jochicago wrote: ↑
Wed Sep 11, 2019 10:19 am
Maybe this is easy for me because I come from the design field. In photography we use cameras that produce 4000x more color information than the format we'll use for distribution. We do this because the images will be edited before delivery. Having 4000x more detail in the editing room means we can manipulate images with so much more precision and push them much harder.
Another excellent analogy. When editing your photographs, do you use a 10 bit monitor at 4000 times the resolution of the monitors/printers that will display the final product for your viewers? Because in this scenario it is your computer monitor that is the equivalent of your headphones, not the source material. That's comparable to your sampling rate and bit depth choices in rendering your audio and I think we all understand the benefits of calculating in 64 bit and rendering with more bit depth that you need for your final output.
It makes a world of sense to me that the person working in the editing room should be working with tons more detail than a consumer.
Then you need to be working on a 10 bit monitor with a resolution of 8k. But you don't and I'm sure your photos turn out perfectly well.
The DAW is operating at 64 bits for a reason, we are editing higher definition files than the export format will be, and we should be using fine hearing tools to edit.
No, that's not the reason. The main reason is that it sells more computers and software. My 32 bit host was working at 64 bits internally for years before anyone even thought of 64 bit hosts.
[/quote]IMO, anyone engaging in a fine precision activity deliberately using low-end tools is aiming the gun at their feet.[/quote]
Sure but only up to a point. Beyond that you are just wasting money and I can assure you the point at which that occurs is way, way lower than you think it is.