16 Bit Audio Max in Version 14 of Movie Studio - Are you kidding me?

LBro wrote on 4/14/2017, 2:46 AM

Was excited to see what was in version 14 of the program as I just got it last night. Well it looks faster and more solid, though I need to use it to really see if that is true. But the first place I went was the rendering settings. There I found the max rendering on audio is 16 bit. Why would Vegas platinum version 11 have this:

Use this setting to create the highest quality 16:9 file suitable for uploading to Internet sites.
Audio: 320 Kbps, 44,100 Hz, 32 Bit, Stereo, AAC
Video: 29.970 fps, 1920x1080 Progressive, YUV, 16 Mbps
Pixel Aspect Ratio: 1.000

I will tell you why. Because this version 14 is a downgrade in this area of the program. I wrote support on this and am not one bit happy as my main use for the program is to output HQ Audio for posting on YouTube and or other sites.

I guess I will wait and see what support says. Right now I feel I wasted my money.

LBro

Comments

set wrote on 4/14/2017, 6:49 AM

Can you customize this rendering template ?

Setiawan Kartawidjaja
Bandung, West Java, Indonesia (UTC+7 Time Area)

Personal FB | Personal IG | Personal YT Channel
Chungs Video FB | Chungs Video IG | Chungs Video YT Channel
Personal Portfolios YouTube Playlist
Pond5 page: My Stock Footage of Bandung city

 

System 5-2021:
Processor: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-10700 CPU @ 2.90GHz   2.90 GHz
Video Card1: Intel UHD Graphics 630 (Driver 31.0.101.2127 (Feb 1 2024 Release date))
Video Card2: NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti 8GB GDDR6 (Driver Version 551.23 Studio Driver (Jan 24 2024 Release Date))
RAM: 32.0 GB
OS: Windows 10 Pro Version 22H2 OS Build 19045.3693
Drive OS: SSD 240GB
Drive Working: NVMe 1TB
Drive Storage: 4TB+2TB

 

System 2-2018:
ASUS ROG Strix Hero II GL504GM Gaming Laptop
Processor: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 8750H CPU @2.20GHz 2.21 GHz
Video Card 1: Intel(R) UHD Graphics 630 (Driver 31.0.101.2111)
Video Card 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 6GB GDDR5 VRAM (Driver Version 537.58)
RAM: 16GB
OS: Win11 Home 64-bit Version 22H2 OS Build 22621.2428
Storage: M.2 NVMe PCIe 256GB SSD & 2.5" 5400rpm 1TB SSHD

 

* I don't work for VEGAS Creative Software Team. I'm just Voluntary Moderator in this forum.

Marco. wrote on 4/14/2017, 8:20 AM

Movie Studio (Platinum) never supported audio bit depth above 16 bit, Movie Studio 11 doesn't support it either. The only exception is FLAC Audio which supports 24 bit audio and this works even in Movie Studio 14.

The confusion is, there were AVC render presets which info says audio would be 32 bit, but actually it isn't. It was kind of a bug of the description of the render presets in former Movie Studio versions.

When it's about rendering and audio, the only difference between Movie Studio 14 and former versions is the preset description which was corrected for version 14.

So this case is not a downgrade.

 

LBro wrote on 4/15/2017, 1:10 AM

Movie Studio (Platinum) never supported audio bit depth above 16 bit, Movie Studio 11 doesn't support it either. The only exception is FLAC Audio which supports 24 bit audio and this works even in Movie Studio 14.

The confusion is, there were AVC render presets which info says audio would be 32 bit, but actually it isn't. It was kind of a bug of the description of the render presets in former Movie Studio versions.

When it's about rendering and audio, the only difference between Movie Studio 14 and former versions is the preset description which was corrected for version 14.

So this case is not a downgrade.

 

Hi Marco,

Thanks for explaining the situation. I have a couple questions based upon the information you provided.

1. Is the use of Flac purely in the audio mode only? Or can it be used in conjunction of rendering to an MP4 video?

2. If by chance Flac can be use with video, how does it translate at YouTube? Is a lot of quality lost on conversion?

Thanks,

LB

tim-frost wrote on 4/19/2017, 1:55 AM

Hi LB  just a point on bit depth which equates directly to dynamic range. If you are expecting your videos to be mostly played on computers, mobiles and TVs then none of these are really capable of reproducing the dynamic range offered even by 16 bit. 24bit is of arguable advantage for replay as even on the best of hi-fi/large PA systems can’t cope with the 130db+ dynamics it could deliver.

Where 24 bit is really useful is in mixing/production where the extra headroom allows for all sorts of manipulation and still staying well within 16 bit quality for distribution

LBro wrote on 4/19/2017, 2:35 AM

Hi Tim,

You make some good points on this. I just hate to go from 24 or 32 bit in the DAW back down to 16 bit. I would think a reasonable solution would be to offer 24 bit in the application. What really got me is the reporting of the application in Version 11, where it states 32 bit as I copied into my original post. To say that was nothing but fiction is disconcerting to say the least.

Thanks for you post!

LB

tim-frost wrote on 4/19/2017, 4:10 AM

No probs, On the 32 bit Im guessing its more cock-up than conspiracy - and downgrading your source for distribution is always a tough one to get over. I also have a sneaky suspicion that YouTube's re-rendering drops audio down to 16 bit anyway. Ive run an analyser on some '24' bit Youtube tracks and if they are in MP4 they all come up as 16bit (bit of a downer on all those commenting saying how great it is).
I don't think there's 24 bit audio project setting in Vegas Studio to bring the audio in. I believe, but don't know from experience, the only way to deliver 24 bit audio on Youtube is using MKV files . Does anyone else know from experience??
And to widen the question on something I'm working on. Apart from going to VR, am I correct that it is not possible to deliver multichannel audio on Youtube, as YT re-renders down to 2 channel ? Any thoughts anyone?

Marco. wrote on 4/19/2017, 4:46 AM

»Is the use of Flac purely in the audio mode only?«

Yes, I think so. At least you cannot use it for the Movie Studio or Vegas Pro MP4 output.

LBro wrote on 4/19/2017, 4:51 AM

Tim,

Thanks for sharing that. I have been wondering about YouTube and exactly what their "processing" or shall we call it, "downgrading" involved and what you end up with. I have not taken the time to toss an analyzer at it. So your comment about that was interesting.

I could be wrong but I would venture to say that folks rave about YouTube quality because other places like Soundcloud for instance do worse things with your audio. I do suspect a some amount of the "processing" time at YouTube is due to the algorithm & database search for copyright issues.

Take care,

LB