So in short, if you do any kind of recording you will eventually come to a point where UAD would be a benefit. The other thing is the Unison technology, the modeled preamps are truly great, my wife refuses to sing into anything else than the Neve 1073. The above example is what sets it apart in my workflow, great monitoring while tracking REGARDLESS of how far the project is and what induced latency there is from what plugin chain you may have in the session. With UAD you simply add a reverb and compression in the monitoring chain ≈ 2 ms latency (regardless of the DAW latency) and hit record. The piece is quite dynamic and the singer is following along and there is clearly need for some compression so that he/she can hear himself/herself in every part of the track. Maybe they were overpriced, IDK, but just because it has a brand name doesn't make it bad.įrom my workflow perspective, where UAD really shines is this: imagine you have a dense orchestration, latency is around 1024 samples. I have a Steinway grand, a nice Fender guitar with a tube amp, and a Selmer saxophone too. I kind of grew up with the Lexicon 480L sound so maybe that's why? I use the Lexicon on the UAD card and it sounds awesome every time.

For example, I can't stand a lot of reverbs people use - some quite well-known - and am mystified that they can tolerate listening to them. I don't agree that effects all sound the same.

Besides, when I change OS or hardware, they don't sting me for unnecessary upgrades or paid 'maintenance' or something. They can afford whatever they want, and UAD is what they chose. Plenty of Famous People use them too and some of those people have pretty good ears.

I love the UAD sound and I always include some live elements, even if it's just me playing. Why is everybody (except José) trying to talk her out of this?Īdmittedly, if you're using only samples or pure electronic sounds, maybe the plugins matter less? IDK.

How to get all uad plugins