Originally Posted By: pinglis
I'd upgrade to Audiophile in a heartbeat IF it was 24 bit OR if it was a bit cheaper. I don't need the hard drive, I can download it


Moving to 24-bit would require a larger external hard drive, as 24-bit files are 50% bigger than 16-bit files. Our ~1.5TB of files in an Audiophile edition would end up being ~2.3TB. I'd personally love a 24-bit Audiophile myself.

Downloading is still not on the table yet, given the file size. We've sold thousands of copies of BB 2020 Audiophile, so that would be in the order of petabytes of data transfer for our file servers if we had it downloadable. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see a downloadable Audiophile edition happen, for our customers who live in countries where we can't ship to. Perhaps lossless compression could come into play there, but I imagine there would need to be some backend programming done in BB to make that happen.


Originally Posted By: MovingAir
Frankly, I would love to see a 24-bit/96k version of BIAB. 24-bit to make it sound less "flat." 96k to make the stretching have fewer artifacts.
I already use the audiophile version, and even stretching the wav files has plenty of chirping going on.


24-bit 96K would be even bigger! Our 1.5TB would suddenly become ~4.9TB of files! Again, I'd personally love a 24/96 BIAB, but storage and transfer become an even bigger issue that way.


Originally Posted By: Matt Finley
Originally Posted By: Pipeline
I converted some RealTracks to 48kHz/24bit and they worked fine in the Mac version but not Win.
Yes I think they were recorded at higher than 44.1kHz
Upsampling tracks would certainly work at least the same as long as the program can read them. I think the question being asked is, will they work better for stretching if they were originally recorded at higher bit and/or sampling rates?



I don't know what rates the RealTracks were recorded at, but almost certainly many of them were recorded at 44.1khz. Upsampling a native 44.1khz won't necessarily make it easier to stretch, as technically there's some stretching going on to take 44.1k samples and interpolate them up to 48k or 96k etc, so I can't imagine there would be any sonic benefit in doing that. Now if the native files were at a higher sample rate, that's totally different, but given space requirements I don't personally expect that to happen in the near future. That said, I'm not in the development team so really anything could happen there.

I work here