From the original SynthMaker forum (2004–2014), with its members’ names and dates.
DhyanMikael ·
Is it possible to create a 64-bit plugin with SynthMaker?
Regards, Mikael
trogluddite ·
Hi, welcome to SM.
No, sadly SM does not support 64bit at all. It currently uses the 2.3 version of the VST specification, which is now rather old - and there are only a very few SM components that are able to use 64 precision numbers (they use the 'D' symbol, meaning 'Double precision')
This feature has been requested - but there is no news whether the developers plan to include it any time soon.
DhyanMikael ·
trogluddite wrote: Hi, welcome to SM.
No, sadly SM does not support 64bit at all. It currently uses the 2.3 version of the VST specification, which is now rather old - and there are only a very few SM components that are able to use 64 precision numbers (they use the 'D' symbol, meaning 'Double precision')
This feature has been requested - but there is no news whether the developers plan to include it any time soon.
Thank you for the information.
I would welcome the ability to make 64 bit plugins simply for the possibility to run a DAW without the need for a vst bridge to run 32 bit plugins. My DAW runs strictly with 64 bit plugins all the way through.
gluon ·
this limitation + no VST osx export are the most problems for me at the moment
and those problems stuck me before buying it.
infuzion ·
gluon wrote: this limitation + no VST osx export are the most problems for me at the moment
and those problems stuck me before buying it.
I agree, + very limited 64bit audio (really non-existent)
mayo ·
VST2.4+, 64bit, OSX export, SDK
...and I can die happily 😉
Nu Audio Science ·
just for the record 64bit audio and calculations have nothing at all to do with the x64 vst standard (I know you all know this, just putting this in for search purposes and newbs)
Outsim have the ability to make SM export x64 plugins without supporting 64bit calculations internally (They need to do so, very quickly as some kind of stop gap measure i would say)
infuzion ·
Nu Audio Science wrote: Outsim have the ability to make SM export x64 plugins without supporting 64bit calculations internally (They need to do so, very quickly as some kind of stop gap measure i would say)
And vice-versa 🙂
Nu Audio Science ·
Just bumping this and probably will on a weekly basis now
It is time Outsim added x64 export as soon as possible really
With the new multi sample modules it is even more important
NAS
Lui ·
Let's all bump this thread once a day, so the developpers finally give us the ability to export as 64bit plugins.
Who's with me?
CoreStyler ·
mayo wrote: VST2.4+, 64bit, OSX export, SDK
...and I can die happily 😉
Yes. Sweet 😉
Lui ·
bump
infuzion ·
The devs rarely, if ever read this board. Best to email support @ synthmaker
CoreStyler ·
Should be simple for outsim add x64 support. Since i think that a 32bit schematics can be wrapped on a 64bit plugin.
Then, in the future add some code for emt64.
Lui ·
How about we all write them at once? We gather in this thread and then do it.
I bought SM Pro last June and now that I'm almost done with my plugin I will most likely have to get it re-programmed for tons of money before I can release it, just to get a 64-bit version and an AU version (I could do fine for now with just PC Vst, but 64bit)
If SM had 64bit export at least, it wouldn't make a plugin seem so amateurish. My DAW is Samplitude 64bit and running 32bit plugins works, but with a lot of disadvantages.
We gotta show the developpers that there is really an ugrent demand for 64bit, cause else SM is going to die.
Why should someone still buy SM, when it's not up to date with current requirements and the developpers forgot about it?
This community here will die one day, because people will give up on it and noone new will join.
I think that 64bit is the first thing we need, followed by others, but other things are not as crucial, because if there's something you can't do with SM (like solid timing) then you just use SM for other things.
But if SM plugins don't run in peoples' DAWs anymore, it will be dead. I don't think that running 32bit plugins bridged will be supportet by DAWs or accepted by people forever.
No 64bit also means no more new customers.
We need to alarm the developers, but one single e-mail every now and then won't have an effect.
So I wanna ask you to join this thread and post if you're willing to write them an e-mail on a specific day that we choose once enough people joined.
Please don't ignore this just cause I never contributed and just have like three posts, I'm just someone who rather works on his own and I've been busy with developing a plugin since last June. I learned so much by reading this forum though and I wanna thank all of you.
So who is gonna join me trying to get the developers to include 64bit export?
CoreStyler ·
I'm too. I also upgrade to pro if 64 bit is on the line.
We can create an email with all the signatures of us (including profile link).
Lui ·
CoreStyler wrote: I'm too. I also upgrade to pro if 64 bit is on the line.
We can create an email with all the signatures of us (including profile link).
That might be more polite than sending them tons of single e-mails 😉
Everyone that would like to give his signature to this mail should say so and either me, or maybe one of the more "known" users sends that e-mail, once we have enough signatures.
CoreStyler ·
Lui wrote:
CoreStyler wrote: I'm too. I also upgrade to pro if 64 bit is on the line.
We can create an email with all the signatures of us (including profile link).
That might be more polite than sending them tons of single e-mails 😉
Everyone that would like to give his signature to this mail should say so and either me, or maybe one of the more "known" users sends that e-mail, once we have enough signatures.
Infuzion has thousand of posts. 😉
trogluddite ·
infuzion wrote: The devs rarely, if ever read this board.
Maybe only on leap years! 😉
I'm happy to put my name down to say we want more development - but I doubt that it will make a huge difference.
You will most likely get a very polite, but also very vague, reply along the line of "we love you guys, please be patient, SM is not forgotten".
I have written to the dev's before at length (and made a PITA of myself on the FlowStone forum) pointing out the shortcomings of SM, frustration at lack of development etc. and told them how widespread the dissatisfaction is on the forum here - and that many have said they are quite prepared to show their loyalty with hard currency!
It seems that they have a particular road that they are determined to travel, and no intention of letting us know what it is. Maybe their hands are tied by legal red tape of licensing agreements, intellectual property rights etc. - or just sheer lack of manpower or finance to do the necessary work.
Let us hope that the silence is just because they are too busy programming upgrades to have time for making announcements - all of the recent upgrades have been done that way; no news until the official release is announced - that seems to be their policy.
Still, best of luck all the same - IMHO it is always better to try than to just sit around whining.
Lui ·
trogluddite wrote: it is always better to try than to just sit around whining.
Exactly my thoughts
CoreStyler ·
I don't need that SM new update will be extraordinary. just some little thing.. and this is on the top because ever plugin vendor need that. For me, this will be also a incresing selling for outsim. And when SM will have VST 2.4+ and x64 export will be really a good way for developing plugins, since is easy and can also made good things. 😉
tester ·
To my view, 64-bit export is not a development priority. I for example work in 32-bit environment, using regular 32-bit VSTs and have no big complains about that; many of my friends (audio too) also work in similar environments or just on different platforms (MAC). From our perspective - more important is quality and functionality of plugins. So I would rather expect some optimizations in code, some bugfixes and some new functionalities (like networking?) than 64-bit support right now. People can live without 64-bit plugins, but having no expanding options (like streaming) - can make life more difficult. SM can make synths, but also effects and exe files, so it is multi-purpose environment, and flowstone direction supports that assumption.
Second - if you expect them to develop 64-bit export, then instead being/behaving like a fan - make them a business proposal, and estimate whether they are prepared to make any business with anyone. It's a matter of money, of strategy, of ability to co-work and manage a project.
Meanwhile lets do what we do - extend SM functionalities using things available inside SM, make our own work, and... have fun. 😉
infuzion ·
trogluddite wrote:
infuzion wrote: The devs rarely, if ever read this board.
Maybe only on leap years! 😉
I'm happy to put my name down to say we want more development - but I doubt that it will make a huge difference.
You will most likely get a very polite, but also very vague, reply along the line of "we love you guys, please be patient, SM is not forgotten".
Well, they may "visit", but where is the proof of reading the boards past the bugs & PMs?
The last reply I got from Malc was along the lines of "We will let you (all) know when we have something to say." Obviously, there is nothing to say.
I am grateful that he updated FL-SM to the latest SM though. However, in the future, I will never use a platform that is not either open source or supported by a full team. No more 1-man software for me, unless it is a minor widget or
iPad app or the like.
tester wrote: To my view, 64-bit export is not a development priority. I for example work in 32-bit environment, using regular 32-bit VSTs and have no big complains about that; many of my friends (audio too) also work in similar environments or just on different platforms (MAC). From our perspective - more important is quality and functionality of plugins.
Here in Denver, most audio people are Macs, & 1/2 of the PCs use Max4Live, so I'm out of the loop. I notice on KVR many asking for 64 bit VSTs, likely since 99% of the PCs sold in the USA are 64bit, to address the full 4Gb of RAM that are standard for new hardware. I think Abelton Live is the only holdout for non-64bit, though I'm sure that will come next version, likely in 10 months or so. I don't think people will spend much money on a VST that has no 64bit support, even if they do not use 64bit now, since it may be in a few short years it will become mandatory (almost is if you want to use large sample libraries).
trogluddite ·
infuzion wrote: Well, they may "visit", but where is the proof of reading the boards past the bugs & PMs?
None at all - I was just tickled by the fact that the last visit was on a date that only comes around once every four years!
However, it seems that at least you and I have been in contact with the guys at SM about our concerns (and got pretty much the same reply) - so whether they check the forum or not, they cannot be completely unaware of the rumblings of discontent.
Re 64-bit
Like tester, I have absolutely no need for this at the moment, nevertheless; I think that keeping SM up to date with this (and VST spec's etc.) is of prime importance.
SM will only survive as long as it gets new users and generates revenue for OutSim, without that none of things we'd like to see will be worth their while developing. IMHO, those problems are likely the biggest bottlenecks to increasing the user base - very soon it will be impossible to buy a PC which is not fully 64-bit, and compatibility problems with hosts can be quickly spotted and publicised (e.g. at KVR etc.). Those two issues are likely to be the first that potential new users come across when they are searching for a DSP application (or one of our plugins) - before they even get as far as exploring SM enough to spot the more "schematic capability" type problems.
I am quite happy tinkering with the version of SM currently on my hard drive - but I would be over-the-moon to see it become bigger and better. So I thinks even us "casual" users do well to support the call for the upgrades required by more "serious/professional" users
Nu Audio Science ·
You bought SM for what it was when you bought it
SM needed OSX export many years ago and never got it, it will never get X64 export either
Outsim have other interests entirely now and they don't really involve too much audio 😉
I believe X64 is coming at some point in Synthedit, the developer still supports that, so may be worth you trying that instead.
tester ·
@Nu Audio Science - are they moving deeper in flowstone/robotics or trying to make something new, like video processing? I have an impression, that they have lost coherence of vision, splitting the concept into SM and FlowStone in this way they did it. I would rather expect a development of one unified piece of software and optional purchasable addons like ruby or whatever external else.
By the way - if Outsim is not interested to support the community, then - community members could say in exchange, that they don't allow Outsim to include their own copyrighted modules in further versinons of SM. 😉 Of course it would produce some absurd situations and tension between the community and Outsim (and it could spread to flowstone too), but these are a kind of dynamics, when unexpected things can happen; Egypt changed within days with the help of facebook as you remember. Now - I'm far from such extreme solutions, but on the other hand - if someone decides to treat me as a "meat" so to speak (cannon fodder would be proper translation? i.e. "don't ask questions, buy it and be happy with what we give you"), then I'm very close to change my mind about my attitude 😉 To conclude: I bought SM not for what it was when I bought it; I bought it, because it was enough to support and satisfy my needs, but my needs and knowledge can grow beyond - therefore I'm open for new functionalities and I expect them.
p.s.: are there any schematic converters between SM, Synthedit and Max MSP?
CoreStyler ·
For me x64 export and VSTi SDK is vital.
There are many buyers that ask me for x64 plugin (so they dont need a bridge) and many ask for compatibility for new version of steinberg sequencers since there are many sites that say "beware of SM/SE plugins on cubase".
so, developers should take a look of that and make x64 export as the fist thing on the "to-do" list. This as basic.
SM can create good plugs (except when you need a timing) so more compatibility with the DAW is a good way.
And.. about Flowstone, i think that ruby is not a so good programming language for audio and for us, since c++ will be a better option because of the large amount of examples/sources and the respective juce/steinberg frameworks.
Lui ·
I think we all have a right to ask this single question:
Will there be future updates (64 bit etc.) and will they come within this year???
We all didn't only spend our money on SM, more than that we spend our time in growing our skills and developing Plugins.
If we keep on doing this and there will never be an update, we are all fooled by false promises a la "SM has not been forgotten."
This answer doesn't tell us anything.
I will stop using SM until I get an answer because else I waste my time, while I could have spent it learning other softwares / programming languages and looking for alternatives.
If there will be no more updates, then everyone in this forum is just purposely being kept here to attract new customers, because all the active forum members make it look like SM is very alive.
If the forum had been dead 9 months ago, I wouldn't have bought SM pro.
Now that releasing a 32bit only plugin became a definate no go, I cannot release my plugin and have to leave SM, very sadly, because SM is my favorite software and has all the potential to become even greater than it already is.
tester ·
If you can make at least one plugin or standalone app, that you can sell, and that you can earn on it (or it can earn, giving you back the money you spent on SM and time you spent with SM) - then it's not so bad. Can SM be a tool for making good money or just good connections? Usually programmers are bad sellers 😉 and they need external channels of distribution, external companies that understand market and its needs. Freelancers (that includes programmers) - not always but usually - seem to be rather romantic idealists than pragmatic millionaires 😉 What about Gates or Jobs? Well - do we have millions of operating systems on the market or only a few?
Other visual dataflow programming languages are probably in many ways similar to SM (before SM, I tried synthedit for a few days, but I found that SM works better for me), so if you can learn one of them - you probably will re-learn another one very quickly. Besides, even if using SM is a waste of time, then you learn concepts and connections; so even if your first project will take a year of your life - making similar (or comparable) project in another environment - will take maybe two to three weeks. Because you are prepared. Among other "wastes of time", SM seems to be the compromise - or I'm too stupid to find any better else (any else please?). For over 10 years I couldn't learn C++ or Delphi or other things like that - they are just too foreign for my eyes. Dealing with SM - right now I'm doing precise sonic simulations, that two months ago I couldn't dream of.
If SM stops to be useful tool for most VST/VSTi developers - then there are some other sectors that will re-use it. Research and education for example, or niche market. I guess, that in 3-5 years - it does not matters anyway, because something dramatically changes again in technology, and most everything we work so hardly on - will become useless in some ways. But will it be a waste of time? What else would you do during these 3-5 years? What is more important - the goal or the path? Maybe it's a bit philosophical question, but it's the essence of larger-than-year projects. Besides programming - you are involved in life; in connections, in relations. If you wouldn't do what you do, then these would be different too, but for some reason - you do what you do. So - are you wasting your time right now?
I don't defend SM. But I understand my own motivation. 😉
Lui ·
well, you're right, tester. i definately didn't waste my time, it was actually spent very well because working with synthmaker taught me everything about how a synth works. it visualizes, what an abstract thing like pure code, couldn't have showed me.
now, when i wanna build sth. i know exactly how it would be structured and what every single component actually does, so SM has been like education to me.
maybe that's just what it is.
i just wish it would be more than that because i don't think that there's a reason why it shouldn't be further developed.
tester ·
Exactly. 😉
My advise would be: to focus on - how express the expectations regarding SM development and where (to whom). Sure, we can make noise here... But it doesn't solves anything this way; at least according to my observations - not in this case. Question has been asked - let them work. If you want to get more info from them - I would rather ask for a general "road map" for SM for the next year or two, than for particular things like x64 export "because you need it and have good argumentation to". I guess SM owners read from time to time what is being written here, and smile under their noses. Probably they mostly read only headers, to check if there are any inspirational ideas in general, and everything else (especially our sophisticated talks and emotions behind) - pass unnoticed. 😉
So maybe the idea is to make a comprehensive wishlist in a way that programmers do understand instead of insisting in ways, that they don't?
CoreStyler ·
Will be goood what i posted on ideas forum. A section where we can vote/freelance the implementation of features, and follow the dev.
I like that ways, the way used by many young devs. Look at joomla! (cms), and many other php programming softwares including extensions (plugins).. I like this way. 😉
stw ·
tester wrote: I would rather ask for a general "road map" for SM for the next year or two, than for particular things like x64 export
So maybe the idea is to make a comprehensive wishlist in a way that programmers do understand instead of insisting in ways, that they don't?
So do a vote for it HERE.
But don't have any expectations about it.
Everything written in this thread has been discussed over and over for the last years without ANY results.
Take SM for what it is and be surprised if any serious updates will come what i strongly doubt.
Malc the one and only dev around is focused on Flowstone. And i guess that alone is on the edge of what a one man show can seriously handle. I'd strongly advise to invest more time in researching and learning alternatives frameworks which cover your needs. That's what i do...
Anyway SM is an application which i'll never miss but it's also a dead end from the current status quo.
tester ·
I have some thoughts. There is a sub-forum "Ideas and Requests", but I think it is not well organized to be useful.
First - anouncements and sticky posts could be differentiated in a more visual way, so that when you get in - you see which one are which. Second - let people write their ideas and requests as they do, but... Third - some of these requests and ideas are/can be achievable in SM right now, some of them are written in incomprehensible language, and only some of them - are really vital for SM engine development. Therefore - a small team is needed (moderators who are advanced in using SM) to estimate whether an idea/request should change status from "normal" to "sticky" post (announcements reserved for rules, road maps, changelogs). Thus - SM related problematic things could be discussed separately and in one place.
Another thing that could be done separately - is a library of individual/particular modules (moderated split between "just gadgets" and "problem solutions", plus maybe some grouping of similarities) with descriptions and credits, easy to search and go through (such comfortable rearrangement for registered users only?); it will also allow to track and fix bugs, to make the solutions "final". Some of ideas and requests are probably addressed there and not to SM core. This could be also done with forum (i.e. it is not necessary to produce another CMS). If this can be done without a big effort, then there should be no frustration that makes people switch between opensource and commercial.
Sure there is "help" forum and search engine, but the more posts are there, the more difficult it becomes to find something quickly or to determine whether the topic has reached the final solution, plus - unoptimized duplicates?
It's a free thought, but maybe it's a direction worth to follow?
infuzion ·
tester wrote: I have some thoughts. There is a sub-forum "Ideas and Requests", but I think it is not well organized to be useful...
& the Bus forum has the same problem. There are 1000 other better solutions to track ideas & bugs, but obviously Malc doesn't want to use those. I don't think it is our place to tell someone how to run their website; it would be like being invited to someones house, then criticizing that is it messy & disorganized. If you want to pay for 10 years worth of an external bug tracker & give it to Outsim, go ahead 🙂
Also, part of my theory of lack of SM devs not reading the boards is the lack of feedback on the threads in Bugs & Suggestions, so how will a new system change that?
Over the years, there have been requests for a better user-module hosting solution. Sometimes someone will make a mega-pack. But neither ideas don't last long (more than 1 year) since they take A LOT of work, & no one will cough up enough money to creating & maintaining them worth the time.
Also, with out lockable modules, it is pointless IMHO. I have had many modules released here, & used later with my credits ripped out, sometimes being acknowledged as only as, "Thanks to someone from the forums, I forgot where I got this".
tester ·
Trog said, that this forum is a community independent from Outsim although it's on their domain, so I understand this is a symbiosis co-operation between individual entities (Outsim and the Community). Am i missing something? Besides SM based community is an independent organism (with or without Outsim/malc) anyway, and to my view - it can live it's own life (more or less professional, no matter what is going on on the other side); i.e. we don't work for malc, we don't work with malc, but ideas on both sides are freely exchangable. Changing the way how certain part of forum works - can (does not have to) open new ways of such exchange on a more partnership basis, because it makes people think. It's a matter of shaping (and having) a vision, and expressing expectations in more professional way.
Regarding critisism - if you pay for a room in the hotel, then you have the right to say your opinion if it's messy & disorganized 😉 (I paid for SM pro). I'm not criticizing, I'm just pointing my observations (maybe my english is not perfect; it's not my native) and possible directions instead of empty talks "oh, please please gimme x6596 export support please". SM creators are not stupid and surely know the same things as we do. It's a matter of woring out the "effective influence model".
I'm switching out from this thread, because I don't need x64 support right now 😉
@stw - what alternatives (except max msp) do you mean?
stw ·
tester wrote: @stw - what alternatives (except max msp) do you mean?
There're many ways of doing DSP stuff. It's important to find what fits your needs best. I started a new thread HERE. There i described what i think suits me best. Take a look at the linked ZIP in my post. The contained pdf may gives you some ideas as well...
CoreStyler ·
infuzion wrote:
tester wrote: I have some thoughts. There is a sub-forum "Ideas and Requests", but I think it is not well organized to be useful...
& the Bus forum has the same problem. There are 1000 other better solutions to track ideas & bugs, but obviously Malc doesn't want to use those. I don't think it is our place to tell someone how to run their website; it would be like being invited to someones house, then criticizing that is it messy & disorganized. If you want to pay for 10 years worth of an external bug tracker & give it to Outsim, go ahead 🙂
Also, part of my theory of lack of SM devs not reading the boards is the lack of feedback on the threads in Bugs & Suggestions, so how will a new system change that?
Over the years, there have been requests for a better user-module hosting solution. Sometimes someone will make a mega-pack. But neither ideas don't last long (more than 1 year) since they take A LOT of work, & no one will cough up enough money to creating & maintaining them worth the time.
Also, with out lockable modules, it is pointless IMHO. I have had many modules released here, & used later with my credits ripped out, sometimes being acknowledged as only as, "Thanks to someone from the forums, I forgot where I got this".
Im working for this.
http://www.synthmakers.net/
Im building a fan-site for synthmakers developers where to upload/share/download schematics and where anyone can add documentations and "how to".
There will be also a Project "fork" host solution that can handle projects including files, private forums, and all what regards a co-op work. (calendars, tasks, milestones assignable to users). in the project area any registered can open a new project and specify what kind of project is: public or "invite" based.
The downloads section will be a good points where to find examples, DSP, modules, docs.. etc. Any uploaded files is linked to a profile and will be easy to find "who has developed what i... ehm... used".
All that will be free. I have already that host solution, so for me cost just a domain name x year. 😉
infuzion ·
Ableton is losing customers since they haven't switched to 64bit yet, nor announced one. Sure, many of them are power-users with lots of VSTs & big sample banks. But a $600 program is not a hobbyist price either.
http://forum.ableton.com/viewtopic.php?f=42&t=169011
trogluddite ·
Likewise, I've been reading some negative reviews of the new version 10 of Pro Tools (stunningly expensive) because it is still 32bit only.
I understand that this is so that it can still support the (also stunningly expensive) TDM HD hardware, and Avid have announced that TDM users will have to upgrade their hardware (at no doubt hideous expense!) in order to keep up with future upgrades.
tester ·
So what is more important - making good sound/music or having more actual up-to-date software? I ask as a sound producer 😉
Many times - I went downwards with the software, in order to get desirable results. Sometimes it was very nasty, but having no alternative - I had to adapt to what I had "right now, today, under my hand". I don't wait for uncertain future in which maybe someone will create better software; I'm here and now and either use "here and now" choices or do nothing at all. I hear many words here and there, like "this app is good, but there is no this, no that, missing something..." or "this new app is promising, and one day it may be a good alternative for...". But right now - there are not too many alternatives. Advanced programmers may go wherever they want to and use whatever they want. Ordinary developers with an idea to acomplish - have no such comfort.
My point is - making music is about making music, and not about updating your system on everyday basis. 🙂 I say that, because I have a friend, who is very good in "making music" so to speak, but for many years - he was so busy with updating his hardware/software environment, that he couldn't produce anything.
trogluddite ·
Yes, your point is well made - personally I'm quite a fan of using"outdated" or "imperfect" equipment - I still think that some of the best (or at least enjoyable to me) music I ever made was done on 4-track cassette with a handful of guitar pedals.
I'm sure that some people would criticise some of my plugin designs because of e.g. a bit of aliasing etc., and I even purposely include a little unpredictability in the control methods to encourage a good dose of serendipity. Being able to control all of the minutiae certainly can be very stifling of creativity in my experience.
For me, the difficulty only arises when one has little choice than to renew equipment.
I generally only buy a new PC every 7-8 years or so, when an old machine really has died - or maybe when new connection protocols etc. are required (e.g. a new machine to get USB for use with my first digital camera).
The trouble then arises that ones favourite software/hardware is no longer compatible with the new machine - for example, my current audio interface is only Win XP compatible via a very specific Firewire controller chip (I still have a box full of ISA soundcards if they are any use to anybody!).
Already I have two "legacy" PC systems here just for running "old favourites" - but it becomes ever more difficult (and time consuming) to source parts to keep those systems running.
For me, this is why SM updates are important. I am a great believer in knowing a few tools very well, rather than only scratching the surface of a hundred applications - to be able to react fast when inspiration strikes instead of being stuck on a never ending learning curve.
If, at some time, the only PC available to me will not run SM, then of course I will take up an alternative - and once again learn to operate a new toolkit (but I would rather be learning to express my creative ideas more fluently).
So I suppose my reason for wanting SM upgrades is opposite to some others here - it is not primarily because I want new, new, new (though I welcome enhancement with open arms) - mostly it is because I want to know there is a future for what I already have. If I move away from SM, I prefer that it is my choice to do that, not something that is forced upon me by a blown motherboard!
PS) Of course, this is all just the opinion of an "amateur tinkerer". For those people who use SM to make commercial plugins, their income (bread on the table) depends on supplying what their customers desire. Even if the developer does not personally believe in the "upgrade wars", they may need to incorporate the latest features in order that their business remains successful.
tester ·
I agree. My point is related rather to rareness of updates and greater rareness of major updates than to lack of any need for updates. 😉
infuzion ·
trogluddite wrote: Yes, your point is well made - personally I'm quite a fan of using"outdated" or "imperfect" equipment ...The trouble then arises that ones favourite software/hardware is no longer compatible with the new machine -...
If, at some time, the only PC available to me will not run SM, then of course I will take up an alternative - and once again learn to operate a new toolkit (but I would rather be learning to express my creative ideas more fluently).
I'm a big fan of setting up your system to the point where it works well then "freezing" it, making no more updates to either hardware or software until NEEDED. Perhaps I spent too much on my last PC purchase, 17' i7 with SSD, but once I have it set up, I won't do anything to it except perhaps ad some samples, a VST every few months, & maybe update the browser for security reasons.
I would have never joined SM if my tool of choice at the time (Buzz) wasn't crashing all the time & the dev quit working on it a few years before that.
mayo ·
bump
CoreStyler ·
mayo wrote: bump
Quote
adamszabo ·
too bad bumping wont magically make synthmaker export to 64 bit.
CoreStyler ·
adamszabo wrote: too bad bumping wont magically make synthmaker export to 64 bit.
But maybe OutSim will take care about Our Needs. modern DAW's requires 64 on modern PC's.
Also a Mac export will be so cool! 😉
Warmonger ·
No synth needs to be 64-bit unless you want to allocate over 2 GB RAM for it.
Even if you want, you shouldn't really do that.
CoreStyler ·
Warmonger wrote: No synth needs to be 64-bit unless you want to allocate over 2 GB RAM for it.
Even if you want, you shouldn't really do that.
Maybe you do not need that.
1st. with 64bit will be possible to find a way for creating proprietary multisamples formats for romplers. At the moment 32bit goes out of mem and there's no disk streming using buffer for data arrays.
2nd. 64 bit host does not support 32bit plugin without bridge. And bridge can cause unstability and more CPU usage.. and is not a real good solution since few sequencer has a built in bridge and if they had, is host 64bit plugin in 32bit host.. like Fl studio.
You need x64 when you want to provide a good commercial plugin
bootsy ·
adamszabo wrote: too bad bumping wont magically make synthmaker export to 64 bit.
I've heard after bumping 64 times then its going to happen. Maybe I'm wrong and it was 2^64 times dunno exactly ...
😕
Tzarls ·
I wonder if the forum can handle 2^64 posts.... 😕
trogluddite ·
He he, sounds like a "Denial of Service" attack on our own forum - an interesting strategy!! 😉
Tzarls ·
mmmm.....
(2^6) - 10 ..... 😈
Lui ·
bootsy wrote:
adamszabo wrote: too bad bumping wont magically make synthmaker export to 64 bit.
I've heard after bumping 64 times then its going to happen. Maybe I'm wrong and it was 2^64 times dunno exactly ...
😕
that would be a chance of 32 to 64
tester ·
Shouldn't they start with 128-bit export? Or maybe 4 quantum qbits? It would simplify bit counting, however due to world wide entanglement routine - our computers could start to feel a little bit confused (i.e. your computer processing something, my computer getting the results of your export?). 😉
trogluddite ·
tester wrote: entanglement routine
He he, now there's a good idea - entanglement at a quantum scale would get rid of all that annoying macroscopic entanglement of LAN/USB cables!! 😉
Lui ·
does someone have a deeper insight in what would have to be done to add 64bit vst export to SM?
couldn't it be done in a way that the whole structure of SM stays the same and only the export format is 64bit, while the plugin would still do exactly the same as the 32 bit version without using the advantages of 64bit.
I think it would be enough if the plugin would work in a 64bit DAW, without a 32bit bridge.
any ideas?
CoreStyler ·
Lui wrote: does someone have a deeper insight in what would have to be done to add 64bit vst export to SM?
couldn't it be done in a way that the whole structure of SM stays the same and only the export format is 64bit, while the plugin would still do exactly the same as the 32 bit version without using the advantages of 64bit.
I think it would be enough if the plugin would work in a 64bit DAW, without a 32bit bridge.
any ideas?
Should be. But the output code should include some other things and complied in a different way.there is a VST.dll inside sm. Should be easy to add (for OutSim since we don't have any API or Way for connecting the software) a compiler that fit x64 specs, using the same structure of synthmaker. Just some changes under the compiler. That's all.
rocko ·
Bumping
CoreStyler ·
rocko wrote: Bumping
rebump
Wrote something here? To have a post removed or your name hidden, write to [email protected].
SynthMaker