Most recent PT version that used TDM Mixer?

[giroserex]

So what is 'session' exactly?

I just thought there was 2;
plugin precision,
mixer precision.

For example plugin could be INT algorithms but the mixer fp... or vice versa.

[panamajack]

As JFreak pointed out, it is easy to become confused. Although the underlying programs and files are using various methods, most of us just worry about the end product, how well does the recording succeed?

The "session" is another way of describing how the audio file is written to disk.

Whether or not the plug-ins and programs utilize fixed point or floating point affect the care with which the audio is recorded because of the way the binaries (the precision of the zeros and ones {i.e., the "on" or the "off" state of the data being written to disk}) are stored.

Not sure if you are familiar with hexadecimal numbers (i.e., can you convert CF9AED to decimal?), but it seems your question may be more focused toward software programmers rather than musicians.

32 bit files (or sessions) are twice as large as 16 bit files. 24 bit files are midway between in size. When recording huge dynamic swings (orchestral recordings), 32 bit files (sessions) may be appropriate.

The software and plugins using the the floating point algorithms can still clip when they enter and exit the A/D and D/A converters, so your concerns appear to be somewhat philosophical.

[giroserex]

Hi,

So session means how its saved before its opened up again, and in that case can be saved at 24bit INT if so desired. Makes sense.
Philosophical? Almost, I like to think I have a more of a Holistic view of things though.

IF you must really know why I'm asking all this is because I am 100% against floating point. Pro Tools was initially hardware based solution in the 90s while the software devs with their DAWS went float. PT has a heritage in fixed point. Floating point, IMO is the lazy, budget solution, when compared to the hardware alternative (incidentally it's already agreed LE is the budget system). I'd rather rely on fixed point to work signals, alas, most hardware synths in the 90s also were fixed because the designers were more hardware orientated and had a background in electronics than just coding alone.

Float doesn't clip and it has no noise, yes, but those I consider to be quite alien in music to be honest. Many of the reasons people would argue its better if they don't understand what perceptually relevant in the first place, and just go by what every one else says.
"Float has more dynamite range Pl0x!"

Here's one practical example I've observed with float -in many programs with dither algortihms, the dither is rarely signal independent. It should be standard - but because the floor isn't static, the noise thats generated, atleast from what I've observed with idle tones, compands as the amplitude changes. Its no longer signal independent and so does not abide conventional dither theory that was devised at a time where systems were largely fixed point. I could be wrong there but thats my consensus.
With regards to noise in general; it isn't even a problem* at 16bit let alone 20bit in the majority of cases, if one keeps in mind 99% material, where its heard (so is made loud, making the range redundant) and how its transmitted, ie in the car via FM radio, only once the levels are cranked is noise obvious, by which point theres already something masking it. It's good practice sure but floating point supposedly prevents noise and enhances precision when fixed can do both just as well, just not at necessarily the same cost. At its heart, float is simply more economical and less time consuming to make it work. I know I'm fighting a lost cause, bc 99% of software is float already, however it seems PT 10.3 may be the last of the mohicans, so I wanted to point this out to folks to let them make a judgment.

Gain staging: Not having to worry about gain staging is laziness, is it professional? I don't think so.
"it's the disease you have to fight in any creative field: easy of use" - Jack White


We can all agree that Reel to reels are a reference system, anything beyond this is crazy. Most people use voice coils (speakers) to listen to music.
If one wanted a digital medium that most closely resembled atoms on tape, which of these would you choose?

IT took me a while to find this picture, it makes everything much much more straightforward and explains my doubts succinctly
Of course the other argument is that float is more efficient - in this day and age where I come across 50megabyte GIFS and websites online (sometimes fully of bloated flash and java scripts) that crash my 2ghz computer because some people at this point have octal core 64GB RAM machines and optic broadband connection which justifies that then I cannot see how this is a valid argument.

I feel the same way about recording interfaces that in this day and age, STILL have 44.1 and 48 as an option. It necessitates digital filters (which are sometimes linear; wakey wakey) at the hardware level and in turn oversampling, which in this day and age, IMO, are more or less redundant practices (outwith budget concerns) considering users can down sample to those rates in PC at the end of the mastering process. The only time there should be a 44.1 indicator is on an outboard DAC or soundcard, because that scenario must accommodate for older material but on the recording side, it simply doesn't makes sense.

* Noise ain't even a problem * Up until one records classical music; but then who records classical music into a DAW? Anyone serious about classical has it done onto DSD, that or its a backing in some rock, 'turntablism' or electronic track, which likely going to be compressed anyway. I get the impression most technical innovations in digital were driven by the desire to accommodate and reproduce classical.
Recently, whilst calibrating my friends volume for his PS4, I set the volume so we could here the subtle piano that was playing for the soundtrack, I set it loud enough to make it out, only after a few moments later after I had sat down, an action scene initiated and the intensity of the sound made us crap ourselves.
Its here it occured to me what dynamic range was and that its only ever classical that has it. The only time that sort of range is useful is if we all listened to music in an anechoic chamber. Keep in mind the size of a classic hall, must we want that scale of sound? The answer is no, so as to question the necessity of float.

[Muziekschuur]

It's now 2023 and DSD is allmost dead.

From the Pyramix website:
DSD (Direct Stream Digital) is a technology developed by Sony and Philips. It is a departure from normal PCM digital audio which allows an enormous jump in quality from the normal 44.1 kHz to 192 kHz universe.

In practical terms, DSD allows users of Pyramix to make recordings that truly mimic those using the best analogue gear without any of the limitations associated with using 'linear' equipment. DSD uses a method of encoding an analogue audio signal using PDM (Pulse Density Modulation) which means that the effective samplerate of a DSD256 signal becomes 11.2 MHz, which is 256 times higher than the one used by CD (44.1 kHz).

Other than the Pyramix DAW and company all big players aren't touching this.

DXD is needed to process the 1 bit signal. It converts the 1 bit signal to 24 bit 384khz samplerate. Not many DAW's support this or plugins able to deal with that kind of datastream.