I just bought a new 64bit PC, but even though I plan to install 64bit Winxp,
will it make any difference when recording and especially when editing the
recordings?

There are no 64bit version of my sound card drivers.
I use Samplitude 7.0 and I cannot see anywhere if it supports 64bit

Would it matter with another program?


/Sune

Sune T. B. Nielsen wrote:
I just bought a new 64bit PC, but even though I plan to install 64bit
Winxp, will it make any difference when recording and especially when
editing the recordings?

The word I hear is that there is currently very little compelling reason to
go 64 bit.

Audio or otherwise.

There are no 64bit version of my sound card drivers.

I suspect that means that under 64 bit windows, you'd have to give up your
sound card.

I use Samplitude 7.0 and I cannot see anywhere if it supports 64bit

Would it matter with another program?

If there is no 64 bit version of your most-used software, where's the beef?

"Sune T. B. Nielsen" wrote in message
...
I just bought a new 64bit PC, but even though I plan to install 64bit
Winxp, will it make any difference when recording and especially when
editing the recordings?

There are no 64bit version of my sound card drivers.
I use Samplitude 7.0 and I cannot see anywhere if it supports 64bit

Would it matter with another program?


/Sune


I tried WXP x64 (120 day free evaluation) and am back to 32 bit. It's too
early to adopt x64 - too little suport and your 32 bit software may not
(probably won't?) run correctly.

-Bill

"Sune T. B. Nielsen" wrote in message
...
I just bought a new 64bit PC, but even though I plan to install 64bit
Winxp, will it make any difference when recording and especially when
editing the recordings?

There are no 64bit version of my sound card drivers.
I use Samplitude 7.0 and I cannot see anywhere if it supports 64bit

Would it matter with another program?


/Sune
Sonar 5 has 64-bit summing. Their lit says you don't have to be on a 64-bit
machine to use it, but it helps. Whatever that means.

fireface has 64bit drivers

DAMN, I want my money back!


"Arny Krueger" skrev i en meddelelse
...
Sune T. B. Nielsen wrote:
I just bought a new 64bit PC, but even though I plan to install 64bit
Winxp, will it make any difference when recording and especially when
editing the recordings?

The word I hear is that there is currently very little compelling reason
to go 64 bit.

Audio or otherwise.

There are no 64bit version of my sound card drivers.

I suspect that means that under 64 bit windows, you'd have to give up your
sound card.

I use Samplitude 7.0 and I cannot see anywhere if it supports 64bit

Would it matter with another program?

If there is no 64 bit version of your most-used software, where's the
beef?

Sune T. B. Nielsen wrote:
DAMN, I want my money back!

Fear not, the 64 bit processors run 32 bit XP very nicely thank you.

I much prefer my 3000+ A64 over a 2500+ 32 bit Athlon.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Sune T. B. Nielsen wrote:
DAMN, I want my money back!

Fear not, the 64 bit processors run 32 bit XP very nicely thank you.

I much prefer my 3000+ A64 over a 2500+ 32 bit Athlon.

Can the 64 actually do anything that a 32 can't do yet. Or do people just
figure it's a bigger number ?

geoff

"Geoff@work" wrote in
news
Can the 64 actually do anything that a 32 can't do yet. Or do people
just figure it's a bigger number ?

Benchmarks for the 64 bit processors are slightly ahead of the high end 32
bit processors, but not by much.

The release of 64 bit OS (Windows Vista) may have some effect, but (a) it
probably won't appear for about a year yet and (b) knowing Microsoft, the
system will be so much more bloated that any increase in speed will be
consumed by the OS.

Geoff@work wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
Sune T. B. Nielsen wrote:
DAMN, I want my money back!

Fear not, the 64 bit processors run 32 bit XP very nicely thank you.

I much prefer my 3000+ A64 over a 2500+ 32 bit Athlon.

Can the 64 actually do anything that a 32 can't do yet. Or do people just
figure it's a bigger number ?

It can do double-precision arithmetic in half the time. Which is important
if you need to do that kind of thing. I bet it turns out to be a minor
win for reverb algorithms, for instance.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Carey Carlan wrote:
Benchmarks for the 64 bit processors are slightly ahead of the high end 32
bit processors, but not by much.

To get better performance out of a 64-bit processor, you need code
written specifically for it. Cakewalk claims that their 64-bit version
of Sonar *does* deliver noticably better performance than the 32-bit
version, but if you run the 32-bit version on a 64-bit processor you
gain essentially nothing.

They're shipping that 64-bit version as "early release, use at your own
risk" code in the Sonar 5 package... but you need to set up a machine
that runs Microsoft's beta version of 64-bit Windows if you want to try
it. I've considered doing that in a spare partition on my laptop (which
needs all the performance help it can get), but it's very low on my
priority queue.

Arny Krueger wrote:
Sune T. B. Nielsen wrote:
I just bought a new 64bit PC, but even though I plan to install 64bit
Winxp, will it make any difference when recording and especially when
editing the recordings?

The word I hear is that there is currently very little compelling reason to
go 64 bit.

Audio or otherwise.

Right. 64 bit is about huge address spaces, not computing. There is no
reason that audio performance would increase other than that 64 bit
chips are further down the architectural development pike and can offer
better performance per cycle in shorter computing than does their 32 bit
predecessors. This generally happens with each new generation.

It is a myth that the wider integer instructions that comprise the 64
bit addressing functionality require or use wider busses to and from memory.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."

A. Einstein

"Carey Carlan" wrote in message
...
"Geoff@work" wrote in
news
Can the 64 actually do anything that a 32 can't do yet. Or do people
just figure it's a bigger number ?

Benchmarks for the 64 bit processors are slightly ahead of the high end 32
bit processors, but not by much.

The release of 64 bit OS (Windows Vista) may have some effect, but (a) it
probably won't appear for about a year yet and (b) knowing Microsoft, the
system will be so much more bloated that any increase in speed will be
consumed by the OS.

And todays 64 bit CPUs will probably be lacking something vital and new by
then !

geoff

"Geoff@work" wrote in
message news
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Sune T. B. Nielsen wrote:
DAMN, I want my money back!

Fear not, the 64 bit processors run 32 bit XP very
nicely thank you. I much prefer my 3000+ A64 over a 2500+
32 bit Athlon.

Can the 64 actually do anything that a 32 can't do yet. Or
do people just figure it's a bigger number ?

I''m speaking very practically and intuitively - about the
"feel" of systems built both ways with other parts of the
system being as similar as possible.

The A64 systems I've built have always felt more solid than
like-powered A32 systems that I built at the same time. I
built these things by the dozen over a few months.

In general a 3000+ system should be only microscopically
faster than a 2500+ built the same way.

But, in general 3000+ A64s have just felt stronger and more
stable than the 2500+ A32s. I suspect that there's more
parallelism in the A64 chip external interfaces, which
allows external clocks to be slower for equal or greater
data-transport power.

Modern CPU's generally vastly outspeed the rest of the
motherboard and PC. Hard drives keep falling behind, and
even RAM chips are hard-pressed to keep up. Note that
increased bank-switching of RAM is getting to be the rule,
not the exception.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message news:sbOdneOm-

I''m speaking very practically and intuitively - about the "feel" of
systems built both ways with other parts of the system being as similar as
possible.

The A64 systems I've built have always felt more solid than like-powered
A32 systems that I built at the same time. I built these things by the
dozen over a few months.

In general a 3000+ system should be only microscopically faster than a
2500+ built the same way.

But, in general 3000+ A64s have just felt stronger and more stable than
the 2500+ A32s. I suspect that there's more parallelism in the A64 chip
external interfaces, which allows external clocks to be slower for equal
or greater data-transport power.


I've got this $500 interconnect cable that just just has a strong , more
assertive 'feel', with more air and faster bass.

geoff

Essentially incorrect. Sonar's 64 bit mix engine is available in both 32
bit and 64 bit environments. E-MU has 64 bit drivers for it's sound system.
There aren't many answers, but there are some.

In terms of a 1600 Athlon + and a 3200 A64 I get significantly faster than
2X speed than one would suspect a 1600/3200 ratio would represent in 32 bit
mode, particularly with a 64 bit chip needing to thunk to 32 bit. It's more
like a 2.25 to 1 ratio with the A64 3200 over the Athlon 1600+. I haven't
even addressed a dual core A64.

But for the OP, nothing wrong with what you have in the OS/hardware
environment you want to use it in. I was easily running 24 tracks of
simultaneous recording on the Athlon 1600+, 1 gig ram, Matrox dual head,
with either the MOTU PCI 324 or the Hammerfall 9652. The A64 used to
sputter until I turned some useless OS stuff off. And even on the 1600+ I
could keep Excel up for the RAP CD database, playback 24 tracks of audio and
have my email running allowing me to talk here on RAP. And I might also do
a little surfing if I needed information.

So whilest I want 64 bit drivers too, there are two facts that present
themselves as major problems. XP64 is only OEM, and unless one went to a
dual core I'm afraid that the major advantage of the newer 64 bit chips is
wasted. Personally I'm questioning just moving over to the new Gigabyte
board I purchased 6 months ago that has southbridge SATA raid. I'd almost
rather waste the money than go through another series of upgrade hell just
for a small sideways move.
---


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/
"Is our children learning?"
President George W. Bush
"Joe Kesselman" wrote in message
...
Carey Carlan wrote:
Benchmarks for the 64 bit processors are slightly ahead of the high end
32
bit processors, but not by much.

To get better performance out of a 64-bit processor, you need code
written specifically for it. Cakewalk claims that their 64-bit version
of Sonar *does* deliver noticably better performance than the 32-bit
version, but if you run the 32-bit version on a 64-bit processor you
gain essentially nothing.

They're shipping that 64-bit version as "early release, use at your own
risk" code in the Sonar 5 package... but you need to set up a machine
that runs Microsoft's beta version of 64-bit Windows if you want to try
it. I've considered doing that in a spare partition on my laptop (which
needs all the performance help it can get), but it's very low on my
priority queue.

On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 13:24:48 +0100, "Sune T. B. Nielsen"
wrote:

I just bought a new 64bit PC, but even though I plan to install 64bit Winxp,
will it make any difference when recording and especially when editing the
recordings?

There are no 64bit version of my sound card drivers.
I use Samplitude 7.0 and I cannot see anywhere if it supports 64bit

Would it matter with another program?

If there is no driver for your sound card, installing 64 bit Windows
would seem a VERY bad idea :-)

Installing XP64 isn't a bad idea as long as one has decided to make the
expenditure for a card with 64 bit drivers, like the E-Mu line. At the
price they charge, if one wants to step that far forward, it's feasible.

But, with Samplitude thunking down to 32 bits all the time, the advantage
wouldn't be noticeable unless more ram was applied for instantations of
plugins. And it's possible that wouldn't be enough, if any, of an
advantage.

About the only possible solution so early on is Sonar 64 with an E-Mu card
to gain any advantage in the 64 bit world. Although I heard the FireFace
now has 64 bit drivers. Still, as hardware filters in, it's the use of 64
bit programming in the applications that would give the greatest benefits,
not the inclusion of 64 bit drivers for existing cards.

Unfortunate but true. I probably could have lived with maintaining the
Athlon 1600+, but no, I had to move into an Athlon 64. Since it will
probably take another 18 months for apps to start moving to 64 bits (at the
best) I guess the A64 was an ok interim upgrade, but far less than what I
had hoped.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/
"Is our children learning?"
President George W. Bush
"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 13:24:48 +0100, "Sune T. B. Nielsen"
wrote:

I just bought a new 64bit PC, but even though I plan to install 64bit
Winxp,
will it make any difference when recording and especially when editing
the
recordings?

There are no 64bit version of my sound card drivers.
I use Samplitude 7.0 and I cannot see anywhere if it supports 64bit

Would it matter with another program?

If there is no driver for your sound card, installing 64 bit Windows
would seem a VERY bad idea :-)

On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 13:24:48 +0100, "Sune T. B. Nielsen"
wrote:

I just bought a new 64bit PC, but even though I plan to install 64bit Winxp,
will it make any difference when recording and especially when editing the
recordings?

There are no 64bit version of my sound card drivers.
I use Samplitude 7.0 and I cannot see anywhere if it supports 64bit

Would it matter with another program?

Im in the middle of putting together my own 64bit system (specs to
follow). Since my system will be multiuse, I'll be using a drivecage
to use multiple drives to boot from.

So, one drive with WinXP Pro for 3D rendering, one for audio work, and
for WinXP64 to play around with.

--
jtougas

"listen- there's a hell of a good universe next door
let's go" - e.e. cummings