64-bit audio engines are on the way !

[sQeetz]

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)

I'm trying the Release Candidate 1 right now, and you're completely right.
You can turn off all the eyecandy, but even then everything is really slow compared to winXP.

[graysonmillar]

heh

see, It's obvious that microsoft is going towards the "aqua" maclike bandwagon, but the problem is, windows's framework simply can't run as efficiently as OSX can, with all the graphical doo-dads.

They need to make a strippped out version of vista, with none of that media center shit, then maybe i'd buy it...

[Improv]

.. 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

It's a known fact that 64 bit will make you a better songwriter and musician. Just say the mantra '64 bit,64 bit' over and over.

Oh and on Saturdays, 64 bit will make you a soft ice cream if you ask nice!


Honest !!!

[drez]

Oversimplification here, but why did we ever move to 32 bit from 16 bit? or to 16 bit from 8 bit? Those that don't see a benefit to moving to 64 bit computing should move back to 8 bit processors and be happy because obviously all those bits are not needed, right?

[Music Engineer]

64-bit precision processing has less round-off noise than 32-bit processing. but this 32-bit round-off noise is hardly perceptually relevant for mixing purposes. however - it may be of some relevance in very sensitive signal processing tasks such as coefficient calculation for high order IIR-filters (that's why i use 64 bit precision for all my dsp-code - even for the less sensitive parts, because i don't see any advantage in converting back and forth between number-formats).

[kritikon]

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...

For free?

Hmmm...so I won't need to buy a new board (or even a complete new PC) and a new OS and probably a new version of my host, and possibly even new versions of some plugins or in fact any application that can currently only run with 32bit? Because I don't like that kind of "free" the usually ends up being nothing but a cash cow for every company that makes anything to do with computers. It's probably inevitable, but I don't have to like the constant innovations that occur in the s/w world...often of benefit only to a minority of users. I'm still perfectly happy with my old PC that runs on Win98SE. Almost can't use it nowadays for anything new though, because 98SE won't run so many things already. I also don't like the idea that the moment you buy a new PC, it is out of date already. And the length of time between complete OSs becoming obsolete seems to be getting shorter.


Maybe I'll benefit from 64bit. But the fact still remains that the industry standard final product is 16bit. And once upon a time the whole process was done at 16bit and resulted in some fine sounding productions.


64bit is probably one of the last things that'd actually make me dig into my pocket to upgrade a new host. There appear to be quite a few things that'll finally make me upgrade from SX2...and I'll do it happily without 64bit. If Cubase4 becomes 64bit and they release an update for 4 users...then that's fine. If Cubase5 is a complete upgrade that gives 64bit...then I won't be upgrading again until at least Cubase6 or greater.


I'm actually very happy at what 24bit does for my audio and mixing and FX etc. I render and mix at 32bits, simply because I have the capability, and internally SX uses 32bit anyway. But if I'm really honest...I can't tell the difference between a 24bit render and a 32bit render. Maybe I could tell the difference when the whole internal process goes to 64bit...but I'm sceptical enopugh to doubt it in the most extreme.

[jplanet]

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)

BTW, you can set the graphical interface of Win XP to be just like Windows 2k...Control Panel > Display Properties > Appearance, select Windows Classic. It does seem to help things move more quickly...

[TotcProductions]

I'm dreading Vista to be honest. I had to update so much shit on this damn computer, software and hardware, just because of XP...and now Vista's coming along and it's bringing more hardware requirements. Christ.....hope Pro-Sounds does good this next year

[bduffy]

I'm dreading Vista to be honest. I had to update so much shit on this damn computer, software and hardware, just because of XP...and now Vista's coming along and it's bringing more hardware requirements. Christ.....hope Pro-Sounds does good this next year

But there's no imperative to upgrade, is there? I was using W2k at work up until this year. I didn't like it, but it worked.

[koolkeys]

I'm also testing Vista right now, and to be honest, on my machine, it doesn't run too much heavier then XP does. It does a little because I have the full graphical effects on, but really, I'm running several audio applications successfully from it.

As for a 64 bit or 32 bit version, I don't know that it will be all in one. Right now, it comes in two versions, one for each. And they are not on the same install. They are on separate ISO files.

I think once Vista gets cleaned up and ready for release, it will be very nice. It is a bit more streamlined then XP, although some of the conventions changed for no apparent reason. So you have to get used to the way things work. But it's very close to what XP is in functionality. It does seem rather stable for me, and is supposed to be more secure.

Just my views based on my testing, of course.

Brent

[TotcProductions]

I'm dreading Vista to be honest. I had to update so much shit on this damn computer, software and hardware, just because of XP...and now Vista's coming along and it's bringing more hardware requirements. Christ.....hope Pro-Sounds does good this next year

But there's no imperative to upgrade, is there? I was using W2k at work up until this year. I didn't like it, but it worked.

No, not as of yet. There was an imperative to upgrade to continue on to Nuendo 3 though. So I upgraded to XP. I'm glad I did to a point, I actually find it has a smoother workflow...just cost me a bit as far as upgrading shit goes. Not looking forward to shelling out more money when the time comes that I have to upgrade. It's bound to happen eventually.

[koolkeys]

Also, I don't know why Steinberg couldn't start testing for Vista right now. I know they wouldn't be the only ones. They could easily be getting 64 bit out the door sooner.

Anyone can test their current software and drivers on Vista already. Just install to a separate partition(it can do this for you), and start testing. Some XP stuff already works fine, like EXT and others. Drivers for audio gear may be your only problem, but I believe that ASIO4ALL works, from what I've heard.

Brent

[tony tony chopper]

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...

20% isn't MUCH more at all, it's just 20%. And 20% speed increase is so easy to get when you bother a little optimizing your code.


There's only 1 true point in all this marketing stinking bullshit, 64bit app = access to more than 2GB = huge audio in RAM.

64bit mixing (wait.. 'summing') is just abusing people's credulity.

[bduffy]

I'm dreading Vista to be honest. I had to update so much shit on this damn computer, software and hardware, just because of XP...and now Vista's coming along and it's bringing more hardware requirements. Christ.....hope Pro-Sounds does good this next year

But there's no imperative to upgrade, is there? I was using W2k at work up until this year. I didn't like it, but it worked.

No, not as of yet. There was an imperative to upgrade to continue on to Nuendo 3 though. So I upgraded to XP. I'm glad I did to a point, I actually find it has a smoother workflow...just cost me a bit as far as upgrading shit goes. Not looking forward to shelling out more money when the time comes that I have to upgrade. It's bound to happen eventually.

I hear ya. Nuendo was an expensive upgrade for work, no wonder they stuck me on W2k for 6 years. And thank got the bundle OEM's with computers, or else I'd be running Win98 at home!

I do like XP a lot better than 2k, though. Vista just looks...scary.

[sQeetz]

@koolkeys. It might be my somewhat low setup, but the whole 'graphengine' of Vista seem to slow down everything (even when turned off).
For example: running a track in either XP or Vista, the CPU meter of the app itself showing how much is being used just for the audio thread stays the same. obviously. But if you run Taskmanager in the background and compare what the program is using, on Vista the usage of CPU resources is a big amount higher than on XP.
That leaves me to the conclusion that the graphic thread is eating up all the cpu resources. I'm not quite sure though.
I have an AthlonXP 2600+, 1GB ram and a radeon 9600. dunno. But I would need to upgrade my machine to run everything as fluid as I'm used to on XP.