SonicExplorer
 But then again, maybe it was all in my head....never made sense to me how two different versions of Sonar could seem to sound different inside the project yet the mixes summed identically.   ??

Also the source of "this DAW sounds better that that DAW".
 
Usually Offline vs Online algorithms. Rendering algorithms are "better" but can be significantly slower. For "real time", simpler/faster conversion approach is used. Note that back in time (S5/S6), computers was much less powerful.
In DAWs, that is normally configurable.
 
I do not have S5-6 to check, but you can record the playback (better with digital loopback, easy with RME). I am sure it will not null, pointing to the online algo difference.
 

The other thing here, of course, is that the current hard limitation of converters is an issue in an AD converter, rather than in the DA converter. It's at input that we're generally failing to capture much than 20 bits of depth. It turns out that that's plenty for recording, though, so it kind of doesn't matter.
 
Higher bit depth throughout the process after recording and through to mastering and release is of course useful to reduce rounding errors.
 
The key issue here is way back earler in the thread:

you lose definition, particularly the analouge emulation effects if you don't record, mix and master at 64bitf

This indicates a very big misunderstanding of what is going on.
 
Firstly, recording. Presently, you can't record at 64bit. You can create a 64 bit file while recording at approximately 20bits if you like, but that file contains no information that a 24 bit file wouldn't have done. Processing bit depth after that is handled by Sonar, regardless of the bit depth of the raw file.
 
As for mastering, absolutely every professional mastering facility in the world currently asks for 24 bit files, and delivers back 24 bit files, with the exception of CD masters.

azslow3

SonicExplorer
 But then again, maybe it was all in my head....never made sense to me how two different versions of Sonar could seem to sound different inside the project yet the mixes summed identically.   ??

Usually Offline vs Online algorithms. Rendering algorithms are "better" but can be significantly slower. For "real time", simpler/faster conversion approach is used. Note that back in time (S5/S6), computers was much less powerful.
 

I'm not quite following this logic because "offline" rendering is actually much faster than "real time" so why then would a slower "real-time" algorithm be lower quality?   

SonicExplorer

azslow3

SonicExplorer
 But then again, maybe it was all in my head....never made sense to me how two different versions of Sonar could seem to sound different inside the project yet the mixes summed identically.   ??

Usually Offline vs Online algorithms. Rendering algorithms are "better" but can be significantly slower. For "real time", simpler/faster conversion approach is used. Note that back in time (S5/S6), computers was much less powerful.

I'm not quite following this logic because "offline" rendering is actually much faster than "real time" so why then would a slower "real-time" algorithm be lower quality?  

Do not forget that S5 is from year 2005...
Or there could be some bug
 

azslow3

SonicExplorer

azslow3

SonicExplorer
 But then again, maybe it was all in my head....never made sense to me how two different versions of Sonar could seem to sound different inside the project yet the mixes summed identically.   ??

Usually Offline vs Online algorithms. Rendering algorithms are "better" but can be significantly slower. For "real time", simpler/faster conversion approach is used. Note that back in time (S5/S6), computers was much less powerful.

I'm not quite following this logic because "offline" rendering is actually much faster than "real time" so why then would a slower "real-time" algorithm be lower quality?  

Do not forget that S5 is from year 2005...
Or there could be some bug

Yeah but we are talking about a difference between S5 and S6, that's only 1 year.  Maybe it's an improvement or bug fix but I'd be inclined to blame my hearing first, even though I A/B compared things quite a bit to try and see if it was all in my head.  After exported mixes bit-compared identically (at least from an audible reverse-phase test) I reluctantly concluded it must be a figment of my imagination.

SonicExplorer
Yeah but we are talking about a difference between S5 and S6, that's only 1 year.  Maybe it's an improvement or bug fix but I'd be inclined to blame my hearing first, even though I A/B compared things quite a bit to try and see if it was all in my head.  After exported mixes bit-compared identically (at least from an audible reverse-phase test) I reluctantly concluded it must be a figment of my imagination.

To make it more clear. My point is what you hear during playback in the DAW can use different code compare to the rendered file. And so the result sent to the audio interface can be different. That can be the "sound of the DAW" (f.e. Reaper still has explicit settings for offline and online bitrate conversion) or the sound from any plug-in (some of them notice which mode is used).
To check such difference, record the output from both. With RME (at least I am sure about Babyface) you can route the output as input internally. Otherwise some spdif loopback can be used. Analog loopback introduce distortion and so is not good for such comparison.

If you ever do a physical loopback, be sure to mute the armed track (it will still record). It is very easy to create a feedback loop otherwise, and not all interfaces will protect you from one.

parco
for me, only 64bit floating point could defeat the 48bit (56bit actually) of Avid hardware mixing, with more than double bits of 24bit, extra dynamic headroom avoiding internal clippings, and can still keep full 24bit detail even through completely muted at the first stage but boosted back at the next stage, no any sounds lost. And also less rounding errors (like when 2 is going to be divided by 3, pi, or square root of 2). And finally, just kept all details inside 64bit, dithering from 64bit to 16bit so you can hear the incredibly unbelievable dynamic range and sensible SNR........

I believe AVID uses a fixed point mix engine or at least they did. In the early 90s there was a large movement within the DSP community supporting fixed bit over floating point for audio processing.

John T
The other thing here, of course, is that the current hard limitation of converters is an issue in an AD converter, rather than in the DA converter. It's at input that we're generally failing to capture much than 20 bits of depth. It turns out that that's plenty for recording, though, so it kind of doesn't matter.
 
Higher bit depth throughout the process after recording and through to mastering and release is of course useful to reduce rounding errors.
 
The key issue here is way back earler in the thread:

you lose definition, particularly the analouge emulation effects if you don't record, mix and master at 64bitf

This indicates a very big misunderstanding of what is going on.

Firstly, recording. Presently, you can't record at 64bit. You can create a 64 bit file while recording at approximately 20bits if you like, but that file contains no information that a 24 bit file wouldn't have done. Processing bit depth after that is handled by Sonar, regardless of the bit depth of the raw file.
 
As for mastering, absolutely every professional mastering facility in the world currently asks for 24 bit files, and delivers back 24 bit files, with the exception of CD masters.

Gosh John you really like to aim for the lowest common denominator when trying to make a point - of course there's no such thing as 64bit audio recordings and I will take some responsibility for not perhaps explaing myself properly...as always I'm reading and doing 10 things at once. 64bit audio files are important because when you freeze a track it gives the track added headroom and let's not forget about rounding errors which are particularly important within the analouge emulation aesthetic. Which is a real paradigm too by the way John.

64bit master files are an innovation of mine and someone like yourself should understand why due to the change in distribution medium i.e. CD versus streaming services. But if you need me to explain here goes...Bobby ;) wants to distribute his recording via Crapify or whatever streaming service he uses, he uploads a 16bit 44.1khz version of the track. Now let's remember that this was the standard set on 1976 off the top of my head...when 16 bit converters were all we had and were as rough as guts. Now that 16 bit master has been dithered down from whatever recording format he used and also the mixing bit depth he used...of course the master will sound **** - because when compressing the master via whatever codec you've used or is used you should always deliver the master at the highest quality bit depth as possible...Soundcloud let's you up-load a 64bit 96khz master...or this is the highest quality I've uploaded and has been accepted...so prey tell who's master should sound better bobby's poor 16 bit master or my 64bit master which hasn't been dithered and hasn't been compressed or down sampled and bit crushed before delivery hmm? I said I went off topic...this was after all about rubbish CDs that no one buys anymore...there are literally no CD stores left practically.

As for my claim to HD audio...i will maintain that my last master and a couple before that are HD without one bit of HD recording equipment or playback...you don't attack my mixes and masters, because you can't! You attack my claim of HD audio because it probably suits you because audio is still probably your bread and butter.

Whilst I accept I might have been fishing for the right terms in regards to what happens at various bit depths and indeed may have got some of science and terms wrong - the actual theory is sound and is provable! Remember people like Tesla...he too was called a crank because no one understood what he was talking about :). I also said that there was more to the secret sauce than bit depth like the analouge emulation aesthetic etc.

Ben

BenMMusTech
As for my claim to HD audio...i will maintain that my last master and a couple before that are HD without one bit of HD recording equipment or playback...you don't attack my mixes and masters, because you can't! You attack my claim of HD audio because it probably suits you because audio is still probably your bread and butter.

It is indeed true that one of us makes his living in audio production and the other doesn't.