That would be actually really funny xD I can play a few ravel pieces, but only the "easiest" ones xD

 

Compared to the one that showed up, this thing is a joke.

 

this is the dreammm!!

 

Sometimes it's hard for some people to understand that. People got taste, and are aiming for different things. I don't really care if UAD has the most similar sound of x hardware. A hardware user would laugh on the face of those who say that the endorsed plugins are better. IMO Acustica Amber is the best sounding Avalon emulation hands down, while Kazrog and UAD has the endorsed version. While we still don't have cracked UAD, we got Kazrog. And i don't see anyone saying that Kazrog's Avalon is just the best because it's endorsed. In fact, i saw the opposite. A lot of people complained about the new Avalon stuff from Kazrog. Waves is probably used as much as UAD by pros but we constantly see rage coments on this forum about how Waves plugins suck. Whats the main difference between Waves, Acustica, Kazrog and UAD? Tip: one of those guys is not cracked yet ;)

 

Last edited: Nov 5, 2025 at 6:06 AM

Is Acustica actually cracked though? Most of those releases were demo/trial versions.

 

The endorsed thing is for sure funny. An official endorsement could come from a variety of reasons.

1. The plugin dev knows personally the guy who made the hardware.
2. Plugin dev "A" has more sales than plugin dev "B" and can show the HW guy the numbers
3. They just don't gaf, first person to present them with a halfway decent option, go for it.
4 Unaware of another option

etc etc.

The whole "but UAD made the original hardware, so they know what they are doing" thing is absurd as well. Yeah, they made the hardware, but just because they made the hardware 50 years ago does not mean their plugin developers have the best technique for component modeling or plugin design etc.

 

You can check this, but I think you are trying to be funny here.

• The “UA Avalon VT‑737” is the plugin emulation (by Universal Audio) of the original VT‑737SP hardware. The “Kazrog Avalon VT‑747SP” is a plugin emulation of the VT‑747SP hardware.
• The hardware units themselves — the VT‑737SP vs VT‑747SP — are different in their architecture, purpose, and signal‑path (mono mic pre vs stereo bus compressor/EQ).

Therefore, they are not emulating the same hardware unit; they are two different hardware units (and thus two different digital models).

Could this be why you never hear one being compared to the other? They were each given different models that they could emulate. I actually like that, if the case.

Spoiler

What the VT-737SP is:
It is a mono tube‑channel strip: mic/instrument/line preamp + optical compressor + four‑band sweep EQ.
From the official spec: “The VT‑737SP combines a transformer‑coupled, dual vacuum tube preamplifier with a tube opto‑compressor and a high‑voltage, discrete Class A four‑band parametric equalizer.”
Its typical usage: mic pre for vocals/instruments, tracking front‑end in high‑end studios.
Notably: It includes preamp stage (mic/DI) + compression + EQ all in one mono unit.
What the VT‑747 is
The VT‑747SP is a stereo unit designed mainly as a line‑level stereo compressor + passive drawer equaliser (a “program equaliser”) rather than a mic preamp + tracking channel strip.
From the manual: “The VT‑747SP combines a stereo tube/discrete Class A opto‑compressor with a musical six‑band programme equalizer … Ideal for high performance DAW input signal conditioning, stereo buss compression/EQ, stereo keyboards and analog mastering applications.”
It also offers the “TSP (Tube Signal Path)” where you can choose between vacuum‑tube tone or discrete transistor path.

it's not wild to think something about that. but it is pretty ballsy to say that one is better than the other when you don't know they aren't the same unit. This is what I mean when I say "people repeating stuff other people told them". You haven't checked yourself, even to consider checking them side-by-side; but we will see someone else repeat this same thing next week as it is some kind of fact.

If one of them was going to have access to a perfect 50 year old unit, which do you think it might be? Now someone wants to account for unit to unit differences within the same analog hardware product? You know that is basically impossible by now. It's almost impossible with a brand new unit nevermnd one that is 50 years after being manufactured, and with 100% certainty when it is not even the same model.

The whole "but UAD made the original hardware, so they know what they are doing" thing is absurd as well. Yeah, they made the hardware, but just because they made the hardware 50 years ago does not mean their plugin developers have the best technique for component modeling or plugin design etc.

it's not wild to think something about that. but it is pretty ballsy to say that one is better than the other when you don't know they aren't the same unit. This is what I mean when I say "people repeating stuff other people told them". You haven't checked yourself, even to consider checking them side-by-side; but we will see someone else repeat this same thing next week as it is some kind of fact.

If one of them was going to have access to a perfect 50 year old unit, which do you think it might be? Now someone wants to account for unit to unit differences within the same analog hardware product? You know that is basically impossible by now. It's almost impossible with a brand new unit nevermnd one that is 50 years after being manufactured, and with 100% certainty when it is not even the same model.

Not sure about you, but for me anyway; the reasons to dislike Waves are never the individual plugins. It's primarily their installation debacle. People complain they can't get exactly the combination of plugins they want installed without a degree. Waveshells, loading up your plugin manager and menus with solo and mono entries for each plugin, and the "mix knob" update was not viewed all that kindly be people. Acustica, if you can get past R2R exposing bloatware not only for "protection" but also claims of such advanced processing that contributed to the storage space and cpu requirements from them. Some people had spent a lot of money on them. Kazrog have made good plugins for a long time. UAD (uncracked). Until everyone has things available to test, you have so many different agendas mixed in to what people have to say. You will never get a objective view of it until that missing [k] is no longer an issue.

 

Last edited: Nov 5, 2025 at 8:52 AM

This narrative comes down with the fact that not even the same hardware sounds the same at the same models. Not even channels from analog consoles sound the same. But you know what to expect from API or Chandler, right? Because the brands have a sonic signature. I didn't proposed this rabbit hole, so i'm not going further on it.

Edit: there are THREE different units emulated by Kazrog, not the only one that you mentioned. But none of the three got the hype of that poor preamp from UAD

The point is about endorsement, that most of the users use to defend UAD as the top notch because or they build themselves or are endorsed by the actual manufacturer. There are other endorsements on k'd plugins, but they are not an arguement if the plugin sucks or not.

 

Last edited: Nov 5, 2025 at 9:39 AM

Im sorry, i legit lost you on this one. Having trouble understanding what it is you are trying to get across. Not trolling, just genuinely am not getting your train of thought here.

 

Just to mention: i spent money on Acustica and all the PA Channel Strips way before they got cracked, and those are still the tools i use the most today. Never spent a dime on UAD, and i'm not doing it ever on my life. Nunca. If it comes as freebie i may use, why not? But i didn't moved a finger to get the free LA-2A. But i can say for myself that i don't wait a plugin being cracked to use it, as i put real money on the plugins i like.