|
Post by Johnkenn on May 12, 2020 12:22:57 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by phantom on May 12, 2020 13:21:30 GMT -6
Different enough to UAD1073?
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on May 12, 2020 14:29:23 GMT -6
Still haven't tried...probably not.
|
|
|
Post by notneeson on May 12, 2020 14:38:16 GMT -6
I would imagine they just re-worked the EQ section and left the preamp the same as the 1073 since that's correct. Unless it's supposed to be some particular specimen of 1084 that they are modeling?
|
|
|
Post by dror520 on May 12, 2020 14:49:10 GMT -6
I just tried a null test with the UAD 1073 and 1084 and they don't cancel out each means they are not the same. This was with the EQ disengaged.
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on May 12, 2020 14:53:28 GMT -6
Hm, interesting. Not sure how essential this would be to 1073 UAD owners. I guess I'll have to test it.
|
|
|
Post by jeremygillespie on May 12, 2020 15:12:02 GMT -6
Hm, interesting. Not sure how essential this would be to 1073 UAD owners. I guess I'll have to test it. The eq is WAY more usable.
|
|
|
Post by Vincent R. on May 12, 2020 15:56:18 GMT -6
Agreed. Honestly not to interested in the preamp part. The Unison preamps all roll everything off drastically at 16k, which is kind of funny, but I always felt they sound good. Hit them too hard without engaging the pad and you distort the preamp even before clipping.
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on May 12, 2020 16:37:37 GMT -6
Hm, interesting. Not sure how essential this would be to 1073 UAD owners. I guess I'll have to test it. The eq is WAY more usable. I would say, "slightly" more usable. But hey. One man's tiny is another man's huge. Heh.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on May 12, 2020 17:20:44 GMT -6
The eq is WAY more usable. I would say, "slightly" more usable. But hey. One man's tiny is another man's huge. Heh. Wish my wife thought that.
|
|
|
Post by sam on May 13, 2020 10:10:36 GMT -6
I hope this makes Heritage do an Elite 2ch 1084. I'd probably sell the AMLs for a that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2020 11:13:43 GMT -6
The eq is WAY more usable. I would say, "slightly" more usable. But hey. One man's tiny is another man's huge. Heh. The 1081 plugin is rad if you're just looking for EQ. Certainly more usable.
|
|
|
Post by popmann on May 13, 2020 17:05:58 GMT -6
So, how many can you get at 96khz on that Hexcore Sharc? Can you just open a LUNA session with 48 channels of 1084 into the Neve Summing? I mean....a virtual 80s series...I mean...how can that be bad? Only with ALSO full automation?
|
|
|
Post by dror520 on May 13, 2020 17:45:11 GMT -6
At 96khz I got 12 1084 with the EQ engaged and 31 without EQ. This is with an Apollo x16. Hope this helps.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on May 13, 2020 17:45:46 GMT -6
So, how many can you get at 96khz on that Hexcore Sharc? Can you just open a LUNA session with 48 channels of 1084 into the Neve Summing? I mean....a virtual 80s series...I mean...how can that be bad? Only with ALSO full automation? Been wanting to check. I’ll try and do that. Here’s an instance chart I found. Doesn’t look like many...but I’m usually at 48 kHz. Kind've wish they had a less intensive version like the 1073... help.uaudio.com/hc/en-us/articles/215262223-UAD-2-DSP-Chart?mobile_site=true
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on May 13, 2020 17:46:26 GMT -6
At 96khz I got 12 1084 with the EQ engaged and 31 without EQ. This is with an Apollo x16. Hope this helps. Mono?
|
|
|
Post by dror520 on May 13, 2020 19:04:32 GMT -6
At 96khz I got 12 1084 with the EQ engaged and 31 without EQ. This is with an Apollo x16. Hope this helps. Mono? Yea
|
|
|
Post by wiz on May 13, 2020 19:13:44 GMT -6
I tried to instal the latest UAD update last night... got screwed... I restored and will wait...
cheers
Wiz
|
|
|
Post by wiz on May 13, 2020 19:14:21 GMT -6
I use the 1073 as my channel EQ, so I am interested if there is much of a difference (you know 149 bucks difference)
|
|
|
Post by notneeson on May 13, 2020 20:14:04 GMT -6
I use the 1073 as my channel EQ, so I am interested if there is much of a difference (you know 149 bucks difference) Do the limitations of the 73 bother you? Especially the lack of 10k and 16k?
|
|
|
Post by wiz on May 13, 2020 20:17:29 GMT -6
I use the 1073 as my channel EQ, so I am interested if there is much of a difference (you know 149 bucks difference) Do the limitations of the 73 bother you? Especially the lack of 10k and 16k? nope, not that I am aware of? I usually don't do much up that high...on the 1073 I give it a "little nudge" cheers Wiz
|
|
|
Post by popmann on May 13, 2020 20:23:39 GMT -6
I never use a 1073 for much of anything. I go 1094 if I want (virtual) Neve EQ. The 73, relatively speaking is a high and low shelf. Not bad for tracking where you just want a little more open top or heft down low...so, see next part....I think the 73 is probably fine for tracking.
Wow-12(mono) on a new Hexcore... That holds up to my general recommendation: buy UAD that you want to print through...buy native plugs that you want to mix.
Chart plus the above report also says they're internally upsampling since they list about 12 at 44.1. So, if you can get 12 at 96khz...they're just internally resampling--and disabling that at double rate. Thus for all these "mk2" plug ins you'd be able to run the same amount of them (roughly) at 48 or 96. That's good to know. The earlier ones used twice the UAD power. I'd casually seen the 44.1 stats and thought it would be undoable at 96. Look like I'm wrong. it doesn't matter what sample rate you use for the new UAD stuff. That's cool.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on May 13, 2020 20:58:32 GMT -6
I never use a 1073 for much of anything. I go 1094 if I want (virtual) Neve EQ. The 73, relatively speaking is a high and low shelf. Not bad for tracking where you just want a little more open top or heft down low...so, see next part....I think the 73 is probably fine for tracking. Wow-12(mono) on a new Hexcore... That holds up to my general recommendation: buy UAD that you want to print through...buy native plugs that you want to mix. Chart plus the above report also says they're internally upsampling since they list about 12 at 44.1. So, if you can get 12 at 96khz...they're just internally resampling--and disabling that at double rate. Thus for all these "mk2" plug ins you'd be able to run the same amount of them (roughly) at 48 or 96. That's good to know. The earlier ones used twice the UAD power. I'd casually seen the 44.1 stats and thought it would be undoable at 96. Look like I'm wrong. it doesn't matter what sample rate you use for the new UAD stuff. That's cool. That being said, it would probably be undoable even if these were native. Like - I’m not gonna be able to strap 32 of these over a mix native or dsp. But that’s what I like about UAD - the combo of the two - offloading the load off of native. Honestly, I’m more interested in the saturation of the emulation of a 1084 than the eq. If I needed just EQ, I could use anything. And that’s where I think Luna has an advantage over other DAWs. I know you’ve been a proponent of Mixbus, and I don’t doubt it’s got something similar going on. I just couldn’t get comfortable with it. Luna has been kind’ve second nature coming from Pro Tools. I’ve now mixed four songs in it, and not only do I think I’m getting the best mixes I’ve ever done, I think I’m hearing things differently. So all that to say - if this is the way it has to be to get results like that, then I’m in.
|
|
|
Post by craigmorris74 on May 14, 2020 8:15:38 GMT -6
That being said, it would probably be undoable even if these were native. Like - I’m not gonna be able to strap 32 of these over a mix native or dsp. But that’s what I like about UAD - the combo of the two - offloading the load off of native. Honestly, I’m more interested in the saturation of the emulation of a 1084 than the eq. If I needed just EQ, I could use anything. And that’s where I think Luna has an advantage over other DAWs. I know you’ve been a proponent of Mixbus, and I don’t doubt it’s got something similar going on. I just couldn’t get comfortable with it. Luna has been kind’ve second nature coming from Pro Tools. I’ve now mixed four songs in it, and not only do I think I’m getting the best mixes I’ve ever done, I think I’m hearing things differently. So all that to say - if this is the way it has to be to get results like that, then I’m in. Just curious, does this sound better than mixing through the CAPI Sumbus?
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on May 14, 2020 8:32:15 GMT -6
Just curious, does this sound better than mixing through the CAPI Sumbus? They definitely do similar things.
|
|