Indeed.

SonicExplorer
Ok, thanks, OS not likely impacting sound quality.
 
I could swear however I recall hearing a subtle but noticeable and important (to me) difference between 32 and 64 bit mix engine.  I also now vaguely recall making two mixes and comparing them.  Will check around and see if I can find those files....will post back if I discover anything definitive....
 
Sonic

Ideally, as anyone would agree, higher resolution is typically better, but other factors may affect this. For example, some A/D converters marketed to convert up to 192Khz may really perform better at 96Khz. So, then, what's the advantage of 192kHz? I would argue, if you can hear a difference, there may be something (plug-in or D/A conversion) that affects the quality of the different bit rates.

When thinking of 64-bit vs. 32-bit, some amazing sounding mixes were done totally in a 32-bit environment. Some amazing recordings have been made from 16-Bit, 44,100 kHz bit/sampling rates. Partially, the reason is that these factors are far less important than good engineering and tracking skills.

Whether or not you're a Yes fan, you should go listen to Yes' Talk album sometime. It was recorded using two Macs in tandem (I read) 1993/94, and they had many issues with the technology, per some Chris Squire interviews. But the album (albeit, sterile) is pristine in quality. That was some old technology. It was likely only 16-Bit, 44Khz as tracked. I'd be surprised they even had dithering technology then, because they stayed at the 16-Bit rate.

When it comes to this subject now with 64-Bit, Sonar includes the 64-Bit Double Precision Engine for projects that contain audio (or all audio) rendered to 64-Bit. As the Sonar documentation alludes, no recording devices really record at anything higher than 24-Bit. Most projects we work on today are 16/24/32-Bit when inside Sonar, but never sampled higher than 24-Bit. So, why do we even need 64-Bit Precision? Only if you're working with a project that was 64-Bit to begin with. This option is disabled by default, because for most purposes, you simply don't need it. 

Cakewalk could simply be future-proofing their engine as perhaps sampling rates for A/D conversion and VSTi's will become that precise and dynamic.

The short answer () would be: Try it both ways and see if you hear a difference. If not, why bother?! I normally don't use it when mixing to 44/16 for everyday listening. But there may be other reasons to use it.
 
The even shorter answer is: It's there if and when you need it. If you don't know you need it, you probably don't.

the more itb processing you do the more worthwhile it becomes

pwalpwal
the more itb processing you do the more worthwhile it becomes

So please tell us how much is too much and how you arrived at that particular amount.

drewfx1

pwalpwal
the more itb processing you do the more worthwhile it becomes

So please tell us how much is too much and how you arrived at that particular amount.

it's purely maths - 64 is more accurate (the decimal places go further) - same reason to do itb processing at > 48k SR even if you can't hear it ;-)

Found this old Cakewalk video regarding this very question.

The short and the long answer are both no.
 
R

pwalpwal

drewfx1

pwalpwal
the more itb processing you do the more worthwhile it becomes

So please tell us how much is too much and how you arrived at that particular amount.

it's purely maths - 64 is more accurate (the decimal places go further) - same reason to do itb processing at > 48k SR even if you can't hear it ;-)

But the point is that it doesn't matter if it's "more accurate" if it's already at a ridiculously low level and buried under noise from other sources and most of the errors won't even make it into a 24 bit output. 
 
IMO, it is not helpful to just claim something is "more accurate" because unfortunately when it comes to audio for some reason people will just assume that it must be audible under circumstances they might encounter.
 
And upsampling to do processing at > 48 kHz in cases where there is no benefit only adds latency, wastes CPU and adds filter artifacts to your audio (even if you can't hear them).

Technical vs. practical is a condition not met in many people's minds--not calling anyone out, just in general populations. If you think of Limits in Calculus I, there are many things we can sample nearly perfectly but never ever reach absolute perfection. When it comes to sampling audio, for example, you can never sample fast enough to make the sampled audio absolutely a perfect match to the source.
 
In the case of 32 vs. 64 bit, sure, a calculation can be infinitely more accurate, but when do you stop hearing the difference? At what point does Pi become easier to round off to be effective? When it comes to tape, as in full analog, if 32-bit audio is audibly better, what's the true benefit of going to 64-bit for most people?

I won't downplay the benefit of 64-Bit (I export at 64-Bit precision), but I don't see the benefit of mixing with the 64-Bit double-precision engine.