on Thu, 02 December 2010 10:31 |
The with and without clips on the vid are not remotely volume matched, that is suspicious to me. Another UAD 1 owner here, so no demo for me (and NO SOUP FOR YOU !! ... LOL) I like the UAD plugs I have, but for this kind of thing the URS Saturation plug is working for me. |
compasspnt wrote on Wed, 01 December 2010 20:12 |
As cross-posted in Brad's Forum: This is now getting out of control... "The Warm Analog Sound of the World’s Most Popular Multichannel Tape Machine..." The warm analogue sound of the IC chip? I thought they were killing music, what? (Not to put down UA, for plugs, they do pretty good work.) |
Former Oceanway drone wrote on Thu, 02 December 2010 16:53 |
Cheers, Alan Tomlinson P.S. I don't miss tape ever. Anyone who does, wasn't there. |
Former Oceanway drone wrote on Thu, 02 December 2010 17:53 |
Yuck. Look. Studer's were, in my experience, very reliable machines. Sonically, they were okay. Multitrack machines were, and are still I assume, a pain in the ass. Studer's were relatively reliable and that made them very popular. But I thought they sounded okay, at best. An MCI, hardly a favorite(even on a good day), could and often did record nicer sounding tracks than a Studer on its best day. An Ampex, skillfully aligned, and with a quality batch of whatever was good that week, could sound great. But a Studer, no. Not in my, relatively limited experience. All that said, what a stupid f*cking concept. I suppose ignorance and gullibility play a big role in selling such bongwater. Cheers, Alan Tomlinson P.S. I don't miss tape ever. Anyone who does, wasn't there. |
Former Oceanway drone wrote on Thu, 02 December 2010 22:53 |
Yuck. Look. Studer's were, in my experience, very reliable machines. Sonically, they were okay. |
Fenris Wulf wrote on Fri, 03 December 2010 00:56 |
Yeah, but Universal Audio did a GREAT job of modeling the transport!!! |
Podgorny wrote on Thu, 02 December 2010 23:22 |
I've got to admit, ridiculousness aside, I LIKED what it did to the drum sound in the demo. Does this mean I think it's going to make Pro Tools sound exactly like a tape machine? No. I'm sure there are people who will buy the hype, but for me, if it makes a neat sound, I'm interested regardless of how they try to market it. |
Silvertone wrote on Fri, 03 December 2010 15:09 |
...Maybe someday digital will be able to give us all the flaws that made analog sound so good when done right... maybe. |
MDM, wrote on Fri, 03 December 2010 08:53 | ||
?? flaws sound good? flaws don't help reproduce sound in a 3D manner as far as I can tell. I'm hoping that someone makes a solid DSD-system which will outperform tape from the point of view of perceived space and feel.. until then tape is still the reference for me.. and those ampex machines had a nice design. |
rollmottle wrote on Fri, 03 December 2010 22:30 |
For the detractors...or anybody really. I'm curious what outcome or applications of these leaps in recording technology you would rather see? The advancement of the state of the art is an interesting topic both from a pure technology perspective and a creative one. These digital modeling technologies and the people who think about them are impressive and intriguing and exciting to me. These are tools for making sound just like any other. It's surprising how negative some of you react. The Bricasti reverb is state of the art digital modeling just like the UAD plug. Nobody said the sky was falling when that came out. I see no difference here. Set aside the emotional reaction to the marketing for a second and all we have is new recording technology...and that is never a bad thing for me. |
Gio wrote on Fri, 03 December 2010 22:40 |
Food done in a microwave will never rival in taste or consistency, the dish it's trying to mimic. |
rollmottle wrote on Fri, 03 December 2010 21:30 |
For the detractors...or anybody really. I'm curious what outcome or applications of these leaps in recording technology you would rather see? The advancement of the state of the art is an interesting topic both from a pure technology perspective and a creative one. These digital modeling technologies and the people who think about them are impressive and intriguing and exciting to me. |
Les Ismore wrote on Thu, 02 December 2010 20:51 |
I miss the sound character of tape, but not the effort involved to keep it running right. I also miss the fact that when you worked on tape you didn't have endless choices to make in the future that you do with computers. |
RMoore wrote on Sat, 04 December 2010 05:07 |
Why a Studer plugin though & why not one of the analogue 'sound machines' like MM1200, Stephens, et al? |
arconaut wrote on Wed, 01 December 2010 20:13 |
Somebody's going to post this, might as well be me: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gszni4TOATo&feature=playe r_embedded Hey Chuck! |
RMoore wrote on Fri, 03 December 2010 23:07 |
Why a Studer plugin though & why not one of the analogue 'sound machines' like MM1200, Stephens, et al? Then I'd be tempted. Maybe this is a taste of things to come. |
kats wrote on Fri, 03 December 2010 21:04 | ||
I wish for advancements! But I don't call a second rate modeling/emulation of anything an advancement... |
kats wrote on Sat, 04 December 2010 00:04 | ||
I wish for advancements! But I don't call a second rate modeling/emulation of anything an advancement... |
Podgorny wrote on Fri, 03 December 2010 23:51 | ||
This is gross oversimplification. And wrong. I wish people would stop trying to make analogies relating audio to food or cars. |
Gio wrote on Sat, 04 December 2010 14:31 |
Then why don't 5 star restaurants load their kitchens with microwaves? |
zmix wrote on Sat, 04 December 2010 09:52 | ||
Hey.. ! A team from Universal Audio came by my mix room that day and asked me a variety of questions. Funny what they chose to use... I specifically recall stating that the best thing about the A800 was the precise mechanical alignment of the transport and the powerful reel motors... I wonder if they modeled those? We'll find out if it pops a motor driver transistor and spools tape all over the inside of somebody's computer!! |
Former Oceanway drone wrote on Thu, 02 December 2010 14:53 |
Yuck. Look. Studer's were, in my experience, very reliable machines. Sonically, they were okay. Multitrack machines were, and are still I assume, a pain in the ass. Studer's were relatively reliable and that made them very popular. But I thought they sounded okay, at best. An MCI, hardly a favorite(even on a good day), could and often did record nicer sounding tracks than a Studer on its best day. An Ampex, skillfully aligned, and with a quality batch of whatever was good that week, could sound great. But a Studer, no. Not in my, relatively limited experience. All that said, what a stupid f*cking concept. I suppose ignorance and gullibility play a big role in selling such bongwater. Cheers, Alan Tomlinson P.S. I don't miss tape ever. Anyone who does, wasn't there. |
Former Oceanway drone wrote on Thu, 02 December 2010 23:53 |
Yuck. Look. Studer's were, in my experience, very reliable machines. Sonically, they were okay. Multitrack machines were, and are still I assume, a pain in the ass. Studer's were relatively reliable and that made them very popular. But I thought they sounded okay, at best. An MCI, hardly a favorite(even on a good day), could and often did record nicer sounding tracks than a Studer on its best day. An Ampex, skillfully aligned, and with a quality batch of whatever was good that week, could sound great. But a Studer, no. Not in my, relatively limited experience. All that said, what a stupid f*cking concept. I suppose ignorance and gullibility play a big role in selling such bongwater. Cheers, Alan Tomlinson P.S. I don't miss tape ever. Anyone who does, wasn't there. |
DSills wrote on Sat, 04 December 2010 11:43 |
Around the same time (NAMM 09?) they first announced the partner deal with Studer, they also announced one with Ampex - for emulations of machines and tape. Yet, with the Studer A800 plug, they don't refer to the 456 formulation setting as Ampex |
Podgorny wrote on Fri, 03 December 2010 20:51 | ||
This is gross oversimplification. And wrong. I wish people would stop trying to make analogies relating audio to food or cars. |
zmix wrote on Sat, 04 December 2010 11:52 | ||
Hey.. ! A team from Universal Audio came by my mix room that day and asked me a variety of questions. Funny what they chose to use... I specifically recall stating that the best thing about the A800 was the precise mechanical alignment of the transport and the powerful reel motors... I wonder if they modeled those? We'll find out if it pops a motor driver transistor and spools tape all over the inside of somebody's computer!! |
arconaut wrote on Sun, 05 December 2010 15:01 |
Knowing that no generalization is true, do you think there is a bit of a dividing line between those who used analog equipment and those who only ever used DAWs? I have no issue with the concept of this plug-in, once I dispense with the notion that "it is a Studer A800." But for somebody who never used a Studer, obviously this is the key marketing angle. |
kats wrote on Sat, 04 December 2010 20:49 | ||||
Hey Chuck, did you tell them is sounds pretty close to an A800 for a plug in? |
arconaut wrote on Sun, 05 December 2010 09:01 |
Knowing that no generalization is true, do you think there is a bit of a dividing line between those who used analog equipment and those who only ever used DAWs? |
thechrisl wrote on Mon, 06 December 2010 13:59 |
Guess I'm trying to understand the beef with this. . |
kats wrote on Mon, 06 December 2010 21:10 |
A hit production isn't reliant on a freaking Studer, so somehow I don't think this plugin is going to save anyone's ass either. |
svs95 wrote on Mon, 06 December 2010 20:43 |
but we don't want to destroy their enthusiasm, |
svs95 wrote on Tue, 07 December 2010 01:19 |
If you've got a (Studer) A-800, and somebody comes to you with a digital project they want bounced out to analog and mixed, would you turn them down? |
wwittman wrote on Mon, 06 December 2010 15:34 |
Adding brush stroke filters to the dot matrix copy of the Mona Lisa... |
wwittman wrote on Tue, 07 December 2010 01:40 |
"no, I can only use plug ins here and this compressor sounds better |
wwittman wrote on Tue, 07 December 2010 02:40 |
I HAVE had singers say to me "can't you use a fairchild on my voice" when I have another itb plug in compressor on. And I HAVE said z "no, I can only use plug ins here and this compressor sounds better than the one with the PICTURE of the fairchild, which sounds nothing like a fairchild" Are we discussing recording to analogue? Or just PRETENDING. |
MI wrote on Tue, 07 December 2010 17:50 | ||
Bingo!! Since the "Monitor(s)" is now a Mac screens instead of JBL's everyone is listening with their eyes and trying to dial in visually instead of sonically. But that's no surprise since most people are listening in their bedroom... Seems like if you used something that looks cool, it must do the job correctly. I had someone say to me a while ago "yea I'm gonna master my next album because I paid 600$ for my last mastering and all the guy did was use a few plugins I saw, so I've got the presets in my DAW and I'm gonna do the same." It was a total facepalm moment...I was speechless. MI |
MI wrote on Tue, 07 December 2010 17:50 |
Since the "Monitor(s)" is now a Mac screens instead of JBL's everyone is listening with their eyes and trying to dial in visually instead of sonically. |
wwittman wrote on Tue, 07 December 2010 08:44 |
I find some benefit in recording to analogue even if it is to be transferred to digital; but it's not as good as remaining analogue- sonically |
Jean Taxis wrote on Tue, 07 December 2010 12:52 |
I have a feeling... |
wwittman wrote on Mon, 06 December 2010 23:44 |
Oh. And fwiw I find ZERO benefit in transferring from digital multi to analogue What's lost has already been lost I find some benefit in recording to analogue even if it is to be transferred to digital; but it's not as good as remaining analogue- sonically It's just a question of the needs of the project. |
svs95 wrote on Wed, 08 December 2010 04:00 |
I agree with whoever said it's kind of sad that a reproducing machine that was a technological and manufacturing marvel, an absolute paradigm of analog's potential, would such a short time later be considered an audio effects device (and emulated as such). |
Fenris Wulf wrote on Tue, 07 December 2010 21:39 |
In MY world, it's DAW's that are obsolete. As I acquire more analog equipment, I need the DAW less and less. Eventually I won't need it at all.. |
Jay Kadis wrote on Wed, 08 December 2010 18:56 | ||
|
zmix wrote on Sun, 05 December 2010 15:20 | ||||||
You may have noticed that the video was released on the very same day as the plugin. Only during the interview (a month earlier), did they tell me they were modeling the A800 and then proceeded to ask me questions about the Studer A800. I don't use plugins much, you'll see some of my outboard in the video and understand why.... |
Yammer wrote on Wed, 08 December 2010 18:50 | ||||||||
Q: What do mopeds, fat chicks and plugins have in common? A: All fun to ride until a friend sees you! |
MI wrote on Tue, 07 December 2010 08:50 |
Since the "Monitor(s)" is now a Mac screens instead of JBL's everyone is listening with their eyes and trying to dial in visually instead of sonically. |
svs95 wrote on Wed, 08 December 2010 18:41 |
I'm glad there are people like George Massenburg and the UA guys, and Ulrich over at Algorithmix and many others, devoted to seeing that as much as possible of the quality we old-timers remember will be available to future generations, who won't have access to things like analog tape, vacuum tubes, etc. |
Fenris Wulf wrote on Thu, 09 December 2010 07:37 | ||
They're marketing to people who have never heard the real thing, |
svs95 wrote on Thu, 09 December 2010 07:44 |
But don't give me this "my daddy's bigger than your daddy" three-year-old horsesh-t in a place like PSW that's supposed to be for grown-ups. 'Nuff said. |
thechrisl wrote on Thu, 09 December 2010 08:19 |
Just thought I'd share this post from another conversation over at KVR. It's in response to why the UAD plug "farts out" when overdriven as opposed to a different product which doesn't. Some great points IMO, similar to comments made here: I don't quite know what is the point of a tape library sampled in excruciating detail that doesn't budge into a complete fart-out. It would seem to me a such thing does not capture the essence of tape, but something else around it. UAD seems to have succeeded better. But I also understand why they decided to model A800 first. Of the popular modern tape machines it has very few parasitic effects and as such it was the "easy" target. It probably saved a tremendous amount of work needed for modeling. It's damn close to really good modern digital recorders and you don't really hear it on a record. If you do, the engineer didn't do his job correctly. He was supposed to just skim near the surface, not puncture it and ruin the take. To be honest, things would have been much more exciting if they had modeled a Studer B67, or something even older, slower and much worse. That one is insta-mash with turkey and gravy like your grandma used to make. |
Quote: |
How to saturate / overdrive the A800 plug-in The Studer A800 was one of the "cleanest," best-engineered tape machines ever built. A properly calibrated A800 machine would exhibit no discernable tape wow or flutter, for example. But as engineers in the 80s and 90s found out, by over-biasing, you can deliberately saturate the A800 — and get a smooth, pleasing overdriven tape sound. On the plug-in, click the Studer badge to expose the secondary controls. Turn the Bias control clockwise, then adjust Input and Output knobs to suit your taste and the program material. If things start to sound too dark, the HF Record EQ control can be used to bring back some high-end. But go gentle; this filter is potent. Keep in mind you are now running the machine "un-calibrated," but this can be the road to some seriously non-linear tones... |
svs95 wrote on Thu, 09 December 2010 09:44 |
It's not even a matter of "good enough," Jay - that sounds like "settling." With all due respect, and appreciation, if we choose wisely, they're flat-out excellent [plug ins!] We don't have to make compromises any more in order to have an all-digital workflow. |
wwittman wrote on Sat, 04 December 2010 19:23 |
I not only miss tape when I don't use it, but also still often use it. But then I may be unusual. I care about the sound |
Fig wrote on Thu, 09 December 2010 16:20 |
The tape invites the listener in - revealing nuance one can almost touch, the digital is merely a postcard photo of the real place. |
Dominick wrote on Thu, 09 December 2010 13:21 |
http://tascam.com/product/portastudio/ |
jwhynot wrote on Fri, 10 December 2010 08:30 |
I think the objection was to the hype. I didn't object to anything except being lectured to by a troll. Because, you see, most of the informative posts in here are brief, to the point, and contain no ad hominem attacks. Those of us who confab here regularly can usually govern themselves quite well. And those of us who have made a living at this for decades are allergic to pointless hype. I'm willing to accept the balance that results. Meanwhile, those who wish to gripe about griping are welcome to pick out curtains. JW |
jwhynot wrote on Fri, 10 December 2010 10:30 |
I think the objection was to the hype. JW |
J.J. Blair wrote on Fri, 10 December 2010 12:45 |
Tony, I think you are being overly critical. How would any of their plugs sell without association of the thing they are emulating? |
J.J. Blair wrote on Fri, 10 December 2010 13:45 |
Tony, I think you are being overly critical. How would any of their plugs sell without association of the thing they are emulating? |
jwhynot wrote on Fri, 10 December 2010 10:30 |
I didn't object to anything except being lectured to by a troll. |
jwhynot wrote on Fri, 10 December 2010 10:30 |
Those of us who confab here regularly |
jwhynot wrote on Fri, 10 December 2010 10:30 |
And those of us who have made a living at this for decades... |
jwhynot wrote on Fri, 10 December 2010 10:30 |
those who wish to gripe about griping |
svs95 wrote on Fri, 10 December 2010 15:22. |
I'm griping about people dissing other members and their equipment and methods. Feel free to gripe all you like about the rest. svs95 |
kats wrote on Fri, 10 December 2010 13:53 |
How can you ever make a comment about any tool one way or the other if people would feel disrespected because they use that piece of equipment. |
kats wrote on Fri, 10 December 2010 15:53 | ||
Well that's the tough thing. How can you ever make a comment about any tool one way or the other if people would feel disrespected because they use that piece of equipment. I think we should take it for granted that no one is trying to disrespect anyone in these types of conversations because we all believe it is the talent of the engineer that counts, not how deep one's pockets are. |
wwittman wrote on Fri, 10 December 2010 14:24 |
I do find it silly after a certain point that almost every plug-in claims to be replicating some analogue device. Is there a reason it can't just be a GOOD compressor? Does it have to be a fairchild/la2a/rs124/ba6a/ssl? |
wwittman wrote on Fri, 10 December 2010 14:24 |
Unless they are selling this as a kind of alternative to, say, CLASP... not to recording entirely analogue. |
wwittman wrote on Fri, 10 December 2010 14:24 |
It comes back to whether you want to buy that analogue is an "effect" as opposed to a superior SYSTEM as a storage medium. |
svs95 wrote on Sat, 11 December 2010 04:36 |
What would really be interesting would be a direct comparison between a CLASP system (especially one with an A-800) and this plug-in on every track, especially if the comparison takes cost/benefit into account. The audible difference between hitting tape before-vs.-after A/D conversion would be the primary margin within which a cost/benefit analysis between something like CLASP and this plug-in would hinge. Unless UA really missed the mark. Some other factors one might consider: Dropout or other tape degradation (since CLASP freely encourages the re-use of tape); studio time spent rewinding or changing tapes in the middle of a session or (hopefully not) in the middle of a never-to-be-again inspired performance; other reliability issues; ongoing costs (time and money) of maintenance, calibration, tape stock, etc.; the built-in obsolescence of relying on hardware no longer being made or supported, and for which there is a dwindling supply of tape stock, parts and service expertise. |
wwittman wrote on Sat, 11 December 2010 02:06 |
So... What if someone hypothetically said ' this sounds about a third as good as CLASP, BUT costs about a third as much..." What then? The point being that I don't know how to quantify "cost benefit analysis" I can only talk about what sounds best to me I only quibble about saying "this sounds like recording to an a800" If I can't tell the difference between recording to analogue and digital with ANY plug in emulation, I shall be amazed, and be happy to admit my amazement. But it hasn't happened yet And if ony ONE person, in the entire world, can consistently tell the difference, then it isn't "like it" |
cgc wrote on Sat, 11 December 2010 07:51 |
I think the emulation craze is a waste of time and talent. There is no such thing as analog emulation in DSP anyway - it is just basic functions like filtering and saturation chained together to give a response something like the physical device. Because analog can do pretty unpredictable things the amount of code required to fake it can be considerable, and yet still not come close to the original. |
Fenris Wulf wrote on Sat, 11 December 2010 01:23 | ||
Cost-benefit analysis? Analog trumps digital there too. |
Jay Kadis wrote on Sat, 11 December 2010 10:39 |
That is not what is being done, by UA at least. It is by studying the actual physical behavior of circuit elements and assembling circuit models that they are able to make closer and closer approximations of what the hardware actually does. |
wwittman wrote on Sat, 11 December 2010 02:06 |
So... What if someone hypothetically said ' this sounds about a third as good as CLASP, BUT costs about a third as much..." |
wwittman wrote on Sat, 11 December 2010 02:06 |
And if ony ONE person, in the entire world, can consistently tell the difference, then it isn't "like it" |
cgc wrote on Sat, 11 December 2010 09:40 | ||
They use the same DSP functions as everyone else. Those models are a collection of filters and gain functions. They may have broken the process down a bit more, but there is no difference between how a Pultec/SSL/API plugin and the Digi 3 apply a biquad. |
svs95 wrote on Sat, 11 December 2010 18:04 |
So I'd like to see some people listening to these two systems, and the ATS-1 in 1:1 comparisons, and deciding which is best for them based on all considerations, including price. |
"wwittman |
CLASP I mostly about time stamping You don't really need CLASP to do a meaningful comparison. |
svs95 wrote on Sat, 11 December 2010 23:36 |
I have not had an ATS-1 in here, but the MEs at Glenn Meadows Mastering Board mostly like it a lot. I'm personally more interested in seeing what an Ampex ATR 102 half-inch mastering deck plug-in might sound like, than in the A-800. If UA (or anybody working at the circuit modeling level of emulation) ever does one, I'll be the one starting that topic here! |
Seb Riou wrote on Sat, 11 December 2010 14:05 |
If a computer is able to emulate the erratic and (to an extent) unpredictable functioning of an analog device, We should be more worried by the advance of Artificial Intelligence than delighted by the warmth of digital sound. |
Jay Kadis wrote on Sat, 11 December 2010 13:45 |
]Breaking the process down is exactly how progress is made in physical modeling. The behavior of a capacitor, for example, is quite complex - the more we know about its physics the better we can simulate its complete behavior. It is a process of refinement that, along with increasing processing power availability, will allow the creation of software that will be indistinguishable from the hardware. Our ability to distinguish the difference will eventually be exceeded. |
cgc wrote on Sat, 11 December 2010 23:13 |
Or you could just marvel at the man-years (centuries actually) spent trying to make a computer not be a computer. |
Quote: |
Did you know that the first Matrix was designed to be a perfect human world, where none suffered, where everyone would be happy? It was a disaster. No one would accept the program, entire crops were lost. Some believed we lacked the programming language to describe your perfect world, but I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through misery and suffering. The perfect world was a dream that your primitive cerebrum kept trying to wake up from. Which is why the Matrix was redesigned to this, the peak of your civilization. |
cgc wrote on Sat, 11 December 2010 20:18 | ||
Jay, at the end of the day the computer can only do gain by multiplication and that multiplication will always produce bit identical results. To spend ages trying to make it not so (and it will never be not so) is fighting a losing battle with mathematics and physics. |
MI wrote on Sun, 12 December 2010 10:14 |
I feel your "PAIN!" MI |
Tidewater wrote on Mon, 13 December 2010 07:24 | ||
Isn't that Lee Harvey Oswald's old drummer? |
Nick Sevilla wrote on Sun, 12 December 2010 00:47 |
No, if I do get this plug in, I will not compare it to the real thing. That would be illogical. |
0dbfs wrote on Tue, 14 December 2010 22:01 |
what about the pro-digi / apogee plugin? I heard it's limited to 32 simultaneous instances. Best, j |
wwittman wrote on Tue, 14 December 2010 23:29 |
so, to you, it 'sounds like' recording to digital, transferring to analogue, and then transferring back into digital? whoo hoo then I'd LOVE to see them advertise it that way. both buyers would love it. |
svs95 wrote on Thu, 16 December 2010 11:30 | ||
How is that different from CLASP attached to a digital front end? |
wwittman wrote on Thu, 16 December 2010 11:07 |
exactly CLASP makes the FIRST recording direct to analogue (and monitors it in input before any recorder) massively different |
Quote from CLASP FAQ: |
"Besides tracking and overdubs, let’s say I’m mixing a project that was not recorded with tape but I want the tape sound, can I use CLASP as an insert on individual channels when I’m mixing? Yes" |
svs95 wrote on Thu, 16 December 2010 11:42 | ||||
Except when it isn't used that way, which is frequent (according to Endless Analog). From http://www.endlessanalog.com/faqs:
So CLASP is obviously sometimes used this way, |
RMoore wrote on Wed, 15 December 2010 21:06 |
Hilarious - I've been off in the boonies in an 'off the grid' place... |
kats wrote on Thu, 16 December 2010 12:02 |
To throw that red herring into this debate is pretty weak. |
compasspnt wrote on Thu, 16 December 2010 12:00 |
d+a+d≠a+d |
kats wrote on Thu, 16 December 2010 13:42 |
Stephen, Debate is not a dirty word. It means discussing opposing viewpoints. Is that not what we are doing? Anyhow, your getting into semantics here and I've been a bit under the weather the last week or so, so I'm going to have to pass on trying to make sense of this any further. Just remember that without all the moaning of the old analog lunatics, you wouldn't see much improvement in the development of digital emulations. |
Quote: |
I don't know what passes for "old" in here, but I'm 54, and I've been involved in one aspect or another of pro audio since I was 15 years old (1971), including broadcasting, manufacturing, and production. I have transitioned between analog and digital environments several times. I never bothered about the domain, but rather about the quality of the result. Surely you're not advocating a viewpoint that high-quality digital audio is unachievable without analog tape source. My old empirical mind is interested in where we are with digital audio production, where we might like to go, and how to get there. I would have the same considerations regarding analog medium improvements, but there's not a lot of new development happening there, in case you haven't noticed. If there is "improvement in the development of digital emulations," I would like to discuss that with people who don't dismiss the notion out of hand, and if "old analog lunatics" want to exclude themselves from the conversation, go right ahead. Us old (and young) "domain agnostics" can do without OT domain advocacy posts. So to anybody who has listened to the UAD A-800 on a multi-track project, how does it compare in your experience with other processors used for adding analog tape characteristics to ITB projects? And, heretical as it may be, how does it compare to the sound of an analog-tape-to-digital-desk setup (after digital conversion)? Not "does it make sense to do this," or "can any living soul hear a difference?" I've heard it compared, and it's not bad at all, IMHO. |
svs95 wrote on Thu, 16 December 2010 14:23 |
PS: I'm also involved in book publishing, and have experience in print editing and writing, so I like to edit grammatical errors, and sometimes for clarity. I think you'll find no differences in substance from an original draft to an edited version (which I take only a minute or two to do). |
J.J. Blair wrote on Thu, 16 December 2010 15:56 |
oh, and WTF has happened to me? When do I become the reasonable guy who doesn't want to get in arguments here? Must be my girlfriend's influence. I'm getting too used to a drama free life, and enjoy the lack of conflict. LOL. Either that or my 40's are mellowing me out. |
J.J. Blair wrote on Thu, 16 December 2010 15:54 |
I'll be downloading the plug-in and using it soon. Probably next week. I'll give you a report. The funny thing is that 12 pages in, lots of heated debate, and not a single person has used the damn thing. A lot of contention over the idea, and nobody has a single frame of reference. It's like the producer who shoots down ideas in the studio without hearing if they work or not. I usually find those to be the worst producers. |
svs95 wrote on Thu, 16 December 2010 18:10 |
I...made several posts here about my experience with it, but it's no surprise you can't find those any more. |
Les Ismore wrote on Thu, 16 December 2010 16:57 |
The editing I was noticing was changing posts to appear less inflammatory and or rude later after the fact. |
compasspnt wrote on Thu, 16 December 2010 17:13 | ||
What does this mean? |
Quote: |
What I'm surprised to find out is that the guys have actually done a good job, not only with regard to that certain je ne sais quoi..."tapeyness," but in terms of the range of sonic possibilities we're used to getting from tape. If I "overbias," I get softer saturation. If I "underbias" too far, I hear drop-out or chatter. If I trim the "HF bias," I hear the highs go up and down. If I change the flux density (they call it "CAL"), I see distortion onset at a lower or higher input level. If I change "tape types," I hear a corresponding change in tape character non-linearities. If I change "speeds," I hear the "head bump" move up or down, and the frequency response change accordingly. |
Quote: |
With the UAD Studer, depending on the bias parameter, you can get more or less cushion in the saturation onset (just like the hardware). One of the nicest things about the plug-in is that you can work out of calibration with it any time you like, because getting back to a fully-calibrated state is as simple as turning on AUTO CAL - no matter how far out of whack you were. So that invites non-calibrated use in a way that having to go through the whole MRL tape procedure does not. Therefore, you can tweak the thing to get the kind of behavior and tone you like. Now, that doesn't mean you can make it sound like an old tube Ampex mastering deck, or your B67, but you can vary the behavior to be much less neutral than the normal behavior of an A-800. However, the primary idea of this plug-in is to be used in the first slot of every appropriate track (or group bus) in a mix, so that the cumulative effect is like tracking to an A-800, which was indeed as transparent as analog could get, but was still analog. Therefore, the idea is that this won't radically alter the tone and vibe of your project, but will subtly enhance some of the hyper-neutrality of your raw digital signals with the euphonic non-linearities of tape. I can vouch for that. It does achieve this effect. I've heard direct comparisons with the hardware, and with settings as close as possible (matching card settings by eye, and then tweaking slightly to get closer), it's stunning how much alike the two sound. |
Quote: |
The only 1:1 comparisons I've heard were of A-800 hardware into to an A/D converter, which is a sensible way to compare the analog front end of an otherwise digital system to the A-800 plug-in. And yes, setting up the comparison involved a lot of time tweaking to get them closely calibrated, just as it would comparing the sound of two A-800s. The demo used the plug-in on every track in the mix, and compared to the same session passing through an A-800. I'll see if I can get permission to post his results here. |
J.J. Blair wrote on Thu, 16 December 2010 16:56 |
oh, and WTF has happened to me? When do I become the reasonable guy who doesn't want to get in arguments here? Must be my girlfriend's influence. I'm getting too used to a drama free life, and enjoy the lack of conflict. LOL. Either that or my 40's are mellowing me out. |
J.J. Blair wrote on Thu, 16 December 2010 16:56 |
Either that or my 40's are mellowing me out. |
J.J. Blair wrote on Thu, 16 December 2010 13:56 |
oh, and WTF has happened to me? When do I become the reasonable guy who doesn't want to get in arguments here? Must be my girlfriend's influence. I'm getting too used to a drama free life, and enjoy the lack of conflict. LOL. Either that or my 40's are mellowing me out. |
zmix wrote on Mon, 20 December 2010 11:30 |
I am very interested in the differences between "intrinsic" and "referential" value when assigned to an object. In this case, does a plugin purporting to be something that it cannot possibly be, yet retaining some artifact of the original, need to be referenced to that thing to have value? |
kats wrote on Mon, 20 December 2010 10:50 |
Speaking of which it was a REAL Studer that has caused all this trouble. You can't make this stuff up. So we bought a new console for the studio and we're trying to figure out how many guys we're going to need to lift this thing, about 1000lbs. So like a couple of idiots (my idea) I suggest we try and lift the A827 and gauge how many guys we'll need for the console based on that... Anyhow, a torn rotator cuff and two weeks of too much time on my hands, rolling over on the bad shoulder and waking up at 3am etc etc - And this is the trouble I start. |
kats wrote on Mon, 20 December 2010 13:50 |
Speaking of which it was a REAL Studer that has caused all this trouble. You can't make this stuff up. So we bought a new console for the studio and we're trying to figure out how many guys we're going to need to lift this thing, about 1000lbs. So like a couple of idiots (my idea) I suggest we try and lift the A827 and gauge how many guys we'll need for the console based on that... Anyhow, a torn rotator cuff and two weeks of too much time on my hands, rolling over on the bad shoulder and waking up at 3am etc etc - And this is the trouble I start. |
zmix wrote on Mon, 20 December 2010 12:30 |
Some interesting points have been made in this thread (buried between trollish fanboy blather and it's subsequent fallout). William Wittman made a great point about merit that I would like to discuss further. I've often commented that music is a democratic meritocracy (barring the payola, marketing pushes, etc), meaning that a record that cost $600 to produce will retail for the same price as one that cost $2M, and the fans don't care how much it cost or what gear was used as long as they like it. Here is a question: "If plugins improve to the point where they approach analog gear, will records sound better?" It's a bit like asking "If restaurant grade cooking equipment is available in every kitchen, will home cooking improve? Or, given perceived ubiquity of ITB mixing, maybe it's more accurate to ask: "If microwave ovens had presets such as "brick oven", "hearth", "Mequite BBQ", would home cooking improve?" I suspect the novelty of "Mesquite BBQ" boiled water would wear off rather quickly. The point was also about referentialism. I am very interested in the differences between "intrinsic" and "referential" value when assigned to an object. In this case, does a plugin purporting to be something that it cannot possibly be, yet retaining some artifact of the original, need to be referenced to that thing to have value? I have listened to the UAD A800, and once I tweaked it a bit I found I could get some subtle peak reduction and add some low order harmonics, and in that way it's different than other processors out there. Maybe it will prove to be a solution to something. |
Quote: |
The uncanny valley is a hypothesis regarding the field of robotics. The theory holds that when robots and other facsimiles of humans look and act almost like actual humans, it causes a response of revulsion among human observers. The "valley" in question is a dip in a proposed graph of the positivity of human reaction as a function of a robot's lifelikeness. |
zmix wrote on Wed, 22 December 2010 01:01 |
Here is a question: "If plugins improve to the point where they approach analog gear, will records sound better?" It's a bit like asking "If restaurant grade cooking equipment is available in every kitchen, will home cooking improve? Or, given perceived ubiquity of ITB mixing, maybe it's more accurate to ask: "If microwave ovens had presets such as "brick oven", "hearth", "Mequite BBQ", would home cooking improve?" I suspect the novelty of "Mesquite BBQ" boiled water would wear off rather quickly. |
zmix wrote on Wed, 22 December 2010 01:01 |
The point was also about referentialism. I am very interested in the differences between "intrinsic" and "referential" value when assigned to an object. In this case, does a plugin purporting to be something that it cannot possibly be, yet retaining some artifact of the original, need to be referenced to that thing to have value? I have listened to the UAD A800, and once I tweaked it a bit I found I could get some subtle peak reduction and add some low order harmonics, and in that way it's different than other processors out there. Maybe it will prove to be a solution to something. |
zmix wrote on Wed, 22 December 2010 01:01 | ||
Possibly the theory of the "Uncanny Valley" could explain something?
|
zmix wrote on Wed, 22 December 2010 00:01 |
Possibly the theory of the "Uncanny Valley" could explain something? |
Quote: |
The uncanny valley is a hypothesis regarding the field of robotics. The theory holds that when robots and other facsimiles of humans look and act almost like actual humans, it causes a response of revulsion among human observers. The "valley" in question is a dip in a proposed graph of the positivity of human reaction as a function of a robot's lifelikeness. |
zmix wrote on Wed, 22 December 2010 01:01 |
Here is a question: "If plugins improve to the point where they approach analog gear, will records sound better?" It's a bit like asking "If restaurant grade cooking equipment is available in every kitchen, will home cooking improve? |
svs95 wrote on Wed, 12 January 2011 12:16 | ||
|
svs95 wrote on Wed, 12 January 2011 12:16 |
"Uncanny Valley" may be a factor, considering how closely some people identify with their gear. |
zmix wrote on Thu, 13 January 2011 12:20 | ||||
Rachel Ray isn't microwaving frozen dinners, she's cooking with real ingredients, besides which, according to UA, the vast majority of their customers are not full-time working professionals. So my analogy about the microwave oven may be more appropriate here. |
zmix wrote on Thu, 13 January 2011 12:20 | ||
Eww that's creepy... and a bit like making fun of someone's shoes because they prefer to walk rather than ride a motorized chair: |
svs95 wrote on Fri, 21 January 2011 11:46 | ||||||||||
Huh? You were asking if more people have access to better tools, will it produce better results. I was simply saying, it depends on the genius of the person using the tools.
Chuck, you suggested the "Uncanny Valley" response might be a factor. I didn't think you were making fun of anybody. I actually agree with that (as a small, subconscious factor, maybe), because people sometimes do identify with their possessions ("the clothes make the man," or maybe "the gear makes the man"). If something gets too close to a cherished thing, it might invite that kind of response. I agree that can't be completely discounted. |
svs95 wrote on Tue, 25 January 2011 14:21 |
Is Michael Brauer a member of this forum? I'd sure like to hear his comments. I know he has used the UAD Studer plug-in, and really liked it, and has publicly commented on his results. |
Quote: |
ok, so yesterday I tried the studer UAD on printed drum efx bus, toms, snare, Guitar and overheads for a track that needed more of a saturated punchy sound. It sounded great to me. I also have heat which I like alot. So, I tried it and I liked it. Am I going to make sure that it's accurate by trying it against tape...uuh no, I know what I wanted to hear and I heard it, It worked for me. end of story. BTW, If I didn't like it, I would have said, tried it but it didn't do anything for me. Would I have pissed off UAD a bit, probably, but they knew that going in that I'm not kissing any butts. I use what I like and that's it. michael brauer |
svs95 wrote on Tue, 25 January 2011 16:11 |
Chuck, the only place I can seem to find his remarks right now are at GearSlutz, as a matter of fact: |
svs95 wrote on Tue, 25 January 2011 16:34 |
So Chuck, what's your emperical contribution? Have you tried the Studer plug-in yet? If you're worried about being associated with it, you might want to check it out. I don't think you'll be as worried about that once you've heard it. |
svs95 wrote on Tue, 25 January 2011 19:14 |
Chuck, you know perfectly well who I am |
svs95 wrote on Tue, 25 January 2011 19:14 |
I'd be happy to read any opinions, positive or not, that begin along the lines of "I've worked with this plug-in for awhile, and here's what I've found..." like Michael Brauer did; rather than these vacuous generic rants about digital audio or plug-ins. . |
zmix wrote on Tue, 25 January 2011 17:57 |
I have used the UAD A800 quite a bit and I love certain aspects of what it can do, once it's calibrated properly it can be really nice on certain sounds... But, I do feel that it can be improved, and I've already contacted UA about these aspects.. |
svs95 wrote on Tue, 25 January 2011 19:14 |
I think your straw poll of clients is skewed (though not deliberately). Whenever there are changes after the fact, in my experience there's usually a preference for the original mix, if it was good to begin with. It might be interesting to hear some client reaction where the plug-in is used up front. That way they're just reacting to what they hear, rather than the loaded context of making changes to an approved mix. |
zmix wrote on Tue, 25 January 2011 17:57 |
I have a song up on the burner at the moment that I intend to use to put the UAD A800 through it's paces.. I'll let you know.[ |
maxim wrote on Sat, 15 January 2011 15:11 |
svs95 wrote on Wed, 26 January 2011 00:49 |
Yes I read your post from earlier today, Chuck. It's the only way I knew you had sent out the revised mixes. I'm just saying they're not "entirely objective" as you put it, because there's a prejudice against revisions of a completed project. However it was the complete body of posts prior to that which I was referring to. I look forward to your posting back with further experiences. I agree with you about the importance of calibrating this plug-in to get desired results (which may or may not mean factory calibration). There are so many variables that, even though it might be found by trial and error, it helps to have a background with analog tape, and Studers in particular, to know where to start tweaking for a given result. If you'll please reply to the PM I sent you before your last post, I'll remind you how you know me, and how we both know "Yammer." Since we haven't discussed it before, if you want to know more about my (non-celebrity) work, I can do that while we're at it. Thank you for changing tack on this topic. I hope it encourages others to work with this thing and give experience-based feedback. |
zmix wrote on Tue, 25 January 2011 16:57 |
I have used the UAD A800 quite a bit and I love certain aspects of what it can do, once it's calibrated properly it can be really nice on certain sounds... But, I do feel that it can be improved, and I've already contacted UA about these aspects.. |
zmix wrote on Tue, 25 January 2011 16:57 |
I have a song up on the burner at the moment that I intend to use to put the UAD A800 through it's paces.. I'll let you know. |
mcsnare wrote on Tue, 08 February 2011 17:58 |
I haven't had tons of time with it, but so far I'm lovin' the A-800. Those other UAD joints ain't bad, either. Dave |
Len wrote on Thu, 17 February 2011 06:46 |
The latest issue of Sound on Sound A/Bs the UAD against a real studer in one of Sweden's top studios. Basically the UAD came out equal. The electronic edition should be available over the next couple of days. |
kats wrote on Sun, 20 February 2011 13:49 |
Well Peller, my apologies to offend your work. The post above mine says that your conclusions are that the plugin is basically equal to tape. This is an impossible statement. I did however just read your article and it seems that your conclusions are that the Plugin exhibits compression characterstics very similar to 456 @ 15ips, although not quite the same. These two statements are vastly different. I wrongly assumed that the poster was being factual. I didn't bother to listen to your samples since a big reason to use tape is for it's resolution, not it's compression characteristics. If you consider that there are 80 million N-S binary transactions per second at 15ips on your typical recorder, you posting sound samples at 44.1 or 96k of tape recordings and then comparing them to digital recordings is nonsensical because now your just comparing digital to digital. IE, you are now just comparing the tape artifacts to the plugin. Which is absolutely fine if presented this way. The proper thing to say if your trying to be intellectually honest would be that the UA plugin faithfully captures all the negative artifacts of tape recording. Otherwise you are misleading your readers who might not know better. |
svs95 wrote on Mon, 21 February 2011 12:24 |
It's funny to see people now characterize what this plug-in is able to emulate as "the negative artifacts of tape," when it is the predominant feature of analog that survives digitization (at least in a PCM distribution culture). |
Quote: |
Certainly nobody in this forum expects a plug-in to emulate the resolution of analog tape. Give us a break! |
Quote: |
And yes, whether Podgorny intended it seriously or not, I think it's a valid question. To what end (aside from a narrowly archival one) is the additional resolution of an analog medium without the requisite distribution format with which to appreciate it? In an alternative analog universe, it would make sense. But in the actual real world, it's superfluous to needs. |
Quote: |
But most of all, it's superfluous to this discussion, which is not about things no plug-in is capable of achieving (which are by definition outside its design parameters), but rather about what this plug-in does achieve. I've listened to the SOS test files, and they confirm my own experience with the plug-in. There is definitely more than just tape compression and "negative artifacts" going on. In a purely textbook sense, the process may be "destructive," but from a listener's perspective, the result has a euphonic quality that belies laboratory metrics. Not enough to be terribly useful on a stereo buss, but as presented (used on multiple tracks in a mix), it strikes me as beneficial! |
kats wrote on Mon, 21 February 2011 13:01 |
The point (for eg) is that an 1176 is a compressor. It is designed to compress. A plug in that models the distortion and perhaps the tone of it's circuitry without actually compressing, while perhaps useful, would be a little ridiculous to market as a digital replacement for an 1176, with a GUI to match. What you would be modeling is only the negative (used positively) artifacts of the design. |
svs95 wrote on Mon, 21 February 2011 17:41 |
It's a plug-in for DAW environments that don't have analog tape... |
kats wrote on Mon, 21 February 2011 13:21 |
...The thought that the legacy of this format being reduced to nothing more than an effect box upsets me. It does nothing to promote good audio or educate a new generation of audio engineers. To me it's nothing more than a cash grab from the unwitting who've never had the chance to hear what good analog recording is all about. For those with the experience my rant is moot. And for the record I enjoy UA's plugins and think they sound cool. I'd also use this "Studer" plugin for effect as well if I thought it sounded cool. I love effects! It's the blatant dishonesty of the sales rhetoric that leaves me disgusted. |
Len wrote on Tue, 22 February 2011 16:08 |
I know they never oversell anything, unlike some of the other audio mags which only ever give glowing reviews for everything. |
Phil Mayor wrote on Thu, 24 February 2011 12:07 |
...when they reviewed the Focusrite Liquid Channel emulator thing, said it was even better than the real thing... |
compasspnt wrote on Thu, 24 February 2011 11:52 | ||
Hey, the emulator may well be better than the real thing... |
Phil Mayor wrote on Thu, 24 February 2011 17:07 | ||
You mean like when they reviewed the Focusrite Liquid Channel emulator thing, said it was even better than the real thing and there was no difference between it and the Fairchild 670. In fact I don't think I've ever seen them give Focusrite a bad review even the horrible green series they thought was amazing. I personally would never trust any magazine review. |
compasspnt wrote on Thu, 24 February 2011 17:52 | ||
Hey, the emulator may well be better than the real thing... |
Phil Mayor wrote on Thu, 24 February 2011 09:07 |
I personally would never trust any magazine review. |