64-bit mix engine. Hype? ( aka Sonar 6 )

narf · 7th October 2006, 11:13 AM

NEW: GO TO POST #51 TO LISTEN TO AN A/B COMPARISON BETWEEN SONAR'S 64-BIT MIX ENGINE VS. ITS 32-BIT MIX EINGINE!!!

Sonar has been reborn again, but now with a 64-bit Mix Engine.

Having it's main oponent, Cubase 4, also reborn, it is hard to make a choice of which to chose. Will Sonar 6 sound better than Cubase 4 because of its 64-bit mix engine or is this just a marketing hype. (notice I'm asking which will sound better specifically, meaning the ergonimics, gui and other features are not relevant in this particular post)

I want to point out that I've read in many posts that mathematically 64-bit allows for more precise calculations, thus eliminating amount of "fuzz" or decrease in quality. However, I have a specific question:

Will the 64-bit mix engine improve the way effects chains and plug-ins in general sound after processing the orginial sound? My guess is that the 64-bit mix engine only concerns a 64-bit process when MIXING, which means that a 64-bit process will be applied when multiple tracks are being brought/played together.
(SOMEBODY PLEASE EDUCATE ME ON THIS ONE)

ANYWAY, I've done an a/b test using a rendered 24-bit 96khz file from Sonar 6 vs. Cubase 4. Both of the rendered files have the same sequence with the same vsti's and the same levels..... I couldn't tell the difference by listening. The only difference I noticed was when zooming in to both of the files to the maximum zoom, I noticed the wave on the Sonar file had slightly more SMALL bumps but VERY VERY subtle (i'm talking about little bumps on an actual larger wave).

So, can anybody more enlightened please tell me how much better this sonar 6 mix engine is and exacly why? Is this audible? If not then... hype?

THANKS!

6strings · 7th October 2006, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by narf

I've done an a/b test using a rendered 24-bit 96khz file from Sonar 6 vs. Cubase 4. Both of the rendered files have the same sequence with the same vsti's and the same levels.....

Not to be a smart-ass, but that should be your answer. End of discussion. (yeah, right!) To be sure, make sure it's a multi-track project and not just a stereo file.

A LOT of the 64-bit hype surrounding audio has been generated solely by Cakewalk in an effort to promote their Sonar software. However, when you do the research, there is little proof to substantiate the move to 64-bit. Any and all "facts" I've seen on the net used to justify the move to a 64-bit DAW have all traced back to Cakewalk press release and "white paper."

But you're talking about 64-bit mixing. IMO, this is probably going to be a lot like the whole 192khz sample rate issue. On paper, 192khz sounds like the holy grail for recording, but in reality the audible benefit is arguable at best and in the end the only ones who benefit for certain are the ones selling the gear.

shanabit · 7th October 2006, 01:21 PM

You have to have the 64 bit version of Windows in order to use the
full 64 bit app with SONAR from what Ive read to hear a difference.

You also have to install the 64 bit version of SONAR to have the whole magila , not the 32 bit version. So I wouldnt imagine jyoud hear much diff between them.
If you are using Windows64 and you hear NO DIFF, then Id say its marketing hype

Sonar uses a bit bridge in that mode that allows you to use 32 bit plugs in the 64 bit environment.

Cubase is a 32 bit app throughout as I just asked that to Steiny as I was curious about C4. C4 will eventually get moved to a full 64 in its lifecycle

Bottom line is which one sounds better to YOU.

aussie_techie · 7th October 2006, 01:25 PM

numbers by them selves are meaningless they are a selling point driven by the 'more is better' idea. the main differences come from the implimentation.
any advantage that there may be in a 64bit mix engine wont be realised as most plug-ins still using 32bit and the interfacing of plug-ins to the host can be an issue.

the next question is what system do you actually run the 64bit mix engine on. xp x64 is a very different beast with a very different kernel it is not the same as home or pro. not many hardware drivers have been written for 64bit systems yet. at this stage there are no proven systems for it. while the 64 bit thing has been threatening for several years its still atleast another 2 years off serious implimentation.

wait it out im sure good things will come but the current versions will be old news by then.

blackcom · 7th October 2006, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shanabit

You have to have the 64 bit version of Windows in order to use the
full 64 bit app with SONAR from what Ive read to hear a difference.

You also have to install the 64 bit version of SONAR to have the whole magila , not the 32 bit version. So I wouldnt imagine jyoud hear much diff between them.
If you are using Windows64 and you hear NO DIFF, then Id say its marketing hype

Sonar uses a bit bridge in that mode that allows you to use 32 bit plugs in the 64 bit environment.

Cubase is a 32 bit app throughout as I just asked that to Steiny as I was curious about C4. C4 will eventually get moved to a full 64 in its lifecycle

Bottom line is which one sounds better to YOU.

You are wrong...
64-bit executable code and 64-bit internal mixing precision are two completely different things.....Sonar32bit executable can do 64-bit internal precision as well.....dumbass!

manning1 · 7th October 2006, 03:06 PM

narf....
there is a lot of misunderstanding on this subject imho.
i dont have time to go into it all as a lot was covered in the past.
(including by myself if you search under my name.)
but you dont necessarilly need a 64 bit version of windows to do 64 bit audio.
it depends how the programmers coded the internals of the audio application.
both the products i use in my sig use 64 bit techniques.
they both run fine under vanilla win xp.
heres a quote from a developer of one of them.
start....of quote...

powertracks mix math etc.....
To clarify a question manning had up-thread a bit...
(this was related to me asking a tech question on the pg forum...)
All the mixer and DX/VST plugin hosting code in PTW(powertracks)
and BIAB is performed in floating point format...
32 bit single float busses, 64 bit double float
coefficients and temp values, and 80 bit float math
operations in the computer's FPU (floating point processing unit).

This is carried out regardless if the song SEQ is set to
16 bit or 24 bit integer audio format. During playback or
render-to-disk, PTW reads the 16 bit or 24 bit integer
tracks and converts them to hi-res float right off the bat.
The only time the audio is converted back to 16 or 24 bit integer,
is right after the Master output, before the audio is sent to a
soundcard or written to a render file.

end ....of quote....

NOW NOTICE THAT LAST LINE...converted back to 16 bit or 24 bit
for the sound card. its very important you understand this aspect.
ie..everything gets converted back anyways to allow for the architecture of the sound cards which are max 24 bit.

in summary....dont worry...be happy and go write some songs.
my own feeling is the man in the street listening to your song wont care as long as he likes it.

alfonso · 7th October 2006, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by manning1

NOW NOTICE THAT LAST LINE...converted back to 16 bit or 24 bit
for the sound card. its very important you understand this aspect.
ie..everything gets converted back anyways to allow for the architecture of the sound cards which are max 24 bit.

To be more precise: 24 bits are the usual current limit of the converters, the higher bitrate audio is not just "converted" without any purposeful intervention, it's rather truncated at the converters level if you don't take care of the bits reduction, but the audiocards with dsp like Creamware (I have that one) have also higher bit formats like 32bits fixed (not the converters but the mixing, the processing and the synthesis functions), that is the standard path bit depth in Scope architecture.

shanabit · 7th October 2006, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackcom

You are wrong...
64-bit executable code and 64-bit internal mixing precision are two completely different things.....Sonar32bit executable can do 64-bit internal precision as well.....dumbass!

http://cakewalk.com/Products/SONARStudio/System.asp

Thats why they have TWO versions of the app on the install disk, yes I understand what your saying about the code
So kiss my ASS!!!

blackcom · 7th October 2006, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shanabit

http://cakewalk.com/Products/SONARStudio/System.asp

Thats why they have TWO versions of the app on the install disk, yes I understand what your saying about the code
So kiss my ASS!!!

One 64-bit executable that can run 64-bit internal precision and one 32-bit executable that also can run 64-bit internal precision....

You are such a funny dumbass, dumbass...

azwun25 · 7th October 2006, 05:31 PM

all hype I tell you...hype!

narf · 8th October 2006, 02:56 AM

I was affraid this was going to happen...

Thanks everybody for responding to my post. However, I think people should try to stay off the whole 64-bit audio vs. 32-bit audio vs. 24-bit audio vs. 16-bit audio, which is a different topic...

This post was specifically touching on 64-bit MIXING (hence 64-bit mix engine) and its results. If you don't know the difference between the two, or if you're still thinking that sonar 6 needs a 64-bit os to run... or any of that stuff that requires some easy research, please do it before posting stuff that has little or nothing to do with it. ( don't mean to sound rude or anything )

BTW, on the a/b test that I mentioned on the first post, the test was done with two vsts.... now that I think about it I should try to to it with atleast tripple that to see if I notice any differences. Anybody wanting to join teh A/B testing please do!

...as of now, I still think this whole 64-bit mix engine is a hype. let me know what you think

manning1 · 8th October 2006, 03:14 AM

narf....
ok .....pure mixing.
and this is purely un objective on my part but i detect the teeniest difference in sound quality on 64 bit mixing. to my ears anyway.
its a very subtle improvement....and i'm not sure the man in the street would notice.
but i dont detect// hear anything that tells me there is a HUIGE MAJOR GROUNDBREAKING DIFFERENCE that makes me break out into major excitement and passion.lol. ie its very very subtle to me anyway.
just my 2 cents.

Lackatee · 8th October 2006, 04:34 AM

Not sure if anyone saw the demo of the Queen song (best friend??) at the Cakewalk booth (AES San Fran). But they had this dude named Roy (i forget his last name) and he had the original tracks all converted to Sonar 6. They were doing some 5.1 Demo. And it was the first time id ever heard Freddy's voice totally broken down without any music behind it. That was a special treat..

But what I'm getting at is.. He asked if anyone had any questions afterwords and i asked Roy "What benefits has he noticed running in 64-bit", and he said that it just made the computer more powerful and he was able to run more tracks and plugins. He told a story about some song they were working on and they maxed out at 40 tracks with X amount of plugins running and i guess he upgraded to the 64-bit in the meantime and then went back to the project and was able to add 27 more tracks just from being on 64-bit after being maxed out on 32-bit.

I guess you can take that for what its worth. Didn't seem like he was bullshitting or schmoozing either.. Just a real honest answer.

So the bottom line was "More power". :)

Ziggy!! · 8th October 2006, 04:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by narf

I was affraid this was going to happen...

Thanks everybody for responding to my post. However, I think people should try to stay off the whole 64-bit audio vs. 32-bit audio vs. 24-bit audio vs. 16-bit audio, which is a different topic...

This post was specifically touching on 64-bit MIXING (hence 64-bit mix engine) and its results. If you don't know the difference between the two, or if you're still thinking that sonar 6 needs a 64-bit os to run... or any of that stuff that requires some easy research, please do it before posting stuff that has little or nothing to do with it. ( don't mean to sound rude or anything )

BTW, on the a/b test that I mentioned on the first post, the test was done with two vsts.... now that I think about it I should try to to it with atleast tripple that to see if I notice any differences. Anybody wanting to join teh A/B testing please do!

...as of now, I still think this whole 64-bit mix engine is a hype. let me know what you think

One of the big arguments for higher bit systems seems to be based strongly around low frequency filters and their tendency to create rather significant errors when processing. Higher fix integer processing is said to provide enough precision for the more extreme filter settings to still preserve the 24bit audio quality on the output.

Im starting to sound like a f*&king sales man but anyway, I have found it very interesting. The new fairlight CC-1 actually uses both fixed integer and floating point processing. It has a 36bit floating point mix engine yet uses a 72bit fix point engine for the EQ. They were kind enough to publish a whitepaper on this new stuff that they call Crystal Core technology. You can register at the fairlightAU site for free and download it if you want. It has an interesting section about mix engine design and their "Dynamic Resolution Optimization", as well as a few cited whitepapers on the whole fixed integer/floating point discussion.

Anonymatt · 8th October 2006, 04:40 AM

Not a big enough difference to alter your current workflow. If you're already with Sonar, though, whatever.

I don't feel like the difference is quantifiable. I'm sure a couple of you jerks'll assure me that EVERYTHING's quantifiable. "Not quantifiable" does not mean "not better", by the way. Anyway, I wouldn't say "It sounds 2% better". It's more like the difference in noise-shaping options when applying dither. The difference is that noise-shaping seems like a matter of taste, while the new audio engine is always better. Maybe "better" is too strong a word. I always go "Oh, okay," when I turn it on.

Bottom line is, people are throwing around boatloads of cash trying to get tiny improvements out of their chain. If you already have, say, Sonar 4, it'll cost you $100 to get it. Pretty high-yield, I'd say.

Is this helpful?!! Geez, kill me.

aussie_techie · 8th October 2006, 04:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lackatee

i asked Roy "What benefits has he noticed running in 64-bit", and he said that it just made the computer more powerful and he was able to run more tracks and plugins.

So the bottom line was "More power". :)

sounds like he moved the entire system to 64bit not simply the mix engine

pick a system by what works best for you. an easier work flow will do more for your mix than some tiny numbers.

Ziggy!! · 8th October 2006, 04:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anonymatt

Not a big enough difference to alter your current workflow. If you're already with Sonar, though, whatever.

I don't feel like the difference is quantifiable. I'm sure a couple of you jerks'll assure me that EVERYTHING's quantifiable. "Not quantifiable" does not mean "not better", by the way. Anyway, I wouldn't say "It sounds 2% better". It's more like the difference in noise-shaping options when applying dither. The difference is that noise-shaping seems like a matter of taste, while the new audio engine is always better. Maybe "better" is too strong a word. I always go "Oh, okay," when I turn it on.

Bottom line is, people are throwing around boatloads of cash trying to get tiny improvements out of their chain. If you already have, say, Sonar 4, it'll cost you $100 to get it. Pretty high-yield, I'd say.

Is this helpful?!! Geez, kill me.

Well this is the progression of digital technology innit'. We didn't arrive at the possibility of 192khz 24bit audio in one step. Every improvement happens in small quantifiable steps, its just that most don't make the leap on the consumer end until it provides that ever elusive economically viable improvement.

Lackatee · 8th October 2006, 04:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aussie_techie

sounds like he moved the entire system to 64bit not simply the mix engine

pick a system by what works best for you. an easier work flow will do more for your mix than some tiny numbers.

Yes, thats what he said. Sorry, forgot to mention that. He upgraded to windows 64 and loaded the same project and was ablet to continue on with the project. Said he was using a Intel xeon or something similar in the box and no hardware upgrade to get the extra 27 tracks.

6strings · 8th October 2006, 05:00 AM

Quote:

He told a story about some song they were working on and they maxed out at 40 tracks with X amount of plugins running and i guess he upgraded to the 64-bit in the meantime and then went back to the project and was able to add 27 more tracks just from being on 64-bit after being maxed out on 32-bit.

Ahem..... (cough).... Bullshit..... ahem.... 'scuse me!

Ah..... Like you said - that was at the Cakewalk booth.

Ah well. I think the reality distortion factor is too high on this and enough suckers will demand 64 bit software that the developers will be forced to put out 64 bit software out of ingnorant consumer demand. Whatever.

PS. Narf. I doubt you'll hear anything with VSTi alone. Record 16+ tracks of audio and mix that down for an A/B test. Start a new thread and post the files and let people judge. That'll be fun.

Lackatee · 8th October 2006, 05:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 6strings

Ahem..... (cough).... Bullshit..... ahem.... 'scuse me!

Ah..... Like you said - that was at the Cakewalk booth.

Ah well. I think the reality distortion factor is too high on this and enough suckers will demand 64 bit software that the developers will be forced to put out 64 bit software out of ingnorant consumer demand. Whatever.

PS. Narf. I doubt you'll hear anything with VSTi alone. Record 16+ tracks of audio and mix that down for an A/B test. Start a new thread and post the files and let people judge. That'll be fun.

Yeah, i have no way to discredit his info since i myself have never worked on the 64bit platform. Just passing along the info.

jyc · 8th October 2006, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lackatee

Yeah, i have no way to discredit his info since i myself have never worked on the 64bit platform. Just passing along the info.

It's a fact that even a 32-bit WINDOWS applications runs "faster" in Windows x64. (Same processor/spec) So I'm not surprised he got better track counts and plugin counts when he's using the 64-bit version of the same thing in WinXP x64.

64-bit audio engine doesn't require 64-bit executables/OS.

theblue1 · 8th October 2006, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 6strings

Not to be a smart-ass, but that should be your answer. End of discussion. (yeah, right!) To be sure, make sure it's a multi-track project and not just a stereo file.

A LOT of the 64-bit hype surrounding audio has been generated solely by Cakewalk in an effort to promote their Sonar software. However, when you do the research, there is little proof to substantiate the move to 64-bit. Any and all "facts" I've seen on the net used to justify the move to a 64-bit DAW have all traced back to Cakewalk press release and "white paper."

But you're talking about 64-bit mixing. IMO, this is probably going to be a lot like the whole 192khz sample rate issue. On paper, 192khz sounds like the holy grail for recording, but in reality the audible benefit is arguable at best and in the end the only ones who benefit for certain are the ones selling the gear.

Well I don't think you're going to get the people who don't have 64 bit processing (yet) hyping it (yet). So, yeah, that a fair amount of buzz is generated by either Mackie (whose Tracktion has 64 bit processing as well) and Sonar is not surprising.

BTW, I know you're not making a direct analogy to 192 kHz recording -- but, lest less erudite readers be confused -- the issues between very high sample rates and higher definition math processing are NOT analogous in any concrete, significant way.

And -- this is peripheral but an important consideration in its own right -- 192 kHz actually makes LESS sense from a scientific standpoint. It may or may not be a good selling point -- but using vry high sample rates actually imparts MORE distortion into the audible range which must then be mathmatically corrected out! So 192 kHz is only a marketer's grail -- not a true audio engineers. (For more info, you should probably go to converter design legend Dan Lavry's site.)

OTOH, giving more mathematical precision to your computations does not degrade the sound in any way (although it certainly does put a higher burden on the processing system).

Whether it's going to be audible/noticeable on a given project probably relates to the amount of processing that is being done to the track.

With the small, not processing/mixing intensive projects I typically work on, in highly informal testing with relatively small projects, I didn't detect a big difference at all. I thought (and obviously you could almost substitute imagined) maybe I might be hearing something. But, with a modest machine, I elected to stick with 32 bit processing for the most part. (I have to say, though, that the CPU hit was not as large as I'd feared. As measured by the highly scientific 10 mm "CPU meter" in my DAW's status bar.

)

That said, if I had a little more horsepower under me or was mixing a big project, I think I'd flip the switch to 64.

theblue1 · 8th October 2006, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 6strings

Ahem..... (cough).... Bullshit..... ahem.... 'scuse me!

Ah..... Like you said - that was at the Cakewalk booth.

Ah well. I think the reality distortion factor is too high on this and enough suckers will demand 64 bit software that the developers will be forced to put out 64 bit software out of ingnorant consumer demand. Whatever.

PS. Narf. I doubt you'll hear anything with VSTi alone. Record 16+ tracks of audio and mix that down for an A/B test. Start a new thread and post the files and let people judge. That'll be fun.

You seem to be conflating the 64 bit compile of Sonar (made to run in 64 bit Windows) with the entirely different topic of the 64 bit sound engine option in EITHER the 32 bit or 64 bit OS versions of Sonar.

Using a 64 bit OS and compilation will not change the sound quality, per se. But it WILL allow 64 bit memory addressing which WILL allow you to access more RAM which WILL potentially improve the ability to handle bigger projects.

Ahem.

_____________

PS... could someone save this thread? I want to compare the comments of some folks in the thread here with what they say about 64 bit audio processing when THEIR DAW of choice finally adds it.

AB3 · 8th October 2006, 07:20 PM

CLIPS? How about a post of a Sonar project mixed with the 64 bit precision clicked on and the same mix with it clicked off. See if anyone call tell.

I would do both in Windows 32 bit.

Oldone · 8th October 2006, 08:25 PM

I had a conversation with Terry Howard at the AES show, Ray Charles Grammy winning engineer. He told me flat out the image is deeper, wider and clearer using Sonar 64 in a 64 bit OS environment. Although I have Sonar 6, I am not on a 64 OS yet but I can tell a slight difference sonically in reverb tails being smoother using a Dual Core and Sonar 32 bit with the 64 bit engine turned on. Probably the Dual core but I like the sound.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
VOTE NOW Best mix engine	pingu	Music computers	69	20th August 2008 05:11 PM
2track: to hype or not to hype, that is the question	alphajerk	So much gear, so little time!	30	20th April 2008 04:17 PM
Why Does YAMAHA'S Mix Engine Work So Well?	dbbubba	So much gear, so little time!	11	3rd January 2007 12:27 AM
64 Bit Sonar 5, is it any good?	Jonny Mumra	Music computers	30	10th November 2005 09:21 PM
Sonar 5 and 64 Bit	Reggie Love	Music computers	3	27th October 2005 11:34 PM

7th October 2006, 11:13 AM	#1
narf Gear nut Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 84	64-bit mix engine. Hype? ( aka Sonar 6 ) NEW: GO TO POST #51 TO LISTEN TO AN A/B COMPARISON BETWEEN SONAR'S 64-BIT MIX ENGINE VS. ITS 32-BIT MIX EINGINE!!! Sonar has been reborn again, but now with a 64-bit Mix Engine. Having it's main oponent, Cubase 4, also reborn, it is hard to make a choice of which to chose. Will Sonar 6 sound better than Cubase 4 because of its 64-bit mix engine or is this just a marketing hype. (notice I'm asking which will sound better specifically, meaning the ergonimics, gui and other features are not relevant in this particular post) I want to point out that I've read in many posts that mathematically 64-bit allows for more precise calculations, thus eliminating amount of "fuzz" or decrease in quality. However, I have a specific question: Will the 64-bit mix engine improve the way effects chains and plug-ins in general sound after processing the orginial sound? My guess is that the 64-bit mix engine only concerns a 64-bit process when MIXING, which means that a 64-bit process will be applied when multiple tracks are being brought/played together. (SOMEBODY PLEASE EDUCATE ME ON THIS ONE) ANYWAY, I've done an a/b test using a rendered 24-bit 96khz file from Sonar 6 vs. Cubase 4. Both of the rendered files have the same sequence with the same vsti's and the same levels..... I couldn't tell the difference by listening. The only difference I noticed was when zooming in to both of the files to the maximum zoom, I noticed the wave on the Sonar file had slightly more SMALL bumps but VERY VERY subtle (i'm talking about little bumps on an actual larger wave). So, can anybody more enlightened please tell me how much better this sonar 6 mix engine is and exacly why? Is this audible? If not then... hype? THANKS! Last edited by narf; 13th October 2006 at 01:07 AM.. Reason: New test: a/b comparison of 64 vs. 32bit mix engine audio

7th October 2006, 03:06 PM	#6
manning1 Lives for gear Join Date: May 2004 Location: canada Posts: 3,187	narf.... there is a lot of misunderstanding on this subject imho. i dont have time to go into it all as a lot was covered in the past. (including by myself if you search under my name.) but you dont necessarilly need a 64 bit version of windows to do 64 bit audio. it depends how the programmers coded the internals of the audio application. both the products i use in my sig use 64 bit techniques. they both run fine under vanilla win xp. heres a quote from a developer of one of them. start....of quote... powertracks mix math etc..... To clarify a question manning had up-thread a bit... (this was related to me asking a tech question on the pg forum...) All the mixer and DX/VST plugin hosting code in PTW(powertracks) and BIAB is performed in floating point format... 32 bit single float busses, 64 bit double float coefficients and temp values, and 80 bit float math operations in the computer's FPU (floating point processing unit). This is carried out regardless if the song SEQ is set to 16 bit or 24 bit integer audio format. During playback or render-to-disk, PTW reads the 16 bit or 24 bit integer tracks and converts them to hi-res float right off the bat. The only time the audio is converted back to 16 or 24 bit integer, is right after the Master output, before the audio is sent to a soundcard or written to a render file. end ....of quote.... NOW NOTICE THAT LAST LINE...converted back to 16 bit or 24 bit for the sound card. its very important you understand this aspect. ie..everything gets converted back anyways to allow for the architecture of the sound cards which are max 24 bit. in summary....dont worry...be happy and go write some songs. my own feeling is the man in the street listening to your song wont care as long as he likes it. __________________ i'm just a dumb computer engr (ret'd)...."quantum computing is the future" running a native software studio daw...Powertracks and Reaper on amd. my little songs www.motagator.com/bmanning (saving up for pristine ADA convertors i cant afford...lol)

7th October 2006, 05:31 PM	#10
azwun25 Lives for gear Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: The Roman Empire State Posts: 1,430	all hype I tell you...hype! __________________ "If the opposite of pro is a con then look beyond this The opposite of congress must be progress" ~Cage Grand Ol' Party Crash

8th October 2006, 02:56 AM	#11
narf Gear nut Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 84	64-bit processing is not necessarily 64-bit audio I was affraid this was going to happen... Thanks everybody for responding to my post. However, I think people should try to stay off the whole 64-bit audio vs. 32-bit audio vs. 24-bit audio vs. 16-bit audio, which is a different topic... This post was specifically touching on 64-bit MIXING (hence 64-bit mix engine) and its results. If you don't know the difference between the two, or if you're still thinking that sonar 6 needs a 64-bit os to run... or any of that stuff that requires some easy research, please do it before posting stuff that has little or nothing to do with it. ( don't mean to sound rude or anything ) BTW, on the a/b test that I mentioned on the first post, the test was done with two vsts.... now that I think about it I should try to to it with atleast tripple that to see if I notice any differences. Anybody wanting to join teh A/B testing please do! ...as of now, I still think this whole 64-bit mix engine is a hype. let me know what you think

7th October 2006, 01:21 PM	#3
shanabit Lives for gear Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 1,005	You have to have the 64 bit version of Windows in order to use the full 64 bit app with SONAR from what Ive read to hear a difference. You also have to install the 64 bit version of SONAR to have the whole magila , not the 32 bit version. So I wouldnt imagine jyoud hear much diff between them. If you are using Windows64 and you hear NO DIFF, then Id say its marketing hype Sonar uses a bit bridge in that mode that allows you to use 32 bit plugs in the 64 bit environment. Cubase is a 32 bit app throughout as I just asked that to Steiny as I was curious about C4. C4 will eventually get moved to a full 64 in its lifecycle Bottom line is which one sounds better to YOU.

7th October 2006, 01:25 PM	#4
aussie_techie Lives for gear Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Perth, Australia Posts: 2,040	numbers by them selves are meaningless they are a selling point driven by the 'more is better' idea. the main differences come from the implimentation. any advantage that there may be in a 64bit mix engine wont be realised as most plug-ins still using 32bit and the interfacing of plug-ins to the host can be an issue. the next question is what system do you actually run the 64bit mix engine on. xp x64 is a very different beast with a very different kernel it is not the same as home or pro. not many hardware drivers have been written for 64bit systems yet. at this stage there are no proven systems for it. while the 64 bit thing has been threatening for several years its still atleast another 2 years off serious implimentation. wait it out im sure good things will come but the current versions will be old news by then.

8th October 2006, 03:14 AM	#12
manning1 Lives for gear Join Date: May 2004 Location: canada Posts: 3,187	narf.... ok .....pure mixing. and this is purely un objective on my part but i detect the teeniest difference in sound quality on 64 bit mixing. to my ears anyway. its a very subtle improvement....and i'm not sure the man in the street would notice. but i dont detect// hear anything that tells me there is a HUIGE MAJOR GROUNDBREAKING DIFFERENCE that makes me break out into major excitement and passion.lol. ie its very very subtle to me anyway. just my 2 cents. __________________ i'm just a dumb computer engr (ret'd)...."quantum computing is the future" running a native software studio daw...Powertracks and Reaper on amd. my little songs www.motagator.com/bmanning (saving up for pristine ADA convertors i cant afford...lol)

8th October 2006, 04:34 AM	#13
Lackatee Gear Head Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Bay Area Posts: 65	Not sure if anyone saw the demo of the Queen song (best friend??) at the Cakewalk booth (AES San Fran). But they had this dude named Roy (i forget his last name) and he had the original tracks all converted to Sonar 6. They were doing some 5.1 Demo. And it was the first time id ever heard Freddy's voice totally broken down without any music behind it. That was a special treat.. But what I'm getting at is.. He asked if anyone had any questions afterwords and i asked Roy "What benefits has he noticed running in 64-bit", and he said that it just made the computer more powerful and he was able to run more tracks and plugins. He told a story about some song they were working on and they maxed out at 40 tracks with X amount of plugins running and i guess he upgraded to the 64-bit in the meantime and then went back to the project and was able to add 27 more tracks just from being on 64-bit after being maxed out on 32-bit. I guess you can take that for what its worth. Didn't seem like he was bullshitting or schmoozing either.. Just a real honest answer. So the bottom line was "More power". :)

8th October 2006, 04:40 AM	#15
Anonymatt Gear maniac Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 164	Not a big enough difference to alter your current workflow. If you're already with Sonar, though, whatever. I don't feel like the difference is quantifiable. I'm sure a couple of you jerks'll assure me that EVERYTHING's quantifiable. "Not quantifiable" does not mean "not better", by the way. Anyway, I wouldn't say "It sounds 2% better". It's more like the difference in noise-shaping options when applying dither. The difference is that noise-shaping seems like a matter of taste, while the new audio engine is always better. Maybe "better" is too strong a word. I always go "Oh, okay," when I turn it on. Bottom line is, people are throwing around boatloads of cash trying to get tiny improvements out of their chain. If you already have, say, Sonar 4, it'll cost you $100 to get it. Pretty high-yield, I'd say. Is this helpful?!! Geez, kill me.

8th October 2006, 07:20 PM	#24
AB3 Lives for gear Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 1,999	CLIPS? How about a post of a Sonar project mixed with the 64 bit precision clicked on and the same mix with it clicked off. See if anyone call tell. I would do both in Windows 32 bit.

8th October 2006, 08:25 PM	#25
Oldone Lives for gear Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mission Viejo, CA Posts: 696	I had a conversation with Terry Howard at the AES show, Ray Charles Grammy winning engineer. He told me flat out the image is deeper, wider and clearer using Sonar 64 in a 64 bit OS environment. Although I have Sonar 6, I am not on a 64 OS yet but I can tell a slight difference sonically in reverb tails being smoother using a Dual Core and Sonar 32 bit with the 64 bit engine turned on. Probably the Dual core but I like the sound.