PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

couldn't agree more on that one.

hubird wrote: I don't know of serious denials of the claim however.

Why would one believe the claim of accurate emulation if UA HAS PROVEN TO LIE before? If their claims were true then why is there a need for a MKII? They claimed version 1's were accurate then after many years release MKII, that should be the tell-tale and all the proof one needs to know far as what's going on.

UA quietly removed the evidence from their website where they claimed some V1 emulations were accurate so that no one would have proof they were lieing, but there is still a little proof out there. UA did this same removal tactic with their article on firewire where they really downtalked firewire and stated how inferior it is and why they chose pcie/expresscard then after Apollo's were forced to use Firewire and some users mentioned the article UA removed it. They do cover their tracks .

UA have been lieing and building their empire off those lies for a long time now, and no matter what proof is brought to their users they turn a blind eye and prefer to believe the next lie. What happens when MKIII's come are those going to be the new 'accurate'? Once someone lies to me I have no reason to believe the next claim.

Hmm,

Yes, I noticed that they always release an MKII that takes 5 time more the DSP

-Tom

of course, the more gear, the better....

Gary,

I'll admit, I have a DSP plugin hoarding issue

-Tom

tlaskows wrote:Hmm,

Yes, I noticed that they always release an MKII that takes 5 time more the DSP

-Tom

The dsp usage of MKII's clearly suggests that the version 1's were not all that close imo. Im sure when MKIII's are released they'll need 10X the power of MKII's. Even if they have accuracy at MKV they will have made a lot of money off the 4 previous lies and be rich enough and their wealth will be a testimony to how insane it is out here and the truly accurate MKV's might not matter at that point if the emulation fad ceases.

They're improving...

Last time I had to wait for an answer for like 3 weeks. But this time they got back to me in about 2 days.

I got the analog classic plus bundle cause I complained that I don't have it (older card).

-Tom

Had great support before Christmas time 2014, Tom


Ok guys, you love hardware, that's ok with me, and you hate updating policies of soft companies with or without coupled hardware, just like me

Just keep it real: UAD isn't your girlfriend.
Lies suggest a personal relationship, while you're mainly talking about marketing policy and strategy.
Meaning: nothing special.

I work with my UAD plugs selection since a few months now, and it does what it says, as far as I can detect, tho Gary's remark of you won't miss what you don't know is (always) true.

I will post about my setup with UAD and how it works out, and a small tip regarding the EMT 140 Plate on a cymbal sample

The 140 is sick man!

I love it!

-Tom

Jumpin' in... I agree that the whole fad concept and the software plug-in boom is a conspiracy to rake (rape) it in by the manufacturers. Endorsements and big name tags sold to the highest license (licentious) bidder. So many project studio newbies (God bless 'em) looking for the holy grail. So many developers devouring CPU cycles to emulate or is it imitate stuff. Hey, I been a victim (rectum?) but I just want to sound better and not the same as someone else although I will steal from the best when necessary to suit my taste but I'm not going to chase every new "old" thing that pops up no mo'.

My experience has shown me that given the tools I already have (way too many anyways, from being rectumized by the fadness) that I can do what I need to do by spending the time with those tools and putting in the ear time to tweak and learn even the basics. Maybe you can just drop in a plug and get magic but to tell the truth I don't really see any more gain (is that a pun?) than using the S/C stuff chained to my DAW. I'm open to stuff but I think its gotten out of hand and may not necessarily be driven by the music.

I remember when I was in my twenties I used to challenge the rich twits in their 'Vettes with my BMW 2002 4 banger. I knew my hardware better than they knew theirs. I could drive a stick like a tornado, barely even using the clutch, only the synchros when they would only have a dufis 3-speed automatic. What a pity. I still think that the hardware depends on who's operating it. Here's a case where half the cylinders operated by twice the driver leaves rubber in three gears out of five. It's doable. Yeah, so I had a Paxton compressor. That's a compressor that can't be emulated!

The 140 is really nice but if I just did the roll-offs, pre-delays, decay adjustments, etc, that the dude is talking about with a couple of other plates and some M/S eq I would come pretty damn red-pubic hair close to saving myself 200 puseils.

hubird are you defending something?

i thought i said in the first post, that i am SURE that the UAD plugin is great. i don't think anyone denies this.

i simply encouraged you and others to learn more about the art of audio. hobbyists are the archivists and keepers of the flame for the audio arts, and always have been. this naturally includes hardware and software. there is no software that doesn't come from a hardware reality. sometimes the most convenient solution is not the best one to achieve one's goals(sometimes it is). of course, the big assumption is that you care about audio more than computers. if you don't, never mind.

ronnie, i hear you.

I'm defending nothing, really
I'm discussing, or so.
As my former posts show.

However:
This is how I use my UAD, and some experiences

In Cubase, UAD takes care for the audio tracks to be ready befor sending them to Scope.
So I got myself the LA-2A Compressor, the 1176 limiter, and the Pultec EQ, say, first aid and basic. Plus the Api Vision strip, to sound exactly like Rumours and for Christmas .

Actually I was impressed by the preamp, which ads magic also without Apollo, just less pregnant than the formerly mentioned audio link shows

It's a pleasure to see how well the sound keeps up while applying extreme settings, be it the compressor, the limiter or the Pultec.
The reverbs are impressive, love the plate, see further


And because my setup of the 6 aux send channels is a given thing, I also added the Plate EMT 140 and the EMT 250 reverb for special treatment already in Cubase, or the use of the EMT 240 as chorus or phaser (and more), which sound really magic by the way.
One guiding guitar chord track got interesting just from the effect.

The De-Esser was heavily planned, but I was out of money, worse actually
All singer I do mixes for seam to miss a front tooth or have a built-in whistle, as the esses are terrible, especially in combination with bad mike technics, so I really needed it.
The received voucher of €50,- I did spend on the Precision De-Esser during sales time, also 50,-

The de-esser works great by the way, you can go deep, also on other type of voice peaks.


With this setup I have all I need in Cubase for a controlled stream to Scope.
Scope does the actual sends: 2 delays, 2 reverbs, ER, and mostly a stereo maker like a chorus.
Plus the mastering setup of course.
Works well and fast, everything together


-A physical cymbal actually is kind of a plate, I thought, so I put the EMT 140 Plate reverb on a continuous cymbal (audio) pattern, with the 'mix' fx setting to 3/4 fx.
...Wow, the static cymbal sample suddenly got to life, the emulated resonant waves in that huge plate keep coming.
Doesn't prove anything, but it was great listening

A link to the mix with that cymbal you can find here:
http://forums.planetz.com/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=33726
Nothing to defend or prove, just have a listen

sure. while that certainly sounds nice, it doesn't sound like vintage hardware in an expensive studio. at all.

i think that it doesn't necessarily need to sound any differently than it does, i'm just listening as an engineer who has been chasing audio for some 30 years and was an avid collecter of music for at least 10 or 15 years before that and being truthful.

i don't deny the quality and/or value of the tools either. as i said, i LOVE my SC rig which includes the native bits. it's made so many things possible that were impossible with the 24 track 2inch Scully tape machine that used to sit where the clients do. people who have no idea how to make music can do that today!(jk) i work for SC because i have loved that rig since Scope v1.1(or 1.2).

UAD plugins are great! i do find them strangely two-dimensional, as almost all native bounces seem to sound. that's one strength of Scope's environment, is that it's pretty three-dimensional for computer audio, at least to my ears, it's much closer to the way that hardware sounds than native typically is. i don't think the flatness is inherent in the UAD sound, necessarily, but that it might be part of being in the native environment.

of course, i have a few cool pieces of hardware that can do cool tricks that the software can't(at least not without a stupid amount of effort). i'm just an old guy that will pass on information. if people don't want it, i still might just put it out there(with a smile), because you never know. and i can't help it...

there is sales hype and reality.

i would say that the voiceprint of those pieces of hardware is in a typical emu, and that this is a good thing and certainly worth using. it doesn't have to be the exact sound. i just wish these manufacturers would stop trying to say that thier products are the equal to the real thing because they don't have to be. what they are is good enough, user friendly, wallet friendly, high quality audio tools. they are pro-worthy. but let's not fool ourselves either. ain't nothing like the real thang baybee, ain't nothing like the real thing, yeah.

But why would you prefer to record with something vintage that distorts the sound instead of recording clean with today's technology then colour is after?

-Tom

garyb wrote:sure. while that certainly sounds nice, it doesn't sound like vintage hardware in an expensive studio. at all.

Sure, it was just meant to show the EMT 140 on the cymbal

garyb wrote:


UAD plugins are great! i do find them strangely two-dimensional, as almost all native bounces seem to sound. that's one strength of Scope's environment, is that it's pretty three-dimensional for computer audio, at least to my ears, it's much closer to the way that hardware sounds than native typically is. i don't think the flatness is inherent in the UAD sound, necessarily, but that it might be part of being in the native environment.


there is sales hype and reality.

That flatness and 2 dimensional is what I've always heard with UAD and Native plugins generally as well. They are improving in that department tho but something is still not quite right imo. There is also a fidelity problem IMV, and I know fidelity lack may be a strange description for vintage emulations wich are going to be dirty by nature, but it seems they are too heavy-handed and blot-out/wash-over the original source too much. I suspect this resolution problem and 2 dimensional problem may be the same or from one-and-the-same underlying problem. I do believe it's the actual platforms themselves causing the problems possibly the type of math used (fixed point vs floating point) like many other highly respected people have suggested. I know that even amateurs who use the SCOPE SDK usually make pretty good sounding plugins easily and this doesn't occur like this in Native land with amateurs, the quality level of SCOPE is generally good regardless to who the developer is or their level of talent. I know Ray from dNa also suggested it could be SCOPE's Fixed-Point math that allows for its great sound. dNA makes amazing plugins wich are the best I've heard. Then there is the Native developer Bob Lentini who developed SAWstudio who said in a video he was not sold on how other Native DAWs sounded so he said he made SAWstudio to have smooth analog sound wich you don't hear much from other DAWs and music generally produced from them, and he challenges others to make music solely in SAWstudio and solely in other DAWs and compare and that you will hear a difference. The big statement he made was that he was not sold on the floating point and dither hype of todays audio world. SAWstudio uses fixed-point math and when I demo'd it it did sound really good to me. I'm not saying for sure it is a math difference that the respective platforms have causing sonic differences cause I don't know truthfully, just saying some of us (including Native developers) do hear a difference and that it has been suggested by some developers that it's in the Math. Here's a link to the Bob lentini video it's in the upper left side of the web page - http://www.sawstudio.com/

EDITED

tlaskows wrote:But why would you prefer to record with something vintage that distorts the sound instead of recording clean with today's technology then colour is after?

-Tom

Sometimes that dirt and distortion is exactly the musicality that an emulation misses. Low noise floor is nice, but not always when it means removing character.

noise and dirt are also emulated if done well.
Often you can choose on the emu plug to chain the noise or de-chain.
With UAD you often get and the early versions and the 'improved' ones.
The early versions were more noisy then.

tlaskows wrote:But why would you prefer to record with something vintage that distorts the sound instead of recording clean with today's technology then colour is after?

-Tom

"color" IS distortion of the original signal. sometimes we like it, sometimes we don't. dead-accurate is not usually what sounds "best". when we like the damage done, we call it "color". when it is the kind of damage that sounds bad, we call it "distortion". nobody likes perfect reproduction of sound. we call that "cold and clinical".

even a more direct answer-"because it sounds better". if it didn't, we wouldn't emulate it.