Mark Bliss wrote:By this, Mark Bowie means he would rather run MC32 at low latency than sacrifice the low latency for a 64 bit option.
Mark Bliss concurs and got the same results in testing.
There's a lot of possible work arounds. A $1K computer doesnt seem like the most practical one for me right now. Other priorities.
You Marks....think I'd be better dropping down to the 32bit version? On my new £1k computer I'm now using 64 (32 on the old one) and tbh it stutters with less tracks than my old PC did....can't say that I need the greater memory access that a huge sample library would need 64bit for etc.
fredfish wrote:I think it is worth installing 32bit and doing some direct comparisons. You are aware that you can have both installed at the same time?
Cheers
John
Good point! Thanks John, I was just being lazy, watching telly phone in hand, rather than actually trying it!...now if only I hadn't selected "install 64bit vst only" in all those plugin installs......
Rolling Estonian wrote:Isn't it the case that if you have both a 32 and 64 plugin and you're running MC7 64bit it'll select the 64bit?
M
I think Nicky is saying that she has downloaded 3rd party plug-ins and elected to only get the 64bit versions. So if she runs 32bit Mixcraft those plug-in wont work unless she also downloads the 32bit versions of those plug-ins as well.
msnickybee wrote:.....think I'd be better dropping down to the 32bit version? On my new £1k computer I'm now using 64 (32 on the old one) and tbh it stutters with less tracks than my old PC did....can't say that I need the greater memory access that a huge sample library would need 64 bit for......
Yeah, based on what I (think I) know about your typical usage Nicky, I doubt there's any benefit to using the 64 bit version. Either way, run what works best for you!
I think the issue is, many people jump to the conclusion that the 64 bit version is the way to go when often it is not.....
And for the OP's situation, there's still a lot of unknowns so its an imponderable.
But seriously, and huge thanks to the OP, this topic has helped me (quite a lot)!!!
I've been spending too much time writing songs (awful ones obv.) rather than sorting out my PC, so with this prompting I reinstalled 32bit mixcraft alongside the 64bit I'd put onto my reasonably shiny-new PC.
And with my latest song (15 tracks or so, a few submixes, couple of sends), I discovered in Task Manager about 13 32-bit VST host processes, each using 0.2-1.0% cpu when playing back...so I guess it is *really* only a small cpu hit, but one that CAN add up...
So...
32-bit mixcraft used avg 660Mb for mixcraft, cpu 23-33%, 47% at peak
64-bit mixcraft used avg 560Mb for mixcraft, cpu 34-40%, 50% at peak
I'd say that probably about 60% of my VSTs are 64-bit, BUT I make big use (who doesn't?) of the 32bit only built-in VSTs such like the Kjaerhus Audio ones (chorus, delay etc) and the TB ones like the Parametric in pro studio
My PC is fanless with aluminiumum (hard to type) cooling fins/case, so it keeps fairly cool on modest CPU levels, so whilst far from scientific here, I have 3 choices?
(1) stop using the Kjaerhus VSTs and source 64bit ones
(2) stick to the 32bit software, but I went 64bit where I could, thinking it was the future...but, whatever works I guess, and it saves me a lot of PC heat!!
(3) stop moaning about it and faffing around and get on with writing music
I should also say that as part of this I took the (much needed) step of moving all of my own-sourced VST DLLs to a separate D: SSD drive (mixcraft on C: M2 drive)
msnickybee wrote:
(3) stop moaning about it and faffing around and get on with writing music
Considering the quality of your music (which is excellent) I tend to go with this option!!
However if you want to do a bit more faffing another idea to throw in to the pot is to use a combination of 32bit Mixcraft AND 64bit Mixcraft. Now this may not fit in with your own workflow but you could do the bulk of the initial stuff in Mixcraft 32bit. Then either export the waves of completed tracks for further tweaking in 64bit Mixcraft or if they don't need any further tweaking you could load the project in 64bit - freeze the tracks and then carry on.
As I said it is entirely possible that this approach isn't compatible with your workflow - but if you are having issues perhaps worth a thought.
msnickybee wrote:
(3) stop moaning about it and faffing around and get on with writing music
Considering the quality of your music (which is excellent) I tend to go with this option!!
However if you want to do a bit more faffing another idea to throw in to the pot is to use a combination of 32bit Mixcraft AND 64bit Mixcraft. Now this may not fit in with your own workflow but you could do the bulk of the initial stuff in Mixcraft 32bit. Then either export the waves of completed tracks for further tweaking in 64bit Mixcraft or if they don't need any further tweaking you could load the project in 64bit - freeze the tracks and then carry on.
As I said it is entirely possible that this approach isn't compatible with your workflow - but if you are having issues perhaps worth a thought.
Cheers
John
Ha ha thanks John! Yep, am using 32bit now, saving a bit of CPU is ace....
Back to it, but you're right, keep my options open........
Thankz Mark for some reason I forgot about freezing tracks. it helps alot freezing the drum tracks right after recording . Still am looking at buying a desktop made for music production. Sweetwater has a line that is built for music. Any suggestions on comps would be cool . I have to do 64bit now cause I am addicted to amplitube lol
