UAD Spark, the new subscription-based native plugin plan from Universal Audio has received a mixed response. Some think it’s long overdue and others think that when compared to other subscription-based packages the offering seems meagre. You can see our thoughts about it here.

We’ve been testing UAD Spark and the UADx native plugins in sessions to see what kind of performance it offers. The numbers are impressive, below is an illustration.

The Native Test Session

We created a Studio One session comprising;

• 80 audio tracks

• 44.1kHz, 24 bit

• 128 sample buffer

The UADx Plug-ins

On those tracks, we added 242 UADx plugins. Here’s the list in full;

• UADx 1176 Rev A Compressor x 16

• UADx 1176 Rev A Compressor x 16

• UADx API 2500 Bus Compressor x 1

• UADx API Vision Channel Strip x 16

• UADx Galaxy Tape Echo x 16

• UADx LA-2 Compressor x 16

• UADx LA-2A Gray Compressor x 32

• UADx Lexicon 224 Digital Reverb x 16

• UADx Neve 1073 Preamp and EQ x 32

• UADx Pure Plate Reverb x 14

• UADx Studer A800 Tape Recorder x 67

The session played without issue on a 2021 MacBook Pro M1 Max with 64gb of memory.

The Real News From This Test

The performance is impressive, but that’s not the big news here, we would expect the same kind of experience from well coded native plugins. It is worth noting they were running in Rosetta 2.

However, here’s the interesting takeaway from our test. We used the UAD-2 DSP Chart on the Universal Audio website to calculate the amount of UAD2 cores necessary to run the same session on UAD hardware. UAD2 doesn’t offer infinite power, every plugin uses a percentage of a core. When you start loading plugins across a mix it’s possible to soon run out of cores.

The total load of our test session would require four Universal Audio UAD-2 Satellite TB3 Octo Core or PCIe equivalents, the cost of those units would be around $4000! Of course, we haven’t included the cost of buying the UAD2 plug-ins, prices for those depend on what deals are being done at the time. We also haven’t included the cost of an expansion chassis, if required.

We were running a session that until recently would require $4000 worth of UAD hardware, but now using a plug-in plan costing $19.99 a month, or if you pay yearly, $149.99 a year.

Comparing the plan with the hardware costs alone, it would take you over 25 years to spend the same amount on the Spark subscription plan. What’s more striking is that we couldn’t run the session using UAD2 plugins with the UAD2 hardware we have in our studio.

An even more striking comparison is the Apple Mac Studio with Apple M1 Max is about half the price at $1999. There’s a lot of spare change to buy other studio essentials or load the Mac Studio with more power. If you wanted the benefit of the UAD Console workflow you could buy an Apollo interface with the money saved and get the best of both worlds.

Is UAD2 DSP Dead?

It does lead one to reasonably ask, is UAD2 and Apollo dead? Let’s consider this.

Apollo offers near-zero latency tracking and Unison technology, neither is possible using the native UADx plug-ins. Apollo interfaces are also high-quality audio devices and the tightly integrated UA Console application ensures flexible plug-in control and routing options. For those who want the entire Apollo/LUNA ecosystem experience then you’ll still need to use DSP. Some may say that they don’t care about latency, or that the native latency is manageable. Latency is like pain, some people can tolerate it more than others, so it’s best to avoid absolutes when discussing what bearable latency is. It’s exactly the same argument that takes place between those using Pro Tools HDX and native systems.

UAD2 Satellites and PCIe cards also offer additional DSP power when needed in mixing. Although, given the size of our test session, we do wonder how often that will be the case.

BUT, it’s been no secret that the SHARC based processing used in UAD2 is well past the use-by date.

Now the genie is out of the bottle, we can benchmark DSP and native performance of exactly the same plugins and see the results. As the example shown in this article demonstrates, most people can mix hefty sessions using the UADx versions on a powerful computer.

Even more striking is when we look at the power/cost comparison, you can mix using UADx on a powerful computer for a lot less money. If Universal want to continue to offer a DSP solution they need to do something very special. They certainly can’t endlessly iterate Apollo hardware and call it progress.

Apple Silicon has raised expectations about how powerful native computers can be. If Universal Audio can come up with their version of this kind of power and speed, perhaps using an ARM-based processor, then UAD3* could be a viable future. (*our name, not theirs)

DSP hardware isn’t going away, but the market is shrinking. In many ways Universal Audio are on the same journey as Avid, at some point with proprietary hardware other technology can overtake you and you find yourself painted into a corner. These are problems that don’t get solved overnight, they are existential and require smart thinking and resolve to turn the ship in a new direction. Some of the smartest and most imaginative people in the audio industry work at Universal Audio, so there’s no shortage of talent to solve this challenge. Avid has proved it’s possible to manoeuvre around this obstacle as they have had to come to terms with the diminishing market for proprietary DSP based hardware.

What Next?

If you already own the hardware then it’s not a moment to panic and head off to eBay. Apollo interfaces are fantastic quality and stand on their own merit. Plus, as we’ve already said, one has the option to track through Unison and the Console software, that’s still a compelling value proposition. It’s also worth remembering that some of the best plugins made by Universal Audio still require UAD2 hardware. Those units have not stopped working and, for many of us, are vital to our mix systems, especially when it comes to session recall.

Outside the Pro Tools HDX eco-system, the Apollo workflow still offers a great near-zero latency tracking alternative. However, there is a fly in the ointment, even with the UADx native plugins. We spoke with a UA representative who confirmed to us that it is presently not possible for a session to know if it’s using UAD or UADx plugins and, when necessary, switch between the DSP and native counterparts. For many professionals that’s a workflow killer. There are technical reasons for this, whilst in audio terms the plugins may be identical code, they have different plugin identifiers, so the system sees them as different entities. It is difficult to judge whether the motivations are primarily for technical, business strategy, or user support reasons - likely it is a mixture of all. Certainly there are security considerations at play. For years the UAD2 hardware has been the most effective security dongle on the market, whereas the UADx plugins use the PACE protection suite for iLok security (there seems to be some interplay between the plug-ins and the UA Connect app, so it is a non-standard implementation). We spoke to a developer about this and they told us that to adjust this is possible given the UADx plug-ins can load without an activation in a defanged state (no parameters are advertised to the DAW for instance so it is unusable), therefore it would have been possible for the plug-in instead to try and access UAD hardware if no iLok license was present, or simply route through to it if the user wished to do so.

If Universal Audio want to compete with Pro Tools HDX in the hybrid workflow arena, then they need to enable seamless switching of the UAD2 and native UADx plugins within sessions.

Comparing UADx with UAD2 purely on plugin performance alone shows just how much money can be saved by using UADx plugins rather than UAD2 and associated hardware. Add to this the benefit of not needing additional hardware when using laptops, UAD Spark just made UAD-2 Satellites and their PCIe equivalents a lot harder to sell.

Some will still value the Apollo workflow, especially those not using Pro Tools as their DAW, it’s an attractive alternative and shouldn’t be dismissed by this recent announcement. UAD2 and UADx is not a binary discussion, the audio industry is made up of layers of user, all with differing needs, for some Apollo and UAD2 accelerators is the right fit for their needs.

Before anyone declares the death of UAD2 based systems, it’s worth remembering that people have been saying the same thing about Pro Tools HD/HDX for over a decade. So we wouldn’t write UAD DSP hardware off quite yet.