What new for dsp has UA got cooking

With the advent of the new native UADx plugins, I actually think a new chip may not be coming anytime soon. When it was all DSP, the writing seemed to be on the wall, because everyone assumed UA was going to continue to be 100% DSP. But with UA adding native, they zigged when everyone thought they were going to have to zag.

With the native option, many users won't need that DSP horsepower anymore, and many of those that still do want DSP will primarily just use the DSP for tracking, where you can get away with less DSP needed, and use native for the rest. So chips that were previously viewed as underpowered by a lot of people may now all of a sudden seemingly be adequate for most needs.

However, IF UA does come out with a new chip they could go with the often talked about more powerful Sharc chips (whatever the model number is), which apparently wouldn't require a huge recode. If they do introduce a new chip though, I think they're actually more likely to code it for ARM chips because that's where a lot of things are headed and, conveniently, UA is already coding for ARM with their native plugins on Mac. So that scenario wouldn't necessarily require a huge recode either.

Point being, I'm not so convinced that there will be some big, divisive, upheaval-causing transition to some version of UAD3 anywhere in the near future. I think we're already seeing the change now, and everything is fine. Nobody's Apollos have quit working and there's no reason that old architecture (UAD-2 chips) Apollos and new architecture (ARM, Sharc 2, or whatever) Apollos can't all exist in the same ecosystem.

I'm not seeing a cataclysmic UAD1 to UAD-2 style event coming anytime soon.

The other thing is... do I really need more UAD plugins? Do any of us? I suspect that most of us don't. That doesn't mean that I can't be enticed (I did just by Hitsville Chambers), but I'm not in need.

So as long as UAD-2 continues to be supported enough that I can continue to verify ownership, I say I'll take what comes. And (totally selfishly) I hope what comes massively devalues the current generation Apollo's so I can swipe up a few at a great price. 

I'm seeing used 16x16 Avid HD's for $1500 in good shape that were $4k not too long ago. 

If I could get an Apollo x16 for $1500 I'd have to seriously rethink my setup.

The 1st gen silverface Apollos go for around $1500 these days, but the 2nd gen blackface, and obviously the newest X series go for a lot more, unfortunately.

That said, one thing I really like about Apollos is how every Apollo, since their inception, will all work together. 1st gen with an x series? Yup. Twin with an x16? Yup. Just plug a TB cable in between them, and you're good to go.

Talk about easy expansion. Who else offers this kind of compatibility across their entire interface range and history? Not many. Anyway, you can easily link up to four Apollo x16s for up to 64 channels if you want. Avid only let's you get up to 24 channels with Carbon, and on 16 of those channels you have to use their preamps.

Yeah, I forgot about the USB Apollos. In fairness though, I don't think UA ever claimed that the Twin USB would work with other Apollos, did they? I hadn't heard of them being made obsolete. Can you elaborate?

Yeah that's kind of how I took the USB Apollos thing too. Not so much planned obsolescence or any sort of cataclysmic shift. I just took it as, hey, we're trying to offer people with USB an option, even though it's never going to be a big part of our overall game plan.

I don't remember when the first USB Twin came out, or if that came before or after the Apollos went all in on TB, but it seemed pretty apparent from fairly early on in the evolution of the Apollos that TB was ultimately where UA was going to focus, so if you bought a USB Apollo, you kind of had to see what was going on and buy the Apollo USB knowing that it was never going to be a part of the larger ecosystem because there was no way that it could be.

A lot of people have probably forgotten about the the FireWire/TB controversy. When UA released their first TB Apollo, it ended up being discovered that the DSP was running back and forth to the computer over TB, but that the audio was not. It was still running over FW, which was not as fast as TB. That started a shit storm, which UA ultimately fixed when they released TB for real (OK, we mean it this time).

I think with UA, they often have good intentions and do ultimately intend to release the things that people want, they just move slowly on it, and tend to do it in a piecemeal fashion, which then brings on the complaints from whatever group feels that they didn't get their needs met.

Examples: Releasing Luna on Mac, but not Windows at the same time, even though I think there's still a good chance that they do release Luna for Windows. Then there's the recent discussion about newbies getting deals on bundles, but vets getting left out in the cold. UA has since come out and said that something comparable is coming for vets, but why didn't they just release all of this at the same time? Then there is the FW/TB example above. I think UA intended to always ultimately move everything to TB, but they wanted to jump the gun and be able to say they were the first TB interfaces on the market, even though it would be a while before they were ready to run audio over TB as well. Then there was the controversy over making Console 2 available to FW owners. I think that particular controversy is what led to UA staying so tight lipped about new developments and timelines ever since that all happened.
I think UA feels like they got burned a little bit on that one.

With all of these things, UA sometimes has a weird habit of trying too hard/going too fast in some cases while dragging their feet on others. We want to get native plugins out there. We've waited so long to do it, but now we are doing it, but wait, we're only releasing 25 of them and will drip drip the rest. It's this weird bipolar sort of approach to releasing things. Things often times either seem rushed and not fully thought through, or very slow with what seems like an unnecessarily glacial pace, with no happy medium in between. I think UA's default pace is probably to be slow and thoughtful, but then they feel the need to occasionally appease or the pressure to get to market asap, and then they move out of the slow lane before they're ready, so you'll get some things that are not ready for primetime.

But, I will say that they nearly always seem to eventually make good on their goals. So there's that. You just have to be patient and wait on the things to be fixed/improved that were rushed or wait on the things that you know they are working on, but are just taking their sweet time with.

Bottom line is, I don't think UA orphans stuff very often. So that's the flip side of this coin. They may take a while to move on things but, when they do, you usually can trust that they're committed to it.

It would have nice to know that what I was buying at the time was at the wrong end of the rainbow so to speak. They certainly weren’t presenting that model as the betamax of their line at the time. Also, they certainly have the know how to have allowed connectivity of some sort to the newer devices. The USB Twin worked fine but aside from taking on 8 more inputs via ADAT it was stuck where it was and couldn’t grow. But like I said, you take a chance on tech and it cuts both ways. I was collateral damage in the direction they decided to go and although I was a good paying customer, I was in the vast minority.

Can you control those MH DSP plugins via a DAW? I'm not aware of such capabilities, but MH is admittedly not very much on my radar. DAW control is the big appeal for me with Luna, as I've never loved the shuffle back and forth between the DAW and interface mixer app, regardless of what DAW and mixer app I've used. That includes Apollo's built in "Console" mixer app. I never loved having to use that either.

“I've never loved the shuffle back and forth between the DAW and interface mixer app, “

Agreed, to me Luna’s increasing integration is a big feature,ARM and the new switching, improves that integration further and not needing an apollo for mixing really broadens its appeal.

As said previously though, as UA is also a hardware company the lack of inserts and the delay in implementation is a mystery: is ua just trying to get people to use its summing to try to wean them off hardware while mixing?

I bet they add a native dsp chip to the Apollo as a way to start phasing out the sharks

I wonder this as well. Part of me thinks they won't give up on sharc because they've spent a lot of money coding to make those work well. But if they could have the onboard low latency DSP with an ARM chip, then their interfaces once again hold an advantage. Although you could use your computer's CPU, having DSP onboard means that in any situation, with any computer setup there's a chance at faster processing. (This is all pie in the sky talk. No actual clue.)

I bet they'll do something though that ties said ARM DSP to LUNA only. That seems like a UAD move. 

UA wants more users but on its terms, the devil will be in the namm deets.

Opening up mixing in luna without an apollo, really means all those peeps who haven’t or won’t buy an apollo and don’t care a about unison. UAdX opened up the plugs ( some, not all) so you don’t need ua dsp, (in every instance.)

I don’t see UA burning down the barn at namm and launching a completely open platform.

Well I have mixed FOH and wedges for gigs of all types and sizes and being old school I think my analog board days is why I hate flipping between apps! Yeah I want it all in front of me always! Yeah PT TDM and HD spoiled me, having it all in one program.