Sascha Franck
Goatlord
- Messages
- 10,713
You can at least MIDI learn each and every parameter. No idea how to deal with patches.
Universal Audio Paradise Guitar Studio
- Thread starter TheTrueZoltan!
- Start date
You can at least MIDI learn each and every parameter. No idea how to deal with patches.
MirrorProfiles
Rock Star
- Messages
- 4,835
Awesome stuff. Weirdly Troy reminds me a lot of myself (despite how I may come across on forums!). Agree with basically everything he says, although the reverb police should have arrested him for the amount of reverb at the beginning.
MirrorProfiles
Rock Star
- Messages
- 4,835
The Secrets Behind UAFX Guitar Amp Emulators
Learn how Universal Audio captures the world’s greatest guitar amps in a pedal. Putting the sonic majesty of the world's greatest tube amps into a stompbox isn't easy, especially if you're striving to capture the elusive tonal magic that's not found in a schematic. Universal Audio's Chief...
www.uaudio.com
This is more about the pedals but it’s the same dsp. Nothing wildly revealing but cool to read nonetheless
laxu
Rock Star
- Messages
- 8,306
They always for some reason go to great lengths to not call their cab sims IRs, while trying to put down IRs.The Secrets Behind UAFX Guitar Amp Emulators
Learn how Universal Audio captures the world’s greatest guitar amps in a pedal. Putting the sonic majesty of the world's greatest tube amps into a stompbox isn't easy, especially if you're striving to capture the elusive tonal magic that's not found in a schematic. Universal Audio's Chief...
This is more about the pedals but it’s the same dsp. Nothing wildly revealing but cool to read nonetheless
MirrorProfiles
Rock Star
- Messages
- 4,835
They have moveable mics inside their studio re-micing plugins but haven’t dived into it for their cab models. It’ll definitely come one day but it irks me that they’re happy to “one and done” it.
Kind of like knocking amp captures as limiting on one hand and then simultaneously settling on a handful of static cab models on the other. I’m not really sure either is preferable, they’re almost equally limiting.
Ipkz
Groupie
- Messages
- 23
Many parameters can be controlled through pre-programmed automations. For example, you can toggle pre and post-FX slots on/off, adjust room reverb, set noise-gate options and control input/output gain, among other things. There are also 24 open automation parameters that you can customize, and these functions are MIDI-assignable as well.
However, I haven’t found any way to change presets via automation or MIDI. So if you’re using a host like Gig Performer or MainStage, each preset still needs to be loaded in a separate rack/patch.
Sascha Franck
Goatlord
- Messages
- 10,713
In Mainstage, you should be able to call up presets when saving the channel strip as a performance. At least that's how it works in Logic.
- Messages
- 9,959
Really common UA tactic.
Over-egg the tech, obfuscate what the DSP is actually doing, slap a sexy UI on it, and pretend the customer is a bit of a fucking idiot.
To be fair, it is a recipe that works.
Dimiguitar
Roadie
- Messages
- 517
Spent more time with the plugin.
Nice UI, much better put together presets than usual (which I suspect plays a role in people's experiences). Some very good amp sims in there, and the effects really nice.
But game changer for emulations of amps? I've no idea how this sounds or feels any better than the top devices out there or even S gear (which isn't as popular).
Plus you can make captures of this and pretty much nail the tone of the sims at your preferred settings. If the plugin was so much ahead of everything else, how would that be possible?
And I see the same with fractal, if it comes to "modelling" in the strict sense. Easy to make comparisons.
So at this point, I'll just write off the "better sims than anything". Maybe others perceive something I don't. It is very possible; but my experience just isn't such, and so it doesn't mean much to me in terms of what I play through.
Nice UI, much better put together presets than usual (which I suspect plays a role in people's experiences). Some very good amp sims in there, and the effects really nice.
But game changer for emulations of amps? I've no idea how this sounds or feels any better than the top devices out there or even S gear (which isn't as popular).
Plus you can make captures of this and pretty much nail the tone of the sims at your preferred settings. If the plugin was so much ahead of everything else, how would that be possible?
And I see the same with fractal, if it comes to "modelling" in the strict sense. Easy to make comparisons.
So at this point, I'll just write off the "better sims than anything". Maybe others perceive something I don't. It is very possible; but my experience just isn't such, and so it doesn't mean much to me in terms of what I play through.
laxu
Rock Star
- Messages
- 8,306
Nah, I still don't hear or feel anything better than other products on the market in this regard. It's just on par with others, with a way more limited cab sim.
But the plugin is really fun to work with. It's exactly the kind of thing I like to see where doing most things takes no time at all. It's really easy to work with both the amp and the fx at the same time. Being able to turn pre and post fx off as a group is great.
I was able to get tones I liked out of the Marshall and Dumble models in no time when I started making my own presets, and I think that's a pretty big plus for the plugin.
Very heavily considering picking this up after all.
Dimiguitar
Roadie
- Messages
- 517
For sure, very easy to use. And the colors make me happy.
Sascha Franck
Goatlord
- Messages
- 10,713
Gotta agree with that. I think the way that you can see all 5 pre-slots or all 5 post-slots with the amp controls always being visible at the bottom is pretty excellent.
I also found most amp defaults to be very useable.
And personally, I don't mind the limited cab options too much - if I ever needed something else, I could obviously still run an IR loader behind. Not as elegant, but I think in most cases I simply wouldn't even bother.
The latency is still somewhat concerning for me. Just an amp with a bit below 1ms of additional latency is kinda ok, but once it gets higher there's some chances I will run into issues at one point in time - one of the main reasons I wanted to get the lowest RTL is to have a little bit of headroom for those moments when I feel like playing through a plugin introducing some samples of latency on its own (such as the most excellent U-He Uhbik suite, which is incredible for some wicked guitar sounds), an additional Tonex based pedal or what not. Reducing that headroom at the "core tone stage" already is something that I simply can't enjoy.
Without that latency issue, this would be a no-brainer at their next sale, it's just incredibly easy to slap some "working" sounds together. Possibly easier than with anything else in my arsenal, especially as the amps are exactly of the kind that I typically go for anyway.
Cactusprick
Roadie
- Messages
- 181
Can you feel the latency while playing? what kind of music do you play?
no snark i am genuinely asking, as I spent few hours last night and did not feel it to be sluggish or anything.
Sascha Franck
Goatlord
- Messages
- 10,713
It absolutely depends on a lot of things. Monitoring situation, music style, exposure of guitar parts, personal mood, tired/awake, etc.
But that's not even exactly it.
Thing is, I can accept quite some latency, sometimes more, sometimes less. But the "tipping point range" always seems to be pretty small. With my old interface (Zoom UAC-2), I could very often (almost always) tell the difference between 32 and 64 samples, which, IIRC, was kinda like between 4.5 and 6.3 ms (or very similar, it didn't scale with the buffersize for whatever reasons). I even asked a mate once to switch a delay representing that difference on/off while I was just playing.
But, once I raised the baseline latency to, say 128 samples and then added around 2ms with a delay, I usually couldn't tell.
So, apparently, at least for myself, somewhere in the realm between, well, let's say 4-8ms there's something happening making me perceive things differently. I can't even put my fingers onto anything that would exactly feel different. It's not a drama. It's also not even that things necessarily feel worse. And it's also not timing related (I'm no Mr. "In The Pocket").
And that's still not all of it. There seems to be another "tipping point range" where it drifts from "ok, that's still kinda fine" to "yuck". Can't tell you any exact values, either, but it's possibly somewhere between 12 and 15 ms (also depending on all the things mentioned above, such as my mood and what not). And again, compared to the overall latency range I'm more or less happily willing to accept (anything between 0 and, well, maybe 12-15 ms), the range when things all of a sudden start to feel different is astonishingly small.
These things seem to be true for quite some people. I was holding DAW workshops at the local music conservatory some years ago, part of those workshops has been how to monitor yourself in a limited budget (home or project studio) situation, so software monitoring was one of the topics. And while we were at it, I did some similar (admittedly not exactly 100% blind and not exactly scientific) tests, the outcome of those tests has been quite comparable to my own experiences. People have varying ranges of latency acceptance (and it's most often got nothing to do with them being good/bad in terms of time) but there's certain tipping points existing within a pretty small range.
Fwiw: All of the above is only true for headphone usage, things get much more blurried once you monitor with studio monitors, wedges or whatever.
So, TL;DR: Ideally I don't want any plugin to ever push me beyond whatever tipping points. And in case we're dealing with 2ms, given that, at least regarding my personal experience, the range can be pretty small, it's not unlikely that this could happen at one point in time.
Last edited:
Ed DeGenaro
Shredder
- Messages
- 1,983
Out of curiosity what is 0ms latency in digital? To my knowledge nothing.
Even the UA Apollo in Console has like 1.5 Ms , unless you go to like 96k and then it’s .75ms
Add to that the computer you get 4.5 real fast.
I’m a strong believer that’s why we still feel there’s a bigger fun factor with amps.
That’s a big reason that the analog stuff I use with IR stuff built in (Soldano x88, Fryette Gp, Tone King preamp pedal) I monitor through a guitar cab at low volume.
That’s said it ain’t enough of a reason that sanity has returned, so I’m still very tempted to get that AM4 next week when it’s available.
Cactusprick
Roadie
- Messages
- 181
I do play a LOT through studio cans so I am somewhat sensitive to latency (if any).
I am stating the obvious but generally, heavier the modeler/plugin, more apparent the latency gets.
I do not go nuts and measure between the wavelengths numerically, but for me going purely by feels;
In no particular order - currently running a humble M1 Mac and Apollo Solo
Low latency group
-Logic amps
-Pod Farms
-Overloud
-Tonex (doesn't mean I love it but...)
Mid latency group
-HX Native
-Scuffham S-Gear (my go-to & favorite of the bunch, has the best feel overall)
-NDSP stuff
-Guitar Rig
-Amplitube 5
High latency group
-Two Notes Genome (don't ask but it could be just me... I always feel kind of detached playing in Genome for some reason)
I cannot feel latency in any top tier hardware modelers.
Would love to hear other's experience to share.
Sascha Franck
Goatlord
- Messages
- 10,713
Of course not. I was just mentioning 0 because that's the lowest point of latency acceptance.
Sascha Franck
Goatlord
- Messages
- 10,713
It'd possibly be kinda interesting to measure the actual latency of some of the usual plugin suspects (Leo Gibson has most of the hardware modelers covered already). I think that quite some of them don't report all of their actual latency to the host, just the baseline numbers. I know of that for sure when it comes to, say, HX Native and some latency introducing blocks such as all the pitch ones. Might as well be the case with some other blocks.
It's also even debatable whether that is always a good thing, simply because as a player, you will likely compensate for latency.
As an example: While it's certainly not happening with that accuracy, let's suppose you'd be using the Poly Capo of HXN, which on the second fastest setting (or on the fastest?) is introducing 13ms of latency. So, in order for what you hear coming out of your monitors to be dead on time, you'd have to play 13ms early. Which is what will then be recorded. Now, if those 13ms were communicated to the host and then be compensated, your recording would come out 13ms early - even if it was spot on while you were tracking.
But then: What if you didn't compensate for latency but used, say, your pick's attack as your timing reference instead? You might as well have tracked while monitoring through some analog hardware.
In that case, your recording would be dead on time, but the additional latency of the Poly Capo would push it back by 13ms as it's not compensated.
Now, while these 13ms are quite a lot already, they're not exactly too extreme (there's several thinkable scenarios easily taking us into that kinda range). But with 13ms, we're possibly already entering the realm of things being relevant for musical time.
And then: Are we really in a musically relevant area here? 13ms is the equivalent of a 1/128 note at 150BPM. Is that relevant for musical time?
Which brings up yet some more points. Was our recording being somewhat early a result of deliberately pushing things a bit forward for musical purposes or was it just because we were compensating for latency?
And yet another one: When we constantly practice through latency introducing signal paths, will we develop a habit of playing early? And will we then still play early in case there's no latency? Will our sense for time be altered in whatever ways when playing through latency introducing systems?
Tons of grey (and really tough to explore) areas.
Because of all that, mixed with a certain chance of running into scenarios introducing further latencies (especially true for live playing when there's wireless guitars, wireless IEM receivers and digital monitoring consoles sometimes set up by tools...), I guess it's absolutely safe to say that always starting with the lowest possible latency is a pretty good idea.