I consider the plugins my actual tools for how it should sound and value freedom and independence of daw the most.
So no stock plugins for me - only 3rd party.
So if having to switch daw - it’s only workflow to relearn and set pan laws.
No plugins to relearn at all.
Your tools for your sound go with you to any daw.
For me most is Waves, since UAD scare a bit in maybe not supporting next generation/version OS with drivers and stuff.
Yea, the UAD platform has only been around since 1999. Bought my first card in late 1999. They haven’t missed a beat on support in all that time. Not a single show stopper moment in all those years. I can’t relate to your fear of a lack of support from UAD. It is somewhat ridiculous based on my nearly 2 decades of experience with UA. Best support I’ve never needed.
What I experience is that RME Hammerfall 9636 cards never got drivers for 64-bit windows. You had to buy a new card like the current I use. My old Hammerfall run on this computer I write from now, a 14 years old xp machine - my former daw.
So gather those that invested in first UAD - may not run on current platforms, or?
So far I used Dell computers which had still PCI slot, but most abandoned that looking at HP as one example.
But now there is only one PCI slot on Dell’s I looked at - so if having multiple PCI cards you can’t use them.
So read those having a couple of UAD cards, that must be current with PCI Express.
So there you are - we have different experience on the matter how hardware may or not be supported on nextgen platforms.
That’s the story of hardware.
I think Waves came with their v9 64-bit version 2013 first. So activate WUP and you continue on next platform doing a software upgrade - and on you go.
I’m always curious on the praise many have for UAD - so will see when next computer get purchased.
Current computer is ok doing full hd video and music, but might see going 4k video later in some years on I need a new computer that can handle the best graphics cards.
I don’t mean to start anything, but I must point out, way back, maybe 20 years gone by, I stopped using Waves when they forced us to buy an expensive upgrade for a new Windows version on a not cheap fx bundle. So there’s no guaranty. You pays your money, you takes your chances.
If anything I am overly impressed with the policy of Waves as they are since some years back(2013).
I also read many with old hardships towards Waves, but that might need to be reevaluated.
Waves support is second to none, and plugins and the consistancy with A/B testing and bult in help and on menu presets - hard to beat.
No looking on disk for presets.
Those that seem cool are the Apollo with built in dual or quad core UAD processors onboard - would be less prone to be system dependent.
But no idea how good this works over usb and how many instances you actually can use in the same project.
Those are the IR samples. But since Bricasti folks agreed to distribute those for free - you can imagine it’s not the full story of what a M7 is.
To really get closer to the real thing look at Reverberate at www.liquidsonics.com with many really nice modulation options.
In version 2.0 he went steps further, but I only have version 1.9.
Much more options than Waves IR1 to mention one.
But maybe UAD have something even better, I imagine they do.
Nice to see a free Le version, shame it’s only 32 bit.
It’s a pity he did not keep v1.x as separate product.
He raised price on v2.x from, I think I payed £50+VAT.
He had some black friday deal last year, remember got an email.
When UAD-2 was released they offered a $200.00 trade in on all UAD-1 cards. Unheard of in this type of market. Mainly they went from PCI to PCIe with newer DSP chips, so they had to change the hardware form factor. Kind of impossible to get around that when newer computers no longer included PCI slots. The trade in deal was quite a surprise and made the jump to PCIe quite easy on the wallet. Seriously, I wouldn’t worry about future compatibility.
I used to be big fan of UAD when processors were much less powerful than they are now, but now I’m trying to replace as many as I can with other plugins (there are SO many amazing companies out there now, some of which are under the radar and are majorly exceptional quality)…almost everything UAD has can be found in just as high a quality or even more, in my experience (ALMOST – a couple I still use). UAD technology for their cards is almost ten years old and embarrassingly slow by today’s standards, which affects exporting mix times and other things. Also, UAD refuses to adapt to modern times and offer things like mix, the ability to see values, and extended features in a lot of their vintage recreations. Plenty of other companies do that much better. Unison technology is cool for those of us who have an Apollo, though.
I would say that you can’t “replace” most UAD plugs with most of the standard Cubase plugs because UAD plugins (like tons of other 3rd party plugins) have better color and vibe to me and “sit” a little better overall. I sometimes use Cubase plugins for sure though, for their own strengths.
I do really like some of Cubase’s synths - Padshop and Retrologue are almost always in major use here, and I have tons of great VSTis from other companies.
Imho plugins are just tools you can achieve a great mix with stock plugins just the same if you have every plugin in the world…in my studio I have all the uad plugs and some very expensive hardware as well as cubase plugins,and I find myself using cubase plugs often ,each plugin has a sound like hardware,I would never lose my hardware only because I’ve always used them and know what sounds I can get from them …but uad plugins are very good as compared to there hardware units,I’ve done lots of a/b ins and clients can’t believe they are digital,but they don’t sidechain like cb plugins,so it’s not what u use it’s how you use them…
UAD pros: Easy to use, very high quality. As I said earlier, the 1176, among a few other plugs, can’t be beat (and it’s not just a subjective mojo thing. Cubase and other competitor’s compressors’ attack time specs are very slow in comparison, for ex.)
UAD cons: expensive, tied to hardware DSP “dongle”. DSP hardware means greater compatibility requirements (driver software).
I would love to lose the DSP dongle, but unfortunately, I just can’t find software compressors that are easy to use AND on par with the UAD stuff.
There were a lengthy thread some years ago on kvr over this UAD vx convetional native plugins.
What exactly can be done in UAD that cannot be done in native software?
Are there compromises made in how native software process things - or is a modern computer so powerful that UAD is obsolete?
I mean - are technitians and knowhow at UA so much better that they could just as well make native software - but bad business idea since they have UAD hardware to sell?
Why would not native software manage the same thing?
I would add a CON that you need to keep track how many instances you can use - depending on what each plugin require.
So selecting the simplest with 2, medium with 4 or biggest with 8 dsp cores - and you are at the end for that project at very different load.
I think there were even satelite interfaces over thunderbolt or firewire, even usb that had 2 or 4 cores.
There is some chart at UA how much each plugin require.
Unfortunately they could not do that ,they would not work…the processing would eat up your CPU…that’s why they use a dsp card …most of the plugs upsample to 192 kHz for there high quality models like the la and 1176 so you would be lucky to run 2 plugins maybe on a standard computer…people don’t realize how powerful those shark chips are…plus it’s nice not to use CPU from computer
Keep in mind that “dongle” also protects UAD users…100%. I like that.
I have an Octo card and a Duo card. Plenty of room for many instances. But I’m sure some user will complain because the can’t insert ocean way on every track.
There are without a single doubt plugins that are as good as UAD plugs like their 1176 and LA2A. But not the ones standard in Cubase, to my ears.
The other companies plugins might sound a tad different since they are different models etc., but companies at the level with some or most of their plugins are Softube (who makes some of of UAD’s plugins), many Plugin Alliance plugins, Klanghelm…and many others. Also, most of these companies are more with modern times when it comes to the GUIs and expanding some of the features of the classic modeled plugins. And the majority of them upsample (often selectable), some up to 4x just like UAD 1176 and LA2A – and you can use a LOT of them on that upsampling rate if you have a decent CPU…the SHARC ships are significantly older and slower technology, which is UAD’s biggest problem.
UAD stuff absolutely sounds amazing, but without a single doubt there are other options that are just as good, and in some ways (GUI with their “vintage” plugins, and expanding past some of the limitations of the old hardware) better.
Only because UA lacks the motivation to make them native. In fact, the more CPU-intensive a plug is, the better case they have to sell a high-priced onto card or a second DSP cards to a customer! 
It’s their business model, after all…
Soundtoys is a great example highlighting obsolescence of DSP, as they are a company that produces some of the best “emulation” plugs in the business. Yes, they use iLok, but at least the dongle doesnt cost you $1000+! (It is unfortunate they don’t produce a general utility compressor plug.)
Well, I have been using Cubase since 1996 and most of the time I have been using Steinberg hardware. But in June I switched over to UA Apollo Twin Mk II (TB). For me it’s easier and quicker to get good results with UAD-2 plugins than without. The 1176 is fantastic. I prefer using UAD-2 Neve 1073 and Neve 88RS channel strips over other plugins and Cubase 9 Pro’s built-in channel strip. But there are many more which I really like. As some people have pointed out many of the Cubase plug-ins are really good and I will continue to use them but not the eqs, the compressors or the reverbs.
I don’t need YouTube demos or blind test. If I can do better mixes faster, than that’s good enough for me.
But regardless of this. Cubase without any third plugins is still good enough to create great sounding, professional mixes. I just like some of the stuff UA do more and it suits me even better than some the stock Cubase plugins.