The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Quality Is Back - Keep Your High End
Old 9th October 2019
  #31
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayHeath View Post
For a number of recordist, that is changing to 32-bit [wide-range] floating point over 48k or 96k even as we speak. Where it can be used, I suspect it will alleviate a number of unhappy accidents.


Ray H. [a.k.a. Dude]

Of course, the mix delivered to the client is generally not 32-bits.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Infa View Post
All your statements are totally true. I agree 100%. True too that nothing and no-one is ideal. Once you strive for perfection... oh man your in trouble, why ? Cause perfection doesn't and shouldn't exist. I do get all that even though I come across different. I just wish I seen people try like folks back in the day did. (this applies to literally everything)

These artist don't wanna get their knuckles bloody like they used to. They don't wanna *truly* sacrifice, don't *truly* invest in their goal. How can anyone expect a goal to pay off if you invest more in your car or clothes than you do your goal ? By the nature of law, your car and clothes will now bless you more than that said goal. LOL - Thats how things work.




Dude, totally correct. I just say 24bit, because FYI thats what it really is (hence the float). But of course I am recording in my DAW at 32bit float/ 96k all the time. Why not ?

And bros - Before the arguments start, LOL - lets just remember this thread isn't about the debate of 16 vs 24 vs 32f. I like the dynamic range headroom it gives me on drums, so lets leave it at that. There is a difference, just not how some think.

And 96k, I like the delivery smoothness and reverb tails better. And now - I can pass that directly onto Amazon ! Man, thats what this thread is about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RayHeath View Post
Apologies for not previously being more explanatory. . .

As a long time pro software dev, I should likely make it clear that 'float' in my post refers to a floating point representation - as opposed to integer representation. Wide range refers to an encoding that maps those numerical representations to a very wide dynamic range. There are a number of 32-bit encodings for audio signals and they are not created equally.

In software, we use single-precision floating-point format largely to represent what most would think of as real numbers [and the like, kinda] - but complexity of this topic will rise very rapidly when one starts to ask a few simple questions. . .if one expects precise answers.


The common statement that "32-bit float *is* 24-bit audio" is no where near correct when discussing 32-bit wide range floating point encoding. In this encoding you wind up with somewhere on the order of 700 db increase [best I remember on the MixPre II implementation] in your available dynamic range - not a typo!

A primary consequence is that limiters are no longer required. . .hence no more unhappy accidents - e.g., from having the gain set too high.

Now, that's something to write home about!


Cheers,

Ray H.

Interestingly, most platforms I know of support this wide format - only be careful to turn down the volume on your earphones before hitting play.

[Edit] I forgot to sign using my 'Dude' moniker. Mmmm, next time.
I really don't see the point of storage at 32bit float....your capture is 24bit fixed, your DAW processes at 64bit float...what good does storing at 32bit float do you?

- it's not "8 bits better".
- there's 2 circumstances it could be useful - if you're doing a lot of offline rendering, and gain changes as part of that. Most people doing music won't do this. OR if (as you mention) you're not particularly careful with gain staging. Which is likely to cause problems down the line anyway (eg with setting compression thresholds) so it's not a great habit to get into.

Otherwise - I'm willing to be enlightened, but I simply don't see the point. Assuming one records at 24bit, doesn't process offline repeatedly and then mixes with competent gain staging?
Old 9th October 2019
  #32
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
I really don't see the point of storage at 32bit float....your capture is 24bit fixed, your DAW processes at 64bit float...what good does storing at 32bit float do you? [. . .]
Hi Adrian -

I expect for the work you are doing [as I imagine it] the value proposition isn't very strong. Making somewhat caricatured examples of your two circumstances:

1) Where dynamic ranges are simply too extreme. John Cage [Silence] vs Manowar [or Kiss] on Dueling Banjos?

2) Where the sound engineer simply cannot be local enough to the recorder to be 'careful' with gain staging. Film/video already have competing techniques, but this is not a small enhancement - and it will facilitate more creative work at lower cost.

In both cases you would later move likely both extremes toward the middle a bit for your mix. At some point you may not want to hold onto the 32-bit streams [a business decision].

A third scenario is where you need to send out a less capable sound tech to capture something and you want the closest thing to a guarantee there won't be any clipping. Or cases where you don't think something like Dugan Automixing will pull it off.

Yea, I think this is a really big deal! That extra 8-bits delivers an exponential-ish gain in the available safe dynamic range - a great bang for the buck!

Maybe not so much for your business model and workflows, though.

Although the format is not particularly new, SD's implementation of it is. And I noticed where Tentacle Sync was advertising it - but don't know much of their implementation yet. The Tentacle Sync should work with lavaliere and some DPA mics [I think] - but not with the larger 48v phantom powered mics [as the MixPre II recorders can]. I expect you will see more of this in the near future. Wish my Audio Limited A10s had it!


Best regards,

Ray H.
Old 9th October 2019
  #33
Lives for gear
 

Ray, does this extra dynamic range headroom only happen on a/within a recorded file that was recorded at 32 bit float, or if recorded at, and session at 32 bit float is this extra dynamic range headroom also happening within your DAW's mixer too... like buses for example ?

I notice my buses seem to no longer clip into the red since I been recording at 32 bit float, they just go way past 0.0db yet are still only "yellow", not red clipping.

I didn't know if that was a direct cause of the 32bit float thing, or just PT new feature or something, lol Hadn't bothered to look not it. Plus, I'm scared who I ask. If you know what I mean.
Old 9th October 2019
  #34
Gear Guru
 
Sounds Great's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Infa View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounds Great View Post
Now if they could only start streaming DSD.
Now your just making fun of me. lol Ok, I see how it is. Poke a stick at the funny guy.
Actually I wasn't joking. I haven't really heard that much difference with PCM as you move up from 16/44.1. But I do hear a major improvement over that with DSD recordings.
Old 9th October 2019
  #35
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayHeath View Post
Hi Adrian -

I expect for the work you are doing [as I imagine it] the value proposition isn't very strong. Making somewhat caricatured examples of your two circumstances:

1) Where dynamic ranges are simply too extreme. John Cage [Silence] vs Manowar [or Kiss] on Dueling Banjos?
But you're still capturing at 24bit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RayHeath View Post
2) Where the sound engineer simply cannot be local enough to the recorder to be 'careful' with gain staging. Film/video already have competing techniques, but this is not a small enhancement - and it will facilitate more creative work at lower cost.
But recording is still 24bit fixed too!

Quote:
Originally Posted by RayHeath View Post
In both cases you would later move likely both extremes toward the middle a bit for your mix. At some point you may not want to hold onto the 32-bit streams [a business decision].
But the DAW is working at 64bit float anyway!

Quote:
Originally Posted by RayHeath View Post
A third scenario is where you need to send out a less capable sound tech to capture something and you want the closest thing to a guarantee there won't be any clipping. Or cases where you don't think something like Dugan Automixing will pull it off.
Again - it doesn't matter what they store it as, it's being captured at 24bit fixed! if it clips on the way in, it's clipped.

Quote:
Yea, I think this is a really big deal! That extra 8-bits delivers an exponential-ish gain in the available safe dynamic range - a great bang for the buck!
Except as a storage format - it doesn't! I keep repeating myself, but the capture is 24bit, the processing is 64bit float. UNLESS you're processing files offline, 32bit storage isn't giving you anything.

Do you see what I'm saying?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Infa View Post
Ray, does this extra dynamic range headroom only happen on a/within a recorded file that was recorded at 32 bit float, or if recorded at, and session at 32 bit float is this extra dynamic range headroom also happening within your DAW's mixer too... like buses for example ?
Well, that's my point. you can't record a file at 32bit float - you can only store it like that! Your converters are 24bit fixed. There ARE 32bit converters, but given that a 24bit converter has a noise floor within that 24bits (ie you're not actually getting 24b of usable signal, I don't really see the point there either.

Quote:
I notice my buses seem to no longer clip into the red since I been recording at 32 bit float, they just go way past 0.0db yet are still only "yellow", not red clipping.
Clip your master buss and you'll hear it your converters are still 24b fixed. BUT your DAW is 64bit float - it's not the file storage that's causing you not to clip!

Quote:
I didn't know if that was a direct cause of the 32bit float thing, or just PT new feature or something, lol Hadn't bothered to look not it. Plus, I'm scared who I ask. If you know what I mean.
PT has been 64bit float since...PT10 I believe? or maybe 32bit float at PT10, 64bit float at PT12.

Last edited by psycho_monkey; 9th October 2019 at 07:03 AM..
Old 9th October 2019
  #36
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
But [. . .]
Hi Adrian -

You'll likely do better to watch a YouTube interview with with Paul Isaacs than to trust my memory. Here is one by Curtis Judd. But, I'll also respond and you can tell me how many I missed. I promise to treat this as a 'closed book' exam.

[1, 2] you're still capturing at 24bit. [. . .] But recording is still 24bit fixed too!

Well, no. The tracks are being captured at 32-bit wide range float - not 24 bit. I believe SD is using multiple analog-to-digital converters on each channel to pull this off.

An engineer is likely going to narrow each stream down. . .during [or early after] import into his/her DAW. I don't know what specific workflows each DAW vendor supports there.

[3] But the DAW is working at 64bit float anyway!

Yes, with exceptions [I suppose] that still use older 16/32-bit code or internally force smaller data streams. But for high-end DAWs, I hope this your assertion is correct.

While the DAW developer can widen either 24-bit integer or single precision float [32-bit] to a double [64-bit float], he or she can't get you back the lost information of the smaller dynamic range - only practically important in cases where it matters [e.g. , clipping].

[4] [. . .] if it clips on the way in, it's clipped.

See response to 1, 2 [above].

The predicate you're passing to 'if it clips' is false.

[5] [. . .] I keep repeating myself, but the capture is 24bit [. . .]

I'll let you do some research and/or watch a Paul Isaacs interview before you grade my test.

[6] [. . .] There ARE 32bit converters, but [. . .]

See response to 1, 2 [above].

To the best of my recollection, I think SD has a patent on their specific topology. I've not done any research to see how blocking their patent will be against other competitors.

[7] Clip your master buss and you'll hear it [. . .] it's not the file storage that's causing you not to clip!

Part 1. Agree. Note to readers [and self]: Don't clip your master buss.

Part 2. In competing architectures, the clipping [hopefully limiting, hopefully not overflow] would have occurred before storage. However, 32-bit floating point enables you to store a far larger dynamic range if you can find a way not to clip before persisting the stream(s). SD looks to have a reasonable implementation.


Again, I don't know that you are presently a target for any of this yet.


Best regards,

Ray H.
Old 9th October 2019
  #37
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayHeath View Post
Hi Adrian -

You'll likely do better to watch a YouTube interview with with Paul Isaacs than to trust my memory. Here is one by Curtis Judd. But, I'll also respond and you can tell me how many I missed. I promise to treat this as a 'closed book' exam.

[1, 2] you're still capturing at 24bit. [. . .] But recording is still 24bit fixed too!

Well, no. The tracks are being captured at 32-bit wide range float - not 24 bit. I believe SD is using multiple analog-to-digital converters on each channel to pull this off.

An engineer is likely going to narrow each stream down. . .during [or early after] import into his/her DAW. I don't know what specific workflows each DAW vendor supports there.

[3] But the DAW is working at 64bit float anyway!

Yes, with exceptions [I suppose] that still use older 16/32-bit code or internally force smaller data streams. But for high-end DAWs, I hope this your assertion is correct.

While the DAW developer can widen either 24-bit integer or single precision float [32-bit] to a double [64-bit float], he or she can't get you back the lost information of the smaller dynamic range - only practically important in cases where it matters [e.g. , clipping].

[4] [. . .] if it clips on the way in, it's clipped.

See response to 1, 2 [above].

The predicate you're passing to 'if it clips' is false.

[5] [. . .] I keep repeating myself, but the capture is 24bit [. . .]

I'll let you do some research and/or watch a Paul Isaacs interview before you grade my test.

[6] [. . .] There ARE 32bit converters, but [. . .]

See response to 1, 2 [above].

To the best of my recollection, I think SD has a patent on their specific topology. I've not done any research to see how blocking their patent will be against other competitors.

[7] Clip your master buss and you'll hear it [. . .] it's not the file storage that's causing you not to clip!

Part 1. Agree. Note to readers [and self]: Don't clip your master buss.

Part 2. In competing architectures, the clipping [hopefully limiting, hopefully not overflow] would have occurred before storage. However, 32-bit floating point enables you to store a far larger dynamic range if you can find a way not to clip before persisting the stream(s). SD looks to have a reasonable implementation.


Again, I don't know that you are presently a target for any of this yet.


Best regards,

Ray H.
OK I see. You're referencing one particular box here! not even a DAW....it records 8 tracks direct to card. And yes, I can totally see why this might be useful for location sound.

BUT - none of this applies to DAWs. I could be wrong, but I THINK all current DAWs would capture incoming audio streams at 24bit fixed. Even if they store at 32bit. Even if using a 32bit float converter, unless there's some development I've not heard of. This may change of course.

To take advantage of this converter, you'd need to capture internally using it's 8 track setup, and transfer to DAW. Not the best workflow.

So I'll revise my statement - *unless* you're using this Sound Devices location recorder in 32bit mode and transferring to DAW, storing files at 32bit is pointless

I'm assuming the OP @ Infa doesn't have one, and isn't working like this - so my comments remain. 32bit storage captured by a 24bit recorder is pointless Unless you're doing a lot of offline processing, you're just using up space needlessly. It's a bit like "more is better" without really knowing why...

in fact, 32bit float capture in the studio is largely pointless - unless you're doing one take stuff live to camera or something (which is more of a post pro situation anyway). It's not hard to leave enough headroom! A lot of what you're saying about the advantages of 32bit float recording are to do with incompetency....

(and even with a 32bit converter - the idea clipping is "impossible" isn't quite true, you can still clip the mic pres!).
Old 9th October 2019
  #38
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
OK I see. You're referencing one particular box here! not even a DAW [. . .]
With respect to DAWs, here is a part of the interview you may find useful. . .Paul Isaacs on 32-bit and DAWs.

Here is another useful section about dynamic range where Paul eventually speaks to applications for sound designers, etc. A bit of his talk about mics input levels and associated voltages may also be kinda fun to listen to.

With respect to the 'one particular box', I don't currently know what the competition will be doing. But the functionality is so compelling, that I can't see them laying down - I'm expecting numerous vendors to head down this path. And I'm assuming the SD patent offers only limited protection from competition.

Time will tell. . .


Best - Ray H.

URL links above are provided for those who want a 'tl;dr' version of the interview.
Old 9th October 2019
  #39
Lives for gear
Unfortunate the direction this thread took... the good news is that the lossless format is available at all. you can all argue until you're blue in the face about sample rates, but it's a fact that compressed audio files sound like crap. I'll take 44.1/16 uncompressed over ANYTHING lossy compressed, ANY day
Old 9th October 2019
  #40
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Infa View Post
Ray, does this extra [. . .]? [. . .] Plus, I'm scared who I ask. If you know what I mean.
Sorry, Infa for not giving a direct reply earlier. I expect your questions were all addressed in the Paul Isaacs interview and my chit-chat with Adrian. Please let me know if you've something outstanding.


Apologies to @ Philter that we didn't focus explicitly on bit-rate delivery [lossless vs lossy compression] from Amazon. I expect there is near unanimous appreciation of lossless here. And a big yes! from me.

But, I honestly don't know the answer to that one. It 'sounds' right to want lossless - but then people relatively rarely take the choice of lossless images/videos as consumers. I appreciate the difference - just don't know that much about consumer preferences. I'm thinking it will eventually be totally embraced.

The 32-bit float discussion is a very similar notion. . .but at the front-end capture and mixing stages. In certain circumstances it helps improve the 'garbage in' => 'garbage out' scenario. . .and strongly supports the idea that one will be delivering 24-bit 'lossless' audio to the consumer.


Best regards,

Ray Heath [Dude]
Old 9th October 2019
  #41
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayHeath View Post
With respect to DAWs, here is a part of the interview you may find useful. . .Paul Isaacs on 32-bit and DAWs.

Here is another useful section about dynamic range where Paul eventually speaks to applications for sound designers, etc. A bit of his talk about mics input levels and associated voltages may also be kinda fun to listen to.

With respect to the 'one particular box', I don't currently know what the competition will be doing. But the functionality is so compelling, that I can't see them laying down - I'm expecting numerous vendors to head down this path. And I'm assuming the SD patent offers only limited protection from competition.

Time will tell. . .


Best - Ray H.

URL links above are provided for those who want a 'tl;dr' version of the interview.
I mean - the vast number of people using 32bit float recording are not using this box, therefore not getting the benefits you describe. In fact anyone using the format in a DAW isn’t getting the same benefit.

It’s not really about what happens in the future - I agree it’s a great concept for location recording. It’s that right now, people are using this format without a clue that it’s doing nothing for them.

And yes - not really anything to do with the topic, it’s just a personal bugbear that people see bigger numbers and think better without understanding the implications!
Old 9th October 2019
  #42
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
[. . .] In fact anyone using the format in a DAW isn’t getting the same benefit. [. . .]
I think I agree with everything in the post except this.
Old 10th October 2019
  #43
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayHeath View Post
I think I agree with everything in the post except this.
Can you explain then? If you’re not capturing at 32bit float (which you’re not), if you’re not doing massive gain changes and rendering as new files, if your DAW is32bit float internal processing at least (which they all are) - what benefit do you get? Because I don’t see it!

Literally the only benefit I can think of is that if you’re internally capturing a mix, and you’re re-recording it to a new track, and you’ve clipped it. Storing it at 32bit let’s you fix that.

Or - you could just turn down your master fader before printing it to get the same effect.

What you DON’T get is any of the benefits - not one - that you listed above in relation to the SD capture device. You get no benefits in capture at all. So what’s the point?

Genuine question - I’m willing to be educated!
Old 10th October 2019
  #44
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
Can you explain then? [. . .]
Sure, and maybe we just talked past each other somehow. I'll try to be specific.

The statement - "In fact anyone using the format in a DAW isn’t getting the same benefit." - seems over-broad to me.

You later articulate [in a separate post referenced at the top of this one] two assumptions - [1] "If you’re not capturing at 32bit float (which you’re not), [and 2] if you’re not doing massive gain changes and rendering as new files," - I didn't see either of these constraints mentioned in the earlier post.

Now, these constraints in-and-of themselves don't have to be true.

If you elect to make them true, we're done here, and I agree - but only for that case.

As to the first assumption, one could very well have captured [or been handed] a 32-bit float file from a MixPre II.

As to the second assumption, again one could be handed a 32-bit float file created from who knows where. . .maybe generated via MATLAB or even by AI. The source is not important. The sound designer still wants it in the mix.

There are alternatives for sure, but importing them as 32-bit float into Pro Tools Ultimate would be my default path. They are coming into my DAW with the same primary benefits as previously discussed and referenced. [Footnote 1]


I'm a little concerned by the reference to internal processing width [let's pretend it is all 64-bit]. That width is often useful when I'm writing algorithms - as are higher 'sample' rates - to process the streams. But if something is missing. . .I can't get it back.


Hope this clarifies a bit. - Ray H.


Footnote 1: Well, almost exactly the same benefits. There was the scenario of a remix within the MixPre II - no extra functionality over a DAW aside from convenience for a quick hand-off. But I don't know if that is even possible if you also have to import streams from other sources. Bottom line: unless you've got someone breathing down your neck for a quick file dump, your DAW is going to be the default workflow for anything resembling a high-end job.
Old 10th October 2019
  #45
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayHeath View Post
Sure, and maybe we just talked past each other somehow. I'll try to be specific.

The statement - "In fact anyone using the format in a DAW isn’t getting the same benefit." - seems over-broad to me.

You later articulate [in a separate post referenced at the top of this one] two assumptions - [1] "If you’re not capturing at 32bit float (which you’re not), [and 2] if you’re not doing massive gain changes and rendering as new files," - I didn't see either of these constraints mentioned in the earlier post.

Now, these constraints in-and-of themselves don't have to be true.

If you elect to make them true, we're done here, and I agree - but only for that case.

As to the first assumption, one could very well have captured [or been handed] 32-bit float tracks from a MixPre II.

As to the second assumption, again one could be handed a 32-bit float track created from who know where. . .maybe generated via MATALB or even by AI. The source is not important. The sound designer still wants it in the mix.

There are alternatives for sure, but importing them as 32-bit float into Pro Tools Ultimate would be my default path. They are coming into my DAW with the same primary benefits as previously discussed and referenced. [footnote 1]


I'm a little concerned by the reference to internal processing width [let's pretend it is all 64-bit]. That width is often useful when I'm writing algorithms - as are higher 'sample' rates - to process the streams. But if something is missing




Footnote 1: Well, almost exactly the same benefits. There was the scenario of a remix within the MixPre II - no extra functionality over a DAW aside from convenience for a quick hand-off. But I don't know if that is even possible if you also have to import streams from other sources. Bottom line: unless you've got someone breathing down your neck for a quick file dump, your DAW is going to be the default workflow for anything resembling a high-end job.
Right.

I'm possibly being over-broad, but not by much.

I don't think you're arguing with the statement that "for most people, storing files at 32bit offers no improvement over 24bit".

You're arguing a very specific set of circumstances. I don't even know how many of the Mixpre's are in the wild, but I'd be surprised if it's more than a couple of thousand. Most people won't ever see one!

I've already agreed that in some forms of post, it might be advantageous.

And yes - the processing depth of PT, and just about all modern DAWs I'm aware of is 64bit float. whether every process takes place at that depth I don't know - but my point is, you're not "gaining" processing depth during the mix by storing at 32bit float. It'll be exactly the same if you store at 24bit.

My point is really - there's an awful lot of musicians recording and mixing music through regular interfaces, never going near this mystical location recorder, storing their files at 32bit float, convinced they're working at higher quality.

In practice, it makes no difference other than using up 1/3 more storage space.

IF they're doing all the things you mention above, it conceivably might make a difference. Even then I'd argue in practice not so much, but it might at least!
Old 10th October 2019
  #46
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RayHeath View Post
As to the first assumption, one could very well have captured [or been handed] a 32-bit float file from a MixPre II.
The vast majority of people on this forum probably don't even know what a MixPre II is.

If we were in the post production section then yes. Here, not so much.

Almost everyone is using 24-bit fixed as a target recording format as well as session interchange format.
Old 24th October 2019
  #47
Lives for gear
 

Hey sorry for disappearing for a sec.. my damn computer started doing weird stuff (way too much to get into here), so I decided to back up, wipe drive, clean instal to Mojave. Damn took me this long !! I have so many plugins and apps to reinstall it was crazy..

Ok, Back on board, (and now on Mojave !!) lol

No worries guys about the sidetracking. I actually like the direction. Its still on subject, cause we are debating if higher number things are indeed higher numbers ! So all good bros !!

Ray, thanks for making sure I am answered. I have to be honest here... ummmm, I'm still a little confused. I posted my question cause I was/am unsure how I benefit from 32 bit float when recording via my Prism ADA-8XR interface, which is 24bit.

From what I gathered in the past, there is a difference though, cause its not necessarily real bit growth, its a engine ability inside of the DAW, in which the outcome is a higher dynamic range. (which I like for recording drums). I just was asking, WHERE is this dynamic range applied ? To my file, or in the mixer only. Anyway - Since drive space is pretty meaningless to me in 2019 (basically free) I say why bother trying to trust this person or that person or try to completely understand it myself, and simply solve it all by just recording everything at 32 bit float sessions. And I have.

Do I notice anything ? Not really, except the tracks seem to go in the yellow MUCH higher than before. But psycho_monkey said that feature is something else and been going on since PT10. (which I admit may be totally true).

So I did read all you guys had to say, and the Paul Issacs thing helped a bit, but if I am to be totally honest here.... dude, I'm still confused haha. This happens a lot in life, Is there a god, is there not, creation vs evolution, or better yet, god created things to evolve ! So both are right... We got a bible, yes (Paul Issacs) but I get more confused about my question of god reading the Bible... lol Get my point ?

So when I get to these junctions in life decisions, (just to let you know why I record in 32bf psycho monkey), I take the easy safe route.. Simple. Protect myself. I believe in a creator because that's a safer bet if wrong, than not believing and not following his commandments. (you lose nothing if you believe in god yet there isn't one - BUT big difference and losses if there is indeed one and you've been told there is yet still don't believe and follow).

Same with this. I lose nothing except drive space to record at 32bit.. So why not ? Safer bet, JUST INCASE there is some difference no one notices. I like it anyway. Separates me from the masses that don't, and frustrates the conservative types.. haha ! Thats enough reward right there !
Old 24th October 2019
  #48
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounds Great View Post
Actually I wasn't joking. I haven't really heard that much difference with PCM as you move up from 16/44.1. But I do hear a major improvement over that with DSD recordings.
Dope ! Yea from my tests I do too... But I simply don't do DSD yet. But my interface is set up to. Willing to take the leap if PT allows for it one day.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Philter View Post
Unfortunate the direction this thread took... the good news is that the lossless format is available at all. you can all argue until you're blue in the face about sample rates, but it's a fact that compressed audio files sound like crap. I'll take 44.1/16 uncompressed over ANYTHING lossy compressed, ANY day
Yes I agree ! BUT the point to the thread is Amazon is taking the first right step in the right direction. IF it catches enough, next will be .wav files offered. = No Compression at say 24bit/96k. This would indeed be great. As it will be not compressed at all.

And furthermore, your statement is right to a degree IMO. The amount of compression is a big key to the degradation or not, and the size of their higher end files makes it obvious that it will be indeed a better sounding file than the same song from iTunes even though its compressed, they both are, but iTunes and all others prior to this have worse compression embedded in them. (I bet on it).

Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
I mean - the vast number of people using 32bit float recording are not using this box, therefore not getting the benefits you describe. In fact anyone using the format in a DAW isn’t getting the same benefit.

It’s not really about what happens in the future - I agree it’s a great concept for location recording. It’s that right now, people are using this format without a clue that it’s doing nothing for them.

And yes - not really anything to do with the topic, it’s just a personal bugbear that people see bigger numbers and think better without understanding the implications!
I don't know man. I believe there is indeed a difference inside the DAW. Ask yourself this, why is the feature/option even there ? It has to do something. Thats just simple deduction. How long have we asked for this or that feature from Avid and they don't do it ? Much simpler stuff too (track folders !). lol Yet them doing this feature and not the more simple ones proves there must be something to it beyond some "higher number looks better" hype. (IMO)

The thing it does from what I understand is give your tracks better dynamic range (lets just leave the clipping and volume part out), but a dynamic range. Just throwing that out there.

If indeed true, then this dynamic range could be passed onto your final prints just due to residual playback/record physics.
Old 24th October 2019
  #49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Infa View Post
I don't know man. I believe there is indeed a difference inside the DAW. Ask yourself this, why is the feature/option even there ? It has to do something. Thats just simple deduction. How long have we asked for this or that feature from Avid and they don't do it ? Much simpler stuff too (track folders !). lol Yet them doing this feature and not the more simple ones proves there must be something to it beyond some "higher number looks better" hype. (IMO)

The thing it does from what I understand is give your tracks better dynamic range (lets just leave the clipping and volume part out), but a dynamic range. Just throwing that out there.

If indeed true, then this dynamic range could be passed onto your final prints just due to residual playback/record physics.
Man, you’re confusing belief with facts here!

Use whatever makes you happy. But don’t just invent stuff to support that! Be aware that what you’re doing is nothing more than a safety net - if working at 32bit you print your mix and clip the master, you can turn it down and you’ll be fine. There’s one benefit right there.

I’ve already outlined why it works for sound designers and people doing lots of offline rendering. You can (for example) turn a loud sound down using clip gain, do offline processing, and then turn it back up again should you need to without losing resolution. Multiple times. It has its uses, it’s just nothing to do with “sound quality” or “more bits being better”. It’s to do with floating vs fixed point.

As I said - if you like to feel your mix sounds better this way, go for it! HD space is indeed cheap, although big projects will mount up.

But don’t start thinking along the lines “there’s gotta be a reason for it, I know, it sounds better!” unless you’ve got concrete proof and logical reasoning.

IF your converter is 32bit float, then yes - you might get better dynamic range, assuming the analogue stages are up to it. Given we’ve not really got fully 24bit analogue stages yet, you may well be recording more detailed noise, but still.

IF your conversion is still 24bit fixed, where does this increased dynamic range come from? If you record at 8bit but store at 24bit, does that give you a 24bit recording? Take a 24bit file - convert it to 8bit - convert it back to 24bit. Is the resolution restored? According to your logic it should be.

Do you see why this thinking is daft? You can’t restore what wasn’t captured in the first place.
Old 24th October 2019
  #50
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Infa View Post
The thing it does from what I understand is give your tracks better dynamic range (lets just leave the clipping and volume part out), but a dynamic range. Just throwing that out there.

If indeed true, then this dynamic range could be passed onto your final prints just due to residual playback/record physics.
That's not how it works.
Old 25th October 2019
  #51
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
IF your conversion is still 24bit fixed, where does this increased dynamic range come from? If you record at 8bit but store at 24bit, does that give you a 24bit recording? Take a 24bit file - convert it to 8bit - convert it back to 24bit. Is the resolution restored? According to your logic it should be.
Sorry, let me explain myself further then, cause no I do not think like exactly what your saying..., I'm not talking about bit depth. I for sure know once anything is either not captured, lost or not there in the first place, there is no bringing it back or "making something out of nothing". I agree and know.

Though I may be wrong, what I am saying is I thought, from my understanding is there is a larger dynamic range that 32bf gives your mixing channels playback if in the 32bf format session. It doesn't change your files, no, but the files playback through your DAW mix channels benefit from this 32bf dynamic range, not the file or info itself. If the playback benefits, then the recorded final mix will as well, even if each individual file did not.

Similar to if you took a 8bit file, a 24bit file and a 32bit file and played them each through lets say a tape machine right. Each file was not tape, no, nor will the file's info gain some tape feel to it. BUT even though they each were a different bit depth and the data on the files themselves won't change at all, the audio passthrough to the tape if recorded now all has that "tape effect" passed onto the subsequent recordings of each. And all a equal amount too (as that's just physics.)

So even though I might be wrong, that is where my logic was at. I was not thinking the files gain anything themselves. Nor thinking something magically came out of nothing. Just think 32bf *passes on* higher dynamic range to your mix capabilities.

But if that's not how it works, then I do get that too.
Old 25th October 2019
  #52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Infa View Post
Sorry, let me explain myself further then, cause no I do not think like exactly what your saying..., I'm not talking about bit depth. I for sure know once anything is either not captured, lost or not there in the first place, there is no bringing it back or "making something out of nothing". I agree and know.
OK.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Infa View Post
Though I may be wrong, what I am saying is I thought, from my understanding is there is a larger dynamic range that 32bf gives your mixing channels playback if in the 32bf format session. It doesn't change your files, no, but the files playback through your DAW mix channels benefit from this 32bf dynamic range, not the file or info itself. If the playback benefits, then the recorded final mix will as well, even if each individual file did not.
What "benefits" can one possibly get - how does it work?

I've already said - a DAW is 64bit float processing anyway. it takes that captured 24b file, processes in 64bit float, and stores the result as 24bit (and is playing back at 24bit through your 24bit converters). Assuming you don't clip the master (sloppy engineering) what increased dynamic range does your 32bit float storage give you? Nothing - your converters are still 24b.

As I keep saying, IF you're repeatedly processing and rendering files - 32b float storage might feasibly have some sonic benefit. You'd need to be doing a lot of processing and again being sloppy with gain levels, but it might.

If you're not, you're recording at 24bit, and playing back at 24bit with 64bit float processing in between - where does this "larger dynamic range" in your "mixing channels playback" come from.

I think the problem is that you're refusing to acknowledge the DAW itself is ALREADY WORKING AT 64bit - whatever's plumbed into it. UNLESS you can capture a 32bit float file using this one specific converter, then you're always feeding it a 24bit float resolution file - whatever it says on the tin. You're ALREADY GETTING the benefit at playback. Does that compute with you?!

Again, unless you've messed up your gain staging and clipped the master buss, there is NO difference in practice to storing a 24bit capture @ 24bit, playing it back through the 64bit float architecture of the DAW and saving it again as 24bit, compared to doing the same thing with 32bit files. They're still just 24bits-worth of dynamic range at the end, and the processing is still working the same in the middle.

I don't understand that, IF you understand all that, where you think this extra dynamic range is coming from. Or even why you need it

Quote:
Similar to if you took a 8bit file, a 24bit file and a 32bit file and played them each through lets say a tape machine right. Each file was not tape, no, nor will the file's info gain some tape feel to it. BUT even though they each were a different bit depth and the data on the files themselves won't change at all, the audio passthrough to the tape if recorded now all has that "tape effect" passed onto the subsequent recordings of each. And all a equal amount too (as that's just physics.)
A DAW is not tape. Any analogy like this to tape does not work. Tape imparts measurable sonic change on a signal in the form of distortion, noise, EQ change, wow/flutter etc. A DAW does not. Don't even attempt to form an analogy using tape as an example, it's completely off base! It's not similar at all - it's completely unrelated.

Quote:
So even though I might be wrong, that is where my logic was at. I was not thinking the files gain anything themselves. Nor thinking something magically came out of nothing. Just think 32bf *passes on* higher dynamic range to your mix capabilities.

But if that's not how it works, then I do get that too.
It's not how it works. I've explained several times how it works - read the above! If your logic isn't following - you need to reread (or I need to explain better, though I think I'm pretty clear above, assuming one knows the difference between fixed and floating point maths).
Old 25th October 2019
  #53
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
I've already said - a DAW is 64bit float processing anyway. I think the problem is that you're refusing to acknowledge the DAW itself is ALREADY WORKING AT 64bit
I do know that. Isn't 32bf session format different than the bit depth of a mixing engine in PT though ? I thought they were complimentary to each other is my point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
Or even why you need it
Extra dynamic range is always cool. You kidding me ? 90% of these Mastering engineers need to understand this too. lol Quit with the loudness war. Makes your mixes sound messy.



Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
Don't even attempt to form an analogy using tape as an example, it's completely off base! It's not similar at all - it's completely unrelated.
LOL, You sir can't seem to understand a analogy unless its too directly related. I know Tape has nothing to do with a DAW. The reference was made by me using the phrase "lets say" beforehand = this means I could have mentioned even something about a car, air conditioning or video and it STILL is a good analogy.. the point to the analogy was, run these things through something that effects them in a way, causing their recorded outcome to change YET the source file did not change. I could name 400 different examples, though if its not a DAW I guess it goes right by you- lol.

This analogy was simply pointing towards the way something could effect something else without changing the source data, because prior to that you were all obsessive over source data and proving to me why I'm being illogical. Wrong or right I was pointing out my logic was indeed logical, but only because I wasn't thinking in the same way you are about it. (maybe for me not understanding what it really is doing.) But after this thread, I ask, does anyone truly know ? lol

In my logic (again which is wrong if you say) - I am thinking 32bf didn't change source data on the fly, so the argument between your converter bit depth and this and that is moot cause I didn't think that's what it was about anyway. And I also thought it was beyond storage data as you seem to say that's all 32bf is. (which might be, but still just explaining where my logic was coming from). I thought it was different than the 64 bit mixing engine, but more like a additive to it to help it reach a higher dynamic range than it could with a 24bit session format (files and conversion piece irrelevant). Strictly talking a DAW setting that causes the built in mix engine to perform better.

So when in 32bf session format, your 64bit mixing engine together combined gave you a higher dynamic range than the 64bit mixing engine could do within a 16 or 24 bit session format.

In other words I looked at it like a added setting that enhanced your DAW is a simple way to put it maybe ?

I swore this is how I was reading what it did years ago. I actually would never argue about the storage bit thing, converter bits, etc.. that's just obvious, what your stating is the obvious. But hopefully now that you see how I was thinking and the direction I was thinking, causing the confusion between us.

Because lets say if I were right, then you see how what your saying about a converter only being 24 bit and storage file this and that, doesn't matter. If its a enhanced setting inside your DAW causing something to react better, then that's that, the "benefits" would be possible and that's from where they would come. No converter limitation or storage talk needed.

So let me get this straight just so I can be clear on your side here... it sounds like what your saying is that 32bf is actually just a "storage setting" and that's it ? (in a sense)

30-50% of my work (when not for my own stuff) is taking a lot of tracks recorded by standard folks (self proclaimed professionals) on their equipment that I don't trust and me not being there to get the levels etc.. And furthermore not a PT session, just audio wav files. And then using those, adding my own stuff and turning it into a song. So for drums and vocals, I really like the comfort zone of telling them to record in 32bf and I have my sessions in 32bf too. Several times I see peaks I wouldn't do (that past the 0 into the yellow clip realm) on their recordings. So maybe at least, if 32bf isn't doing what I always thought it was doing, it could be saving me from that. And at a low cost of drive space.

Slowly, I just ended the confusion with myself and my settings (what's on what?) and did all my sessions at 32bf to never have to think about it again. (off topic - I also switched to Interleaved as the Multiple Mono thing was getting annoying for exports and various tricks I was doing) So those two things, like can't tell you I have a great holy grail reason, but ZI just decided to do it and never turn back. Made my life easier.
Old 25th October 2019
  #54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Infa View Post
I do know that. Isn't 32bf session format different than the bit depth of a mixing engine in PT though ? I thought they were complimentary to each other is my point.
Well yes - they are different! 32bf is the STORAGE, the DAW always operates the same. you don't change the mix engine by using 32bf. In fact, even in 16bit mode, the DAW is still 64bf processing!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Infa View Post
Extra dynamic range is always cool. You kidding me ? 90% of these Mastering engineers need to understand this too. lol Quit with the loudness war. Makes your mixes sound messy.
I don't use that emoticon lightly!

What is the point in more dynamic range than human hearing, or than your analogue stages are capturing? you're simply capturing analogue hiss...at a lot of detail.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Infa View Post
LOL, You sir can't seem to understand a analogy unless its too directly related. I know Tape has nothing to do with a DAW. The reference was made by me using the phrase "lets say" beforehand = this means I could have mentioned even something about a car, air conditioning or video and it STILL is a good analogy.. the point to the analogy was, run these things through something that effects them in a way, causing their recorded outcome to change YET the source file did not change. I could name 400 different examples, though if its not a DAW I guess it goes right by you- lol.

This analogy was simply pointing towards the way something could effect something else without changing the source data, because prior to that you were all obsessive over source data and proving to me why I'm being illogical. Wrong or right I was pointing out my logic was indeed logical, but only because I wasn't thinking in the same way you are about it. (maybe for me not understanding what it really is doing.) But after this thread, I ask, does anyone truly know ? lol
For an analogy to be useful, it has to be analogous to the point being demonstrated.

There is nothing analogous here - it's nonsensical. It's irrelevant. It's not my understanding, it simply doesn't work. You could have said it's like fruit, or like a bunsen burner acting on magnesium, or it's like clouds. Simply not relevant.

Quote:
In my logic (again which is wrong if you say) - I am thinking 32bf didn't change source data on the fly, so the argument between your converter bit depth and this and that is moot cause I didn't think that's what it was about anyway. And I also thought it was beyond storage data as you seem to say that's all 32bf is. (which might be, but still just explaining where my logic was coming from). I thought it was different than the 64 bit mixing engine, but more like a additive to it to help it reach a higher dynamic range than it could with a 24bit session format (files and conversion piece irrelevant). Strictly talking a DAW setting that causes the built in mix engine to perform better.

So when in 32bf session format, your 64bit mixing engine together combined gave you a higher dynamic range than the 64bit mixing engine could do within a 16 or 24 bit session format.

In other words I looked at it like a added setting that enhanced your DAW is a simple way to put it maybe ?

I swore this is how I was reading what it did years ago. I actually would never argue about the storage bit thing, converter bits, etc.. that's just obvious, what your stating is the obvious. But hopefully now that you see how I was thinking and the direction I was thinking, causing the confusion between us.

Because lets say if I were right, then you see how what your saying about a converter only being 24 bit and storage file this and that, doesn't matter. If its a enhanced setting inside your DAW causing something to react better, then that's that, the "benefits" would be possible and that's from where they would come. No converter limitation or storage talk needed.
I'm sorry - that's all complete nonsense and misunderstanding. I can't say it any clearer than I have already. Your "logic" is based on misunderstanding.

Quote:
So let me get this straight just so I can be clear on your side here... it sounds like what your saying is that 32bf is actually just a "storage setting" and that's it ? (in a sense)
YES. It's not just "what I'm saying" - it's the way it works. Just like the 16b setting. The DAW engine doesn't change!

Quote:
30-50% of my work (when not for my own stuff) is taking a lot of tracks recorded by standard folks (self proclaimed professionals) on their equipment that I don't trust and me not being there to get the levels etc.. And furthermore not a PT session, just audio wav files. And then using those, adding my own stuff and turning it into a song. So for drums and vocals, I really like the comfort zone of telling them to record in 32bf and I have my sessions in 32bf too. Several times I see peaks I wouldn't do (that past the 0 into the yellow clip realm) on their recordings. So maybe at least, if 32bf isn't doing what I always thought it was doing, it could be saving me from that. And at a low cost of drive space.
By telling them to record at 32bf, there's no comfort zone. If they clip their 24b converters through incompetence, they clip them. I can't emphasise this enough - UNLESS you're using that one specific 32bf recorder (which is designed for location recordists to not have to worry about overs - although of course you can still clip a mic amp!), you're taking a fixed 24b file, padding it out with 8 bits of nothing, and storing it. You're not "recording at 32bf". You can't be.


Quote:
Slowly, I just ended the confusion with myself and my settings (what's on what?) and did all my sessions at 32bf to never have to think about it again. (off topic - I also switched to Interleaved as the Multiple Mono thing was getting annoying for exports and various tricks I was doing) So those two things, like can't tell you I have a great holy grail reason, but ZI just decided to do it and never turn back. Made my life easier.
Arguably you're just as confused I think a victim perhaps of the "more is better" school of thought, like all those home recordists working at 192k because it must be better right?

Interleaved vs mono is also a moot point really; yes there might be workflow reasons to working with true stereo files, such as being able to dive into the audio files window to load a consolidated sample onto a pad in Battery for example, but as far as PT operation goes, it's the same thing.

As I've said continuously - unless you're clipping your master bus (which kinda makes you the same as those so called pros, right? Not saying you are!) or doing lots of offline rendering, you're just using extra storage. Which is cheap, but still 1/3 more than you need to.
Old 25th October 2019
  #55
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Infa View Post
Extra dynamic range is always cool. You kidding me ? 90% of these Mastering engineers need to understand this too. lol Quit with the loudness war. Makes your mixes sound messy.
Those are two completely different issues. Mastering engineers aren't going to benefit from an enhanced dynamic range from 32-bit float when they pretty much always end up limiting the range anyway.

After laundry people fold their clothes. What you're saying now is similar to telling someone they can get a bigger drawer for their unfolded T-shirts that they're going to fold anyway, and after they're done folding them they only take up half the space of the drawer they already have... What are they going to do with the extra space they never intend to use? Tell them to not fold their clothes and use the drawer space they already have instead of telling them they need bigger drawers.

So again, you don't seem to understand how this works.

Take any music you like and go to the softest part. Set the level to where you like it to be. Now listen from beginning to end. How loud is the loudest part at your ears? Because at 24-bit fixed you have a theoretical 144dB of dynamic range. How loud does it need to be at your ears? How loud is the ambient noise in your listening environment? What's the distance between those two points? 144dB? Hardly. 120dB? hardly... and so on...

You should really reconsider if your original premise in the first post is right considering you don't fully understand how this works. After all your understanding of half of sampling is clearly not on point (one being dynamic range and the other frequency range).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Infa View Post
But after this thread, I ask, does anyone truly know ? lol
I'm pretty sure some people truly know.
Old 25th October 2019
  #56
Lives for gear
 

Ahhh, ok got it. So I just simply did not know that.

Seems this subject has so many people saying different things. So really I would definitely have to say if you guys are right to a tee, then yes I have completely been misunderstanding the 32bf thing.

And FYI thanks for clearing the air for me.

I'm just not understanding why in all the years of recording, being into this stuff why is this subject has been so elusive ? And its not just idiots saying wrong things. Its like seriously smart tech heads over the years, who might as well as invented the format saying how it will do as I was saying.

OR I misinterpreted them. (totally possible)

Even now, no disrespect, but really, I just have to take your word for it. Why is not the inventor of 32bf write a article on this that is simple to read, and we can all be done with it ? lol Seems odd this hasn't happened. Anyway. I will for now completely agree with what your saying though, cause if indeed all it is is storage, then I do get it all in one simple swoop. Thats all anyone had to say years ago.

That said, there is absolutely no reason for me to reword my original post, as that stays spot on and is a entirely different subject. And I am 100% correct in hoping for a higher quality format for our audiences to be desired.

BTW I also never subscribe for more is better, it just usually always is with everything except a few things. And audio (and a woman's weight) happens to be one of those few things, so that was not the issue there. Louder does not equal better, more notes in a bar does not equal better, more instruments in a song does not equal better, etc.. more is definitely not more there. So that was not it.

I just either misinterpreted, or was told wrong. Or we are wrong now.

Oh dang almost forgot... I seriously doubt they are clipping on their converters. If so, I'll just take directions to the closest bridge now please... thanks.. lol No I made it pretty clear about that and I'm sure even they wouldn't do that. What they are doing (and common to do for most) is "sweeting" the track before they send it over (to make up for their crappy Apogee or whatever equipment they think is the best ever) and during that sweetening if ever in a rush (like most people are) they will miss one part that the plugin caused the correctly recorded track level to now peak a touch in parts that otherwise was not without that plugin on.

WHY ?? - Blame it on the weed, the alcohol, the Xanax or being in a rush - whatever lol, but I see it happens with people who are not us.. To me, this is when 32bf saves you ? Or no ? Never red clipping on the track, just that yellow past the 0.0 thing. (which I also don't understand.) And I can guarantee its from a plugin causing a otherwise correct level to hit the yellow. Not the recording, so no not clipping the converter on the way in.

BUT then when they export that, the new level is embedded in the file I receive. My thoughts is if we both are in 32bf, then this saves it from truly clipping ??? ? Either way, I just turn it down via clip gain (cause I don't like the extra colors on my metering), but I otherwise honestly don't hear a distortion/difference, etc..

Or, would that file still be ok anyway in a 24bit session ?
Old 25th October 2019
  #57
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
Those are two completely different issues. Mastering engineers aren't going to benefit from an enhanced dynamic range from 32-bit float when they pretty much always end up limiting the range anyway.
You misunderstood me (why does that happen so much here ? lol)

I was saying they start off with a perfectly fine dynamic range, and they need to understand the value of their dynamic range as is cause once they are done, there is no dynamic range left in the song. Sounds messy.

This dynamic range I was speaking of there had nothing to do with the "extra dynamic range" I was speaking of earlier that I think you thought I was referring to in that statement. That statement was simply to state how important dynamic range was as a whole to psycho_monkey, cause he asked why you would want this "extra dynamic" range. (this is where though, I could be mistaken that more would = more of what I am looking for ?? but that's another subject)

I will say this - most likely I am misinterpreting either the concept of extra dynamic range in this particular subject we are on due to not understanding what 32bf would really give you - or headroom or combined both though.. lol So yea, all good. But I did want to be clear, I was referring to people disrespecting our already given default dynamic range all for the love of loudness. (more = more to them I guess)
Old 25th October 2019
  #58
I can’t speak for what you’ve been told, or what you think you’ve been told.

Only for what I understand to be the case.

And if I’VE misunderstood things - someone correct me!

But I’m pretty sure that’s not the case.

It’s not that hard to understand - it does make sense. You just can’t extrapolate to what you think, stuck to what you know.
Old 25th October 2019
  #59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Infa View Post
Ahhh, ok got it. So I just simply did not know that.

Seems this subject has so many people saying different things. So really I would definitely have to say if you guys are right to a tee, then yes I have completely been misunderstanding the 32bf thing.

And FYI thanks for clearing the air for me.

I'm just not understanding why in all the years of recording, being into this stuff why is this subject has been so elusive ? And its not just idiots saying wrong things. Its like seriously smart tech heads over the years, who might as well as invented the format saying how it will do as I was saying.

OR I misinterpreted them. (totally possible)

Even now, no disrespect, but really, I just have to take your word for it. Why is not the inventor of 32bf write a article on this that is simple to read, and we can all be done with it ? lol Seems odd this hasn't happened. Anyway. I will for now completely agree with what your saying though, cause if indeed all it is is storage, then I do get it all in one simple swoop. Thats all anyone had to say years ago.

That said, there is absolutely no reason for me to reword my original post, as that stays spot on and is a entirely different subject. And I am 100% correct in hoping for a higher quality format for our audiences to be desired.

BTW I also never subscribe for more is better, it just usually always is with everything except a few things. And audio (and a woman's weight) happens to be one of those few things, so that was not the issue there. Louder does not equal better, more notes in a bar does not equal better, more instruments in a song does not equal better, etc.. more is definitely not more there. So that was not it.

I just either misinterpreted, or was told wrong. Or we are wrong now.

Oh dang almost forgot... I seriously doubt they are clipping on their converters. If so, I'll just take directions to the closest bridge now please... thanks.. lol No I made it pretty clear about that and I'm sure even they wouldn't do that. What they are doing (and common to do for most) is "sweeting" the track before they send it over (to make up for their crappy Apogee or whatever equipment they think is the best ever) and during that sweetening if ever in a rush (like most people are) they will miss one part that the plugin caused the correctly recorded track level to now peak a touch in parts that otherwise was not without that plugin on.

WHY ?? - Blame it on the weed, the alcohol, the Xanax or being in a rush - whatever lol, but I see it happens with people who are not us.. To me, this is when 32bf saves you ? Or no ? Never red clipping on the track, just that yellow past the 0.0 thing. (which I also don't understand.) And I can guarantee its from a plugin causing a otherwise correct level to hit the yellow. Not the recording, so no not clipping the converter on the way in.

BUT then when they export that, the new level is embedded in the file I receive. My thoughts is if we both are in 32bf, then this saves it from truly clipping ??? ? Either way, I just turn it down via clip gain (cause I don't like the extra colors on my metering), but I otherwise honestly don't hear a distortion/difference, etc..

Or, would that file still be ok anyway in a 24bit session ?
- what apogee are you thinking is “crappy”? All the apogee products I know are pretty decent.

- why are people sending you stuff with plugin processing applied? Get them to send it raw! Yes - in theory, exporting said crappily processed file as 32b could stop clipping if they’ve overshot. You know what’d be better? No processing at all!
Old 25th October 2019
  #60
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Infa View Post
That said, there is absolutely no reason for me to reword my original post, as that stays spot on and is a entirely different subject. And I am 100% correct in hoping for a higher quality format for our audiences to be desired.
You are missing my point I think.

My point is that you thought you were right about how bit depth works, and now you seem to think that maybe you misunderstood how that works. Since you just came to that realization you should also consider that perhaps you were also misunderstanding how sample rate 'works'. Because when we sample we deal with bit depth and sample rate, and if you misunderstood 50% of that it's entirely possible that you misunderstood the other half as well.

So it's not about it being "a entirely different subject", because first of all it isn't, and secondly it's all math and technology and if you 'miss' the one you could have missed the other.

I'm actually not entirely opposed to more outlets offering higher resolution audio, I'm just saying that your original post and argument really only boils down to the old tedious debate over sample rates. So any of the million threads about it would do.. if we wanted to talk about it that is..

If all it is is letting us know higher res downloads/streams are now more available then of course we appreciate the info.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Infa View Post
Never red clipping on the track, just that yellow past the 0.0 thing. (which I also don't understand.) And I can guarantee its from a plugin causing a otherwise correct level to hit the yellow. Not the recording, so no not clipping the converter on the way in.

BUT then when they export that, the new level is embedded in the file I receive. My thoughts is if we both are in 32bf, then this saves it from truly clipping ??? ? Either way, I just turn it down via clip gain (cause I don't like the extra colors on my metering), but I otherwise honestly don't hear a distortion/difference, etc..

Or, would that file still be ok anyway in a 24bit session ?
As far as I know it is correct that if you go above zero using floating point, and then save that signal in a floating point file, then 'yes', importing that file into a new application that again uses floating point will allow you to avoid clipping.

The recent devices that record to 32-bit float, targeted to location-sound recordists in film/tv production btw, will allow signals 'above zero' for lack of a better word. When importing those files into for example Izotope RX we can see them clipping hard, but by simply lowering the level the dynamics are regained. That's the result of recording to 32-bit float and then importing that into an application that properly supports it.

I suppose the thing to consider here is that the increased dynamic range we get from 32-bit float is really completely unusable at the very end of the process when we actually listen to audio, which in turn means that the much more limited range we need to stick to is.. well.. the limit. In other words we still have to get down to below 0dBFS sooner or later, and going above during production becomes 'questionable' from the standpoint of "best practices". It's really not a good thing to become too used to going above zero is what I'm saying.

But anyway, I think you're partially correct about those implications, if I understood you correctly.
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz 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…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump