# What sequencer / professional-audio-software can`t work with 32bit floating point audio?



## germancomponist (Aug 2, 2010)

Are they all able now to work with 32bit floating point audio?


----------



## Peter Emanuel Roos (Aug 2, 2010)

Of course, it's the standard format they are most working with internally anyhow. Why the question?


----------



## Stevie (Aug 2, 2010)

Logic can't afaik.
I once sent a colleague a 32bit wave exported from Nuendo. He couldn't read it in Logic.


----------



## Peter Emanuel Roos (Aug 2, 2010)

Stevie @ Mon Aug 02 said:


> Logic can't afaik.
> I once sent a colleague a 32bit wave exported from Nuendo. He couldn't read it in Logic.



Djeezzzz!!!!!

Move over to Cubase, stupid Logic users!

Err, sorry, dear fellows, dump such a backward application!


----------



## Stevie (Aug 2, 2010)

Haha, Peter!!!!!! I can't say for sure tho, not using Logic!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 2, 2010)

As Peter says: why the question?

But there are two different things: 32-bit floating point internal processing, and 32-bit audio files.

The former...well, frankly I'm not especially interested, but for example Pro Tools HD uses 24-bit fixed point processing.

And the latter...again, frankly I'm not especially interested (who saves 32-bit files?), but Logic works with CAF files. CAF files can be floating, integer, any kind of bit depth and sample rates, and lots more stuff that I forget.

Real men and women just stick to standard file types, I think.


----------



## germancomponist (Aug 2, 2010)

Ah, is this the reason because Cubase sounds better than Logic?

I mean, in any processing (equing, compressing, adding reverb....) you will lose important audio informations in Logic then.... .


----------



## germancomponist (Aug 2, 2010)

In another thread there is announced a new big boom library in I think 88,2 or 96kHz / 24bit. 

I thought: "Why do they sell this lib not in 32bit floating point format...?"


----------



## EnTaroAdun (Aug 3, 2010)

Because there'd be no benefit, but you'd get bigger files.



Nick Batzdorf @ 2010-08-02 said:


> ..., but for example Pro Tools HD uses 24-bit fixed point processing.


48bit fixed point.



germancomponist @ 2010-08-02 said:


> Ah, is this the reason because Cubase sounds better than Logic?


And he keeps feeding the myths ... :roll:


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 3, 2010)

Sorry, you're right. It's the TDM bus that's 24-bit.


----------



## germancomponist (Aug 4, 2010)

EnTaroAdun @ Wed Aug 04 said:


> Because there'd be no benefit, but you'd get bigger files.



Believe me, there are big reasons to use 32bit floating point audio files! 

It seems that you don`t know the different between them and 24bit audio... . 

What do you think, why can you get the "Samplicity’s Bricasti M7 Impulse Response Library v1.1" in 32bit files? :mrgreen: o-[][]-o


----------



## EnTaroAdun (Aug 4, 2010)

To convince people like you, who have absolutely no clue about digital audio.


----------



## germancomponist (Aug 4, 2010)

EnTaroAdun @ Wed Aug 04 said:


> To convince people like you, who have absolutely no clue about digital audio.



Thanks for your lecture, Mr. The complete world had been waiting for you to explain us that there is no difference between 24bit and 32bit files audioquality wise but getting only bigger files when using 32bit audio. (o) :roll:


----------



## EnTaroAdun (Aug 4, 2010)

You already proved your incompetence regarding those things in another forum, but if you like to go on here as well, ... :roll:



24bit --> Quantization Noise at -144dB

Now explain to us, why you think, a higher resolution for audio-files would still make sense.


----------



## germancomponist (Aug 4, 2010)

EnTaroAdun, 

if you will or can not recognize that in an 32bit wav file are more audio informations than in a 24bit one; that in this 32bit wav file are included all the audioinformations (results from 32bit floating point processing in a daw) and you lose informations when you work with only 24bit files, if you do not understand all this, why attacking me?

I don`t know what your problem is, and honestly said, I am not interested to know it. You can type my name wrong as often as you like, you can not impress me with this. But please note: VI-Control is not a Kindergarden! o/~


----------



## germancomponist (Aug 5, 2010)

EnTaroAdun @ Thu Aug 05 said:


> It's totally clear to me, that 32bit is a higher resolution than 24bit.
> But _you_ don't seem to understand, that 24bit for audio-files is already more than enough. You simply won't ever hear a difference. The differences will most likely be that small, that they won't even appear in a 16bit endfile.



Our ears are able to notice, for example, room informations from a recording what are at -95dB in the recording. We hear it not aware, but if they are cut off, then we miss them. And these quietest audio informations are always in the last bits. 

So when you do a lot of mixing, use compressing, reverb e.t.c. in 32bit floating point and with 32bit wav files, then your mixing result is much better than if you would work with 24bit wav audio. This is fact! 

You can read this and more about digital audio in many good books, for example from Bob Katz.

0oD


----------



## EnTaroAdun (Aug 5, 2010)

germancomponist @ 2010-08-05 said:


> Our ears are able to notice, for example, room informations from a recording what are at -95dB in the recording. We hear it not aware, but if they are cut off, then we miss them. And these quietest audio informations are always in the last bits.


The last bits of a 24bit file contain information at -144dB.
So even if you'd be able to perceive signals at -95dB, a 24bit file would be more than enough to store this information.


----------



## dfhagai (Aug 5, 2010)

> Now explain to us, why you think, a higher resolution for audio-files would still make sense.


EnTaroAdun, I'm afraid your missing the point, it's not only about sound quality:

1· Using 32bit float makes internal overdrive hardly possible.
Even levels above 0db can be *processed* perfectly well.

2. It takes less CPU power to calculate 32bit files, because the internal calculations are also done in 32bit (at least on cubase\sound forge\ wavelab & Nuendo).


----------



## EnTaroAdun (Aug 5, 2010)

1. No, I didn't missed that point. That's the reason for audio-_engines_ using 32bit.
We are discussing audio-_files_ however, and there's simply no need for them to be in 32bit. Not for sample-libraries, not for audio-tracks and not for IRs.

2. It makes no difference on the CPU hit, if you load up a 16bit/24bit/32bit sample, since it will be processed with 32bit anyways.


----------



## dfhagai (Aug 5, 2010)

> 2. It makes no difference on the CPU hit, if you load up a 16bit/24bit/32bit sample, since it will be processed with 32bit anyways.t



In order to process any file in 32bit , the CPU will have to *add* additional bits to any format other then 32 bit word length, to make it equivalent to 32 bit.

Adding these bits means more CPU usage for you and me.


----------



## germancomponist (Aug 5, 2010)

dfhagai @ Thu Aug 05 said:


> > It makes no difference on the CPU hit, if you load up a 16bit/24bit/32bit sample, since it will be processed with 32bit anyways.t
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Absolutely. I forgot to mention this fact. 

I remember Karl Steinberg was tolding us this and also what I wrote in my posts here.


----------



## dfhagai (Aug 5, 2010)

> 1. No, I didn't missed that point. That's the reason for audio-engines using 32bit.
> We are discussing audio-files however, and there's simply no need for them to be in 32bit. Not for sample-libraries, not for audio-tracks and not for IRs.



Here’s a simple experiment that demonstrates the 32 bit *FILE* format advantage:

1. Take a 16 bit file.

2. Make two additional copies: one 24 bit and the other 32 bits.
So now we have three versions of the same file - 16,24 and 32 bits.

3. Process the two new copies (24,32) by adding them 20dB Gain (off line process).

4. Now that they’d totally clipped, process them again, this time -20dB Gain (off line process).

5. Lo and behold – 16 & 24 are chopped and lost they're true shape for good. 
The 32bit version is perfect again, as it was before the process.

Point maid I believe


----------



## EnTaroAdun (Aug 5, 2010)

Not at all.
It's only logical, that you should not save to a format with the limit of 0dBFS, if your signal contains information above that point. This is just common sense.
So if you are working with a sample (editing, processing, etc.) of course you use 32bit.
But at the end you can normalize it and save it to 24bit without lossing any audible information.

And that's the reason, that it makes absolutely no sense to offer libraries/samples/IRs in 32bit format.



@CPU
While it might be theoretically the case, that there's a bit of additional processing required to transfer the 24bit data into the 32bit stream, this is totally negligible.
Just look at your CPU meter.


----------



## Stevie (Aug 6, 2010)

Yep, Nick is completely right


----------



## germancomponist (Aug 7, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Aug 06 said:


> That's an important misconception: you don't get more headroom with higher bit rates. 0dBFS is the same at 8 bits or 64.
> 
> What you do get is more dynamic range, and that's taken at the bottom of the scale, not the top.
> 
> I've never A/B-ed 32- and 24-bit files (in fact I've never saved a 32-bit file), but the theory would say that it can't make a noticeable difference.



Oh I think it can. Lets have a look at the noise floor. The resulting noise floor for 24-bit audio processing is of a constant level. It does generally not depend on the level of the signal. At low levels of audio, the noise floor may not be far below the level of the audio itself. In floating-point, the noise floor is directly related to the amplitude of the audio itself. If the audio is at a low level, the noise floor will be at a correspondingly lower level. When you think about this and mixing 40 audio tracks or more with all the funny plugs we have....... . :roll:


----------



## germancomponist (Aug 7, 2010)

EnTaroAdun @ Sat Aug 07 said:


> This is just another common misconception.
> 
> 1. Summing up unrelated signals won't add up that much to the level.
> 2. Not only the noise will add up, but everything else as well.
> ...



Very interesting what you did! Can you perhaps post this example where you have used these 100 tracks?

What was on the tracks? Real recordings with full dynamic range or have u used audio from a sample library with its only 127 velocity steps in 16bit or 24bit? >8o


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 7, 2010)

> Lets have a look at the noise floor. The resulting noise floor for 24-bit audio processing is of a constant level. It does generally not depend on the level of the signal. At low levels of audio, the noise floor may not be far below the level of the audio itself.



The signal can be below the noise floor with a 24-bit file too. But I've never heard anyone complain that noise is a problem even with 16-bit digital recording - in fact in the early days I've heard of engineers actually adding a little hiss to make it sound "right" to them!


----------



## Stevie (Aug 7, 2010)

Right, when people thought digital = cold


----------



## EnTaroAdun (Aug 8, 2010)

germancomponist @ 2010-08-07 said:


> What was on the tracks? Real recordings with full dynamic range or have u used audio from a sample library with its only 127 velocity steps in 16bit or 24bit? >8o


In both cases it was the same audiotrack on all 100 tracks, but with different starttimes on each one.
For the violin I made a short line with the Legato-violin from VSL. Not making use of any dynamics to make it possible to actually read something from a dB-meter.
In a real world scenario you would have heavy dynamics of course.
This test was just to get a clue of how much increase in level is to be expected, when summing noise or any other unrelated signals.

With sample-libraries, everytime something is more quiet, the quantization-noisefloor of the samples is pushed down already (because you're actually reducing the play-volume of the samples).
With real recordings that's not the case, but it doesn't matter as long as you're not compressing/amplifying those tracks mega-heavily.
Let's pretend, you would actually bring up a quiet part of a recording by something like 40dB. Then the quantization-noise would still be at -104dBFS.

But besides that, with anything, which was recorded at some point, the quantization-noise-floor of a 24bit file is completely uninteresting anyways, since your realworld-noisefloor will always be higher.
This means you have noise in your samples/audio-tracks, which is much louder than the quantization noise anyways.


----------



## germancomponist (Aug 8, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Aug 07 said:


> > Lets have a look at the noise floor. The resulting noise floor for 24-bit audio processing is of a constant level. It does generally not depend on the level of the signal. At low levels of audio, the noise floor may not be far below the level of the audio itself.
> 
> 
> 
> The signal can be below the noise floor with a 24-bit file too. But I've never heard anyone complain that noise is a problem even with 16-bit digital recording - in fact in the early days I've heard of engineers actually adding a little hiss to make it sound "right" to them!



Right Nick, but this is another theme and goes more into the direction of dithering. The hiss noice helps to set the very last bits right.


----------



## germancomponist (Aug 8, 2010)

EnTaroAdun @ Sun Aug 08 said:


> With real recordings that's not the case, but it doesn't matter as long as you're not compressing/amplifying those tracks mega-heavily.



But this is exactly what I am talking about. Mixing 40 and more tracks by using compressing (not mega heavily, but mostly at any track), eq`s, reverb and so on. Maybe you do this not with a classical recording, but with the most other recordings every day.

At this point I'm pretty satisfied with the headroom that 32-bit float offers, much more than 24bit. And when you work with 24bit files then, after you did a processing, you have lost these last 8 bits.

Don`t get me wrong, EnTaroAdun, I am not interrsted to start a fight between different opinions. I just only want to get best mixing results! o-[][]-o 

My time is limited but I think I will do a comparison soon where I do the exactly same things on 2 mixes. One in 24bit and the other one in 32bit float.

Cheers


----------



## EnTaroAdun (Aug 8, 2010)

This is not about opinions.
There is no audible difference .. in no case .. never. In fact in 99% of the cases there won't even be an audible difference between 32bit and 16bit.
Maybe a LASS user can post a comparison between the 16bit and 24bit versions.

(It seems you've totally overread the fact, that the quantization noise of a 24bit file is way below the realworld-noise included in every recorded signal.)


----------



## germancomponist (Aug 8, 2010)

EnTaroAdun @ Sun Aug 08 said:


> This is not about opinions.
> There is no audible difference .. in no case .. never. In fact in 99% of the cases there won't even be an audible difference between 32bit and 16bit.
> Maybe a LASS user can post a comparison between the 16bit and 24bit versions.
> 
> (It seems you've totally overread the fact, that the quantization noise of a 24bit file is way below the realworld-noise included in every recorded signal.)



So You should call George Massenburg, Karl Steinberg or Tchad Blake and tell them, they're still summing digitally poor fools . :mrgreen: 

Who invented the VST protocol? 
Who invented the Asio Protocol?
Who gives us the option to use 32bit files?

Steinberg, yes!

And I do not believe that they do it for no reason.

As I said, I will post my testing results here, so there is no reason for you to worry. :mrgreen:


----------



## EnTaroAdun (Aug 8, 2010)

Oh, I see ... germancomponist is not able to read.
I already told him, that there's a difference between a mixing-engine and an audiofile.

And then he makes a comment on digital summing and some "big names", which makes absolutely no sense.



I would really hope, Steinberg or some other "big name" would chime in and explain it to him, since no matter how clear I do, he won't ever understand it, because he don't want to understand it if it doesn't come from a "big name".

Anyways .. this gets really boring now.
For people, who actually want to know, what resolution makes sense for audiofiles, there are all the information they need now.


----------



## kdm (Aug 8, 2010)

To answer one original question, 32-bit float files wouldn't buy us anything for samples as the recording has to be fixed point since that's a limitation of hardware converters - 24-bit is the most we could get, though in reality, it may be noise-limited to around 20-21 bits. So for now, 24 bit samples are pretty much the limit unless we were to move to DSD, which is a completely different concept from bit depth/sample rate. But afaik, DSD is not conducive to editing, or even the multiple streams needed for samples due to the nature of the format.

To answer the question about overhead vs. dynamic range - it isn't quite as simple as proposed here. 32-bit float does extend the overhead to some degree, but that's only within the exponential range of internal processing and however the programmer decides to handle overs - carried through or clipped, but not the 24-bit fixed world we work in.

32-bit float files do in fact give you extra headroom above 0dBFS, but *only* within the floating point context (internal processing within the DAW) - not when it passes to the ASIO driver or DAC. You can in fact test this by exporting a clipped file in 32-bit float and importing into Adobe Audition, Sequoia, etc (an app that supports 32-bit float). It won't be clipped when analyzing the 32-bit file in an analysis app, but of course, it would if exported as 24/bit or as you hear it in the studio.

While technically that scenario exists within the DAW, it doesn't provide any advantage for us once the mix reaches the output buss to a driver and DAC that only support up to 24-bit fixed file formats.

32-bit float has a 23 bit mantissa, 1 sign bit, and an 8 bit exponent, which is not the same as 32-bit file lengths.

There have been arguments about whether 48 bit fixed or 32-bit/64-bit float is better for some things due to the reduced mantissa size of 32-bit float vs. the full 48 bits of fixed point - specifically EQ, but I don't buy the arguments presented in the white papers I've read as relevant to 99.9% of what we do in audio, beyond theoretical supposition at least.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 8, 2010)

> Right Nick, but this is another theme and goes more into the direction of dithering. The hiss noice helps to set the very last bits right.



No no, I'm not talking about dithering, I'm talking about actually adding tape noise! The silence of digital recordings could be alarming in the early days when everyone was used to records.

Hiss can also have the strange effect of making a recording sound brighter.


----------



## germancomponist (Aug 8, 2010)

EnTaroAdun @ Mon Aug 09 said:


> Oh, I see ... germancomponist is not able to read.
> I already told him, that there's a difference between a mixing-engine and an audiofile.
> 
> And then he makes a comment on digital summing and some "big names", which makes absolutely no sense....



Oh EnTaroAdun, be sure that I know the different between a mixing-engine and an audiofile. And doing a comment on summing 32bit audio files // 24bit audiofiles makes a lot of sence. 

As I said before, I will do my own experiments. I remember another thread here where you called the "big names" audio engeneers in Hollywood as idiots who have no idea about digital audio. So yes, I trust the words from "big names" much more than the words of students. o=<


----------



## germancomponist (Aug 8, 2010)

@kdm 

Yes, I have read many things about this theme and the limitation of hardware converters. A wide field. But I am talking about using 32bit audiofiles, as Karl Steinberg proposes, only while the mixing scenario. After I did my own testing I will let you know the result.


----------



## Mike Connelly (Aug 18, 2010)

I just tested Logic. It works fine with 32 bit float, doesn't read 32 bit integer (is that format used much? I suppose it would be easy enough to batch convert if you needed to import it). Logic doesn't bounce to 32 bit.

As for 32 bit files, I don't see much use for them. Due to the limitations of converters, you can't record in that format and use more than 24 bits. There's no real reason to use it as a listening format. Obviously 32 bit float for internal signal path makes sense for the sake of headroom, but that doesn't apply to 32 bit files.

The only time you're going to get data that uses 32 bits is when you're mixing, either from mixing together multiple 24 bit recordings at different levels or from reverbs or other plugins that generate data down that low. If you are sending a final mix off to be mastered and expect it is going to be heavily limited/compressed (specifically to the degree where it loses 48db of dynamic range, which I would probably never want) then sending a 32 bit file of the mix would be useful. And even then, only if you know the mastering process is going to stay in the digital domain - if it goes to analog before reducing dynamic range, there will be no difference from a 24 bit file.

But that's probably about it. If 32 bit really makes a difference, someone should post a comparison where the difference between having a file at 24 bit and 3òí   áðqí   áðrí


----------



## Mike Connelly (Aug 18, 2010)

germancomponist @ Wed Aug 18 said:


> Boost a track to + 20dB, for example. When working with 32bit audio you have no distortion in this track. Try to do this when you work with 24 bit.... .



Are you talking about doing this on a file? If so, why would you want to take an audio file and add 20db?


----------



## germancomponist (Aug 18, 2010)

Oopsss, I would never do it on purpose. But sometimes, when you use more and more plugs, you can catch yourself a distortion. But never when you work with 32 bit audio.


----------



## Mike Connelly (Aug 18, 2010)

If you are adding more and more plugins, you are working in a DAW and you will get the benefit of extra headroom regardless of whether the files are 24 bit or 32. Or are you talking about doing destructive editing of files?


----------



## rabiang (Aug 20, 2010)

Let me just say that i thank you guys for discussing this here. It helps me understand more about this subject, a difficult but important one.

Friedemann Tishmeyer also tries to understand these concepts in his presentations. His conclusion is that 32-bit float is of genuine help with regards to headroom, processing power etc.


----------



## dfhagai (Aug 21, 2010)

Friedemann Tishmeyer is the man, I really admire his DVD's.


----------



## dedersen (Aug 21, 2010)

Hm, wouldn't using 32 bit audio files sorta defeat the purpose of having a 32 bit audio engine? Now, I am not well educated on the particular workings of the audio engine in DAWs, but I would imagine that you want the engine to be of larger bit depth than you audio files, exactly so that you have those extra bits of headroom for mixing?


----------



## dedersen (Aug 21, 2010)

I did a quick google search and came up with this quote from Cakewalk regarding support for 32-bit and 64(!)-bit files:

"In short, these files can more accurately represent very large small numbers".

Well, that clears it up... :?


----------



## Mike Connelly (Aug 23, 2010)

rabiang @ Fri Aug 20 said:


> Friedemann Tishmeyer also tries to understand these concepts in his presentations. His conclusion is that 32-bit float is of genuine help with regards to headroom, processing power etc.



For the software processing path, or for 32 bit files on disk?


----------



## dfhagai (Aug 23, 2010)

Files, but he also explains the general 32bit architectural advantages.
He concludes beyond all doubts - 32bit is the way to go.
All the reasons I've posted earlier are derived from his explanations.


----------



## Mike Connelly (Aug 23, 2010)

Does he have his reasoning posted online anywhere?


----------



## germancomponist (Aug 23, 2010)

dfhagai @ Mon Aug 23 said:


> Files, but he also explains the general 32bit architectural advantages.
> He concludes beyond all doubts - 32bit is the way to go. ..



+1

32bit is the way to go! ( while working; bouncing, mixing in your DAW...)


----------



## synthetic (Aug 23, 2010)

The very best ADDA converters have like 13 or 14-bit resolution. People have never heard good 16-bit audio, let alone 24 or 32 bit. Does a 32-bit DA converter even exist? I've never heard of one. It's a silly numbers game and you're falling for it. 

Once, a Synclavier rep visited Howard Schwartz recording in NYC. One of the smart ass younger engineers asked, "SO, is Synclavier 24-bit yet?" Howard laid into him, "no one uses their ears anymore, it's all a numbers game to you kids." 

So, go ahead and record in 32-bit if that's what turns you on. Just do a before and after test to see if the 25% more hard drive space is gaining you anything.


----------



## germancomponist (Aug 23, 2010)

Mike Connelly @ Mon Aug 23 said:


> If recording to or bouncing to a 32 bit file produces "much better audio quality", then post something bounced to both formats so people can take a listen and hear this audible difference in quality.
> 
> If nobody can produce an example with a difference that's actually audible, the whole technical discussion is moot.
> 
> So where's that audio example?



It will come very soon..., smile. I think all people here know that I am always experimenting. :mrgreen: 

I will do a video with audio examples, and believe me: 32bit is the way to go!


----------



## synthetic (Aug 23, 2010)

I'm holding out for 72-bit audio.


----------



## Stevie (Aug 23, 2010)

pfft, amateurs, only 128-bit is the real deal.


----------



## germancomponist (Aug 24, 2010)

Stevie @ Tue Aug 24 said:


> pfft, amateurs, only 128-bit is the real deal.



Oopsss, I thought working with a four track tape deck would be the best solution?! >8o :roll:


----------



## Stevie (Aug 24, 2010)

Oh yeah! =o =o =o 

High quality DSP reverb, Pultec and SSL EQ simulation, mp3 export...!


----------



## germancomponist (Aug 24, 2010)

I started multitrack recording in the 80`s with a Tascan 244 - 4 track Casette recorder. 

Oh yeah, when I think about these days I will not miss one of them.


----------



## Stephen Baysted (Aug 24, 2010)

germancomponist @ Tue Aug 24 said:


> I started multitrack recording in the 80`s with a Tascan 244 - 4 track Casette recorder.
> 
> Oh yeah, when I think about these days I will not miss one of them.



Likewise, I had this weird wedge shaped 4-track thing from Soundcraft - sounded absolutely horrible in 1984 when I was 15. Mind you, I also remember using the Apple GreenGate sampler in 1985. Damn I must be getting old >8o


ETA: http://www.sonicstate.com/synth/_inc/pi ... nthid=1480

Holy shit. I am old - just look at the thing! o/~


----------



## germancomponist (Aug 24, 2010)

Smile, I am 48 years young... .


----------



## germancomponist (Aug 24, 2010)

Nick,

I can tell you: There are some 8bit recordings, sounding much better than other 32bit`s.... . :-D


----------

