I think that if a studio/room computer had nothing else set up and there would be no way to download Reaper, Waveform, or Cakewalk or somesuch (depending on the OS of course), and I didn't have my laptop or iPad with me... then it probably would be good enough to record a session. Probably would take a few minutes to set up the inputs etc. correctly but all DAWs are pretty similar in this regard. This weird occasion will most likely never happen though so I'll probably never cross paths with this software.

But more choice is good, right? It's not outta my pocket so I don't particularly care.

 

Who would use it besides some weird UAD brand loyalist? It doesn’t do anything new or unique or better, it’s buggy, and it has a long way to go to catch up with other DAWs… so why are people installing it in the first place?

 

Maybe it's designed to do the same thing as MOTU's AudioDesk? As in the software that comes with your hardware so you can use it straight off?

AudioDesk is/was basically Digital Performer sans MIDI features, but it did record and edit just fine. But anybody using a full DAW already probably wouldn't give it the time of the day, and why would they?

 

A few reasons people are installing:

• to get feel for what may be possible once UA does get their act together.
• seeking a different workflow that is more in-line with consoles while offering digital editing etc...
• hoping to achieve rich sonic sound track-by-track or summed bus(ses)
• embedded functionality with UAD plugins & hardware
• curiosity

 

Last edited: Oct 1, 2025 at 7:36 AM

The people they have pictures of in the ads for their little interfaces. 1 person with an acoustic guitar, a mic, and a laptop. Someone who probably isn't going to even mix their own demo themselves. Songwriters who actually just write songs.

target users for Luna:

Spoiler

LUNA is definitely more niche than Logic, Cubase, or Ableton — and that’s intentional. Universal Audio designed it around the Apollo ecosystem and a very specific type of producer/engineer. The target userbase looks something like this:

Target Users for UAD LUNA

• Apollo interface owners → LUNA is free for Apollo users and integrates directly with Console and Unison. It’s meant to feel like an “extension” of the hardware, not just another DAW.
  
  
• Recording-focused musicians/engineers → Especially people tracking bands, singer-songwriters, and session musicians who want low-latency monitoring with UAD plug-ins "printed" or in zero-latency monitoring paths.
  
  
• People who want a tape/console workflow → LUNA leans hard into the analog emulation ethos: Neve Summing, Studer tape, Oxide, etc. It’s designed to feel like working in a vintage console/tape environment but in-the-box.
  
  
• Users who don’t need deep MIDI/electronic production features → Right now it’s not aimed at beatmakers, sound designers, or anyone needing advanced MIDI, scoring tools, or tons of third-party virtual instruments.
  
  
• Existing UAD plugin users → LUNA is optimized for UAD effects and instruments (Shape, Ravel, Moog, Opal, etc.). If you already bought into UA’s ecosystem, it makes sense. If not, it feels “bare.”

So while it feels basic compared to Logic, Cubase, or Ableton, it’s not supposed to replace them. It’s closer to Pro Tools Lite with built-in UA glue — streamlined, tape/console-style workflow for people who already live in the Apollo + UAD plugin world.

In other words: guitarists, singers, bands, engineers who want a smooth recording environment with Apollo, not producers looking for the next Ableton or FL Studio.