Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Jon Hodgson]

Johnny B wrote on Thu, 13 October 2005 15:53

Well I'm not talking about overly busy mixes, merely ones with more than a few tracks. Once the plug-ins are added to multi-track digital recordings is where I hear all sorts of problems.   In fact, if enough digital tracks are loaded up without any plugs whatsoever, I can still hear problems.

What about for something simple, like bouncing a single track with a level change?

So if for example you did a bounce and dropped the level 5dB, and then another bounce where you raised the level 5dB, could you tell which was the original and which one had been bounced twice in a blind test?

Or does it require a bit more than that for you to start hearing problems?

[Johnny B]

Let's just say I don't think digital is "There" yet.

'nuf said....I'm out

[dcollins]

Johnny B wrote on Sat, 15 October 2005 22:39

Let's just say I don't think digital is "There" yet. 'nuf said....I'm out

Formidable.

DC

[Jon Hodgson]

dcollins wrote on Sun, 16 October 2005 07:07

Johnny B wrote on Sat, 15 October 2005 22:39 Let's just say I don't think digital is "There" yet. 'nuf said....I'm out Formidable. DC

He wants us lowly engineers to work with exhalted "Ear People" such as himself to improve the quality of audio, but any question which tries to actually identify and quantify the problems he hears, which is always the first step in making improvements, is evaded.

[Jonny Mumra]

Can we get back to the 64 bit please.

[Jon Hodgson]

Jonny Mumra wrote on Mon, 07 November 2005 12:53

Can we get back to the 64 bit please.

Sure, what would you like to know/say/suggest?

[Jonny Mumra]

Im a bit behind the 8 ball but im seriously considering going down this path of 64 bit with Sonar 5.

I saw the video from AES i think it was it seems great.
I just dont want to get sucked in like i did with high samplerates, but i suppose its worth a try.
My main concern is will the mix engine sound superior to the other DAW's and will processing plugins benefit from this 64 bit processing capability.


Also what will plugin counts be like.

[Jon Hodgson]

Jonny Mumra wrote on Mon, 07 November 2005 14:19

Im a bit behind the 8 ball but im seriously considering going down this path of 64 bit with Sonar 5. I saw the video from AES i think it was it seems great. I just dont want to get sucked in like i did with high samplerates, but i suppose its worth a try. My main concern is will the mix engine sound superior to the other DAW's

I'm finding it hard to imagine any real-world scenarios where the mix-bus would sound better, since under normal circumstances any error in a 32 bit system should be kept below the noise floor, though I could probably manufacture some artificial scenarios where it would.

Other processes (such as EQ, reverb etc) could benefit, it rather depends on what they are and how they are implemented.

Jonny Mumra wrote on Mon, 07 November 2005 14:19

and will processing plugins benefit from this 64 bit processing capability.

Depends on the plugin whether quality would be improved. However 32 bit plugins will execute faster if compiled for the 64 bit mode of the processor. To be honest I really can't see much advantage in passing data around between modules with greater than 32 bit float accuracy, even if processing internally at 64 bits yields advantages.

Jonny Mumra wrote on Mon, 07 November 2005 14:19

Also what will plugin counts be like.

I'm afraid I don't know as yet.

[Jonny Mumra]

Cool.

Your responses seem quite definitive which leeds me to believe im excited about nothing.

Thanks for your input.


How do you predict the future of 64 bit DAW.

Is 64 bit overkill or are in 10 years will we see 256bit DAW's

Huge figure i know but who would of thought 20 years ago over 100 gigs of accessible ram.

[Jon Hodgson]

64 bits across the board is already overkill in my opinion, 256 bit would be nuts, and anyway, unlike 64 bits which is already supported with good performance by general purpose desktop processors, greater resolutions almost certainly never will be, because their only real use would be in scientific analysis.

[maxdimario]

anyone tried a mix on a 64 bit program with a 64 bit computer and compared?

I am beginning to look around myself for a solution, and after 20 years of buying musical equipment, I find that the sonic end result is only relatively tied to what people SAY about most kinds of equipment.

I don't think this is intentional, but a result of people getting caught up in unimportant technical definitions.

the only real argument is: how does it sound?

[Jonny Mumra]

Im very excited about the future of digital audio though i must say.

I cant wait to give this 64 bit stuff a go.

[Ronny]

maxdimario wrote on Mon, 07 November 2005 10:29

anyone tried a mix on a 64 bit program with a 64 bit computer and compared? I am beginning to look around myself for a solution, and after 20 years of buying musical equipment, I find that the sonic end result is only relatively tied to what people SAY about most kinds of equipment. I don't think this is intentional, but a result of people getting caught up in unimportant technical definitions. the only real argument is: how does it sound?

"How it sounds" will always be an argument, as it's highly subjective to individual perception, experience and tastes. If someone records on a Roland VS880 and they move up to VS2480, they may say wow this thing sounds great, but you move on down the line to a VS2480 owner that just upgraded to Radar and he's may say the 2480 sucks. What I'm trying to say is, when you hear a good review on a product, you must take into consideration what the persons experience is that is giving the review and what the other gear is used as a basis for his comments.

[Jon Hodgson]

Ronny wrote on Tue, 08 November 2005 05:51

maxdimario wrote on Mon, 07 November 2005 10:29 anyone tried a mix on a 64 bit program with a 64 bit computer and compared? I am beginning to look around myself for a solution, and after 20 years of buying musical equipment, I find that the sonic end result is only relatively tied to what people SAY about most kinds of equipment. I don't think this is intentional, but a result of people getting caught up in unimportant technical definitions. the only real argument is: how does it sound? "How it sounds" will always be an argument, as it's highly subjective to individual perception, experience and tastes. If someone records on a Roland VS880 and they move up to VS2480, they may say wow this thing sounds great, but you move on down the line to a VS2480 owner that just upgraded to Radar and he's may say the 2480 sucks. What I'm trying to say is, when you hear a good review on a product, you must take into consideration what the persons experience is that is giving the review and what the other gear is used as a basis for his comments.

There is something else to consider, and that is how often people will swear blind they can hear something which blind tests then prove they do not. Suggestion is hugely powerful, to all human beings, and not just in audio.

On more than one occasion I've seen claims which I know were rubbish in magazines and online based on unscientific listening tests.