What happens if you load up a simple stereo WAV in a clean, empty project, and slap the mastering plugs on the buss? Do you still get drop-outs and stuttering?

Sonar Artist--well, almost, yes.  Probably too late to put that toothpaste back in the tube. There are a few things that are nice to have, but it's true I don't use a lot of what is offered in Platinum--As long as the engine is as capable and the third-party hits just keep on coming...then again, perhaps if I learned to use the stock plug-ins and instruments a little better...oh well, I'm just kind of disappointed in the new Mastering Tools, but since I don't really need them...I'll stop now (hold the applause, please....).

One should keep in mind that LP plugins should be use in the mixing or mastering phase. This also means one can up the latency so these plugins can work without  bogging down one's computer. 

I don't mean to sound too disappointed  because I applaud the effort on the bakers part and also the new talent that created the new plugs, but if a linear phase EQ doesn't actually work well in linear phase mode, it's not really any better than the already excellent QuadCurve. I don't see much point in using it in its current state. 

May be I understand all that wrong, but that is what I think:
a) mastering plug-ins (with huge latency)
do not depend from / do not influence
b) hardware latency / buffer size
at least in theory (when (a) are written correctly)
 
Mastering plug-ins delay output by significant time, >>0.01sec. Free VST announced in another thread can show exact delay (Sonar does not expose that number, while it is aware about it). Such plug-ins are not "slow" because they need more CPU time, they just need more information "from the future" to make the decision. They can be CPU intensive or consume close to no CPU at all, as any other plug-ins. Some synths which are supposed to work life, can be rather CPU hungry. All plug-ins require some minimum system power to avoid glitches (which IS buffer size dependent), but absolute amount of that power is not plug-in type dependent. Important that after the level is reached, "normal" plug-ins produce 0 latency (the output buffer correspond to the current input buffer) while mastering plug-ins produce constant big latency (the output buffer correspond to the input buffer sent ~0.7 second ago for CW LP with default settings).
The conclusion from that part: with LP Comp. inserted, when you change something, you hear the result after 0.7 of a second. By "something" I mean not only life MIDI input but also volume changes, synth/FX parameter changes, etc. That is normal, by design, by definition of what these plug-ins do, nothing can be "fixed" nor speedup there.
 
About CPU consumption, the buffer size and mastering plug-ins. Some "simple" plug-ins which work just with one buffer theoretically can consume less CPU power when the buffer size is decreased, so if let say you have changed the size from 256 to 128, such plug-in takes 2 times less CPU power per buffer and so overall CPU consumption (per second) stay the same. In practice DAW/Hardware/Drivers add significant overhead and most plug-ins are not so simple, so we observe some CPU increase. Mastering plug-ins are working with more then one buffer per time, so when we decrees the buffer size from 256 to 128, the amount of audio information and so CPU such plug-in need stay the same. But it will be called 2 times more per second, so for mastering plug-ins 2 times more CPU consumption can be expected when reducing the buffer by half.
 
But please note that "big" buffer size you set in Sonar has nothing to do with the size such plug-ins need to process each time, for example 2048 buffer size for 44.1kHz is just 0,05 of a second while LP Comp pretend to use 0,7. Also the buffer "delay" should be added to the effect delay to get expected delay, in the example we can expect 0,75 sec.
 
With all that written, current version of CW LP plug-ins have a bug in the GUI design. Also that GUI can have some compatibility issues with graphic hardware, which can trigger audio clicks/glitches. That has nothing to do with your CPU power. And so, when reporting problems with new plug-ins, please check either these problems still exist when there GUI is closed.
 
I repeat, I do not pretend I am right with all that. That is my personal opinion only (but it is based on practical experience with VST/DX plug-ins development plus some signal processing background).

I just used the new LP plugins. After mixing I exported a stereo wave and imported that to a new "mastering" project and changed my audio buffers from 64 to 256 samples. That doesn't seem like a big deal to me and I like the new tools.

Well, that may not be a big deal, but I can use Ozone on either my Master Bus or on a mixed down audio track within the same project without changing any of my settings or setting up a new Mastering Project. Just saying...I would think that the "house" plug ins such as the new EQ and MBC would be so optimized as to not cause as many potential glitches as a third party plug in, which is written to be compatible with most DAW software out there. Maybe I'm thinking about this wrong, but as I stated before, I usually find CW add ins to be fairly smooth in actual use, although I might be forgetting the older plug ins where I stopped using them in favor of more robust newer stuff.
I am interested to see if this issue is less prevalent or resolved in a future release. For now, I can wait.

Sanderxpander
I don't mean to sound too disappointed  because I applaud the effort on the bakers part and also the new talent that created the new plugs, but if a linear phase EQ doesn't actually work well in linear phase mode, it's not really any better than the already excellent QuadCurve. I don't see much point in using it in its current state. 

I have to agree.
 
FWIW, my T-Racks Linear Phase EQ runs perfectly at project level inside Sonar

I can use a huge amount of FabFilter ProQ2s in linear phase mode. Even Ozone is mostly a heavy plugin because it does a lot of things at the same time. This has to be a bug or flaw in the code and I'm sure it will be fixed. 

thepianist53
The suggestions above have improved the situation, and in some cases solved the issue. But seriously, I'm not sure I'm going to use those plug-ins, when I already have equivalent types of tools, such as Ozone, Alloy 2, etc., etc. Frankly, this is the first time I've had a new "house" plug-in cause a system problem. I wonder if anyone else is less interested in the built-in stuff offered with both Sonar and all other DAW's. There are so many good plug-ins, and while it would be nice in theory not to have to purchase as many 3rd party products (especially given the reasonable pricing for existing members), at this point I am less interested in having my DAW include tons of plug-ins and instruments, and simply stick to what they do best--a recording and editing platform. A "slim" edition with the cababilities and engine of the "bundled" version might be more cost-effective in the long run, as I have so many built-in options in Sonar that I simply do not use.
That being said, I love the ProChannel console and emulations, etc., but I could certainly live without them and use 3rd party solutions if it made the DAW simpler to use and less $$, too.
Not exactly a rant, but just a growing feeling that sometimes more is not always better...

 For whatever the worth - if something they freshly released, or freshly tweaked, has issues, in the past if either has happened, the Cakewalk folks have jumped on fixing those kinds of issues - usually resulting in either a hot fix or a fix in the next maintenance release.  I would imagine they would continue in that tradition, so HOPEFULLY, with the rapid pace of maintenance updates, that they would address issues with these plugins pretty quickly (maybe a matter of just a few weeks).  There is, of course, no guarantee of that, but they have done quick fixes to things released in the past - when something is released that negatively affects a sizable number of folks. :)
 
 
Bob Bone