64-bit audio engines are on the way !

[K-Slash]

Hello,

You already know that Sonar 6 has a native 64-bit audio engine (which works on 32-bit operating systems).

But, soon it will not be the only one...

I just received a reply from Steinberg France about native 64-bit audio engine in Cubase/Nuendo.

Here is a translation of what they said to me :

Good morning,

Well, it's planned, but we are waiting for Windows Vista to be released, to finish the development of our 64-bit engine.

Cheers,
Steinberg France

So, my thought is that Nuendo 4 will be released with the new 64-bit audio engine and we'll have to wait for an update to have it in the Cubase 4 .

I also think that Digidesign's Pro Tools will follow this way, but in my view not in a 7.x update, but in the 8.0 version which is in development.

[deaneager]

I wonder when FL Studio will get a 64 bit engine. Oh, it already has one!

[dtd]

stop this hyping and excitement about internal 64 audio fp maths.

[K-Slash]

stop this hyping and excitement about internal 64 audio fp maths.

Huh ?

Are you afraid of innovations... 64-bit is the future of computers !

The best is the couple of 64-bit audio engine with 64-bit application. You'll get better performance, better handling of big sessions with lot of effects...

Have you seen the Cakewalk demonstration of the use of 64-bit in audio ?

[BONES]

64bits is the future of computers according to marketing departments everywhere. Ask your average software engineer and he could think of a hundred things that his time could be better spent on than porting to 64bit. The advantages are far outwieghed by the cost of doing it and as deaneager points out, many audio applications use 64bit processing internally anyway. Its 99% hype designed to part fools from their hard-earned money.

[Kingston]

ok let me ask a very stupid question because I've really not been interested in Vista an awful lot this far: will it still have separate versions as 32bit and 64bit like Windows XP? or does it do it all in one?

[K-Slash]

Kingston, Vista will do all-in-one.

[Vibro Larynx]

I wonder when FL Studio will get a 64 bit engine. Oh, it already has one!

Where did you get that information from?

[Spaceman Sounds]

I just want to be able to run more than 2gb ram reliably

[Radek]

stop this hyping and excitement about internal 64 audio fp maths.

Huh ?

Are you afraid of innovations... 64-bit is the future of computers !

Actually FPU in x86 processors always has 80bit precission. It was only because doublefloats can be slower there weren't much boasting about it before.
And there were Alpha processors what were both 64, had superior clock rates and done more work per every clock cycle than x86. Where is Alpha now?

The best is the couple of 64-bit audio engine with 64-bit application. You'll get better performance, better handling of big sessions with lot of effects...

That depends. The 64 bit code might run slower in some situations because of higher bandwith needs and bigger machine opcodes.

Have you seen the Cakewalk demonstration of the use of 64-bit in audio ?

Nice and outspoken just like all marketing drivels are. Some claims are true in a technical sense but hardly practical. And how much improvement there might it will depends on an actual computer and its CPU. Notice the "one last thing part".

[K-Slash]

Yeah man, I know that even in the video there's some marketing thoughts.

But with Vista coming right around the corner, and a new generation of hardware and software on the way, I wished to know your opinions about it.

I read on Cakewalk forums that x64 is a big step forward, so that's why I'm waiting for my actual sequencer (Cubase) to follow the way.

[putte]

.. assuming i use a 64-bit host within a 64bit-OS:

what advantages exactly will i see?
will it feel like having a faster computer?
more track count?
more plugins?

and: will plugins need updates in order to make full use of these mysterious 64 bits?
and cant we just have 524 bits instead of just 64? ..

putte

[mustgroove]

Ok... lots of confusion here... there are 2 issues:

1) 64 bit audio engine - this means that the audio engine of the sequencer internally sums @ 64 bit precision, which means EVEN MORE overhead on the master bus... this can be done on 32 bit processors and has nothing to do with CPU efficiency, memory addressing, or anything like that... 64 bit just refers to the bit depth that the mixing engine works with internally, and this is what Sonar has had since version 5...

2) 64 bit binaries... This is what you need Vista64/XPx64 for, and requires 64 bit binaries, compilers, drivers, OS, all that shit... CPUs have been shown to be more efficient (i.e. faster) @ 64 bit, when compared to 32 bit at the same clockspeed, which is good for CPU efficiency and the ever-increasing CPU hit of ever-more-rad plugins, but this has nothing to with the sequencer's audio engine (although sequencers need to be compiled in 64bit to work on these platforms)...

So basically, you can run a sequencer with a 64bit audio engine on a 32bit processor/platform, and you can also run a 32bit audio engine on a 64bit processor/platform...

Hopefully this will relieve some confusion people are having about needing Vista to use sequencers with 64bit mixing engines, coz it just ain't true...

64bit computing (i.e 64bit processors, OS, etc. etc.) is the way x86 computing is going for sure, but the general consensus about 64bit mixing paths seems to be that it's just marketing hype and has no real benefits other than more headroom (which is a moot point because 32bit has enough headroom for us all anyway)...

[Stupid American Pig]

I will say that in Win XP x64 and Sonar 5 I can run MUCH more audio and efx than in 32 bit. It really is 20% performance bump for free. you cant beat that...

[graysonmillar]

man, vista just looks like its going to be an even worse graphical mess ram-sucker than xp. Hell, i'd be using 2000 if it wern't for the software compatibility that xp has (some of my hardware simply won't work without xp)