Comments on: Messe: Cakewalk SONAR Brings 64-bit VST; More Cakewalk Bits http://createdigitalmusic.com/2006/04/03/messe-cakewalk-sonar-brings-64-bit-vst-more-cakewalk-bits/ The latest gear, software, and techniques for electronic music production and performance Sun, 07 Sep 2008 09:15:11 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: gustin http://createdigitalmusic.com/2006/04/03/messe-cakewalk-sonar-brings-64-bit-vst-more-cakewalk-bits/#comment-260473 gustin Sat, 08 Sep 2007 21:56:22 +0000 http://createdigitalmusic.com/?p=1265#comment-260473 It would not be that cool. The CPU overhead would be almost as bad as the latency. I would file this under a solution in search of a problem. It would not be that cool. The CPU overhead would be almost as bad as the latency. I would file this under a solution in search of a problem.

]]> By: optimus http://createdigitalmusic.com/2006/04/03/messe-cakewalk-sonar-brings-64-bit-vst-more-cakewalk-bits/#comment-34477 optimus Sun, 24 Sep 2006 12:29:12 +0000 http://createdigitalmusic.com/?p=1265#comment-34477 It would be cool to install Cakewalk Sonar in a VMWare Windows guest inside Linux. Cool :-) It would be cool to install Cakewalk Sonar in a VMWare Windows guest inside Linux. Cool :-)

]]> By: admin http://createdigitalmusic.com/2006/04/03/messe-cakewalk-sonar-brings-64-bit-vst-more-cakewalk-bits/#comment-2715 admin Mon, 03 Apr 2006 18:43:27 +0000 http://createdigitalmusic.com/?p=1265#comment-2715 That's interesting. I have to admit, I need to test these further. Cakewalk claims some significant performance boosts in 64-bit processing . . . there are some differences between Intel and AMD, I know, and most of Cakewalk's marketing is around Intel, but that should theoretically be good for both. And yes, there's a LOT of confusion around 64-bit audio versus 64-bit computing . . . particularly as you have Cakewalk trying to advocate both. We should use a different name, like double-precision audio or something. But that's very disappointing to hear. I'll certainly try to find out more about the Windows situation. And I'm curious to try this out on Linux. That’s interesting. I have to admit, I need to test these further. Cakewalk claims some significant performance boosts in 64-bit processing . . . there are some differences between Intel and AMD, I know, and most of Cakewalk’s marketing is around Intel, but that should theoretically be good for both.

And yes, there’s a LOT of confusion around 64-bit audio versus 64-bit computing . . . particularly as you have Cakewalk trying to advocate both. We should use a different name, like double-precision audio or something.

But that’s very disappointing to hear. I’ll certainly try to find out more about the Windows situation. And I’m curious to try this out on Linux.

]]> By: dawhead http://createdigitalmusic.com/2006/04/03/messe-cakewalk-sonar-brings-64-bit-vst-more-cakewalk-bits/#comment-2714 dawhead Mon, 03 Apr 2006 18:26:42 +0000 http://createdigitalmusic.com/?p=1265#comment-2714 looking at the situation on linux, where support for x86_64 has existed for rather a long time, there is a different viewpoint. while almost all linux audio apps will run on x86_64, using the platform creates significant pains for users. chief among them: plugins for lots of different applications (not just audio) cannot be used unless recompiled for x86_64. there is no flash/shockwave support for x86_64, for example. so you end up with a nice machine on which basic computing functionality ends up being less friendly. i don't think that this is going to be very different on windows for quite a while. finally, x86_64 has almost nothing to do with 64 bit audio. the latter is handled by the FPU and not the CPU and is actually 80 bits wide, not 64, which tends to hide some of the largest benefits of the bus changes that surround x86_64 (not all, though). we've had people using ardour on dual x86_64 AMD processors in 64 bit mode for more than a year now, and the benefits of x86_64 specifically (as opposed to AMD's superior architecture overall) are hard to see. looking at the situation on linux, where support for x86_64 has existed for rather a long time, there is a different viewpoint. while almost all linux audio apps will run on x86_64, using the platform creates significant pains for users. chief among them: plugins for lots of different applications (not just audio) cannot be used unless recompiled for x86_64. there is no flash/shockwave support for x86_64, for example. so you end up with a nice machine on which basic computing functionality ends up being less friendly. i don’t think that this is going to be very different on windows for quite a while.

finally, x86_64 has almost nothing to do with 64 bit audio. the latter is handled by the FPU and not the CPU and is actually 80 bits wide, not 64, which tends to hide some of the largest benefits of the bus changes that surround x86_64 (not all, though).

we’ve had people using ardour on dual x86_64 AMD processors in 64 bit mode for more than a year now, and the benefits of x86_64 specifically (as opposed to AMD’s superior architecture overall) are hard to see.

]]>