Topic: Korg Mr-1 vs Sony PCM D-50

[ghellquist]

Back to the original question.

SO, the question is this: will the PCM file from the Korg be of a higher quality than if I had recorded using a PCM recorder such,

No.
The quality diffences will not to any large amount be dependant on if you record PCM or or DSD and then transfer.

The limiting factor in both these cases is the recording box. All boxes you can buy has been built to a set of limiting factors. Most often the factors are things like retail price and size.  You can get better recordings by getting a more expensive, larger box, say a Nagra VI or one of the Sound Devices boxes or if you preferr that path the MR1000.

The MR1 as such is a small box, at a low price using little energy. This will limit the sound quality. The Sony is similar in price, size and energy usage and as such basically falls in the same category. For some usages either box may be the choice.

Now again, is this going to be your most pressing problem. My guess is not. I thing you will be able to get good sounds from that box. But there really is only one way to know, test for yourself.

Personally, I do not find the hassle with DSD worth it. I go with 24 bit 44.1 kHz and is happy with that using a SD722. My choice.

// Gunnar

[Shadow_7]

Personally, I do not find the hassle with DSD worth it. I go with 24 bit 44.1 kHz and is happy with that using a SD722. My choice.

The only hassle of sorts is that you have to preconvert before editing.  Which can take as long as your recording depending on your computing horse power.  With the MR-1000 you can always tether another device on the output if you need immediate lower resolution results for quicker turnaround.  Or just record in the lower rates, which sort of defeats having DSD and makes most options roughly equal, sometimes better.  And as the software catches up most of the hassle is moot.  Storage is cheap now.  Computers are fast enough to handle DSD audio in realtime.  There's even a few laptops with DSD soundcards now.  Audiogate can play DSD audio while downsampling to 24@96 in realtime on my 1.9GHz dual core desktop through an M-Audio Delta 44.  The only real hassle is that there's no current FREE / OSS options to convert / edit DSD.  But audiogate comes with the device and does the job, even if you do have to boot windows to run it.

[headroom]

Noiseshaping sould be used in the very last stage of the signal processing and not heavily in advance, like in the DSD process.  If you equaize. normalize etc. it can have more and more artifacts as you work on the files. Als with DSD you can record only 2 channels and not mix donw serverals. Bits and bits of music are not just only numbers on and off.
Solid state players sound better then the CD ripped with EA.
Sample rate converting can be done DA/AD or with software. Its a very critical process where a lot of damage can occur. Check here for different plugins:
http://src.infinitewave.ca/

[ghellquist]

The only hassle of sorts is that you have to preconvert before editing.

Sorry. I should have written differently. I should have said that my ears are happy with 24/44.1 . Period.
// Gunnar

[ghellquist]

Noiseshaping sould be used in the very last stage of the signal processing and not heavily in advance, like in the DSD process. 
...

Sorry headroom. Could you step back a little. Theory is nice in many ways, but come back when you have used a DSD recorder in earnest. Things do not behave exactly as a non-complete theory predicts.

Als with DSD you can record only 2 channels and not mix donw serverals.

Sorry, you are off again.
http://www.digitalaudio.dk/ax24.htm
http://www.merging.com/products/show?product=1

// gunnar

[headroom]

Ok I see some live on Planet DSD if you have the cash...

[Shadow_7]

The only hassle of sorts is that you have to preconvert before editing.

Sorry. I should have written differently. I should have said that my ears are happy with 24/44.1 . Period.
// Gunnar

I'm an old trombonist that's played for decades in acoustic groups, I've only recently got into the recording thing.  And to me a recording still sounds like a recording, anything 24/96 and down IMO.  DSD less so, but still not perfect.  Better reproduction gear helps, but it's still got that something is missing recording flavor to it. 

There's a lot of really good gear out there.  And there's a number of noisy tracks with phones ringing, sirens in the background and other things that has me turning off the radio and checking the phone just to verify from wence the sound is coming from.  But still not perfect for sounds that are less synthesized and are familiar to me.  Don't get me wrong, 24/44.1 is good.  And good enough for a lot of purposes.  But I can still tell the difference between 24/44.1 and 24/96 and DSD.  When the content is the same and on good reproduction equipment.  Not to mention that a DSD capable machine makes a really great MP3 player.

Planet DSD is not that expensive IMO.  It's not cheap.  But most of it can be had for < $1K.  Comes out to less than $500 a channel.  Lots of mic+preamp options that are much more expensive, for far less facility.

[craig_c]

Thanks for all the great input and discussion.
As for the expense of DSD land, I bought my MR-1 used for $150. Pretty damn good. True, I can't edit in DSD, but I can export to 24-bit/192 kHz for editing.
I don't plan to record concerts, symphonies, jam sessions, barking beetles, or 9 hour chanting sessions. I'm not trying to burn DSD discs.
I will do short samples of industrial sound sources, e.g. car engines, electrical motors, hot water heaters, water in pipes, gas cylinders struck with a mallet, etc. etc.  I will then shift the pitch and tempo radically in my DAW (LiveLite), and save as samples to use in musical compositions: engine noise as percussion, gas cylinder as harmonic tones. So my primary concern is to minimize the resampling overtones and artifacts when radically resampling the recordings.

Would love to have more input on this.

Thanks,
Craig

[taperj]

No Burners
No Drives that will play the DSD streams
No software players.

Pure misinformation there. ALL Sony Vaio laptops can render DSD disks natively as can PS3. You don't have to burn SACD as you can just burn a DSD disk, in addition to audiogate there are other free tools to do this. When I got my mr-1 I successfuly burned and played many DSD disks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_Stream_Digital#DSD_Disc_Format

"Transferring this signal to a recordable DVD disc with the appropriate tools, such as the Korg MR-1/1000/2000-bundled 'AudioGate'-software, will render a DSD Disc. Such discs can be played back/transcoded to PCM on the fly on most PCs (this requires a DSD plug-in for Windows Media Player) and in native DSD on Sony VAIO laptops and PlayStation 3. Moreover, Sony has released a new SACD-player (autumn 2008), the SCD-XA5400ES, which fully supports the DSD-disc format. "

As far as editing DSD in a DAW goes, I haven't tried it but my Cakewalk Sonar 7 plainly states it has a sony DSD import plugin.

[Ozpeter]

Before becoming too concerned about what 'better-than-CD' formats bring to the audible table, http://drewdaniels.com/audible.pdf is worth a read.

[craig_c]

While I understand some of the issues in a discussion about qualitative differences in formats "beyond" Red Book Audio. I'm hoping someone will chime in on my main issue which is how to best minimize resampling artifacts when radically shifting pitch/tempo.
Imagine using actual tape. I want to do the equivalent of recording at normal speed, and playing back at half speed, or 1qtr speed, slowing the audio, shifting pitch lower.
Now I want to do this digitally with minimum "wow", reverby type extraneous sounds.

Help, anyone, anyone?

thanks,
Craig

[wagnerian]

I'm hoping someone will chime in on my main issue which is how to best minimize resampling artifacts when radically shifting pitch/tempo.

I am in no way a technical guru, but what I understand is that DSD is artifact-vulnerable format to edit. So just record in PCM, or keep in mind when you record in DSD that you must convert the recordings into PCM before editing.

Now, the real matter for you is what kind of PCM resampling algorithms and softwares are best for the purpose. Sorry that I know little about that.

[craig_c]

I know I can't edit in DSD.
Hmm, my original question is about will I get a better result recording with the Korg, converting the DSD to PCM 192 and editing in my DAW, or recording in PCM at the highest available rate in a Sony PCM D-50. Either recording will be severely resampled. So is it better to do the original recording in DSD, or does it really make no difference, in which case it might be better for me to unload the Korg and purchase the D-50 for its other advantages in field recording.

Thanks,
Craig

[page]

I know I can't edit in DSD.
Hmm, my original question is about will I get a better result recording with the Korg, converting the DSD to PCM 192 and editing in my DAW, or recording in PCM at the highest available rate in a Sony PCM D-50. Either recording will be severely resampled. So is it better to do the original recording in DSD, or does it really make no difference, in which case it might be better for me to unload the Korg and purchase the D-50 for its other advantages in field recording.

Thanks,
Craig

While I'm not sure I can really address your question, I'd keep the korg and record in PCM with it (it's an option, I've tried it on mine). Then the artifacts induced during conversion will be the same (since it's PCM either way). A difference between the two would be how well it's A/D functions or any noise in the analog stages, but thats outside of your question.

I'd keep the korg since you have it, and you won't have to spend an additional $200-300 to get the D50. Now, if you try recording in LPCM with the korg and don't like the results of either of the two areas I mentioned, then it would be time to look at the D50.

[craig_c]

I wonder if the PCM file created by AudiGate from the DSD file is better than one recorded by either the Korg or the Sony?
Any ideas?

Craig