• Welcome to the General Discussion forum for UAD users!

    Please note that this forum is user-run, although we're thrilled to have so much contribution from Drew, Will, and other UA folks!

    Feel free to discuss both UAD and non-UAD related subjects!

    1) Please do not post technical issues here. Please use our UAD Support Forums instead.

    2) Please do not post complaints here. Use the Unrest Forum instead. They have no place in the the General Discussion forum.

    Threads posted in the wrong forum will be moved, so if you don't see your thread here anymore, please look in the correct forum.

    Lastly, please be respectful.

Sonar and UAD, how well does it work now?

DrBob1970

Member
Hi. I'm considering migrating to Sonar in the future, but I know there have been numbers of compatibility issue with UAD. As I mostly rely on my 4 UAD cards for mixing, I need to be sure it's now OK. Any insight about that?
My current setup is a Q6600 proc on ASUS P5BE MoBo, EMU1820m, UADe on MoBo and 3 PCI in a magma chassis, which also has a Powercore MkII in it.
Thanks!
Eric
 

ed_mcg

Member
I've been having a good experience w/ UAD and Sonar since Sonar version 6. A number of people, including myself, had a variety of nagging issue back in in the Sonar 4 and 5 era.

But, the latest UAD and Sonar rev levels have been very solid for me; I'm also using a Q6600 but on the Intel mobo.
 

Jeraz

Active Member
I have no worries at all with SONAR 7. The real answer with UAD is having the right MOBO...that has way more impact than what DAW...always has, IMHO.
 

squarel7

Member
UAD's seem to prefer a single processor in my system. Whenever I stack plugs more than 3 in a row on a buss, the audio drops out. I then shut off the mulitprocessor mode, and everything plays fine. I have 4 UAD cards, and used to use the plugs a lot. I am weaning myself off of them now. Running sonar 7.01.
 
squarel7 said:
UAD's seem to prefer a single processor in my system. Whenever I stack plugs more than 3 in a row on a buss, the audio drops out. I then shut off the mulitprocessor mode, and everything plays fine. I have 4 UAD cards, and used to use the plugs a lot. I am weaning myself off of them now. Running sonar 7.01.
Thank you! That has been happening all day on my new quadcore system (Sonar 7, 4 UAD-1s). Turned off multiprocessor mode and all seems well again.

Would having that switched off lead to much of a drop in performance?

Cheers

Ron
 

squarel7

Member
It can, depending on the size of the project. I usually have to increase the latency for the 1 processor to keep up. If I am still tracking, I freeze everything and kill all the plugs on the busses, to get the latency back low again, to play soft synths.
 

erlijohn

Member
Ronnie Wibbley said:
Vim said:
According to UA, ver 4.9 takes care of the multi-processor problem.
I've only started having the problem since installing 4.9!
My problem were solved with UAD-1 v4.7.1 drivers, but they came back with the v4.9 drivers: Gaps in the audio when I export...:)
:cry:
 

DK

Active Member
erlijohn said:
Ronnie Wibbley said:
Vim said:
According to UA, ver 4.9 takes care of the multi-processor problem.
I've only started having the problem since installing 4.9!
My problem were solved with UAD-1 v4.7.1 drivers, but they came back with the v4.9 drivers: Gaps in the audio when I export...:)
:cry:

This is very concerning to me - I want to update to 4.9 but only if it solves the Multiprocessor issue with Sonar (6.21)

Looking forward to hearing more feedback on this
 
It's hard for me to say what's happened with any certainty, since I have just put a new system together and am using Sonar for the first time. I'll try and explain below.

All I know is that I had an evening doing informal testing of the new system (recording a few audio tracks and playing about with the UAD-1 plug ins), and the 4 CPU meters on the screen in Sonar were working independently. This was with 4.8. PC features a Q6600 CPU and 4 UAD-1s, running Sonar 7 Producer.

A couple of days later I came back, installed 4.9 and, without thinking, tried to add a third UAD-1 plug to a track whilst it was playing back (ie without stopping it). Playback went very garbled, and even after stopping and restarting, the track in question was suffering rapid drop outs, almost like a fast tremolo effect. Once the plugs were deleted, it went back to normal, but on adding them again I had the same problem (all other tracks seemed okay).

Then - and this is what confuses me and makes me wonder whether it is a UAD-specific problem or something else - I had a couple of BSODs on rebooting, with an \"IRQ not less or equal\" warning.

This happened 3 or 4 times, with the system shutting down sometimes when I tried to insert UAD-1 instances on tracks. It was then that I read about the multiprocessor switch trick on this forum. I unchecked the box, and since then I have had no glitching and no further BSOD problems.

Whether this is coincidence or not I wouldn't like to say, but I had a good few hours with it last night and so far all seems well.
 

2re

Member
Sonar worked smoothly for me since 4.7. With 4.9 it's worse than ever. I get those error=30 messages all the time. It's like living in the \"good old\" Sonar 4 days. :evil:

I got no other option than going back to 4.8. It pisses me off a bit since I just bought the SPL TD :evil:
 

cleverbedsit

New Member
I bought Sonar 7 after switching from Cubase SX3 (as I ironically didn't want to upgrade to C4 due to all the issues I'd read about) and wasted a month trying to get my DAW working consistently and with adequate stability.

Prior to switching from Cubase my DAW with its 3 UAD cards was rock solid but with Sonar it turned into a flaky, frustrating piece of garbage as soon as track counts got over 20 audio tracks and around the same number of plugs. I might add that this is on a decent spec dualcore Intel machine. I spent a month replacing components and tweaking the system only to revert to the Cubase setup I'd had previously and it's worked flawlessly since.

Due to my experiences, along with other users' issues posted on the Cakewalk forum, and admissions by Cakewalk's developers, I'm not convinced of their testing policies in regards to 3rd party components in DAW's. An example: one of the mods on their forum admitted that they didn't even have a Liquid Mix unit in-house, so couldn't bug test Sonar for compatibility issues. The LM is a pretty common piece of kit, so I'd be relatively certain that they don't do a whole of testing in regards to UAD compatability either. Now it's nigh on impossible for a DAW developer to test every plugin, interface, control surface, etc for full compatability with it's software, but I'm not convinced from my experiences and research that Cakewalk's testing standards are particularly robust and don't fancy bug testing their software for them again anytime soon.
 

erlijohn

Member
2re said:
Sonar worked smoothly for me since 4.7. With 4.9 it's worse than ever. I get those error=30 messages all the time. It's like living in the "good old" Sonar 4 days. :evil:

I got no other option than going back to 4.8. It pisses me off a bit since I just bought the SPL TD :evil:
I'm sorry to say the situation is the same for me. I've contacted UAUDIO support, but have heard nothing yet... :evil:
 

dan le

New Member
4.9 not well with Sonar 7

Yes, 4.7 is the best.
Never used 4.8 so I don't know.
With 4.9, lots of stuttering and distortion. Then I have to delete the plug-in, in this case, the SPL TD, and reloaded it and then it works fine.
Only reason to go to 4.9 is the SPL TD.
sincerely,
dan le
 

squarel7

Member
Two of my cards are headed to ebay soon. I too have had the BSOD with the \"IRQ are not equal\" blah blah, which happeded kinda regular at bootup. I looked and found that it was caused by my RME card. I then rolled back to 2.94 on the RME HDSP 9632. This seemed to help quite a bit, but I think that it did happen once in the last 3 months. (Which is better than twice a week.) I have a hunch that the UAD's are contributing to the BSOD. I have upgraded to 4.9, but haven't had a chance to work with Sonar since the upgrade. I have been hearing a lot of problems with glitching.
 

cleverbedsit

New Member
I think when it comes to Sonar and UAD, unless there's a complete overhaul of the compatibility between the two, it's a case of choosing one or the other:

Either use another DAW application or don't use the UAD.

I went for the first option as my problems with Sonar couldn't be directly attributed to using UAD cards. Sonar had issues with my RME fireface, control surface, and probably would have allergic to my cat if I owned one :) My system runs fine with other DAW applications.
 

DK

Active Member
cleverbedsit said:
I think when it comes to Sonar and UAD, unless there's a complete overhaul of the compatibility between the two, it's a case of choosing one or the other:

Either use another DAW application or don't use the UAD.

I went for the first option as my problems with Sonar couldn't be directly attributed to using UAD cards. Sonar had issues with my RME fireface, control surface, and probably would have allergic to my cat if I owned one :) My system runs fine with other DAW applications.

With all due respect - I think something else must be going on with your system then - I have been using Sonar since the Pro Audio days (as well as Nuendo a little) and I have seen very,very little of what your describing here. I waited for years to get into UAD as the compatibility issues with Sonar were well known but from what I have seen on my system and many many others UAD and Sonar seem to be working quite well (until 4.9) and as far as Control surfaces and RME products - The reports I have seen seem very contrary to your experiences stated here.

Just stating what I have seen - certainly not trying to diminish your issues with Sonar - Just think a little perspective is in order
 

cleverbedsit

New Member
By \"waiting for years\" to get into UAD, you're kinda agreeing with me :D.....in effect that's choosing Sonar over UAD. Working \"quite well\" isn't something you should settle for IMO. If a client's sitting next to you and you get a BSOD or gapping audio, how does it look?

My experiences may be very different to yours but they're not isolated. Check out the \"UAD Gapping\" threads threads over at the Cakewalk forum or the ones related to users with Liquid Mix units. The \"motorboating\" thread in relation to Lynx and RME interfaces are pretty revealing too. These problems are not exactly the issues I experienced, but are similar in nature and also have not been resolved.

A lot of those folks are like myself, adequately knowledgeable guys when it comes to the technical aspects of DAW's but also have paying clients who don't want to see BSOD's when you play back the mix, or hear loud bursts of stuttering audio....and I'm not the first to retreat back to Steinberg products with my tail between my legs as I at least know Cubase SX3/Nuendo will get the job done despite their minor quirks.
 

DK

Active Member
Well, I wont argue over choice of DAW platforms here and I am certainly not agreeing with you... Frankly it's an outdated discussion :p - All the major DAW platforms have thier quirks and issues.

I have clients sitting here often and very rarely have BSOD's as I keep my system clean and well maintained. I waited until I felt I needed the plugs - I was making (and selling) music long before I got these plugs - Like DAW Platforms - They are simply tools

In the end we use what we need to get the work done right? Sonar, DP, Cubase, Nuendo, PT - It's all good stuff.........
 
UAD Bundle Month
Top