The new UA recording system - L U N A

[valis]

Stating that their minimoog emulation is vst only, perhaps this points at a difference in how some use scope versus others..differences in workflow. At least that's how I took dante's point, and others who have stated that. Scope does a lot more than just mix (and I prefer it to NOT mix more than it has to)...

In my case, I tend to see Scope as a tool to make a complex signal chain or two, and so think of signals in Scope as a bus or two, plus some send effects or etc if I choose to route something through it (and love that I can route from ANYWHERE, analog or digital). I also, tbh, stopped using Scope's larger mixers heavily years ago. Scope's phase issues aren't as much of a concern on the bigger mixers as that was addressed somewhere around the 3.1x era, but if you do parallel compression or other similar tricks (mix a filtered version in with the original for instance to maintain some of the tonal range but 'beef' it up in a power area) then it can still be bothersome. Hence my use of analog even now.

Now while mixing might be well suited to UAD's solutions, making a complex synth stack or modular patch is a still not possible from what I can tell (I don't own an Apollo interface) without relying on other tools, be they native or external.

In any case, I can attest that I found the combination of Totalmix & Scope to be so liberating digitally speaking, that there's 3 RME cards in here that can run signals to Scope (and each other). Totalmix is a wonderful patchbay/router, and the newer versions with a bit of effects thrown in. But with Scope it basically makes any external machine lying around feel as if it's the host PC itself, signals just show up from anywhere and go anywhere you want. Apollo it would seem can probably exceed that by a wide margin. Ie, I wouldn't even consider mixing to any large degree in RME's Totalmix, at least not the sort of mixing I can get on the DAW or even on my analog board. so at least the UAD can run a variety of models and do complex eq/filtering etc on a channel and do proper mixing.

At the same time, Scope's signal chain is as complex as anything I can dial in using any other combination of gear AND it can mix it to completion (as far as the bus or two it's basically occupying in mix space need to be).

In other words, UAD still seems like an effects stack oriented around recording/mixing and monitoring while recording (the latter being what other simpler interfaces tend to offer in terms of effects--focusrite was my example for one of the first to offer this even on low end interfaces, with RME & MOTU coming later and so on).

So it doesn't feel comparable to me, at least not yet. Which I think again others stated. There's overlap between these products but they're discrete enough that they can still play together. For instance now you have me wondering what an Apollo interface would be like rather than RME, especially in terms of stability with something like Live where it would make a lot of sense.

[garyb]

if it's important. i only mix in Scope. works for me. i get radio play for my clients.

[dante]

You stated above that your next purchase might be a toss up between a Apollo and XITE-1; this sort of helps make my case in that UAD is now competition with SCOPE as you are deciding between the two. The only reason it now competes is cause it has closed the gap some (and even beats SCOPE on a few fronts) . If Apollo did not exist would you be more likely to buy another XITE-1?

If Apollo didn't exists I would wait a while to see if Solaris was coming out in standalone rack form - and only when there seemed little possibility of that happening would I then buy a full XITE-1. And the only reason I'd be considering that over a keyboard Solaris is that I don't have the space for a keyboard Solaris and prefer rack gear anyway. But I believe the competing gaps / similarities already existed before LUNA was announced - LUNA doesn't change anything for me personally. It might for some, but the main gap there IMHO Desk emulation - has already been covered in the market place by Harrison : Here's what Harrison say about MB32C's origins ( https://harrisonconsoles.com/site/mixbus.html ) and if you have no reason to doubt their tech leading pedigree - then even if Luna succeeds its not 'new' or 'ground breaking' or 'gap closing' in this respect.

" What Makes Mixbus Different?
Harrison has a unique history. In the mid-80's, we developed fully automated, digitally-controlled analog mixer technology which was adopted by premiere film-mixing facilities around the world. When the digital revolution came, we were asked to convert the analog "processor" into a digital processor, while leaving the control surface unchanged. Film mixers wanted the control surface to -work and sound- exactly like the analog mixer they were using for previous projects. This required us to develop a digital audio engine that operated and sounded exactly like the analog mixer they were using for previous projects. This transition was not undertaken by any other company, and it has provided us with techniques and proprietary technology that we have incorporated into all of our high-end mixers. Mixbus gives us an opportunity to share this technology with a much wider range of users.

Mixbus Sounds Better
Other DAWs are designed by companies with experience in computer sound, but no pedigree in world-class recording facilities. The Mixbus DSP mixer is designed by Harrison specifically for its great-sounding EQ, filters, dynamics, and bus summing. If you find a music recording from the golden age of albums - the 70s and 80s - that has stood the test of time, it is likely that a Harrison console was used during the production. Mixbus invites you to produce recordings that will stand with the very best. "

Heres how I see the market leaders in the DAW 'classic emulation' sectors :

. Classic synths - Instruments - John Bowen / Scope
. Classic effects - UAD
. Classic desks - Harrison
then
. Best all rounder - Scope XITE

[valis]

Came back because I realized my post, which was a reply to Sounddesigner's post at the bottom of page 2, is now orphaned by itself and may read as a scathing review of Scope mixing. It is not, as my shift in habits occurred around the time of version 3.01, by 3.1 any of the issues with phase were solved (aside from some parallel issues with the very large mixers which can be solved to mixing to the same 8 channel block, if memory serves).

So my preferences in no way indicate that Scope isn't an excellent mixing tool, in fact quite the contrary. But as dante's final bulleted list indicate along with gary's post, we have quite a few workflows to which Scope is suited, and the different perceptions of Scope versus other platforms has a lot to do with what our preferred workflow actually is.

Since most of us know scope for decades, I'm most likely clarifying this for google web bots and future archive.org historical posterity, but hey it's my time to waste.

[dante]

Interesting it’s been noted by a UAD user that it’s obvious the GUI for LUNA is JUCE ! Another idea taken from ParseQ - or just a goto GUI tech for DSP powered DAWs ?

[valis]

JUCE is goto for a huge swath of the audio software market now. Didn't know that the GUI was JUCE, shows how far that framework has come.

[garyb]

JUCE really sucks for the kind of use that Scope requires.
JUCE has nothing to do with dsps, it's a native library. UAD's use of JUCE is not related to the DSPs at all.

[valis]

More to the point, JUCE is under ROLI ownership. They seem to be doing a good job with their stewardship thus far, but this also puts UAD at the mercy of another company who--while not being a competitor--may make decisions that affect what seems to be intended to be flagship software for UAD in the future.

[dante]

There’s also apparantly a video where a UA rep indicates that the LUNA file handling will use some sort of database technology - so there’s another potentially outsourced component/dependancy.

[Sounddesigner]

What i want to know is who did UA hire to develop their DAW. I know SCOPE developers Brainworx coded the SDK for them.

[dante]

Hmm. Brainworx have no DAW pedigree and they've been busy doing native versions of their stuff for Plugin Alliance. A DAW might be overload for them alone. But who knows - maybe they're contributing as part of a larger team with ring-ins from both native and DSP backgrounds.

[Bud Weiser]

What i want to know is who did UA hire to develop their DAW.

Holger !

Gary helps on occasion and when RME allows.



b.t.w.,-

Gary, is that you on NAMM pic on RME site ?
https://www.rme-audio.de/news.html



Bud

[garyb]

yes.
i worked for the RME/Ferrofish/TotalMix distributor a couple of times.

Good eye!

[Bud Weiser]

yes.
i worked for the RME/Ferrofish/TotalMix distributor a couple of times.

Good eye!

thx ...

cool !



Bud

[Sounddesigner]

What i want to know is who did UA hire to develop their DAW.

Holger !

Gary helps on occasion and when RME allows.



Bud

[dante]

Luna is out now - for Mac users. Neve summing, VST's and Studer are classified as 'extensions' all costing extra :

https://www.uaudio.com/luna/instruments ... undle.html

So much for being 'free'

[Spielraum]

.

[dawman]

Pretty wise capturing the high end effects market. Now adding Samples and Recording is easy compared to algorithmic reverb, etc.

Maybe in 5 years they’ll figure out a zero latency application, add MIDI CC#s and be Like Scope.
My XITE-1 will be 16 years old and finally have some competition...

Ankyu

[dante]

2 different products. But Intergalactic at UAD forum tries to blame Windows :

==========================================================
Intergalactic : Not sure why you're too fragile to understand UA's core structure and how Windows OS conflicts with it. LUNA is aiming to bring the Analog vibe to a digital...

Dante: Windows never stopped Harrison from getting an Analog vibe out of a digital world. I’m getting great analog sounding mixes out of Win x64, UAD2 octocore and Harrison MixBus32C v6.

Intergalactic: In regards to audio interface integration & near zero latency, Mixbus32C+WindowsOS lacks heavily. I personally find any WindowsOS based workstation to be unnatural for that analog vibe via digital.. those that know, know. The near zero latency aspect with LUNA can't be matched with the setup you mentioned.

Dante : Not having that problem at all here. Getting great analog sound, low latency, native and DSP powered mixes on Win 10 / Z390.

Intergalactic : What audio interface are you currently using on that setup?

Dante: Well, I got a choice of either the Sonic Core XITE-1D (PCIe) or the Zoom UAC-8 (USB-3) both at 96khz. In fact Sonic Core XITE (running on same Sharc DSP as UAD2 but bit lower clock speed) had to be made to run on Windows at low latency because it doesn’t support Mac at all (other than bootcamp) and hasn’t since Scope PCI eg a decade or so ago. So Sonic Core haven’t had any such issues with Windows and use same DSP.
=============================================================

No reply to my last point

[Ripper]

Dante, that's got to hurt, no doubt!