KVR :: MUTOOLS » Support for 64 bit VSTI plug-ins? [View Original Topic]
There are 22 posts in this topic.
Jake Jackson - Thu May 03, 2012 7:02 am
I'm sorry if this has been asked before, but: Am I correct in thinking that the latest version of Mulab does not support 64 bit VSTI plug-ins? (Each time I try to load one, the error message "Invalid VST plug-in" appears.)
If this is correct, should that be noted a little more prominently? 64 bit plug-ins are extremely popular these days, and might be considered the standard format. However, nowhere on the overview page, in the FAQ section, or on the download page is there any mention of the limitation.
Mulab is great, but I just spent at least 30 minutes downloading and installing the new version, unsuccessfully trying to load several plug-ins, searching for information on several pages on the Mulab site, and now posting here.
Nielzie - Thu May 03, 2012 7:08 am
Jake Jackson wrote:
Am I correct in thinking that the latest version of Mulab does not support 64 bit VSTI plug-ins?
Correct
Still 32-bit only, like Ableton Live, EnergyXT, etc. First there is multicore support comming, perhaps 64-bit later. I don't know if that is planned yet, and how much effort/code rewrite is would take. Possibly a lot..
I think in the meanwhile you could use jBridge to "bridge" your 64-bit plugins within a 32-bit host though, to make them work.
Jake Jackson - Thu May 03, 2012 7:53 am
Thanks. I hope that the good people at MuTools will add a statement somewhere on their main page or at least on the download page to indicate that it is a 32 bit application, which will save people considerable time.
mutools - Fri May 04, 2012 1:16 am
MuLab indeed still only exists as 32 bit app, but that's no prob to run it on a 64 bit system.
Like any 32 bit app, it can load 32 bit plugins but can't load 64 bit plugins.
Doesn't there exist a 32 bit version of the VST plugin you want to use in MuLab?
If so then you can run the 32 bit MuLab with the 32 bit plugin on your 64 bit system
MuLab will go 64 bit too, but no timing on that yet. I still don't see any urgence for that, because there is no obstruction afaik. Multi-core support has more priority i think.
Hope this helps.
Ja.x - Fri May 04, 2012 1:43 am
Jake Jackson wrote:
... 64 bit plug-ins are extremely popular these days, and might be considered the standard format...
Oh boy...!! Tell us more about that time you live in: is VST3 the standard format too? Bitwig already out? Any beta of XT3 yet?
Jake Jackson - Mon May 07, 2012 7:29 am
Well, I didn't mean to sound harsh. I wasn't complaining that Mulab was 32 bit, but instead saying that there is no way to know if it's 24 bit or 64 bit, and that causes problems if you try to work with 64 bit vsti's.
(64 bit may not be the standard for the majority of vsti's, but many hosts, such as Cubase and Logic are 64 bit. But yes, having it available doesn't mean that many people have moved to it.)
mutools - Mon May 07, 2012 8:07 am
Jake Jackson wrote:
there is no way to know if it's 24 bit or 64 bit, and that causes problems if you try to work with 64 bit vsti's.
I think that if an app is a 64 bit app it's clearly mentioned.
And most of the time you have the choice to download the 32 or 64 bit version.
So if an app, eg MuLab, doesn't mention something about 64 bit, i think it's safe to assume it's a 32 bit app.
BBpeckham - Thu May 31, 2012 12:12 pm
Hi I previously used Miroslav Philharmonic with Mulab (I think this VST is 64 bit) I downloaded 4.1.17 today and upgraded to Mulab XT and now can't use it (says Philharmonik is disabled but I can't re-add)Anyone now how I can get this going again?
Cheers,
BBPeckham
mutools - Thu May 31, 2012 11:21 pm
You can't load a 64 bit plugin into MuLab 4, but doesn't there also exist a 32 bit version of that plug. If yes, then use that one.
BBpeckham - Fri Jun 01, 2012 12:09 am
Thanks for that, I've got a feeling there isn't, I can still use it in the previous Mulab version I suppose - although I'm having problems verifying my upgrade to Xt with that.
Cheers
BBpeckham
mutools - Fri Jun 01, 2012 7:36 am
Previous MuLab versions will behave the same way.
You need the 32 bit version of that plug, it must exist, doesn't it?
BBpeckham - Sat Jun 02, 2012 3:15 am
Sorry, got a bit confused there - it is a 32 bit plug in - it just isn't working since I've gone to XT 4.1.17 (still works in previous Mulab) I just get this when I try to manage VSTs 'Couldn't find main VST function in Philharmonik.dll.
Cheers for your help
Krakatau - Sun Jun 03, 2012 12:03 am
I assume also that it is part of Mutools policy to stay as light as possible on CPU to still run under slower and likely also under older operating system if i'm not wrong, and at this point of view 64 bit support woun't be a main priority ?
Juan Mendoza - Sun Jun 03, 2012 4:15 am
Krakatau wrote:
I assume also that it is part of Mutools policy to stay as light as possible on CPU to still run under slower and likely also under older operating system if i'm not wrong, and at this point of view 64 bit support woun't be a main priority ?
I think that the point here is what benefits from implementing 64bits in mulab?
As far as i know, running a 64 bit plugin will not increase performance or sound quality versus a 32 bit one (correct me if i'm wrong), so what's the point if most plugins still existst in 32bit format, thus being usable in mulab already.
A different matter would be if most of plugs are only released in 64bits and it becomes a true standard, but that's not the case right now.
On the other hand, developing a multicore solution will benefit most of Mulab users needs by incresing performance, so that's why this is a priority versus 64bits IMO.
pljones - Sun Jun 03, 2012 4:52 am
The only musical advantage I'm aware of for a 64bit address space is where a sampler is forced to load samples into RAM and the user wants to use more samples than fit in a 32bit address space. That's not a common configuration, as far as I'm aware, particularly as more samplers implement disk streaming. As Juan says, effects and synths gain more from CPU performance than address space.
Note that processing 64bit instructions is actually a greater workload for a CPU than processing 32bit instructions, in terms of the amount of data being fetched. So you can see degradation in performance moving to 64bit. My understanding is more recent 64bit CPUs are starting to get the hang of this through optimisation techniques.
fluffy_little_something - Tue Jun 05, 2012 9:03 am
I think 64 bit is hyped. I have Windows 7 64-bit and most programs I use are still 32-bit. As long as 64 bit is not the absolute standard, why bother? There are probably hardly any programs out there that are only available in a 64-bit version as those companies know they would lose customers and market share.
Miroslav Philharmonik runs on Pentium 4 and Athlon chips and 1 GB RAM, so I doubt it is a 64-bit software.
robenestobenz - Tue Jun 05, 2012 10:57 am
fluffy_little_something wrote:
I think 64 bit is hyped. I have Windows 7 64-bit and most programs I use are still 32-bit. As long as 64 bit is not the absolute standard, why bother? There are probably hardly any programs out there that are only available in a 64-bit version as those companies know they would lose customers and market share.
Miroslav Philharmonik runs on Pentium 4 and Athlon chips and 1 GB RAM, so I doubt it is a 64-bit software.
I think it is worthwhile, myself. I imagine it's fairly easy to hit the 4GB memory addressing limit of 32-bit with a few large sample libraries in a project.
Miroslav Philharmonik runs on Pentium 4 and Athlon chips and 1 GB RAM, so I doubt it is a 64-bit software.
Definitely a backburner issue vs multi-core processing though, in my mind.
BBpeckham - Wed Jun 06, 2012 12:12 am
Sorry, caused a bit hassle here - the plugin is actually 32 bit, it's called Miroslav Philharmonik and now works fine with Mulab if anyone wants to use it (great quality orchestral samples for the price) Somebody mentioned (not on this forum) that it was 64 bit so I assumed that was why it wasn't working - many thanks for all the advice - got me there in the end.
Cheers,
BBPeckham
fluffy_little_something - Wed Jun 06, 2012 4:25 am
Since Mulab does not offer multi-core support, does that mean that all of my Mulab instance runs in a single core of my six-core processor?
robenestobenz - Wed Jun 06, 2012 4:42 am
fluffy_little_something wrote:
Since Mulab does not offer multi-core support, does that mean that all of my Mulab instance runs in a single core of my six-core processor?
At the moment, yeah. The developer, Jo, is working on it though and has said it's the priority. Might be targetting a release within the M4 lifecycle, I dunno. fluffy_little_something - Wed Jun 06, 2012 5:23 am
Oh, that's why I sometimes hit the red zone in the CPU usage meter despite using only 6 tracks
I suppose those fat pad sounds I like don't really help matters 
If I use external synth plug-ins, would they run in different cores and thus reduce the load on that one Mulab core?
mutools - Wed Jun 06, 2012 5:31 am
MuLab-wise multi-core support indeed is the top thing to do.
There might come some mini MuLab updates, also as a consequence of the MUX Vst development, but as soon as the MUX Vst has been released, it's all full focus on multi-core support!
There are 22 posts in this topic.