Boah! Sonar is the ...

[fac]

I have Sonar 5. I can't tell the difference between the 32 bit and 64 bit engines, but I have 64-bit turned on since the CPU overhead is minimal and it's supposed to be better. I mean, just because I can't hear it doesn't mean it's useless.

[agincourtdb]

I have Sonar 5. I can't tell the difference between the 32 bit and 64 bit engines, but I have 64-bit turned on since the CPU overhead is minimal and it's supposed to be better. I mean, just because I can't hear it doesn't mean it's useless.

Hey Fac... nice to see you out here in the cruel world....

[fritzman]

I mean, just because I can't hear it doesn't mean it's useless.

Yeah. Could I please use this sentence? It sounds so cool. It's perfect for the argument with mastering clients. "Hey, I used XYZ extensively. You can't hear it? Yeah, but that doesn't mean it's useless! And it didn't cost you too much extra."
Man, I LOVE that marketing stuff.


Best wishes, FRitz

[HanafiH]

Yeah sure. Same goes for the difference made by a $1.000.000 Neve console, 2 dozen $5000 mics, 6 racks full of expensive stuff and several rooms acoustically designed for another 2 million can't be heard there also. No problem.

Ya left out the eustacian cocaine coating. Thas the bes bit man.

[fac]

I mean, just because I can't hear it doesn't mean it's useless.

Yeah. Could I please use this sentence? It sounds so cool. It's perfect for the argument with mastering clients. "Hey, I used XYZ extensively. You can't hear it? Yeah, but that doesn't mean it's useless! And it didn't cost you too much extra."
Man, I LOVE that marketing stuff.


Best wishes, FRitz

The thing is that I have A and B. I know B is technically better than A, although I can't hear a difference. Also, using B doesn't cost more than using A. Which one am I going to use? Well, B of course.

I didn't buy Sonar 5 for the 64-bit engine, but now that I have it, I don't see a reason not to use it. If the 64-bit engine used considerably more CPU or were unstable, I would stick to 32-bit. Actually, I upgraded to S5 just so I could get Project-5 at discount price and get the Sonitus bundle thrown in.

[agincourtdb]

I mean, just because I can't hear it doesn't mean it's useless.

Yeah. Could I please use this sentence? It sounds so cool. It's perfect for the argument with mastering clients. "Hey, I used XYZ extensively. You can't hear it? Yeah, but that doesn't mean it's useless! And it didn't cost you too much extra."
Man, I LOVE that marketing stuff.

Best wishes, FRitz

You're ignoring all the other variables inherent in the comparison... he means sitting at his DAW at his mix position with his speakers monitoring his program material with his ears. A lack of a percievable difference under those specific circumstances doesn't mean there isn't a quantifiable difference that could prove important under some circumstances.

[fritzman]

I mean, just because I can't hear it doesn't mean it's useless.

Yeah. Could I please use this sentence? It sounds so cool. It's perfect for the argument with mastering clients. "Hey, I used XYZ extensively. You can't hear it? Yeah, but that doesn't mean it's useless! And it didn't cost you too much extra."
Man, I LOVE that marketing stuff.


Best wishes, FRitz

The thing is that I have A and B. I know B is technically better than A, although I can't hear a difference. Also, using B doesn't cost more than using A. Which one am I going to use? Well, B of course.

I didn't buy Sonar 5 for the 64-bit engine, but now that I have it, I don't see a reason not to use it. If the 64-bit engine used considerably more CPU or were unstable, I would stick to 32-bit. Actually, I upgraded to S5 just so I could get Project-5 at discount price and get the Sonitus bundle thrown in.

Man,

I could understand it if you would say that it is less CPU hungry than the 32bit version when used on 64bit hardware with 64bit win. This is actually what I read somewhere. But hey, to each his/her own.


Have fun with Sonar, FRitz

[fritzman]

You're ignoring all the other variables inherent in the comparison... he means sitting at his DAW at his mix position with his speakers monitoring his program material with his ears. A lack of a percievable difference under those specific circumstances doesn't mean there isn't a quantifiable difference that could prove important under some circumstances.

Could it be really THAT personal?


Best wishes, FRitz

[fac]

Man,

I could understand it if you would say that it is less CPU hungry than the 32bit version when used on 64bit hardware with 64bit win. This is actually what I read somewhere. But hey, to each his/her own.


Have fun with Sonar, FRitz

Ok, now you're confusing things. One thing is the precision of the operations performed by the sequencer and plugins to produce an audio output, and another (very different) thing is the wordsize of the CPU's instruction set.

The sequencer performs all its operations using floating point numbers. These can be 32-bit, 64-bit or 80-bit, but in reality, all floating point numbers are converted to 80-bit for the FPU to process. The FPU performs the operations and then stores the result in memory with the desired precision. Storing the result as a 32-bit variable will cause more loss of precision than storing it as a 64-bit variable. These losses are cumulative, and regardless of them being perceptible or not, it is clear that 64-bit is technically better than 32-bit. This is the way it works for both 32-bit and 64-bit CPU's. The neglible CPU overhead related to the 64-bit engine is mostly related to the larger amounts of memory transfers (since audio buffers are now twice the size in bytes) and possible conversions (from the 32-bit output of a VST), but that's about it. No extra processing is done.

On the other hand, 64-bit CPU's have twice the number of CPU registers, and they are twice the size than in 32-bit CPU's. This allows for more optimized code that may use more internal registers and avoid unnecesary memory access. This may speed up a sequencer regardless of the internal precision of its floating point engine.

I'm not saying that 32-bit mixing engines are poor in quality, or that Sonar is better because of its new mixing engine. All I'm saying is that Sonar 5 users have the choice of a 32-bit or 64-bit engine, and from my experience, unless it causes stability problems (ie.- some malfunctioning plugin) or serious CPU overhead, there's no reason to stay with the 32-bit engine.

[Lunch Money]

Yeah, I can see the benefits for 64-bit, even the inaudible ones. But for now my extra 5% CPU with 32-bit engine is something that's tangible and I can make practical use of. Once it becomes negligible and I can't notice it as a CPU hit, I'll switch over to 64-bit without even batting an eyelash.

Greg

[Doug1]

There once was this nice Cakewalk man who said that some of their customers heard a significant difference to the 32bit engine.

right...and Im sure the average Joe will notice a world of difference once that pristine render has been converted to a 128k MP3 file and is being listened to through earbuds on the subway.

Yeah sure. Same goes for the difference made by a $1.000.000 Neve console, 2 dozen $5000 mics, 6 racks full of expensive stuff and several rooms acoustically designed for another 2 million can't be heard there also. No problem.
But I am interested in anything audible to proove the marketing claim. Should be easy if somebody has two mixdowns. I can't imagine that everybody on Sonar5 simply checked the button for 64bit and feels happy, right? Not everybody is believing in marketing and is basing their decisions 100% on that stuff. So, does anybody have a direct link to some audios, please? Yes, I checked the CW forum and I didn't find a thing.


Best wishes, FRitz

exactly