Well, I jumped on the bandwagon and got me a Korg MR-1000. It is a very neat little unit with balanced i/o and (cough) usb 2.0 connectivity with Mac/PC. It includes Audiogate which converts and plays audio from the unit at any one of the various rates. My specific reason for buying? It was the shortest distance between me and the edge of DSD recording.
All is well and good. I leave in Tennessee, so I can walk outside my house with a field mixer and a couple of mics and this Korg unit and do some beautiful nature recording. The unit came with a carry bag w/ shoulder strap. xlr/trs in's located at the bottom of the bag, where velcro allows you to reach them with your input while you walk about.
Obviously, having spent just over a grand on it, I feel pretty good. Especially now that I snoop around and examine my dsd/dff editing and mixing options. I've read just about every Sony Sonoma, SADiE, Genex, Tascam, and Pyramix documentation availible. I've browsed nearly every site returned from searches on google.
in the long journey, I've had hopes dashed by the innovators. It seems as though the technology behind SACD and DSD is suffering from prosumer nit-picking, rather than from technical fault or lack of commercial viability. DVD-A purists are constantly searching for ways to 'outdo' SACD.
Why couldn't these two formats co-exist in the market, I wonder? Isn't Blockbuster stocking their shelves with Blu-Ray and DVD?
The reality of my situation, and of the situation i imagine more people are getting into, is that we want to edit and mix mutliple channels of DSD audio - with PCM style interfacing and waveform imaging, outboard hardware that doesn't require 8u of rack space, and perhaps even the ability to mix in surround formats.
Why, oh why, must this technology cost $21,000 the bare minimum?
Here's my real question to you fine people:
is anyone out there developing DSD-related software/hardware? I don't care if its you and your garage, I want to know more about what you are doing. If someone is onto something cool, I am not above financing development.
like this: http://www.jamminpower.com/PDF/DSD Editing System.htm
Am I an entrepeneur? No. I don't want to make money with something like this. Its a technology with possibilities that I care about and cannot place a value on. The reason for me wanting to pursue "underground" DSD innovation is because I want to take this technology out of the hands of multi-national corporations who lack the cojones to push forward, despite projected market 'viability.'
And while I am not an engineer or designer, I realize and understand that the people who are will ultimately decide on what products/components/general technologies are availbe in the future.
So if anyone out there is up to anything, let me know. Conversely, if anyone has any experiements they'd like me to try with the MR-1000 or the included software, don't be shy.
thanks, and sorry as hell for the protracted post.
All is well and good. I leave in Tennessee, so I can walk outside my house with a field mixer and a couple of mics and this Korg unit and do some beautiful nature recording. The unit came with a carry bag w/ shoulder strap. xlr/trs in's located at the bottom of the bag, where velcro allows you to reach them with your input while you walk about.
Obviously, having spent just over a grand on it, I feel pretty good. Especially now that I snoop around and examine my dsd/dff editing and mixing options. I've read just about every Sony Sonoma, SADiE, Genex, Tascam, and Pyramix documentation availible. I've browsed nearly every site returned from searches on google.
in the long journey, I've had hopes dashed by the innovators. It seems as though the technology behind SACD and DSD is suffering from prosumer nit-picking, rather than from technical fault or lack of commercial viability. DVD-A purists are constantly searching for ways to 'outdo' SACD.
Why couldn't these two formats co-exist in the market, I wonder? Isn't Blockbuster stocking their shelves with Blu-Ray and DVD?
The reality of my situation, and of the situation i imagine more people are getting into, is that we want to edit and mix mutliple channels of DSD audio - with PCM style interfacing and waveform imaging, outboard hardware that doesn't require 8u of rack space, and perhaps even the ability to mix in surround formats.
Why, oh why, must this technology cost $21,000 the bare minimum?
Here's my real question to you fine people:
is anyone out there developing DSD-related software/hardware? I don't care if its you and your garage, I want to know more about what you are doing. If someone is onto something cool, I am not above financing development.
like this: http://www.jamminpower.com/PDF/DSD Editing System.htm
Am I an entrepeneur? No. I don't want to make money with something like this. Its a technology with possibilities that I care about and cannot place a value on. The reason for me wanting to pursue "underground" DSD innovation is because I want to take this technology out of the hands of multi-national corporations who lack the cojones to push forward, despite projected market 'viability.'
And while I am not an engineer or designer, I realize and understand that the people who are will ultimately decide on what products/components/general technologies are availbe in the future.
So if anyone out there is up to anything, let me know. Conversely, if anyone has any experiements they'd like me to try with the MR-1000 or the included software, don't be shy.
thanks, and sorry as hell for the protracted post.
Yeah, why ?
Because 24/192 is better than DSD in every way ? Of course, but this is only part of the answer.
You can't edit, mix, or do any processing in DSD, since it is a 1-bit format. Computers can't think in 1-bit. They have to convert to PCM and back. Which is why they introduced DXD which is the same frequency, but coded as ... PCM of course (8 bits I think).
Processing that stuff is much more complicated than processing PCM, and since very few people will use it since SACD is diying anyway, the costs are huge.
Because 24/192 is better than DSD in every way ? Of course, but this is only part of the answer.
You can't edit, mix, or do any processing in DSD, since it is a 1-bit format. Computers can't think in 1-bit. They have to convert to PCM and back. Which is why they introduced DXD which is the same frequency, but coded as ... PCM of course (8 bits I think).
Processing that stuff is much more complicated than processing PCM, and since very few people will use it since SACD is diying anyway, the costs are huge.
I was under the impression the 24/192 is compressed audio.
Doesn't sound like 1-bit to me. Even if SACD is collapsing, I'd still rather archive my important mixes to DSD-IFF. I can always down-convert it to 192, or any other inferior PCM-based data format, later.
If I'm not mistaken, there are indeed DSD editors which do not jump between the two. SADiE? Not for 20+ grand, they wouldn't jerk you around like that.
Thanks for the real warm reception. Hope you figure yours out.
Doesn't sound like 1-bit to me. Even if SACD is collapsing, I'd still rather archive my important mixes to DSD-IFF. I can always down-convert it to 192, or any other inferior PCM-based data format, later.
If I'm not mistaken, there are indeed DSD editors which do not jump between the two. SADiE? Not for 20+ grand, they wouldn't jerk you around like that.
Thanks for the real warm reception. Hope you figure yours out.
> I was under the impression the 24/192 is compressed audio.
Depends on what format you use to store it...
You could also say that all audio formats are lossy compressions of reality, which is true
> If I'm not mistaken, there are indeed DSD editors which do not jump between the two.
Nope. It is not possible to do any signal processing on DSD without converting it to PCM* first and then back to DSD. The only thing you could do on DSD would be copypaste (ie. splicing).
* = That doesn't impose any special sample rate on the PCM, processing could be done in 24/192 or floating point samples at the DSD rate... depends on CPU power available.
Even a simple volume change would need converting 1-bit to, say, floating point, then multiplying by your volume change, then converting back to 1-bit.
And since the conversion of DSD <-> anything else is lossy in both ways, the more conversions you do, the more you lose.
DXD is just PCM with less bits and more sample rate.
If you use a software mixer, then internally it works in PCM, obviously, and then converts to DSD. So, archiving in PCM would make more sense than archiving in DSD then re-converting back to PCM later...
If you have a mike ADC that outputs DSD only, then of course it makes more sense to archive the raw DSD data.
Depends on what format you use to store it...
You could also say that all audio formats are lossy compressions of reality, which is true
> If I'm not mistaken, there are indeed DSD editors which do not jump between the two.
Nope. It is not possible to do any signal processing on DSD without converting it to PCM* first and then back to DSD. The only thing you could do on DSD would be copypaste (ie. splicing).
* = That doesn't impose any special sample rate on the PCM, processing could be done in 24/192 or floating point samples at the DSD rate... depends on CPU power available.
Even a simple volume change would need converting 1-bit to, say, floating point, then multiplying by your volume change, then converting back to 1-bit.
And since the conversion of DSD <-> anything else is lossy in both ways, the more conversions you do, the more you lose.
DXD is just PCM with less bits and more sample rate.
If you use a software mixer, then internally it works in PCM, obviously, and then converts to DSD. So, archiving in PCM would make more sense than archiving in DSD then re-converting back to PCM later...
If you have a mike ADC that outputs DSD only, then of course it makes more sense to archive the raw DSD data.
Checks out. I guess I just needed to read up more.
Don't you just love it when uneducated newbies start in on this topic?
Its a shame, though. Its not that I'm trying to wave a flag for one side or another, but I am interested in hearing and working past 192. 5.2 just seemed like a great step beyond.
I couldn't care less what Sony does, honestly. I don't believe that corporations will always pave the way for technology or progress. New ways of making money? Sure.
However, I've now made a few recordings at the MR-1000's top format. Listening to it over my monitor system is quite wonderful - it is like you are there. There is so much depth I feel like I can measure spacial distances between the bird song and the creeking trees and the Cumberland River a mile out. I've spent so much time researching Pyramix and SADiE and discWELDER ... I started dreaming about it.
I want a 7.1 channel 1-bit recording of rain falling around my old house in Seattle. I wish that didn't sound so dumb, but its 100% true. I can't stop thinking about it.
I figured I'd sign up for this message board and throw my question out there. If indeed there was an underground answer to this problem, it'd be here.
Sorry to waste your time with a null issue. I suppose I embody a major problem with prosumer technology - I'm into it, but don't understand it near enough.
Thanks for your time.
Don't you just love it when uneducated newbies start in on this topic?
Its a shame, though. Its not that I'm trying to wave a flag for one side or another, but I am interested in hearing and working past 192. 5.2 just seemed like a great step beyond.
I couldn't care less what Sony does, honestly. I don't believe that corporations will always pave the way for technology or progress. New ways of making money? Sure.
However, I've now made a few recordings at the MR-1000's top format. Listening to it over my monitor system is quite wonderful - it is like you are there. There is so much depth I feel like I can measure spacial distances between the bird song and the creeking trees and the Cumberland River a mile out. I've spent so much time researching Pyramix and SADiE and discWELDER ... I started dreaming about it.
I want a 7.1 channel 1-bit recording of rain falling around my old house in Seattle. I wish that didn't sound so dumb, but its 100% true. I can't stop thinking about it.
I figured I'd sign up for this message board and throw my question out there. If indeed there was an underground answer to this problem, it'd be here.
Sorry to waste your time with a null issue. I suppose I embody a major problem with prosumer technology - I'm into it, but don't understand it near enough.
Thanks for your time.
Most high-performance analog -> digital converters internally work as multibit (number of bits unknown) sigma-delta at 6 MHz or more... So, the original reason for DSD is history now, as the 1-bit sigma delta ADCs are now only found in entry level gear.
Internal conversion to DSD, DXD, PCM, 24-192, whatever the format, has to be lossy, each one having different compromises...
> I couldn't care less what Sony does, honestly.
The reason SACD is diying isn't a sound quality reason. People have been buying bad sound for decades, and audiophiles aren't the ones driving the format wars. It is diying because :
- Read the DSD marketing paper on Wikipedia... Sony's major marketing argument is DRM and copy protection. This is sad. They shot themselves in the foot. CD was good, because CD was free (like speech) : you get a SPDIF with the raw digital data, so you can buy a good DAC even if your player sucks, or build one, rip to your computer, etc. Not so, with SACD. Noone could sell cheap but good external DACs, so to get better sound, you'd have to buy a more expensive SACD player.
- 1-bit isn't DSP friendly at all (to the point they had to implement DXD, or mix in analog), so recording studios have to spend a lot on gear. Any gear that does computations on the signal (Home theater processors, for instance) will have to convert to PCM...
It would be interesting to know what chips they use in your Korg box. When you say you don't like the 24-192 sound, do you mean with the Korg ?
AKM and AD apparently don't make DSD analog -> digital converters ; TI/BB has a few in sight, for instance PCM4222. This one is interesting, it samples as 6-bit at 6.144 MHz. You can get this data directly (what to do with it is another question !) or ask the chip to convert it for you to PCM or DSD. Which one has better sound, depends on a lot of stuff...
Internal conversion to DSD, DXD, PCM, 24-192, whatever the format, has to be lossy, each one having different compromises...
> I couldn't care less what Sony does, honestly.
The reason SACD is diying isn't a sound quality reason. People have been buying bad sound for decades, and audiophiles aren't the ones driving the format wars. It is diying because :
- Read the DSD marketing paper on Wikipedia... Sony's major marketing argument is DRM and copy protection. This is sad. They shot themselves in the foot. CD was good, because CD was free (like speech) : you get a SPDIF with the raw digital data, so you can buy a good DAC even if your player sucks, or build one, rip to your computer, etc. Not so, with SACD. Noone could sell cheap but good external DACs, so to get better sound, you'd have to buy a more expensive SACD player.
- 1-bit isn't DSP friendly at all (to the point they had to implement DXD, or mix in analog), so recording studios have to spend a lot on gear. Any gear that does computations on the signal (Home theater processors, for instance) will have to convert to PCM...
It would be interesting to know what chips they use in your Korg box. When you say you don't like the 24-192 sound, do you mean with the Korg ?
AKM and AD apparently don't make DSD analog -> digital converters ; TI/BB has a few in sight, for instance PCM4222. This one is interesting, it samples as 6-bit at 6.144 MHz. You can get this data directly (what to do with it is another question !) or ask the chip to convert it for you to PCM or DSD. Which one has better sound, depends on a lot of stuff...
peufeu:
honestly as slap-happy as i am about this little box, i've always had reservations about korg. i own a triton le workstation and a korg ER-1 drum machine/sampler - and i can attest to the poor quality of these items.
now, i cut my teeth on a protools hd accel 3 system when i was just a teen at my uncle's setup, and 24/192 always sounded impressive to me. i've recorded a couple of samples (nature recordings) at each individual sample rate/format on the box so far, and the DSD-IFF at 5.2 is just incredible.
i'm not saying this because i want to feel like i got my $1000 out of it. i can discern bird species and gender, and individual distances with this box at 5.2.
but i can also do this at 192.
at 44.1, i cannot do so as easily.
some people i know can discern types of wood used in a violin in a given recording. i know this all sounds absurd and not at all technical, but its true. i've seen it happen. i'm not this good, but i've been in the room when it happened. from my impression of 192 alone i assumed that if there were greater depths of audio detail, more information would reach the human ear and ultimately we might possibly arrive at a near-perfect synthesis of human hearing.
LET me clarify that this box doesn't get anywhere near human hearing, nor does 5.2 or 192, etc. but damn is 5.2 close. and call me crazy, but i can distinguish 192 from 5.2 - and though the differences are not major...
well, like i said, i need to be a lot more educated about this before i go on wasting your time. my whole thing is seeking the path out of commercial pitfalls and corporate cowardice. i just want to know what my children might be able to hear a decade or so down the road. if i could just glimpse it, then i would be fine.
but now we're talking about an (pardon the non-mathematical usage) asymptotic limit. we can get as close as we like, but it will never be perfect anyway. what difference will that make, ultimately? does anyone care to hear that well, or that much information? why even bother? who is going to miss bird song 5-miles away and bird song three feet away? i'm not saying that this is the difference between 192 and 5.2, but with this korg box i have been surprised with the detail coming from a long ways off, and minute things like the dynamics of a twig snapping or a bullfrog sputtering have been lost between the two.
who cares, really.
I should've asked this before posting.
peufeu, your input is very enlightening. i value everyone's feedback very much.
as for the chips, well, come on. i'm an american. doesn't it just use special japanese Gohonzon magic?
honestly as slap-happy as i am about this little box, i've always had reservations about korg. i own a triton le workstation and a korg ER-1 drum machine/sampler - and i can attest to the poor quality of these items.
now, i cut my teeth on a protools hd accel 3 system when i was just a teen at my uncle's setup, and 24/192 always sounded impressive to me. i've recorded a couple of samples (nature recordings) at each individual sample rate/format on the box so far, and the DSD-IFF at 5.2 is just incredible.
i'm not saying this because i want to feel like i got my $1000 out of it. i can discern bird species and gender, and individual distances with this box at 5.2.
but i can also do this at 192.
at 44.1, i cannot do so as easily.
some people i know can discern types of wood used in a violin in a given recording. i know this all sounds absurd and not at all technical, but its true. i've seen it happen. i'm not this good, but i've been in the room when it happened. from my impression of 192 alone i assumed that if there were greater depths of audio detail, more information would reach the human ear and ultimately we might possibly arrive at a near-perfect synthesis of human hearing.
LET me clarify that this box doesn't get anywhere near human hearing, nor does 5.2 or 192, etc. but damn is 5.2 close. and call me crazy, but i can distinguish 192 from 5.2 - and though the differences are not major...
well, like i said, i need to be a lot more educated about this before i go on wasting your time. my whole thing is seeking the path out of commercial pitfalls and corporate cowardice. i just want to know what my children might be able to hear a decade or so down the road. if i could just glimpse it, then i would be fine.
but now we're talking about an (pardon the non-mathematical usage) asymptotic limit. we can get as close as we like, but it will never be perfect anyway. what difference will that make, ultimately? does anyone care to hear that well, or that much information? why even bother? who is going to miss bird song 5-miles away and bird song three feet away? i'm not saying that this is the difference between 192 and 5.2, but with this korg box i have been surprised with the detail coming from a long ways off, and minute things like the dynamics of a twig snapping or a bullfrog sputtering have been lost between the two.
who cares, really.
I should've asked this before posting.
peufeu, your input is very enlightening. i value everyone's feedback very much.
as for the chips, well, come on. i'm an american. doesn't it just use special japanese Gohonzon magic?
anyone have any idea what this is? friend linked it to me:
http://www.epn-online.com/page/1408...pment-chip-editing-8-channel-dsd-signals.html
http://www.epn-online.com/page/1408...pment-chip-editing-8-channel-dsd-signals.html
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.