mettelus
I muddied the waters and contributed to the forum rubber-necking by asking that bit depth question, and re-triggered the 64-bit DPE thread! Now both topics are being analyzed ad infinitum.
 
I guess I at least have the comfort of the 44.1/48 sample rates, 24-bit files, and 32-bit processing being sufficient for... ever. Regardless of technology improvements, the point everyone fails to point out is that no one's hearing capacity improves... in fact, it gets worse. (I hope that doesn't trigger a hearing-aid technology discussion!)

I need to use a hearing aid in both ears, with one ear being much worse than the other, where can I get hearing aids that don't distort music so much?

I just turn the headphones really loud without hearing aids atm though, they work ok to do that for now.

The storage format on disk is always standard WAV file format (WAVE_FORMAT_PCM or WAVE_FORMAT_IEEE_FLOAT, WAVE_FORMAT_EXTENSIBLE in some cases). The bit depth is determined as follows:
 
1. Bit depth for recorded project audio data is determined by the record bit depth setting in preferences.
2. Bit depth for imported project audio data is determined by the import bit depth setting in preferences.
3. Bit depth for internally rendered (bounce, freeze, etc) project audio data is determined by the render bit depth setting.
 
Typically a SONAR project will contain multiple bit depth audio depending on the data it was created with and the intermediate bounce operations performed. The different bit depths are all converted to 32 or 64 bit float at playback time depending on the double precision mix engine setting.
 

Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]
Unlike the sample rate article, I think the link quoted below misses the point of higher bit depths a completely different topic. Bit depths have to do with dynamic range and noise floor and a floating point formats eliminate or greatly reduce errors introduced by multiple mixing stages and dsp processing unlike integer formats that cause truncation and data loss. That's pretty proven despite what the article claims. Even 24 bit audio as an integer format is widely known to be more forgiving while recording (dynamic) music.

 
Hi Noel, welcome back to the party. Yes, there are many things wrong in that bit-depth article. And yes, that's a different topic, for another thread.
 

Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]
BTW I didn't post that article because I agreed with everything in it. It however covered a lot of good info about sample rate theory. I particularly found the section interesting on how high sample rates can mask errors in converter design and therefore sound better. That's probably a large reason why *some* interfaces sound better at high sample rates. And also why a well designed interface with high quality converters can sound as good or better even at 44.1.

 
Well, it's reassuring to hear that you didn't agree with everything in it.
 
Can't agree about high sampling rates masking errors in converter design, which just smells too much of negative marketing aimed at competitors offering 192k-capable converters by a company trying to promote their own 96k-limited converters, which imo was unfortunately echoed by that facetious scientist blogger without any scrutiny. If anything, higher rate converters are more demanding to design (especially in VLSI), and designers don't design them simply to mask errors. Among reasons they can sound better is greater linearity, in that reconstruction filters in the DAC can work with more actual data during interpolation.
 
But yes, a well-designed high quality converter at 44.1 will almost always sound better than a poor one at whatever rate.
 
Btw, Lavry came out with another paper in which he specifically discusses oversampling:
 
http://lavryengineering.com/pdfs/lavry-sampling-oversampling-imaging-aliasing.pdf
 

Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]
The storage format on disk is always standard WAV file format (WAVE_FORMAT_PCM or WAVE_FORMAT_IEEE_FLOAT, WAVE_FORMAT_EXTENSIBLE in some cases). The bit depth is determined as follows:
 
1. Bit depth for recorded project audio data is determined by the record bit depth setting in preferences.
2. Bit depth for imported project audio data is determined by the import bit depth setting in preferences.
3. Bit depth for internally rendered (bounce, freeze, etc) project audio data is determined by the render bit depth setting.
 
Typically a SONAR project will contain multiple bit depth audio depending on the data it was created with and the intermediate bounce operations performed. The different bit depths are all converted to 32 or 64 bit float at playback time depending on the double precision mix engine setting.
 

Ah, I see. That's precisely what I was curious to know. In what cases would float format WAV file storage be done?

Sooo...
 
Sampling rates higher than 44.1 through a "perfect" converter will not provide ANY benefit.
 
Many converters AREN'T perfect so increased sampling rates WILL help things sound better due to better accuracy.
 
96khz is where any practical benefits stop no matter how good/crappy the converter.
 
Over 96khz the higher inaudible frequencies can interact creating noise down in the audible range.
 
Ultra high sampling rates can lead to LESS accuracy because??? The current computers aren't fast enough??
 
60-70khz is considered optimal but those aren't standard settings so 88.2 is the closest compromise yet in SOME case 96khz MAY provide SOME minimal extra benefit.
 
44.1 will replicate the highest relevant accuracy possible which is proven by 44.1 being able to produce the same accuracy of a 96khz mix down even with poorly designed converters.
 
======================================================
 
So I may have bastardized some of that info but this has helped me better understand what the heck is going on with samplerates. I was going to start using 88.2/24 and may still do so but just to be ultra cautious or if I'm working on something really important I'll continue using 96/24.
 
One thing that I'm left wondering though... what exactly are these "converters" and what exactly constitutes a "poorly" designed one vs. a "well" designed one? This article almost makes it sound like more of a software algorithm as opposed to some kind of hardware thing which I assumed was the case. Or is it a a tag team type of thing where the algo and the chips or whatever makeup the resulting converter?
 
I could (should) probably just do my own homework but these types of subjects are just a liiiiitttle too sciency and dry for derpy little Beep.
 
Dammit, Jim! I'm a guitarist! Not a physicist!!! ;-p

And I guess my answers may lie in this thread already. Probably should have read the whole thing before posting. Just wanted to type up my conclusions to help me remember.
 

I'm firmly convinced that the crap I record isn't worth the extra half percent in sound quality vs doubling my disk usage :)
I do feel my soundcard (1820M) performs well at 44.1KHz, and I'm sure I could "double" the sound quality of whatever I output by improving on my mixing skills, let alone my compositional and playing skills. Always consider the application, is all I mean.

Sanderxpander
I'm firmly convinced that the crap I record isn't worth the extra half percent in sound quality vs doubling my disk usage :)
I do feel my soundcard (1820M) performs well at 44.1KHz, and I'm sure I could "double" the sound quality of whatever I output by improving on my mixing skills, let alone my compositional and playing skills. Always consider the application, is all I mean.

Being an old punk fan I actually prefer low fi or even outright garbage basement recording sound quality BUT I'm planning for the future. On the off chance some big wig mucky mucks decide they like one of my tunes I'd rather at least the original recordings are at the top end of fidelity standards. Then if need be those can be remixed/remastered or whatever instead of some anal freak with money telling me I have to redo it.
 
Not that anyone is pounding down my door for tunage (because... well I'm only really working on my second full production and the first was more of a test run) but it COULD happen... theoretically, maybe... someday... i hope.

Never hurts to dream and plan accordingly :)

Sanderxpander
Never hurts to dream and plan accordingly :)

Well the way I see it a couple tunes getting picked up for a movie soundtrack or TV show that gets syndicated could mean a few extra bucks a month through royalties. Sell a few CDs or single downloads every couple weeks or pickup the odd session job and I might be able to draw in an extra hundred bucks or so a month. Really at this point that would still mean I'm poor but not destitute.
 
Maybe I could buy some beef again... because beef is delicious... or maybe some stinky real cheese instead of those boring blocks of plastic I buy now.
 
Did the "rock star" thing but didn't quite break the "financial success" barrier (which is next to impossible in Canada anyway). Now I'm too old, crippled, not nearly as pretty and no longer driven by glory, free beer and women of questionable morals as much as I used to be.
 
Just want some extra scratch and maybe make some strangers bob their heads in appreciation of my art.
 
Still a pretty tall order I guess but WTF else am I gonna do with my life? A man can only JO so many times a day.
 
Of course that is all horribly off topic. ;-)