Rob--

Dietz makes a good point-- "better" than what?

A few other things to keep in mind:

Duende and Liquid Mix both use FW. If you have FW drives, I'd also consider a serious FW PCI host, otherwise there may be regrets.

UAD-1 does have some very nice tools, and the recent Neve EQ has gotten some favorable reviews.

Here is a post from another forum which may shed some light:

@Other Forum said:

Well, do consider your needs because UAD-1 and Duende address different mix capabilities.

For example:

In addition to EQs and dynamics (comps), UAD-1 ships with modulation, reverb and amp sim plugs. Duende covers only EQ and dynamics.

Much of the UAD-1 is modeled after vintage rackmount gear (e.g., LA2A, Pultec, Fairchild, etc.), some dating back to the 60s. Duende is modeled after SSL console mixing tools, a newer toolset selection (the C200 to be exact -- not the 4000 like the Waves SSL plug).

UAD-1 operates via your computer's PCI buss. Duende operates via firewire 400.

Duende allows for 16 stereo plugins (32 mono) at 44.1kHz. UAD-1 plug usage depends on the type of plug used (i.e., some plugs are more processor-intensive than others).

LiquidMix: 32 Channels of Liquid Mix Compression AND 32 EQs run off Liquid Mix’s own DSP – many more than are possible with CPU alone.

UAD-1 is field-tested and developed to software version 4.3. Duende is new to market and only at software version 1.0.

Now, from what I've read in user posts, Duende sounds great and plays nicely with UAD-1, although SSL hasn't made any formal announcements to confirm this. You'd very likely benefit from having both tools. It's an option I'm weighing, in fact, although it'll be sometime before I can act on it.

Two things that have not been discussed: price and quality comparisons.

Clearly, UAD-1 is the greatest bargain and offers more, but will it do what you want?

Duende is pricey and does *less* that LM, but does it do enough for what you want? Are fewer features-- fewer channels the sacrifice for higher quality?

The only way to make sure that the quality of the results are to your liking is to hear them in action in person.

UAD-1: $500 USD +/-
Liquid Mix: $800 USD +/-
Duende: $1900 USD +/-

Does price equal quality?
Does quality come at the expense of compatibility or features?
Is money no object?

I've got UAD-1 and love it, but I've got my eye on one of the other two. LM has come in at a lower price than I expected, but regardless-- a PCI FW host is essential.

For me, I've decided that the price won't be a factor for the sake of quality. I want to go for the plugin that is most flattering to VSL-VI. I'm just looking for a vendor who has both and would be willing to let me test them for an hour or so.

JWL and Dietz...thanks for the replies. I appreciate it.
Dietz...I work in Logic without any 3rd party plugs for eq or compression. I like the Logic channel eq a lot and feel it's probably fine for finetuning individual orch instruments or instrument busses. (But what do you like?)
Still would love to have other eq tools for other types of music I do though...
And what to put on that pesky mastering bus?
Also, I feel I should start using compression more in orch mixes and that the Logic comp is not adequate here.
Especially interested in what to slap on the mastering bus to add a bit of punch.
Here's a recent orchestral cue for a doc film set in Paris cica 1900.
http://www.robmorsberger.com/vslforum.html
I would really welcome any thoughts regarding the mix. I think its ok but generally on the dark side and could benefit from a bit more punch and sparkle.

Thanks again.

sorry for the distratcted response. My little boy is crawling around the studio as I type!
JWL...thanks for all the detailed ideas. I'm gravitating away from duende...cos I guess I'm just not a huge fan of the SSL stuff. The Neves and Pultecs etc etc in the UAD are very appealing though...cost more than you indicate though cos to get a full pallette is more like $1100, plus extra for the Neve or their multiband comp.
A friend of mine beta'd the Focusrite and says it's incredible.
And I'm with you...less concerned here about price than in getting the ideal tools.
Thanks.

@rob morsberger said:

sorry for the distratcted response. My little boy is crawling around the studio as I type!
JWL...thanks for all the detailed ideas. I'm gravitating away from duende...cos I guess I'm just not a huge fan of the SSL stuff. The Neves and Pultecs etc etc in the UAD are very appealing though...cost more than you indicate though cos to get a full pallette is more like $1100, plus extra for the Neve or their multiband comp.
A friend of mine beta'd the Focusrite and says it's incredible.
And I'm with you...less concerned here about price than in getting the ideal tools.
Thanks.

Hey Rob-- never apologize for keeping an eye on your "pride and joy"!!

I forgot to mention Liquid Channel as another Focusrite consideration-- and one that tops price list at $3300+
http://www.focusrite.com/productdetails.asp?id=37&iRange=1

It's good that you know what you don't want, meaning that SSL sound. That makes the decision making process easier.

Of course, your son will probably want to go to college some day, so don't spend all of his tuition on studio toys if you can help it!! [:D]

ha ha...thanks...I have a pair of Avalon 737s with purple knobs he can't resist...
In the meantime I sprang for the UAD-1 ultrapack and will add the Neve and the mulitcompressor plugs. Yeah, the SSL vibe doesn't really appeal, and the Focusrite is interesting but I have a feeling the UA plugs are higher quality. Just out of interest, since you have the UAD, which plugs do you find useful with VSL stuff?
I want to try a range of things, starting with greater focus on what's happening on the stereo master bus.
Thanks again for your very kind answers.

Rob--

You're very welcome.

I'm most intrigued by your early assessment that the UAD-1 might be of higher quality than the Focusrite. That gives me an important reminder when going to try these devices out not to rank price with quality-- It's so easy to forget when one is in search of the next "magic bullet".

With UAD-1, I use the Cambridge EQ sometimes. Not always 100% crazy about it, though. It's smooth, mind you, but for the kinds of things I'm really doing with VSL-VI it doesn't add anything special, imho. I've dared to use the CS-1 at times in a backwards sort of way. After narrowing the pan width with DP's Trim plug, I'll put the CS-1 in the second insert. I like the color of it. With EQ, small increments are best, of course. I also use it to enhance the ambience, giving Altiverb some external tweaking that adds a quality I can't seem to get with Altiverb alone.

For VSL-VI, I've not found my special dynamics processor just yet. 1176 is great for a great number of things. I've used it librarlly on non-orchestral projects, but I've found that I need to back off of it on VSL-VI projects because it "analogs" things up too much if used too librarlly. To bring up the lower end of the dynamic range, I've found that DP's stock dynamics processors do a good job without adding color. That's the up side. The down side is that they don't add any color!

This is why I'm still experimenting and am in search for another workhorse processor to go along with UAD-1. The 1176 is great for adding a little "juice" to timp and percussion transients which can get lost at the back of the stage. I'm about to install the Neve 1073 demo for some experiments over the next few days and am looking forward to it.

Forgive the long post, but the other consideration of mine is that I've run out of PCI slots!! I'd love to add a second UAD-1 as well, but the only place it would fit would be in my shirt pocket. But I do have room in my setup for at least one high end bit of gear. I'm not sure if that should be for mastering or tracking just yet-- a consideration which will determine what to buy.

A friend of mine has the Mackie d8B as his main console in his pro studio. I took some VSL-VI mixes to his studio and was impressed with what he was able to do with the bundled plugs. He was able to add a certain punch and warmth without compromising the classical/flimscore quality of the sound. This is now a legacy product, but he also has a UAD-1 which he uses in combination.

Of course, there's always the question of whether or not I'm using what I already have to its best advantage... lots to think about.

@rob morsberger said:

[...] In the meantime I sprang for the UAD-1 ultrapack and will add the Neve and the mulitcompressor plugs. Yeah, the SSL vibe doesn't really appeal, and the Focusrite is interesting but I have a feeling the UA plugs are higher quality. [...]

Different animals altogether.

The SSL is a 1:1 derivative of a typcial large scale digital console, with its own philosophy and sound. The UAD is _modelling_ (mostly) analogue equipment in the digital domain. The "Liquid" technology is based on dynamic convolution of existing hardware.

To make a crude comparison: The SSL is a digital synthesizer, the UAD is a virtual analogue synth, while the Focusrite is a sample player. [:)]

HTH,

/Dietz

I was somehow pretty sure that Universal Audio works with convolution (like the Liquid). But it was only a guess.

Funny- I read a review of Liquid Mix and it confirmed the convolution approach. There are benefits to both UAD and Liquid for what they each set out to do. I am reminded of some of the old classic Lexicon plate reverbs which sounded great. That's not to shun the Sony DRE-S777 ($8000 USD) or even Altiverb or other convolution 'verbs. (While I'm at it, I'll throw in MIR!!!) They all do what they do very well.

If interested, here's the Liquid Channel review link:
http://www.proaudioreview.com/december04/Focusrite.shtml

Has anyone compared Liquid Mix to Liquid Channel? Again, I'm trying to sort out if LC is 3x better than LM, considering the price difference.

The other thing I'm trying to sort out is that these semi-outboard boxes are easier to deal with as front in A/D processors. Are there any recommendations on back end processors of the same quality? I'm also sort of confused as to how to smoothly integrated these types of devices into my DAW for post-production and mastering, and whether these particular devices are not as well suited for back end processing.

Any thoughts?

Hey, thanks for pointing me to the Liquid Mix, didn't know that before. Looks like a really great device. Very likeley that I favor that to the UAD card, although it is really great, which I know from experience. But the Liquid Mix comes for a really interesting price.

Sorry to temporarilly abandon discussion here. Thanks for all the thoughtful ideas. I'm sure that Liquidmix is a great tool; I've been hearing a mixture of comments on various forums. Likewise no doubt the SSL is wonderful in its way. I chose the UAD route partly because it is a tested product that continues to grow and evolve and has a stellar reputation. I liked its focus on vintage replicas. It's arriving today and I'll report back in due course. My main interest is in working on the master bus, as I keep saying. However, I must say that it suddenly hit me that another primary focus in all this is reverb and I just upgraded to Altiverb 5. This allows use of multiple instances of short reflection IRs and stage placement. I realized this would also be a crucial step in achieving more clarity and realism. I have not been disappointed. This has been a simple but huge step forward.
JWL...as I'm sure you realize Liquid Mix and Channel are two different beasts. Liquid Mix has no preamps.