Cubase has supported 64-bit Windows for a long time now. Vista 64-bit support isn't quite there yet for Cubase, but neither is Vista 32-bit support.

I don't know what you're talking about with this "midi to audio" business; that basically makes no sense. Some sequencers MIGHT move from single-precision to double-precision floating-point for representing audio internally, but even if they do, that won't improve performance and I seriously doubt that it will make any noticeable difference in sound quality since 32-bit FP already has virtually zero noise.

The Wave 64 format (.w64) has been around for a while now but I've never seen anybody use it, not even the mastering shops. They all seem pretty content with plain old 16 bits, and for recording you're still limited to 24 bits (fixed-point) in any case.

One of the main advantages of 64-bit architecture, other than the increased address space, is the fact that double-precision floating point numbers can be represented in a single register. For apps that do a lot of FP math, they use doubles anyway, and it's currently a lot of extra work for the CPU that can be significantly reduced by x64. Most audio apps like Cubase only use singles anyway, so you won't see any improved performance at all when switching to x64.

You *may* see improved performance on certain VSTs, if those VSTs use doubles internally. SIR is one that comes to mind, it performs so brutally that I can only imagine it uses high-precision math to do those convolutions and an x64-compiled version would probably be a lot faster. For simple VSTs like a flanger, I doubt it.

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

Do NOT upgrade to Vista. It's a huge RAM hog and if your working with audio, you'll need all the RAM you've got.

___________________
MYSPACE
http://www.myspace.com/djsentinelmusic

I understand what you are saying but I don’t think 9/10 people here do! But all I was trying to say has nothing to do with single vs. double floating point precision cycles! Maybe I didn’t say it in a soliloquy as eloquently as you and I definitely was not trying to initiate a heated debate that is not in reference at all to the initial question of the thread. My point was and still is, and I believe it’s a valid one is that the any emulation between the 32 bit processes in a 64-bit environment comes at a cost taht may outweigh the benefit in the first place. Just as in the emulation of a 32-bit app on a 64-bit OS in windows does!
So my point was and still is that Sonar is the only complete “Native” 64-bit app along with all of it’s own plugins. So the benefit, if any would only be gained using it as such.
Oh and btw CUBASE SX3 is not a “Native” 64-bit app. And CUBASE 4 is not supported yet at all on Vista or and 64-bit OS.
So to answer the posters original question “is Vista Ready?” the question should be more along the lines of “are the applications ready?” And the answer to that question is still no is most cases just as it stands with most regular Windows applications. The problem is it’s not like you can just recompile the code to 64-bit so it will take some time and investment for software vendors to do this and as you said in a lot of cases it is not necessary as those apps are not that cpu or memory intensive.

___________________
The Matrix is everywhere, it is all around us, even now in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window, or you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work, when you go to church, when you pay your taxes. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.

quote:

Originally posted by TrickDaddE ...the any emulation between the 32 bit processes in a 64-bit environment comes at a cost taht may outweigh the benefit in the first place.

There is a cost, but it's miniscule. It's not really emulation, it's Microsoft's WOW (Windows On Windows) system that is already used on Windows 2000/XP to run 16-bit apps. It's not invisible, but the major concern is not performance, it's compatibility. When you're dealing with audio, most of the CPU load comes from number-crunching and that's not something which has to be "emulated". It's wasteful, using 64-bit registers to store only 32 bits, but the performance won't be any lower than with a 32-bit OS. If anything it might still be slightly better because the 64-bit OS might be able to optimize a few things.

quote:

Oh and btw CUBASE SX3 is not a “Native” 64-bit app. And CUBASE 4 is not supported yet at all on Vista or and 64-bit OS.

Right, well that might be what the marketing folks at Cakewalk say but the word is meaningless. It's just a simple compiler switch. Perhaps Sonar has been optimized to take advantage of 64-bit architecture, but we don't really know that and it's not implied by the word "native".

quote:

The problem is it’s not like you can just recompile the code to 64-bit

Yes, for the most part, you can. 64-bit data types have already been around for a very long time and they are used frequently (like double-precision FP). They just have to be recompiled so as to use one register instead of two. It's very rare that anything else would have to be changed, unless there are some weird calculations that explicitly depend on 32-bit integer overflow (I shudder to think how ugly this code would be if it existed).

Vista support, whether it's 32-bit or 64-bit, is another story. They've changed a lot of their APIs and getting an application to work with Vista is definitely not a trivial task.

If it works on Vista x86, though, it generally is just a compiler switch away from working on Vista x64 as a "native" 64-bit app.

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

Cool thanks for clarifying it! But it's wasn't Cakewalk documentation is was referencing in regard to native 64-bit support vs. 64-bit compatibility.

Karl Steinberg: Questions & Answers on 64-bit Technology

Cubase SX3 is the first version of Cubase to be compatible with a 64-bit operating system, which allows for RAM access of up to 4GB of memory when used with a 64-bit operating system like Microsoft Windows XP 64-bit Edition. While native 64-bit application support is still under way and compatible drivers will follow some time down the road, Cubase SX3 already benefits from this new technology.

Karl Steinberg offers some insight into the 64-bit integration in Cubase SX3:

Q: Cubase SX3 adds Windows XP/64 support. How compatible is it with Windows XP/64-bit Edition?

A: Fully compatible in the 32-bit range, plus the added support of 4GB memory. So are all of our included plugins, as well as the HALion virtual sampler which then also benefits from the increased memory addressing.

Q: What's the advantage of Windows XP/64 support for the Cubase user today?

A: Improved performance and up to 4 GB of memory available (as opposed to a maximum of 2 GB for all running applications), which further increases overall performance when available.

Q: Aside from more RAM, are there any other performance advantages of 64-bit against 32-bit?

A: Yes, because the system can always use 'real' RAM instead of virtual memory (which is often swapped to hard disk). Also in general, the newer bus technologies allow for lower latency and significantly better data throughput which has a lot of advantages in terms of VST mixing and plug-in performance. However this is true for both 32-bit and 4 GB enhanced versions.

Q: Is a special version of Cubase required to run on Windows XP/64?

A: No, Cubase SX3 and all future releases will offer these features without any modification – right out of the box.

Q: What are the system requirements? Is there a hardware/software recommendation for people who would like to work in 64-bit today?

A: If you want to test it, you will need an AMD 64-bit processor system and Windows XP 64-bit Edition (currently, a public beta version is available at the Microsoft site). Intel will also support this technology with suitable processors in the future. In addition, compatible hardware drivers are needed. Some manufacturers offer beta drivers for evaluation.(A 64-bit compatible Syncrosoft Dongle Driver will be needed to evaluate SX3 on a 64-bit version of Windows XP. Steinberg will communicate availability of this driver once it is released.)

Q: What are the next steps for deeper integration of 64-bit technology in Cubase and other Steinberg products?

A: The next step of course is native 64-bit support. However, this requires deeper investigation and it will take a while until 3rd parties have provided all necessary modules (all VST Plugins must be native 64 bit as well in that case).

___________________
The Matrix is everywhere, it is all around us, even now in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window, or you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work, when you go to church, when you pay your taxes. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut One other thing to keep in mind is that a 32-bit architecture limits you to 4 GB of address space (practically less than 3 GB of available RAM most of the time), and this can't be overcome without complicated and gross hacks like PAE.

Tell me about it. I have 4 gigs sitting in my 32bit box, and it is only recognizing 3.2 gigs. Pretty lame.

___________________
Soundcloud

quote:

Originally posted by TrickDaddE Cool thanks for clarifying it! But it's wasn't Cakewalk documentation is was referencing in regard to native 64-bit support vs. 64-bit compatibility. ... Q: What are the next steps for deeper integration of 64-bit technology in Cubase and other Steinberg products? A: The next step of course is native 64-bit support. However, this requires deeper investigation and it will take a while until 3rd parties have provided all necessary modules (all VST Plugins must be native 64 bit as well in that case).

I assume what he means is that they've tested the regular 32-bit version of Cubase on Windows XP x64 and verified that it works and that there aren't any bugs (aside from the hundreds of bugs already in the current version). Being able to address 4 GB of physical memory is a benefit that applies to x86 apps in an x64 OS. So perhaps maybe it's not quite correct to say that Cubase truly supports x64 - it will run, just like any other app, but it doesn't take advantage of the larger registers.

When he's talking about native, he's talking about compiling it as an x64 binary. My guess is that all of the "investigation" he's talking about is updating the VST standard to a 64-bit architecture, which would require a lot of work on backwards compatibility because many plugins will still be 32-bit for a very long time (some, perhaps, will never be updated). To just compile an x64 version of Cubase is - or at least should be - a trivial task, but they also have to deal with interoperability. Sonar may have an x64 binary out but it's still using the VST standard based on x86 - Cakewalk can't change that standard because Steinberg owns it.

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

Here is an interesting article..

January 23, 2007

Article by Ladia Svajcik

Microsoft is currently launching the largest campaign focused on the marketing of a new operating system, in which Microsoft is trying to convince us that NOW is the right time to switch to Vista. But is Vista really suitable for today's audio applications?



Vista, as with any operating system, is not perfect. Stability and support is an issue but will improve over time when hardware and software vendors introduce better drivers and compatibility patches. New software applications will be written with Vista support in mind and several months down the road we'll have access to new versions of crucial software, such as audio interface drivers, MIDI controllers, recording software and even antivirus applications. This is the same story that we are all used to since the release of Windows 95, 98, 2000 and XP. Microsoft seems to be notorious for trying to sell us half baked products and convince us and that a new standard is approaching so fast we'll be left behind if we don't upgrade soon.



For those of us who are using audio optimized operating systems to run recording software, there are several reasons why we should stick with a well optimized and stable XP for a while. Our systems are often designed to fit the requirements of our recording environment where we might rely on full compatibility with older gear in combination with the newest hardware, software and plug-ins. It took a while for manufacturers to catch up with all drivers and optimizations for Windows XP. Now we have a stable platform which can truly compete with the stability of a Mac and often even outperform it. Why should we consider to sacrifice the stability of our studio for flashy looking interface and new instruction support that our software cannot take advantage of yet anyway?



Vista's Requirements and Performance

Microsoft released the resources and requirements needed to run Vista optimally on your PC, and this time they are fairly accurate. In the past we've experienced that minimal requirements stated for some Microsoft products were really too minimal and user were sentenced to wait almost an eternity for their system to be fully loaded and functional. Vistas minimal system requirements are:

*
1Ghz or faster CPU
*
1GB Ram
*
128 MB Pixel Shader 2.0 Graphic card

These minimum requirements are stated for running the operating system alone so when you start opening applications the performance and response time will decrease rapidly. These requirements should not be a problem to reach on most audio systems, but when it comes to a performance ratings, why should we sacrifice over 700MB of RAM + some CPU processing power just to run the OS that our recording software is based on? Instead, we could put those resources to a good use such as additional plug-ins or tracks. When we open our recording software it will always look the same, the fact that it runs on Vista versus XP is not going to matter a bit. And don't even think of running the fancy looking Aero Glass interface.



If you expect the same performance from your Vista machine as you do with the same machine running XP, consider the requirements with at least double the amount of system RAM and CPU power. I've installed Vista on several machines and my recommendation is to not bother installing it on anything that has less than 2GB of DDRII and a minimum of 2.8Ghz CPU. This is the only way you will achieve fair performance in your audio applications.



Vista suposedly changed the way software interfaces the underlying hardware which should make it easier for developers to write new programs. Also revised driver structure and enhanced application isolation. Windows Vista uses 32 bit floating point calculations by default in the core of the audio system to provide high-quality digital signal processing, bit-for-bit sample level processing and up to 144 dB of dynamic range.


Vista introduces new audio and communication features include Per App Volume control feature which provides separate volume slider controls for each application that plays audio, Room correction, bass management, speaker phantoming, loudness equalization, accoustic cancellation and virtual surround 5.1 or 7.1. Which are more relevant to home theatre users than the pro audio world.



The new WaveRT (Wave Real Time ) architecture should also allow to work with lower hardware latency in audio applications. The MIDI engine was also rebuilt to minimize system wide impact, but we won't see any new MIDI features just yet.
However, we will not be able to say how well the new system works untill software developers write new applications and drivers that will take advantage of new instructions and architecture which usually takes 6 -18 months for update of an existing product.



Also, during the development of Vista, Microsoft removed a couple of audio features, including, DirectSound 3D which delivers positional 5.1 hardware accelerated 3D sound. This was replaced by an alternative technology called OpenAL. OpenAL causes a problem for some legacy software based on DS3D and EAX technology. M-Audio will release it's Alchemy application that wraps and intercepts DirectSound 3D functions and converts them to OpenAL using a custom DLL. It works well as a workaround to a problem that shouldn't exist in the first place.



I hope that Microsoft will offer their own more sophisticated solution included in Vista's first service pack.



Vista's Compatibility with hardware and software applications

Windows Vista is currently available on the shelves of retail stores. There are dozens of mainstream applications and high profile programs that don't work properly with Vista, such as iTunes, disc burning applications, almost any DVD ripping or viewing software and Java based applications that bundles the Java runtime. This might be very important to those of us who work not just in Audio applications but also video editing software and web development.



The situation is even worse with hardware and their proprietary drivers, like audio interfaces and USB microphones. It has always taken hardware manufacturers a while to catch up with new operating systems and release a set of optimized and bug-free drivers. The situation with Vista is even more complicated since Microsoft decided that Vista no longer supports the installation of unsigned 64-bit drivers. Remember the window that interrupted the installation of new hardware with a message about installing a Microsoft unsigned driver? That message is gone and so is your chance to install drivers from manufacturers that didn't send their set of drivers to Microsoft for verification. Running 64-bit Vista requires having 64-bit drivers regardless of whether the applications that use them are native 64-bit, and all 64-bit drivers and kernel mode code must be signed!


32-bit version of Vista so far does not require signing to load a driver, but there are certain features that may not work ( such as playing protected content) if unsigned drivers are running. That brings us to Digital Rights Management on Windows Vista. There is a protection at the OS and driver level, and the ability to disable output depending on DRM incorporated in the media.



There are millions of small and large companies that develop hardware for PC's and all of them would have to send every new version of their driver to Microsoft for verification and pay for it! Large manufacturers of PC peripherals like motherboards, graphic cards and sound controllers introduce a new driver version every few months so that their customers have quality drivers that meet the newest standards. This system is based on the release of beta drivers in which customers receive the newest version of drivers and report potential problems back to the company. This gives the company a chance to fix problems before the official release. If there are not going to be any pre released beta drivers, due to validation cost and time delays, then the developers will not receive feedback from users. Therefore, this mandatory verification will cost companies around the world time and money, and many of them will not even bother with getting their hardware drivers verified, especially their older versions and discontinued models.



Microsoft's new feature called Account Control is also included as a fix to prevent malware application from being executed and taking advantage of administrator privileges on infected PC. Every time any installer runs on your Vista PC, a prompt message appears asking you for permission to install the software. The problem is in the frequency of the pop up prompts. They come up so often that they are extremely annoying and people will quickly learn to auto-click them, which defeats the purpose of awareness.



Price of Microsoft Windows Vista

Vista the most expensive consumer operating system ever developed. Let's take a look at the pricing.

*
Home Basic: This version of Vista doesn't include the Aero Glass Interface and Supports only single processors, cost $200.
*
Home Premium: This version costs $40 more than basic and includes everything that the majority of users would need. Most of the flashy features and services would be disabled for DAW applications anyway.
*
Home Ultimate: This version of Vista costs a whopping $400 and fortunately includes just a collection of features that the majority of users will never need like managing domains and administering group policies.

Conclusion

I do not think we will see Microsoft Windows Vista on majority of Digital Audio Workstations for a while because the right set of drivers for our older gear wont be available. Right now, recording software cannot take full advantage of anything that Vista has to offer versus a stable XP setup. Furthermore, there are only handfull of applications that can even put 64 bit processing to use and 64 bit Processors have been on the market for more than 2 years. That's how slowly software developers are catching up with new instruction support embedded in bleeding edge hardware. Using Vista also means that you will sacrifice performance and stability of audio applications to run exactly the same software as we'd run on XP just because there is no recording software written with Vista in mind yet.



But 64-bit computing is the future and eventually replace 32-bit computing and offer some significant advantages in audio production. Windows Vista offers 32 and 64-bit installations, so in the future we'll be able to run more memory and CPU depending applications under 64-bit OS which is able to alocate upto 128 GB of memory versus 4 GB in 32-bit version. But for now, the only benefit in the professional field I can see is a DirectX 10 support for certain applications and graphic hardware that can take advantage of it in the video and computer rendering environment.



For those who are excited to try new things and believe that the "newer the better" and the "newest the greatest," I would still recommend that you wait a few months for a service pack to be released which will fix a lot of bugs. Drivers still need to be written for the majority of audio hardware and upgrades need to be done to the systems to handle the Vista OS with all the bells and whistles.

I wouldent go vista my friend just purchased it and none of this software works for it or vista ready.

tnx guys wasnt even thinking about my software/vstis not working before i made this thread, probably woulda upgraded.

___________________


https://soundcloud.com/ghostea stuff

I'll just weigh in and resurrect this thread as my new laptop has vista and I just started using it...

Vista is shot. Don't touch it. Use xp, there are no firewalls or virus scanners out yet for it so your really vulnerable. The security stuff on it's ridiculous. The default configuration pops up TWO dialogue boxes everytime you create a folder...

PART 2
Rant done. Does anyone know if my computer will work if I install xp on it instead? It says its designed for vista and is a toshiba satellite pro with fingerprint reader and remote control, also a really fancy touchpad with extra buttons etc. How much of this will break due to driver issues if I use XP?

Part 3
My friend made me a copy of the xp pro disc as I don't have one (this is all legit actually, you can downgrade from vista to XP legally, this is what I think I'll have to do) but I can't boot of this disc, its a direct copy from an xp pro disc, do you need to do something special to make a bootable disc?

PART 4
DONT TOUCH VISTA. Just to reinforce. Its bad news, it'll be more mature but that could easily take a year,and none of its freatures are good for us anyway. Meanwhile its too too immature.

If people could help I'd really appreciate, I'm on holidays and I have no computer to produce with ATM. Driving me up the wall. Really.

Yes you can install xp fine on your laptop..

DJFreaq I also have 4gb that only shows up as 3.25

___________________


https://soundcloud.com/ghostea stuff