UADx and Cubase 12

Will UADx be recognised by C12. Will this be a work around for VST3?

Is it not VST3?

Right. It’s UAD 2 that is effectively dead-in-the-water on C12 (for mac).

I don’t think that’s true.

SB wrote specifically that “VST 2 plug-ins are no longer supported on Apple silicon Macs running in native mode.

I was speaking for practicality’s sake. Rosetta is a short-term stop-gap. With most developers aiming (racing?) to go native by year’s end, I don’t believe folks are going to choose to stay on Rosetta for long.

Fine, it’s just that we have to be a bit careful with how we write things on the web since some people take it at face value.

Many users are on Windows,

and many users that are on OSX aren’t on Apple silicon Macs not running Rosetta. Know what I mean? Someone could read your post and think that it is literally true that UAD-2 doesn’t work on any computer in Cubase 12. And that’d be incorrect.

3 Likes

Ah! I hadn’t seen that. Well well. After refusing to comment upon the VST3 issue for months the old sods were beavering away in a back room somewhere with the sticky backed plastic, to fashion a new range of VST plugins, albeit the same plugins. I don’t know how I feel!!

The only issue will be whether UAD 2 can host UADx. I am guessing that this is UAD breaking away from the expensive hardware dongles. I am also guessing that this will mean that projects with UAD2 will be Using C12 for the forseeable future. It seems that UAD are creating a clear demarcation between UADx and UAD2.

They work on Cubase 12, they are vst3, they are not native m1 yet but will be. Go ahead cause they are a game changer!

1 Like

UAD2 can’t host UADx. They’re separated. They clarified on their official forum that the plugins can’t be sort of “just swapped” between DSP and native, you have to think of them as two separate plugins that sound and function the same. In other words if you set up a project with UAD2 plugins you can’t open that on a computer without a UAD2 and have it automatically switch to native, you would have to instantiate UADx plugins and then copy over presets and automation. Which kind’a blows.

They also made the point that UAD2 will be seen as ‘premium’ moving forward so it’s not going away.

The main reason it isn’t going away is that only a small number of their plugs are available for UADx at least right now, and according to UA it will be awhile before they are all available, if ever.

1 Like

Seems like Windows users are put to the back of the queue as usual. They are now saying the Fall for the Windows version.

The issue that is bothering me is how will we open a project with VST2 plugins in it once this transition is made! Back to the period where we went from 32bit to 64bit plugins! We had JBridge to help the transition then.

I have 1 Octo and 2 Quad cards installed and have a studio running on Windows. Its going to be interesting!

I am afraid that you will hve to keep C12 on your computer to run projects with VST2 plugins. I don’t think UAD will be using VST3 with UAD2 cards. This might be partly because they can’t run VST3 on these cards and partly because the Apollo interfaces can’t use VST3 in Unison. Unfortunately we can’t even be certain that all the plugins will be available in UADx. Which doesn’t bode well for those UAD users who might be wanting to upgrade to C13.

Annoyingly we will have to keep the UAD 2 cards in to unlock past project and, either stick where we are, or forego using plugins we love to move forward with Cubase.

Nothing to be afraid of… this is exactly the no-nonsense, sensible approach to be taking as this changeover’ happens. Its a cast-iron safe route for peace of mind. Finish projects in the Cubase version they were started; new projects only in the new Cubase.

But moving beyond C12 it seems the 3 DSP cards in my computer will no longer be possible to be used rendering that investment and CPU off-loading useless.

I’ve read elsewhere that UAD will be making the hardware a ‘Premium’ option… if its true - what does that mean?

UAD2 works fine on Intel Macs and Cubase 12. It’s only M1 Macs and Cubase 12 that have a problem with UAD2 plugins.

Where did you see info on the above?

To me it doesn’t make sense that VST 2 could run on UAD-2 but VST 3 couldn’t. I would think it’s just a matter of wrapping code or something. I’m not trying to trivialize programming, just trying to say that I don’t think this is technically impossible.

When I read that comment from UA the larger context was a discussion about the value of DSP. I took the comment to mean (paraphrased) that they will keep the DSP platform alive (i.e. at least UAD-2) and relative to UADx it is essentially premium. It is premium because you pay more but you also get more. You get the DSP, the UAD-2 plugins, and the native plugins (when available). If you get the subscription you get the UADx native plugins only.

It should probably be added too that we don’t know what kind of licensing agreements they have with other parties. If they create a Neve plugin and use the name it could be that they’re allowed that for X years on UAD-2 only. So if they can’t change that agreement those types of plugins would remain on DSP only and sort of make it “premium” because of that.

Of course it could be debated whether or not it’s “premium” if some software becomes native-exclusive, but if the question is whether or not they’ll keep working on UAD-2 and the DSP software the answer seems to be ‘yes’.

That’s also why my guess would be that they’ll port over their plugs from VST2 to VST3.

With UAD2 plugins or with VST2 plugins?

Good point. Will edit for clarity.

I stand by my follow-up statement, however, since Cubase 12 requires Big Sur (which excludes a large number of the cheesegrater Mac Pros still in use by many artists & studios) or Rosetta (for M1 macs). This potentially restricts UAD-2 for quite a large number of C12 Mac users.

I don’t think UAD will be using VST3 with UAD2 cards.

Yeah, I don’t think so either. My guess is that they’ll either phase out UAD-2 or introduce a new VST3-compatible UAD-3 product. Cause $$$$. Either way… UAD-2 and C12 are not long for each other… :skull:

My understanding is that Cubase 12 handles any VST2 plugins fine on Intel Macs. However, Cubase 12 does not work well with M1 Macs and any VST2 plugins. Someone with more info that please correct my post if I have anything wrong.

But what is it that makes you (plural) think they wouldn’t just make current UAD-2 plugins as VST 3?

Actually, come to think of it - the official at the UA forum made it clear several times that they had nothing to announce regarding that and I would think that they surely would have stated quite simply that VST 3 on UAD-2 wasn’t technically possible if it actually wasn’t possible. Because by stating that they would have set everyone’s expectations.

Personally as a non-programmer it just doesn’t make sense that they could run VST2 on those SHARC chips but not VST3. That just doesn’t compute in my head.

EDIT: By “run” “on those SHARC chips” I don’t mean that literally, which is the point. The plugins run in our DAWs, and these particular ones send data over to the SHARCs who then do the number crunching. I don’t see why a VST3 plugin couldn’t send and receive that data to those chips.