Right, but if I upgrade to a 24-bit card, then mixdown my stuff as a
24-bit file, then convert that to a 16-bit file in the end, will it sound
better or the same as if I mixdown to a 16-bit file directly as I do now?

If you get a 24 bit card and you mix at 24 bit, why would you want to convert to 16 bit?

One reason would be to burn the file as an audio CD.

If you originally recorded the files at 16 bits nothing will change except plugins that will do 24 bit( and 24 bit reverbs and delays would help alot, but you'd still have 16 bit audio with good effects). As far as getting a new sound card is concerned, recording at 24 bit and properly rendering the files to 16 bit would be superior to 16 bit all the way through the recording and mastering process. I know alot of people that convert all 16 bit files to 24 bit for mixdown because they feel the added word length helps when changing the volume in software, but I'm not sure about that one and it doesn't help with a 16 bit card anyway. 8P

I'm not sure if this has anything to do with bit depth. Why don't you do some further testing. Open up the original Vegas project and place the rendered mixed-down wave onto a new track and set that track fader at 0dB. Now you can do a true A/B comparison by soloing and muting the mixed track to see how it really compares to the unrendered mix. There just might be a level (ie volume) difference in the 2 sources you are listening to each in which makes you perceive it as being less dynamic. You got to compare Apples to Apples sometimes to find out where the real problem is, if there actually is one.

OK how about I ask my question this way:

Yes all original tracks are recorded in 16 bits.

Now when I mix all of these together, the summation of all of the dynamics
of all of the tracks should, I would think, exceed the possible dynamics
of the total 16 bits. Maybe that is not the way to think about it. But,
my guess is that the summation of the various 16-bit tracks
would be better represented in a 24-bit file...and that mastering this
file would produce a better-sounding result, even if the result is only a
16-bit file. After all, no matter how great your source material is, you
have to end up with a 16-bit file for an audio CD in the end, which begs
the question why is all of this 24-bit hardware being churned out? I
mean, sure you can record every track in 24-bits but in the end it ain't.
If you are led to the conclusion that giving yourself more headroom in
the beginning will yield a better mixdown in the end, I don't see how
that is much different than adding up the dynamics of a bunch of 16-bit
files and trying to put the result in a 24-bit mix.

Of course, the easiest way to test this would be to try it but I don't have
the hardware so that is why I'm asking if it would make a difference.

Yeah I did that test and there definitely is a difference.

I'm not convinced it is a bit problem either but I don't know what else
to do about it.


I'm not sure if this has anything to do with bit depth. Why don't you do some further testing. Open up
the original Vegas project and place the rendered mixed-down wave onto a new track and set that track
fader at 0dB. Now you can do a true A/B comparison by soloing and muting the mixed track to see how it
really compares to the unrendered mix. There just might be a level (ie volume) difference in the 2
sources you are listening to each in which makes you perceive it as being less dynamic. You got to
compare Apples to Apples sometimes to find out where the real problem is, if there actually is one.

That's interesting. I rarely ever render my mixes from Vegas, since I have 20 outputs (16 analog/ 4 digital) playability which connects directly to my Yamaha 03D mixing board. I usually only do submixes if I have to in Vegas and then use my 03D to do the real mixdown and transfer everything down in real time to a DAT. I have recalled on occassion when doing some mastering jobs I added some stuff in Vegas and rendered, and it seemed to me like it wasn't as lively or dynamic as you mentioned. I will have to do some further investigation and run that A/B test like I mentioned to you and see what I kind of results I get. I can also record directly to my DAT via Digital output and then record the DAT back into my PC digitally, which should give me an identical Mix if I where to render it in Vegas. I also can playback my mix from Vegas and Record directly back into Vegas using my mixing board. These should all give me the same mix, I'll update everyone on my results to see if there is any differences. I should have time to do this this weekend, I've set aside some time to do some beta testing for a new piece of software being released
:-)...???

I keep hearing on different apps that the program live playback is different than the rendered playback.
This is scary stuff. I am not noticing it with vegas, but it has been pretty low on my paranoia radar, I guess I gotta pay more attention.

I've done several entire mix projects in Vegas, rendering multitrack mixes to 24 bit...I haven't noticed any quality disparity, other than the rendered reverbs from track plug-ins sound BETTER...

On the other hand, I'm *still* running v1.0b...