Quantcast
cubase 5 summing why not 64 bit floating ? - Page 2 - Gearspace.com
The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
cubase 5 summing why not 64 bit floating ?
Old 1st May 2010 | Show parent
  #31
Gear Guru
 
theblue1's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by jupiter8 ➡️
Because it's an absolutely useless feature put in for marketing reasons only.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Randolph ➡️
Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 ➡️
You guys are basing your answers on what rationale, precisely?


I'm always fascinated by people who are 100% sure of something, yet offer no insight into the thinking behind that certainty.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Randolph ➡️
Excellent troll, would respond again. A+++++
Yeah... you're right... how could I have been so rude as to ask for the facts and reasoning behind that flat-out statement of presumptive fact?

What a dick, huh?
Old 1st May 2010 | Show parent
  #32
Lives for gear
 
5 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by jupiter8 ➡️
Because it's an absolutely useless feature put in for marketing reasons only.
that's not exactly true in reality. Though it would depend on many things
to have higher precision provide any benefit

Though 32bit precision is more than adequate for most applications.
Even 24 bit internal is fine.
Old 1st May 2010 | Show parent
  #33
Lives for gear
 
doug hazelrigg's Avatar
 
9 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
I'd like to comment, I'm not really qualified to, but I will ask this: what difference does it make, if your song sucks?
Old 1st May 2010 | Show parent
  #34
Lives for gear
 
5 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by doug hazelrigg ➡️
I'd like to comment, I'm not really qualified to, but I will ask this: what difference does it make, if your song sucks?
nice
Old 1st May 2010 | Show parent
  #35
Gear Guru
 
theblue1's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by blanco ➡️
Right now I am using nuendo 3 going to cubase 5.I also have protools 7 and 8
which I use sometimes but I am faster and have more plugins on the vst stuff so
I am using nuendo 3 until I finsish this project.Anyway i have seen alot of theory
so I won't go into that the question is:
try this
take a conga or bass sample,anything solo instrument or vocal that is 16 bit
44.1k and open a track in your daw then do an import file
in nuendo or cubase it will ask you
Do you want to convert this audio file to 32 bit float?I click yes the software
re-renders the file as 32bit 44.1k.
Now playback the file.
The file will sound fantastic compared to the orig file and will be twice the storage space on your hard drive.It is increasing the quality of the orig file using floating point math.Bit depth is the future of recording.
In the future the larger the bit depth and length of files the greater the DAW

any DAW will be.Of course all converters now days are 24 bit.The hardware
has to increase to bit depths much ie greater 64bit audio card etc.Not a 64 bit driver I mean an actual converter that will spit out 64bit.

That is why I set my system for 32bit when recording mixing etc.

Now I have tried out cubase 5.1 and an import of a file at 16 bit 44.1 does not prompt to "do you want 64bit float conversion?" yet.So the audo engine as of yet will not do 64 bit files.It would quadruple the size of a 16 bit 44.k
file and increase the quality of detail 4 fold.That is the reason for 64 bit.
The files should be 4 times the size and the cpu/ram /drives would have to handle this in a mix.
I have not changed the sample rate 44.1 I have changed the bit depth.
The os of course would have to handle this.
Right now you cannot do this in any daw I think except sonar which I have not tried.
I found this out by getting a protools mix at 44.1 16 bit ,they sent me 40 tracks which I imported and converted to 32 bit float.They could not believe the quality change
I have tried 48k,96k,192k,and it is really not the sample rate that makes a difference it is the bit depth.
try it yourself if your daw allows it and you will see what I mean.
the futrue of daw is 44.1(or any sample rate) at 64 bit.I think that is why steinberg fans are clamouring for a true 64 bit engine.Your audio files will be 4 times their normal size and the quality will be awesome.
This sounds very much like cognitive bias in action. When one expects to hear something, the perceptual scientists have told us for the better part of a century or more, it colors his or her interpretation of the stimuli.

As Korbes correctly pointed out, the process you describe will simply "pad out" the 16 bit values with (in a manner of speaking) the binary equivalent of a string of zeros behind the decimal point to whatever you're converting format to. The actual sound data remains the same.

However, if you then perform any level changes, summing, or other data manipulation, any enhanced resolution will, indeed, pay off in reduced rounding error. Even if one then reduces the bit depth (digital word length) of the data, there will be a presumptive difference (possibly not discernible by the 'naked' ear) in the accuracy of the data resulting from those intervening processes.

I haven't seen this thread in a long time -- but it looks like there is even more confusion and questionable data and reasoning in it now than there was a year ago.

FWIW, it's well within the realm of possibility that doing destructive edits and level changes (or doing soft changes and then rendering) at 64 bit float (which gives about 54 bits of effective word length but deyoked from the absolute level scale) as opposed to 32 bit float (which provides ~25 bits of effective word length, deyoked from the absolute scale) can provide superior results with complex mixes.

Will anyone be able to really hear those results?

That, of course, is the $64K question. But, mathematically, it's foolish to argue against greater accuracy. (I'll leave the bit-and-mind-twisting attempts to explain how 64 bit may actually give less mathematical precision than 32 bit completely aside for the simple reason that I'm profoundly skeptical that it's true in practical reality.)

One thing worth noting:

I can't talk about other DAWs and their handling of enhanced word lengths but Sonar affords one the ability to use the relatively light-on-its-feet 32 bit float engine for tracking and everyday use and then only kick the 64 bit float engine in for freezes, exports, and other rendering.

That provides a little extra wiggle room during the production process where, arguably, the added processing precision may not be much missed while tracking (an maybe not even mixing) but, by using the 64 bit engine during rendering, the RE can be assured of maximum processing precision when it counts.
Old 1st May 2010 | Show parent
  #36
Gear Guru
 
theblue1's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by doug hazelrigg ➡️
I'd like to comment, I'm not really qualified to, but I will ask this: what difference does it make, if your song sucks?
That is the real bottom line.
Old 1st May 2010 | Show parent
  #37
Lives for gear
 
zephonic's Avatar
 
13 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by doug hazelrigg ➡️
I'd like to comment, I'm not really qualified to, but I will ask this: what difference does it make, if your song sucks?
At least it will suck at the highest possible fidelity. This way people will hear better just how badly it sucks. There will no longer be any excuse or low bitrates to hide behind. You summed at 64-bit, so the fact that your song sucks can no longer be blamed on inferior technology.

This is a good thing.
Old 1st May 2010 | Show parent
  #38
Lives for gear
 
5 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 ➡️

FWIW, it's well within the realm of possibility that doing destructive edits and level changes (or doing soft changes and then rendering) at 64 bit float (which gives about 54 bits of effective word length but deyoked from the absolute level scale) as opposed to 32 bit float (which provides ~25 bits of effective word length, deyoked from the absolute scale) can provide superior results with complex mixes.

Will anyone be able to really hear those results?
supposedly yes right? if the dynamic range is say 50db (arbitrary). And the original word stays in bounds of mantissa. The s-to-n ratio (based on Rose criterion for this example) is like 5.0. So 5.0 *52 bits equates to 260.0. Then 260- 50db divided by the 5.0 (s-to-n) would give us 210 / s-to-n and that is 42. Now that's 42 calculations before introduction of noise.

Now take a 32 bit float scenario, and now w/ 25 bits of actual word length (if again within mantissa) would be like 25 * 5.0 or 125 - 50db divided by s-to-n = 15. So 15 calculations before we can supposedly hear noise? This is how I understand it, I could be wrong? As could be my math here..........

But for sake of argument, 15 times vs 42? I'll take 64 bit , but in what context? that is another question all together. Think about how many calculations are done during summing with just a reverb alone? 42 calculations is minuscule in comparison. Start adding it all up per tracks and theoretically we should be able to hear the difference. Intel CPUs have a had 80 bit registers for 30 years and for good reason. I'm not sure they were thinking Digital Audio at the time, but I'm sure the chaps over at NASA appreciated the extra internal precision when rounding. But it all comes at a price. Additional overhead to calculate larger words. But today is that an issue? quad-cores etc...? not really but then again bouncing/mixdown is saaalow even today. This proves why.

overall supposedly? 64 over 32? yes I agree too. gimme 64
Old 2nd May 2010 | Show parent
  #39
LQM
Lives for gear
 
LQM's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
If you can audibly hear a difference between 32 and 64 bit then you have the hearing of a canine and can hear significantly below -120dB. Which is very unlikely. In terms of DAW work, especially on more layered mixes, it is almost impossible to tell a difference based on reality and not placebo/correctional bias.

Dubai's assessments of which audio engines are transparent etc are just laughable - sorry dude. I have worked with all of those DAWS and Doug is correct that crap still sounds like crap, don't blame the tools, of your mix sounds worse in one over another it's because you don't have the skills in one or more of those programs.

Ableton Live is not completely 64 bit summing, and plugins such as EQ8 require you turn on hi-res or they are 32 bit.

If 64 bit was really significantly better and easily proven audibly, don't you think that Logic, Protools, Cubase and the KING OF KINGS (to some people) Samplitude/Sequoia would have been using it for years....

Even most Sonar users realize this and are mostly glad of 64 bit to use huge sample libraries with the extra memory, rather than falling for the hype of better audio ....
Old 3rd May 2010 | Show parent
  #40
Lives for gear
 
5 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by LQM ➡️
If you can audibly hear a difference between 32 and 64 bit then you have the hearing of a canine and can hear significantly below -120dB. Which is very unlikely. In terms of DAW work, especially on more layered mixes, it is almost impossible to tell a difference based on reality and not placebo/correctional bias.

Dubai's assessments of which audio engines are transparent etc are just laughable - sorry dude. I have worked with all of those DAWS and Doug is correct that crap still sounds like crap, don't blame the tools, of your mix sounds worse in one over another it's because you don't have the skills in one or more of those programs.

Ableton Live is not completely 64 bit summing, and plugins such as EQ8 require you turn on hi-res or they are 32 bit.

If 64 bit was really significantly better and easily proven audibly, don't you think that Logic, Protools, Cubase and the KING OF KINGS (to some people) Samplitude/Sequoia would have been using it for years....

Even most Sonar users realize this and are mostly glad of 64 bit to use huge sample libraries with the extra memory, rather than falling for the hype of better audio ....
yeah difference between 32 and 64 is a debate that will go on forever but I recall going from 16 to 24 there was no mistaking which sounded better immediately. I realize we are discussing precision as it relates to summing but In theory it is better. If you are talking comparing 32 directly to 64, fine but we are talking about how 64 benefits the signal over time through 100s if not millions of calculations. It's not like saying we can hear the difference between unaltered 32bit or 64bit signal, what is being contemplated is can we hear the difference between some signal that has been processed and degraded over time due to constant truncation of word length. Big difference in comparatively.

I'm by no means saying I can hear it. But I can not rule out that there is a difference . Since the math proves there is a difference and how it relates the additive noise. It's the same old debate and I partially agree with you, I can't A/B and hear difference between working w/ 24 or 32 internal in Nuendo, but then again I never did any testing as it relates to summing/plugins etc....
Old 3rd May 2010 | Show parent
  #41
Lives for gear
 
doug hazelrigg's Avatar
 
9 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by zephonic ➡️
At least it will suck at the highest possible fidelity. This way people will hear better just how badly it sucks. There will no longer be any excuse or low bitrates to hide behind. You summed at 64-bit, so the fact that your song sucks can no longer be blamed on inferior technology.

This is a good thing.
Sorry, I am not buying this logic. The audible differences between 32bit summing and 64bit are so minimal as to be neglible. This can be proven mathematically (but I'm not versed enough in the science so I'll leave that to another)
Old 3rd May 2010 | Show parent
  #42
LQM
Lives for gear
 
LQM's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
The difference between 16 and 24 bit is much more noticeable because the changes occur within audible range of most humans, which is not the case between 32 and 64 bit. The math is going on way below what we can hear.


Most people can't hear within 20dB of the 32 bit noisefloor and it provides enough resolution for all but the most extreme and deliberately excessive overprocessing and plugin usage etc. 24 bit even gives a theoretical maximum headroom of 144dB, in practise this tends to be more in the 120dB range, can you hear things audibly at -120dB ??? If you can you have exceptional super human hearing. I know this doesn't address the issue of plugins and potential aliasing issues, but again in 32 bit mode, especially at higher sample rates, your heavy plugin use is not likely to cost you unless the products are really badly coded or you are doing ridiculous extreme processing, the type of which can only destroy a mix.

You're really better off spending money on better pres and converters etc than worrying about 64 bit processing over 32 bit for audio. Better pres/converters are going to make an audible difference, even if minor in some cases (and fairly spectacular in others in you jumped from a low end consumer product to a Metric Halo ULN8 or Prism Orpheus etc).
📝 Reply

Similar Threads

Thread / Thread Starter Replies / Views Last Post
replies: 295 views: 74021
Avatar for anguswoodhead
anguswoodhead 26th March 2013
replies: 15929 views: 1532488
Avatar for Ragan
Ragan 11th January 2019
replies: 1296 views: 181391
Avatar for heraldo_jones
heraldo_jones 1st February 2016
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearspace Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…

Forum Jump
Forum Jump