chuckebaby
not once have I ever rambled off some crap about bottleneck summing.

Does anybody even know what "summing in the bottleneck division" even means?
 
Check out the automated jargon generator, which comes up with stuff like:
 
"The problem is this headroom has its own multi-track AV sample. If you had just gone with the resonant tone, it would have been easier to EQ."
 
and
"You should try using the stereo AGC fader, it will level your aliased processor like you wouldn't believe."

Protools had the original "summing bottleneck" with only 48 bits.  Sonar had (and has) 64 bits to open that bottle on the side of the curb.

Anderton
I'm sorry, but all of you have it wrong.
 
"Cubase" has six letters.
"SONAR" has only five letters.
 
Think about it. Clearly, mixes done with only 5 letters instead of 6 will have lower resolution.

The letters in SONAR are caps, though. Just sayin'.

floating-point addition is not necessarily associative; (a + b) + c is not necessarily equal to a + (b + c). addition and multiplication are also not necessarily distributive; (a + b) × c may not be the same as a × c + b × c. since the order of computations in floating point math can produce differences in the end results, it seems plausible that different DAWs may not perfectly null. i would expect these variances to be extremely small and insignificant and undetectable by ear but who knows maybe they build up. :-) i'm not sure why it matters.

cparmerlee
You should try using the stereo AGC fader, it will level your aliased processor like you wouldn't believe.

Wow, that was fantastic advice! THANK YOU!! It brings a pert, yet unassuming, character that recalls a hint of oak and berries, with a rustic, robust overlay of caramel.

AT
Protools had the original "summing bottleneck" with only 48 bits.

Actually it was worse than that. TDM had a 24-bit bus, and the audio had to fit within that straight jacket. 

This is just hilarious, but the obvious answer anytime someone makes a claim like this is, OK, prove it. Create a simple mix with identical tracks, mix architecture and settings in each DAW, then output them to files (with the same pan law ) and prove you can tell the difference reliably in a double-blind A/B test. It takes a bit of doing but it's not that hard, and as I've said before, if you're not willing to do that but still cling to your opinion, you are implicitly acknowledging that you actively don't want to know the truth and are choosing your opinion instead. That's fine, you're welcome to do that (most of the world does it all the time about nearly everything), but at least own it rather than pretending to some advanced knowledge or subtle perception you want people to think you have but aren't actually willing to put to the test. If you're so sure about something, you should not be scared of a pretty easy way to prove it; otherwise, don't expect others to take you seriously. 

Never heard of him....seems to take have a high opinion of himself though

I would have asked him a couple of more questions:
1) Is it as cold in the South as it is in winter?
2) Is it as far to Florida as it is by train?
 
I assume he would have very profound sounding answers to both......

arse