Testing 6 x UAD 2 Octo DSP cards in 1 system

[vascomusic]

Interesting video about testing 6 x UAD 2 Octo DSP cards performance.

https://youtu.be/M5z53A5RW7I

[garyb]

only $3800 for the expansion chassis.

people think that an XITE is crazy expensive at that money...

[JoPo]

Do 3 S|C pci cards work in a Cubix Xpander box like that ?

I read on Z that only one can work properly in some kind of pci slot expansion box like that, no ? Is Cubix Xpander box better than Startech box (for instance but there is Magma also, I believe...) ?

[JoPo]

only $3800 for the expansion chassis.

people think that an XITE is crazy expensive at that money...

WHAT ????

Edit : Oh ! It's PCIe expansion... But 3800$ !! Why buying that ? Just buy another computer !

[garyb]

exactly.
or buy some hardware...

[JoPo]

I hope it works correctly !

[Sounddesigner]

only $3800 for the expansion chassis.

people think that an XITE is crazy expensive at that money...

Plus $9,000 for the 6 UAD-2 Octo's . So that's a total of $12,800 wich is the cost of hardware for a very limited plugin platform that sounds inferior to the hardware. I'm not saying there is something wrong with buying UAD but I am saying buying $12,800 worth of UAD makes no sense to me.

[erminardi]

Just leaving apart the fact of the tons of DSPs and bla bla, I think that the UAD software and hardware is a very very good example of optimisation and very good engineering.
I'm working almost every day now with both S|C and UAD boards fitted inside and I never had a flaw with UAD... with the PCI Sope... well... some congenital instability is always expected.

But I also know that the budgets and the manufacturing period are sooo different.
After more than 15 years and my Scope boards are still alive and OS compatible!!! Wow, a sort of miracle in this programmed obsolescence world!

[erminardi]

I'm still dreaming since years a Scope environment VST/VSTi compatible just like as the UAD system.
Expecially for the inserts FX and the modular as VSTi with a true total recall with one single DAW project file.

[hubird]

+1

[astroman]

someone who owns a UAD system once swore to me that there is absolutely no difference in sound between native and DSP implementation of the plugins
CPU power isn't a big deal today when you can get an i5 SOC that fits in your pocket
as all the UAD stuff is post-pro anyway, low latency isn't a concern either...
it's just the branding that sells - as it did on ProTools
(since I own one myself, now I know how deeply people have been fooled)

cheers, Tom

[erminardi]

someone who owns a UAD system once swore to me that there is absolutely no difference in sound between native and DSP implementation of the plugins
CPU power isn't a big deal today when you can get an i5 SOC that fits in your pocket
as all the UAD stuff is post-pro anyway, low latency isn't a concern either...
it's just the branding that sells - as it did on ProTools
(since I own one myself, now I know how deeply people have been fooled)

cheers, Tom

To be honest I cannot find yet alternatives to a lot of important UAD plugs, of course many third parts are coming from the native counterpart, but for example the Studer is still unbeaten IMO, as for the Fairchild.
And if I should pay for a plugin, I prefer to have it in a DSP to spare CPU (that's is never enough...)
The latest native synths sounds close to the Scope one, but they needs a quarter of CPU to give a monophonic patch.
Same concept.

ps. I buy UAD plugins when they reach heavy discounts, so almost never paid them more than 25-99 euros.

[garyb]

UAD makes a great product.

i'd say that it works very well and that many of the plugins are really nice.

there's nothing wrong with their products.

a computer will never be the same as using the best hardware, but that hardly matters.

Scope is way more than a UAD card, however that doesn't mean that either product should or shouldn't be used. i was just pointing out the extreme expense of the nonsense in the video and suggested that money might be better spent in other directions.

[yayajohn]

yeah that test is really getting into the ridiculous category.......money-wise that is. Who wouldn't want that much power.

[braincell]

I'll take your word on the quality. If it's the best mixer emulation, it's still cheaper than the mixer it's emulating. For professionals with home studios I guess this is a must have. I tried the demo of the Waves REDD and I liked it a lot.

[erminardi]

UAD makes a great product (...)
Scope is way more than a UAD card (...)

Garyb, I agree with you, when I was using the Scope 4.5 on a 32bit OS with the XTC mode I always used (apparently simple) stuff like i.e. the SoftClip as insert in every channel.
I'm missing a lot the XTC (apart its instability, of course).
I use now the Scope mode but basically just for the synths and when strictly necessary some special FX.
But using a scope device as an external insert is now insanely complex

[garyb]

most mixes are not important.

why not mix in Scope for the mixes that are? you can still use sequencer automation.

[erminardi]

I use a lot of VST effects, then the choice is always between:
1) mix in Cubase 8.5 and lose Scope effects
2) mix in Scope losing VST effects (as I already told, using Scope FX as esternal gear is a little insane as inserts. Sends are stull ok)

This is THE power of UAD, IMO.

[garyb]

right, UAD's specifically for mixdown in a DAW.

Scope is for NOT being stuck inside the sequencer, but still being able to use all the computer's resources. it really depends on how you want to work and what kind of work you are doing.

i don't see why you have to jettison vsts to mix in Scope. vsts that are inserted can still be inserted and bus rx can go out their own asio channels. as i said, i'd only bother for mixes that it would actually matter.

using the Scope stuff as external synth boxes and fx boxes is fine, too.

[braincell]

I found using Scope with Cubase to be too cumbersome.