More Bits/Higher sample Rate is not "better"

Post general topics related to Nuendo 7 here.
User avatar
Fredo
External Moderator
Posts: 2323
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2010 11:20 am
Contact:

Re: More Bits/Higher sample Rate is not "better"

Post by Fredo » Mon Nov 20, 2017 6:56 pm

64bit all over does require a bit more memory and memory management from your computer.
So if your machine can't handle it, you can switch back to the old 32bit.

I was not aware that they left the switch in, I thought it only was for betatesting purposes.
(I focus more on Nuendo, so I am not really up-to-date with Cubase details)
Anyway ... that gives you a chance to compare a 64bit mix and a 32-bit mix.
Render both out in 48/24 and flip phase to hear what the differences are.

Fredo

alexis
Grand Senior Member
Posts: 4420
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 7:55 pm
Contact:

Re: More Bits/Higher sample Rate is not "better"

Post by alexis » Mon Nov 20, 2017 7:13 pm

Fredo wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 6:56 pm
64bit all over does require a bit more memory and memory management from your computer.
So if your machine can't handle it, you can switch back to the old 32bit.

I was not aware that they left the switch in, I thought it only was for betatesting purposes.
(I focus more on Nuendo, so I am not really up-to-date with Cubase details)
Anyway ... that gives you a chance to compare a 64bit mix and a 32-bit mix.
Render both out in 48/24 and flip phase to hear what the differences are.

Fredo

Not expecting to hear any from what you've posted, and others.

Thanks again for the explanation.
Alexis

-Cubase "Safe Start Mode" (CTRL-ALT-SHIFT)
-Get variable-tempo audio to follow a grid here,
-Replacing freely-timed section into a variable tempo project

Cubase 9.0.20; i5-4570 3.2GHz, 16GB RAM; W10 Pro 64-bit on Samsung SSD 840 Pro 256GB; Seagate 1TB SATA 600 Audio; UR28M; Motif8; UAD-2 Solo; Jamstix 3.6; RevoicePro3.3; EZDrummer 2

mitchiemasha
Member
Posts: 441
Joined: Tue May 10, 2011 10:02 pm
Contact:

Re: More Bits/Higher sample Rate is not "better"

Post by mitchiemasha » Mon Nov 20, 2017 7:31 pm

I'm pretty sure for many of us this is going to be the hot subject for some time. One which will never truly be put to bed.
W10, CP10, i7 9700k, Noctua Cooler NH-U9S, 16Gb 3000Mhz DDR4, PCIe NVME 970 Pro, AC-1 Carillon Case, Be Quiet 450w Straight Power 11, Virus TI (Integrated), Yamaha CS2x (Custom Mapped), Novation Stations, Nord Rack 2, JV1080, 2x Presonus Firestudio, Dynaudio BM5's mkII & Eve SC305's.

Carvin Man
Junior Member
Posts: 121
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2017 10:47 am
Contact:

Re: More Bits/Higher sample Rate is not "better"

Post by Carvin Man » Wed Nov 22, 2017 11:15 am

bigtexasthriller wrote:
Sat Jul 02, 2016 2:39 pm
If you do choose to record at higher resolution, a pretty well-known engineer once told me that recording at 88.2 is better than 96 because it's divisible by 2 when you reduce to 44.1....

An interesting thought at least.....
That well-known engineer should stay by his tape-machine and analog desk.... FACEPALM (we need a new emoticon)!

User avatar
Fredo
External Moderator
Posts: 2323
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2010 11:20 am
Contact:

Re: More Bits/Higher sample Rate is not "better"

Post by Fredo » Wed Nov 22, 2017 2:17 pm

Carvin Man wrote:
Wed Nov 22, 2017 11:15 am
bigtexasthriller wrote:
Sat Jul 02, 2016 2:39 pm
If you do choose to record at higher resolution, a pretty well-known engineer once told me that recording at 88.2 is better than 96 because it's divisible by 2 when you reduce to 44.1....

An interesting thought at least.....
That well-known engineer should stay by his tape-machine and analog desk.... FACEPALM (we need a new emoticon)!
As long as we are talking about stuff that ends up on CD or DVD, I agree with this statement.
88.2 to 44.1 kHz is a simple dvising by two. It results in pretty even numbers.
96kHz to 44.1 is a much more complicated computation, which will leave much more artifacts after conversion.
So, yes ....


Fredo

Post Reply

Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest