Another quick test of Antelope Audio's FPGA based audio Plugin and this time I compare them to another company using digital DSP Chips for audio plugins Universal Audio.
Actually it is a huge difference if you work at high sampling rates, let me explain. If you use the new UAD plugins at a sampling rate other than 44,1 or 48K the plugins are broken. So if you dig into the UAD plugin that have been released since they implemented the Unison option they broken. A EQ plugin like the API channel strip at 96K should reach at least 48 kilohertz but it doesn't it has half of the bandwidth the hardware which is flat to 50K the plugin on the other hand has a hard antialiasing filter at 24K which is bad programming and improper broken oversampling. Before UAD went Native I always thought it was a limitation of the DSP chips being 20 years old, but the same issue is in the Native plugins as well. The only Native plugins that do not have this are the modulation effects like the Dimension-D the DBX160 and the LA3, everything else the New pultec, 1176 collection, Fairchild, API, century, LA2 collection, 175/176, Neve 1073, and so on are all hard cut off at 24K. So unless you work at 48K or 44,1K then this is a major problem for phase coherency. On the other hand if you only work at 48K or 44,1K then it's not really a problem. It's not about what sampling rate is best I work at all sampling rates because every client is different. Some clients like to work at 48K and if they start the project at home at 48K before coming to me then we stay at 48K so I don't have a problem with 48K or 44,1K. I have a console that is flat up to 52K that we use for tracking and other hardware that reaches even higher so we like to capture at our tracking sessions at 96K. Granted we do record mostly acoustic instruments, piano, violin, mandolin, dobro on top of the more common instruments. So many of our client want to work at 96K for future proofing so we do what the clients want because it's not my place to not give them exactly what they ask for. But what gets me is UAD claim to have these branded emulation plugins, like the Neve 1073 as an example yet their 1073 can't only has a bandwidth of 25hz to 24kilohertz yet the hardware out of a Neve 8024 console is flat from 25hz to 70kilohertz. But the older plugins don't have this issue since they did not use the broken oversampling so that is why I choose to use them in this shootout which was recorded at 96K. Don't get me wrong I own UAD hardware and plugins but I have to be careful about when and where I use it because of the broken oversampling scheme UAD use. I have reported the issue a couple of times but I get the same answer every time. So they have no intention of fixing this until they move away from the Sharc DSP chips to something new. So maybe if they ever move to a UAD-3 platform we will see this improve. I just wish they would give us the option to turn the broken oversampling off. But yea that is why I used the older plugins because they had the same bandwidth as the Antelope plugins. Cheers and thanks for watching.
I’ll definitely look; I use my Antelope Tour Synergy Core daily and would never want UA except, yeah, some of UA’s plug-ins are nice. In my case, I use my Antelope TSC without a DAW and, more or less, just like a fancy mixer to drive my IEM’s… I’ll be adding a compressor into my AFX stack this weekend. So, finally, my singer/songwriter keys and mics will be set up and finished.
@@mn1233 We use a Orion Studio SC with 2 Neve 1073 OPX over ADAT as my bands live mixer, on the antelope pre's we use the BAE 1073MP and I literally now have a 28 Mic Preamps with the Neve sound. The AFX channels give me more EQ & compression options than any digital mixer costing 3 times more. The only down side is only having 4 mixes for IEMs but I found a work around by using Apple's Mainstage. So I literally have my dream mixer right now. I use a Discrete 8 Synergy Core with my OPX's in the Studio and I love it. There is a sale going on right now and the AFX plugins are 60% off if you didn't see it already. I almost have everything I want, I just need the Sontec, Studer EQs and the SSL EQs and I'm happy!! Thanks for watching!!
When level matched ,the UAD is a lot more transparent, and the high end seems a bit smeared on the antelope audio. probably due to antelope audio running their DSP on arm processors, and not DSP centric hardware...
Nope. Antelope compressors and EQs are running on FPGA chip. It has nothing to do with a DSP processing. Their latest ones work on FPGA + DSP and native plugins are reencoded to run only under DSP of a computer but they don't sound the same. The 1176 + Pultec in this video runs only on FPGA chip. FPGA are really good for dealing with very fast transients and changes in time domain, DSP are good for heavy computational tasks like spacial effects delays reverbs etc ...
@@bakerlefdaoui6801 the fpga in antelope audio devices are for routing, the DSP takes place on an embedded arm processor... They do not use DSP centric processors, such as Analog Devices' shark proocessor or other DSP centric nodes. The fpga's employed by antelope audio do not have enough DSP blocks to be used effectively for signal processing. DSP requires mostly multiply accumulate functions, coefficients need be applied to the signal using furrier transformation. Antelope audio's choice of FPGA's cannot do this internally, their hardware instead uses an arm processor to handle all DSP, basically running plugins on the arm, and using the fpga to route through the arms I/o.
Here is a simple answer. I own the 1st generation Discrete 4. It is not a synergy core, it has no DSP chip whatsoever, just an FPGA chip. It runs most EQ and compressors you find in the store that are not synergy core. I think you are confusion FPGA chip and AFX2DAW. AFX2DAW is a VST3 protocol to route audio to the hardware device from your DAW. From what I understood from antelope, FPGA permits to simulate every analog component in a circuit, this allows to have very quick faithful calculations that current DSP can't match, where as DSP can handle much heavier workloads. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field-programmable_gate_array @@davidcache
@@bakerlefdaoui6801 You should read antelope audio's article "WHAT IS THE TECHNOLOGY BEHIND ANTELOPE’S HARDWARE-BASED FX" Antalope audio runs their DSP on hard logic, on arm cores, while routing and clock distribution is handled by the programable logic. The lattice fpga's employed by antelope audio aren't effective for DSP. Antalope audio themselves list the discreet 4 as having 2X DSP processors + 1X FPGA. DSP == hardened ARM core.
@@bakerlefdaoui6801 Id like to correct your assertion, "FPGA permits to simulate every analog component in a circuit" Not at all, FPGA's are digital affairs. Though many FPGA'a have ADC/DAC's, they are designed primarily as an array of logic gates, a turnkey solution for devices that benefit being configured after release. FPGA's excel in clock distribution and highly parallelized function blocks, moving data and high bandwidth caching... DSP blocks embedded on FPGA's are leveraged to make up for the incredible amount of resources necessary for signal processing. Hard logic blocks, such as Arm cores are also embedded into vendor FPGA's to assist in workloads that benefit from it. Programmable logic lends itself well in audio given its ability to manipulate clock cycles. Most FPGA's have a network of clock via's able to perform Phase-Locked-Loops, essentially allowing for a single clock to be divided, multiplied or distributed. Signals can be parsed and replicated in parallel. While many FPGA's can be used for DSP, and many are... Antalope Audio chose a different path. Given the minimal load on the hardened core, given that arm processors aren't terrible for DSP, I don't disagree with their design. Microprocessors are powerful, time tested, and easy to port code to. My hope is that they implement a way for us to configure the plugins standalone on the devices themselves, that'd be clutch.
Most casual musicians know of the 1176 less people know the Urei Stereo Rev H 1178 so that is why I use the 1176 name. But you are right the antelope is the A78 an 1178 clone!!! Thanks for watching!!!
your using the UAD Legacy Plugins instead of the updated UAD-2 ones. That will make a huge difference
Actually it is a huge difference if you work at high sampling rates, let me explain. If you use the new UAD plugins at a sampling rate other than 44,1 or 48K the plugins are broken. So if you dig into the UAD plugin that have been released since they implemented the Unison option they broken. A EQ plugin like the API channel strip at 96K should reach at least 48 kilohertz but it doesn't it has half of the bandwidth the hardware which is flat to 50K the plugin on the other hand has a hard antialiasing filter at 24K which is bad programming and improper broken oversampling. Before UAD went Native I always thought it was a limitation of the DSP chips being 20 years old, but the same issue is in the Native plugins as well. The only Native plugins that do not have this are the modulation effects like the Dimension-D the DBX160 and the LA3, everything else the New pultec, 1176 collection, Fairchild, API, century, LA2 collection, 175/176, Neve 1073, and so on are all hard cut off at 24K. So unless you work at 48K or 44,1K then this is a major problem for phase coherency. On the other hand if you only work at 48K or 44,1K then it's not really a problem. It's not about what sampling rate is best I work at all sampling rates because every client is different. Some clients like to work at 48K and if they start the project at home at 48K before coming to me then we stay at 48K so I don't have a problem with 48K or 44,1K. I have a console that is flat up to 52K that we use for tracking and other hardware that reaches even higher so we like to capture at our tracking sessions at 96K. Granted we do record mostly acoustic instruments, piano, violin, mandolin, dobro on top of the more common instruments. So many of our client want to work at 96K for future proofing so we do what the clients want because it's not my place to not give them exactly what they ask for. But what gets me is UAD claim to have these branded emulation plugins, like the Neve 1073 as an example yet their 1073 can't only has a bandwidth of 25hz to 24kilohertz yet the hardware out of a Neve 8024 console is flat from 25hz to 70kilohertz. But the older plugins don't have this issue since they did not use the broken oversampling so that is why I choose to use them in this shootout which was recorded at 96K. Don't get me wrong I own UAD hardware and plugins but I have to be careful about when and where I use it because of the broken oversampling scheme UAD use. I have reported the issue a couple of times but I get the same answer every time. So they have no intention of fixing this until they move away from the Sharc DSP chips to something new. So maybe if they ever move to a UAD-3 platform we will see this improve. I just wish they would give us the option to turn the broken oversampling off. But yea that is why I used the older plugins because they had the same bandwidth as the Antelope plugins. Cheers and thanks for watching.
Antelope audio mopped the floor up with UAD! Wow
Thanks for watching!!
antelope rocked UAD by a mile.
Thanks for watching I have a few more Antelope versus UAD videos if you want to see more!! Have a great day!!
I’ll definitely look; I use my Antelope Tour Synergy Core daily and would never want UA except, yeah, some of UA’s plug-ins are nice.
In my case, I use my Antelope TSC without a DAW and, more or less, just like a fancy mixer to drive my IEM’s…
I’ll be adding a compressor into my AFX stack this weekend.
So, finally, my singer/songwriter keys and mics will be set up and finished.
@@mn1233 We use a Orion Studio SC with 2 Neve 1073 OPX over ADAT as my bands live mixer, on the antelope pre's we use the BAE 1073MP and I literally now have a 28 Mic Preamps with the Neve sound. The AFX channels give me more EQ & compression options than any digital mixer costing 3 times more. The only down side is only having 4 mixes for IEMs but I found a work around by using Apple's Mainstage. So I literally have my dream mixer right now. I use a Discrete 8 Synergy Core with my OPX's in the Studio and I love it. There is a sale going on right now and the AFX plugins are 60% off if you didn't see it already. I almost have everything I want, I just need the Sontec, Studer EQs and the SSL EQs and I'm happy!! Thanks for watching!!
Antelope is on the level of acustica audio, UAD is not a great thing good plugins too much expensive for that they make.
I think you might be right!! Thanks for watching Cheers!
When level matched ,the UAD is a lot more transparent, and the high end seems a bit smeared on the antelope audio. probably due to antelope audio running their DSP on arm processors, and not DSP centric hardware...
Nope. Antelope compressors and EQs are running on FPGA chip. It has nothing to do with a DSP processing. Their latest ones work on FPGA + DSP and native plugins are reencoded to run only under DSP of a computer but they don't sound the same. The 1176 + Pultec in this video runs only on FPGA chip. FPGA are really good for dealing with very fast transients and changes in time domain, DSP are good for heavy computational tasks like spacial effects delays reverbs etc ...
@@bakerlefdaoui6801 the fpga in antelope audio devices are for routing, the DSP takes place on an embedded arm processor...
They do not use DSP centric processors, such as Analog Devices' shark proocessor or other DSP centric nodes.
The fpga's employed by antelope audio do not have enough DSP blocks to be used effectively for signal processing. DSP requires mostly multiply accumulate functions, coefficients need be applied to the signal using furrier transformation.
Antelope audio's choice of FPGA's cannot do this internally, their hardware instead uses an arm processor to handle all DSP, basically running plugins on the arm, and using the fpga to route through the arms I/o.
Here is a simple answer. I own the 1st generation Discrete 4. It is not a synergy core, it has no DSP chip whatsoever, just an FPGA chip. It runs most EQ and compressors you find in the store that are not synergy core. I think you are confusion FPGA chip and AFX2DAW. AFX2DAW is a VST3 protocol to route audio to the hardware device from your DAW. From what I understood from antelope, FPGA permits to simulate every analog component in a circuit, this allows to have very quick faithful calculations that current DSP can't match, where as DSP can handle much heavier workloads. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field-programmable_gate_array @@davidcache
@@bakerlefdaoui6801 You should read antelope audio's article "WHAT IS THE TECHNOLOGY BEHIND ANTELOPE’S HARDWARE-BASED FX"
Antalope audio runs their DSP on hard logic, on arm cores, while routing and clock distribution is handled by the programable logic.
The lattice fpga's employed by antelope audio aren't effective for DSP.
Antalope audio themselves list the discreet 4 as having 2X DSP processors + 1X FPGA.
DSP == hardened ARM core.
@@bakerlefdaoui6801
Id like to correct your assertion, "FPGA permits to simulate every analog component in a circuit" Not at all, FPGA's are digital affairs. Though many FPGA'a have ADC/DAC's, they are designed primarily as an array of logic gates, a turnkey solution for devices that benefit being configured after release. FPGA's excel in clock distribution and highly parallelized function blocks, moving data and high bandwidth caching... DSP blocks embedded on FPGA's are leveraged to make up for the incredible amount of resources necessary for signal processing. Hard logic blocks, such as Arm cores are also embedded into vendor FPGA's to assist in workloads that benefit from it.
Programmable logic lends itself well in audio given its ability to manipulate clock cycles. Most FPGA's have a network of clock via's able to perform Phase-Locked-Loops, essentially allowing for a single clock to be divided, multiplied or distributed. Signals can be parsed and replicated in parallel.
While many FPGA's can be used for DSP, and many are... Antalope Audio chose a different path.
Given the minimal load on the hardened core, given that arm processors aren't terrible for DSP, I don't disagree with their design.
Microprocessors are powerful, time tested, and easy to port code to.
My hope is that they implement a way for us to configure the plugins standalone on the devices themselves, that'd be clutch.
1178? Not 76...
Most casual musicians know of the 1176 less people know the Urei Stereo Rev H 1178 so that is why I use the 1176 name. But you are right the antelope is the A78 an 1178 clone!!! Thanks for watching!!!