UAD Plugins and Reason fixed?

Discuss VST stuff here!
User avatar
spikey
Posts: 70
Joined: 06 May 2017

20 Aug 2017

It's been a while, has the issue with UAD Plugins and Reason chugging to a halt been looked at yet? :?:

User avatar
spikey
Posts: 70
Joined: 06 May 2017

23 Aug 2017

From the looks and no replies, I guess I have my answer.... :cry:

User avatar
friday
Posts: 336
Joined: 17 Jan 2015

23 Aug 2017

I have the newest version and still the same CPU hungry UAD Plugins... I hope they work on it!?!? :roll:

User avatar
spikey
Posts: 70
Joined: 06 May 2017

23 Aug 2017

Those same "CPU Hungry" UAD Plugins in Reason work just fine in Logic X, and Cubase 9 on my "late 2009 iMac running Sierra. So maybe the UAD plugins are not the issue then? ;)

User avatar
friday
Posts: 336
Joined: 17 Jan 2015

24 Aug 2017

I know, the meaning was, hope propellerhead work on it!! :D

User avatar
Krell
Posts: 73
Joined: 06 Aug 2017

18 Sep 2017

No word on fixes for UAD plugins? Almost unusable here unfortunately...
Reason 12 // Bitwig 4 // Live 11 // Logic Pro X // Fabfilter // Soundtoys // Arturia // Vintage Hardware

User avatar
normen
Posts: 3431
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

18 Sep 2017

If you have an Apollo I suggest using the Virtual I/O plus maybe an ADAT loopback for more channels in combination with the hardware interface in Reason, that works stable and well and the latency is in the same range.

For an explanation on whats the issue with UAD and Reason see this post:
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=7503021&p=351304#p351304

User avatar
Krell
Posts: 73
Joined: 06 Aug 2017

18 Sep 2017

Thanks normen, read through your post and I think I have a better understanding of whats going on, although math has never been a strong suit of mine!

Let's hope something can be done with this problem.
Reason 12 // Bitwig 4 // Live 11 // Logic Pro X // Fabfilter // Soundtoys // Arturia // Vintage Hardware

User avatar
spikey
Posts: 70
Joined: 06 May 2017

23 Sep 2017

normen wrote:
18 Sep 2017
If you have an Apollo I suggest using the Virtual I/O plus maybe an ADAT loopback ...
I have played with puters off and on for a few decades, but I don't have a degree in programming. Can you explain this in layman's terms in a step by step using my Apollo firewire quad interface? Also, can you state why this has to be done in Reason, but the UAD plugins work just fine without issues in Logic x and Cubase 9?

Thanks.

User avatar
normen
Posts: 3431
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

23 Sep 2017

spikey wrote:
23 Sep 2017
normen wrote:
18 Sep 2017
If you have an Apollo I suggest using the Virtual I/O plus maybe an ADAT loopback ...
I have played with puters off and on for a few decades, but I don't have a degree in programming. Can you explain this in layman's terms in a step by step using my Apollo firewire quad interface? Also, can you state why this has to be done in Reason, but the UAD plugins work just fine without issues in Logic x and Cubase 9?

Thanks.
I explain whats different in Reason in the post I linked above, its because Reason runs all plugins at 64 samples buffer size. You can easily look that up yourself in the UAD config panel.

Read up in the Apollo manual on how to use the Virtual channels, if you put an ADAT cable from the ADAT input directly to the ADAT output the ADAT channels work exactly the same as the virtual channels.

User avatar
spikey
Posts: 70
Joined: 06 May 2017

23 Sep 2017

So I guess the answer is no, you cant. Are you saying that if I change the sample rate to 64 instead of 256 the the UAD plugings may work?

You still didn't answer "why" they did this. Ok that's fine, but why in Reason I have to use something different, versus their competition I.E. Logic X and Cubase 9 which work with UAD Plugins out of the gate? No special virtual anything, no special spdif or digital anything to get it to work. In other words, when you design an engine to run off gasoline the rest of the cars run on, and release it to the GP, you don't then state "oh yea you must also use a special carburetor to make it all work". ;)

User avatar
normen
Posts: 3431
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

23 Sep 2017

spikey wrote:
23 Sep 2017
So I guess the answer is no, you cant. Are you saying that if I change the sample rate to 64 instead of 256 the the UAD plugings may work?

You still didn't answer "why" they did this. Ok that's fine, but why in Reason I have to use something different, versus their competition I.E. Logic X and Cubase 9 which work with UAD Plugins out of the gate? No special virtual anything, no special spdif or digital anything to get it to work. In other words, when you design an engine to run off gasoline the rest of the cars run on, and release it to the GP, you don't then state "oh yea you must also use a special carburetor to make it all work". ;)
Yes I did explain it, in the post I linked above. Its about modulation among other things.

And yes, I STRONGLY recommend using UAD plugins with another DAW, a system where the audio is routed through Firewire or PCI to a DSP chip and then back into the DAW doesn‘t fit the Reason paradigm.

User avatar
spikey
Posts: 70
Joined: 06 May 2017

23 Sep 2017

And yes, I STRONGLY recommend using UAD plugins with another DAW, a system where the audio is routed through Firewire or PCI to a DSP chip and then back into the DAW doesn‘t fit the Reason paradigm.

So you are suggesting that anyone running a UAD audio interface needs to use another DAW/Host other than Reason because Reason's design is not now nor will ever be compatible? Wow, I'm saying now that Propellerhead might not agree with this due to the loss of revenue for them (there is a LOT of UAD interfaces out there), but that's just me. It could be that you have "nailed" their mindset on this. BTW was any of this in the fine print before we upgraded and forked over our hard earned $$$ ? :D I'm betting no...

BTW- I was able to turn the sample rate to 64 and it did get rid of the "your computer is too slow" message, but then the VST with the UAD plugin sounded like warmed-over crapola.

User avatar
normen
Posts: 3431
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

23 Sep 2017

spikey wrote:
23 Sep 2017
And yes, I STRONGLY recommend using UAD plugins with another DAW, a system where the audio is routed through Firewire or PCI to a DSP chip and then back into the DAW doesn‘t fit the Reason paradigm.

So you are suggesting that anyone running a UAD audio interface needs to use another DAW/Host other than Reason because Reason's design is not now nor will ever be compatible? Wow, I'm saying now that Propellerhead might not agree with this due to the loss of revenue for them (there is a LOT of UAD interfaces out there), but that's just me. It could be that you have "nailed" their mindset on this. BTW was any of this in the fine print before we upgraded and forked over our hard earned $$$ ? :D I'm betting no...

BTW- I was able to turn the sample rate to 64 and it did get rid of the "your computer is too slow" message, but then the VST with the UAD plugin sounded like warmed-over crapola.
I mean you could just as well complain that UAD doesn‘t support 64 samples properly, right? As for the other questions, I think I answered them, if you still don‘t see why Reason uses 64 samples ask somebody who can explain my explanation to you. As for a possible solution I outline that as well - but from this interaction I can only deduce that you‘re not actually interested in knowing what the issue is.

User avatar
spikey
Posts: 70
Joined: 06 May 2017

25 Sep 2017

mean you could just as well complain that UAD doesn‘t support 64 samples properly, right?
Yes, I could do that except for the fact that UAD's software runs just fine on all the other MAJOR hosts without issue. That kinda points back to Reasons software don't ya think?
but from this interaction I can only deduce that you‘re not actually interested in knowing what the issue is.
Oh yes, I understand "just fine" what the issue is. And I am interested. It is crystal clear to me that Reason has issues with their software running UAD plugins (while all the other Major brands do not), while YOU and Propellerhead seem to want to act like this is "normal" ..., and refuse to address it or even admit that not any of the other major hosts (Cubase, Logic X, Pro Tools, DP-9, etc etc) have this issue with UAD Plugins. That leaves Propellerheads own programming as the reason for this issue, and you tell me "I'm" the one not interested? There now, does that help you further deduce what real deniability looks like? Good... ;)

User avatar
Dante
Posts: 531
Joined: 06 Jun 2015
Location: Australia
Contact:

25 Sep 2017

This is the part of Normen's explanation that makes sense to me :

"So, since Reason is basically "made for modulation" it DOES make VERY MUCH sense to have plugins ALWAYS process only 64 samples at a time. And since they made this decision early and base a lot of things around it PLUS all plugins (not just REs) work like this - adding support for different processing buffer sizes would AT LEAST mean that some synths can't be modulated properly with lower settings. You can just as well start writing a new DAW in that case."

I deduct from this that what has happened with UAD plugins in Reason is no-ones fault. Its simply a side-effect of allowing VST to run in Reason at all. It may or may not be fixed ever, and if so likely by UAD rather than the Props.

NB seems like Normen is referring to a 64 sample buffer size which is not the same as a sample 'rate' of 64.

User avatar
spikey
Posts: 70
Joined: 06 May 2017

25 Sep 2017

I deduct from this that what has happened with UAD plugins in Reason is no-ones fault. Its simply a side-effect of allowing VST to run in Reason at all.
Did they at Propellerhead, not beta test this issue before releasing it??? It became Propellerheads fault (call it a "side-effect" if you want to) when VST's were announced by Propellerhead to run inside of Reason. Not specific ones mind you, but VST plugins in general. If such disclaimer was available stating that UAD plugins were NOT going to run inside of the new Reason to begin with, I wouldn't have a gripe and many of us may not have purchased the upgrade. But here is what they said...

https://www.propellerheads.se/press/266 ... st-support
Reason 9.5 supports any VST 2.4-compliant instrument or effect plugin, which means just about every VST out there will work in Reason.
I think that to find this out "after the fact" is at best poor policy, and at worst misleading.

User avatar
normen
Posts: 3431
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

26 Sep 2017

spikey wrote:
25 Sep 2017
Yes, I could do that except for the fact that UAD's software runs just fine on all the other MAJOR hosts without issue. That kinda points back to Reasons software don't ya think?
Well you could do that except other VSTs run in Reason, right? :) Anyway, what I was trying to say is that its simply an incompatibility and not really anybodys "fault".
spikey wrote:
25 Sep 2017
Did they at Propellerhead, not beta test this issue before releasing it??? It became Propellerheads fault (call it a "side-effect" if you want to) when VST's were announced by Propellerhead to run inside of Reason. Not specific ones mind you, but VST plugins in general. If such disclaimer was available stating that UAD plugins were NOT going to run inside of the new Reason to begin with, I wouldn't have a gripe and many of us may not have purchased the upgrade. But here is what they said...
If you really want to nail people down that much.. They said it does support them, they didn't say how well, right? So it's back to you being the dummy for buying it. (Again, not what I'm actually saying, just putting up a mirror here).

I mean, do you think people would have been happy with the Props saying "yo we could put out VST support but won't because UAD plugins cause high CPU load at low buffer sizes"?

User avatar
normen
Posts: 3431
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

26 Sep 2017

Dante wrote:
25 Sep 2017
I deduct from this that what has happened with UAD plugins in Reason is no-ones fault. Its simply a side-effect of allowing VST to run in Reason at all. It may or may not be fixed ever, and if so likely by UAD rather than the Props.
Yeah. Still as said there is workarounds that could happen in Reason (additional buffers+latency for certain plugins), but none of them are completely seamless.

EdGrip
Posts: 2343
Joined: 03 Jun 2016

26 Sep 2017

Lots of angry shoutey bitey people on this forum, seems like all of a sudden. Lots of dickish accusations of people "refusing to admit Reason has faults" because they're just trying to explain some technical matter they've been specifically asked about. Seems like the place has gone weird.

User avatar
Krell
Posts: 73
Joined: 06 Aug 2017

26 Sep 2017

I've had a response from Propellerhead on the UAD issue, I'm not sure that I understand it to be honest so I thought I'd post it here in case someone with a deeper technical knowledge can translate :D

--

We've had reports of the UAD VSTs taxing Reason's DSP heavily, but we also have users that can run these plugins without any major problem. We're currently investigating why this happens.

One thing you could try from Reasons perspective is to increase the number of audio worker threads and see if it makes any difference.

Reason uses quite a strict and safe multi-core implementation that does not sacrifice stability of the program, and this is why the DSP load can differ from other DAWs.

Users can manually override this by assigning more "audio worker" threads. This is done by using the following shortcuts in Reason:

Windows: Ctrl Shift Alt +
Windows: Ctrl Shift Alt -

Mac: Command Option Shift +
Mac: Command Option Shift -

This setting is not saved between sessions.

Changing this setting is a trade-off between different priorities, for example GUI performance, RAM-intensive operations, audio playback and so on—so try it and see if it improves your performance. However, we recommend using this command sparingly or simply keeping it on the original setting.

--
Reason 12 // Bitwig 4 // Live 11 // Logic Pro X // Fabfilter // Soundtoys // Arturia // Vintage Hardware

User avatar
normen
Posts: 3431
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

26 Sep 2017

Krell wrote:
26 Sep 2017
I've had a response from Propellerhead on the UAD issue, I'm not sure that I understand it to be honest so I thought I'd post it here in case someone with a deeper technical knowledge can translate :D
They're not saying much, only that they're investigating.

The thing with the added worker threads will probably not do much. Its just one other way to influence what Reason does that is not accessible through the settings panel so he gave you that to try around with.

User avatar
Krell
Posts: 73
Joined: 06 Aug 2017

26 Sep 2017

Thanks normen, I appreciate your technical expertise in this thread and others.
Reason 12 // Bitwig 4 // Live 11 // Logic Pro X // Fabfilter // Soundtoys // Arturia // Vintage Hardware

User avatar
spikey
Posts: 70
Joined: 06 May 2017

26 Sep 2017

If you really want to nail people down that much..
God forbid we hold anyone to their word. Why that might mean they have to back those words up with proof huh.

I bet you are a heck of a used car salesman on weekends too... :puf_wink:
So it's back to you being the dummy for buying it.
So this is somehow my fault now (after finding out it doesn't work with UAD plugins), and I should not have believed them in the 1st place?

Really? That's your argument? Well then, thanks for making my point... :lol:

seqoi
Posts: 417
Joined: 12 Aug 2017

27 Sep 2017

spikey some people are like completely crazy here on this forum. My impression is that they are far below 16 years or something.

As soon as you question or ask or point out some issue regarding inner working of Reason they will attack you, call you names and tell you it's your fault. The fact you have 20 years of experience with how other stuff is working outside their bubble means nothing to them. Asking nicely, politely or even just remotely debating also does not mean anything. You'll soon have all sort of self proclaimed product specialist, amazing developers with no real product in their portfolio or just trolls calling you names.

Somehow they live under misconception you fired Reason day before, you want to make deadmausomething music and all of a sudden you are one to blame if there is something wrong with Reason.

God forbid me i reported two Propellerhead RE devices bugs to PH (they appeared under certain conditions and they yould be replicated) and PH confirmed them and fixed them, god forbid me i can only imagine what would happen if i posted that here. They would tell me it's my fault and torch me with fire or something.

Post Reply
  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests