deswind


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.

They're much better at designing plug-ins than I am, but I'm a better writer

Now that is funny!   They are great plugin developers and you are a great writer.  And you have a great sense of humor, which makes your style even better!   Now if I can just figure out why my posts with quotes come out in italics even though it is not in italics when I am writing it!
 
 
 
Anderton

deswind


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.

They're much better at designing plug-ins than I am, but I'm a better writer

Interesting and informative update. I guess the 800 lb gorilla in the room is what IS a VST?

If they test on cubase that means the plug will be fully VST 3 compatible. It may function with VST 2, but maybe not. There were recent posts in the software forum about waves plugs that don't work 100% in Sonar because they need a VST 3 host for full functionality. So it seems that the onus is on Cakewalk to go to VST 3 in order to ensure maximum compatibility with Waves and UAD. If they don't, we end up with a poo flinging fest to decide who's fault it is.

Can UAD move an entire market? Probably not, but if enough plugs require VST 3 it puts more pressure on the DAW makers to buy their license from Steinberg.

ampfixer


Interesting and informative update. I guess the 800 lb gorilla in the room is what IS a VST?

If they test on cubase that means the plug will be fully VST 3 compatible. It may function with VST 2, but maybe not. There were recent posts in the software forum about waves plugs that don't work 100% in Sonar because they need a VST 3 host for full functionality. So it seems that the onus is on Cakewalk to go to VST 3 in order to ensure maximum compatibility with Waves and UAD. If they don't, we end up with a poo flinging fest to decide who's fault it is.

Can UAD move an entire market? Probably not, but if enough plugs require VST 3 it puts more pressure on the DAW makers to buy their license from Steinberg.

Good observation. But I searched the Universal Audio site for any mention of VST3, and the only references I found were in the forums where people were complaining about UA plug-ins not supporting VST3 or AAX formats...so I presume UA is not supporting VST3 yet.

Thanks for your input Craig.
 
This is a strange one to me I never bothered with 6.3.2 because I never had time to install it before 6.4 came out.
 
I've just been using my UAD stuff in blissful ignorance to anything like this and it's been working as faultlessy before and still is after this latest update.
 
Is anyone actually having issues with their UAD stuff since the upgrade because it seems to be working swell here as per normal?
 
I think most companies 'support' VST products and UAD has been no different in that regard than anyone else.  I've certainly never been frowned upon by anyone at UAD for being a Sonar user and have always had support from them as expected as needed.
 
So if somethings changed I swear I'd have known nothing about it unless I saw this.  So has anything actually changed for the worse or is this just the paranoia mill just engaging after a dodgy release?
 
As far as I can tell it's business as usual.

Anderton

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.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
Exactly this, most plug-in/add-on developers have to develop on a limited range of Software it isn't possible to develop on every available DAW out there, sometimes the 3rd party developer will enter into a marketing arrangement which means they would recommend a DAW that is part of that arrangement, so what that's good business.  Sometimes it can be simply because the plug-ins have gone through the most severe testing on the platforms they develop on so they can offer a greater guarantee that things will work on that specific platform and are wise to inform potential customers of that fact.
 
Having said that for any plug-in/add on developer that uses the ASIO or VST standard technology for their product would be commiting financial suicide by limiting their market away from the rest of those platforms that also support these technogies.
 
It ain't gonna happen.  Whatever platform a plug-in developer favours they will all do their utmost to maximise the market they have by being pretty darned sure it's going to work on the rest and will do whatever is possible to get your stuff working on your DAW of choice.
 
The market is too small for them not to, I see no cause for concern here and I'm certainly not experiencing any issues currently that would make me fear otherwise.
 
Thanks to Craig though for wading into this one and putting some realistic perspective on it.  Much appreciated ol' fella.
 
Further to that, also it's fantastic news that they've gone 64 bit at long last because it least means they are intending to stay around long enough to get a return on the investment of doing that and are not planning to disappear off into iOS land any time soon.
 
Given all those things I think it's given us UAD owners far more security than we had 6 months ago, it certainly doesn't seem to me to be the time for the fear mongers to take centre stage at all.

I downloaded 6.4 after receiving an email from UA with a link to it. I have been using the previous version with no ill effects. Pun not intended..

As a matter of fact, UA thought they fixed the SONAR issue with 6.3.x (the prior release to 6.4 (x64 version... like they planned 6.4 to be the 64 bit version).

I was in contact with them all through the month leading up to 6.4.  They even asked me if I could wait a few days because 6.4 was going to be released.  Which they told me not only would the Sonar issue be fixed but it was the 64 bit version.  So I waited and sure enough, they were correct.  So, they were aware of the issues and had it fixed... the only delay for us was their decision to include the fix within the 64 bit version.

I for one am glad that they took this approach.  We finally got our x64 plugs.  I never ever got a response from them that SONAR wasn't supported and the feeling that I had to take a back seat in this process.

So, when Craig says the difference in context is really just qualitying vs on going support, it fits my recent high contact with UA over the SONAR issue.

Jim

While it all makes sense as you explained it, and they deserve credit for the 6.4. version being expedited to help Sonar - UAD invited the misunderstanding by a complicated response to inquiries.  All UAD needed to say is - "Don't worry - we will care about Sonar just like we always did."
By a complicated scenario of support versus qualifying analysis, which UAD themselves confused in their response to a question, they created a series of blog responses.  Craig stepped in, got clarifications and now the matter, as far as I am concerned, is put to rest.
 
So while UAD is to be commended, I also believe the people posting concerns are to be commended, whether their concerns with a manufacturer are real or perceived.   It is better for a manufacturer to get input, rather than just have people not buy their product.
 
AB
=================================================
  
  
 
jkleban


As a matter of fact, UA thought they fixed the SONAR issue with 6.3.x (the prior release to 6.4 (x64 version... like they planned 6.4 to be the 64 bit version).

I was in contact with them all through the month leading up to 6.4.  They even asked me if I could wait a few days because 6.4 was going to be released.  Which they told me not only would the Sonar issue be fixed but it was the 64 bit version.  So I waited and sure enough, they were correct.  So, they were aware of the issues and had it fixed... the only delay for us was their decision to include the fix within the 64 bit version.

I for one am glad that they took this approach.  We finally got our x64 plugs.  I never ever got a response from them that SONAR wasn't supported and the feeling that I had to take a back seat in this process.

So, when Craig says the difference in context is really just qualitying vs on going support, it fits my recent high contact with UA over the SONAR issue.

Jim

Thanks Craig.  Great info.