Would you care to upload an example of something you’ve produced in 64-bit that demonstrates a clear/obvious difference to its 32-bit counterpart? I’m genuinely curious to try and hear what you’re hearing, and would be very interested to analyse things more closely.
I second that, I rarely see people back up these statements.
that’s actually not completely correct. bit depth is not only about head- and foot-room, but about resolution of the single steps too. with 32 bit = 2^32 you get a finer resolution than with 24 bit = 2^24, thus less interpolation.
you guys are totally spot on about the difference between 32 and 64 bit not being hearable though. 16 to 24 is definately hearable, 24 to 32 maybe (depending on the signal), 32 to 64 never in the world. people saying they can distinguish between these two are fooled by psychoacoustics, nothing else. file under: audio esoterica… 
That is amazing!!! I have never heard of you before! Have you been in TV shows already?
The point is it’s not a 32bit integer though, it’s floating point calculations. Not sure where I heard it and can’t find any details but I think 32bit float uses a 24bit integer and then the other 8bits are used as scaling factor. This is why you can push a floating point audio stream far, far, FAR above 0dB and not distort it in the slightest as long as you bring it back below 0dB before outputting to your soundcard (think uploaded a chain to get Renoise to +192dB using Gainers in normal Track, then back to 0dB in Master, to illustrate this.)
Sure 32bit integer recorded/saved audio must exists too though. Not sure what 64bit (double precision) would use…
In fact if anybody has any decent, even if a little too technical for most, articles I would be very interested. Fully calculus loaded white paper may be a little too much for me though 
I like how every thread here seems to derail itself into a different completely off-topic shitstorm each time 
I wonder what will be the next link in the chain!
Unfortunately next-best-thing techno-bullshit is as self-propagating as it is pointless, inspired prolific artists will just STFU and get on with making music with whatever tools are available to them.
Here’s a great quote along the lines of Dac’s ‘there all twixes’:
The idea is rule out fruitless anxieties about the gear, and to focus on listening and good techniques, which are the most important things in any studio, at any budget. If you are not confident in the ability of the gear to render acceptable recording quality, then that doubt will hamstring everything you do, and will cloud your judgment every step of the way.
Orignal thread here: http://forum.cockos…ead.php?t=29283 (courtesy of pansonic in another Renoise thread i can’t be arsed to link to…)
Defo m8, +1!! Best decision I ever made was to just get on with it and stop the endless search for plug-ins etc and get on with the programming!!! 
Okay, seems like I’ve sparked a bit of conversation on this thread… Maybe I am crazy, I am on meds for schizophrenia after-all…
But like i said, PERSONAL USE, not serious production value. Audacity has the option to render in 64-bit wav, and that program is free.
So why cant renoise, with all the money they’re making, throw 64-bit rendering into the package for shits and giggles?
FACT: Bit depth is primarily about dynamic depth, but because it’s another scale of resolution that is in conjunction with sample rate, increased resolution means increased accuracy of representing an analogue wave form. It has subtle but important implications for representing not just ‘depth’, but tone and texture as well.
FACT: There is no practical audible difference between 32bit float and 24bit information in a static audio file, but the extra 8 bits in the float are used for internal processing headroom in real-time. This same concept of resolution headroom applies to some plugins and software that internally process at 64bit. Some go even higher.
FACT: Renoise’s highest output of bit resolution is 32bit float. You should render your mixes at this rate, without messing around with dither or lack of it. It means whatever you render is whatever you’ve heard with your ears in the mixing process. Now your file is ready to be sent to the mastering process.
FACT: 24bit audio is only necessary when outputting to a DA for the purposes of playing the signal through analogue equipment for purposes of mastering. To do this we dither from 32bit float (which is used before the dithering in DSP processing) to 24bit using either a real-time or offline dither (I prefer Ozone’s realtime MBIT+). This DOES make a difference. The DA runs at 24bit so it is important that it receives pure 24bit data. Sending the float information to it as well only risks inaccuracy.
FACT: Dithering can help retain a sense of dynamic depth. In the case of mastering, after analogue processing the audio is send to a AD running at 44.1khz and the file capture rate is set to 16bit. But to best prepare the sound for 16bit another dithering stage is used (again I’m using MBIT+). The difference between dither and no-dither in A-B tests are chalk and cheese. The dither wins hands down. It comes very close to sounding just a deep and alive as the original 32bit float sound. Do the tests yourself. Properly prepared and processed high resolution audio data can be wonderfully represented at 16bit.
FACT: All of the above would apply the same if the software and hardware were running at 64bit pure. Good luck finding the plugins and hardware that can support that at the moment. Either way, you’re still going to be dithering and needing to know how to apply dithering if you want optimal mastering to 16bit. I can’t see the web moving on from 16bit mp3s anytime soon.
FACT: There’s a lot of hot air about bit resolution that seems to distract from the simple fact that you can make much larger gains in audio resolution quality by upping your sample rate. I’ve seen countless arguments and worry over bit depth when projects are still mixed at 44.1khz. To me that seems nuts. Most of us now have a LOT of processing and hardware power at our fingertips: why not use it and make use of the higher resolution? With close attention most people can easily pick the improvement of using a higher sample rate in their mix. Especially so if the entire production process from recording, programming to mixing has consistently used a higher rate. So before you pine that your DAW and hardware cannot do pure 64bit, may I suggest that you try 96khz if you have not already?
SUGGESTION: A possible production workflow could look like this:
AD 96khz 32bit float recordings + VSTi / samples running at 96khz 32bit float -> 96khz 32bit float mixing and processing environment -> Render stereo mixdown at the same rates -> 96khz 32bit float DSP processing for mastering (e.g. EQ) -> Real-time dither to 24bit -> DA running at 96khz 24bit -> Analogue processing such as compression and tube saturation -> AD running at 44.1khz -> 32bit float DAW environment -> DSP mastering limiter for volume boost -> real-time dither to 16bit -> Recording at 44.1khz 16bit, done.
very helpful my friend 
I seriously hope you r kidding m8. 40 some odd euro surely ain’t a lot…if you are not aware these guys work day jobs…Renoise does NOT generate sufficient income to live on for them, from what i gather, its enough to keep them working on the project.
By the way, as asked before, you gonna throw up some examples so we can hear the difference you are talking about.Genuinely, we r all curious.
Oh and to answer your question, most likely as you may be the only one who has asked for it!
btw: you actually on meds?
okay, i could easily throw up some examples, put em on my website and stuff, but you guys are most likely right, as i remember i was really high when i tried this last, so i was probably just tripping. i am officially humbled, and i surrender to your logic.
And yes, I am medically crazy. Music is one of the only things that keeps me sane (apart from my meds, hehehe)
Well there you go m8! That explains it all.
There was another guy on the forum who had a similar issue, turns out he was on meds as well(or something to that effect).
No matter!! Welcome to the forum! Music is a great healer/conduit/channel…helped me through my whole life, no doubt it will do gr8 things 4 u.
Just try not to be too obsessive as half the time its your mind playing tricks on you. And thats not just cos of your condition, happens to me all the time!! 
Thanks bro 
I love how i started like a flame war with that one comment 
ha ha!! happens all the time…as long as no one starts verbally abusing anyone I think its healthy…as we r all trying to get to the bottom of whatever issue we r debating about! 
on the other hand there are people on these forums that for whatever reason like to hinder the growth of technology. for the life of me i dont know why. maybe a robot beat them up when they were small children. muhahah
I presume you have a 64-bit DAC through which you are doing your playback?
If not, I’m not calling bs, but I do call confirmation bias.
I’m sure you believe you hear a difference, and it’s possible you actually do, but as soon as you ram them both through the 24-bit DAC that’s common in most studios, you’ve sacrificed the very data you say you can hear.
If you do have a 64-bit DAC in your playback system, please tell us about it. I loves me some gear porn.
EDIT: Well, while I took my leisurely time typing up a reply whilst eating a snack and listening to a hilarious live performance by Quentin Crisp, the far more focused and productive Mr. Mark posted the geekier version of what I just said.
I have the same opinion of some people with music…many are stuck in the 90s(don’t get me wrong, I love music from that era…and the 80s of course[a good taste of which you can get from our very own mitch murder!]) and complain about the new dance music that has popped up and just can’t think forward for the life of them!! Some of these same people rarely come out with releases or do anything remotely interesting so I laugh when I hear their rants.
I love technology and I am all for its growth…I am always for anything forward thinking
[i]I presume you have a 64-bit DAC through which you are doing your playback?
If not, I’m not calling bs, but I do call confirmation bias.
I’m sure you believe you hear a difference, and it’s possible you actually do, but as soon as you ram them both through the 24-bit DAC that’s common in most studios, you’ve sacrificed the very data you say you can hear.
If you do have a 64-bit DAC in your playback system, please tell us about it. I loves me some gear porn.
EDIT: Well, while I took my leisurely time typing up a reply whilst eating a snack and listening to a hilarious live performance by Quentin Crisp, the far more focused and productive Mr. Mark posted the geekier version of what I just said. [/i]
lets leave him alone now…if you read the above posts, we have resolved the issue!!!
edit: I think I myself was a bit too hasty in my defence…doesn’t really look like you were being too hard on him