Are you still using 32-bit plugins on PC?

[FrettedSynth]

64bit OS Win7 run mainly 32bit plugins/host because I already have a stable system with most of what I need (if I can't make great sounding music with what I have it's not the tools fault).
Large samples would be a problem except I can bridge a 64bit plugin into my 32bit host, problem solved. For me piano is the only sample not able to run at 32bits.
I can't really answer the poll except to say if support for 32bit is too much than as a business owner I would no longer support. BTW had no idea Tone2 was keyfile will for sure shop your products. The only software I now stay away from is online/dongle authorization, purchased too many of them that I gave up even installing because of the hassle.

[Teksonik]

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

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

The question the Poll seeks to answer is how large is that market ?

Large enough for small developers to justify spending time on 32 bit plugins?

At the time of this post 81% say they don't need 32 bit plugins. No it's not a scientific poll but if the results are anywhere near indicative of the larger market then one would think 32 bit support may not be worth it at least for small developers.

The real question is are those 20 people who have responded "Please continue to support 32 bit plugin" actually going to be paying customers and how many lost sales would there be if a developer switches to releasing only 64 bit plugins.

Again none of us really know. Only individual developers can say how much time is spent on maintaining and supporting 32 bit versions versus the number of sales generated by those 32 bit versions.

They might not even have accurate numbers since many lump both 32 and 64 bit versions into their installers so they have no idea if the sale was created because there is a 32 bit version.

Unless their installer data mines and keeps track of 64 vs 32 bit installations.

[AnX]

Unless their installer data mines and keeps track of 64 vs 32 bit installations.

that's not the tone to be taking

[jamcat]

Unless their installer data mines and keeps track of 64 vs 32 bit installations.

that's not the tone to be taking

I see what you did there.

[exmatproton]

Don't use them for a couple of years. Even more so, i began to start "hating" installers that don't let you deselect vst32 versions. Don't need them, so after such an installer is finished, i have to go find these 32bit dll's and remove them manually

[chk071]

I keep a separate 32-bit plugin folder for that reason... if they would be installed to the normal 64-bit folder, they'd just get blacklisted by the DAW.

So, yeah, really appreciate installers which let you de-select 32-bit.

[BONES]

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?

Stop it! I almost spat coffee on my laptop as I read this. Too damned funny!

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.

I'm sorry, I don't know what I was thinking. Of course you're right, how could I not have seen it? I must be an idiot.

[LeVzi]

What I would like to keep is VST 2.4 because vst3 seems very unstable so please don't stop making them because they've been outmoded

That's really not true (anymore). I use VST3 with all the plugins which are available in VST3, and, I don't see any difference in terms of stability. Exceptions like V-Station which has been buggy since forever (regardless of VST2 or VST3) just prove the rule.

Same here, VST3 all the way for me, seem to be more optimized and load quicker. But V Station always been solid as a rock for me ?

From memory: The voices LED's in the bottom left don't work (don't work in the VST2 either, I think...), the MIDI LED doesn't work, the LFO speed LED's don't work, and, I remember there was something with the arp syncing not working as well.

Especially the LED thing is something which the developers really should have noticed.

I havent noticed that, i'll have to take a look

[cleverr1]

Whilst there's little to no point in releasing 32 bit versions of new plugins, to me at least I need Jbridge or a successor to keep on working for the foreseeable future to support stuff that simply doesn't exist in 64 bit and never will - TC Powercore.

[MMaarrkk]

Having a 32-bit option is always great for the odd one out, as some people end up with peculiar setups that end up running 32-bit. But as most people have mentioned, it seems to be quite irrelevant nowadays.

A good stance from a developers position might be full coverage of compatibility, but even that seems to be covered by the DAWs.

[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?

The question the Poll seeks to answer is how large is that market ?

well done.

[synaesthesia]

The only 32-bit plug-in I really miss being able to use is SQ8L. Love that little synth. :,

[Teksonik]

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

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

The question the Poll seeks to answer is how large is that market ?

well done.

Well it was painfully obvious but I thought you might need clarification between a market and a substantial market.....

[hlecram]

The only argument those of us who no longer use 32 bit plugins can make is that any time spent on them is time not spent on 64 bit versions, updates, upgrades etc.

I'm not even sure that's a valid argument because who knows how much extra work maintaining and supported 32 bit versions really is and if they're bringing in enough revenue to make it worthwhile again why not.

My gut feeling is that 32 bit plugins are more trouble than they're worth to small developers but only they would know for sure. The fact this Poll was started might be a good indication....

You are exactly right. Testing, maintenance, and support take up the lion's share of resources for a well supported software. Each format/platform that is supported increases the necessary man hours. All developers have finite resources, particularly audio software developers.

Those finite resources must be divided across all of the tasks. Unless it is a very small developer (one-man operation) the development team and the testing/support team are not going to be the same people. Testing takes the most time, and when the testing team has to test 10 different versions of a plugin instead of 5 different versions, this means either customers have to wait twice as long for an update, or they get software that is only half-tested.

You will recognize both scenarios from your experiences with your audio software. All developers make this choice, and it is in large part due to the high number of formats and platforms that need to be tested for every update.

I am a very big proponent for stripping down supported formats for this reason. Developers should only be supporting 64-bit VST3, AU and AAX on OSX and Windows. That is still 5 formats right there. It's past time to cut VST2.4 and 32-bit in all forms loose.

Someone who is not going to put in the money to upgrade their computer and/or DAW to something 64-bit from the past decade is not going to put money into new plugins to help keep your software company afloat.

Basically sharing the exact sentiment! Not so keen on the “VST3 only” thing, but that’s basically a force of habit on my part, paired with some bad experiences with VST3 back in the early days. I even would be perfectly willing to change everything to VST3 only if I knew that would reduce some workload for the devs. Well, native instruments are the ones which have to give me VST3 version first of course!
Plugins from other devs should be cool, since made sure everything is future proof when I switched back from Mac to pc in 2013/14.

[218]

Browsing through this thread really baffels me. I dont understand comments like ‘32 bit plugins is a waste of time’ etc. . .Maybe we dont need devs to produce 32 bit plugs with new releases, but to me its extremely important, that my preferred DAWs continues to support 32 bit plugs for years to come. As a Windows user, I have always been using alot of 32 bit freeware vst gems, that have been released through the years. I have numerous upon numerous of awesome 32 bit Vsts from small independent devs. Plug-ins that does stuff that cant be replicated in any way and that I dont wanna give up.