Login / Register  0 items | $0.00 New @ KVR

64 vs 32 bit FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!!!

BONES
GRRRRRRR!
 
6725 posts since 13 Jun, 2001, from Somewhere else, on principle

Postby BONES; Sat Jan 13, 2018 9:10 pm Re: 64 vs 32 bit FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!!!

braj wrote:Bones, have you tried JBridge yet?

Yes, it freezes all the time and crashes now and then. After a freeze, the plugin no longer makes any sound and has to be deleted. There are two things I can do that will make it freeze every time and I've had a couple of other freezes that seemed to happen randomly. There is no way I could trust it on stage.
XPS 13 (Core i7, Win10) + Orion + Ultranova + Rocket + Pulse 2 + Seaboard Rise 25 + Yamaha AG06
NOVAkILL
Stefken
KVRist
 
250 posts since 9 Nov, 2016

Postby Stefken; Sat Jan 13, 2018 11:06 pm Re: 64 vs 32 bit FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!!!

BONES wrote:
chk071 wrote:But, frankly, the 32-bit crew is so religious over their point, while displaying such a small portion of the market, that it makes no sense to rationally argue with such people.

It has nothing to do with being "religious", it is a purely practical matter that people like you seem to be totally dismissive of.

TL:DR VERSION:

We have 20 years of music made with 32 bit plugins that we still need to play live on stage. The work required to migrate those to a host that supports 64 bit plugins makes it a non-starter - we're talking hundreds of hours, minimum - so we feel that we basically have no viable alternative but to stick with 32 bit for the foreseeable future.



How about keeping your legacy system and setting up a second 64 bit system alongside (either on the same physical machine or a second machine)?
User avatar
Synthman2000
KVRist
 
396 posts since 27 Apr, 2016

Postby Synthman2000; Sun Jan 14, 2018 1:45 am Re: 64 vs 32 bit FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!!!

Cubase went 64 bit only. Initial response was, I won't like that cause I will lose a couple of plug ins.

Today I cannot even remember what those plug ins were.

I am experiencing the most stable and incredible DAW experience I ever had in my 25 years making music off and on. There is absolutely no way I will be interrupting that stability and peace of mind with J-bridge for any synth. My own personal experience with that was crashes, lost synths from projects, missing GUI's and all manner of unexplainable problems. I am no stranger to workarounds but unexplainable problems are the worst to deal with. However that is not to rubbish J Bridge, clearly it works for some people and systems. It simply did not work with my set up, so try it yourself and find out.

Everyone will have their own tipping point with 32/64. My advice is go 64 bit asap cause everyone still using 32bit will have to have the painful process at some stage and it is best planned for and dealt with in as constructive, logical and considered manner as possible. The alternative, maybe a machine break down, some other vital software you want that is not compatible etc. and a huge unpredicted headache. You always make better decisions when you have prepared in advance. That day will come whether you like it or not.

Right now I want for nothing. DAW nirvana has been achieved.

To contextualize I have 113 track mix of an 8min track, lots of VSTi playing live from all manner of developers big and small, samplers, audio tracks.. around 350 plug ins effects/eq's compressors etc, 2011 3.4GHz CPU, current ASIO usage 50-60pct. I have not had a single crash for the entire project which has lasted about 6 weeks.

With regards to the live musician who needs 32 bit for live (BONES). I would make sure you have backed up audio parts of the parts you play live just in case. Out of interest what plug ins is it that cannot be replicated by a 64 bit counterpart. It must be a very unique sound. (Is sampling the unique 32 bit synth patches, out of the question ?)
User avatar
Ingonator
KVRAF
 
11855 posts since 21 Mar, 2008, from Hannover, Germany

Postby Ingonator; Sun Jan 14, 2018 2:13 am Re: 64 vs 32 bit FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!!!

Synthman2000 wrote:Cubase went 64 bit only. Initial response was, I won't like that cause I will lose a couple of plug ins.


Cubase Pro 9.5 is indeed 64-bit only with no dedicated 32-bit version and no built-in bridge but still you could use jBridge to use 32-bit plugins in it. There might be some confusion about that.

Cubase 9.5 will blacklist 32-bit plugins but not the 64-bit DLls created by jBridge. Anyway to make those DLLs created by jBridge work you still need a folder with the original 32-bit DLLs too.
Ingo Weidner
HW: Komplete Kontrol S61 Mk1, Blofeld, Pulse 2, UltraNova
SW: PPG 3.V, Largo, Nave, Icarus, Avenger, Serum, Legend, Saurus 2, Diva, Repro-5, VC 6, Komplete 10, many more
i5-3350P / Win 10 x64 / Live 10 Suite / Cubase Pro 9.5 / Bitwig 2
User avatar
Synthman2000
KVRist
 
396 posts since 27 Apr, 2016

Postby Synthman2000; Sun Jan 14, 2018 6:02 am Re: 64 vs 32 bit FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!!!

I'll stick with my pristine working DAW. You have to learn lessons to progress.
User avatar
Orbit-50
KVRAF
 
2115 posts since 28 Jun, 2005, from La La Land

Postby Orbit-50; Sun Jan 14, 2018 6:09 am Re: 64 vs 32 bit FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!!!

Synthman2000 wrote:With regards to the live musician who needs 32 bit for live (BONES). I would make sure you have backed up audio parts of the parts you play live just in case. Out of interest what plug ins is it that cannot be replicated by a 64 bit counterpart. It must be a very unique sound. (Is sampling the unique 32 bit synth patches, out of the question ?)

It's most likely the Novakill stuff. Now that I think about it, those had to be the coolest, most interesting Synthedit plug-ins I've ever used. Hell, for the first time I actually feel like getting J Bridge and installing them again.

https://www.kvraudio.com/developer/novakill
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
Alienware i7 R3 loaded with billions of DAWS and plugins.
Saukar30
KVRian
 
944 posts since 2 Mar, 2005

Postby Saukar30; Sun Jan 14, 2018 7:00 am Re: 64 vs 32 bit FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!!!

Simple question:

If a 32 bit synth has no changes in sounds/features and only differs within the compiling... why would a developer choose to lose out on that market share?

U-he arguably some of the most complex synths ever... but offers them in both versions.

Notice, I said synth... not sampler. That's different.

Personally, I just think it would be smarter as a company to make both versions 32 & 64. Yes, you may have more problems and have to do a little more work, but you expand your customer base. And in this crowded market, I think no matter the size of your company that would be part of your mission goal.
User avatar
foosnark
KVRAF
 
4221 posts since 9 Jan, 2003, from Saint Louis MO

Postby foosnark; Sun Jan 14, 2018 6:54 pm Re: 64 vs 32 bit FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!!!

Peak working set size after starting Maschine 2.0 with nothing loaded: 320,716K

The most recent song I finished in Maschine:

Channel 1: Horse (a chorus/dirt VST I wrote myself that is not optimized), Permut8, Valhalla Plate
Channel 2: dfx Monomaker, SpecOps, Valhalla Room
Channel 3: Lush-101, Ratshack Reverb, TB Equalizer
Channel 4: Haaze, MTransformer, Replika
Channel 5: G8, Transient Master, TB Equalizer, Replika, Valhalla UberMod
Master: TB Flx, Barricade

Channels 1, 2, 4, 5 all have audio inputs from hardware synths.

After loading: 810,872K
After playing all the way through the song: still 810,872K
After recording the entire project: still 810,872K

I'd say 4GB is enough for me :)
ghettosynth
KVRAF
 
10602 posts since 13 Oct, 2009

Postby ghettosynth; Sun Jan 14, 2018 7:53 pm Re: 64 vs 32 bit FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!!!

Saukar30 wrote:Simple question:

If a 32 bit synth has no changes in sounds/features and only differs within the compiling... why would a developer choose to lose out on that market share?


There was a discussion about this from one of the vendors. It does require some additional work, even it it's small. I seem to recall some newer vendors that don't provide 32 bit at all but can't recall which off of the top of my head.

That particular discussion centered mostly around where the market was at this point in time in terms of how many 32 bit holdouts there still were.

Personally, I just think it would be smarter as a company to make both versions 32 & 64. Yes, you may have more problems and have to do a little more work, but you expand your customer base.


As with all such questions, the devil is in the details. A few more customers may not be worth the additional effort. In particular, customers that like to stick with old hardware may cause more support than customers with newer hardware. I don't know of course, but, if a dev doesn't provide 32 bit then it's likely that they have at least thought about that question and has concluded that the additional build isn't worth the effort.


And in this crowded market, I think no matter the size of our company that would be part of your mission goal.


Sure, but, you haven't demonstrated that your preference will yield an improvement in all cases. I think that if you want to get a good perspective on this you should get some comments from devs who have chosen not to support 32 bit any longer.
electro
KVRAF
 
4257 posts since 5 May, 2002

Postby electro; Sun Jan 14, 2018 11:12 pm Re: 64 vs 32 bit FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!!!

foosnark wrote:There is no good replacement for ET-301, Night Flight, and some others. I'll stay with 32. There is nothing "religious" about it. :roll:

How about a 64bit Night Flight?
Intel Core2 Quad CPU + 4 GIG RAM
Stefken
KVRist
 
250 posts since 9 Nov, 2016

Postby Stefken; Sun Jan 14, 2018 11:47 pm Re: 64 vs 32 bit FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!!!

ghettosynth wrote: In particular, customers that like to stick with old hardware may cause more support than customers with newer hardware.


That's something that people tend to forget.
It's not just about development but also about support!
User avatar
braj
KVRAF
 
8989 posts since 4 Feb, 2004

Postby braj; Sun Jan 14, 2018 11:57 pm Re: 64 vs 32 bit FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!!!

Stefken wrote:
ghettosynth wrote: In particular, customers that like to stick with old hardware may cause more support than customers with newer hardware.


That's something that people tend to forget.
It's not just about development but also about support!


Also, people think it is just a matter of compiling the 32 bit version, but it is also supporting it, and testing it, both of which cost the developer time and money. If they determine it is of little value to them to support it, they'll drop it, which is happening increasingly.
If you have requests for Korg VST features or changes, they are listening at https://support.korguser.net/hc/en-us/requests/new
mystran
KVRAF
 
4714 posts since 11 Feb, 2006, from Helsinki, Finland

Postby mystran; Mon Jan 15, 2018 12:21 am Re: 64 vs 32 bit FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!!!

ghettosynth wrote:
Saukar30 wrote:Simple question:

If a 32 bit synth has no changes in sounds/features and only differs within the compiling... why would a developer choose to lose out on that market share?


There was a discussion about this from one of the vendors. It does require some additional work, even it it's small. I seem to recall some newer vendors that don't provide 32 bit at all but can't recall which off of the top of my head.


Most of the time it really just takes (for your average code written in a "sane" way) another build configuration. On macOS you don't necessarily even need that, since you can just tell clang to compile universal binaries in a single pass. If you are using some libraries with annoying build processes that doesn't support multiple targets out of the box, then you might have to waste a few hours on getting those sorted out, but it's usually not a major effort by any means. The main cost factor is probably the extra testing required to verify that both versions actually work (although sometimes having both versions can help you catch some issues easier, if one version happens to trigger a rare bug more often).

That said, if you do something really low-level (eg. manually written assembly code, run-time code generation, custom memory management, stuff like that) then you probably have to maintain two separate code-paths (or one code-path with lots of conditionals) which can translate to anything from slight to major overhead. Whether any of this is stuff that your average plugin is concerned about is one thing, but every once in a while you might want to do something that actually has to care and the cost of providing 32-bit version can suddenly increase significantly.

Either way, my best guess is that for about 95% of all plugins it's a simple matter of adding another build configuration.
Image <- plugins | forum
ghettosynth
KVRAF
 
10602 posts since 13 Oct, 2009

Postby ghettosynth; Mon Jan 15, 2018 12:58 am Re: 64 vs 32 bit FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!!!

mystran wrote:Either way, my best guess is that for about 95% of all plugins it's a simple matter of adding another build configuration.


I wasn't really asking for an explanation, I am a dev, just not a dev who sells software plugins, rather I was just explaining that no matter how small the costs are, there are costs. Moreover, sometimes just adding another build configuration is trivial, sometimes it leads you down a rosey path of pain.

If there are devs that choose not to do this then you have examples of devs who have chosen that whatever the actual costs are, they are deemed not worth the additional sales.

I seem to recall that the recent Phasis by NI is only 64 bit. So there you go, there's one concrete example of a dev who has chosen not to bother with 32 bit for a particular plugin. Could be any number of technical reasons, but, it also might be that people who still need 32 bit have a greater tendency of using outdated hardware and, consequently, cause more support problems.

In other words, it may not be a technical reason at all that devs choose to go 64 bit only, perhaps they don't want those customers still on 32 bit because they simply cost too much.

In any case, there's an example and if the development and testing costs are so low then you still have to answer the question as to why NI has chosen not to build for 32 bits? To be clear, I'm trying to answer the question that this thread is posing, not making the case one way or another. I'm not confused by it and I don't give a shit. Other people, however, seem to be confused and think that it's obvious that the N customers who want 32 bit are worth whatever K hours it takes to accommodate them. By example, clearly that's not true.

Also, in my experience, anytime some begins a development statement with "all that you have to do is", then that's seldom "all that you have to do." If you are providing installers you now have to either provide a separate installer or you have to include the 32 bit install paths. If you have documentation and websites, they all have to be updated. If you weren't providing 32 bit before you now have to add this language, if you still aren't providing 32 bit from some things then you have to make this clear.

I also think that it complicates support by adding an additional dimension, and this is something that customers can get wrong. Clearly, NI knows how to build software, so, if it were just "adding another build configuration", they probably would have done that.

The more complication and variation that there is, the more everything about supporting customers costs. Eliminating a potential vector for customer problems for the majority of your customers, e.g., their 64 bit plugin isn't working because they installed it to the wrong place by mistake when choosing paths for 32/64, may be worth more than the few extra customers that you get by including 32 bit.

Bottom line, it's almost certainly a business decision that is far more complex and nuanced than just "add another build configuration."
Last edited by ghettosynth on Mon Jan 15, 2018 1:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
Saukar30
KVRian
 
944 posts since 2 Mar, 2005

Postby Saukar30; Mon Jan 15, 2018 1:20 am Re: 64 vs 32 bit FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!!!

ghettosynth wrote:
Saukar30 wrote:Simple question:

If a 32 bit synth has no changes in sounds/features and only differs within the compiling... why would a developer choose to lose out on that market share?


There was a discussion about this from one of the vendors. It does require some additional work, even it it's small. I seem to recall some newer vendors that don't provide 32 bit at all but can't recall which off of the top of my head.

That particular discussion centered mostly around where the market was at this point in time in terms of how many 32 bit holdouts there still were.

Personally, I just think it would be smarter as a company to make both versions 32 & 64. Yes, you may have more problems and have to do a little more work, but you expand your customer base.


As with all such questions, the devil is in the details. A few more customers may not be worth the additional effort. In particular, customers that like to stick with old hardware may cause more support than customers with newer hardware. I don't know of course, but, if a dev doesn't provide 32 bit then it's likely that they have at least thought about that question and has concluded that the additional build isn't worth the effort.


And in this crowded market, I think no matter the size of our company that would be part of your mission goal.


Sure, but, you haven't demonstrated that your preference will yield an improvement in all cases. I think that if you want to get a good perspective on this you should get some comments from devs who have chosen not to support 32 bit any longer.


Thanks Ghettosynth. I understand there are definitely devil in the details, time is money & the support needed for a whole different base of users can crunch all of those things. And not to disagree with you at all, just from my perspective as an end user is just different. I just think there is more of a chance immediately to get awareness for a product to be available in as many formats as possible for the developer to handle.

So... maybe its just down to the fact that most developers can't handle all the intricacies of handling each format on a business level. Which makes since.

Me myself, don't really care. I use Reaper mostly, which will load both. Its just a pain sometimes because my DAW with the most songs in it (Orion) was discontinued & the 64 bit version sucks big time. Everything works better in 32 bit with that program.

In the end, technology is going to keep moving forward, like cars. One can either keep going with their reliable car they have had for a long time & hope they can still get parts to maintain it ...or always get a new vehicle. Either way, it's going to be some sort of headache.
PreviousNext

Moderator: Moderators (Main)

Return to Instruments