You were posting while I was busy composing my post above.
but clock speed doesn't matter like it used to
Sorry but this I don't think is correct. It may not be the ONLY factor but it's a BIG factor. Think about it logically. It's how fast the processor can process instructions. Doesn't matter how much cache you have on the processor or how much RAM: a slow processor will be the bottleneck in any scenario. Then again (and good question to which I don't have the answer): would a quad core processor running at 1.5GHz outperform a dual core processor running at 3GHz (all other things being equal)??? Logic dictates that the quad core would outperform (which means you're quite right and I'm wrong above)??? Maybe something to look up!!! Here we go again (another distraction!!! LOL!!!).
Regards,
Dale.
P.S. Just did a quick search on the topic of processor speed versus number of cores. Sorry. Have fun. Not for me. I'm still exhausted from the sampling rate discussion and this has the same potential so far as I can tell.
P.P.S. Couldn't help myself. Without getting into the whole thing of multitasking, hyperthreading, and who knows what else: from the few articles I first came across the standard advice seems to be that if cash is not a problem then get the fastest CPU with the greatest number of cores. But if on a budget: get the fastest (faster???) CPU with a lesser number of cores.
Not saying it doesn't matter, but your overall CPU, RAM and cache matter much more, and clock speeds matter much less than they used to. You'd have to have a huge diff in clock speeds and all other things being about equal to notice a diff, and that's unlikely. Also it depends on the app(s) you're running; some take more advantage of extra cores, some more clock speeds. I can't speak to MC specifically in that way though.
Not off topic (I'd argue) because a BIG part of my question comes from whether my Pentium dual core will run 64bit acceptably.
For what I do - single track recording (and I've not even looked at what sample rates but I'm assuming at a modest end) it appears I'll be OK.
I must say the interface aspect threw me a bit - I don't think I have specific drivers for it (Tascam US100); I suspect I'm running ASIO4ALL but I don't' even know that for sure (not at that computer right now).
I have no latency issues at all, but that may only be due to how I record. I simply "play along" with the tracks already recorded - and not through an amp. I then add the amp effects etc later to that dry recording. I'm not that good a guitarist where I need to be hearing the effects as I play to get the feel for dynamics etc like a "real" guitarist would. Essentially, I'm hearing my electric guitar as if I'm playing it not plugged in. Not ideal in that I can't tell sound levels until I'm done. I handle that by recording a few bars then playing it back; then adjust and try again until satisfied.
But back "on-topic" - it seems likely 64bit will work on my Pentium since it works in the N3060. Both are dual core and the clock speed is similar.
EDIT - actually the chip I have is a Pentium G2030 with a clock speed of 3GHz. I think I'll be OK - again, given how I use Mixcraft. Not for everyone I'm sure.
Proud member of the Mixcraft OFC!
Mixcraft 8 Pro (32bit) runs fine on a Toshiba Satellite C55-B laptop with a wimpy Celeron N2830 (dual core). Now using 64bit on a "less wimpy" Dell 660S/Dual Core Pentium/8GB RAM.
BillW wrote:Not off topic (I'd argue) because a BIG part of my question comes from whether my Pentium dual core will run 64bit acceptably.
Hi,
If you run a whole lot of 32-bit plugins, there's a chance 32-bit Mixcraft will run more smoothly for you. On the other hand, lots of people run 32-bit plugins in 64-bit Mixcraft and don't notice a performance hit.
Install both 32- and 64-bit Mixcraft, and see which one you like!
Not saying it doesn't matter, but your overall CPU, RAM and cache matter much more, and clock speeds matter much less than they used to. You'd have to have a huge diff in clock speeds and all other things being about equal to notice a diff, and that's unlikely. Also it depends on the app(s) you're running; some take more advantage of extra cores, some more clock speeds. I can't speak to MC specifically in that way though.
You are quite right about all and I do apologise for my initial comment. Not something I've ever thought about to be honest i.e. my "age" kicked in when I initially replied I'm afraid. I come from the age where clock speed was EVERYTHING (my first PC was an IBM XT which ran at 4.77MHz) (just try imagine that!!! LOL!!!).
BillW:
Sounds like you're just fine for now to be honest. Particularly with Mixcraft. When I initially looked into all this it was but one of the reasons why I chose Mixcraft i.e. it runs like an absolute charm when compared to some of the other stuff out there given the exact same PC specs.
I just looked up your interface. It may be old but it's quality. Of that you can be sure. I notice that it's capable of zero latency hardware monitoring and I can only assume that this is achieved by using the "Balance" knob i.e. creating the balance, in the headphones, between the dry signal and what's being played back through Mixcraft. Well newsflash: that's NO different from any of the new interfaces.
Greg - I realize you're not reading all my posts nor should you (you've got more important work to do, keeping Mixcraft the best daw for the money and then some)
But I do intend to make sure I have 64bit plug-ins where available
Regarding clock speed and the xt 4.77 coment. My first pc at home was an 8086 . I'd have to look up the clock apeed.
Was that an xt equivalent? AT was 386? But what was 486? Pentium was 586 so they could trademark it. Which led to speculation that the next chip would be a Sexium
Proud member of the Mixcraft OFC!
Mixcraft 8 Pro (32bit) runs fine on a Toshiba Satellite C55-B laptop with a wimpy Celeron N2830 (dual core). Now using 64bit on a "less wimpy" Dell 660S/Dual Core Pentium/8GB RAM.
C64, no drive, 64MB (Yes MB) and you had to load the desired BASIC program for each use. Many of them I wrote myself.
I kid you not......
And yes, I did program electronic 8 bit "music" on it!
Lord help me I am a geezer AND a geek......
Oh and some years later I had a 286 DOS then a 386 Win3.1 machine with a 1200 Baud dial up modem. I got brave and downloaded an updated "web browser"
It took some 12.5 hours to download.
Jeepers!!! I'm obviously in good company!!! LOL!!!
Commodore 64!!! Forgot about that (it's been a while). Yip. Had to load programs from cassette tape!!! LOL!!!
Remember this:
10 CLS
20 ? "Hello World!"
30 GOTO 20
LOL!!! Oh but the SATISFACTION of seeing that in action!!!
And yeh: how excited we were when we got to 9 600 baud and 14 400 and 28 800 baud modems!!! Mind you: sometimes this Internet and Wi-fi stuff is so congested (here anyway) that I wonder if we're actually that much better off on occasion!!! (Gross exaggeration but you get the picture I'm sure).
And yip (BillW):
IBM XT/4.77Mhz. Which was the 8086. I think we went from there to 8088, then 80286, then 80386, and then 80486 (they were never referred to as anything else). And as you say: 80586 was a Pentium (and so on and so forth).
And I see your desktop is a Dell. Not all PC's are/were created equal. You'll probably find that it'll outperform (and perform just fine) some of the other brands and some of the no name brands (and maybe even some of the newer stuff believe it or not). And like I (sort of) said: Mixcraft doesn't do a whole lot of unnecessary stuff behind the scenes and hog resources for no reason. Sometimes developers create "monuments unto themselves" forgetting that Joe Public may not have the latest and greatest PC on the market (so it works JUST fine in their development environment but falls flat in the real world). I don't believe this to be true of Mixcraft.
Boy. Is this a trip down memory lane!!! LOL!!!
I'll tell ya one thing though: the experience gleaned from starting with this computing stuff when it first came out and with DOS is something that never leaves you. And after all these years: the basic principles of computing and networking (which was my speciality) has not changed one iota (believe it or not) (and only those that were around in those days will understand what I mean by this).
Oh well. I'm obviously not on my own here and there's still hope for me obviously (then again Keith Richards immediately springs to mind too!!! LOL!!!).
It makes me wonder the origins of Mixcraft. I have this vision of a few people (likely men but I don't mean that in any discriminatory nor stereotypical way) thinking that professional DAWs are too complex and expensive for the masses. "Software should be easy to use" - and not cost an arm and leg either.
I found Mixcraft by this Google search: Garage Band for Windows. I wasn't going to use a Mac (ever! Nor an iPhone).
In a class I teach part time - which uses Excel and introduces it to usually about 20% of the class that never used it before - I give a two minute history and show Dan Bricklin in his attic on his Apple II writing VisiCalc. Which inspired Lotus 123 and also Excel. The father of the computer spreadsheet - the most important single piece of software in business - looked "hippie-ish" and still does. He just turned 67. A geezer and a geek!
So I wonder if the makers of Mixcraft are as well? Certainly we've proven several of their most loyal users are!
(I count myself as a loyal user, stubbornly fighting through my Kontakt issue because - well, Mixcraft!)
Proud member of the Mixcraft OFC!
Mixcraft 8 Pro (32bit) runs fine on a Toshiba Satellite C55-B laptop with a wimpy Celeron N2830 (dual core). Now using 64bit on a "less wimpy" Dell 660S/Dual Core Pentium/8GB RAM.
Hmmmnnn... I know I found this out before by accident and mentioned it somewhere: one of the chaps comes Sonic Foundry who developed Vegas Video, Sound Forge, and Acid. I don't know how much of an influence this had on Mixcraft (if any at all i.e. I don't know the timeline). But I can tell you that the workflow and logic is the same and in spite of MAGIX now owning Vegas and the rest: Vegas, Sound Forge, Acid, and the rest is some of the most "beautiful" and "polished" software that you'll ever find EVER. And I say the same about Mixcraft. And strangely enough: the Sonic Foundry stuff (Vegas at very least) was meant to take on NONE OTHER than Avid!!! I didn't know about this Sonic Foundry connection though when I bought Mixcraft i.e. it just "fit with me" (and maybe that's another reason why??? Dunno.).
Regards,
Dale.
P.S. Greg. If I'm giving away "family secrets" here or if the info. is inappropriate then feel free to delete.
I know this is probably a very over simplified comment and most of it has been covered already.
To be safe, I use only a 64 bit daw in a 64 bit Win 10 OS. I use my 32 bit plugins with a wrapper. If you do this the ONLY potential pitfall is an old 32 bit plugin that doesn't play well with everything else. Chances are if everything scans ok the fist time you're good to go. I would use 64 bit plugins as much as possible since this is the way it's all going or has already gone. The 32 bit wrapper is a holdover for us geezers who want to keep our antiques
I don't think you'll see wrappers in the future. JMO. Some DAWs will let you deselect duplicate vst plugins that are also 64 bit. I always opt for 64bit. If given the choice dduring a new plugin installation I always select 64bit. Saves a lot of hassle and cpu cycles on slower machines.
Intel 5820K O.C. 4.4ghz,
3 x Samsung SATA III 500gb SSD,Win 10 64bit, Presonus Firetube Studio
Laptop HP Omen i7 16gb 2/sdd with Focusrite interface.
CbB, Studio One, Mixcraft 8 Pro, Ableton Live 10 https://soundcloud.com/starise
I recall this discussion from a while ago (32bit plugins within 64bit Mixcraft causing issues)
Is it still the case? Is the use of a "wrapper" for any 32bit plugin still advised? Or with more recent builds, is it no longer necessary?
And the most important question - just what IS a "wrapper" and where do I get one and how do I "wrap" my 32bit VST/VSTi?
Proud member of the Mixcraft OFC!
Mixcraft 8 Pro (32bit) runs fine on a Toshiba Satellite C55-B laptop with a wimpy Celeron N2830 (dual core). Now using 64bit on a "less wimpy" Dell 660S/Dual Core Pentium/8GB RAM.
No wrapper needed with Mixcraft, because 64-bit Mixcraft automatically loads 32-bit plugins!
The issue is that it takes a bit of extra CPU processing to run 32-bit plugins in 64-bit software, so people who have slower computers might be better off running 32-bit Mixcraft, or running 64-bit Mixcraft with only 64-bit plugins.
