64 bit

[Cellotron]

Originally Posted by UnderTow

This is why I say he is being vague. If a multiply or divide operation returns a 32 bit word it is effectively a 32 bit operation. It is even truncated which means you lose any additional precision that might occur. (Not that there really is any).

Well not really. If in two cases where you return a 32bit figure - but in one you only have 32 bits of precision for the calculation while in the other you have 64bits - then the result can indeed be different!! - with the calculation being done at higher precision obviously having the potential for less errors.

Again - I'd say it's important to find out what's really going on "under the hood" as I'd say a lot if not most apps (such as PT HD) are doing the same thing of returning a lower precision figure after doing the calculations at a higher precision.

As far as truncating after the 64bit operation to 32bit - in the case of SAWStudio first off we're talking about a full 32bit DWORD here - which means true 32bits, not just 24bits+8bit mantissa that you get with a 32bit IEEE file - so then the question now that you have so much headroom above the noise floor of even the most accurate 24-bit DAC's how many operations can you perform before low level distortion from truncation accumulates to a point that is even approaching a point audible above the noise floor? My ear says in the case of SAW - you'd need a heckuva lot more of them than I've gotten from even huge multitrack sessions for them to create a difference. I'm sure other people will find it as a reason to condemn it without ever hearing it or analyzing it though.

Anything in between is irrelevant.
That is the resolution available and nothing more.

For some operations this might be true. For multiples and divides - sorry, but having the greater precision even when returning even a lower precision figure will still lead to less errors.

This is exactly what I was alluding to before. To me this is similar to saying a 32 bit float calculation has 80 bit resolution when using the CPU float units. It is stretching the truth too far for my taste.

Well again, I'd say Bob Lentini has been really forthcoming, and there's no truth stretching going on. He doesn't really ever use the word "64bit" in his marketing for SAW as far as I've ever seen - he's just used it when providing answers as far as what is going on "under the hood".

Or Cakewalk. The devs have repeatedly discussed the details of the audio engine on the forum. Sonar has full 64 bit float throughout. There are a few legacy plugins but any of the new ones are 64 bit float. Any 3rd party VST 2.4 plugins will also communicate at 64 bit float. The limitation is the audio I/O and/or file bit depth if the user chooses less than 64 bit. (Which you usually will of course but if you want to use 64 bit, you can).

Sonar definitely seems to have some really good things going for it. I've never checked it out in person but the lack of direct Red Book master PQ creation/editing (unless they've added this in recently without me knowing) kind of makes it not really great for my needs, so I've just stuck with what I have (which was paid for very long ago and which I'm super quick at working with, and which still gets feature enhancements issued for it, including a free one that just came out last week).

If it works for you and sounds good, what else can you ask for?

Bingo.
And even more importantly, getting quick reference approvals! So the clients have been liking the sound of the results as well.

Again in the case of DAW apps I think folks should just use what they like that gets the job done for them. I happen to have a personal preference for one in particular - but when folks want to use something eles it's all good by me!

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[alyricalmind]

Originally Posted by Cellotron

Except you can change the complete look of it with a single mouse click by loading a skin called "Shades" in SAWspeak - there's at least over 100 of these, most created by SAW users - all of them free to download, including a pretty darn close emulation of PT's look, as well a freeware app available that lets you create your own.

That's cool. They should emphasize the skins a bit more or try having a different default skin to show the prospect buyer as the current one looked like Cubase before SX.

Well, to my ear the 003 pre's and conversion is ok, but certainly not anything to get excited about - but that's a separate issue.

I agree fully. I was speaking in terms of value though.

Features that SAWStudio has that PT doesn't include:
much faster than real time "Bounce to Disc" functions, including numerous routines which allow for ultra-easy track consolidation with and without effects processin

One of the many reasons I can't get adjusted to Pro Tools. Adobe Audition has an offline bounce which is decades faster. Still my main DAW to date.

automatic plugin latency delay compensation,

I use ATA if any of the other users miss this feature in Pro Tools...
Mellowmuse Software

the ability to use any audio interface that has Windows ASIO, MME, WDM or DWave drivers available for it - so your not tied into just one company's products for this

Yea, but that's as easy as using SPDIF with another interface. And it's 2 companies now... M-Audio and Digidesign both make Pro Tools compatible hardware. But yea, you're right, why can't they just make it as simple as use whatever the hell you want.

support for VST, DX and SAW native formats (which includes a number of excellent sounding processors not available for any other format) - although I'll grant that this is definitely off-set by the extensive choice of RTAS plugins available - although again I'd say these come at greater cost than what is available for SAW,

RTAS plugins are quite extensive and I've had no problems wrapping VST plugins into Pro Tools. But I do agree it's annoying and both Pro Tools and Reason need to start supporting VST/DX.

the ability to synchronize up to 8 remote and slave machines via TCP/IP so that you can have it run gigantic sessions all networked together

Now that sounds like a feature that may be worth the money if you're dealing with that many tracks.

Thanks for the input Steve.

[synthoid]

Originally Posted by Cellotron

Well not really. If in two cases where you return a 32bit figure - but in one you only have 32 bits of precision for the calculation while in the other you have 64bits - then the result can indeed be different!! - with the calculation being done at higher precision obviously having the potential for less errors.

a) this is incorrect. a 32 x 32 single precision multiply produces (internally) about 48 bits of mantissa and has to be rounded anyway to accomodate the single-precision result type. the way to think of it is that an N-bit x N-bit integer (or fractional) multiply produces about 2N bits of result, in the same way that multiplying a 5 digit number by a 3 digit number gives you about 8 digits of product. A single precision number has a 24 bit mantissa, hence the 48 bit mantissa in the product, before rounding.

b) there is no double X double -> single multiply on any of the Intel processors, including x87 and SSE{2,3,4} that I am aware of. The only way to produce the effect of double X double -> single is to multiply doubles and round the result to single.

The way to be specific about it is to simply say which instruction is being used for the multiply. If you know that and the type that is used for the internal busses (i.e., what type is used when passing audio data between modules), and maybe something about how summing is performed, then you know about everything you need to know to understand the precision.

-synthoid

[deadears]

Originally Posted by Cellotron

the ability to load soundfiles with different bit depths and sample rates and have them playback at any selected sample rate using a real time src routine without having to convert the files first,

This quality of this is suspicious at best. I was visiting the forum a a few months ago because I was hearing rumours about sound quality on this forum, and there was a big stink because the SRC results were posted on this site:

SRC Comparisons

The SAW results were poor and some of the tests would not even work because the audio was rejected because of errors in the SRC.

The owner of the SAW got in a argument with the test site operator about the accuracy and made him take down the test results, and he took down the SAW forum thread because people were questioning the quality of his SRC. There SRC is still not posted on the test site. Apparently, the problem is not fixed.

I've heard a lot of rumours about how great this software is, but whenever I go to the site it seems like the user base is very amatuer with nothing but problems.

~deadears