Reading the rumors about UA ceasing support for Sonar naturally had me concerned, so I called UA to find out what they had to say on the subject. Here's the deal.

UA makes a distinction between qualifying and supporting systems. Sonar, Ableton Live, Studio One Pro, etc. are still supported and UA does test those and other programs for compatibility.

Qualifying is apparently a process that takes months of man-hours where UA tests every parameter of every plug-in. They chose three "test beds" for plug-in qualification: Cubase for VST, Logic Pro for AU, and Pro Tools for RTAS. So, what they are basically doing is qualifying operation of the plug-in formats. I can't argue that those are extremely representative programs, as Steinberg invented VST, Apple invented AU, and RTAS is the"Pro Tools format." As a benefit of using these programs, it allows UA to guarantee that every parameter of every plug-in will work with those particular programs because they were the test beds.

However, in theory VST is VST, and if a plug-in works perfectly under one VST host, it should in theory work under other VST hosts. So, UA does less rigorous testing with other VST hosts to check whether the theory holds true. 

So far, my understanding is that UA has not found issues with VST support on other 64-bit hosts, but they are actively seeking any reports of problems from users of non-qualified 64-bit systems so that any problems can be addressed.

I will be testing out the UAD-2 Quad card, Apollo, and Satellite with 64-bit Sonar as part of the Pro Reviews related to these products that I'm doing on Harmony Central. UA is looking forward to the results, although they expect I won't run into any issues and have encouraged me to push things as hard as possible.

I do need to get an FW800 card for my PC Audio Labs computer, though. I have FW400 ports that should work, but they won't be able to exercise the full available bandwidth.

That's certainly in the right direction Craig.  But it is not enough IMHO.  What they tell you is not as legally binding as what they write prior to people making purchases.  So if I buy a UAD OCTO, there is no legal obligation of UAD that even the very next software release will work with it and Sonar.  Certainly UAD 6.3.2 did not work with 64 bit Sonar.

I believe other hardware manufacturers do test their drivers with various DAWS.  And I believe Sonar tests their software with various hardware drivers.  It seems reasonable for UAD to test their software with more than one VST host.  The idea that "VST is VST" did not work with UAD 6.3.2.  To not test with Sonar, and to state that they will not do so, is a business decision, designed to benefit UAD, not the Sonar user.  However, I think in the long run, it is the wrong business decision.  

I like UAD.  I think the OCTO is a great product and I would let to get it.  But I also believe it is reasonable for consumers to put more pressure on UAD to make a greater commitment for the thousands of dollars people spend on their hardware and software.

While it is increasingly burdensome for hardware (drivers) and software manufacturers to deal with the diverse applications, an argument can be made that the R&D costs of the UAD software should be paid off at some point, and selling more licenses should bring more and more profit which can be invested in testing their hardware drivers and software products.

I think the decision to not support Sonar with 6.3.2 was very inconsiderate. It appears someone knew that x64 was near and they made a call to leave Sonar users hanging for a few months.

I also blame Cakewalk to some extent as it indicates a less than adequate relationship they have with Universal Audio. If the two companies were closer then there would be some communication and possibly partnering, at the very least communication to the user base, to resolve the issue.

Did you READ Craig's post???

T

deswind


That's certainly in the right direction Craig.  But it is not enough IMHO.  What they tell you is not as legally binding as what they write prior to people making purchases.  So if I buy a UAD OCTO, there is no legal obligation of UAD that even the very next software release will work with it and Sonar.  Certainly UAD 6.3.2 did not work with 64 bit Sonar.

But they didn't make that mistake with 6.4, and 6.3.2 was only current for less than a month; the systems prior to that worked with 64-bit Sonar, so the bottom line was a period of less than 30 days where you couldn't run the newest plug-in offerings with 64-bit Sonar. This is not uncommon - MachFive 3 didn't work with Sonar until MOTU came up with a fix a few weeks later. I know firsthand of situations where software compatibility was broken post-testing but pre-release because of "just one more little change that surely won't break anything, so yeah, go ahead and release it."

I'm not trying to be an apologist here, just pointing out the reality of a comparatively small industry with comparatively small businesses serving a comparatively small number of customers. 

Also, they stated they DO test with Sonar, Ableton Live, Studio One Pro, and other DAWs. The inclusion of a Sonar Compatibility Mode in older releases indicates a certain level of commitment. Although I assume Sonar, Ableton Live, Studio One Pro, and other DAWs represent a smaller portion of their users, they don't want to write anyone off. 

If Sonar users, or users of any other DAWs, encounter problems with UAD plugs, they should report those problems to UA so fixes can be made. UA has made fixes on behalf of better Sonar operation in the past, so that implies to me that the number of Sonar users are significant enough to warrant attention.

If you read the EULA for any software, nothing is guaranteed to work with anything, ever  Even qualifying a system can go out the window when a new version of the host program appears.

OTOH, my 1966 Telecaster still works, and I can still buy strings for it if one breaks. I doubt hardware/software combos will ever achieve that level of longevity or certainty.

Middleman


I think the decision to not support Sonar with 6.3.2 was very inconsiderate. It appears someone knew that x64 was near and they made a call to leave Sonar users hanging for a few months.

I also blame Cakewalk to some extent as it indicates a less than adequate relationship they have with Universal Audio. If the two companies were closer then there would be some communication and possibly partnering, at the very least communication to the user base, to resolve the issue.

They didn't decide not to support Sonar with 6.3.2. They screwed up, but they fixed it less than 30 days later with 6.4.

However, not as bad a screwup as the ADAT EPROM update that didn't stop the tape after it hit the end of the reel after rewinding Humans are involved. Mistakes are made whenever humans are involved. 
 
Also, I know for a fact that UA and Cakewalk do communicate. Having a less than 30 day time frame is really pretty good for finding a problem, isolating it, fixing it, QCing it, and releasing a revision.

Would it have been better if 6.3.2 had been released without problems? Of course. Same for Vista, OS X, Core Audio aggregation on the Mac...

And maybe someday the line spacing issues in the forum software will be fixed

I was actually going to edit my post to acknowledge, to be fair to UAD, that they did fix the issue with 6.4 in an expeditious fashion.  In fact, earlier than their announced deadline.  That is always a smart customer astonishment move for which they deserve credit.
 
This whole matter may not be an issue in reality.  But either their legal team or someone did refine their language on their website and it is apparently a move to narrow down their representations from the past. 
 
I respectfully request that they take a look at that language, take into account what they told you, and see if a better revision of the language would work.
 
I agree, they cannot make guarantees on future updates.  But they can endeavor and make good faith efforts to be compatible with Sonar.  That is where I believe some refinement of their language on their website would be wise.
 
I am optimistic here.
 
Below is what UAD has posted.   I believe it can be "wordsmithed" a little better.  Certainly they deserve an opportunity to take another attempt at writing it.
 
"UAD Powered Plug-Ins are compatible with VST, RTAS, and Audio Units host applications, and are widely used with a variety of major DAW software — including Pro Tools, Logic Pro, Cubase, Nuendo, Live, Sonar, and more.
However, due to plug-in host differences between DAWs — and our own rigorous testing standards — Universal Audio officially tests and qualifies UAD v6.4.0 software only with Avid Pro Tools 10 (32-bit) and Steinberg Cubase 6 (64-bit).
FAQ: Does this mean that my DAW is not supported? A: We can only fully qualify so many DAW applications, and generally any VST, RTAS or Audio Units-compliant host application should work with UAD plug-ins. Also, any ASIO or Core Audio-compliant application should work with Apollo. That said, if you are experiencing issues with your UAD or Apollo on a DAW that we don't list as qualified, you can still contact tech support and log the issue with us. We absolutely want to know if something is not working for you, we have great relationships with all DAW manufacturers and will continue to work with them to understand why an issue is occurring."
 

deswind


I was actually going to edit my post to acknowledge, to be fair to UAD, that they did fix the issue with 6.4 in an expeditious fashion.  In fact, earlier than their announced deadline.  That is always a smart customer astonishment move for which they deserve credit.
 
This whole matter may not be an issue in reality.  But either their legal team or someone did refine their language on their website and it is apparently a move to narrow down their representations from the past. 
 
I respectfully request that they take a look at that language, take into account what they told you, and see if a better revision of the language would work.
 
I agree, they cannot make guarantees on future updates.  But they can endeavor and make good faith efforts to be compatible with Sonar.  That is where I believe some refinement of their language on their website would be wise.
 
I am optimistic here.
 
Below is what UAD has posted.   I believe it can be "wordsmithed" a little better.  Certainly they deserve an opportunity to take another attempt at writing it.
 
"UAD Powered Plug-Ins are compatible with VST, RTAS, and Audio Units host applications, and are widely used with a variety of major DAW software — including Pro Tools, Logic Pro, Cubase, Nuendo, Live, Sonar, and more.
However, due to plug-in host differences between DAWs — and our own rigorous testing standards — Universal Audio officially tests and qualifies UAD v6.4.0 software only with Avid Pro Tools 10 (32-bit) and Steinberg Cubase 6 (64-bit).
FAQ: Does this mean that my DAW is not supported? A: We can only fully qualify so many DAW applications, and generally any VST, RTAS or Audio Units-compliant host application should work with UAD plug-ins. Also, any ASIO or Core Audio-compliant application should work with Apollo. That said, if you are experiencing issues with your UAD or Apollo on a DAW that we don't list as qualified, you can still contact tech support and log the issue with us. We absolutely want to know if something is not working for you, we have great relationships with all DAW manufacturers and will continue to work with them to understand why an issue is occurring."
 

Again, please note that the language you quote refers to what they qualify, UA differentiates between supporting and qualifying a host, and I explained what "qualifying" entails.

They state, in writing, that they support Sonar on the Apollo support page. They also state in writing that they support Sonar on the UAD-2 support page. And on their UAD-2 support page, there's a recent technical bulletin regarding Sonar compatibility with 6.3.1 and 6.3.2, which indicates support for Sonar.

I understand, Craig.  They can simply add a sentence or two saying what you said in this response (perhaps an updated response, additional edit or whatever) - just to calm down everyone.  The question I quoted above asks about support.  They could have responded to the question" Does this mean that my DAW is not supported" by saying - "Yes, the following are supported . . .  Then talk about the difference between support and qualification.
The problem was an "inartful" answer to a question, which is simply a "human" thing.
 
This is important not just because of the posts on this Cakewalk forum, but on other forums as well.
 
And THANKS for what you have done here.  The other references are encouraging as well.  I do think this will all work out.