Hey Universal Audio.....is my OX a readheaded stepchild!

Discussion in 'Digital & Modeling Gear' started by Mayhem13, Jan 24, 2019.

  1. ColdFrixion

    ColdFrixion Member

    Messages:
    4,675
    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    Granted, I think the OX has some shortcomings, but sound quality isn't one of them. It sounds fantastic to my ears. The jury's still out on whether the WAE can compete with the OX in that regard, in my opinion.
     
  2. Ed DeGenaro

    Ed DeGenaro Supporting Member

    Messages:
    19,954
    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    Malibu
    It's Boss Waza...and the point is that you don't pay BMW money for a Scion.
    That said the vid in this thread was pretty meh...
     
  3. Mayhem13

    Mayhem13 Member

    Messages:
    1,059
    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2017
    Don’t forget the new Suhr unit also.......it’s not as full featured but well below the OX and WAZA in price. The core principle is the same and the original unit as well as the company has quite the customer base. With the addition of an included IR loader it’s sure to also eat a few slices of the pie.........even more a reason for UA to have launched an update at NAMM.
     
  4. Kriig

    Kriig Member

    Messages:
    286
    Joined:
    May 15, 2018
    Location:
    Aalesund, Norway
    By car analogy.. If you look at VW, they made cheap cars for years, now they are closer to premium, so companies can move upward on the scale. Or Skoda.. They have jumped up.

    Imho Boss should have not used the Boss name at all. Just Waza. Like Toyota did with Lexus.
    It’s pretty obvious since people expect Boss to be cheap.

    I like that more companies make these things. More competition means more and better tools for us.

    I see your point, but personally i would try before i make judgement on what things are worth.
    When you sell stuff used, it’s very rare to make money on anyway.

    When Boss comes out, i’ll try both the OX and the BWTAE.
    Aaaaaand probably end up with both.
     
  5. ColdFrixion

    ColdFrixion Member

    Messages:
    4,675
    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    The OX has a couple of things going for it that I haven't seen from the competition. First is the editor. Not that they don't exist, but the OX editor has an extremely intuitive interface and makes dialing things in simple and effective, not to mention it's pretty easy on the eyes. Second is the room mic. Granted, you can dial in something similar with a plugin, but you could spend a lot more time doing it vs. how easy the OX makes it.
     
    samtheman, PBGas and MaxTwang like this.
  6. Ed DeGenaro

    Ed DeGenaro Supporting Member

    Messages:
    19,954
    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    Malibu
    Oh I was all interested in it...before heading the first vids.
    However the price point to me is unacceptable.
     
  7. Ed DeGenaro

    Ed DeGenaro Supporting Member

    Messages:
    19,954
    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    Malibu
    No disagreement on that.
     
    The Lo Lands likes this.
  8. Ed DeGenaro

    Ed DeGenaro Supporting Member

    Messages:
    19,954
    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    Malibu
    Correct.
    In the end aren't we all just thinking out loud here...
     
  9. Kriig

    Kriig Member

    Messages:
    286
    Joined:
    May 15, 2018
    Location:
    Aalesund, Norway
    Thats personal, so no worries. ;)

    Sorry for the derail. Back on topic.
     
  10. ColdFrixion

    ColdFrixion Member

    Messages:
    4,675
    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    Maybe so. I have to say most of what I've heard sounds quite good to great to my ears.

    I don't have an OX, so I can't compare Altiverb XL to it, but the OX's room mic plays a big role with regard to my interest in it. I do think the included cabs sound great, and I like how the editor is laid out and implemented, despite the fact I have some real misgivings over UAD's lack of Windows support.

    Until I hear samples showcasing the various features of the TAE, such as the room mic, my enthusiasm is on pause.
     
  11. Mayhem13

    Mayhem13 Member

    Messages:
    1,059
    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2017
    Agreed.........and i don't have any problem with the unit's performance as it stands.

    In fact, i've defended the unit aggressively in threads where users were reporting odd digital noise artifacts. UA showed good customer support for those with issues.

    I merely point out the obvious.....out loud (LOL)....that there's inerface jacks with an intended but unfullfilled purpose, a GUI restricted to Apple and a cabinet database that is significantly lacking compared to the competition.

    Let's be frank....TGPers are often sold on functionality, bells and whistles and intense tweekability.....and then there's the simple shiny new toy syndrome. Whether or not the WAZA is competitive on the SQ front doesn't really matter much........it's the functionality and flexibility along with open source IR's that will attract buyers. Once the You Tubers get their hands on em, they'll drop the OX like a readheaded stepchild. That Pedal Show showcases it weekly.....as an attenuator?..........awesome effects that go hand in hand with the premise of the show......yet a good ol 'el cheapo' BOSS stomp box at their feets is the cats meow.

    And that BOSS el cheapo reference is pure sarcasm from me.....BOSS IS THE pioneer of guitar FX and outsells other brands 10 to 1......lest we forget that simplicity, reliability and price do matter to consumers.
     
  12. ColdFrixion

    ColdFrixion Member

    Messages:
    4,675
    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    All the flexibility in the world can't compensate for inferior sound quality.
     
    PSD likes this.
  13. Black Squirrel

    Black Squirrel Silver Supporting Member

    Messages:
    2,820
    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    Location:
    Peoples Republic Of Cambridge
    I’m still waiting for Fender to to expand the functionality of the 66 twin I use with the Ox. The box does exactly what I was told it would do when I bought it.
     
    bigfoamfinger and DaveDaveDave like this.
  14. Ed DeGenaro

    Ed DeGenaro Supporting Member

    Messages:
    19,954
    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    Malibu
    Let me be clear...cheap is great afaic.
    I was stoked for the TAE...and I said that weeks ago that if they price it accordingly they kill the market.
    But that's not above $1000 that I consider acceptable for it...
     
  15. Watt McCo

    Watt McCo Member

    Messages:
    8,145
    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2016
    Well, if we are being frank, one could buy a fryette power station, a Boss MS-3 and a Mooer Radar for less than the TAE which would give tube poweramp instead of solid state, and add footcontrol over effects and presets. TAE is indeed overpriced.
     
    MaxTwang likes this.
  16. DaveDaveDave

    DaveDaveDave Member

    Messages:
    368
    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2005
  17. ColdFrixion

    ColdFrixion Member

    Messages:
    4,675
    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    The Kemper is even less flexible than the OX, but that hasn't stopped it from continuing to be a major force in the industry 7 years on. Sure, you can duplicate the sound of the OX using IR's and convolution verb if you spend enough time screwing with them, but like the Kemper, despite its lack of flexibility, the latter saves time. I mean, you can make a POD XT sound pretty damn good, it's just a matter of how much time you want to spend doing it. Don't get me wrong, I love flexibility, but I also value plug and playability. Both have their place. Some people love building presets from scratch, others are perfectly content using pre-made Kemper profiles, but a feature set on paper is just that; a feature set on paper. I'm reserving opinions of the TAE until I hear some audio samples to accompany those features.
     
  18. Watt McCo

    Watt McCo Member

    Messages:
    8,145
    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2016
    I don't disagree with much written here. A distinction of the TAE vs. the other things listed is that it's more of a collection of already existing stuff in a single compact form factor, rather than something that does a unique thing.
     
  19. Ed DeGenaro

    Ed DeGenaro Supporting Member

    Messages:
    19,954
    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    Malibu
    Absolutely correct... And that why I was very interested in it.
    Except it's like this...there are a bunch of good high end builders of Strats in Germany...€3500 for a Strat... no if I buy Tyler for that money it'll retain it's before... The other stuff I take a bath on.
     
  20. Scratch17

    Scratch17 Member

    Messages:
    96
    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2014
    UA has always been slow with product advancements. I bought my first Apollo 8 in July of 2015. Console 2.0 had just been released in the late spring. There were a lot of improvements from the first Console application. But MIDI support of the app and UA plugins was no where in sight.

    Guess what? I just filled out the UA survey for 2019. I and just about every other forum member asked for the same thing. MIDI support. Am I pissed that it is as of yet still unavailable? No. I am disappointed though.

    But I will be patient. Because the UA products (Apollo and plugins) I have are well worth my investment as is, without MIDI.

    As for the OX, I expect that it will get updates eventually.

    The unsupported ports will require a firmware update. Getting that 100% without bugs is of paramount importance. If a firmware update is flawed it can turn a product into a brick. UA will take their time to get it right rather than rush a release date. I fully expect the USB and pedal ports to be utilized eventually because UA would not have spent the R & D or production costs if they didn't expect them to be used. They could have saved money on parts by leaving them off of the first hardware version of the OX. Would you have preferred UA to have done that? You would certainly be angry if they offered a new OX version with these ports after you bought yours without them.

    The USB ports could be used in a number of ways when they become supported.

    1. MIDI I/O with support for the app and its parameters.
    2. USB audio I/O.
    3. Connection to a dedicated hardware foot controller.


    With MIDI support, UA could implement a full editor/librarian that would allow you to save banks of rigs on your Mac or PC. Then you could load custom banks into the six slots in the OX for specific set lists. All of the rig parameters would be controllable via a MIDI floor controller. You could set up instant access buttons for the effects and control CC parameters with a pedal.

    USB audio support would do far more than connect the OX digital side to your DAW. Audio input to the digital side would let me use my Kemper with the speaker models and effects on that side of OX. In fact, it would also let me use the OX cabs with my UA amp sim plugins.

    And if UA wanted to follow the Kemper model, they might even release their own dedicated floorboard to control the app.

    I really want the OX reactive load box. I think it is the best one available. But I don't need the digital side of the OX. So I haven't bought one yet. I'm waiting for used OX prices to get down to around $500. I expect that will be a fairly long wait. But as I said, I am a patient kind of guy.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice