UAd dsp accelerator question

A

andybhoy

New member
In my wee home studio I use all vst effects and instruments in my recordings. Using a lot of vsts along side audio and midi is getting too resource intensive for my system. (well I assume some of the problems I'm having are due to resources, through research and advice here - choppy playback with too many vsts on tracks.)

While I'm going to start using vst effects as inserts instead of on each track - I was looking at the UAd accelerator FireWire units. Few questions for anyone who has used them.

Does the unit only host the UAd plugins? Or can it power any vst plugin? Therefor freeing up resources, allowing me to run more plugins?

I would just think about purchasing the £700 entry level unit. I assume this just can't run as many vsts as the £4k version?

Is it worth it? I know that last q is unanswerable.. I could be a millionaire and 700 quid is nothing.... I'm not a millionaire but if my accountant has done things right I could have a few quid to spend come my financial year end...

Anyone any thoughts?
Cheers
 
The UAD hardware only runs UAD plugins. These plugins are of superior quality, but they cost extra.

There are a bunch of different packages in the UAD line. The most expensive one will be the most powerful and come with the most plugins (or a voucher worth the most money to be used towards the plugins of your choice)

The three pieces are hardware are the solo, duo and quad. The Duo has twice as much power (can run twice as many plugins) as the solo. The quad has 4 times the power of the solo.

Once you pick the hardware, then you decide how many plugins you want and purchase the package that makes the most sense in that context.

I bought the UAD stuff because of the quality of the plugins, not because I was trying to lighten the load on my cpu. I couldn't imagine mixing without them.
 
UAD Satellite (firewire) products are Mac only. As farview mentioned - buy a UAD card if you are interested in the UAD plugs. Replace, upgrade or optimize your computer if you aren't. I don't know what prices are like there, but 700 pounds of the sterling would buy a very good nice new computer here. I like the UAD plugs - the SSL G, EMT140 and LA2A being my personal favorites.
 
Also, UAD just does VST effects, EQ's and compressors. They don't do VST instruments. So, if it's the VST instruments that are bringing your computer to its knees, the UAD will do nothing to help that.
 
Thanks for the replies guys.

I have an iMac 27, running Cubase. For the size of recordings I'm doing it should be more than capable. I think running loads of vsts as well as instruments and audio is taxing my comp too much. But I'll now start using more inserts than having effects on each track.

If anything I would just go for the cheapest model - the solo I think. I have read of the obvious superior quality vsts that can be powered by the unit, and I think I know what ones I would go for. Just wasn't sure if it would power any vst.

It might actually be a good purchase, as if I start using the UAd powered vsts instead of the ones I'm using, I'll have betterquality plug ins and in a round about way, that will free up some resources.

Cool, thanks for the info dudes.
 
andybhoy said:
But I'll now start using more inserts than having effects on each track.
Click to expand...
Ummm...that will make it worse than using aux sends and sending a bunch of tracks to one reverb (for example).

You only need to use inserts for things like compression and EQ. All time based effects, especially ones that can be applied to multiple tracks are normally done using aux sends.

If you have a lot of similar tracks (like layered guitars, for example) You can send them all to one group channel and insert the EQ on the group channel to EQ them all the same way. That saves resources as well as making it easier to change the EQ setting if you decide the guitars need to be brighter or something...
 
Oh. Aye I meant I'll use more sends than inserts on each track. I'm obviously still learning loads, don't know why I didn't use more sends in the first place!
 
The more you do it, the more organized you get. The more organized you get, the more you see anything redundant.

Anything you can group together to EQ and/or compress, that will save CPU

Having a couple reverbs that everything is sent to will end up sounding better than having a separate reverb on each track. That will save a ton of CPU. Having each separate drum with its own reverb inserted sounds completely different (even if you use the same reverb and settings) than having all the drums sent to a single instance of a reverb. With the single instance of reverb, everything affects everything else and it sounds like the all the drums are being played in a single space, instead of each individual drum being played in its own separate room.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top