Topic: Sony PCM-D100

[yates7592]

Download Audiogate free dsf program, or use Foobar with dsf drivers added on.

[Jonmac]

Download Audiogate free dsf program, or use Foobar with dsf drivers added on.

I had a look at Audiogate but it needs
A KORG MR series product or
A valid Twitter account

to activate it, and I have neither.

I'll investigate Foobar but I think that is only a player, How do you actually edit
a DSF file ?

[yates7592]

Not many programs will edit DSD, and none are free or even cheap. Pyramix is probably the most accessible one. I didn't have a Twitter account either but just created a bogus one so that I could use Audiogate.

[Jonmac]

Pyramix, £526 + VAT !!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think I'll stick with .WAV.

[F.O.Bean]

Pyramix, £526 + VAT !!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think I'll stick with .WAV.

This was the main reason I'm sticking with 24bit WAV for now!

[fguidry]

Maybe it's worth waiting until someone can document a double blind test demonstrating that people can hear a difference between PCM at 44.1/16 and some other "hi-rez" format.

I've been waiting for years and years.

As soon as one leaves behind a true and valid test one is in "golden ear" land, and we know that way lies madness like $2000 per inch interconnects, green markers on CD edges, and little pyramids to hold cables off the floor.

Fran

[hi and lo]

Maybe it's worth waiting until someone can document a double blind test demonstrating that people can hear a difference between PCM at 44.1/16 and some other "hi-rez" format.

I've been waiting for years and years.

As soon as one leaves behind a true and valid test one is in "golden ear" land, and we know that way lies madness like $2000 per inch interconnects, green markers on CD edges, and little pyramids to hold cables off the floor.

Fran

This.

Well said, Fran.

[H₂O]

I guess I should sell all my gear and go back to running a dat deck again

[hi and lo]

I guess I should sell all my gear and go back to running a dat deck again

Put a top-notch A/D in front of it and I would agree. The point is related to the recording format, not the sub-par line/mics stage of portable dat decks manufactured in the 80s/90s.

The ratio of conjecture/anecdotes to comps on this forum is too damn high.

[spyder9]

4. If you say that wave 24/96 is better than 24/192, you must say that a photo 500 on 500 is better that it's 3000 on 3000 original jpeg. Then more the rate, then more accurate representation of sound we have.

That's an intuitively attractive analogy.  Unfortunately, it doesn't hold.  As long as you are sampling at a rate greater than twice the highest frequency in the sample, you can perfectly recreate the waveform.  After that, there is no improvement in accuracy.  That's the essence of the sampling theorem. 

6. We cannot hear the difference between anything higher that 20Khz. But we can feel this difference. You cannot hear difference between 16/44 and 24/192, but you can feel it and see it truly. Ears are not the only things which we use in listening: yes, ear cannon hear something higher 20khz. Download wave 16/44 and make 16/20 khz from it. No difference? 

The example makes no sense; of course you'll hear the difference between 44.1 kHz (which covers the entire audible frequency range) and 20 kHz, which cuts out a large swath of the audible frequency range (above 10 kHz).  As to feeling the difference with ultrasonic content, well, perhaps.  As I recall, the papers on this that found ultrasonic perception referred to bone conducted, and not air conducted, sound.  The air conducted studies haven't shown the same.

Egor is spot on.  I record 24/44.1 all the time.  And I've compared those recordings to the samples I've made 16/44.1.  You can definitely "feel" the resolution between the 2 formats.  But your ears must be dialed in for it.  I have spent marathon 12+ hours on editing just one show.  What he is saying has to deal with acute senses.  That said, I'll never record 16/44.1 from what I learned working with my recordings.  AMOF, I'll never record 24/48 because of the bump of 2khz in the highs...... makes me crazy.   So there you have it.   

[aaronji]

^^^ Except we were discussing sampling rate and not bit depth...

[H₂O]

I was joking above - I will still record at 24bit 96khz and 1bit 2.8Mhz DSD


And I do think dsd sounds better then PCM - it is a completely different approach to converting analog to digital

[fguidry]

I guess I should sell all my gear and go back to running a dat deck again

Does your current rig offer any convenience benefits over DAT? Audio quality is one part of recording gear but is far from the totality, isn't it?

If you create carefully level matched double-blind comparisons of your DAT capture and your current rig can you tell the difference? I've done this with various recording systems and rejected those that didn't measure up in objective comparisons.

Are you aware of how powerfully bias effects impact what we humans "hear?" Are you aware of the years of testing that have demonstrated the uselessness of sighted comparisons?

Do you use little pyramids to keep your speaker cables off the floor? If not, why not, since David Gilmour did. Surely you wouldn't question the validity of his testimonial, would you?

Are you _really_ interested in knowing the impact of the gear you buy, or are you simply working to have the coolest sig? It's not a snap to do these comparisons well, but the results can really change the way one thinks about audio gear.

Fran

[Egor]

Nice thing - price on D50 is now two times higher =) I think, that the reason is that everyone understands, that d100 mics are equal to d50. And only fool can pay 1000$ for a recorder with dsd-format which he will never use because in cannot be edited (EVEN PYRAMIX DAW MAKES A DXD FROM DSD (24 BIT 384 KHZ), THERE IS NO PROGRAM TO EDIT AND ADD EFFECTS TO DSD) and cannot be played by 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of people. 24/96 d50 is equal to d100's 24 bit waves. But now....price of d50 is about 700-800, a month earlier it was 400 )) so no one now can get sound of d100 saving 600$ and buyng d50))

http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_trksid=p5360.m570.l1313.TR0.TRC0.H0.XSony+PCM-D50+&_nkw=Sony+PCM-D50+&_sacat=0&_from=R40

http://www.amazon.com/Sony-Professional-Portable-24-bit-Recorder/dp/B000WTWXFE/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1394762376&sr=8-3&keywords=sony+pcm+d50

[H₂O]

I guess I should sell all my gear and go back to running a dat deck again

Does your current rig offer any convenience benefits over DAT? Audio quality is one part of recording gear but is far from the totality, isn't it?

If you create carefully level matched double-blind comparisons of your DAT capture and your current rig can you tell the difference? I've done this with various recording systems and rejected those that didn't measure up in objective comparisons.

Are you aware of how powerfully bias effects impact what we humans "hear?" Are you aware of the years of testing that have demonstrated the uselessness of sighted comparisons?

Do you use little pyramids to keep your speaker cables off the floor? If not, why not, since David Gilmour did. Surely you wouldn't question the validity of his testimonial, would you?

Are you _really_ interested in knowing the impact of the gear you buy, or are you simply working to have the coolest sig? It's not a snap to do these comparisons well, but the results can really change the way one thinks about audio gear.

Fran

Come on really