Vst count limit - Steinberg please do something!

[Grim]

Also, same point to Last comment by steinberg employee that it's not the host's fault. It'd be useful to know if Reaper indeed is or isn't affected.

Quick test Cubase vs Reaper. Loading 6 plugs per channel - Plugs selected in manufacturer order from my collection so all the same plugs loaded at first.

Cubase failed to load the 53rd unique plugin. Tried a few other plugs and managed to load another 2 but that was it.
Reaper loaded 104 unique plugs and then gave an error that plugin cannot be loaded....tried a few more but all gave the same error until trying to load a waves plug crashed it completely.

So seems the limit is there but is way higher than in Cubase.

[GeorgeV]

Thanks YVan from Steinberg for the valuable info.

Also thank you Grim for the tests, interesting findings. Adding to that, according to Cakewalk, Sonar can handle at least 64 unique plugins. Fabio mentioned before that Cubase can handle a similar amount, so Grim's number (53-55) makes sense. I suppose the number may vary depending on the actual plugins you use. But Grim's method is very good, for comparing

Reaper seems to be doing well on this issue. Based on this workaround to increase (a bit) the amount of loadable unique plugins in Cubase:

For the time being, those who have the problem can lower the amount of loaded dlls by moving some of the components out of the folder C:\Program Files\Steinberg\Cubase 9\Components. Of course, this applies only to the dlls which are not needed during use ...
euconadapter (support for Euphonix / AVID controllers)
hubservice (Steinberg Hub, without this, you will only see the Project Assistant, the Hub on the left will be missing)
omffilter (you will be unable to import OMF files)
video (all files, of course all video features will be missing)
vstconnect
...make sure to not remove any core component like Baios, the exception dumper, mediaservice, SamplerTack, stepdesigner and the VST files). This will allow for more plug-ins... not much more, but could help some of you.

Those extra features in Cubase are obviously reducing the number. And Reaper surely handles the issue much better, twice the number of plugins!?
Let's hope Steinberg developers can increase the number of unique loadable plugins within Cubase...

[djw]

Does Reaper really support more of the same 64-bit plugins compared to Cubase? A certain test I did shows that it's not better off than Cubase, but it might be wrong.

[mart]

The next cubase release is likely around the corner. Will we see this addressed?

[Raphie]

Ofcourse not, as explained many times, it’s not the daw, but the type of plugin and in what combination used.

[GeorgeV]

Anyone able to comment on how 9.5 performs with the limit?

[marQs]

Anyone able to comment on how 9.5 performs with the limit?

Did some tests yesterday comparing to C9.

Loaded one by one just using the next in the list, the limit was at 104 indivudual plugins. Then I tested my all time favourite UAD plugins exclusively, here the limit is reached with just 31 different plugins (C9 gave me 42). Probably I could get some more by disabling hub, video etc., seems there are some more components in 9.5 that are pre-filling those 'slots'.

So still it seems to depend on how plugins are communicating with the rest of the system (sorry, I'm not an IT guy and have never really understood what exactly is going on, so forgive my ignorance and lack of correct technical terms here). In a usual session with mixed native & dsp plugins I guess I'd come up to 60/70 indivudal plugins. Hmmmmm.

[Raphie]

Seems most people encountering this issue UAD is in play. You guys should go to the UAD forums and ask there for a fix?
The issue has been discussed MANY times, not much Steinberg can do in this case.

[xanthos84]

Well maybe its not Steinberg's fault, but they COULD do something against it.
You ask how? Give the users an option to bridge plugins (run them in an external process!)

With that solution, you could load plugins until you run into cpu problems.

Workaround at the moment: using JBridge and bridging 64 bit plugins into 64 bit... which runs them in a new process and it works. But of course you have some overhead due to the bridging.

[marQs]

Seems most people encountering this issue UAD is in play. You guys should go to the UAD forums and ask there for a fix?
The issue has been discussed MANY times, not much Steinberg can do in this case.

Yes, Steinberg is not to blame but maybe could find a solution too. Anyway, I'll open a support ticket with UA.

[Raphie]

I wouldn't use the wording "blame" full stop. The restriction is a mixture between OS limitations and how plugins claim processes/threads.
when multiple instances can share the same process you can use more and otherwise you will run out soon.
It's really up to plugin providers to code smarter. This doesn't solve the OS limitations, but will bring a lot more headroom for now.
Only look at the fact of how many developers install their own VC++ runtime library with their plugins. in a dense DAW you will have like 2009/2010/2011/2012 etc. in both 64x and x86 versions. That alone is already a mess. Only because they can't be asked to update their libraries after release.

[marQs]

Yes, sounds like a mess

Whatever, I don't really understand the technical aspects deeply, I just see where the limits are and want anyone involved in the complex interactions of OS, hosts and third party addons to break the limits. Pleeeeeaaaase

For the moment I can workaround it. That's why I do my testing in the first place - a project that works with Cubase 9 has two missing plugins in 9.5 - ok, I'll finish it in 9 and won't complain. Anyway it's 2017, we have pretty powerful hard- and software that does pretty magic things. We shouldn't have to think about limits that don't knock off cpu.

[mart]

We all need to complain to plugin manufacturers. I did so to UaD this year and hit hard. The short of the answer was that only about 2 users had reported such things to them and since the coding effort to improve things/fix things is not trivial it wouldn't be something fixed soon. And particularly because I'd say a lot of ye UaD customers are Mac based it's even worse. Folks go over to UAD now and lodge a complaint in order to put pressure on. The more pressure the higher up the list.

Over the year I've made myself actually pull away from UaD. I've not bought one of their plugins for 18 months. I'm finding equivalents or ways to get he job done without them. I hope they notice that I had spent a lot with UAD but not these days

[marQs]

Opened a support ticket over at UA!

Here's a short video on it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpuYn0y ... e=youtu.be

Things may differ on differnt OS (here still Windows 7).

[GeorgeV]

Anyone able to comment on how 9.5 performs with the limit?

Did some tests yesterday comparing to C9.

Loaded one by one just using the next in the list, the limit was at 104 indivudual plugins. Then I tested my all time favourite UAD plugins exclusively, here the limit is reached with just 31 different plugins (C9 gave me 42). Probably I could get some more by disabling hub, video etc., seems there are some more components in 9.5 that are pre-filling those 'slots'.

So still it seems to depend on how plugins are communicating with the rest of the system (sorry, I'm not an IT guy and have never really understood what exactly is going on, so forgive my ignorance and lack of correct technical terms here). In a usual session with mixed native & dsp plugins I guess I'd come up to 60/70 indivudal plugins. Hmmmmm.

Thanks for reporting back marQs.
Same exact number (104) was previously reported by another user but for Reaper. Cubase was hitting the limit at around half (54) unique plugins

Quick test Cubase vs Reaper. Loading 6 plugs per channel - Plugs selected in manufacturer order from my collection so all the same plugs loaded at first.
Cubase failed to load the 53rd unique plugin. Tried a few other plugs and managed to load another 2 but that was it.
Reaper loaded 104 unique plugs and then gave an error that plugin cannot be loaded....tried a few more but all gave the same error until trying to load a waves plug crashed it completely.
So seems the limit is there but is way higher than in Cubase.

So this is the first time that anyone reports loading such a high number. I understand there is a problem with UAD plugins, but maybe from Steinberg's point there has been an improvement

[GargoyleStudio]

Just noticed this thread... I discovered this issue a while back. Hard to believe that we've got things like limitless audio and midi tracks yet we've been severely limited in the number of unique plugins we can load.

On a particular project I'm stopped in my tracks (no pun intended!) because I've hit the limit and I haven't finished the mix at all. It's actually been exacerbated by the removal of 32bit plugins because those were run in a separate process so they weren't under the same limit as the 64bit and VST3 plugins. I've been testing JBridge and it works well, I can change some of my plugins to run in JBridge instead and the limit is effectively increased. But it can't wrap VST3 and as more manufacturers move to VST3 I'll be stuck again.

I regularly use many different plugins from different manufacturers as well as a fair few freebie plugins - they all do their job to create unique/great sounds. The suggestion to use the same plugins is fine for compressors and EQ, but it doesn't really work for instruments because they're way more different to each other and each instrument really does have it's own distinctive sound(s) so using many of them from different manufacturers can't be avoided.

Indeed, it does look like UAD are taking up a lot of slots. Also I notice that Arturia take up a lot as well. We all need to get onto the manufacturers and probably MS as well to try to resolve this problem because it's going to effect a lot of people I think.

Mike.

[mart]

I imagine MS dont give a dam. I dont know what the music computer userbase is on Windows but I imagine its a tiny percentage

[marQs]

I imagine MS dont give a dam. I dont know what the music computer userbase is on Windows but I imagine its a tiny percentage

... in my world the music computer userbase is at least 50 %

[mart]

Just noticed this thread... I discovered this issue a while back. Hard to believe that we've got things like limitless audio and midi tracks yet we've been severely limited in the number of unique plugins we can load.

On a particular project I'm stopped in my tracks (no pun intended!) because I've hit the limit and I haven't finished the mix at all. It's actually been exacerbated by the removal of 32bit plugins because those were run in a separate process so they weren't under the same limit as the 64bit and VST3 plugins. I've been testing JBridge and it works well, I can change some of my plugins to run in JBridge instead and the limit is effectively increased. But it can't wrap VST3 and as more manufacturers move to VST3 I'll be stuck again.

I regularly use many different plugins from different manufacturers as well as a fair few freebie plugins - they all do their job to create unique/great sounds. The suggestion to use the same plugins is fine for compressors and EQ, but it doesn't really work for instruments because they're way more different to each other and each instrument really does have it's own distinctive sound(s) so using many of them from different manufacturers can't be avoided.

Indeed, it does look like UAD are taking up a lot of slots. Also I notice that Arturia take up a lot as well. We all need to get onto the manufacturers and probably MS as well to try to resolve this problem because it's going to effect a lot of people I think.

Mike.

Can every responder of this thread take time to send a complaint to support of one or more plugin manufacturers. Maybe MS - but where do you start with them!

[Romantique Tp]

UAD is the main culprit here. I doubt anyone sane is using 140 different non-UAD plugins in their mixes.

[AP]

You are all dreaming if you think that Microsoft, Steinberg or any plugin manufacturers
Are going to change anything for you guys. Didn't Steinberg already said it was a MS issue.
And the fact that UAD taxes your CPU means that it's not CPU efficient just like a lot of the
Native Instruments stuff.

It's 2017 going on 2018 if you want to make serious music for film or use 200-400 VSTi
Switch to Mac... PC is not cutting it anymore...

FYI most people use PC for office software. The percentage of Musicians using PC is less than 1%... Microsoft doesn't care...

[marQs]

The percentage of Musicians using PC is less than 1%...

I think that's a rumour. Who can know a precise number?

[djw]

Switch to Mac... PC is not cutting it anymore...

FYI most people use PC for office software. The percentage of Musicians using PC is less than 1%...

Good one.

[AP]

The percentage of Musicians using PC is less than 1%...

I think that's a rumour. Who can know a precise number?

I meant 99% of MS PC computers are sold to others and around 1% of PC user are musicians/studio owners.

As for musicians using PC compared to Mac it's more like 50/50...

When I wrote this post I was under the impression that you could buy a 2.3 i7 Mac mini
For $600 and upgrade it, but I don't think you can buy those new anymore.

[marQs]

The percentage of Musicians using PC is less than 1%...

I think that's a rumour. Who can know a precise number?

I meant 99% of MS PC computers are sold to others and around 1% of PC user are musicians/studio owners.

As for musicians using PC compared to Mac it's more like 50/50...

When I wrote this post I was under the impression that you could buy a 2.3 i7 Mac mini
For $600 and upgrade it, but I don't think you can buy those new anymore.

Whatever tool does the job

Dealing with Apple is just a differnt can of worms. See all the Cubase user complaints about laggish display on macs...