Does anyone one own a UAD-1?

[Flight 16]

If so

Can you tell me how many of the plug-ins the DSP chip can run at once?

[giles117]

Visit the UAD Site, there is a list of how many plugins the card can run.

Here is the direct link

http://www.uaudio.com/support/softwa...atibility.html

here is another link

http://www.uaudio.com/webzine/august...-dsp-usage.gif

I am not hotlinking on purpose

[Flight 16]

Cool thanks.



as for the second link...check this out
http://www.musicxpc.com/products/c2/c2_performance.htm

PCs RULE

[giles117]

Or Cubase Sucks on a Mac. LOL

I Use DP4 and at 48/24 I can record 64 tracks at one time with my old and SLOW Dual 867Mhz MDD Mac. which is relatively close to what Cubase can do on a Dual 2.0 Ghz G5. Sounds a little off base huh?

And I can load up quite a few Rverbs on my sluggish system as well. I will do a test soon and see But Normally I might have 4 to 6 of them running in a 48/24 file. So I think these test are a tad off base.

Of course I want to know the Hard Drive situation as well. as they did say the G5 had a stock hard Drive and any music guy with any common sense will ALWAYS put his audio files on a separate hard Drive. No way you will run (efficiently) with the Main program and audio data on the SAME DRIVE.

When I help people upgrade their systems, they usually see a 30-40% increase in processor power as the HD isnt spooling Program and audio data from one source.

Just like apple taints tests, so do the other guys. LOL

And remember MACS are still easier to use. LOL. Glad I could help you out.

i LOVE THIS, I decided to cehck the specs of this XPC and see if the test was slanted....

IT IS!!!!!!!!

Read it and weep baby!!!!!

http://www.musicxpc.com/products/c2/c2.htm

1 ATA133 7200rpm 80GB &
1 ATA133 7200rpm 120GB Hard Drive

Verses the G5's ONE (count it baby) Single DRIVE on a G5


This XPC unit comes with 2.... TWO.... 2.... hard Drives and the G5 comes with one. Hmmm I wonder what the test would look like if the G5 had 2 Hard Drives. Might be an eye opener.

[jgourd]

I have the UAD-1 and the number depends on which effects you run. For instance, Nigel eats up pretty much the whole thing. I can usually run about 4 real verbs, 2 LA2As and a channel strip or two before it freaks out.

While the UAD-1 sounds wonderful you need to pay very very close attention to latency. UAD comes with a delay compensator plugin to helps with this but you really have to know what you are doing to use it.

[vestast]

If you are using Cubase SX 2 I think there is delay compensation built in to the app, so you shouldn't have to worry about that.

I use it on Cubase SX 2 and have no major complaints about it. Like Jgourd said Nigel, LA2A and 1176 are the biggest resource eater uppers (are those words ?) , while cambridge EQ or dreamverbs etc use much less resources...

[Flight 16]

Originally Posted by giles117

Or Cubase Sucks on a Mac. LOL

I Use DP4 and at 48/24 I can record 64 tracks at one time with my old and SLOW Dual 867Mhz MDD Mac. which is relatively close to what Cubase can do on a Dual 2.0 Ghz G5. Sounds a little off base huh?

And I can load up quite a few Rverbs on my sluggish system as well. I will do a test soon and see But Normally I might have 4 to 6 of them running in a 48/24 file. So I think these test are a tad off base.

Of course I want to know the Hard Drive situation as well. as they did say the G5 had a stock hard Drive and any music guy with any common sense will ALWAYS put his audio files on a separate hard Drive. No way you will run (efficiently) with the Main program and audio data on the SAME DRIVE.

When I help people upgrade their systems, they usually see a 30-40% increase in processor power as the HD isnt spooling Program and audio data from one source.

Just like apple taints tests, so do the other guys. LOL

And remember MACS are still easier to use. LOL. Glad I could help you out.

i LOVE THIS, I decided to cehck the specs of this XPC and see if the test was slanted....

IT IS!!!!!!!!

Read it and weep baby!!!!!

http://www.musicxpc.com/products/c2/c2.htm

1 ATA133 7200rpm 80GB &
1 ATA133 7200rpm 120GB Hard Drive

Verses the G5's ONE (count it baby) Single DRIVE on a G5


This XPC unit comes with 2.... TWO.... 2.... hard Drives and the G5 comes with one. Hmmm I wonder what the test would look like if the G5 had 2 Hard Drives. Might be an eye opener.

I love these chats ...ok..hang on a sec


1, I did not know a hard drive effects the CPU performance...?

2, the fact is G5 clamed they were the most powerful of PCs, this test proves that comparing the most powerful G5 on the market running CUBASE, PRO TOOLS, & NUENDO does not perform as well as a a rock solid PC for less the price, and if they managed to squees another hard drive in there (if they could) how much more would they charge then!!?

I basically think that a PC is a PC weather its an Apple or what ever....Apple are just very smart at getting the industry to get on there side....they also have had several adds band for false advertising.

its also a fact that Adobe have clamed on their website that the modern PC is infact faster then a G5....which was a blow to Apple.

don't get me wrong if someone offered me a G5 I would not turn it down...but if I was to dig into my pocket this XPC seems much more my thing..especially seeing as I love using Cubase too.

what I would really like to see is a "Pentium hyper thread" DUEL processor ...ouch!

[giles117]

Well us macites. Love our Non PC Pc. LOL but anyway....

a Hard drive affects Plug in performance and track count majorly. Maybe this will help you a bit.

My old 450Mhz g4 with 2 Hard drives was able to play back 64 tracks of audio. the Old Quicksilver Dual 1 ghz Mac was able to play back 128+ tracks of Audio data with basic plugins. So How can the g5 be slower than the g4? It can't.

See that test is slanted because they are using 2 drives.

As far as price for an additional drive. I dont know any SANE people who buy their HD's from apple. I dont. matter of fact I downgrade my computer system when I buy one cuz they overcharge. But their market is to non tinkerers mainly. People who dont want to open up the computer often.

So for me I'd just run out, drop a $100 bucks and snatch up a 160GB SATA hard Drive from my local MicroCenter.

Now keep in mind wheras Adobe is concerned, those guys are fueding because Adobe would not license and reveal their pdf technology to apple for inclusion in the underpinnings of OS X, so Apple wrote their own PDF driver and snubbed Adobe, so Adobe is snubbing Apple. Just Business Politics.

And Keep in mind that a Dual 2.0 ghz G5 is only 2499 (2299 for me, I Homeschool so I get the ed discount.)

Your MusicXPC sells for 1950 at musicians friend, so for a lousy 4300 bucks I am gonna go with something that when in an APPLES to APPLES comparison will get blown away???? By a user friendly easy to use, crash resistant, no long term windows registry issue headaches... and so on... Not me. 300 bucks is fair game. Also keep this in mid, the Dual 1.8 Ghz which is almost as fast as the Dual 2.0 is only $1999 ($1799 for me). Hmmmm Makes you start to think huh? and for 100 bucks I grab a HD and for another 100 bucks I upgrade to 1 Gig of memory?????

or in my case I just transplant my old hard Drives.

I stay where I am at. Not like it's a $1,000 difference in price.

[giles117]

Just for fun and planning my future i spec'd out a Dual 1.8 G5 that I am gonna buy for my Studio.

Specs. Dual 1.8, 80GB HD, 256MB RAM, DVD/CDRW Drive $1683.00

Extras I have to add

200GB SATA HD $114.00
2-512MB PC3200 $128.00

Comes to - $1925.00 being the price I will pay. Not including shipping and taxes of course.

[Flight 16]

Well there are so many arguments on both sides...but the bottom line is if you spend £2000 on a computer its going to be a bloody good one! weather it be a MAC or PC, I would stick with a PC as long as i would use Cubase of Nuendo, as i work well with Cubase....i guess if ever i went to Pro Tools I would then think about getting a G5...

I am very interested in this Hard drive thing as at the moment i have a 60gig hard drive....so if i had a 120gig....i would have a better performance??

if so i know what i will be upgrading next!!

[jgourd]

Originally Posted by vestast

If you are using Cubase SX 2 I think there is delay compensation built in to the app, so you shouldn't have to worry about that.

I use it on Cubase SX 2 and have no major complaints about it. Like Jgourd said Nigel, LA2A and 1176 are the biggest resource eater uppers (are those words ?) , while cambridge EQ or dreamverbs etc use much less resources...

While Cubase and Nuendo have delay compensation built in it is only for audio channels and not for effects sends or for group channels.

[Flight 16]

Originally Posted by jgourd

While Cubase and Nuendo have delay compensation built in it is only for audio channels and not for effects sends or for group channels.

I C, so how would you solve any delay problems why useing a group chanal?

[jgourd]

Originally Posted by Flight 16

I C, so how would you solve any delay problems why useing a group chanal?

With a Uad-1 you use a delay compensator and run all the tracks through it except the ones that have a plugin on them. For instance, you might create a drums group and put the RealVerb on it as an insert. You then put the delay compensator on another group and route all the other instruments through that group.

[vestast]

Originally Posted by jgourd

While Cubase and Nuendo have delay compensation built in it is only for audio channels and not for effects sends or for group channels.

Hey jgourd.

I think I have to respectfully disagree. At least that is not the way I am reading it in the html pages for Cubase SX 2. Here is a direct quote:

"Cubase SX/SL provides full plug in delay compensation throughout the entire audio path. This means that all such plug in delays are compensated for, maintaining the sync and timing of all audio channels"

I don't see why this would not include group channels or aux sends as all they are is another audio channel with an insert ...

Also if you go to Devices and Plug in information you can see that you can actually turn delay compensation off for any plug-in.

Also direct from the UAD-1 site:

http://www.uaudio.com/support/softwa...tnoteswin.html

(All) UAD DelayComp should not be used since Nuendo 2.1/Cubase SX 2.0. These hosts have fully automatic plugin delay compensation throughout the signal path

[giles117]

As far as the hard drive, you need a separate hard drive to hold your audio files.

When your Main (Operating System and program) hard drive is doing double duty you are slowed down not becasue of your computer speed, but becasue of your hard drive trying to stream audio and load in parts of the Op Sys and programs as they are called for. You are taxing your drive. By putting the audio files on a sep. drive you releive the stress off of one drive and performance improves.

[jgourd]

Originally Posted by vestast

Hey jgourd.

I think I have to respectfully disagree. At least that is not the way I am reading it in the html pages for Cubase SX 2. Here is a direct quote:

"Cubase SX/SL provides full plug in delay compensation throughout the entire audio path. This means that all such plug in delays are compensated for, maintaining the sync and timing of all audio channels"

I don't see why this would not include group channels or aux sends as all they are is another audio channel with an insert ...

Also if you go to Devices and Plug in information you can see that you can actually turn delay compensation off for any plug-in.

Also direct from the UAD-1 site:

http://www.uaudio.com/support/softwa...tnoteswin.html

(All) UAD DelayComp should not be used since Nuendo 2.1/Cubase SX 2.0. These hosts have fully automatic plugin delay compensation throughout the signal path

That Explains it. I am still running Nuendo 1.0 and Cubase SX 1 as well. I guess its time to send in the warrenty cards and pay the $99 each for the upgrade.

[vestast]

Originally Posted by jgourd

That Explains it. I am still running Nuendo 1.0 and Cubase SX 1 as well. I guess its time to send in the warrenty cards and pay the $99 each for the upgrade.

It's 99 bucks well spent

[Flight 16]

SX 2.2 is very cool, there are only 2 or 3 things that i think stop it from being the top dog...

1, freeze takes ages

2, time stretch has to load and unload while you use it...unlike protools and the rest when you do it in real time

3, Pro Tools and Dig performer have an effect when you can tighten up beats or rythums in audio, (ok this is a bit of an evil effect but used right could be very cool)

cubase has its ups that the rest fall short on but if Cubase could sort these out then it would be GREAT in my book...maybe Nuendo has these in it?...never used it

[Flight 16]

Originally Posted by giles117

As far as the hard drive, you need a separate hard drive to hold your audio files.

When your Main (Operating System and program) hard drive is doing double duty you are slowed down not becasue of your computer speed, but becasue of your hard drive trying to stream audio and load in parts of the Op Sys and programs as they are called for. You are taxing your drive. By putting the audio files on a sep. drive you releive the stress off of one drive and performance improves.

Ok, so if i conect an extra drive for my Audio then thats should do the trick, cool!