Boah! Sonar is the ...

[Spe3D]

I like the 64 bit ‘mixing engine’ – and better yet I have an audio program ready for when XP64 can handle my drivers – then I will be 64 bit all the way.

Thing is when I see guys using MP3’s as a basis on which to record (its true they think its good enough) – ya got to wonder.

Best regards,

Spe3d

:O)

[headquest]

Back when I was usikng Tracktion as my host there was this same debate, because Tracktion 2 has a 64-bit mixing engine. The usual suspects claimed that this was a tremendous improvement (and bearing in mind that the list of improvements in T2 was a fairly short one, I guess they had to say something... ), but the only difference I noticed was that the CPU overhead went up when the 64-bit mixing option was selected.

Now I'm using Sonar 5 alongside Live 5 and Audition 1.5. People regularly ask whether Live 5 actually sounds any good (there was once a rumour that it didn't, generally perpetuated by people that wrongly suspected Live is for DJs only), so comparison with 64-bit Sonar is a good starting point in answering that question too.

So can I notice a significant difference between the audio quality possible in each of these applications? No, not really. I can notice that the effects plugins are different, but that's about it. And I can notice that in Sonar I need to set the audio buffer larger than in Live in order to avoid drop-outs (which actually suggests that Live's audio engine is better), but I can't really notice a particular difference in the mixing engine or overall audio quality.

Then again, I went to too many heavy metal concerts when I was younger...

[fritzman]

I checked the CW forum and I didn't find a thing.

Plenty of people posted on that forum that they noticed a better audio engine(when 5 came out),but wether or not that had to do with the internal 64 bit resolution is another story,but having less narrow bandwidth in the summing bus can't hurt during mixdowns.Your probably not going too find many posts regarding this issue because it's old news to us by now.Posting mixes on line is a waste of time because of the variance of quality going in if you get my drift,unless someone records and mixes down the same thing in Sonar4 for comparison.Good luck in finding someone with that kind of time to waste. I'll put forth this though,I mainly notice more detail in VSTi's and some plugins and an improved stereo image and mixdowns. Do I hear a huge difference? No,but even though I have Sonar 4 installed I won't even use it to finish old projects and I'm usually not that fussy. Maybe when we get more plugs and VSTi's that use a 64 bit internal path we'll notice even more,who knows,but for now I'm happy with the difference.

Thanx for noticing a difference and not careing to let us participate in that preceived difference.


Have a nice day, FRitz

[Hunter]

a lot of CW forum members have GOD. they hear things that arent there all the time, so take with a pinch of salt.

yeah I noticed that too, the most religous forum population. Maybe thats why no f**ker ever replies to my posts there, because they can tell I'm an aethiest due to the lack of bible quotes in my sig...

[Hunter]

actually maybe Cakewalk could use that as a slogan:

Sonar 64 bit - What would Jesus use?

[arke]

actually maybe Cakewalk could use that as a slogan:

Sonar 64 bit - What would Jesus use?

Definetely not Sonar. He'd simply turn an old broken floppy into a platinum-selling CD.

[ditroiamusic]

Alan, I love your signature That is priceless

[oddbods finger]

a lot of CW forum members have GOD. they hear things that arent there all the time, so take with a pinch of salt.

yeah I noticed that too, the most religous forum population. Maybe thats why no f**ker ever replies to my posts there, because they can tell I'm an aethiest due to the lack of bible quotes in my sig...

nice to know I'm not the only one who thinks this.
There's a real bunch of zealots over there....
They have their own commandment -
"thou shalt not take the name of Cakewalk products in vain"

[Lunch Money]

Which usual suspects, Headquest? I can't think of ANY RMS regulars who were raving about 64-bit mixing. I think more of us were inclined to say, "I dunno. I can't hear the difference."

Greg

[headquest]

It was a turn of phrase, Greg, not a pesonal attack on anyone

As I said I can't really hear a difference on my system, whether using 64-bit processing in either Sonar or Tracktion.

[agincourtdb]

It was a turn of phrase, Greg, not a pesonal attack on anyone

As I said I can't really hear a difference on my system, whether using 64-bit processing in either Sonar or Tracktion.

From what I understand, 64-bit mixing is more about fine accuracy during processing... effects and the like. Whether that accuracy would translate to a difference you could hear consciously is another matter entirely. Then again there are people who claim to be unable to hear the difference between 16/44.1 and 24/96 so...

I agree that it's probably irrelevant if your target medium is a 128k mp3.

Personally, I'm moving to 64 bit because I'm upgrading my system to dual core, and both Sonar and my soundcard (FW1814) can handle it.

[Jefs]

a lot of CW forum members have GOD. they hear things that arent there all the time, so take with a pinch of salt.

OK, now you guys have done it. You poke fun at the religious CW forum members, and what happens-- today CW releases RAPTURE.

Great, now it's the end times--prepare for much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

[MurderDethKill]

Rapture looks like another Dimension of Dimension (Pro)...

[headquest]

OK, now you guys have done it. You poke fun at the religious CW forum members, and what happens-- today CW releases RAPTURE.

Great, now it's the end times--prepare for much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

[Lunch Money]

I can't tell the difference between 16/44.1 and 24/96

On my crap system