The plugin then runs on specialized hardware chip like a CPU called a DSP.
UAD DSP powered plugins use a proprietary system that you must have UA hardware to use. I guess what would really resolve this is a comparison between the plugins (like the Softube ones) that run both natively and on DSP. Sharc is more about low cost and low power, which Intel are not so concerned about.Īs I understand it, the problem with using GPUs is that reading data back from the card is slow, they are not really designed for small blocks of data in one dimensional arrays, and many DSP algorithms are difficult to make massively parallel. However, Intel has the advantage of being able to throw a whole boatload of transistors, cores and cache at the problem, the latency is low, and audio processing does involve a lot of multiplies and accumulates. There is also the assumption in the '80GFLOPS' that you are just going to be using the most parallel SIMD instructions to do a lot of multiply and accumulates. The problem with the modern general purpose CPU solution is that while very fast, it will spend a lot of time stalled waiting on memory. You're certainly entitled to your opinion, and I respect that, but please back it up with some substantial evidence. If theres something out there thats going to get that sound for nothing, i would LOVE to know about it and be able to use it.
#Universal audio plugins without hardware free#
(Talkin' 2004)īy all means, please shoot out your free plugins against your hardware LA2A or 1176 and report back, on a technical level, of how they're mostly the same. Was an available platform to easily process audio which, at the time, were more efficient than what your average machine was capable of doing en masse. This is the reason UA chose to use the sharc chips to begin with. Its not a simple linear "run a signal through a math equation" for anything of substance.
#Universal audio plugins without hardware serial#
You're talking serial processing of individual sample points which are all related to one another (if done right). Audio processing isn't as cut and dry as you might think, which is why no ones been able to really leverage other parts of your computer to do it (ala GPU). The algorithms are immensely complex and by no means are light weight when it comes to the HP needed. Some of the UA plugins, if multiple instances ran natively, would grind your machine something fierce. Thats like saying your cars engine is DRM since it only works with gasoline when you want to use water. Their hardware is not DRM, it clearly serves a purpose and has function (a valuable function if you're dealing with complex, high track count mixes). They look like them and perform the same function (eq, compressor) but dont have the same characteristics. Waves dont sound like the hardware at all imo. ) and by far are better sounding than any of the other emulations out there. I have a lot of the hardware they emulate (la2as, 1176d and A's la3as, dimension D, neve 1073s etc.
The proprietary plugs are expensive, but well worth the money in terms of what they do and how they sound. Those are no different between platforms, the only bonus for having it on the uad platform is that the DSP (sharc) chips do the processing, not your main CPU (cores). Its not meant to keep some people out of the loop, its a platform for professionals and does its job extremely well.Īs far as the quality, certain plugs are unique to the platform (all the ua reissue types la2a, 1176, la3, etc) some are available natively (brainworx plugs are available as vst, aax etc.). The platform has been around for a long time and is nothing new. None of the plugins work natively without the hardware, and its by design, not a "move" on UAs part. As others have stated you need hardware (either one of their interfaces or a pcie card) the cards come in different "sizes" depending on your processing needs.
0 kommentar(er)
