|
vst's on a 64bit os?
|
View this Thread in Original format
| djandymac |
| ok, so im thinkin about gettin a 64 bit os soon and was just wondering, would the vst's i use work ok with it ? im upgrading to cubase 5 so i know my daw will work ok with it, but what about the vst's? |
|
|
| Subtle |
Im going to do the same thing when Windows 7 comes out.
Afaik this should work alright, i believe there is some wrapping function in C5 that allows this to be done. |
|
|
| djandymac |
| ahh good news then, cheers bud |
|
|
| Vizay |
all 32bit apps works perfectly fine in 64bit unless the creators explicitly have limited it in the software.
however you will not gain anything performancewise running it in 64bit. But it doesn't seem like that's the main reason you're doing it either so no worries then :) |
|
|
| SgtFoo |
| the 32bit apps will cap their ram usage at ~3.75gb of ram, while the 64bit apps will run on whatever amount of ram you have. 64bit is awesome in terms of being able to run more than 4gb of ram... thereby increasing the amount of items running from ram, thus runnig faster, since less items are coming from the page file. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
I have never had any problems running any VST on Vista x64. Except the PowerCore plugins, but that's really more of a driver thing.
You need to worry about hardware (driver) compatibility on 64-bit, but when it comes to software, don't even give it a second thought.
(OK, there are a few exceptions - codecs and - but mostly they're not worth mentioning here) |
|
|
| Lucidity |
| Don't Cakewalk sell some 64 bit plugs? I think some of their vst's offer 64bit install now. You still need a x64 host like Sonar, don't know of many others that are actually running in x64 now. There are a few but, not enough:whip: |
|
|
| djandymac |
| cubase 5 does n thats what im gettin, so should be fine :) |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lucidity
Don't Cakewalk sell some 64 bit plugs? I think some of their vst's offer 64bit install now. You still need a x64 host like Sonar, don't know of many others that are actually running in x64 now. There are a few but, not enough:whip: |
I don't know all of the details of the VST architecture, but in general there isn't any problem with a 64-bit application loading a 32-bit DLL. It's all going through the OS and Windows is just going to load it through the shim.
In English, for the non-techies, it means that unless Steinberg did something really weird with VST, there's no reason why you'd need 64-bit plugins just because you're using a 64-bit sequencer. |
|
|
| Lucidity |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
I don't know all of the details of the VST architecture, but in general there isn't any problem with a 64-bit application loading a 32-bit DLL. It's all going through the OS and Windows is just going to load it through the shim.
In English, for the non-techies, it means that unless Steinberg did something really weird with VST, there's no reason why you'd need 64-bit plugins just because you're using a 64-bit sequencer. |
Yes, Digi you are correct. But, for OP your 32-bit plugins will still run 32-bit on a 64-bit sequencer. I should have elaborated more, I was just pointing out that there aren't enough 64-bit plugs out yet.:( |
|
|
| DigiNut |
Certainly. Running a 32-bit plugin on a 64-bit sequencer does not magically make the plugin 64-bit, any more so than running a 32-bit app on a 64-bit OS makes it a 64-bit app. ;)
But I honestly don't think anyone's going to notice the difference. Even in the case of samplers, I think the biggest sample I ever loaded was like 2 GB, and if the sequencer itself is 64-bit then it can handle multiple instances of that if necessary. And if you're like most people, running synths and minimal samplers like drumkits or prefabs (Atmosphere etc.) then you won't even come close to the 4 GB address space boundary. |
|
|
| Lucidity |
I don't think that a 64bit plugin will "only" benefit with memory. Doesn't it also basically double the processing power? ie- processing 64 bits of information at a time, compared to 32 bits at a time? I don't know exactly, but, I will tell you, I am running x64 os and while the programs may not be running in x64, the OS is, and just within the OS functions, it is way faster, feels way faster, than if I run the same system on x32.
Also, I tested 64-bit Sonar on an x64 system, and the cpu load was way way lower. It was quite nice actually, but, I just don't fancy Sonar. Don't like the interface at all. |
|
|
|
|
