Page 2 of 2

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

Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2017 6:56 pm
by Fredo
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

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

Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2017 7:13 pm
by alexis
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.

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

Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2017 7:31 pm
by mitchiemasha
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.

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

Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 11:15 am
by Carvin Man
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)!

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

Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 2:17 pm
by Fredo
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