64-bit mix engine?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lo-Fi Mike
  • Start date Start date
L

Lo-Fi Mike

New member
how much is the difference in using a 32 bit machine with a 32 bit mix engine versus a 64-bit machine and a 64-bit mix engine?

is it worth getting a new computer and buying sonar?

currently using a 32-bit pc with vegas 4.0 (from the beginning)
wondering if it's time for a change.

thanks,
---mike--- :D
 
dont confuse OS bits with audio bits

Noone's ever had a "bad" vegas mix because there werent enough bits.

More processing bits help deal with overs and internal calculations, needing less information to be thrown away...its a very good thing to not have to round off or truncate as often, but its a VERY small difference for the most part, audibly
 
so what your saying is that if you are having no problems with cpu power, you can run plugins with no skipping or popping, and you can play back your 37 track mix with no problems, then you don't need to go into the 64 bit real?

what about summing, will the 64bit render a better stereo mix than the 32

sorry if i sound like a newbie, I've been recording long enough (started with a tascam 4 trk) to understand mic placement, recording techniques, mixing, and gain setting, but i bought my first computer when i went digital. so i under stand the concept of a daw, but not the actual computer it's self.
 
so what your saying is that if you are having no problems with cpu power, you can run plugins with no skipping or popping, and you can play back your 37 track mix with no problems, then you don't need to go into the 64 bit real?

Well, under any test Ive seen so far, the 64 bit OS will require more power than the 32 bit one. Vista64 adds a HUGE overhead in terms of resources needed just to be at the same performance level as winxpsp1 32bit.

Theres a lot of hype that the 64 bit OS is faster than 32, but every audio benchmark Ive ever seen has shown the opposite, even in apps specifically made for 64 bit OS.

So, you definitely wouldnt want to go to 64 bit if you are wanting more power...what it can give you is the ability to access more ram. Not something you are concerned with since Vegas doesnt do VST-i's.

Now the above is dealing with OS bits, not audio processing/storage bits

what about summing, will the 64bit render a better stereo mix than the 32

Given the same mix, constrained to the same output bitdepth, and staying out of internal clipping, a 64 bit float audio engine and a 32 bit float audio engine SHOULD null to around -150db or more with each other, which is lower than the ability of any real world converters to playback an audible difference.

Now, this is all in theory...practice can be different, but I have spent a LOT of time rendering files in different apps to test, and its pretty much garbage in, garbage out. Lots of people will tell you there is some magic summing sauce in one app or another, but the tests dont bear that out, and indeed they cant even give a plausible guess to what the difference mechanism could possibly be.

sorry if i sound like a newbie, I've been recording long enough (started with a tascam 4 trk) to understand mic placement, recording techniques, mixing, and gain setting, but i bought my first computer when i went digital. so i under stand the concept of a daw, but not the actual computer it's self.

I think its fair to say that I left Vegas, for a somewhat Vegas inspired 64 bit float app, but I did NOT do it for the extra 32 bits...

As long as you are making sensible level practices, you will be fine the way you are. Don't do what most sites and magazine ads tell you (where they say run as hot as you can without clipping), just like in the analog world, find where "zero VU" is on your converters and aim for that, not 0dBFS and you should be OK.
 
On a side note, a 64 bit project would eat up 18446744073709551616 bits of hard drive space per sample (that's a quarter million terabytes)! Now set your sampling rate at 192kHz and you've got yourself a problem. :D
 
On a side note, a 64 bit project would eat up 18446744073709551616 bits of hard drive space per sample (that's a quarter million terabytes)! Now set your sampling rate at 192kHz and you've got yourself a problem. :D

I believe it would actually use 64 bits per sample......:confused:
 
I believe it would actually use 64 bits per sample......:confused:
Multiply that by even 44,100 samples per second per track in a 32 track project. That's not counting alternate takes or sample rates of up to 196k (that was the joke)
 
64 bit OS and CPU are NOT the same as 64 bit Audio processing as mentioned by Piplineaudio. The application may run in 64 bits on Vista on modern CPUs, doesn't mean squat about audio processing itself. Also, this is 64bits integer processing which actually gives you less precision than 32 bit floating point. Of course nowdays all the modern CPUs also include 128bit Vector Processing sub processors so, don't worry about the "less precision"...

About the only "improvement" that a 64bit OS and Application will give you is the fact that they can access more memory, which means you can load your computer with say 32GB of RAM and have the entire VSL, DKFH Superior, several Zero G plugs, going at the same time, all loaded into RAM if you're so inclined.

Now I am going. I am hungry.

CYA
 
64 bit OS and CPU are NOT the same as 64 bit Audio processing as mentioned by Piplineaudio. The application may run in 64 bits on Vista on modern CPUs, doesn't mean squat about audio processing itself. Also, this is 64bits integer processing which actually gives you less precision than 32 bit floating point.

Probably not the case. I doubt anybody does more than a 24-bit integer sample. Every piece of software I've ever heard of sums in float. It doesn't make any sense to do integer summing. 64-bit floating point is theoretically more resistant to clipping than 32-bit, but most people never abuse their gain staging in software sufficiently to clip at 32-bit precision, so it's a rather moot point. :)

64-bit CPUs have nothing to do with math at all. They're all about address space. In theory, a 64-bit address space can provide marginal gains (typical is about 15% for most apps in most OSes), but in Windows, the opposite seems to be true in tests. I won't begin to speculate why this is the case....
 
Uhm... you're again mixing audio processing with the OS/CPU/RAM data path.

There are a lot of audio apps that perform 48 bit floating point processing on 32 bit OS/CPUs. How do they accomplish it?

Again... audio processing bit depth has absolutely nothing to do with the hardware/OS data path handling.

Think of it this way. Just because a CPU runs at 3GHz, it doesn't mean you can record at 3GHz can you?
 
Uhm... you're again mixing audio processing with the OS/CPU/RAM data path.

Who are you replying to? I think we said pretty much the same thing except that you seemed to imply that 64-bit CPUs are necessary to do 64-bit integer math. They aren't.
 
I believe it would actually use 64 bits per sample......:confused:

Oh man, I guess I have to use this little thing called my brain every now and then. That large number would be the total number of possibilities (+ and -) that the voltage could be rounded off (quantized) to. It still takes up quite a "bit" of room. Har har har. Imagine the dynamic range though, around 386dB!
 
Those test results help if you have a quad processor and 8GB of RAM...
 
Yeah sure but it's more of a comparison between the relative audio performance worthiness of XP vs Vista on identical hardware.

Personally I'll take driver stability over performance any day, but those results are worth bearing in mind
 
I've never had a client complain that I used a 32Bit computer on their work...not once.
 
Yeah sure but it's more of a comparison between the relative audio performance worthiness of XP vs Vista on identical hardware.

Personally I'll take driver stability over performance any day, but those results are worth bearing in mind

totally with you there my friend.:)
 
Here's some interesting results of audio performance in XP v Vista32 v Vista64

http://rainrecording.co.uk/vista/performance

That "test" is absolute total bullcrap.

The same people are "selling" a system for $9500 that doesn't even exist yet (X38 motherboards are not out yet) and when it does exist will cost about $2500 to build.

*edit* I see today that someone called his bluff and he removed the link to buy as well as the information on the vaporware system called "elementx" lol
 
Who are you replying to? I think we said pretty much the same thing except that you seemed to imply that 64-bit CPUs are necessary to do 64-bit integer math. They aren't.
Oh, sorry, I thought you were talking about 64-bit audio again. Simple misunderstanding. And no, I wasn't implying that 64-bit processors are necessary to do 64-bit math.

I just want to stress that 64-bit processing is about processing efficiency and performance rather than audio quality (in the sense of audio bit depth).
 
Back
Top