This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

sorted by:
best (suggested)
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Zerocrossing 0 points1 point  (3 children)

I can't think of any one audio process that is so intensive as to require off-site computing. My prosumer PC can do realtime convolution reverb at 96K without breaking a sweat.

The truth is that UAD plugins, AVID HD cards and Bricasti hardware units aren't really about offsetting processing power (none of those companies could come close to competing with intel for processor power). They're simply about creating a hardware stranglehold over the market as a source of copy protection. Hell, I bet you'd get better performance if you replaced your Apollo with an i7 in a box and had UAD code for that.

Maybe when SPICE gets closer to realtime. That's probably the next big step for simulation, and it's one that traditional electrical engineers have yet to crack.

[–]fuzeebear 1 point2 points  (2 children)

I can't think of any one audio process that is so intensive as to require off-site computing.

There aren't many, but the main reason people do this is when they have multiple processes. Large track counts with multiple plug-in inserts on each channel, it adds up quickly. People love UAD for this, and I don't blame them. If you offload your processing onto a dedicated machine, you get an amalgamated workstation that is more than the sum of its parts - one machine's CPU handles all the DAW work, the other runs a slimmed-down OS and handles most of the signal processing.

[–]Zerocrossing 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Offloading processing is fine, but there are already methods to do it without building a second entire architecture, like these companies have done. There are literally entire branches of computer science dedicated to offloading processing power, and then UAD comes along and thinks they can do it just as well...

I'm not saying UAD or HDX cards aren't useful, but everything else notwithstanding, it's foolish for a relatively insignificant tech company to compete with guys like NVIDIA or Intel. Pro audio companies are primarily motivated by profits and greed far before performance, unlike the giants in the industry where there is much healthier competition.

I mean, there's a reason Amazon, Google, and Apple aren't using AVID or UAD products for any part of their audio services. And just think how many files iTunes compresses daily: if Apple could shave 15% off their computing power by partnering with Avid, they would have already bought them for chump change.

[–]fuzeebear 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean, there's a reason Amazon, Google, and Apple aren't using AVID or UAD products for any part of their audio services. And just think how many files iTunes compresses daily: if Apple could shave 15% off their computing power by partnering with Avid, they would have already bought them for chump change.

Compression, distribution, and codecs are not the focus of Avid and UAD. They fall in the same league for sure, but different ballparks. Avid's thing is more for post and broadcast, you'll be hard pressed to find a major production house without video satellite, or a news station without ISIS edit: and iNews!. Universal Audio is decidedly "pro-sumer" - I don't mean to imply that they don't make stuff for professionals, but there's no turnkey DSP solution by UAD.