Are you still using 32-bit plugins on PC?

[Teksonik]

for whatever reasons devs refuse to emulate ensoniq.... Why we can't have a modern day ensoniq emulation is strange but I'll use the old sq8l for now. Entitled rant over.

I agree that Ensoniq had some synths well worth emulating. ESQ-1, ESQ-80, VFX, Fizmo etc.

It's possible there are legal reasons why we don't have any Ensoniq emulations beyond the abandoned SQ8L. I don't even know who would own the rights these days, EMU, Creative, whoever.

But this speaks to the reason for the Poll. Yes you're using an old 32 bit only plugin because you like it and there is no 64 bit version but does that mean you would buy any new 32 bit plugins or refuse to buy a plugin if it's 64 bit only ?

I think that's what Markus is trying to determine.....

[alvfaria]

yes

[jamcat]

In my view, as long as there isnt anything that technically prevents it, there is absolutely no reason not to have both and give everyone what they need.

I don't think the question is whether it's technically possible but whether it's financially viable to keep developing 32 bit plugins.

If a developer is not seeing a return on his investment of time and effort then that would be a reason to drop 32 bit support.

I'm not saying that's the case since I'm not privy to developer's spreadsheets but judging by the Poll numbers at the time of this post it may indicate that 32 bit support is possibly not worth the effort.

But like I said the Poll numbers are so small at this point that it might not be a true indication of the number of sales that could be lost by dropping 32 bit support.

You can't "give everyone what they need."
Resources are not infinite. Only so much work can be done within any given timeframe.

You have to look at it as opportunity costs:

What features aren't getting implemented because of 32-bit support consuming resources? What bugs are getting through because of 32-bit formats consuming valuable testing time? What really cool plugins aren't getting developed because of 32-bit code maintenance consuming development hours?

What are you willing to give up for 32-bit versions of plugins?
Because you are making sacrifices for 32-bit support right now, even if you don't realize it.

[jamcat]

That said yesterday I discovered that the 32bit version of PolyGAS is *slightly* more reliable in my hosts than the 64bit version, so there's that.

The 64-bit version would be more reliable if the developer wasn't spending resources on 32-bit.
That is your opportunity cost.

[MutantHero]

Oh hell yes, and 32 bit version of my daw. I cannot tolerate any other setup

[Tj Shredder]

There is a difference between old plugs I still want to use and selling new or updated plugs. For old plugs there are workarounds with bridges, NetVST or things alike. If a new version is suddenly only delivered in 64-bit the last 32-bit is still alive! I don‘t see any necessity for a dev to compile 32-bit binaries! Nobody looses anything...
Of course you can hire the dev to create an individual 32-bit binary if its really important. I am sure he has a rate he could charge you for that...
Hourly rates of programmers are well above a minimum wage though...
The dev could set up a bounty system for that, that could lead to a win-win situation...

[robotmonkey]

for whatever reasons devs refuse to emulate ensoniq.... Why we can't have a modern day ensoniq emulation is strange but I'll use the old sq8l for now. Entitled rant over.

I agree that Ensoniq had some synths well worth emulating. ESQ-1, ESQ-80, VFX, Fizmo etc.

It's possible there are legal reasons why we don't have any Ensoniq emulations beyond the abandoned SQ8L. I don't even know who would own the rights these days, EMU, Creative, whoever.

Ensoniq had some rad synths that absolutely should be emulated. I would like to see complete emulations with patch level compatibility with TS10/12, MR, ZR, ASR X and Fizmo. All were amazing sounding synths.

The rights are obviously with Creative but they probably could not care less. They wanted Ensoniq for their DSP and soundcard tech so separating the music stuff would probably be impossible. They might be ok with some kind of licensing agreement as they are loosing money on every front but I doubt it would financially viable for any dev to take up such job.

[VariKusBrainZ]

Edit: useless reply, didn't read OP

[AnX]

Option: I am using a 64bit host that supports 32 bit plugins

irrelevant

if you have a 64bit host, you dont need a 32bit version of a new product

[ramseysounds]

Cubase made the decision for me.

[Teksonik]

In my view, as long as there isnt anything that technically prevents it, there is absolutely no reason not to have both and give everyone what they need.

I don't think the question is whether it's technically possible but whether it's financially viable to keep developing 32 bit plugins.

If a developer is not seeing a return on his investment of time and effort then that would be a reason to drop 32 bit support.

I'm not saying that's the case since I'm not privy to developer's spreadsheets but judging by the Poll numbers at the time of this post it may indicate that 32 bit support is possibly not worth the effort.

But like I said the Poll numbers are so small at this point that it might not be a true indication of the number of sales that could be lost by dropping 32 bit support.

You can't "give everyone what they need."
Resources are not infinite. Only so much work can be done within any given timeframe.

You have to look at it as opportunity costs:

What features aren't getting implemented because of 32-bit support consuming resources? What bugs are getting through because of 32-bit formats consuming valuable testing time? What really cool plugins aren't getting developed because of 32-bit code maintenance consuming development hours?

What are you willing to give up for 32-bit versions of plugins?
Because you are making sacrifices for 32-bit support right now, even if you don't realize it.

It sounds like you're arguing with me but if you'll read what I wrote we are in agreement.

[Teksonik]

Ensoniq had some rad synths that absolutely should be emulated. I would like to see complete emulations with patch level compatibility with TS10/12, MR, ZR, ASR X and Fizmo. All were amazing sounding synths.

The rights are obviously with Creative but they probably could not care less. They wanted Ensoniq for their DSP and soundcard tech so separating the music stuff would probably be impossible. They might be ok with some kind of licensing agreement as they are loosing money on every front but I doubt it would financially viable for any dev to take up such job.

For grins and giggles I just sent Creative a contact message asking them if they would be willing to work with a software developer to create VSTi versions of the old Ensoniq plugins.

They probably won't respond and even if they do it's highly unlikely their response will be positive but what the heck it's worth a shot.

Judging by the continued popularity of the SQ8L plugin I think there would be a market for emulations of the ESQ-1-SQ80, VFX etc.

They would certainly be as interesting as YAVA.....Yet Another Virtual Analog.

[jamcat]

In my view, as long as there isnt anything that technically prevents it, there is absolutely no reason not to have both and give everyone what they need.

I don't think the question is whether it's technically possible but whether it's financially viable to keep developing 32 bit plugins.

If a developer is not seeing a return on his investment of time and effort then that would be a reason to drop 32 bit support.

I'm not saying that's the case since I'm not privy to developer's spreadsheets but judging by the Poll numbers at the time of this post it may indicate that 32 bit support is possibly not worth the effort.

But like I said the Poll numbers are so small at this point that it might not be a true indication of the number of sales that could be lost by dropping 32 bit support.

You can't "give everyone what they need."
Resources are not infinite. Only so much work can be done within any given timeframe.

You have to look at it as opportunity costs:

What features aren't getting implemented because of 32-bit support consuming resources? What bugs are getting through because of 32-bit formats consuming valuable testing time? What really cool plugins aren't getting developed because of 32-bit code maintenance consuming development hours?

What are you willing to give up for 32-bit versions of plugins?
Because you are making sacrifices for 32-bit support right now, even if you don't realize it.

It sounds like you're arguing with me but if you'll read what I wrote we are in agreement.

Nope, not arguing with you, just expanding on what you were saying.
I was arguing against ENV1's assertion that you can simply give everyone everything they want. Economics just doesn't work like that, no matter what the politicians promise.

[Teksonik]

I agree. I think that's the whole point of the Poll. Is it financially viable to keep working on and supporting 32 bit plugins?

Like I said my gut feeling says no but I don't have all the information needed to say for sure one way or the other.

At the time of this post 82% say they don't need 32 bit plugins. But does that mean 18% would refuse to buy a plugin that's 64 bit only and thereby give a developer 18% more sales ? I think the distinction between "I use 32 bit plugins" and "I can't buy a plugin unless it's 32 bit" needs to be clarified.

[bwwd]

DAW is deciding about it, not people, its a strange question, why would you want to stop using all 32 bit plugins willingly? Wheres benefit here ? Unless DAW is creating some issue when bridghing people usually dont care, hey if it works - it works.