Made the jump to 64-bit.. Aaand nothing changed.

[TheNobleNemesis]

..Except for the loading screen that is.

I've barely noticed any difference at all.
That being said, I only have like, 8 GB of RAM total, does this mean that the switch was all for naught?
Or perhaps I have overestimated the benefits in 64 bit architecture.

[William]

It's only going to make a difference if you use a lot of sample-based instruments like Omnisphere/Trillian/Kontakt, etc.

[yur2die4]

When I opened mine in 64 bit, the entire interface became bedazzled.

[fishmonkey]

the main advantage of the 64 bit version is that Live can use more than 4 GB of RAM, which will generally only happen if you are using large multisample libraries (or if you want to have a lot of clips in RAM mode).

https://www.ableton.com/en/articles/64bit-myths-facts/

[eyeknow]

..Except for the loading screen that is.

I've barely noticed any difference at all.
That being said, I only have like, 8 GB of RAM total, does this mean that the switch was all for naught?
Or perhaps I have overestimated the benefits in 64 bit architecture.

The bottom line (and I have no idea why it's still debated to death) is having that extra ram will allow for ram hungry projects/plugs whereas you'd likely get a crash if you went over before.

That's it. Nothing else is measurable in the daw world.

[mikb]

..Except for the loading screen that is.

I've barely noticed any difference at all.
That being said, I only have like, 8 GB of RAM total, does this mean that the switch was all for naught?
Or perhaps I have overestimated the benefits in 64 bit architecture.

Hardware?

In my experience 64bit Live is more responsive and faster compared to 32bit Live on true 64bit OSes. There are well-known technical reasons for this. Such as 16 x 64 bit general purpose registers and 16 x SSE registers instead of 8 x 32 bit general purpose registers and 8 x SSE registers.

In my case latency was lessened. It should be noted that the specific processor and OS probably affect the outcome.

So, in my opinion the idea that 64bit is only for having more addressable RAM is somewhat incomplete. Of course, it's for that too.

[eyeknow]

It's complete enough. To date, I've seen nothing in performance tests that indicated x64 is faster other than if you have more ram (which in many cases means you upgraded the ram and it's faster).

I'll be happy to be wrong. If someone has a chart saying how much faster x64 live loads/etc I'll be happy to take a look at it.

[kitekrazy]

Ableton recommends using the 32 bit version. What does that tell you. I install both versions since they don't have a bit bridge adapter for VSTs.

[dsu]

DAW performance is rather complex to measure.
Latency is important when recording.
Load time from disk is another factor when adding new instruments or clips
The number of instruments/effects that can be used in a track with out dropout
Freedom from quasi random interruptions due to other processes stealing resources
to mention a few.

Improving performance is similarly complex. The key factor is determining the bottlenecks

Using multi-core CPU's more effectively, faster processor speeds and more cores can increase some aspects particular the number of vst instruments and effects that can be run without dropouts.

Memory is faster than disk, so putting more things in Memory can significantly speed things up since you don't have to wait for the disk to deliver it. And this factor is what 64 bit OS and applications help with most. Try making you audio memory resident by selecting the option on the clip.

System interruption due to the OS are a bit of a black art. Turning off network connectivity and associate services and programs is a good place to start. 64 bit OS doesn't help this problem.

[Donnie]

I see much better stability with larger projects. The tradeoff is that I can't drag and drop files into live due to running 'as Administrator' in order to accommodate jBridge. I think it's a worthwhile tradeoff.

[Tagor]

The combination of quick ram, ssd, well figured win7 und powerfull CPU makes it.

[eyeknow]

I see much better stability with larger projects. The tradeoff is that I can't drag and drop files into live due to running 'as Administrator' in order to accommodate jBridge. I think it's a worthwhile tradeoff.

Other than the jbridge thing (because I don't know anything about it) that makes perfect sense. Most plugs (if not all) take ram. Some are hungry. If you're not hitting the ceiling then that would probably increase stability by a significant factor. Sorry to be captain obvious but I really do believe that this is the reason some people running x64 say some of the performance improvements they mention.

[mikb]

Ableton recommends using the 32 bit version. What does that tell you. I install both versions since they don't have a bit bridge adapter for VSTs.

I disagree with this obsolete "truth". In my contacts with Ableton they have never ever said I ought to even try the 32-bit version. Why would you use a 32bit app on a 64bit OS?
64bits is now the normal.

[fishmonkey]

it's complicated, but it is true that some things do run faster with 64 bit processing.

[Machinesworking]

Larger projects, whether sample based or not tend to run smoother with 64 bit.
If you have a dozen or so soft synths and FX in a song it's noticeable. Probably due to your computer not having to use virtual memory as much. I started messing around with a RAM hungry string library recently and the difference is obvious there.

Another advantage for smoother operation I would think is being able to load all audio files you're planning on triggering into RAM, as opposed to streaming.

I'm not sure why Ableton are ambivalent about it? Most other DAW makers are overjoyed, and I was thinking that what with all that RAM overhead you wouldn't even have to access a disk once a song was loaded? Must be some reason.