Login / Register 0 items | $0.00 New @ KVR
This forum is sponsored by
Bass Master from Loopmasters

Heavy, speaker-shaking tones are just a few clicks away with Bass Master. This synth is totally dedicated to bass, and it's built on Loopmasters' award-winning sonic history.

Whether you are making House, Techno, Drum and Bass, Trap, Hip Hop or other electronic music styles, Bass Master's huge variety of source sounds provide the inspiration for a weighty, powerful bass tone.

Read more at www.pluginboutique.com
User avatar
Burillo
KVRAF
 
2802 posts since 15 Nov, 2006, from Hell

Postby Burillo; Sat Jan 13, 2018 3:27 am Re: 64 vs 32 bit FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!!!

notice how arguments in favor of using 64-bit are mostly technical (compatibility, more available RAM, more CPU registers available, less work for developers), while all arguments in favor of 32-bit (or rather against 64-bit) are all either emotional, or of the "i couldn't be arsed to upgrade, so why won't developers follow suit" variety.

that, to me, tells everything there is to know about the debate.
From Russia with love
User avatar
wagtunes
KVRAF
 
12344 posts since 8 Oct, 2014

Postby wagtunes; Sat Jan 13, 2018 6:14 am Re: 64 vs 32 bit FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!!!

Guenon wrote:
layzer wrote:This fight.... its like any other phenomenon that deals with volumes, most people
can get by having a normal sized stomach to eat a hamburger,
but then there are those that have to get stomach enlargement
surgery to be able to eat an entire cow in one sitting.

same crowd as usual, hoarders and greedy folk.


Hmm. I would say it's more like any other phenomenon that deals with varying use cases and preferences, and people trying to minimize and badmouth the ones who don't happen to share the same way of doing things as you. Comments like this are all the while more common online, no matter what the subject is, and they are both unfortunate and interesting from a psychological viewpoint. They don't stick to friendly and objective comparison, and instead descend into ^ this, deliberately not seeing the other person's viewpoint.

In the case of 32 bit and 64 bit software, when it goes into that mode, it's about calling people who prefer 32 bit software luddites and relics and stupid, and calling people who prefer 64 bit software greedy and bloatware users and also stupid. Hah. What's the point?

Someone using only 32 bit stuff and maybe even quite sparsely at that, preferring to use outboard gear instead of software instruments, not going anywhere near the 32 bit RAM limit (like foosnark described his working methods) isn't working in any way worse or better just because of that aspect, when compared someone using for example Kontakt instruments and needing more RAM to do it. For one, I wouldn't be able to do my work with 4GB, and that's just what I do. It's by no means rare to use instruments of that size these days, and it also isn't rare to use less RAM than that. This doesn't suddenly make either one stupid or backwards or greedy or a horrible producer :)

When bringing up this specific subject, there are often jokers who say something along the lines of "pffft 64 bit, bloaters gonna bloat, wait until 128 bit comes along, it's even better" :D ... And similarly, for the other crowd, people keep pointing out things like "why don't you go back to 8 bit machines then, they were good back in the 80s."

Both are of course mere jokes, but also attempts to snarkily minimize the other people's viewpoint. To someone working with 32 bit software, suggesting "even less" is of course just a jab at the supposed ludditeness and how their methods are so ancient. And as for being greedy and needing "even more bits": for someone who does need more RAM than 32 bit software allows, 64 bit addressing merely removes the 4 GB limit and there is no need for more (as 64 bit addressing has an upper limit of 16 million terabytes of addressed memory).

In other words, the increase from 32 bit to 64 bit addressing just removes the practical upper limit of addressable RAM. It remedies a limit that has come to be a burden from the viewpoint of heavier computing and those who need it, and it's not in the foreseeable future when DAWs might have the bandwidth and calculating capacity to need more than those millions of terabytes of address space ;). And if you don't need it, it really only means you don't need it.


TLDR - Welcome to the stupid human race
Acknowledgement
KVRist
 
42 posts since 31 Oct, 2017

Postby Acknowledgement; Sat Jan 13, 2018 6:37 am Re: 64 vs 32 bit FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!!!

layzer wrote:This fight.... its like any other phenomenon that deals with volumes, most people
can get by having a normal sized stomach to eat a hamburger,
but then there are those that have to get stomach enlargement
surgery to be able to eat an entire cow in one sitting.

same crowd as usual, hoarders and greedy folk.


:nutter:
dark water
KVRian
 
782 posts since 2 Jun, 2016

Postby dark water; Sat Jan 13, 2018 7:07 am Re: 64 vs 32 bit FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!!!

Quick answer - use whatever makes music-making easier, quicker and more enjoyable for you.


For anyone who gets the reference:
Image

Image
User avatar
BONES
GRRRRRRR!
 
6949 posts since 13 Jun, 2001, from Somewhere else, on principle

Postby BONES; Sat Jan 13, 2018 7:42 pm Re: 64 vs 32 bit FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!!!

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.

LONG VERSON:

The first incorrect assumption you'll make is that I am still on some ancient version of Windows, when the fact is that I stopped using Windows 7 months before Win8 was released, so much better were the W8 betas, and my Windows installs have mostly been at the bleeding edge ever since.

Your assumption about the size of the market also seems wildy out of sync wiht reality. A thread linked in the Korg discussion showed that fully one-third of respondents still had need of 32 bit support and that relatively few people were 64 bit only. So, if one-third of people can't (or won't) use a 64 bit only plugin, that means a 32 bit version could increase sales by as much as 50%. If you were a company selling a product and there was a simple way to boost sales by 50% for virtually no extra cost, wouldn't you think that was worth doing?

Which brings me to the next item, which is the perception that doing both 32 and 64 bit versions would require double the programming effort. This isn't the case. A 32 bit version of a plugin will share 99% of the code with the 64 bit version. The biggest requirement would be compiling the plugin for both versions, which is something that can happen unattended. i.e. You put it on before you go home at the end of the day, it's ready when you get to work the next morning and voila!, you have the potential for 50% higher sales. That's why even the tiniest one man operations make the effort - it's money for old rope.

So far I've only dealt with your assumptions, now I'll attempt to give you some insight into the reality of the situation. I've been using VST plugins since around 1999 when there were no decisons to be made, no options to be covered. All VST plugins were 32 bit and that was that. So that's what we used for all four albums that we've released, because even when we started writing for the latest one, I'm pretty sure there were no 64 bit hosts to use, even if we'd wanted to. There certainly wasn't anything approaching a decent range of 64 bit options compared to the cornucopia of the 32 bit realm, so you'd have been crazy to even try at that point (2009).

Here we are today, then, with a catalogue of songs that people know and expect to hear us play when we perform live. The problem, of course, is that very few hosts, and certainly not the one we've been using for nearly two decades, will let you mix and match 32 and 64 bit plugins. Yes, there are options like jBridge but in my testing I have found jBridge to be nowhere near robust enough for us to be able to use it live on stage. There are two ways I know I can make it crash and there are other random crashes that I have had to deal with in just a few hours of testing.

If we want to move to a 64 bit system, the only options we have, then, are to either move up to the 64 bit version of our host and find 64 bit plugins to replace the 32 bit plugins we've relied on all this time or to move all our songs across to a host that will let us keep using our 32 bit plugins alongside new 64 bit VST. With the former option, there is probably 10 hours for each song in finding replacement instruments and getting the sounds we need out of them. In total that could be around 500 hours of painstaking, boring, soul-destroying work just to get back to where we are today. Realistically, though, we could probably just do them one at a time as we wanted to play them live, so the initial effort would only be around 100 hours or so. Still, with a full time job it could take me six months or more to find 100 hours to get it done.

The second option is even worse, because every one of our songs relies heavily on our host's native effects and instruments. e.g. We don't even own a drum machine or sampler plugin because we've always used the built in ones and 90% of the effects we use are native to the host. But at least most of the synth sounds would all be there so most of the work would be in having to reprogram the drums and find new effects to use (and we don't use a lot of effects anyway, so that wouldn't be too hard). But we'd be doin git in a new and unfamiliar environment so it would be slow going.

We have tried the second option. Mid last year I bought Bitwig Studio, after testing the demo for a few weeks, and I spent a couple of months with it, trying to rebuild one of our songs. I got the framework of the song in pretty easily, mostly via MIDI files, but getting it to sound even close to the way it doesn't on the album was way more work than I'd expected. After a while, probably 20 hours into the exercise, I just gave up and went back to Orion.

So you might think that people who want to stick with 32 bit hosts and plugins are Luddites or tin-foil hat wearing loonies, but the reality is that for many of us who have been doing this for any length of time, the alternatives simply aren't viable. That means that Korg could have made some money out of me, because I was very interested in their Odyssey plugin, but they won't because they couldn't be bothered compiling it twice. It just seems daft - a few hours more work for them, for which they'll get paid, versus hundreds of hours of work for me, for the privilege of paying them money. Who really loses?
NOVAkILL 3.0 : Surface Pro 2 (Win10), Zoom U24, Orion 64 bit, Maschine Mikro, Elektron Analog Keys, Ultranova, Rocket, MicroMonsta, Seaboard Rise 25
damayor
KVRist
 
77 posts since 11 Feb, 2015

Postby damayor; Sat Jan 13, 2018 8:08 pm Re: 64 vs 32 bit FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!!!

32-bit is more vintage and has more warmth. 64-bit had that digital harshness :roll:
User avatar
braj
KVRAF
 
9094 posts since 4 Feb, 2004

Postby braj; Sat Jan 13, 2018 8:10 pm Re: 64 vs 32 bit FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!!!

Bones, have you tried JBridge yet?
If you have requests for Korg VST features or changes, they are listening at https://support.korguser.net/hc/en-us/requests/new
User avatar
BONES
GRRRRRRR!
 
6949 posts since 13 Jun, 2001, from Somewhere else, on principle

Postby BONES; Sat Jan 13, 2018 8:24 pm Re: 64 vs 32 bit FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!!!

medienhexer wrote:And as far as I understand, that's really the core discussion. Some people like their old stuff, it hasn't been updated, maybe never will and there's nothing that can replace what they've come to love to use.

It has bugger-all to do with "love", it is pure necessity. In fact, I haven't read a single comment on the issue that talks about that.
With even all mobile devices firmly 64 Bit now, too, it's becoming harder and harder to support 32 Bit systems. As a developer, you can't use new OS features, programming language features, soon, important 3rd party libraries, installer tech, etc. won't be compatible anymore.

That's nothing more than an illustration of why mobile OSes are a joke. It will never happen with Windows.
In practical terms, there won't be any new hardware supporting 32 Bit OS versions.

That's irrelevant, 32 bit software runs perfectly well on a 64 bit OS. In fact, 32 bit software can run better on a 64 bit OS because the OS can allocate it more resources.
I get that there is an emotional one, but that's not how technology works.

Then why can I still run 32 bit software I bought 20 years ago on the latest version of Windows 10 64 bit? Why does the USB 1.0 MIDI interface I bought in 1999, for Windows 98, still work when I plug it into a USB 3.1 Type A port on my brand new laptop? Technology works however the people/companies who make it want it to work. In this case, it's a simple matter of providing backwards-compatibility, only it requires two different versions to be compiled from a single piece of source code - you do one, then port to the other. It's almost no effort at all, way, way less effort than providing AAX or AU versions.
NOVAkILL 3.0 : Surface Pro 2 (Win10), Zoom U24, Orion 64 bit, Maschine Mikro, Elektron Analog Keys, Ultranova, Rocket, MicroMonsta, Seaboard Rise 25
User avatar
BONES
GRRRRRRR!
 
6949 posts since 13 Jun, 2001, from Somewhere else, on principle

Postby BONES; Sat Jan 13, 2018 8:30 pm Re: 64 vs 32 bit FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!!!

mutantdog wrote:The 32-bit mob are really too lazy to reinstall everything, all of their reasons are just excuses they make to justify it. :P

OK, then, I tell you what - I'll go to the effort of reinstalling everything if you will take 50 of our 32 bit songs and rebuild them in the new 64 bit host for us. Does that sound like a good deal?
NOVAkILL 3.0 : Surface Pro 2 (Win10), Zoom U24, Orion 64 bit, Maschine Mikro, Elektron Analog Keys, Ultranova, Rocket, MicroMonsta, Seaboard Rise 25
User avatar
BONES
GRRRRRRR!
 
6949 posts since 13 Jun, 2001, from Somewhere else, on principle

Postby BONES; Sat Jan 13, 2018 8:36 pm Re: 64 vs 32 bit FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!!!

stardustmedia wrote:[r just too lazy to adapt to a new plugin, that doesn't do the exact same thing, but way more and probably way better.

Show me a 64 bit version of a SynthEdit plugin that comes even close to being as good as some of the 32 bit SE plugins. You won't find any because the 64 bit version requires all the modules used in it to be 64 bit and all the really good module devs, Chris Kerry and David Haupt, never updated their modules.
And the users justify 32bit, because they cannot live without it. For whatever reason
Obviously you've never finished anything you are happy with or released anything.
But that sounds to me like: I want to keep cooking on my one-wooden-cooktop/oven instead of upgrading to a 4-induction-hot-plate plus extra oven, just because the new one doesn't smoke.

That's a very poor analogy for you but a useful one for me. Induction cooktops might be great for housewives but you won't find them in any commercial kitchens.
NOVAkILL 3.0 : Surface Pro 2 (Win10), Zoom U24, Orion 64 bit, Maschine Mikro, Elektron Analog Keys, Ultranova, Rocket, MicroMonsta, Seaboard Rise 25
User avatar
BONES
GRRRRRRR!
 
6949 posts since 13 Jun, 2001, from Somewhere else, on principle

Postby BONES; Sat Jan 13, 2018 8:42 pm Re: 64 vs 32 bit FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!!!

ghettosynth wrote:I think that devs should just charge extra for the less important formats like 32 bit and whatever those protools thingies are. That way, it's no problem, the extra cost can be passed on to the users that want those features.

But surely it is the 64 bit version that is worth more money? Actually that 's a good point, can anyone tell me why anyone would even want a 64 bit plugin over a 32 bit one? OK, there is the extra memory for a sample based instrument but for a purely maths-based V/A, why would you even want the 64 bit version? OK, there are minor efficiency gains - where Equator 64 bit uses 7% CPU in Bitwig, the 32 bit version uses 8% - but if none of your songs ever get over 50% CPU use, it doesn't really matter, does it? So why bother?
NOVAkILL 3.0 : Surface Pro 2 (Win10), Zoom U24, Orion 64 bit, Maschine Mikro, Elektron Analog Keys, Ultranova, Rocket, MicroMonsta, Seaboard Rise 25
User avatar
BONES
GRRRRRRR!
 
6949 posts since 13 Jun, 2001, from Somewhere else, on principle

Postby BONES; Sat Jan 13, 2018 8:49 pm Re: 64 vs 32 bit FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!!!

chk071 wrote:At the moment, there's exactly ONE plugin i regret not being able to use, and that's the good old Terratec Komplexer synth (i have it installed and use it with Reaper 32-bit though, might install Studio One 3 32-bit for it even, which can be installed alongside the 64-bit. Cubase allows that too BTW). Apart from that, i don't really see anything which isn't 64-bit, which i'd like to use.

So you never wrote a piece of music using 32 bit plugins that you ever want to play back, ever again? Really?

I'm more than happy to use only 64 bit plugins moving forward, that's not an issue for me at all. The issue is that I've got a substantial back-calagoue that i still need to work with on a regular basis.
NOVAkILL 3.0 : Surface Pro 2 (Win10), Zoom U24, Orion 64 bit, Maschine Mikro, Elektron Analog Keys, Ultranova, Rocket, MicroMonsta, Seaboard Rise 25
User avatar
braj
KVRAF
 
9094 posts since 4 Feb, 2004

Postby braj; Sat Jan 13, 2018 8:53 pm Re: 64 vs 32 bit FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!!!

BONES wrote:
ghettosynth wrote:I think that devs should just charge extra for the less important formats like 32 bit and whatever those protools thingies are. That way, it's no problem, the extra cost can be passed on to the users that want those features.

But surely it is the 64 bit version that is worth more money? Actually that 's a good point, can anyone tell me why anyone would even want a 64 bit plugin over a 32 bit one? OK, there is the extra memory for a sample based instrument but for a purely maths-based V/A, why would you even want the 64 bit version? OK, there are minor efficiency gains - where Equator 64 bit uses 7% CPU in Bitwig, the 32 bit version uses 8% - but if none of your songs ever get over 50% CPU use, it doesn't really matter, does it? So why bother?


LOL, ok then. Why would you want a 64 bit synth plugin? So you can run it alongside 64 bit samplers without limitations in a 64 bit DAW. BTW, you could also bypass your memory constraints of 32 bit host if you used JBridge, running samplers essentially outside your DAW and using new 64 bit plugins when you find them necessary. Have you tried JBridge yet? It is only 14.99€ and there is a demo version.
If you have requests for Korg VST features or changes, they are listening at https://support.korguser.net/hc/en-us/requests/new
User avatar
foosnark
KVRAF
 
4305 posts since 9 Jan, 2003, from Saint Louis MO

Postby foosnark; Sat Jan 13, 2018 9:03 pm Re: 64 vs 32 bit FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!!!

Read the post again, he did try jBridge and found it unreliable.
User avatar
BONES
GRRRRRRR!
 
6949 posts since 13 Jun, 2001, from Somewhere else, on principle

Postby BONES; Sat Jan 13, 2018 9:05 pm Re: 64 vs 32 bit FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!!!

generaldiomedes wrote:
foosnark wrote:2. There is NO TECHNICAL ADVANTAGE for me to move to 64 bits. I don't need the extra address space. The performance difference, while measurable (in Maschine 2.x) is negligable given the typical number of plugins I run. 64 does not sound better than 32.

I think you would be pretty unique not to benefit from addressing > 4 GB of Ram.

Not at all. Even the most complex song from our last album, with three tracks of vocals, only needs 4.5 GB of RAM in total. The individual vocal files are only a few tens of MB and the only instrument that uses samples is the drum machine, with just a few MB of samples involved. As long as the OS is 64 bit, it won't need to use a paging file. Even if it did, I doubt it would affect performance noticeably.
I wonder, if it was so easy why hasn't Flowstone done it yet?

Because Flowstone isn't a plugin, it's a development environment all of it's own. I don't get why they didn't make it 64 bit from day dot.
Last edited by BONES on Sat Jan 13, 2018 9:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
NOVAkILL 3.0 : Surface Pro 2 (Win10), Zoom U24, Orion 64 bit, Maschine Mikro, Elektron Analog Keys, Ultranova, Rocket, MicroMonsta, Seaboard Rise 25
PreviousNext

Moderator: Moderators (Main)

Return to Instruments