D-Box or more UAD-2?

[XTREEMMAK]

Hey pplz,

Well I've run into some extra funds and I have been looking at the Dangerous Music D-Box for a little bit. A couple people I know recommend it and a couple reviews I've run into say it's a superb unit. However I'm really questioning if I need it or not? Right now I have a UAD-2 Quad card with a decent amount of plugins and while most of my sources recommend the D-Box, another source recommends that I don't even use it and just use plugins since plugins over recent years have really stepped up their game.

This eventually brought up the classic debate on if you think hardware is better than software which I'm pretty much on the fence with still. A couple of people I know are heavy about In-the-Box mixing, while others I know say that it's that analogue distortion, headroom, and tone that you get from the analogue that totally destroys an itb mix...of course it's hard to justify that claim when you've been spoiled by vintage hardware for so many years.

So the toss up is, should I get my analogue summing box aka the D-Box, or should I invest in more UAD-2 software plugins? That tape saturation plugin and Massive Manley plugin is looking really nice right now lol.

 

[RawDepth]

Well, is analog summing worth the trouble and expense? That is something you may never know until you experience it for yourself. I have been reading about it as well for some time and just pulled the trigger on a TL Audio Ebony A4. (But I didn't get it yet.)

Most who take the leap seem to say it was worth it as far as their mixes becoming more clear and spacious. That small step up is important to some people and *not so* to others.

Many non-believers lay down an argument about the extra A/D - D/A conversion trip ruining the mix. This myth can easily be ruled out by testing it for yourself before buying a summing amp. Take any recorded instrument track and route it directly out through your D/A converter. Now loop it right back into your A/D converter, (without going through any analog gear,) and record the return signal onto a new track. Next, compare (A/B) the two tracks closely to see if the converters actually ruined the integrity of the track. If you cannot tell any difference, then you're golden as far as converters are concerned. On the other hand, if the new track sounds a little off in any way, I would not pursue out-of-the-box summing until your converters are upgraded.

 

[Bristol Posse]

This eventually brought up the classic debate on if you think hardware is better than software which I'm pretty much on the fence with still.

I don't see this at all. the D-Box and UAD plug ins don't do even remotely the same thing.

If you are looking for tape saturation emulation then the D-Box is the wrong choice, it won't do anything like that at all.
If you are looking for a monitoring solution with great D/A conversion and 8 channels of summing on top of that then the UAD card won't be of any use to you and would be a complete waste of money

I have both a D-Box and a UAD card and they are both very good at what they do, but they are not playing on remotely the same playing field in terms of what it is that they do so well

I'd also add that from my experience, 8 channels of summing by itself won't do much for your mixes. If you want to integrate hardware signal processing however it can be an excellent solution and avoids all of the latency concerns that can be a PITA when trying to uses Hardware as inserts on individual tracks

so the question is do you need the ability to run more instances of your UAD plug ins or do you need a monitoring solution with 8 channels of summing, and not is software better than hardware

YMMV

 

[RawDepth]

so the question is do you need the ability to run more instances of your UAD plug ins or do you need a monitoring solution with 8 channels of summing, and not is software better than hardware

YMMV

I got the feeling that he wants to make improvements in both areas, but can't decide which one he will benefit from the most.

I had similar decisions to make. For me, it was a matter of not being happy with the way my DAW handled the bounce to 2 track. When I work on a mix, I can get the multitrack playback to sound good. But when I bounce it all to 2 track, (ITB) something changes. Levels, effects, dynamics, spacial separation, etc, all seem to go through subtle changes. The final mixdown just doesn't sound as good as the multitrack sounded.

Perhaps different DAWs handle that task differently. I don't know. I just know that I am not happy with mine. If the original poster has that same concern, all the plug-ins in the world won't fix that problem.