Ableton Forum

Yeah, I bet some viewing this forum still think I'm talking about Megabytes. 128 isn't insane for those using the lastest Quad Xeons or servers. For music though, I would say that 16GB is enough...for now. As audio gets better in sonic quality audio files will be bigger. Applications will get bigger too. Imagine running EVERYTHING in RAM!!! Instead of a 120GB HDD, you got 120GB RAM Drive...which is a faction of the latency at a quater of power consumption. Thats where this is going. Silicon photonics (laser CPUs as opposed to current PCB standard) are scheduled for 10years down the road...and counting.

j24keys wrote:Silicon photonics (laser CPUs as opposed to current PCB standard) are scheduled for 10years down the road...and counting.

So about the same time NI will release their 64-bit versions then.

i m not hurry to feel pain with vista at the moment .

my DAW work well

may be in 2 or 5 years,

when vista support 828MKII motu, UAD-1 and liquid mix

I like the future.

If there was no future there would be no gear lust.
Or pancakes.

it wont make any difference

Truly, I agree. Vista isn't for the producer. It's more of the PC-TV and gaming market. But I would like support for XP 64Bit. We still need support for more than 4gigs. When I sun EastWest plugins, one preset can takes 2gigs!!!

64bit I don't see why first the 32bit, we are moving to the future don't like the reverse!!! Sad to hear there is no 64bit Live version yet!

Just build a PC for someone and installed Vista Home 32bit, with the version you can also order a 64bit dvd, don't know what the cost are. I really liked the feel of Vista on a nice system. So I'm thinking of buying the 32bit and getting the 64bit lateron when Lives 64bit engine is there, to use my own core2duo like it is supposed to.

Someone an eye on witch Viste version (Home/Ultimate/Business) is best for us live users and gives advantages we can use. Ill be reading the stuff on the net lateron when I find some time somewhere! I hope to find some in my closet or so...

And Tarekith can I adopt your hamster I really like the pancake!

tylast wrote:It's not about the sound...but the speed of the engine & the amount of RAM x64 can address.

I'm sure you don't achieve the music and sound you want, now - and you will not with 64bit either.

I'm sure you don't achieve the music and sound you want, now - and you will not with 64bit either.

That is an ignorant statement. Do you even know what 64bit presents for music. Not only can you address more RAM, but CPU computations are more efficient. Don't you know that the most plugin instruments or effect are a pile of math? Of course more efficient hard drives can help improve audio quality, but thats just for storage and play back. The CPU is what renders the sound.

Get it right. Maybe you need to watch the Sonar Cakewalk presentation of 64bit vs 32bit DAW quality.

Here:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bi ... fault.mspx

Please, do not try to convince me with marketing-BS.
I'd suggest you to take a look at the 32-bit float format and what the maximum rounding error is it can produce.
Then calculate it in dB.
Then you'll maybe get an idea, how marketing is shamelessly used to fool people.

It is not ignorant what i said, it is the hard truth: nobody will get any better music and sound, with 64bit. Either you can achieve professional results with 16bit fixed, or not even 128 bit float would make any difference.

Save your money and TIME for things, that really help to improve the result.

So are you saying that running more RAM and decreasing hard disk usage won't eliminate audio drop outs when running more than 16 stereo tracks? Are you telling me that you can't run more plugins? If you are not saying this, then you are should be FOR 64 bit.

j24keys wrote:So are you saying that running more RAM and decreasing hard disk usage won't eliminate audio drop outs when running more than 16 stereo tracks?

I can easily run 20 stereo-tracks even on my cheap multimedia laptop. Your system must be badly configured.

Are you telling me that you can't run more plugins?

No. Why more plugins? We have freeze.

If you are not saying this, then you are should be FOR 64 bit.

No. I say, make the best out of what you have, learn to work with the tools you have and forget the 64-bit is sounding better than 32bit "argument".

You sound like someone who is on a very tight budget(which I don't knock). But there is no other reason to knock the furtherance of techonolgy for music...thats just silly.

Why more plugins? We have freeze.

Who wants to freeze 20 tracks of plugins!!! Not me!! Takes too much time out of my project, especially when I have a deadline for complex compositions. So don't talk to me about freeze.

I can easily run 20 stereo-tracks even on my cheap multimedia laptop. Your system must be badly configured.

As you see in my profile, I have no problem with my configuration. In fact I can run more than 20 tracks of audio without problem. The issue comes in with my EASTWEST plugins. One patch can take 1.8 gigs of RAM. What does that leave for my applications?!?!?!

Thats why its not easy to just come out with a 64bit version....It takes more work which reaps more productivity. I bet people were saying the same when XP released. Sure new things are buggy, thats why we have reiteration.

So I will continue to argue. Computers are my profession, and I program in C++ and CSound. I know the advantages of 64bit for music, so what are you telling me?

j24keys wrote:You sound like someone who is on a very tight budget(which I don't knock). But there is no other reason to knock the furtherance of techonolgy for music...thats just silly.

Not really, but i'm just doubting, that 64bit are necessary right now. There are way more important things to improve Live's usability.

Why more plugins? We have freeze.

Who wants to freeze 20 tracks of plugins!!! Not me!! Takes too much time out of my project, especially when I have a deadline for complex compositions. So don't talk to me about freeze.

But why have you been using Live then?
Classical composition, movie soundtracks? With Live?
At the moment Live can't be used efficiently in big projects anyway, because of the lack of track-folders and screensets. So your assumptions, that a 64bit version would increase the productivity are wrong anyway.

I can easily run 20 stereo-tracks even on my cheap multimedia laptop. Your system must be badly configured.

As you see in my profile, I have no problem with my configuration.

How can i see that?

In fact I can run more than 20 tracks of audio without problem.

You mentioned it, that only 16 stereo-tracks could be played back in 32-bit system, not me.

The issue comes in with my EASTWEST plugins. One patch can take 1.8 gigs of RAM.

And you have no idea of workarounds?

What does that leave for my applications?!?!?!

You obviously have never worked with hardware in a studio... If you were Hans Zimmer, i could understand such a rant - otherwise then you wouldn't use Live for certain tasks...

I bet people were saying the same when XP released.

You are that young, not knowing, what was said, when XP came out? You're that young, but the current 32bit systems are already too slow for you?
Boy, boy...
I repeat therefore myself: if you can not adapt to work efficiently now, you will never. If you can't get professional results now, you will not so with 64bit, too. The 32bit technology today offers everything that is needed for professional productions at a quite low price. But everyone has to use the apropriate tools...
Live is a full DAW, but it is ATM definately not adequate for big classical orchestrations. Hell, why don't you use the apropriate tools, instead of complaining, that a racing-car isn't capable to carry the weight of a transporter?

So I will continue to argue. Computers are my profession, and I program in C++ and CSound. I know the advantages of 64bit for music, so what are you telling me?

Then it shouldn't be a big problem for you to answer my question about the sound aspect of 32- vs 64-bit float.