Yes but remember you will 100% need a bit bridging program to run the existing 32 bit VST's in a 64 bit system....I really cannot see PG re-writing (as VST's cannot be "converted" -only run using an in-between app to convert in real-time) all their VST's and VSTi's just to run a 64 bit system...Mind you a licence fee for some of the commercial bit bridging apps would not be that costly per BIAB sale....

D

Yes, but the thing is that they need to do that if they want to maintain their products up to date and competitive. Nearly all modern DAWs, VST and VSTi plugins are offered in 32 and 64 bits versions nowadays, and it's easy to see that 32 bits software will be obsolete in a near future.

Actually, there are far fewer 64 bit plugins than you might imagine, outside those that are bundled with DAW software. It is growing though.

Please don't misunderstand I am all in favour of 64 bit, I mean I use it myself..I am only pointing out that with BIAB as it stands there is no real need.

I agree it is where it is heading and PG are probably already WAY ahead of us LOL!!

32 bits PCs are no longer for sale since quite a bit time. Using 64 bits hardware in music production software is important (among other reasons) because it allows using more than 3 mb of RAM, wich is a definitive reason for a lot of people involved in the computer music production area. Aditionally, modern VST and VSTi are real RAM and CPU eaters, and having an up to date hardware / software system is a need for most computer music producers.

Because of that, the 64 bits user base is growing everyday, while demand for 32 bits music software is decreasing day after day. And while every major music software company are still offering 64 and 32 (legacy) bits versions of their products, I predict that, sooner or later, they will stop developpong and supporting the legacy versions, simply because lack of demand for them.

There are still a TON of 32-bit users out there who have 4GB and less of RAM and see no benefits to 64-bit. Microsoft should have drawn a line in the sand with Win 8 and produced only a 64-bit version. If users (and developers) have a choice they will seek the lowest common denominator.

No need yet. Neither Band in a Box nor Real Band require a lot of memory. Both seem to require a lot of processor computing speed.

So far 64-bit software is there either for family compatibility (products of a suite that use the same libraries) or for usage of memory (working with moving images).

I can see that some software jumped up on the moving 64-bit-train without a need for the improvement at the current time. Using 64bit compilers does not necessarily involve rewriting code, event tho' it does in a few particular cases.

The major advantage of a 64-bit OS is the ability to address more than 4 GB of RAM. But: the Home edition of Windows 7 is limited to 4 GB of RAM. (Haven't checked W8, but I doubt that it behaves different than W7.)

The question is: How many BIAB users have more than 4 GB RAM in their computers and use a 64-bit OS beyond the Home edition?

I still run pieces of 16-bit software on my computer -- and it's main board is prepared to accept 32 GB. I still have no need to put more memory in than the 8 GB I have now.

PGMusic made the jump successfully from 16 to 32-bit, so I suspect they'll do the same for 32 to 64-bit. They have generally provided great backward compatibility, which to some may seem like not moving forward fast enough, but my guess is that in the next release or two, we will see (as most of the companies have done) both 32- and 64-bit versions of the software. I bet the real drop-dead date will be in 2014, when Microsoft ceases support of Windows XP, at which point there should be no reason to go 64-bit all the way.

I have no problem running BIAB in 64 bit Win 7 BUT I have to use it in a restricted way

64 bit Win 7 takes up a lot more RAM than Win 98, Vista XP or other 32 bit operating systems. So 32 bit BIAB has less available RAM in 64 bit Win 7 than in a 32 bit Win version.

No big deal if you run a it with a midi synth or some realtracks.

However, if you want to take advantage of the VST and VSTi availability there are real memory limitations. Some of my VSTi libraries are large and I don't have the available RAM to use.

i HAVE 24 gb Ram and I can't use it with a 32 bit application.

Sorry Bob

I beg to disagree. I run into severe memory limitations with 32 bit BIAB if I try to run some of my VSTi libraries that I do not have any problem with in Cubase 6.5.3, Maschine, Play or Ableton Live 64 bit beta.


Where did you get the idea that a VSTI library runs in realtime without any sample being resident in memory. This may be true for realtracks but not for VSTi libraries. Sure the memory footprint for Kontakt 5 is small but that is not true for many 64 bit VSTis.

regards, Neil

Ok, please describe exactly what you did or tried to to with Biab when you ran into a memory problem and lets analyze it. By that I mean song, style, how many chorus and repeats in the song, is it all midi or partially midi and partially Real Tracks/Drums. Then what VSTi or more than one are you using and what patches did you use. Did you set it up to use the default General Midi or is it custom instrument patches?

I'll admit that while I'm fairly good with this stuff I'm no PC expert but I seriously doubt what you've experienced with Biab has anything to do with 32 bit vs 64 bit.

Bob

Bob, what Neil is saying is that it is the VSTis that he is using that is eating up his ram, NOT BiaB itself. I know as I had the same problem. For instance I would run out of memory if I had a 32 bar song with the 5 midi parts going into Kontakt and I loaded Kontakt with 5 ram intensive patches. I would also run out of memory if I tried the exact same thing in Sonar.

I did work out a PITA work around in Sonar but I decided then and there to go 64 bit only. I have 16 gigs of ram now and no problems in Sonar. I don’t know if the 32 bit BiaB will access all 16 gigs when running in 64-bit mode. That is something I should find out, someday!

If one is using RTs only and/or a GM synth they will not run into this problem.

PS-an after thought. I think that those of us who are heavy softsynth midi users are in the minority here in BiaB land.

Thanks Mario you understand exactly what I am trying to say

Bob, I do not think you understand at all what I am trying to say. I see from your dropdown that you have simple instruments for BIAB so for you a 32 bit version will be ok forever. So by example

1. I would like to use my own sound sources for playing BIAB. PGMusic has thoughtfully given me VST interment and VST effect slots.

2. Lets say I want to use Trilian for my bass - I load the all round bass upright patch - it is 2.3 GB and memory resident. Then for piano I think of Kontakt 5 and say Alicia keys piano - thats another 500meg - the patch is larger but Kontakt is good at disk streaming. What about an Omnisphere guitar? Hang on a minute what is this message? I am running out of memory.

But I have not entered any chords for the song. I have run out of physical memory that is available to BIAB just because it is a 32 bit application. It is a "Legacy" program on my 64 bit PC with 24 GB of RAM that BIAB cannot get access to. So Yes Mario you are right I have access to many very good and memory hungry VST instruments. BIAB will not access more than 3GB of RAM

The compromise solution is to use REALTracks and REALDrums for sound quality or very small Sampler instruments or to DROP the BIAB generated song or individual parts into 64 bit Cubase and use the better sound modules there. A 64 bit version of BIAB would allow me to use my VST interments the same as in Cubase or Machine.

I started this thread by saying it would be cool if BIAB and Realtracks were 64 bit. I did not say that 32 bit BIAB does not work

I understand what you guys are saying and you're right it doesn't apply to me not because I use simple midi synths, it's because for something important and I'm using midi I use my Kurzweil PC3 keyboard and that thing sounds at least as good as the best softsynth plugins out there and it has very cool hardware controllers to shape the sound on the front panel.

Check out my other point and that is patch changes in the middle of a song. As people get more familiar with the program, they start using F5 a lot. That allows you to do all kinds of stuff at whatever bar you want to edit including a patch change. During beta testing a person used 24 RT instruments plus another 20 or so midi patches as a test but of course she was using a GM synth for that. The entire GM soundset was maybe 1.5 gigs. If you tried using your high end VST's for 20 midi patch changes and all of them were in the 500mb-2gig range it still wouldn't work even with 64 bit and 24 gigs of ram. I agree though that's a stretch, how many times would you use that many patch changes and have all those patches be that large? Probably not that often. That's the beauty of using a hardware synth, none of that matters and no latency issues for live playing.

I completely agree if it doesn't break the bank then sure let PG rewrite the program as 64 bit but I also agree the number of people who would actually take advantage of it is very small. As people move up the food chain as to sound quality a lot of them move to hardware synths for good reasons including price. I paid $1,300 as a close out for my PC3 and I suspect you have at least that much in your VST's with all the sound libraries. The Ketron SD2 module sounds great for about $400. Everybody does things their way and if you're not a keyboard player then you certainly don't need a keyboard.

Bob

It is now July 2014 and the discussion started in 2012 and ended during that same time period.

Things have changed as have many of the facts about 64bit versions of OS's and Music programs, but BnB has still not even commented on a 64bit version.

My main reason for wanting 64bit version is so that it would easily with 64bit plugins, rather than having to jury rig ways to have 64bit VST's work nicely with the current BnB. Yes there are workarounds, which are often confusing, and may create subtle problems, in any case they would not be necessary if we finally had a 64bit version.

To be fair, Peter Gannon did comment on the topic, asking us why we wanted it, and whether handling 64-bit VSTs in some way would suffice. What he has not done, to my knowledge, is commit or reject going to 64-bit. I assume that's what you mean.

Yes, I think the improved memory capacity (easily 16 or even 32Gb of RAM) would allow us to also to use several heavier duty programs each of which could use much more RAM at the same time, as well as the addition of simple, easy to implement 64bit VST compatibility.

Jumpin in again on this topic. Matt's comment about PG possibly considering creating some sort of app to run 64 bit.....
I hope not! There are always compromises with this sort of thing - could be glitch city.

Lets go 64 bit and be done with it.

We are already way past bedtime on this.

All my VSTs are 64 bit bar one.

Just IMO

Z

I'm 64 bit everything ...... except BB.

It really would be complete if BB could offer 64 bit.

Hell ..... I might even get into Real Band.

Same here!

Don't shoot the messenger; I too support an all 64-bit environment.

Not shooting anybody Matt your contributions are invaluable, just discussing, friendly..

Time for BiaB considers a 64Bits app. Because now a day most of the VTSi companies only support 64bits plugs-in

+ 1 for me

Neil1000 posted that in 2012, he may have a wife and kids by now, or retired, or left this world.
But any post with those dirty numbers "64" will get thousands and thousands of views but if pg got dime for every view we would be there by now.

So fingers crossed that this is THE year, BB18 64bit cross platform Win/Mac.
(else ReWire )

Only five years ago since the first post request for 64bits app.
That time, there were not many companies support 64bits. It's now time for new 64bis app.

Hello,

Still alive and optimistic. I visit around this time each year to see if any progress has been made

Neil1000