Avid and UAD - DSP Is Dead!
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 25 ส.ค. 2024
- Affiliate link options below.
Please know that by using any of the links below helps me continue with the channel as if you choose to buy from any of the links below I will get a small commission.
Purchase All Sweetwater Gear Right HERE: - sweetwater.sjv...
Purchase Gear from Thomann right Here: www.thomann.de...
Purchase All Proaudiostar Gear Right HERE: - proaudiostarco...
Purchase All Seymour Duncan Pickups Right HERE: - seymour-duncan...
Purchase All East West Sound Gear Right HERE: - astoundcommerc...
![ว้าว!ลุงบีมแบกทองมารับขวัญหลานกันยกบ้าน [cc] แดนแพทตี้ SS2 | EP.49 |](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Osihq1OAs-4/mqdefault.jpg)
![fellow fellow - PROUD feat. INK WARUNTORN [STRING QUARTET]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/BQrVkMPTdHE/mqdefault.jpg)
I totally agree with the sentiment of the video (even though I recently bought an Apollo interface). I would like to clear up some terminology though. As someone who is a software engineer first and hobby musician second the title "DSP is dead" sounds very strange to me. 😀
Wikipedia defines DSP (Digital Signal Processing) as "the mathematical manipulation of an information signal". It is what is going on in your DAW, in your plugins and in your audio interfaces. It can be done either in software (using general purpose CPU:s) or in specialized DSP chips. (Heck, it can even be done with pen and paper. Although the latency would be astronomical. 😀) What you mean is that expensive specialized DSP hardware is dead. Not DSP itself. If DSP is dead then it's back to analog consoles and tape for all of us.
Spoken like a software engineer :)
Those pesky end users!!!! 🤓
@prepended prepended yes, all digital audio processing is DSP regardless if it runs on the host computer, dedicated DSP hardware or any other type of processor. He really should have specified that he was talking about dedicated hardware DSP products that are not using the host computer.
It is true that new processors became really powerful in the last couple of years, but developing DSPs on a FPGA will make a huge difference because the instructions of the code are not compiled anymore and translated to machine code (assembly) even low level code (c/c++). The code is transformed to an electronic device that includes digital logic circuitry where the instructions will be executed as it is without any limitation on the hardware architecture and with less power consumption (less copying for the data from the memory to the cpu or to the gpu).
In my opinion, I agree that those DSPs are really expensive and overrated sometimes but the audio field in general is not ready yet to drop a lot of operations/traditions and didn't shift to the digital world completely. Hopefully we will get there specially with AI and machine learning.
@@aeiplanner why do you think they use FPGAs and not ASICs?
@@aeiplanner FPGAs are programmable Asics...& Asics are specific to the engineering application board level design
@@aeiplanner Processors have DSP silicon built in capabilities
@@aeiplanner why?
@@aeiplanner you need to be an engineer and the experience of an EE to understand this. So far you mention parts of the product but do not understand both the hardware the software and the application top layer that drives both .
DSP compliments my workflow and is invaluable whenever client wants to do some post pro towards the end of a mix when my buffer settings are maxed and I've got a ton of vsts going.
It´s so easy to bounce/Import/disable all tracks expect that bounce... do whatever overdubs.. in the session.. and the comp and consolidate the new recording... all in the session.. minimal hassle
sold my UAD and invested in a MacBook Pro, it is a monster of a machine and most people can not comprehend what apple silicon can do…most have to experience to believe, it’s beyond progression…
y not combine the two
@@jaahbeats350 if you own a uad and invested in there plug ins then use it, but most new plug ins sound even better than the uad and cheaper…it’s hard to describe or compare what the new apple machines do…
Is 16 Gig RAM still considered minimum RAM with that M1 chip running a full featured DAW?
@@DaveWestGuitar bro I use a 2014 mac mini core i7 16gb ram and it works perfectly with pro tools 2022. And pro tools is the most demanding daw when it comes to cpu and ram. I use hella plugins, autotune, waves, slate digital and never crashed.
Jus make sure buffer size it correct. 256 samples for recording and 1024 samples for mixing/mastering. Now imagine an M1 with 16gb ram
M1 64GB RAM 4TB SSD here and starting to buld my home studio with RME UFX+ and their higher-end mic preamps. Any advice? :D I used to use Cubase. tbh I've not tracked in maybe 20 years so things certainly look a little different than they used to.
I am a Uad user with an apollo X6 and an satellite octo. Today I mixed an entire session using Luna and I was impressed by the sonic quality. Now all the tape and Api strips run natively, freeing a lot of dsp for other plugins like reverbs. I think luna is the future of Uad and the sound is really making me think to switching from cubase. For now I am going to keep testing Luna for mixing and cubase for producing. Great video!
I'm a UAD user running Logic for Production, Luna for Mixing and Reaper for Mastering. Having multiple systems is a plus for flexibility.
@@alexanderaseffa luna for mixing is killer!!
Once Luna grows up, maybe. It still needs to mature before it’s ready for prime time.
Nope. M1 max kills the DSP game. That laptop is an eye opener. You really have to see it to believe it.
The idea that anything in Luna runs natively is disingenuous I think. Sure some of the compute is done by the CPU. But you can’t run Luna or those plugins without an Apollo or it’s DSP. So yeah… you free up some DSP for their plugins… but so what? Your m1 CPU could be doing that too without any impact to stability or performance. The only thing Luna is doing is making you rely on Apollo and it’s outdated and ridiculously overpriced DSP.
Are unison preamps a justification? My understanding is they actually change the physical properties of the preamp to better emulate the actual hardware. If this true, UA interface + expensive plugins are still cheaper than the real thing.
Yes, unison preamps are controlling the hardware impedance on the mic preamps and Hi-Z. Different loads affect the frequency response of mics and and output levels of instruments.
I'm an Apollo owner who was initially excited about Unison, but it's incredibly easy and cheap to alter the impedance of an incoming signal. So these days I think Unison was just a marketing trick although I'm not complaining about the quality of any of the plugins.
@@kmjansen so with that said, how do I get the sound of certain preamp? Can I just record audio using cheaper preamp (let’s say in the focusrite clarett) and then alter the sound using native plugins?
The UA reps here on YT and on reddit are saying the Unison plugins "sound the same" as the native Spark UADx plugins. There are videos (Steve Kinney) demonstrating this. I've run tests myself. The *sonic* benefits of Unison claimed by UA marketing have turned out to be utter bs. That doesn't make the plugins bad,..they sound great imo. Just that "unison" has basically zero sonic benefits. Maybe the other aspects of Unison are of real value to some users (amp sims)...and I simply have not experienced it...yet I use amp sims almost daily.
Barry, I bought FOUR M1 Macs for like $2600, 3 Mac Minis and a MacBook Air...a few years ago ONE dedicated DAW computer was over 3 grand.
A single UAD setup can cost more than a single M1 computer...that’s ridiculous.
After 2 years of working for Antelope Audio, a company that has almost the same business model as UAD, I really agree with you! However, the leaders of such companies will never see the same profits as they see now. And fuck it they are too lazy to change a business model. Antelope's plugins are superior to the UAD ones, however, most people haven't really heard of them let alone used them because of the lousy business model. You did not even mention them, and this speaks volumes to me. Anyways, I cannot agree with you more.
... please substantiate the claim that Antelope's plugins are better than UADs. I am totally open to this idea, but am highly skeptical.
@@WestonStephens I can see why this can strike as odd.
Antelope uses both FPGA and DSP chips in their devices. The DSP effects would not be of any major difference to the UAD ones. However FPGA has 2 major benefits. It is actually on an electrical basis so it can better simulate the values in all those good old vintage compressors, as DSP is purely an algorithm. Furthermore FPGA has a modular structure, therefore it isolates each module for a specific function. So antelope would program specific component’s behaviours into each module, resulting in a closer representation of the actual unit’s sound. The downside is that FPGA can run very few plugins at the time compared to DSP. This is why there is both of those.
So the DSP ones would be all your reverbs, flangers and choruses that need to be algorithmic anyways. Those won’t sound any different. However, the vintage compressors and EQs would be FPGA based. I have not compared all of them but the 1073 that UA has is pretty boring compared to the BAE 1073 Antelope has. A few others I really enjoy would be Diode, Altec, Maag EQ and the Pultechs.
To be completely honest tho, I find that when mixing the UA ones are easier to use. But you can run 128 plugins on the Orion series of the Antelope ones. Also I think UA have more choice of effects to offer. Don’t get me wrong I am not a UA hater like most Antelope Users.
You hit the nail right on the head! I've been early adopter of the UAD system from back in 2008 with the UAD-1 and soon added the UAD-2 Solo to my setup in 2010. Eventually, I was doing more projects on the go with laptops that I couldn't use the UAD processing so started using more native processing again. Then just a few years ago, I realized that I hardly use any more of the UAD plugins because it was such a hassle to bring the hardware along to any of the audio projects I've been getting.
Whether a music project, a podcast, or an audiobook--I've gone back to all native plugins even with an intel Core i7 CPU not even busting a gut with all my plugins and tracks when I left ProTools for Reaper, but I digress.
Fully agree. I’m a high believer in native, that’s why I just ordered a MBP 16” Max fully maxed out, the whole nine yards (64GB, 32GPU, 8TB SSD)
dude that's a used car, lol. but I know its a pure beast.
@@bigdap100 I know, that’s insane. First time I’m spending that much for electronics. But it’s gonna replace both my office work MacBook and my old music station 2010 iMac 27”. So it’s gonna be my main computer for the next 5 to 6 years, so when I do the math it’s gonna be a relative cost of 3 bucks a day; bought with a 36 months plan, so something like 200 bucks a month. Totally worth the price, so I could finally run very heavy composer style session with thousand of tracks with plenty of Kontakt sample libraries. No need for HDX or UAD so, I’m gonna save huge bucks here too. Fully invested into native.
@@Spidouz excellent brother, these new M1 Macs are actually improving our workflow...this doesn’t happen that often for us.
I still need dsp 😢. I pummeled my 2023 MBP M2 Pro chip 16gb ram 1TB SSD while rendering a 10-15 track 5.1 atmos mix in Pro Tools while running atmos DAPS side by side (standard interface) 😢 they heiled these machines as top teir YET I'm still blogging them like my PTLE days. I don't have these issues in TDM.. Ironically I did a bulk of the tracking in TDM then I moved the completed 5.1 track into Pro Tools Studio to finish the render. I saw this video and I watched it just to hear you and and respectfully interject. Silicon is strong but it bogs down with big sessions.
Other honourable mentions, some previous to UAD (though mostly not DSP native DAW Mixing, as orig neither was UAD) ... Creamware Scope, Studioelectonic Powercore and SSL Duende*(after from memory).. I'm sure there's more....actually, add a Yamaha DSP factory to the list.
Presonus realize that years ago when they released the Quantum series, super fast thunderbolt connection and a perfect integration in studio one. two daisy chained Quantum 4848 gives you 96 channels I/O for less than 3k. I just wish they go AVB and Thunderbolt 4 on the Quantum 4848 MK2
I really enjoy your channel. It’s so straightforward and right to the point. I wish more TH-cam channels were like this.
Love your no nonsense talks.💥 REVOLUTIONARY Dolby Atmos plugin and great timing with the M1.🔥 Like to hear your thoughts on Dolby and maybe instructional video.🦧
What is your camera/lighting setup? I'm really blown away by the image quality. I found another video where you mentioned you're using a Sony A7III with a Rokinon AF 85mm f/1.4 lense. I'm referring to the video with the still images. Admittedly, I'm a novice and don't understand lenses/photography but when I get ready to actually use something other than a webcam, I'm leaning your way.
Dude I love it!
I’ve been giving this advice since the M1 Macs dropped...The M1 is actually cheaper than the DSP interfaces, this is actually a HUGE paradigm shift!
Apple, say what you may, but they are game changers.
Not really, it has been cheaper to buy a powerful cpu for quite a while. The only real reason is using UAD plugins imho...
@@yona9798 M1 Macs for $589, At what price did you build a computer comparable to this for less than 3 grand? I’m genuinely interested to know. And as far as quality goes I can name plugins that are 100% free that are better than everything that UAD makes.
@@yona9798
Name one.… I’ll wait
I have well over 20 brands of the best plug-ins and at least 18 best of them are UAD .
In the long run I totally agree with what Barry just said… It’ll all be native
@@bigdap100 *Which free plugins are that good?* My wallet exploded the other day from redlining it for the past three weeks (years). FYI, Arturia just released a new Mellotron plugin and it's free for 10 days on their website. Also, Blue Lab Audio is going out of business. Everything on their site is temporarily free to download.
@@bigdap100 For music production at least, the M1 macs really are very good for the price (since you don't need a lot of graphics power). If you're willing to build your own PC you can build a machine that is basically as powerful for a relatively (but certainly a bit higher) similar price. For more general use I'd say the options are pretty much tied, since apple products just excel at handling audio apparently.
The reason I believe in buying a proper CPU instead of UAD interfaces is this: Even with their cheapest expandable interface you are going to pay more than 1000$ for an interface and dsp that will enable you to use two plugins. That is not a whole lot. If you really want to rely on these plugins for full productions you *will* need way more.
Buying a similarly specced interface and an enthusiast CPU will be cheaper and will allow you to run wayyyy more plugins than that.
The reason to buy UAD is not the quality of the interfaces (even though they *are* great) or the dsp (which IMO is redundant nowadays) but the ability to run their plugins, which you do not need to do to create great music. If you want to go ahead, but a lot of people seem to think there's more to it than that, which I personally don't believe.
This totally makes sense. I bought into Protools years ago with a serious TDM setup including a Icon console. I graduated to the AAX HDX system. Very spendy being on the edge. I am glad that I spent more money on analog than digital gear and thank goodness the analog stuff has maintained or appreciated in value. Lesson learned.
I really wish these sorts of videos offered more than opinion for ten minutes. I would love to see a breakdown of say using an old computer with UAD VS native in a set up with a typical 4 piece band, using 3-4 plug ins on each member. My feelings on this have been the same for years, not just since the M1, unless you're live tracking a band and that band has heavy plug in demands, autounelive etc. then native is just fine. Low latency tracking means heavy CPU use, means less plugins, this gets better with newer chips but it doesn't go away.
1000% substantiated claims with real world results please!. My M1, with native plugs works great, but the stability and rock solid nature of the Apollo system with the M1 is a thing of beauty.
I never paid over 70-80 bucks for a UAD plugin. If you know how to shop the sales there’s no reason to pay more than that. Got plenty of them under 50 bucks too.
Where at? Or what’s the best spots?
10 plugs for $800??? or even $500??
That’s not a good deal.
@@JCNOAOU black friday deals or cyber Monday deals
We all know Protools architecture was very poorly designed from the very start.
In early 2000 I bought a SoundScape complete system for $6000 ; MX4 card,
superb SoundScape converters and a PC. Could record 56 tracks at 96Khz
with 0 latency. The same Protools kit
cost about $20,000 at that time... And did not sound as good...And needed
an outrageous expensive Mac...
Now Intel and AMD are putting effort to get single thread speeds and efficiency at new levels to compete with Apple M1 performances.
I agree that in the next 5 years we'll be
able to run everything at 0 latency for very cheap...
Great video. However, I would even say that Dsp wasn't that important as far back as intels 4th Gen I7 4790 processor. I am still running an i7 4790. It's still ranked 207 on high end processors. I have no issues managing projects of 50 tracks at 128. For some this may still be too high but think about it. I am running sessions this big with modern heavy plugin use on a 4th gen i7 4790. The newest processors dwarf this processor so yeah; DSP is dead.
I'm using the same processor. Same story. DSP is dead since 2015
Great video. This is precisely what I was trying to understand in these days of Apple Silicone and you cleared it all up.
Some one from UAD leaked that they already have native cpu versions of every plug-in, they are holding out to make sure they still sell the hardware. I still think DSP has some place, because really if you have the money and can offload some of the heavy work from the computer and keep it latency free, that’s a wise choice. But I also agree that really, with the advancements in computing it may become a thing of the past. We shall see, as computing advances, so will the plug-ins, thus you’ll still need a lot of power to run the very best if them as the coding and sound algorithms get more complicated
Uad will need to slash plug-in prices. They are way out of touch with what comparible plugs are out there now
Thing is, even as someone who owns a UAD X8p, I would still welcome UAD to run plug-ins on the M1-Max Processor of my MacBook. Means I could run projects not only in the studio, but also in my office…
And I would even think about buying some more plugins from them, which I don’t at the moment because this DSP stuff is just a bit outdated…
@@jimi272 I think the flexibility would be great as you are saying boss. Letting the plugins run on whatever system is available with the user's digression. I'd be really into that, and again if I had to money, would still opt for hardware acceleration when possible.
Where did you see this leak?
Spot on. I look forward to UAD plug-ins in the near future hopefully.
UAD released a new interface range “ Volt.”.
No DSP. It’s sold out everywhere in Australia
Just bought a Mac Studio and upgraded to a Burl Interface
Great talk. I wanted "One rig to rule them all" so I now have an 8 space rack with my M1 Mini and am using the Midas MR18 for audio interface. I haven't tracked drums or anything yet but I have noticed no latency in recording into Logic and I can use the DSP in the mixer when tracking. It took me a loooong time to accept USB as the connection I waited years for Thunderbolt to appear on digital mixers but it just never happened. Plus I can take this out and play a gig or do mobile recording.
Glad I watched this, I was on the fence of getting into UAD Hardware. But I’d rather just upgrade to an M1
Hell yeah upgrade to the M1
7:41 PA xmas deal: dropping plugins from $300 to $30 - aaand gives you a $25 voucher
UAD xmas deals: dropping a handful of plugins from 300 bucks to 150-220 - and sends you a $25 coupon code late in December
🤷♂
Ok, ok, I know they have a few ones under 99 bucks and I can actually get one or two, like API Vision or the Auto-tune, for as low as 19 bucks etc etc. But for a hobbyist like me - or worse, the broke musician students who wants to be part of their eco system and are not running a pro studio with income - they are fkn expensive as hell. But I think this is the main portion of their customers; I've seen countless of users talking about which fat bundle to get for Xmas..
Great video!, keep up the good work!
I'm enjoying Luna and my Apollo x6 on my M1 Mac quite a bit. The Apollo handles its end of things and the M1 can run 16 channels of the API Console and Studer Tape on every track. Marrying the two is good for now. Will be interesting to see if the Apollo route will become obsolete.
Apollo console mixer can do a lot. Its like metric halo but better cause you can run those plug ins live
When talking about the sharcs vs the M1, the M1 has to do a million other things with many sets of instructions. You can’t compare a sharc that does ONE thing and one thing only and just look at clock speed.
But with m1 you can run more plugins then with a sharc dsp generally. Even if sharc chips do a good job, if I was only able to use plugins on those dsp chips not sure how I would feel
About it. I think there is a place for dsp chips, it’s just not as important for daws these days.
@@MrSkyTown that’s why uad users get the best of both worlds. I make all my bones of my mix with UAD. I rarely run out of firepower but if I do I have a million VSTs to supplement, all the while keeping my computers CPU breathing easy.
@@joeydego2 but I’m sure you could run those plugins on your cpu just fine. Dsp costs extra and yes they do have a purpose that they do very well, generally most people don’t need it. I have never used dsp abs I probably never will unless I get a uad audio interface but regardless I’ll be fine with cpu. But use what works for you. I’m not against people that use abs have workflows that benefit dsp chips like tracking with processing etc.
@@joeydego2 some users who have very capable machines with 16 more more cpu cores snd 16 or more GB or ram are flying through plugins without no issues, modern systems do kinda overcome all of that. But at the end the day there are still use cases for uad systems with dsp. But if I have a 16 core more more workstation I’m not going to care about dsp chips, but if I have a very weak computer then ya I will care about it, I think we were there years back but today uad could not sell me on that type of feature, there’s too many other options, but to each is own. Eventually it will have to phase out, why? Because is just not sustainable moving forward. I can only think of them being usual for tracking with analog type effects like compression and or etc. I’m trying to see a added benefit. But I think only uad plugin owners will see a benefit. But I use all kinds of plugins from various plugin developers, but the thing is they all work fine for my mixing, I have not tapped out my system using plugins for my type of sessions. I’m not sure how others mix, but dsp for me is kinda a waste. I’m sure it helps but maybe it would be more beneficial if I have all of uad Plugins’s
Cheers
The new Macs can process multiple streams of 8K video without glitching. Audio processing is much less demanding. There *is* still a need for DSP, but DSP is now built in.
It was back in the day due to the old Intel Pentium 4 and the old mac G3 G4 Motorola chips that just weren't powerful enough. Now with the new Intel I9 chips and M1 chips...forget it. More than enough power...plus SSD drives! More than enough power.
Yes the M1 world is replacing the need for DSP. Imagine M2 and M3 models in the future also. It’s a fun time for audio production. Thunderbolt 4 interfaces are on their way too! Tip, I use a 6’ “active” TB4 cable now on my TB3 interface. 3 is backwards compatible from 4 and the active cable keeps me at 40 gbs, at the longer cable length. It’s an expensive cable though. Amazon.
The last set of cables I bought cost more than a used MOTU 896 :D
I bogged my 2023 M2 Pro doing an atmos render with DAPS running side by side 😢
Hi Barry I completely agree with you on this one. Too many other manufacturers have jumped into the game who make either just as good or better products so the cost of admission into their antiquated eco system is dead.
idk, maybe its the GUI....
but I don't understand how people buy without thinking, those who are already invested may have a good incentive
but the new guys are Rushing in headfirst, blind to ALL the great opportunities that are right there in abundance at every price point.
Interesting video, wish I could see some a and b analysis. Wish I would’ve saw this before I bought 50 plug-ins for my Apollo Twin X.
Apple M2 PRO CHIP.... all you will ever need.😊 THANK YOU SO MUCH.. YOU ARE 100% CORRECT!
We returned the Apollo Twin X , $1600.00 dollars 2 channels, not foot switch jack for Presonus Quantum 262e ar6.
26 in 26 out. faster amps , tons of free plug ins and Studio One.
Easy to use... LUNA is not as simple.
I just got a ua solo with ultimate 12 for $1200. Paired it with a used octo core. Still under $2k. Selling my metric halo as I had to move to pc for work. Got an Alienware m18 laptop which is even faster than a Mac Studio ultra…. The deal on all the plug ins were too good. I get all the native ones too obviously. I can go crazy with software synths in komplete with my pcs cpu and run eventide plugs, izotopes and get crazy with my reverbs and effects with my octo satellite thunderbolt 3. Makes me feel ok with parting with my metric halo. Just wish I could use the satellite for live stuff but I honestly don’t have the need. Could always get an Apollo for that. I didn’t know about the ua console mixer. It’s like metric halo but you can slap every uad plug in on them. Now that’s powerful. If my computer ever says hey I can’t handle what you are throwing at me I’ll let you know. Oh also the laptop was the price of a MacBook Pro but performance like I said of a Mac Studio ultra. That’s a deal as well. Who knows maybe I’ll get into gaming too. lol. Amazing what is possible now. Oh and no monthly subscription charge. Well… might do eventides but then again might just buy the few plug ins that are simply amazing. Problem now is too many options. Spend all day cycling through synths drums etc. plugins reverbs
There are still many applications for DSP in many industries, at least on the consumer level side of things. Computer power is a solid argument for studio and recording applications, however having the ability to run DSP through an interface is important for running audio through applications that don't necessarily offer running VSTs natively. Things like zoom for remote teaching, and also streaming on platforms like youtube or twitch, while also maintaining quality in other communications programs like discord. Live applications call for DSP. While you may not need it anymore, many industries, especially those using live broadcast still have a use for it.
I said that several times in the video, but those people are fewer and fewer as a percentage of recording world wide.
Last year I nearly picked up an X6 with free satellite to expand on my Solo... but they pulled the offer. Lucky as I don't want to live the life of not being able to load projects without the UAD card plugged in...it's happened so many times now that I can just sit in bed with headphones on a macbook and fire up a project...just need to find a decent replacement pultec eq plugin
your getting more and more confident with these opinion videos haha. I hear ya, it's prob less important but I'm using an M1 and still appreciate using UAD plugins ( and hw ) that doesn't tax my system. Esp since I'm experimenting with recording and mixing at higher sample rates. I'm getting mileage out of it still, if you'r not, thats cool...
Record at 96 kHz n 32 bit
Your kicking open doors, this we found this out for many years ago using RME interfaces.
I’m a long time UAD user and I agree with everything you said …. Except… what you didn’t mention is LUNA. I know you are a big Pro Tools cat. But the sound of LUNA with the API extensions is just too damn good for me to walk away from. As the updates continue, you will see more and more users leaving other DAWs for LUNA. And then…. It really will be a mix. You can front/back end LUNA (summing, tape, channels) with an Apollo and then run all the native plugs you want for further processing. That is my plan.
I think you nailed it..As soon as the major DAW & plugins are all on board with the new Mac OS & processors that is the way to go …
Those people who are starting out will still need to buy an interface and a set of plugins. A high quality interface will always be a necessity. One that runs its own high quality plugins still seems good to me.
what do you do after you run your limit of 3 plugins b/c you don't have enough SHARC chips.
that's why UAD sucks b/c they don't really offer anything special, they just charge you a fortune for something that can be done better for less money.
@@bigdap100 Idk about UAD.. I use an Antelope Audio Zen Tour and it can run 8 mono plugins or 4 stereo ones on each of its 8 channels. So, something sounds strange to me if the UAD can only run 3 plugs.. That's a waste of time. Who would even consider buying that?
@@nodaysback8390 people are being told that UAD is the industry standard, so they buy it. I have the Zen Go in my office right now that I need to Unbox and Review...I’ll let you know if there’s a giveaway...If I like it I’ll be keeping it, 😂 ...I have 4 of their microphones also.
@@bigdap100 The Go is a decent interface for the money. It's good for jamming thru it or using the plugins on the way in for tracking. The plugins aren't accessible for mixing in the daw, from what I know of it.. and the i/o is meh.. but the sound is good. Depends what you want to do with it..
@@nodaysback8390 from what I can tell it uses AFX2Daw or something like that which gives you the extra utility, if so this is an easy win over the Apollo.
Barry I agree with your opinion BUT remember that DSP is not ONLY to avoid latency, we need to consider that DSP helps also the fact of the chain. For Example if you patch a compressor on one of your inputs, that compressor is going to modify the signal BEFORE the signal hits the A/D converter, this avoids the necessary use of outboard gear, and believe me, many people (like me) can’t afford to buy outboard gear. With DSP I can have many pre amps and compressor with emulation brands like pultec or 1176, in other words, with no DSP’s if you saturate the signal of the pre or (worst) the input of the signal, this signal will be recorded saturated and for much power your computer haves you cannot atenuate the signal power if you don’t have DSP to put a compressor before the signal hits the preamp and converter, or at least those are my thoughts, please let me know if you think I am right or wrong.
I’m having a hard time following you. Your computer can run a ton of plugins natively. The point was that modern computers have more than enough power to run as many plugins as you want at a very low buffer setting.
I'm running a 12 year old Intel I7 980x 6 core machine with Windows 10 on a 10 year old TC electronic FireWire interface and have no trouble recording at a 32 samples buffer setting with plugins and an RTL of 3.5 milliseconds at 48k. The interface has a 24 channel DSP mixer but I rarely use it. The computer is clocked to 4ghz but it's still not fast by today's standards but fast enough to record and mix even large sessions in the real world with no trouble. It won't run 200 plugins at 32 samples but it's a non issue as I have no need to mix at such a low buffer setting. I will upgrade when it breaks but for now I'm making music and the computer is never an issue for me.
Great video! I mostly agree. I do a lot with virtual instruments like Omnisphere and the like. Playing a session with a bunch of those at 32 sample buffer with effects causes clicks on my M1 Pro MBP, which isn't the point of this video. But I find if I need to dub in a vocal or drums with a heavy session of audio and virtual instrument tracks, easier on system to use UAD console where Logic Pro is sent to virtual channel on UAD and I load up any effects to monitor drummer or vocalist in the UAD console. Trying to do that in DAW has a bunch of latency. Maybe I am doing something wrong, but that is my experience. I also like to audio from computer like Apple Music through a virtual channel on the UAD console and put on a tape plugin or other to sweeten music.
So what’s up with the recording latency at 32 buffer with plugins and autotune on?
For recording, software works fine. Custom DSP chips are still useful for live sound reinforcement. Mixing in the dsp and plugins in software.
I do agree Barry that the NEW Apple M1’s definitely have an advantage in terms of processing power and all, but it comes at a cost. I like my UAD not really for mixing but tracking. Currently I’m using i7 processing. I’m not able to to afford the latest and greatest. So my current system will suffice until then as others will probably agree. It’s also worthwhile noting that your research into the latest and greatest will at some point or another point me in the right direction in terms of my next computer. If I had the $$$, I’d have already. I make money but not enough to get the latest, but I will one day. Great video by the way. Please do a video using Apples M1 during tracking and show how you would pull off such a feat. You have excellent hardware for tracking, but I’m an in the box type of guy. I own a few outboard pieces, but nothing comparable to your set up, so I track using plugins. Then I think I’d be totally convinced to getting a M1 Mac.
"comes at a cost"? Head on over to the Apple refurbished store and pick up a M1 Mini for about $800 bucks (16gb/512gb ssd). I don't think we've ever had this much processing power for that kind of money.
I just got a Mac book M1 pro, I’m waiting for my interface to come in. But I worked out of an intel i9 10900K and I still had issues recording at low buffer lengths. But when I added the Apollo twin dsp, it was incredible. Definitely worth it in my opinion. I’ll see what this M1 pro can do. If I can get the same quality without the dsp, I’ll return my Apollo
Sooo do you still have the Apollo?
@@roman2374 Yeah! I ended up switching the Apollo Twin out for the Apollo x6 for the processing power. I couldn’t run all the plugins I wanted to use on the Apollo Twin
I think the only thing to consider is that while cpus have improved dramatically with the introduction of the M1 chip there will be more taxing plugins to utilize the newly found space on the cpu, which again taxes the computer and creates latency. I think the current dsp systems are dead for now, but having a separate system for recording and one for mixing and mastering seems to be a relevant concept. But we’ll see. It’s hard to tell what the future holds for music technology, but the future is promising
Yes, however my counter points there would be 1) Many plug in's are finding ways to run more efficiently, through either new technology or more optimized code. 2) CPUs from all major providers (Intel, AMD, Apple) have already made these massive single core and multicore performance leaps that make DSP irrelevant. Yes, some plug ins will likely take up more resources, but CPUs will also get even better every year. So now that they've "caught up", they'll likely stay on top. And it's much more affordable to buy literally an entirely new PC every 5 years than to buy some of these Avid and UAD DSP systems... Even getting a mid range 12th or 13th gen i5/i7 or R7600 chip, or M1/M1 Pro is going to last for years with no hiccups. By the time you're gunna upgrade again it'll be bananas. And those mid range Intel and AMD chips are literall ylike 300-500 dollars... That's less than 100 dollars a year, for 5 years, for incredible power. Compare that to like 3-5K UAD Apollo system...
On my Imac 27" 2015 I'm very happy to have 22 UAD DSP processors in my studio (apollo x8P , apollo twin/x quad , satellite octo and satellite quad)
Barry, I agree that overtime You will be correct on all accounts. But for those of us who have committed thousands of dollars to working studios, Those people are not going to make the change quickly nor do they need to. Remember it’s about Sonic quality first. Then time , cost, and convenience. That saying “don’t fix it if it ain’t broke” and I’ll take a sonic quality over a little latency any day. Great video
By the way the title is great click bait
DSP - Digital Signal Processing - how computers process audio
The DSP can be done on a computer CPU, a UAD processor, a video card GPU, etc - all DSP, just different hardware
When an algorithm is used to process audio, that is DSP
Not really...
First of all, DSP stands for Digital Signal Processor, not Processing, a small difference, with a big implication, that it refers to the processor, not the processing algorithm.
Yes, digital signals can be processed by CPUs of GPUs, but it's done by translating the instructions to what a generic processor can understand, the idea with a DSP (as in a chip) is that it is specialised to specific tasks, that it does as directly as possible.
You can emulate a console on a PC, that does not make the PC a console...
@@AlexLapugean OK. Fair enough. But strictly speaking DSP is Digital Signal Processing as described in the Wiki article. You may have gotten used to DSP being used for hardware Digital Signal Processer. These days it gets used that way a lot.
I took a course on DSP 40 years ago that used the classic book by Alan V. Oppenheim and Ronald W. Schafer
When I saw the title of the video I was curious as to why DSP might be dead. I realized it was about the Universal Audio' use of Sharc processors, etc
From the Analog Devices web page:
Featuring the Analog Devices SHARC and SHARC+ digital signal processing (DSP) core technologies, the SHARC audio processor portfolio offers deterministic and very low processing latency with best-in-class MIPS/mW performance.
Well, a year ago I bought the Apollo Twin X (Heritage package [extra plugins]) for about $1200. Since then, I've been hoovering up plugins, spending about $1450 on them alone. All were bought at sale prices and all but one had $25 or $50 coupons, average of $81 per plugin/collection.
I had been dreaming of UAD/UAD-2 for about ten years, originally scanning eBay for used PCI cards. When the Apollo line came out, I switched my aim for the $600 device. Then new versions were released and with it a new price that kept climbing, until I would pay double what I initially wanted to spend.
When I got it, there were connection issues with Windows 10 Pro, for system audio it would work only for a second upon turning it on, then stop. It worked fine in the DAW, though. I found out that I could disable and re-enable the device to get it working, but then the inputs were all messed up.
After growing tired of power cycling the device, I finally called in to their incredibly small support window. The guy helping me was new to it all and didn't even have a device of his own. He said he'd enter everything in to a ticket, but that never happened.
Then one day, I realized that it worked perfectly if I was in Hitman 2, turned it on and it didn't stop working. For months, I'd start the game up anytime I needed to use the Apollo.
Recently, I believe I found the real issue. Windows kept showing a microphone icon when I'd turn it on in the start bar. I disabled the audio input support and everything started working perfectly.
Even with all this nonsense and the hassle of the plugins being coupled with a piece of hardware, I have thoroughly enjoyed the output I've been getting from using it. I've got an Alesis ADAT HD-24 that I can run in and record 8 channels from the ADAT in as well as the 2 inputs all at the same time. It's a bit messy, but it works.
What I like, I do not have a lot of money and so the computer I build is a bit outdated. I've got an i3 Intel (Kaby Lake) processor, and I use the system for many other things (have 20+ tabs open in Chrome, other software running, mining crypto too) that can suck up memory.
This leads to the one benefit that I see, those that have older systems and already have an Apollo, it's great to have the DSPs to handle a lot of processing.
What I do find, though, is that it's easy to exhaust the DSPs. This then has me using the legacy LA-2A and 1176s to lessen the impact. Some plugins, like the Lexicon-480 or Capital Chambers, will eat 50% of the Twin's DSP power, making them pretty much useless unless you want to bounce it out.
All in all, I can't refute the argument of what is to come. What I can say is that even with all the headaches, I love this thing to bits. Do I have regrets getting it? No, I wanted it for so long and am proud to own it.
UAD took the time to actually comment on one of your videos which targeted the same concern.
Now, with all due respect, it just looks like you ran out of ideas for videos, or just keep bashing UAD for whatever reason.
Now, although their pricing for plugins could be rethought, it still is the case of "you get what you paid for".
Now, on the subject of DSP, coming from an engineer, please don't make assumptions on what type of cpu architectures are used for whatever they're used for.
DSP chips are still better at what they do.
I do agree that signal processing as a whole needs a very big revamp.
UAD still do what they do the best and blows competition out.
Signal processing is still done best on a proprietary processor (when a high quality signal emulation is being modulated)
Neural DSP are progressing in a very nice way of moving away from these processing requirements, but it may take more time than you might think
Man, that is one background that doesn't need any bokeh.. ;)
Yeah, but doesn't a powerful M1 Mac Pro setup cost way more that a simple UAD Quad-core card?
way more!
For me personally choosing UAD stuff makes the most sense for where I'm at in my recording journey. Even though their stuff is expensive, it still comes out less expensive in my mind then buying 8 channels of analog preamps and then into a quality converter. With the sonic quality of their preamp emulations and hardware units with the bonus of tracking through with no latency is just nice to have the option as I'm still using an intel Mac. I still plan on eventually moving to a system of analog hardware, but for now in my mind UAD makes the most sense.
Lol same I can't live without them
M1-Pro + Plugin Alliance = UAD's worst nightmare.
I have a lot of $ invested into my UA setup and I'm selling it all because my M1-Pro can do it all and much much much more with any strain on the CPU. For a test, I multi tracked on to 128 tracks with the bx SSL (exact same one UA has) at 96k with 32ms "latency" without even using an external hard drive and there was NO problem. My Apollo Twin x Quad Core wouldn't be able to handle a quarter of that.
@@talenwaver Certainly a compelling argument. I personally enjoy the workflow of tracking through things on the way in like I was taught to do in school. If only darn Pro Tools or Logic would allow tracking through something like a bx preamp. I'm aware you can track through plugins in I believe Cubase, but I'd really rather not have to add another DAW to my workflow.
100% true. Thanks for sharing this info.
UAD or Avid interfaces that can run multiple plugin and Vst's instances with "zero" latency when recording are from 3 grand up. And you can run just plug-in released for these interfaces.
Buy a powerful computer for 3 grand and a decent interface for 1 grand and you can use same amount of plugins and Vst's of your choice. No strings attached to anyone.
I bought a UAD satellite quad to help me mix on my 5 year old computer. It cost me around 440 Euros second hand so for that amount of money I got instant CPU relief with zero downtime.
I’ve demoed most of the plugins got hooked and decided to spend a few grand to get them all.
With a bit of planning and a lot of luck I have now almost every UAD plugin under the sun.
But I am a exception. In no way I would have spent 3k euros on a dsp system if I wasn’t
1 in the middle of a couple of projects so needed a quick upgrade to offload cpu
2 sure that some of the plugins are amazing (all AMS Neve ones, Cedar denoise etc.)
3 able yo purchase almost all plugins within this budget (second hand cards)
Universal Audio Unison Technology is the key. That is unique and so UA is still worth investing in. By the way: They also have fantastic AD-DA converters, free LUNA recording software and a comprehensive and intuitive handling. And heritage!
Historically, don’t forget Otari Radar.
Completely agree!. that's the reason I get a used Uad Satellite because I just wanted use some of their plugins but never thought to change my interface!. These plugins are useful for me .. yes... do I really need them with the options on the market? absolutely not!. it is what it is!
How you like the satellite? And what interface you use it with?
Don't know what plugins you guys run, but I'll tell you Arturia's Synths absolutely wreck CPUs 😂. I still think investing in a Apollo interface and a Satellite can be worth it. I play the keys, I need 3 - 4 ms latencies.
Same here 🎹
have you checked any system with an Intel Core i9-10900X on it? i don't think you would need more than that.
Arturia?
Laughs in Roland Cloud's Jupiter 8. My 8 year old i7-4700MQ barely can handle 6 of them at the same time.
Each Jupiter 8 uses between 4 and 5 times more CPU power than Arturia equivalents. The difference is the sound quality, Roland Cloud sounds like a real Jupiter 8 (minus the stereo unison which is mono on the plugin).
Besides Roland Cloud, the other thing that absolutely rekts my CPU is Newfangled Audio Elevate, at least i can put 6 of them in one effect chain.
If i upgrade to a desktop Core i9-12900K, i would run 6 Newfangled Audio Elevate iterations maybe with 4 times oversampling.
@@anemonaloco That is not a consumer CORE CPU, it's from the Intel HEDT series. By the way, it's a terrible CPU vs i9-12900K, and it's worse than Ryzen 9 5950X and i9-10900K, 11900K.
The best music production CPUs are the best gaming CPUs, so avoid Intel HEDT and Xeon CPUs.
@@saricubra2867 Ha, that's a fact my bro. I tried running and got face palmed 😂🤣
Thing is, even as microprocessors get more powerful, the applications and plugins themselves become more resource demanding as they get better. But it really is great that the native solution has become a viable platform for very low latency monitoring.
Yes.. exactly. As the M1 is out now.. The plugin companies will try and even deeper capture of sound characteristics in their model that will require even MORE CPU. So that's the issue. It's hard to imagine having a mix where I needed more plugin power than what an M1 machine can give me. But one day... we'll see.
The reality is that we haven't needed DSP since at least the early 2010s
Highly specced up PCs could easily run hundreds of plugins back then
I think Mac users have just barely found out about this because the Apple's M1 chips have finally caught up and even surpassed the most powerful Intel/AMD chips
I am believe this was the main reason why UAD has neglected PC users for so long because DSP has been irrelevant in PCs for years so it made selling DSP to PC users more trouble than its worth
Now that Apple has finally caught up to powerful Intel/AMD chips, there is no need for DSP anymore on any platform
So its no surprise that UAD is now going native and they are now working harder to support PC users in their software and hardware
Also GPU Audio's new innovations will probably allow us to run not just hundreds but thousands of plugins in the near future
UAD still has unison tho
Disagree Barry. Working fully native I still find i need to switch back to higher buffer settings once I've finished tracking even with my high spec 2019 Mac Pro otherwise I have cpu issues. This interrupts the flow so I now use protools Carbon and gotta say I'm totally sold on the hybrid way of working.
But aren’t the M1 Pro & Max more powerful than the Mac Pro?
Depends on the spec but as Barry describes he has to get this performance by running at very low buffer speeds. That can be a problem once you're mixing a big session with lots of plugins further down the line. With a hybrid system you don't have to keep fiddling about with buffer sizes which to me is better.
@@timatack already been proven over and over that changing buffer isn’t necessary, even on massive projects.
Even so… it takes two second to change buffer in Logic. Big deal.
Would be interesting to see how you deal with latency then if you wanna record natively through your DAW on multiple tracks whilst monitoring your plugins without the help of DSP (which is what this article is really about).
QUESTION: Regarding track misalignment when overdubbing-- Back in the tape days I could overdub and if there was bleed thru there was not a problem with phase shift and comb filtering from track misalignment. In the early days of digital recording there was the glaring problem of latency that really bothered musicians because of a perceived delay. As systems got faster and faster either by DSP or native processing speed perceived latency became less and less of an issue. Be that as it may, latency that can't be perceived still results in track misalignment that results in phase shifting and comb filtering. When I used Logic Pro I was able to measure track misalignment and correct this problem very precisely down to the sample. If I recall Protools TDM and later AAX HDX could be setup to automatically take care of track misalignment. It seems that the PT DSP system would automatically take care of the smallest misalignment problem. As you are running your PT session on a new Apple, are your tracks perfectly aligned down to the sample. For example if you take a recorded transient and go convert D/A and and patch directly A/D, how far off will the transient fall. With my PT AAX HDX system the bounced transient will be dead on.
Perfect alignment. There was an issue in the early version of PT2021 that had an issue with hardware insert alignment, but that was fixed quickly. Before this I can as on HD Native and never had the issues before.
Hello what is the difference except price between a focusrite Clarett+ 8Pre and a
Focus rite 18i20 3rd gen .
I personally use the UAD dsp for the emulations, I feel that the sound and color they offer is very close to the original hardware
It isn’t
Makes sense.
that claim at 0:52 is something I cannot confirm with my M1 Mac Mini (16GB) setup,
it depends a lot which plugins are used
Exactly. I just bought a new ADDA and did not want UAD, though highly recommended, for that reason. I just wanted an ADDA with low latency and I'll worry about plug ins and don't want another mixer window.
I'm running a Intel 12900k and I don't need any DSP. PC is handling everything I tell it to do. Best I managed was 20% CPU usage on FL studio
Totally nailed it… but also totally irrelevant to the millions of us with average (older) PC and Mac gear. I plan to keep my 2015 i5 Intel iMac running for many more years and that means my DSP Apollo Twin stays in the loop. In 5 years, I’ll revisit all this. Thanks for the discussion and with the modern high dollar machines, I agree with your conclusions 100%.
Soniccore Scope system is amazing DSP-based system. I still offload resources during mix/mastering through Scope.
Hey Barry great video as always! Kind of in line with the previous comment in terms of we would all still be using/running a Mix system on a Mac II if it weren’t for the constant updates to the app and the OS. After a while, as you know, they make our systems sluggish and outdated to the point where you must update. I realize things like the 32 to 64 bit OS jump gave us the powerful workstations we’re all now used to but for me, at least, that was quite a few Macs/OS’s/Pro Tools hardware/software upgrades along the way. I don’t see any of this ending anytime soon. And companies like Avid will always offer the latest new cutting edge tech features which will draw attention as well as put a huge strain on whatever the latest and greatest Mac’s or Pc’savailable. Planned obsolescence.
correction 1:19 Creamware SonicCore DSP. TC WORK PowerCore DSP.
and to be cheeky the first dedicated audio digital signal processor chip was Texas Instruments’ TMS5100, first used in its Speak & Spell in 1978.
I agree I recently purchased Apollo 1 and a Satellite. I had to learn the expensive way. There more affordable and if you can believe it free plugins that are just as good. After all after when the whole process is done if it sounds good. Who will care. Thanks again for help and knowledge. Much respect
Free plugins are just as good... okay..
I've been at this for about 45 years and used all the gear. I use lots of free plugins, and UAD stuff also. Each has uses, and can be musical.. but the uAd stuff is amazing. Still untouchable in many ways. Like Apple, to much cash.. sure. But the diffence in some effects is as large to me as the difference between real hardware vs UAD.
@@morbidmanmusic I agree. I never said UAD was trash. I was just saying I can record a hit song without UAD or hardware. That's all. UAD is still a great product but not the only 1 to get the job done.
LOL, I bet you think a Squier is better than a Fender Custom Shop too... you need your ears checked man.
@@p.ardens954 exactly correct. And as a bassist myself there isn't much difference between a squire and fender just as there is no difference between fender and GL especially when you run then through a rig as no one will know the differences. As you said it's not the tools...
I think the experience of recording using the Apollo unisson console and pres is as unique as if you were using the real thing. Many argue that the native versions don't sound like the DSP and perhaps this explains the constant updates to the SPARK plugins.
Very interesting. I’ve been using a 4 core CPU and 8 gigs of Ram for a long time. Am going to switch to Mac and pick up one of these new MacBook pros. Was thinking about an Apollo to go along with it, but I was wondering what the point is if the computer can handle so much now. Maybe I’ll go Macbook and a Prism Lyra instead of the Apollo. Decisions, decisions
just max your RAM add an SSD for your OS and another for your projects w. a back up and take it from there....you might be OK
Apple should run this as an ad
I was thinking the same thing! Seems like there’s no need for DSP moving forward.
What's (FPGA) on a HDX cards, it sounds like something prepping or the future? Questions, If I where to run 10 channels of hardware inserts example, compressors and eq's in Protools on a new M1 pro loaded up. Is it so powerful that it just puts all my inserts in time and I don't have to think about latency? I came across this video researching and looking to buy a HDX card for analog hardware insert. I didn't want to to run all tracks out across a console to insert hardware any more and just wanted to add a few hardware pieces into my digital mix. Any advice is helpful, Cheers people !
Hardware inserts have nothing to do with your CPU. They don't use any CPU and you can have as many as your daw will allow on even the most modest of CPUs. Pro Tools won't do the hardware latency compensation for you automatically though. You'll need to do this manually yourself. If your hardware inserts are analogue however, the only latency will be the DA/AD round trip. There are videos online about how to manually calculate your latency in Pro Tools.
Don't forget the ability to record through plug-ins just like Hardware the Apollo software if not to be taken lightly especially for people who can't afford much outboard gear not to mention the free plug-ins that comes with it. I have outboard gear but I love the fact I can take my laptop and do the same thing without having my gear with me.
Mac Studio 20 core M1 Ultra costs less than one HDX card. UAD have best in class reverbs and modulation, but it's the matter of year or two until it's all available native.
Cool Vid post. I bought the Antelope Orion Studio 2 Weeks before the Carbon came out with Free plug-ins deal. Did not know about the Carbon till advertisement. An have the last of the apple intel computers. Could not hold my Breath for the new iMacs. Which I was waiting for.
An inconvenient truth for those companies.Music production is changing for good! Awesome video
Let’s be honest here..
What major commercial studio is running Luna? None.
What major commercial studio needs extra dsp? None.
UAD is rinsing out the lower/middle ‘home studio’ budgets for all they are worth. With the M1 architecture I could probably outperform the highest available UAD product’s dsp 10x’s over. Plugin Alliance has set the bar and UAD need to catch up fast. Anyone saying you get what you pay for with UAD is caught in the marketing trap they set 10 years ago - the subscription model and moving to native compatibility is THE only way forward now, something which I completely embrace.
Hi Barry, thanks for your videos! Do I understand you totally right, that you would record a band on Mac M1 for Example in Logic and monitor the band through logic? Do you know or can you guess: What latency has a lets say 20 channel band recording with a channel strip on each channel on the monitors for the band while recording live through the Apollo vs. through Logic on M1? Thanks a lot!
I don’t mind that the DSP chips are old if they work, they’re still effectively some more RAM for your system to run more plugins if you already have them, my issue is being a Windows/Cubase user they need to update their plugins to VST3.
Their old chips might handle x2 the amount of plugins just by running them more efficiently as VST3. I’d spend more on their existing hardware if that worked.
Until UAD make public announcements about how they will handle VST3 and Luna with Windows (I know Luna needs thunderbolt, and I have that on PC ready) I’m not investing any more money in them.
So another question rises: Is it really still important to have Thunderbolt ports on audio interfaces while M1 chips can deliver low latency at smaller buffer sizes?
That’s a curious response….You need a method of getting data from your interface to your computer. If not Thunderbolt/USB/Ethernet, what?
@@BarryJohns TB3 Port is another cost factor just like DSP. So why include them anymore if M1 Mac is that powerful? You can still lower buffer sizes and use the power of M1 chip to compensate latency. A USB-C port will be enough. That was my point.
@@purplewound today there is basically little of any difference between USB C and Thunderbolt. So I guess I’m still not clear.
@@purplewound Don't confuse the connecter with the data transfer buss or protocol. USB-C is just a connector that supports a variety of different transfer standards, including Thunderbolt.
@@BarryJohns Cost?
So when do I buy the next UAD interface in 2023. Want to switch to Luna from PT.
Just remember all he is saying is based on you having a very new and very powerful cpu like the M1! Maybe all of you got that, I don't know. But I doubt that at least for right now. So...I would have to disagree with the title of this video and say... DSP are NOT dead!! I would rather say something like "DSP isn't or might not be the future". I would love going all native but although I have the M1 16RAM I still need my Apollo x4 DSP to record unison preamps, comp, EQ and maybe even reverb/dly/distortion on 12 drum channels with enough low latency to perform well. And you could argue that I could listen back and record everything dry and then add all plugins but I would never ever perform the same not hearing what the sound should be. Or at least very very close to how it's gonna sound mixed. That's true even recording 1ch of vocal, bass, git, synth etc. I wouldn't recommend anyone recording stuff with "the wrong" sound. So the truth for me is that DSP is far from dead but actually necessary for my everyday work. You're free to think different. =) I just hope you make the music you want and have fun doing it. All the best!
Agree 100%!!!
I got the M1 Pro it's AMAZING!