Why do these topics always turn nasty? Mention cracking UAD or Acustica Audio and people turn into rabid dogs simultaneously complaining that a) there is no crack and b) the product is garbage anyway.

 

Either a) they are mad because they can't have it or b) they don't have it and back to a) they are mad and call it garbage because it's out of their reach

 

The Acustica audio is really bad, they use a linear approximation to emulate analog hardware, and in the "analog world" (especially in the 70s and 80s) the word "linear" is the opposite of the word "analog". almost like capturing the IR of a tape recorder and importing cabinet simulator (without the linear saturation from acustica audio).

 

Linear? Where did you get that from?
https://www.acustica-audio.com/pages/engine
Now, because that doesn't match your view, you'll tell me it's "fake news"

 

Download a plugin from Acustica Audio, then the Plugin Doctor and check the frequency response, you will see the static weird fuzz on the high frequency, that is a hiss printed, how a static pink noise or static white noise would sound to you?

 

Oh my God! You're so absolutely right! Acustica is a waste of money. Their plugins sound like garbage because they are garbage. As soon as your discovery spreads into the audio community, I'd say the AA team will be bankrupt within months.

 

@Windows97 I'm being serious. Since you have proof that Acustica Audio is a scam, you should spread the news to mainstream audio publications.

 

Last edited by a moderator: Mar 20, 2019

So they use linear sampling, then print "static weird fuzz" on the high end and that's how they got a reputation as producing some of the most accurate plugins on the market?

 

Back around 2000, I ran a Pro Tools Mix ++ system on a Mac. It was a TDM system, ran on SHARCS, much the same as UAD. TDM plugins cost a FORTUNE at the time... I bought Digidesign Reverb One for $950... still own it. Waves Gold bundle was 4k. Anyway...

One day, my mentor, a man that was a sound designer in film post production, handed me a CD. He said... you've bought enough. The disc had HUNDREDS of k'd TDM plugins on it. I had tears of joy. Don't know where they came from... no identifiable groups associated with them. To me, they just came from heaven.

Point is... nothing is uncrackable. You still had to have the TDM (SHARC) hardware to run them... they would not run natively, of course. I'm sure there are people out there running UAD plugs they didn't pay for, but again, even if you know someone, you still need the hardware.

 

I said Acustica audio is scam? I said that she briefly doesn't compare to UAD, "she does" what Kemper does with the so-called Profile on the cabinets, a slow hardware snapshot(more work on the EQ), no extra behavior (maybe the saturation).

 

Last edited: Mar 20, 2019

Where did you get that they are the best?? the "installer assistant" is horrible and buggy (and suck ass), the plugins are heavy and buggy. If you want to know hard works look Softube, Slate Digital (I personally do not like), U-HE on the BBD emulation and on the Filters, among others.

 

Last edited: Mar 20, 2019

The weird fuzz on the high end is the HISS noise from old hardware, which is recorded in the "snapshot" process, unfortunately. Hiss on the high frequencies does not disturb the frequency response in the original hardware, since it is only a parallel noise, but in the emulation of the AA yes (and the worst that is not a noise, but the "spirit" of it), the snapshot of noise is part of this complex EQ that the AA algorithms of capture create at the time of "emulating" the hardware.

 

but we both have one thing in common, I hate those threads about cracking (without specific knowledge, without a good question), they're just a pseudo-resquest. friends now??

 

anybody thinking that any software dev would let themselves be blackmailed is beyond retarded, yeah that's right i'm saying that even retards are smarter than that

 

Wasn't there some attempt at it awhile ago? I remember a picture or two being posted about it, with the moog filter. But who knows.

I think it could happen, everything just needs to line up. This stuff is a niche of a niche of a niche. You need people with the know how, who are interested in audio/plugins, and willing to put in the absurd amount of time.

People are out there emulating xboxs and stuff, it could be done.


But you're not missing out on anything. A lot of UAD is very clean, and just a 2nd or 3rd order harmonic added. There are so many comps and eqs just as good and better.

 

I don't understand why UAD always gets brought up when talking about Acustica crack, or why UAD / Acustica gets put into the same category of "uncrackable" plugins. Acustica runs 100% on PC, UAD runs on proprietary encrypted UAD hardware which also acts as a dongle. Why would people think Acustica is "just as uncrackable" as UAD?

 

i made that photo, is just a troll, sorry. is just a bunch of JavaScript files from the web.

 

This is not a reply directed at anybody in particular, but there’s a lot of complaint about people calling noise and low order harmonics in digital plugs ‘analog’. That’s because that’s what ‘analog’ is to a very large extent. Take any Waves plug with an analog switch and analyse the output with the switch on and off, and you’ll find that ‘on’ delivers a distinct shaped noise injection. It sounds ‘better’ because in effect you’re getting a massive psychoacoustic dither effect. It’s the same with plugs (particularly compressors) that add harmonic distortion – that’s what you can get in some real analog gear.

There’s a number of issues to consider – clean does not always equate to good, and dirty does not always equate to good either. It’s a bummer. Where people go wrong with digital analog emulation is they drive the emulation too hot (-18 dBFS gain staging guys) and they stack too many emulations in the digital domain. In the real analog world, the distortions the gear adds, don’t stack the way they do in the digital domain. The noise and harmonics average out in analog gear, in digital they just get summed on top of each other, till you end up with a mess.

There are two errors to make in relation to gear…

This is old; therefore, it is good, and…

This is new; therefore, it is good.

You must decide. You must listen, and you must decide. Metering, measurement and analysis tools are the only truth. Everything else is prejudice.

 

The SHARC is not a CPU. On a CPU a Fast Fourier Transform is a long and iterative mathmatical calculation that has any number of recipes available from Assembler ot C++ to acheive. On a SHARC an FFT is a function coded in hardware, you just load up the parameter block and hit 'do it' and the result comes back. You'd have to reverse engineer an enormous amount of black box.

I’ll give you a good example – I have the same compressor in both UAD and Native and did in depth comparison. Now, the Native version retains absolute mathematical consistency the closer signal approaches Nyquist, whereas the UAD version displays increasing chaotic randomness. Now, the CPU version is near perfect, the UAD version is behaving much more like real analogue gear. So which is right? And how are you going to get from CPU perfection to hardware emulated analog imperfection without knowledge of the SHARC’s design?

Nobody's going to pay for this, ever. Nobody's going to do it for free, ever. Buy the hardware or live without it.

 

Last edited by a moderator: Mar 20, 2019

Because the cracks aren't appearing. That may well be because nobody's supplying the teams with legit originals.