Are you still using 32-bit plugins on PC?

[ENV1]

I was arguing against ENV1's assertion that you can simply give everyone everything they want.

Is that a fact.

Well, in my opinion you are totally beyond help, but just for the heck of it lets reverse this just to demonstrate how idiotic 'arguments' like the ones you came up with here are:

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.

Now imagine we are still in Windows Vista times, the first Windows 64bit OS that wasnt only used by a few geeks, maybe 5% of Windows users are currently using it, and somebody on the internet said this in regard to 64bit support of applications:

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 64-bit support consuming resources? What bugs are getting through because of 64-bit formats consuming valuable testing time? What really cool plugins aren't getting developed because of 64-bit code maintenance consuming development hours?

What are you willing to give up for 64-bit versions of plugins?
Because you are making sacrifices for 64-bit support, even if you don't realize it.

Sounds pretty stupid, not to mention egotistical, doesnt it. Of course nobody ever said that, (not that i remember anyway), but if they had they would have been called idiots, egotists, and morons, and rightly so. Because by that 'logic', no developer would have EVER considered making a 64bit version of ANYTHING.

Now i dont expect you to understand any of this, im sure you wouldnt get the point if your life depended on it. But it doesnt alter the fact that sometimes it is good to have several options, even if it means doing a LOT more work, which of course isnt even the case where compiling a 32bit version of a software that has already been written is concerned.

EDIT: Inserted missing original quote.

[chk071]

I really don't know what the point of being a 32-bit knight in shining armor is. Apart from still using VST's from the stone age, which is a purely egoistical reason, because, when everyone has moved on, and there's a mere handful of people still using that old tech, then it's all about the needs of a few vs. the needs of the many. As has been mentioned loads of times now, developing and testing 32-bit plugins takes as much time as developing 64-bit ones. And for what. That a handful of always yesterday people can still use their plugins on Windows XP. Awesome.

[BONES]

"Stone Age"? Most new plugins include a 32 bit version. It's not something that ever went away, despite the best efforts of self-centred nobodies. Think of it like a Boeing 737 - the first one may have flown in 1967 but there are still brand new ones rolling off the production line in 2020, so it is still relevant. In fact, it's a lot like Boeing 737s, in that the new ones create a lot more problems for their owners than the old ones did.

I'm not a heavy user... I maybe use 10 instances of a synth per song.

That made me laugh. I consider myself a very heavy synth user but I rarely use 10 instruments in one song. That's just crazy talk! I reckon we average around 6 - 1 x drums, 2 x basslines, 1 x pad, 1 x arp/filler, 1 x lead and that's it. Occasionally I might use an extra synth or two, or maybe a second drum plugin, but not very often. The reason is that I discovered a long time ago that the best songs are the simplest ones. I find that if you have to keep adding bits and pieces to make it work, it usually means it's not that good and you should probably give it up and find something better to work on. That's why I stopped writing my own songs and instead take my bandmate's much better ideas and work on them. But the first thing I do when he sends me something is to strip away all the dross to let the good bits shine through.

[chk071]

"Stone Age"? Most new plugins include a 32 bit version.

If there's a 64-bit version of a plugin, there's no need to use the 32-bit version. Of course I mean the 32-bit only plugins, which require a 32-bit DAW, or a 64-bit one with a bit bridge. Apart from Genesis Pro, they all hail from the stone age.

If a developer offers a 32-bit version, it's for compatibility reasons, of course, to serve the handful of people who have a host or a operating system which only manages 32-bit.

[robotmonkey]

I really don't know what the point of being a 32-bit knight in shining armor is. Apart from still using VST's from the stone age, which is a purely egoistical reason, because, when everyone has moved on, and there's a mere handful of people still using that old tech, then it's all about the needs of a few vs. the needs of the many. As has been mentioned loads of times now, developing and testing 32-bit plugins takes as much time as developing 64-bit ones. And for what. That a handful of always yesterday people can still use their plugins on Windows XP. Awesome.

I have reinstalled some of the 32-bit versions after reading this thread and found them to sound much more warmer and lively like old vintage hardware. Maybe it's the 32-bit conversion?

[chk071]

It's probably the aliasing.

[Ingonator]

64-bit VST3 Only here

While my main host Live 10 Suite since v10.1 finally supports VST3 plugins i admit i have not used that feature so far and am still using VST2 plugins there. I might activate that featutre when i need to use a plugin that is only available as VST3.

Two of my favorite developers which are Synapse Audio and Tone2 so far do not support VST3 plugins for their plugins which is not really a problem for me as i still do not really see an advantage of VST3 over VST2.

As both Live 10.1.x and my other VST host Cubase Pro 9.5 do support both VST2 and VST3 this is not really an issue for me anyway.

[ENV1]

I discovered a long time ago that the best songs are the simplest ones.

Quite obviously you must be an idiot. You cant just make songs like they used to for decades, where you have a few well-chosen elements that work well together in order to form a musically interesting piece. In this day and age you must have at least 127 tracks per song, run everything through at least 5 exciters and 7 distortion units, and then compress the whole thing to what amounts to a series of pulse and square waves, otherwise youre not doing it right.

AND of course it all has to be in 64bit. This is very important. Because if you use 32bit you will never be able to make anything sound right. (Plus youll be a progress-obstructing moron who should be arrested for crimes against humanity.) You also have to have at least 64GB of memory in that 64bit system, most of which of course will never have a single byte written to it in its lifetime because the instruments and FX youre using wont even come close to the 4GB mark. This is very important, because...well it just is. Stop asking stupid questions.

And last but not least; buy a monitor with the highest resolution that money can buy. Then turn around and complain to the developers that you cant see a damn thing and demand larger UIs pronto. Then, and only then will you fulfill all of todays requirements; only then will you be able to make real music. So get with the program.

[jamcat]

I believe the appropriate analogy for 32-bit plugins here is buggy whips.

[Ingonator]

Do all DAW's even support VST3? Pretty sure Ableton does not.

As mentioned in my previous post (2 posts above this) Ableton Live since v10.1 supports VST3 while i have not used that feature yet.

This might change once i get a VST3 only plugin that i want to use while i could also first test that in Cubase Pro 9.5.

Link for the new features in Live 10.1 including VST3 support:
https://help.ableton.com/hc/en-us/artic ... -Live-10-1

[robotmonkey]

Do all DAW's even support VST3? Pretty sure Ableton does not.

As mentioned in my previous post (2 posts above this) Ableton Live since v10.1 supports VST3 while i have not used that feature yet.

This might change once i get a VST3 only plugin that i want to use while i could also first test that in Cubase Pro 9.5.

Link for the new features in Live 10.1 including VST3 support:
https://help.ableton.com/hc/en-us/artic ... -Live-10-1

Finally. Even though I have no plan to upgrade any time soon to v10.

[Ingonator]

Do all DAW's even support VST3? Pretty sure Ableton does not.

As mentioned in my previous post (2 posts above this) Ableton Live since v10.1 supports VST3 while i have not used that feature yet.

This might change once i get a VST3 only plugin that i want to use while i could also first test that in Cubase Pro 9.5.

Link for the new features in Live 10.1 including VST3 support:
https://help.ableton.com/hc/en-us/artic ... -Live-10-1

Finally. Even though I have no plan to upgrade any time soon to v10.

Actually Live 10.1 with VST3 support was released around a year ago. The latest version is 10.1.13.


UPDATE:
After having not used it so far I finally activated the VST3 feature in Live 10 and so far the installed VST3 plugins (at the moment only installed for the minority of installed plugins) seem to work properly.
When VST3 is activated in the Live plugin browser you get 2 folders called "VST" (= VST2 plugins) and "VST3" (= VST3 plugins). Those folders have to be opened (by double-clicking on them) to see the included pluigins and/or sub-folders.

[Halonmusic]

I discovered a long time ago that the best songs are the simplest ones.

Quite obviously you must be an idiot. You cant just make songs like they used to for decades, where you have a few well-chosen elements that work well together in order to form a musically interesting piece. In this day and age you must have at least 127 tracks per song, run everything through at least 5 exciters and 7 distortion units, and then compress the whole thing to what amounts to a series of pulse and square waves, otherwise youre not doing it right.

AND of course it all has to be in 64bit. This is very important. Because if you use 32bit you will never be able to make anything sound right. (Plus youll be a progress-obstructing moron who should be arrested for crimes against humanity.) You also have to have at least 64GB of memory in that 64bit system, most of which of course will never have a single byte written to it in its lifetime because the instruments and FX youre using wont even come close to the 4GB mark. This is very important, because...well it just is. Stop asking stupid questions.

And last but not least; buy a monitor with the highest resolution that money can buy. Then turn around and complain to the developers that you cant see a damn thing and demand larger UIs pronto. Then, and only then will you fulfill all of todays requirements; only then will you be able to make real music. So get with the program.

[Amberience]

Does anyone know what modern processor instruction sets are supported on 32bit platforms? I'm thinking the modern variants of AVX, SSE, and SIMD instruction sets.

[whyterabbyt]

I believe the appropriate analogy for 32-bit plugins here is buggy whips.

So, in other words, there's still a market for them?