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.
 

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?   

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.

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.

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

John T

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.

I was going to let this go John...but it sticks in my craw, and I always stand my ground when someone thinks they can push me around. First, I've actually recorded a wind orchestra for money :), second you can take and have all the audio work in the world...there is nothing more boring or frustrating that watching children banging pots and calling it 'muzak'. I can hit all of Freddie Mercury's note (I've got a Bohemian Rhapsody on the way, piano part is done, and it will be set in the Roman Colosseum, and I'm a top-notch guitarist. I can also read and write music at the highest level - so sonata form and imitation counterpoint. So, again you can record all the pub rockers, and button pushers you like. It just doesn't bother me. Now let's be clear, the above paragraph isn't an ego statement as some like yourself might think. According to Gardener's (pre-eminent psychologist) theory on intelligence there are 7 or 8 types of intelligence, and one happens to be intrapersonal intelligence. Intrapersonal intelligence is the understanding of self. This is also means, and I hate the communist notions, but no one is more important than another. It doesn't matter how great I am, the bootlicker down the street can also come up with something just as brilliant.  Now because of modern schooling, and the terribleness that it entails, means by the time you leave school that belief in one's self or intrapersonal intelligence is knocked out of you. To quote John Lennon 'when they've scared you for 20 odd years, then they expect you to pick a career, when you can't really function you're so full of fear'. 
 
I've worked out what I was trying to say in regards to the importance of 64bit audio. Firstly, what we're talking about here is a container file - like digital film or an Mp4 file. Then you have a codec to decode that file. So you're right when you say there isn't an audio format of 64bitfp...but when you wrap that file in a 64bit container file like Sonar's 64bit container file, then there is. And I've already mentioned the benefits of 64bitfp audio files, and indeed where 24bit would be better. But here goes, first 64bitfp audio files are imperative when using the analog emulation aesthetic, for a number of reasons but probably the most important is dynamic range...I don't have to worry about clipping once I am inside the box. Now an old school engineer who has become entrenched with the old ideas on digital audio would say this is a big no, but so long as you're not going back out the box...it is fine and indeed necessary, because in the analogue days most of the equipment added a gentle layer of compression or harmonic distortion and to achieve that with digital emulations you need to mix as the engineers of the rock-avant-garde did. Another reason why 64bit container files are important is because of freezing. Even with a gaming laptop, with an SSD drive for work and programs, a quad core intel processor and 32 gig of ram...I still freeze. By using 64bit, and indeed a 64bit fp mix engineer - to keep the audio pristine it should be obvious as to the benefits of using a 64bit Fp audio file container format. Then there are the obvious benefits of using the same file format throughout a recording or mix. It's not always possible...but again the benefits should be obvious. 
 
Now I note, again you didn't attack my work...just my ideas and you used your employment as a guarantee you knew better. So unfortunately, I can only do the same and let the readers decide. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XcQVCAJakM&t=124s This is my Nights in White Satin cover...with newly minted AV work, that I created with various programs...so not just audio. Now it's important to know that I used a 64bit master file when creating the final render. Again, think about the last analogy I used about what would be a better digital medium distribution platform...would a crappy 16bit be the best distribution medium - the standard since the 70s, which has been bitcrushed and probably dithered, which is where you lose definition. So like 2nd and 3rd harmonic distortion and indeed important time based effects, and not too mention virtual binaural spatial plugs. Or would my HD 64bit container master file be the better option? I will let the readers decide. I apologize to the readers, for posting my link. And I apologize for going off-topic. My mind wanders like a hermit in the night, but it always bumps into land.
 
Peace and Love     

BenMMusTech
 
 First, I've actually recorded a wind orchestra for money :), second you can take and have all the audio work in the world...there is nothing more boring or frustrating that watching children banging pots and calling it 'muzak'. I can hit all of Freddie Mercury's note (I've got a Bohemian Rhapsody on the way, piano part is done, and it will be set in the Roman Colosseum, and I'm a top-notch guitarist. I can also read and write music at the highest level - so sonata form and imitation counterpoint.

There is a certain pattern that emerges from a lot of your posts, a recurring theme if you will, and to that end I think it's time . . . yep . . . it's time, . . . time to bring Mac Davis into this conversation, this time with a little help from Kenny Rogers.
 
This ones's for you Neb, sing along . . .
 

azslow3
@BenMMusTech: if you mention that to judge musical results some musical background is required, probably you can understand that special experience is required for judging technical staff. Nanosecond circuits, microsecond precise calculations, fixed precision of algorithms for particular purpose, etc. are not going to give any advantage in creating/playing music. But playing guitar or writing sonatas are of no help in understanding how DAC works

This is exactly it. I never weigh in on conversations here about composing for strings, or playing the drums, or any number of things I know nothing about. Nobody's an expert at everything, and there's nothing wrong with that.

mettelus
 
 
In my experience, technical touting is often thrown out to proclaim "better" when, in fact, digital recording already exceeded the capability of human hearing years ago (the ultimate "test"); let alone all of the other pieces parts getting sound from the DAW (or whatever is streaming audio) to a person's ears.
 

Very true.
 
I also always groan a bit when I see people disappearing down a rabbit hole of magic recipes like some of what's been talked about here. When you listen to a flawed mix someone posts, the problem is pretty much never anything to do with bit depth settings or anything of that nature. Spending less time worrying about that stuff, and just getting better at mixing will deliver far greater results far sooner than any of this stuff ever will.

Steev
 
But my question is, when you upload a 32 bit "depth" .wav file to Sound Cloud, do they leave it that way, or does it get processed (dithered) down to a much more "STREAMING" server storage friendly industry standard  16/44.1?? Or maybe even a much more server storage and "streaming" friendly 16 bit 320k/bs.MP3??

Ho ho, 320. Good heavens no.

Used to be an awful 128, then they changed it to make it worse.

https://www.magneticmag.com/2018/01/soundcloud-lowers-sound-quality-uploads-half/


Now, of course, better input means better output with any lossy data compression scheme, but soundcloud does such extreme violence to what you upload to it, it hardly matters.
 

BenMMusTech
 I will restate, that mixes and in particular mixes that use analouge emulation, time based and spatial effects benefit from a 64bit fp work flow through to the master.

I assume this statement is from empirical evidence i.e. your senses as I have seen no mathematical explanation to support your claim.

BenMMusTech
Hmm if none of you can hear the difference then that should tell everyone not to trust your advice for one.

A predictable move that I'm surprised it took you this long to make. You, apparently, have golden ears, and we are all completely tin-eared, and can't even hear the excellence of what you're talking about. Sure. That's what's happening here.
 
Anyway, for me, I've pretty much said my piece. It bothers me that anyone reading this forum might have their time wasted by some of the nonsense being spouted. I think for the time being, we've headed that off as much as possible. If you want to continue to make a fool of yourself, it's not my job to talk you out of it.

Amused that you reference Nicholas Negroponte who (I personally think wrongly) is generally opposed to putative "HD" media technology. I wonder how closely you read him. I also wonder why you think he has any credentials in audio; he doesn't, and doesn't claim to. But this is par for this boring course you've set us on. Are you familiar with the term "appeal to authority"?

I swear I'm going to leave this alone soon, but there are so many ludicrous claims in that massive wall o text up there, it's hard to pick them out. But this one's a doozy.
 

BenMMusTech
The beauty of 64bit fp audio though is you get a wide fat mix in the 1st place, and then it doesn't matter about the delivery stage.

 
Create master files in 64 bit. Then deliver over a walkie talkie. Because it doesn't matter about the delivery stage. 64 bit will magically make it awesome.

BUT THEN!

And as for the person saying his LG has **** speakers...all handheld computers have pretty crap speakers...they're the size of a very small coin. It's when you connect the handheld computer to decent speakers...like Harmon Kardon for instance you get the benefits.

Oh, look, the delivery stage, mattering.
 
That'll be those amazing arguing skills there.

Sorry, I've not been helping at all have I?
 
I think the question's been answered a couple of times in the thread. There are no gains in exporting to 32 bit. What's coming off your master bus isn't 32 bit, and it's going into your RME, to be played back at not 32 bit, but 24 bit, and that's what you're hearing.
 
There's been some back and forth in this thread between different parts of the process, and I think it's all got a bit muddied up (I'm as much to blame for that as anyone). So here's a quick overview.
 
1/ Initial recording - there is no point recording into 32 bit files, as it's currently not possible to capture audio of greater depth than about 21 bits (and may never be possible).
 
2/ Internal processing in the DAW. In your case, this is happening at 32 bits. Nothing to concern us here.
 
3/ Bouncing / freezing operations - Sonar sets it's default render bit depth for these operations at 32 bit. The principal benefit of this is that it makes it very unlikely you'll accidentally create a clipped signal when doing a freeze or a bounce. The secondary benefit is that you're very unlikely to suffer signal degradation even across multiple bounces of the same material.
 
4/ Playback - your interface (and the majority of interfaces) is running at 24 bit. The mix coming off the master bus will be 24 bit, regardless of any intermediary processing going on in steps 1 and 2.
 
5/ Final export - same as the playback. You do not now, nor at any point in the process, have music that's playing at higher than 24 bit.