Comments

bgc wrote on 4/24/2004, 9:20 PM
As of today there is still munching, but only when the UAD hits about 70% utilization. My work around was to buy 2 cards. I'm quite liberal with my use of the UA plugins and I'm running great with Vegas and Acid.
There simply is no better set of vintage plugins than the UA plugs and the Fairchild emulation is worth the entire cost of the card and plugin.
I REALLY wish they would fix the munching problem, but even with it, the card and plugs are amazing and work fantastic with the Sony products.
B.
thomaskay wrote on 4/24/2004, 11:00 PM
If you bought the first card that has the LA-2A and the 1176, then you can buy their lighter card at around $400 that doesn't have those plugs. However, those plugs will run with the new, lighter card without having to spend the extra cash. You can run up to four cards and still use your original plugs across them all.

Apparently, there is a problem with running a UAD plugin after - say - a Waves plugin that "looks ahead" - like a compressor shen running in the non-VST format. At least that is what a UA guy told me. This might be common knowledge to users on this forum. I don't know.
stakeoutstudios wrote on 4/25/2004, 2:06 AM
I'm running four cards, which helps, but I wish they'd get together and fix the problem.

UA blames Sony, Sony blames UA. It's a nasty triangle.

Seeing as not other DX apps now have this CPU munching issue, I'm inclined to believe it can be fixed in a Vegas update.
pwppch wrote on 4/25/2004, 8:35 AM
We don't blame UA. Blame implies one knows what is wrong. What we do know is that we don't treat any DirectShow filter any differently. If the CPU munching occurred with EVERY plugin available, then I would have every reason to believe that it was our problem. We would have fixed this ages ago. However, since no other plugins cause this issue, I can't see how it is our problem. Still, anything it is possible.

We work with DX FX plugins consistently, which is the only way to do it. There is not reason for us to have to special case how we work to accomidate one particular set of filters. If a vendor claims to be DirectShow FX filter compatible, then they must work accross the board with any legal combination of filters from any vendor.

However, UA has not told us what they believe we are doing wrong. (They don't communicate with us at all.) If they KNOW we are doing something wrong, then we are more than willing to have them work with us in solving this problem.

I have emailed UA repeatedly and have never recieved a response. If anybody talks with them regarding this issue, you can have them contact me directly and I will do everything I can to resolve any issues. (This is a standing offer with ANY vendor - software or hardware - not just UA.)

Peter
stakeoutstudios wrote on 4/25/2004, 1:30 PM
thanks very much for your direct response, at least it seems like it is possible for it to be fixed.

Curiously, Cakewalk Sonar had this problem with the native CPU munching, but resolved it with one of their updates. Perhaps it might be worth speaking to the Sonar people to find out what they did to resolve it!

I will email Universal Audio (again) regarding this issue. I have a horrible feeling Vegas users are a very low priorty for them.

If it wasn't for UA's fantastic plugin compressors, I wouldn't even bother!

Jason
PipelineAudio wrote on 4/25/2004, 3:45 PM
I bet my lunch ( I could stand to skip a few meals) that UA doesnt have a coder that actually works for them as an employee. It seems wierd that code stuff comes from them in spurts, noone knows anything, then BAM here it is, and still the talking heads know nothing about what went on. Seems like they are contracting out some guy or something and issues like these are the last on their mind when its that kinda setup.
UliMors wrote on 4/25/2004, 11:48 PM
I have very close contact to UA (we did distribution of UAD1 Card for 2 years) - I´ll see if I can wake them up upon this issue.

ULI
pwppch wrote on 4/26/2004, 10:13 AM
I was just talking to someone at CW and they really didn't have any details on this issue other than that users have reported that thier update to the VST adaptor fixes the CPU munching issue.

The UAD uses a pre-Cakewalk version of the FXpansion VST to DX wrapper. It appears that this is where the problem lies.

Is Billy Buck monitoring this thread? You were mentioned in my conversation, so do have anything to add here?

Peter



billybk wrote on 4/26/2004, 11:42 AM
Hey Peter,
Yeah, I just tried the latest Vegas 5 demo (haven't got my boxed V5/DVD 2 upgrade yet, but it should be here any day now ;P), using the UAD-1 VST plugins with the latest 4.4.1 Cakewalk VST-DX Adapter and the CPU munching is still alive and well, unfortunately. Using either UAD-1 3.51 DX plugins or the VST (wrapped) ones with the Cake adapter really makes no difference, as it pertains to the native CPU munching. I am not sure where the problem lies, SONY or UA, but it would sure be nice to finally get this resolved once and for all. I would think it would be in everyone's best interest to do so.

Billy Buck

stakeoutstudios wrote on 4/27/2004, 10:38 AM
I confirm that the Cakewalk VST-Adapter does not fix CPU munching.

I do however think it may be something to do with the way the wrapper deals with delay compensation as if you disable this it *seems* to work without CPU munching.

Especially if UAs DX plugs are essentially wrapped VST.

This is a nastier workaround than CPU munching though.

pwppch wrote on 4/27/2004, 10:44 AM
>>Especially if UAs DX plugs are essentially wrapped VST

That is exactly how it works. UA has not developed native DX support, but relys on a version of the FXpansion wrapper for DX support.

Peter
H2000 wrote on 5/12/2004, 2:28 PM
Has anyone had the opportunity to try wrapping the VST version with DirectiXer?
PipelineAudio wrote on 5/12/2004, 4:40 PM
I have and it has the exact same problems as the FXspansion version

besides that, I REALLY like the directixer. It works great with the new yamaha plugins