KVR Audio

Omniphonix · Post by **Omniphonix** » Fri Feb 04, 2005 10:16 pm

DeBro wrote:I really don't understand some people's reasoning. The technology is evolving. Sure you don't expect to see 64-bit computing fully functional from concept to reality overnight. Didn't Live4 have a public beta before it was officially released? Or is there something to it that Cakewalk is the first to put out a 64-bit app?

Cakewalk is not the first. In the last line of this document you will see Cubase SX 3 is already 64-bit enabled.

Scr1pt3r · Post by **Scr1pt3r** » Fri Feb 04, 2005 10:39 pm

thornemaelstrom wrote:Interesting, I wonder how well DSP cards like UAD-1, PowerCore and Scope are going to run in a 64 bit enviornment. Even with new 64 bit drivers, all of the processors in those cards are still 32 bit, right?

Does anyone here know how that's going to work out? I've been eyeing a new DSP card for some time, and I'd hate to have it become obsolete in a few months...

muhahahahaaaaaaaa

You're thinking creamware gonnna develop anything new...

Scr1pt3r · Post by **Scr1pt3r** » Fri Feb 04, 2005 10:41 pm

thornemaelstrom wrote:Interesting, I wonder how well DSP cards like UAD-1, PowerCore and Scope are going to run in a 64 bit enviornment. Even with new 64 bit drivers, all of the processors in those cards are still 32 bit, right?

Does anyone here know how that's going to work out? I've been eyeing a new DSP card for some time, and I'd hate to have it become obsolete in a few months...

muhahahahaaaaaaaa

You're thinking creamware gonnna develop anything new...

Scr1pt3r · Post by **Scr1pt3r** » Fri Feb 04, 2005 10:41 pm

thornemaelstrom wrote:Interesting, I wonder how well DSP cards like UAD-1, PowerCore and Scope are going to run in a 64 bit enviornment. Even with new 64 bit drivers, all of the processors in those cards are still 32 bit, right?

Does anyone here know how that's going to work out? I've been eyeing a new DSP card for some time, and I'd hate to have it become obsolete in a few months...

muhahahahaaaaaaaa

You're thinking creamware gonnna develop anything new...

Scr1pt3r · Post by **Scr1pt3r** » Fri Feb 04, 2005 10:42 pm

thornemaelstrom wrote:Interesting, I wonder how well DSP cards like UAD-1, PowerCore and Scope are going to run in a 64 bit enviornment. Even with new 64 bit drivers, all of the processors in those cards are still 32 bit, right?

Does anyone here know how that's going to work out? I've been eyeing a new DSP card for some time, and I'd hate to have it become obsolete in a few months...

muhahahahaaaaaaaa

You're thinking creamware gonnna develop anything new...

KrunietZ · Post by **KrunietZ** » Fri Feb 04, 2005 10:48 pm

It says:

64-Bit compatible with upcoming Windows XP 64-bit Edition, supports up to 4 GB of RAM

But is this the only advantage there is, is the general code not also optimized a "bit". Surely it would be preferable to have a real 64 bit sx3 but as i read it it still runs 32 bit, the only advantage is that it adresses up to 4 gb..

KrunietZ · Post by **KrunietZ** » Fri Feb 04, 2005 10:54 pm

Scr1pt3r:

Omniphonix · Post by **Omniphonix** » Fri Feb 04, 2005 11:05 pm

KrunietZ wrote:It says:
64-Bit compatible with upcoming Windows XP 64-bit Edition, supports up to 4 GB of RAM
But is this the only advantage there is, is the general code not also optimized a "bit". Surely it would be preferable to have a real 64 bit sx3 but as i read it it still runs 32 bit, the only advantage is that it adresses up to 4 gb..

It would need to be a 64-bit executeable to do this. Sonar is not neccessarily "64-bit optimized" they only ported it to 64-bit. Same deal here with Cubase.

KrunietZ · Post by **KrunietZ** » Fri Feb 04, 2005 11:13 pm

Audioflux1 wrote: It would need to be a 64-bit executeable to do this. Sonar is not neccessarily "64-bit optimized" they only ported it to 64-bit. Same deal here with Cubase.

makes perfectly sense,guess i am a "bit"

SonyPCH · Post by **SonyPCH** » Sat Feb 05, 2005 12:38 am

64 bit Windows/SONAR is not about 64 AUDIO bit depth.

It is about the instruction set and internal register and memory access bit size.

You can have a 64 bit floating point double audio path today if you want on XP - I believe Samplitude has this.

-pch

DeBro · Post by **DeBro** » Sat Feb 05, 2005 12:55 am

This is a quote from Cakewalk's Ron Kuper replying to someone's quote awhile back on this forum:

anyways, i dont know how they can claim "SONAR x64 is the first truly native 64-bit host DAW application" when ive had ardour on my debian-amd64 box since last summer...
Running on AMD-64 CPU doesn't make it native 64-bit. These newer 64-bit CPUs are x86 compatible. The whole OS and app has to be native x64 to get the maximum benefit.

DuX · Post by **DuX** » Sat Feb 05, 2005 1:23 am

I think people here should descern the difference between 64bit audio and the f[tm] 64bit system. 64bit system helps you to accellerate computations a bit, to have more than 4gb of memory... and the most of the better plugins out there like voxengo or kjaerhus are making 64bit computations allready. the difference is that we will save 64bit floating point files in the future instead of 32bit fp files... and considering the "smash the dynamics to the hilt" trend which is [still] currently in, it won't make any difference for the music quality, as long as the f**king losers stick to the rule of clipping things to the bone.

just my 2p

Cheers.

bMachine · Post by **bMachine** » Sat Feb 05, 2005 2:23 am

[quote="C00kie"]Anybody remembers "Chicago", the first fully 32bits version of Windows just before they issued Windows95? Never officially left the lab, for good reasons

[/quote]

Chicago was regular codename for Windows 95, and first fully 32bit Windows was NT.
But you probably meant PANTHER, which was idea to merge NT core on top of DOS, which was abandoned and further developed in two ways: as mixed 16/32bit code in Win 9x series with "DOS-based" kernel, and in NT/2000/XP full 32-bit non-DOS-kernel.

Chicago - Windows 95 (Version 4.00.950) "Windows 4.0"
Cougar - 32-bit protect-mode MS-DOS kernel. Planned to serve as the kernel for major Windows release. Subsequently merged with Jaguar and Stimpy to become (but not Panther) to become Chicago.
Jaguar - Retail implementation of Cougar (DOS 7.00) Subsequently merged with Jaguar and Stimpy to become (but not Panther) to become Chicago. B
Panther - Port of Windows NT Win32 core to run on top of Cougar. Subsequently abandoned and replaced with Chicago.

http://www.bitzenbytes.com/Content-Arcanum-18-1-61.html

bMachine · Post by **bMachine** » Sat Feb 05, 2005 4:28 am

[quote="thornemaelstrom"]Interesting, I wonder how well DSP cards like UAD-1, PowerCore and Scope are going to run in a 64 bit enviornment. Even with new 64 bit drivers, all of the processors in those cards are still 32 bit, right?

Does anyone here know how that's going to work out? I've been eyeing a new DSP card for some time, and I'd hate to have it become obsolete in a few months...[/quote]

I can see a lot of missinformations here. Where I should start?

OK, don`t mix 32it program code and 32-bit audio resolution - it has nothing in common. So, in 64-bit environment we would mix our audio in whatever bit-depth we do NOW (16, 24, 32-bit). We can do WAV64 now as well.
So, with Windows drivers UAD and all will work perfectly normally. Drivers are small programs that enable proper communication between OS and hardware, so do not worry - if drivetrs works, functinality is here, and audio signal will be processed as it is now.
DO NOT MIX code architecture (32/64bit), signal path (16/24 bit), file depth/resolution (16/24/32/48 bit, 64 bit for WAV64) and software processing precision (depends solely on math algorithms in plugin, can be from 4-bit to 32/64/128/256/512 etc. bit).
For example, graphic cards works with 128 and 256-bit processors, with same processing path - but this is no concern to what OS we use.
16bit audiocard will use 16-bit audio (SIGNAL PATH) on whatever OS, but you will need 64-bit drivers (CODE ARCHITECTURE) and you will record it in Cubase as 24-bit audio file (RESOLUTION) and plugins will process it in 32-bit and 64-bit internal PRECISION

Some more info...
64-bit Windows are here for a while (for Itanium processors) as Windows 2000 ([url=http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,60024,00.asp]since 2001[/url]), Windows XP 64 bit versions 2002 and 2003.
But what we`re talking here is x86/EM64T version for Athlon64 and future 64-bit enabled Pentium processors. This release is in beta and free for try [url=http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/default.mspx](Microsoft XP Professional 64-bit Edition)[/url] (or contact your Microsoft Office and request a 1-year trial CD for free.
See versions: http://www.amdboard.com/windows_xp_64bit.html
and read this:
http://www.pcworld.com/resource/printab ... 373,00.asp

Name
Platform
Availability

Windows XP 64bit Edition Version 2002
(Intel Itanium)
With New Itanium system/MSDN

Windows XP 64 Bit Edition Version 2003
(Intel Itanium/II)
With New Itanium system/MSDN

Windows XP 64 Bit Edition Version 2003
(AMD64 x86-64)
MSDN/Public Preview(Beta)

[b]Then, what are 64-bit apps and what do we have here?[/b]
Yes, Cubase SX3 is enabled to run on 64-bit Windows, as you can see in info and INTERVIEW here [url=http://www.espace-cubase.org/anglais/pa ... e=newcub27]http://www.espace-cubase.org/anglais/pa ... e=newcub27[/url]
But Cubase is working 32-bit code, it is only enhanced to use 4 GB addres space (but, it is really full 32-bit address space, if you do math a little...).
So, Sonar probably is first native 64-bit (code-wise) audio application, which means it fully utilizes 64-bit address space and so...
But, it IS port from 32-bit code (probably recompiled with 64-bit compiler), which is again a half-baked product. i.e. BETA, as it is.

Cubase sx3 works on Win64, their plugins works, some other VST/VSTi plugins works (depends more on install procesdure than code architecture - those all are 32-bit appz), smaller number of DX plugins works.
Cakewalk ported some plugins to 64-bit so there is more compatibility and "native" 64bit appz, but those are ported code (i.e original 32-bit code, little adjusted and compiled on 64-bit compiler, but not build 64-bit from scratch).

And, if you`re looking for 64-bit drivers to try 64-bit Windows, [url=http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/Dev ... ir=IEGFC07]here[/url] is a list of available drivers:
[url=http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/Dev ... ir=IEGFC07]http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/Dev ... ir=IEGFC07[/url]
or here [url=http://www.planetamd64.com/viewforum.php?f=14]http://www.planetamd64.com/viewforum.php?f=14[/url]

If you`re in music production, going to 64-bit operating system now can be only for testing purposes, to satisfy a techical curiosity and so, as I did(I have Athlon64 3400+ / 1GB / 160+120+80+80 GB Seagate HDDs, Expox 8HDA3+ mobo, EmulatorX/1812audiocard...) but found it - only a playing field. Yes, works fast, but most of software doesnt`t work, some just because installer procedures are partly 16-bit (yes, even an application should work in Win64).
And remember that when your copy of Windows XP 64-bit edition expires, that you probably cannot upgrade (event to a legit bought copy) but you should reinstall from scratch.

And Longhorn will have 32-bit and 64-bit versions too, when it comes in spring 2006. there is possibility than they hold 32-bit version, but for now - both are coming.

Lawnmower Of The Damned · Sat Feb 05, 2005 5:35 am

Well, to be more specific, it was the processing bit rate I was concerned about. The video card comparison was an apt one, and I think I get it now. Thanks.

64-bit computing is on the move