KVR Audio

hibidy · Post by **hibidy** » Mon Aug 13, 2012 4:47 am

It's all fair, but on the main system (which is overgoing a LONG NEEDED clean install) I've gone 100% x64 and it's not a big at all. In fact, unless that system dies, I'll never replace it.

Imagine that, hibidy, not once even considering buying a new computer since Feb 2010

(f**king thing will probably die on my now

)

SKoT_FX · Post by **SKoT_FX** » Mon Aug 13, 2012 6:54 am

Dev-Techy reason for 64bit huzzah-ness, apart from all the above:

Twice as many XMM registers (16 versus

=> less cpu talking to slow cache => faster maths => more filters, synths etc etc per clock cycle.

hibidy · Post by **hibidy** » Mon Aug 13, 2012 6:58 am

See..........see how you are? NOW we just HAD to go there!

Shabdahbriah · Post by **Shabdahbriah** » Mon Aug 13, 2012 10:51 am

rcat wrote:OK, I'm totally confused about this "ramdisk" thing. If I use this program, does it mean I can load more that 4GB of ram into a mobo running a XP 32 bit OS and be able to bypass the ram limit by using the added ram as a virtual HD with speed as fast as the added ram? This would be too good to be true, provided my old mobo will take over 4GB of ram.

It IS "true". Read on

EvilDragon wrote:That's what I'm saying. Right now, I have a motherboard that can take 8 GB of DDR2 in it, it's for Core 2 series of CPUs. I tried it by borrowing 4 GB from a friend and it works - all 8 GB get recognized by BIOS, but not by the OS (which is XP x86, of course). Read my previous post again - it's exactly true what I said. The MOTHERBOARD is not relevant as to how much RAM your OS is going to use. The OS IS. If you have 32 GB on a recent motherboard, you can still put a 32-bit OS to run it, even though that WILL NOT UTILIZE full RAM. Can you understand this what I'm saying?

Precisely! Here's part of my response from the previous page:

Shabdahbriah wrote:Nevertheless, I started using it with older sata I and II MOBO's and Win Xp-Pro, allowing me to have between 8-16Gb total (dual-channel) ram, with 6-12+Gb (respectively) dedicated to windows 'page-file', as well as various 'temp' folders (Sound Forge/Photoshop/internet, etc), which I've previously had on a separate drive(s) (since Win 95 days), and the processing/rendering speed is substantially increased, even compared to using dedicated small(ish) 32/64Gb WD VelociRaptors for that purpose. So, I have found it to be a cost effective alternative to SSD for quite some time, as well as overcoming the 3-4Gb 'limit' imposed on "us" with Xp, while "saving-to-disk" (if I choose to) without a glitch.

Pretty much everything you need to know is on the first page of their site. They have a 14 day demo... try it

ramdisk

[aside] I had Windows-7 Pro 64bit sitting around in its box for over a year, watching and waiting for the audio apps to 'catch-up'... yawn-yawn-yawn.

I only installed it (on a new 'purpose-built' machine) because almost all of the 3d/CAD/CGI software I wanted/purchased is 64-bit (MODO/ZBrush, etc), except Rhino 4 which is still 32bit but runs fine.

[2c]

insaneacyde · Post by **insaneacyde** » Tue Aug 14, 2012 9:04 am

So in a nutshell 64 bit is for sample-knitters and bridge burners who hate there work from 4 years ago? Why are there no 32-64bit problems with any other software that runs separate dll 'plugins' like Photoshop, etc? No problems there.

ps. I have no problems in my setup, this buying a separate bridge thingy to run 32bit stuff in the host is absurd to me. Instead of winging at the plugin devs shouldn't you be banging at the gates of your DAW developer with torches and pitchforks?

whyterabbyt · Post by **whyterabbyt** » Tue Aug 14, 2012 9:20 am

insaneacyde wrote:Why are there no 32-64bit problems with any other software that runs separate dll 'plugins' like Photoshop, etc? No problems there.

Perhaps, then, you could explain the current lengthy debate on the Filtermeister mailing list about the fact that Photoshop CS6 is 64-bit only, and thus there's no current version of Photoshop which supports 32-bit Photoshop plugins, thus mandating some sort of rewrite of Filtermeister...

Because I strongly suspect that what you should have said instead of 'no problems there' is 'Im ignorant of the fact that there are problems there.'

insaneacyde · Post by **insaneacyde** » Tue Aug 14, 2012 9:30 am

whyterabbyt wrote:
insaneacyde wrote:Why are there no 32-64bit problems with any other software that runs separate dll 'plugins' like Photoshop, etc? No problems there.
Perhaps, then, you could explain the current lengthy debate on the Filtermeister mailing list about the fact that Photoshop CS6 is 64-bit only, and thus there's no current version of Photoshop which supports 32-bit Photoshop plugins, thus mandating some sort of rewrite of Filtermeister...

Because I strongly suspect that what you should have said instead of 'no problems there' is 'Im ignorant of the fact that there are problems there.'

ah i don't have cs6 but the 32bit filters i have run in 64bit cs5 with no problems, unfortunately i am not up to date. Of course i am ignorant and a fool that is why there are many ? in my post. Why is there a debate on Filtermeister's mailing list and not an angry horde at the gates of Adobe? Is backwards compatibility a sin?

SKoT_FX · Post by **SKoT_FX** » Tue Aug 14, 2012 10:34 am

One that that mitigates in photoshop plugin's portability-favour is they only have to work in a small set of Adobe products. VST devs, on the other hand, have to make their stuff work in a dozen major hosts with different ideas as to what their interpretation of the VST spec is...

aMUSEd · Post by **aMUSEd** » Tue Aug 14, 2012 10:39 am

SKoT_FX wrote:One that that mitigates in photoshop plugin's portability-favour is they only have to work in a small set of Adobe products. VST devs, on the other hand, have to make their stuff work in a dozen major hosts with different ideas as to what their interpretation of the VST spec is...

For it to be a reasonable comparison you'd have to try running Photoshop plugins in other image plugin hosts - I suspect there we would see similar problems emerging with varying degrees of compatibility.

copacetic · Post by **copacetic** » Tue Aug 14, 2012 12:02 pm

braj wrote:Plus some hosts like Reaper have ugly extra windows to deal with for bridged plugins, JBridge adds a barat the bottom, not terrible but I wouldnt mind hiding that myself.

You can embed the UI, it looks like any other plug-in then...

xx JPRacer xx · Post by **xx JPRacer xx** » Tue Aug 14, 2012 2:35 pm

And remember that compared to PS plugins, DAW plugins must run in realtime and be in sync.

braj · Post by **braj** » Tue Aug 14, 2012 2:51 pm

copacetic wrote:
braj wrote:Plus some hosts like Reaper have ugly extra windows to deal with for bridged plugins, JBridge adds a barat the bottom, not terrible but I wouldnt mind hiding that myself.
You can embed the UI, it looks like any other plug-in then...

Do you mean in JBridge or in Reaper? I'd love to hide the little bar in JBridge.

BTW, I am finding all the plugins I needed to bridge run just fine, besides that little bar I really never would know the difference. I had some reluctance to go 64 bit because of legacy plugins but I'm not concerned about them now. But regarding buying new plugins, I think I would always choose the 64 bit option when I have it.

EDIT, ok, I tried the options in JBridge, the bar at the bottom is in embed mode, so no way to just hide it it seems. But then I wouldn't have access to the settings so I guess that makes sense. Just it is not that pretty

BERFAB · Post by **BERFAB** » Tue Aug 14, 2012 3:10 pm

It's all about the bridge for me as well.

I run the latest Cubase in a x64 environment and have a very smooth operation. Loads of plugs run smoothly, and I don't use x32 .vsti or .vst there to keep it that way.

However, I do have Cubase x32 also installed on the same machine just to be able to use x32 legacy plugs that I miss and like. But I'm finding that most devs are steadily updating their products to x64, so I have less and less reason to use it.

I'm also finding that, in the meantime, NEW x64 plugs have been developed that replace many of the old x32 plugs that I've been waiting for. Devs that have been slow to update their x32 plugs have, in some cases, lost my business because other devs have stepped up.

I would also like to take this opportunity to rant about those that pop up on instrument or FX thread when someone asks about whether that particular plug is x64. Instead of answering the question (Is it 64 bit?), these less than helpful folk invariably contribute things like, "It works great on my 64 bit machine," or, my personal favorite, "Runs great in FLS!"

As evidenced in THIS thread above, there are good reasons why it matters that the plug is x64. Please stop pretending it's the same thing.

Cheers
-B

Kaboom75 · Post by **Kaboom75** » Tue Aug 14, 2012 5:11 pm

64bit DAWS need 64bit plugins
64bit DAWS alow mixes to take up over 16GB of RAM.
32bit DAWS are limited to 3.2GB of RAM then they crash.

You can run 32bit plugins in a 64bit DAW using Jbridge but the plugins act a bit iffy but sound wise they are perfect.

Sampled instruments have grown in size in the last three years.
Some of Trilians and Electri6ity presets are 2GB in size thats half of a 32bit DAWS size limit with one track.

I use Ableton Live 8 64bit and I'm never going back to 32bit. Just waiting on Eventide Blackhole 64bit and Soundtoys 64bit then I can turn them knobs without the crackle or GUI vanishing

fisherKing · Post by **fisherKing** » Tue Aug 14, 2012 5:14 pm

in logic, the 32bit bridge has always been buggy; it crashed regularly (in lion), but you just reopened it (no having to quit the DAW). surprisingly, in mountain lion, it's crashing a lot less. small price to pay to be able to work 64bit, AND use my 32bit plug (ie sylenth1)...

Lets talk about 64 bit