Login / Register 0 items | $0.00 New @ KVR
This forum is sponsored by
Past To The Future

Arturia's 21 classic synth and keyboard emulations REBORN!

HALF PRICE SALE NOW ON.

Go "Past To The Future" with Arturia.

Read more at www.arturia.com
ghettosynth
KVRAF
 
11042 posts since 13 Oct, 2009

Postby ghettosynth; Mon Jan 15, 2018 2:14 am Re: 64 vs 32 bit FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!!!

Saukar30 wrote: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 again, let's get to some details. Which small developer, who's only real cost is to "add a build configuration" and maybe update his website, e.g., the aforementioned dev who asked a similar question, doesn't provide 32 bit installs? That particular dev decided to keep providing them for the foreseeable future. He didn't actually provide installs and so for him, the cost was low.

Now, let's consider NI, do you really think that they need awareness of their Christmas giveaway? Clearly to NI, a whole bunch of needless support helping noobs figure out 32 bit vs 64 bit isn't going to generate a lot of revenue on a free product.

Second, I think that you're probably overrating the "awareness" generated by providing a format. I'm willing to bet that a KVR ad is far more effective in generating "awareness." For a second format to provide awareness that you aren't going to get otherwise then you are, for all intents and purposes, relying on the foosnarks of the world to tell people about such and such a plugin. My guess is that those kinds of word or mouth effects are secondary at best.

Which, brings me to my third point. What do you think that not providing 32 bit is going to do?

Answer, it's going to piss off a bunch of vocal non-customers who are going to complain in public that they can't buy your plugin. My guess is that NOT supporting 32 bit generates more awareness than word of mouth secondary effects from 32 bit only customers.

Do you think that most customers listen to people who gripe about 32 bit not being supported? I can tell you I don't. I just click on the link to see where I can buy the 64 bit only plugin that sounds cool. How much impact do you think that those vocal complaints had on people who use 64 bit with NI's Phasis?
User avatar
BONES
GRRRRRRR!
 
6995 posts since 13 Jun, 2001, from Somewhere else, on principle

Postby BONES; Mon Jan 15, 2018 3:57 am Re: 64 vs 32 bit FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!!!

ghettosynth wrote: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.

Which I think we established was one-third of the market. That's not insignificant.
In particular, customers that like to stick with old hardware may cause more support than customers with newer hardware.

FFS! It has nothing to do with hardware, you can run 32 bit software on the latest and greatest PC running the absolute bleeding edge version of Window 10. My laptop is only 4 months old and my 64 bit Win10 install is completely up to date and everything runs better than it ever did on 32 bit Windows.
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.

I don't know what they'd have to add. They'd never know for sure why anyone did or didn't update or purchase their product. KORG are probably in a good position, in that they should have reasonably accurate forecasts so they'll know if the lack of a 32 bit Odyssey is or isn't holding back sales. It's definitely cost them $149 from me, because I'd have bought the whole suite (I've had PolySix and Monopoly for ages).
NOVAkILL 3.0 : Acer Switch5 (Core i5, Win10), Zoom U24, Orion 64 bit, Maschine Mikro, Elektron Analog Keys, Ultranova, Rocket, MicroMonsta
User avatar
BONES
GRRRRRRR!
 
6995 posts since 13 Jun, 2001, from Somewhere else, on principle

Postby BONES; Mon Jan 15, 2018 4:03 am Re: 64 vs 32 bit FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!!!

Stefken wrote: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)?

1. I don't need two systems - a 64 bit OS will run both 32 bit and 64 bit software without any problem.

2. When you are up on stage, the last thing you want to be doing is stuffing around changing from one application to another. Ideally, I'd like to press play at the start of the show and not touch the computer again until we're finished. The more complicated it gets, the more likely you are to stuff it up.
Synthman2000 wrote: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.

I've never had even the slightest problem with stability or reliability in the 20 or so years I've been using VST host applications. What were you using before that makes a stable application feel so good?
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

Why? As long as I can keep installing the software, it will keep working and, fortunately, Microsoft understand how important backwards-compatibility is to their customers so I'll always be able to run my 32 bit set-up. And there are still literally hundreds of 32 bit VSTi that I have never even looked at, so I'm not about to feel like I've run out of options at any point.
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.

We are not a karaoke act, we're a rock band. We don't play to a backing tape, everything is generated in realtime on stage. Naturally we have vox-free versions of everything as a back-up but it would have to be a really serious issue that forced us to use them.
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 not about replicating thigns per se, it's about the time and effort required to do so. That said, I've spent 20 or more hours in Bitwig just trying to get The Legend and Dune 2 to sound like Wasp in one of our simpler songs but it still sounds like a cover version, nothing like the original.

Of course, we could stick to the 64 bit version of Orion but we also use a lot of our own SynthEdit synths, particularly those that do Phase Distortion, that we are absolutely not going to be able to replace easily. So we're either stuck replacing all of Orion's instruments and effects or all of my SE plugins. Either way, I just can't see it being doable. Similarly, to create multi-layered samples that respond to velocity and after touch and everything else the way the synth does would take forever. It's not realistic, either, unfortunately.
Stefken wrote:That's something that people tend to forget. It's not just about development but also about support!

In Korg's case, and the vast majority of other vendors, they have 32 bit versions of their other plugins, so they have to provide that support already. One new instrument isn't going to cost them an extra dime.
NOVAkILL 3.0 : Acer Switch5 (Core i5, Win10), Zoom U24, Orion 64 bit, Maschine Mikro, Elektron Analog Keys, Ultranova, Rocket, MicroMonsta
ghettosynth
KVRAF
 
11042 posts since 13 Oct, 2009

Postby ghettosynth; Mon Jan 15, 2018 4:15 am Re: 64 vs 32 bit FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!!!

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

FFS! It has nothing to do with hardware, you can run 32 bit software on the latest and greatest PC running the absolute bleeding edge version of Window 10.


Just because you have a specific use case does not mean that there isn't general correlation between the NEED for 32 bit and old hardware. If you go back and read these threads you'll see that it's quite common.

In any case, you guys arguing with me are still missing the point, devs DO in fact choose to not provide 32 bit so there is certainly A reason, and when established firms like Korg and NI choose to do so then there is almost certainly a GOOD reason from their point of view.
Stefken
KVRist
 
497 posts since 9 Nov, 2016

Postby Stefken; Mon Jan 15, 2018 4:17 am Re: 64 vs 32 bit FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!!!

ghettosynth wrote: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.


Trump would say:"We don't need these shithole customers". :D
(Just kidding)
Last edited by Stefken on Mon Jan 15, 2018 4:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
camsr
KVRAF
 
6834 posts since 16 Feb, 2005

Postby camsr; Mon Jan 15, 2018 4:17 am Re: 64 vs 32 bit FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!!!

mystran wrote: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.


The nice part of not using assembly code (or intrinsics) to super-optimize stuff, is that the code compiler can just build the relevant machine code as best as possible already. Programming sanity, is letting the compiler do the hard work. Algorithms are basically the same x64 or x86, but using ASM to code for two platforms is twice the work if not more.

I think the real difficulty lies in using third-party libraries which might only be built (and work correctly) for one platform. And there is also the difficulty of making a GCC type library work with MSVC or viseversa. And then there is the willingness of the developer to fork out cash for a decent x64 compiler (MSVC specifically) which is basically the standard, versus using the free GCC and gang that doesn't have the same volume of friendly shared libraries to use. So the amount of code a programmer has to write isn't known ahead of time either right? Might as well just pick what is easiest and get it done I think.
Image
User avatar
Synthman2000
KVRist
 
489 posts since 27 Apr, 2016

Postby Synthman2000; Mon Jan 15, 2018 4:23 am Re: 64 vs 32 bit FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!!!

"I'd like to press play at the start of the show and not touch the computer again until we're finished."
"We are not a karaoke act, we're a rock band."

Right that's clear as mud then, I won't waste more precious time on your issue whatever it actually is, no need to bother explaining it either.

Until you decide to go 64 bit which is technologically current and ever more leaning that way, you have to deal with a variety of issues specific to your way of working and platforms. There is no right or wrong way to make music just preferred ways. However as we rely on computers Karaoke band or not, the fact is technologies advance and whether we like that or not (it has good and bad sides) we have at some stage to follow suit, even if it means changing working practices.

This thread might as well be... just get on with what you like. At some stage you will be forced to change to 64bit. It is a case of when, not if. Nothing is static.
Last edited by Synthman2000 on Mon Jan 15, 2018 4:28 am, edited 2 times in total.
ghettosynth
KVRAF
 
11042 posts since 13 Oct, 2009

Postby ghettosynth; Mon Jan 15, 2018 4:24 am Re: 64 vs 32 bit FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!!!

camsr wrote:
mystran wrote: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.


The nice part of not using assembly code (or intrinsics) to super-optimize stuff, is that the code compiler can just build the relevant machine code as best as possible already. Programming sanity, is letting the compiler do the hard work. Algorithms are basically the same x64 or x86, but using ASM to code for two platforms is twice the work if not more.

I think the real difficulty lies in using third-party libraries which might only be built (and work correctly) for one platform.


Agreed, at least this is where I've run into show stopping problems in the past.
ghettosynth
KVRAF
 
11042 posts since 13 Oct, 2009

Postby ghettosynth; Mon Jan 15, 2018 4:26 am Re: 64 vs 32 bit FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!!!

Stefken wrote:
ghettosynth wrote: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.


Trump would say:"We don't need these shithole customers". :D
(Just kidding)


Probably best to leave that nonsense out of this, but, customers aren't free to a firm, they have a cost and if you aren't making enough money off of a segment to justify the costs of that segment, then, no, you don't need those customers.
Stefken
KVRist
 
497 posts since 9 Nov, 2016

Postby Stefken; Mon Jan 15, 2018 4:41 am Re: 64 vs 32 bit FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!!!

ghettosynth wrote:
Stefken wrote:
ghettosynth wrote: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.


Trump would say:"We don't need these shithole customers". :D
(Just kidding)


Probably best to leave that nonsense out of this, but, customers aren't free to a firm, they have a cost and if you aren't making enough money off of a segment to justify the costs of that segment, then, no, you don't need those customers.


I completely concur with your statement.
You explained it very well and anybody who is willing to understand the issue, will understand it.
camsr
KVRAF
 
6834 posts since 16 Feb, 2005

Postby camsr; Mon Jan 15, 2018 4:51 am Re: 64 vs 32 bit FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!!!

The problem is, support x86 and x64, for Linux Mac and Windows. Good luck with that. And also support a feature-redacted mobile version. And make sure all the presets work for all of them. :X
Image
User avatar
foosnark
KVRAF
 
4335 posts since 9 Jan, 2003, from Saint Louis MO

Postby foosnark; Mon Jan 15, 2018 5:38 am Re: 64 vs 32 bit FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!!!

electro wrote:
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?


That would be nice.

I think if I were upgrading to a new computer and doing a fresh install, I'd probably go 64 bit even if there was no replacement. I don't use Night Flight that much (but I do like it), and I've been playing more with Echobode rather than ET-301 and finding some lovely sweet spots with it. And I'm thinking about picking up a Doepfer BBD, clock whine and all :D

Offhand, I'm not sure what other plugins are on my list that are 32-bit only that I'd still shed a tear over.
Stefken
KVRist
 
497 posts since 9 Nov, 2016

Postby Stefken; Mon Jan 15, 2018 6:09 am Re: 64 vs 32 bit FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!!!

BONES wrote:Ideally, I'd like to press play at the start of the show and not touch the computer again until we're finished.


This 'Fire and Forget' device, straight out of Area 51, is protected by a Bit Shield (BS-technology :D ).
So never any bit issues. :party:

Ideal for the discerning rock band :D .

Image
Saukar30
KVRian
 
990 posts since 2 Mar, 2005

Postby Saukar30; Mon Jan 15, 2018 6:22 am Re: 64 vs 32 bit FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!!!

ghettosynth wrote:
Saukar30 wrote: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 again, let's get to some details. Which small developer, who's only real cost is to "add a build configuration" and maybe update his website, e.g., the aforementioned dev who asked a similar question, doesn't provide 32 bit installs? That particular dev decided to keep providing them for the foreseeable future. He didn't actually provide installs and so for him, the cost was low.

Now, let's consider NI, do you really think that they need awareness of their Christmas giveaway? Clearly to NI, a whole bunch of needless support helping noobs figure out 32 bit vs 64 bit isn't going to generate a lot of revenue on a free product.

Second, I think that you're probably overrating the "awareness" generated by providing a format. I'm willing to bet that a KVR ad is far more effective in generating "awareness." For a second format to provide awareness that you aren't going to get otherwise then you are, for all intents and purposes, relying on the foosnarks of the world to tell people about such and such a plugin. My guess is that those kinds of word or mouth effects are secondary at best.

Which, brings me to my third point. What do you think that not providing 32 bit is going to do?

Answer, it's going to piss off a bunch of vocal non-customers who are going to complain in public that they can't buy your plugin. My guess is that NOT supporting 32 bit generates more awareness than word of mouth secondary effects from 32 bit only customers.

Do you think that most customers listen to people who gripe about 32 bit not being supported? I can tell you I don't. I just click on the link to see where I can buy the 64 bit only plugin that sounds cool. How much impact do you think that those vocal complaints had on people who use 64 bit with NI's Phasis?


But again you may have people like NI who JUST came out with a only 64 bit version plug... but you have other developers... like I mentioned... U-he, who also come out with new 32 & 64 bit versions as well. And they argubably have the highest ratest synths in the entire VST market. So obviously someone is listening.

Not to mention... I also said I didnt want to argue with you. I even agreed with you, so I dont see the need for the long retort LOL. I said my position from where I see it... you don' have to agree with it. But I can give you plenty of examples of developers who choose to still support both formats. For them... it is probably financially feasible to do. For others, its not. Regardless of whether I think its for awareness.

Example...I bought about 20 new plugs this year. I can tell you that only 4 I bought were 64 bit only... and those were IK plugs that I knew were only 64 bit, not short on popularity. So.. the other purchases from other devlopers made up the majority amd not the minority... atleast in my case.

Again..... I dont care. I can run both. And I understand that technology moves forward. But at this point in time, it seems to be that there still is a market for 32 bit. Whether a developer chooses to adhere to both markets is really up to them... and Im not in to telling people how to put food on their table. My argument is that depending on what your needs are, there is still a number of people who obviously use or develop both vs one or the other.

And to agree with Bones...which I rarely do... but if I had all of my songs in 1 format, aint no way in hell Im going to switch to another format to "keep current"... ESPECIALLY when going live. Anybody disagreeing with this either doesnt perform or just started using a VSTs and dont have enough material to warner such changes.

Ive got 1600 songs in 32 bit format. Why in the bloody hell would I want to redo all of that work? Lol fuuuuuuuuuuck that. All the new ones can be in 64... or I can render them down to audio. Im not touching them bad boys unless its to archive. If I redo anything on them... itll be with a plug that works in that format. No questions asked.
chk071
KVRAF
 
16448 posts since 10 Apr, 2010, from Germany

Postby chk071; Mon Jan 15, 2018 6:29 am Re: 64 vs 32 bit FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!!!

Stefken wrote:
ghettosynth wrote:
Stefken wrote:
ghettosynth wrote: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.


Trump would say:"We don't need these shithole customers". :D
(Just kidding)


Probably best to leave that nonsense out of this, but, customers aren't free to a firm, they have a cost and if you aren't making enough money off of a segment to justify the costs of that segment, then, no, you don't need those customers.


I completely concur with your statement.
You explained it very well and anybody who is willing to understand the issue, will understand it.

The way threads like these are typically going, i have my doubts about that. :P
PreviousNext

Moderator: Moderators (Main)

Return to Instruments