When is UAD gonna release faster DSP?

With Luna flirting with host dsp, one wonders if the writing is starting to get written on the wall for sharc chips ?

But, not everyone has Apollos or will use Luna, so seems unlikely UA would abandon some form of internal dsp.

Sharc released a sort of dual core chip, like 5 year’s ago, but so far, no redesign and take up from UA.

Other than sticking it’s cards in tbolt or usb chassis, no real innovation in the sharc based dsp model: a curiosity as sharcs get so left in the processing throughout dust.

Sharc system works fine, just seems odd that UA is , so far, static with sharcs as a core processor.

The trick with UA is patience and buying strategically, it often gives away satellites with the purchase of a new Apollo and regularly has sales to reduce plug in costs.

The sale that ended 2021, provided the cheapest plug in prices and best coupons I have witnessed, literally $299 plug ins for $19.

A great deal and I also think of the money UA leaves in my pocket with these savings, not chump change.

The speed of the newest computers and the quality of 3rd party plugs is possibly making the UAD dsp model redundant.
Once upon a time UAD could trade on their plug ins quality to mitigate the fact that the sharcs were a bit slow and costly; my take is that people like Tokyo Dawn, Fab Filter, PSP are now making plug ins on par and the latest computers don't need a 'Satellite" type box to run them with manageable latency - UAD should be worried me thinks.
Cheers, Ross

I think looking at any single feature denies the one-stop-shop effect.

With UA, you get a great interface with great plugins, the analog vibe factor and low latency recording. You don’t need to hunt down the “best” of each and hope it all works together. That’s pretty powerful.

With LUNA now they become even more compelling.

I suppose its a bit like Windows vs Mac (please lets not go off topic) as in its an ecosystem.

Personally I like getting good everything out of the way in a single decision and just getting down to making music.

If you are recording yourself or an additional track or two at a time, latency will hardly be an issue for many interfaces these days. If you are producing tracks with a full band, or something that has several dozen tracks and then need to punch in overdubs or add something different...well latency can really hit you hard. That's what sold me on the Apollo initially, even moreso than their plugin reputation...which I had never heard one of their plugins in a studio environment ever.

The Apollo is going to be something they'll hang their hat on for a long time, until people stop buying them. It's one of the top selling interfaces and really if you add up the features it touts it's a pretty good price, depending on what you require. They don't update the chips because that new development would cost a lot of money to fix something that works and sells very well for them. Would they make more money with the updated chips?

But overall I know they have seen the writing on the wall for DSP only plugins. That's why the Luna development with "extensions" is so much in their future. (Note that they still close the system, requiring an Apollo.) They'll only build the library of extensions and if the customer base really buys into Luna enough I'm sure DSP plugins will be less critical to the bottom line.

Also, they bought Bock and Townsend Labs and I'm guessing there will be other diversity of products. I'm guessing this will still tie into software, but it's a different revenue stream to develop and doesn't work against their other stuff.

When will UAD release native plug-ins too because we can have nice server solutions today?
I am a very happy native and I don't miss any UAD card, but I may buy UAD native plug-ins!
Why not give people the choice of DSP or not DSP...

Why do people that think UA’s business plan bad so desperately want them to change their business plan? I have a brand new M1 MBP. Glad I can offload plugs because running 5 + virtual instruments is still taxing.

Because native Latency is always a variable, the guys writing the code don’t know your system. Write it for DSP and you have control of the system, Latency is then a known constant.

1. Companies have to write plugs and optimize them specifically for the DSP IC and overall design they are going to produce.
2. A company would have to certify every single plugin every 3rd party coder writes for that DSP/design or risk severe performance issues. This would take a large team of DSP and QA specialists.
3. Nobody will pay 500$ a plugin that it will cost to pay for the DSP specialist/QA groups to exist.
4. DSP-centric developers are far less prolific than you know.
5. DSP developers who work in audio are far less prolific than any other DSP developer. Scarcity makes $$$ go up.
6. CPU power is cheap. RAM is cheap. HDD space is cheap. (well, if you're PC that is)
7. Everybody can write C++ code that works well enough to sell but is not very optimized. Like my old 8th grade teacher who thought an hour for her homework was not a long time, she never considered that I had 5 other teachers who thought the same thing.

8. A lot of your plugs that suck power probably don't need to.
9. Brands that develop DSP hardware intend for you to purchase THEIR brand of plugins at THEIR prices. They're not going to risk competition using their own hardware.
10. Your VI's and plugs that eat your CPU power would simply eat your DSP power instead.

OK


BTW - I actually was exaggerating...I've only tried about 4 VIs at once and it was handling it with no sweat. Anyway...There are plenty of UAD plugs that work fantastically.

My grandmother's apple pie was award winning.  It was an heirloom recipe.  Unfortunately my grandfather lost it after she died.  :/