Ahh … a 3dBFS bump on the master fader in C6-64?
Calling all nulliots, calling all nulliots!
Como
Hello,
the audio engine is the same in both Cubase versions. With the 64-bit version you can acces more RAM. That is the only difference.
Cheers,
Chris
Amen…
If this doesn’t put this subject to rest, then I don’t know what does.
You heard it straight from the source. Now stop worrying about it and go make some music 
(NOTE: Not directed at you Split.)
Thats cool, I wouldn’t have read it any other way.
But like some people think free energy or perpetual motion machines work or cars can run on water but the oil companies keep the technology hidden, etc, etc…
Someone will always believe such crap like the make of RAM cam influence the sound of a DAW or running Cubase on a 64 bit OS makes any difference to the sound. It takes all sorts to make the world an interesting place 
A long time ago, in a galaxy far far away…ok, jk. But a while back there was this dude who claimed that the HDD can have an influence in the sound of your tracks. I think that was the most retarded thing I’ve ever heard, regarding audio, in my life. Some people are truly clueless about how digital audio works, I tell ya!
I think many here castigated donshapiro without actually analysing what was written.
He cited a full song done with 64bit OS, host AND plugins, compared to 64bit OS AND 32 bit host AND plugins.
His conclusions may well be true for THAT song instance, but there are so many different parameters going into influencing the difference that the conclusion probably does not apply enough to what the OP asked. There may have been differences in the 32bit and 64bit plugins, and we don’t know what EQ or other parameter differences there might have been.
In the end, the only true test of the core engine is an actual null test of just it and no EQ, etc, applied. Maybe!
Assurances from the developers MAY not be enough, because with a program with as many lines of code as Cubase would have, there may be dozens|hundreds|?? of compliler switches for changing complilation for 32/64bit across the whole signal path, introducing possible discrepancies, due to errors or optimisations.
So even a simple null test with ‘all flat’ settings may not indicate differences that may arise when certain combinations of parameters are in play, even though the theory says there should be none.
Complex systems do not necessarily lend themselves to simple conclusions.
What part of “the audio engine is the same in both Cubase versions. With the 64-bit version you can acces more RAM. That is the only difference.” don’t you understand?
Clearly it’s this part
"the audio engine is the same in both Cubase versions. With the 64-bit version you can acces more RAM. That is the only difference."
This thread was a blast!MrSoundman nail it from the beginning and no one listened to him lol…guys really thought that for listening todays music in radio for example there does exist the mac vs pc or 64 bit vs 32 bit sound.I bet everything good is done one of them, if i just could decide then my sound will be just asgood…peace
Sorry, but I have not read this entire thread. I refuse to.
The audio output from the Cubase 32-bit version is identical to the audio output to the Cubase 64-bit version. There is no disputing that. If you want to find out for yourself, just do a null test. That will prove they are identical.
Cheers.
Alright, I give up!
Not even the developers (clearly stating that the lines of code of the audio engine found in both versions of Cubase are identical) can convince people, so I guess this subject is similar to religion or politics where no one wins.
Hope you all have a great weekend!
double post, sry.
Interesting post…
something else i’ve noticed… probably a similar thing…
my logitech mouse is MUCH more musical than my microsoft mouse!!! when i enter midi data with the logitech… even though all the values are exactly the same the sound is just ‘weightier’… the bottom end is so much more ‘hollow’… got to go… nursie is here with my medication…
now where did i put my tin foil hat? 
I’ve noticed that if I have OneNote 2005 open when I export from Cubase, it makes the resulting file more airy. They broke something in OneNote 2010, because it muddies the low/mids. So, now I can’t upgrade MS Office anymore.
Try open office the sound is far more transparent and quicker…
And you get all that for free!!!
^
No. What you must have running is something that takes up so much of the computer’s resources that saving a cpr file takes place in real time - a 10-minute piece must take ten minutes to save. Any faster, and the score’ll get smudged - and, of course, the sound will be poor.
Some might say this goes against science, but that doesn’t mean it’s not true, because (a) not only are there some things that science can’t explain, but also (b) any proposition that I can’t understand I can’t rule out, so it must be considered a possibility - and therefore I can choose to believe it. And we’re all entitled to our opinion, and my opinion is as good as that of the so-called experts who’ve dedicated their lives to understanding their subject area. In fact, my opinion is better than theirs because they can only believe what their theories let them believe, whereas I can believe anything.
Must end now - have to go and put out food for the leprachauns - I’ve never actually seen them, but my hi-fi has sounded a lot better since they arrived: the man in the hi-fi shop had them delivered two weeks ago by a select group of martian musicans in an invisible flying saucer. Cost me thousands of pounds, but worth every penny.
BTW, that stuff about getting a null between two audio files - all nonsense.
It wasn’t a Bose system by any chance was it? ROFLMFAO 
^
Bose must be good - their products look like their HQ …
http://www.bose.co.uk/GB/en/home-and-personal-audio/wave-systems/wave-music-systems/wave-music-system/
http://worldwide.bose.com/pro/en_us/web/about_probose/page.html
BTW, anyone remember this? …
Claim: Coating the edges of a compact disc with a green marking pen will noticeably improve its sound quality.