In Reply to: RE: Ha! It looks like. . . posted by Tony Lauck on December 23, 2009 at 12:57:15:
> But note, as I said in another post. . .
Hope they fix that soon. But otherwise,
the Batch Converter in Sound Forge 10 seems to work
pretty well. I tried it today.
Also, while the built-in iZotope functions may not be
working properly in batch, that doesn't seem to be
preventing the Ozone 4 VST plug-in from working correctly there.
Just out of curiosity -- do you happen to know if the
latest Sound Forge supports native 64-bit processing? I **don't**
mean x86-64 code, I mean 64-bit double-precision
floating point interfaces to plug-ins (a distinction
which seems to be lost on most of the people asking
and attempting to answer similar questions on the forums).
Cakewalk Sonar makes a big deal about its 64-bit
engine and the fact that it supports 64-bit floating-point
WAV files. I was surprised to discover that Sound Forge
also supports 64-bit WAV files, and that its bit-depth
converter has "64-bit IEEE float" in the menu.
But I can't find out anywhere if, for example, Ozone 4
(which purports to be a 64-bit plug-in, in the double-precision
sense) is really getting 64-bit floats in and sending 64-bit
floats out if Sound Forge is the host.
I'm a little dubious, because I also have access to
a machine with the older Sound Forge 8 on it, which will
also read and write 64-bit floating-point WAV files, but when
you load Ozone 4 in **its** Batch Converter, the Ozone interface
screen has a little display in the lower right-hand
corner that says "%CPU (at 24-bit processing)"
What's with the "24-bit processing"?
However, this text, on the same Ozone 4 panel, is
absent in Sound Forge Pro 10. And presumably it's
coming from Ozone 4 itself.
Do you suppose that the ". . . (at 24-bit processing)"
that shows up on Ozone 4's control panel in Sound Forge 8
is an alert from Ozone that it's on a
narrower-than-64-bit data path?
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: Ha! It looks like. . . - Jim F. 16:18:09 12/23/09 (3)
- RE: Ha! It looks like. . . - Tony Lauck 17:03:43 12/23/09 (2)
- That's Bitter - Jim F. 21:28:42 12/23/09 (1)
- RE: That's Reaper - Jim F. 17:19:50 12/28/09 (0)