Topic: Korg MR-1

[SClassical]

a quick Korg/DSD question.
if you have to convert to PCM for playback/editing, then why is DSD better?


Is the DSD>24/96PCM final product some way better then regular 24/96

or is part of this that DSD is going to be the playback format of the future?

trying to see the benefits?

I *think* because all basis for pcm encoding in the future will be based on the 1 bit stream which these korg devices deliver.. hence the raw 1 bit stream for archiving.

I *think* because the final master recording of a 1 bit DSD is closer to real life sound because it only passes through the preamp whereas the 24/96 PCM master recording has to go through one more stage (the A/D converter). So sound is altered 2X in 24/96 PCM as compared to 1X for 1 bit DSD...Am I correct???

[eric.B]

a quick Korg/DSD question.
if you have to convert to PCM for playback/editing, then why is DSD better?


Is the DSD>24/96PCM final product some way better then regular 24/96

or is part of this that DSD is going to be the playback format of the future?

trying to see the benefits?

I *think* because all basis for pcm encoding in the future will be based on the 1 bit stream which these korg devices deliver.. hence the raw 1 bit stream for archiving.

I *think* because the final master recording of a 1 bit DSD is closer to real life sound because it only passes through the preamp whereas the 24/96 PCM master recording has to go through one more stage (the A/D converter). So sound is altered 2X in 24/96 PCM as compared to 1X for 1 bit DSD...Am I correct???

..  pretty much..     any rendering of pcm data will be based on this one bit stream that comes off the chip..   recording it will allow you to use whichever flavour of pcm encoding you like in the future at whatever bitrate..

[MattH]

This is what I plan to do for MMW, Thursday night.  V3>digi out > JB3
                                                                         > analog out > MR-1

I think you would miss all the benefits of DSD if you do this. Much better to go V3 analog out > MR-1

[Nick's Picks]

I ran mine last night for a show at the church.  ran stage lip, and while monitoring it I *thought* it sounded exceptional.  but hard to tell.  we'll see now, i'm working on the files.

[bgalizio]

This is what I plan to do for MMW, Thursday night.  V3>digi out > JB3
                                                                         > analog out > MR-1

I think you would miss all the benefits of DSD if you do this. Much better to go V3 analog out > MR-1

That's what he means:
V3 > digi out > JB3
AND
V3 > analog out > MR-1

Regarding recording to DSD: I don't really understand the whole purpose besides archiving. Once we can edit DSD and burn DSD/SACD discs, it will become more interesting to me. As DSD is a closed format, I have doubts that will happen soon. Maybe with more prosumer devices we'll see something.

For now, I'm content with 24/48 from my R-4. I don't run 24/96 because I can't hear the difference, using my recordings. Let's have some 4 channel DSD recording - then I'll be happy!

[it-goes-to-eleven]

Once we can edit DSD and burn DSD/SACD discs, it will become more interesting to me. As DSD is a closed format, I have doubts that will happen soon. Maybe with more prosumer devices we'll see something.

They are being extremely tight-ass about DSD editing and disc burning... I have my doubts about the long term survival of the format.  I don't consider pro tools costing thousands of dollars 'survival' or available.. I think that direction is death to the format.  At this point, the sound of DSD recorded by this is mostly moot because we can't hear it.. So my guess is that it will come down to the converted PCM sound with lots of hype about 'if you could only hear the native dsd!!'.  But I am hopeful...

I've been keeping a DAT friend informed as we learn more.. I haven't dropped the 2X realtime bomb on him yet but I'm sure we'll have a good chuckle..

[MattH]

Once we can edit DSD and burn DSD/SACD discs, it will become more interesting to me. As DSD is a closed format, I have doubts that will happen soon. Maybe with more prosumer devices we'll see something.

  At this point, the sound of DSD recorded by this is mostly moot because we can't hear it.. So my guess is that it will come down to the converted PCM sound with lots of hype about 'if you could only hear the native dsd!!'.

You can hear true DSD by playing back on the recorder, similar to the old days of having DAT recorders but no easy way to burn cd's. DAT's played back on the DAT recorder sounded better than cassette copies from the DAT. Same situation at the moment for DSD. DSD will sound better than decimated PCM.

[MattH]

You can hear true DSD by playing back on the recorder, similar to the old days of having DAT recorders but no easy way to burn cd's.

For many, many reasons it is very unlikely that a small portable recorder is going to be a high quality playback source..

DAT's played back on the DAT recorder sounded better than cassette copies from the DAT. Same situation at the moment for DSD. DSD will sound better than decimated PCM.

Comparing DSD derived PCM to DAT derived cassettes?   That's just goofy nonsense.

You can play back DSD on the recorder and see for yourself. Perhaps CD to MP3 is a better analogy.

[bgalizio]

Once we can edit DSD and burn DSD/SACD discs, it will become more interesting to me. As DSD is a closed format, I have doubts that will happen soon. Maybe with more prosumer devices we'll see something.

  At this point, the sound of DSD recorded by this is mostly moot because we can't hear it.. So my guess is that it will come down to the converted PCM sound with lots of hype about 'if you could only hear the native dsd!!'.

You can hear true DSD by playing back on the recorder, similar to the old days of having DAT recorders but no easy way to burn cd's. DAT's played back on the DAT recorder sounded better than cassette copies from the DAT. Same situation at the moment for DSD. DSD will sound better than decimated PCM.

That isn't a very practical solution though. The deck playback will almost certainly be less than ideal. I wonder if deck playback of DSD would sound better or worse than the PCM (assume 24/96 or so) played back through whatever transport?

Also, you'll only be able to play the master DSD file. There is no editing there. No track splits. No normalization. No EQ. Etc. (not saying we all do the above on all/any of our recordings, but still...).

[MattH]

Once we can edit DSD and burn DSD/SACD discs, it will become more interesting to me. As DSD is a closed format, I have doubts that will happen soon. Maybe with more prosumer devices we'll see something.

  At this point, the sound of DSD recorded by this is mostly moot because we can't hear it.. So my guess is that it will come down to the converted PCM sound with lots of hype about 'if you could only hear the native dsd!!'.

You can hear true DSD by playing back on the recorder, similar to the old days of having DAT recorders but no easy way to burn cd's. DAT's played back on the DAT recorder sounded better than cassette copies from the DAT. Same situation at the moment for DSD. DSD will sound better than decimated PCM.

That isn't a very practical solution though. The deck playback will almost certainly be less than ideal. I wonder if deck playback of DSD would sound better or worse than the PCM (assume 24/96 or so) played back through whatever transport?

Also, you'll only be able to play the master DSD file. There is no editing there. No track splits. No normalization. No EQ. Etc. (not saying we all do the above on all/any of our recordings, but still...).

From what I've read so far, AudioGate will allow you to do track splits and boost levels while keeping it in DSD resolution. EQ would be nice but I rarely have to EQ my PCM recordings and have never needed to EQ my DSD recordings.

[bgalizio]

Once we can edit DSD and burn DSD/SACD discs, it will become more interesting to me. As DSD is a closed format, I have doubts that will happen soon. Maybe with more prosumer devices we'll see something.

  At this point, the sound of DSD recorded by this is mostly moot because we can't hear it.. So my guess is that it will come down to the converted PCM sound with lots of hype about 'if you could only hear the native dsd!!'.

You can hear true DSD by playing back on the recorder, similar to the old days of having DAT recorders but no easy way to burn cd's. DAT's played back on the DAT recorder sounded better than cassette copies from the DAT. Same situation at the moment for DSD. DSD will sound better than decimated PCM.

That isn't a very practical solution though. The deck playback will almost certainly be less than ideal. I wonder if deck playback of DSD would sound better or worse than the PCM (assume 24/96 or so) played back through whatever transport?

Also, you'll only be able to play the master DSD file. There is no editing there. No track splits. No normalization. No EQ. Etc. (not saying we all do the above on all/any of our recordings, but still...).

From what I've read so far, AudioGate will allow you to do track splits and boost levels while keeping it in DSD resolution. EQ would be nice but I rarely have to EQ my PCM recordings and have never needed to EQ my DSD recordings.

Simple editing within DSD would be one step forward! All I ever do is boost volume (if necessary), split tracks, do fades at the beginning and end of the set, and mix SBD/AUD.

[Nick's Picks]

here is what i've done thus far.
AG takes your multiple .dxx files and then allows you to combine it as one track, and export it from there.  If you need to do edits, you export at 24 or 32 bit.  otherwise, off to redbook it goes.  Once it spits out that long track you can then split it up w/CD-wav or the software editor of preference.
not to bad.
the conversion time on my laptop was about 3x realtime speed (p4 2.8ghz 1gbRAM).  Faster than dithering / resampling with wavlab, for sure.
Here ya go...
http://bt.etree.org/details.php?id=504837
the final results. 

[newblue]

Do we know what kind of dithering algorithm is used in the AG software?  A lot of the discussion has revolved around how DSD is unaffected by the decimation filters used in PCM.  But we all know how the dithering process is performed has a marked effect on the quality of the audio.

So when AG dithers from DSD > PCM, how does the quality of the audio change?  (Obviously there is a reduction in resolution)

For technical clarity, dithering is a reduction in the wordlength or actually adding noise.  Correct?

[WiFiJeff]

Do we know what kind of dithering algorithm is used in the AG software?  A lot of the discussion has revolved around how DSD is unaffected by the decimation filters used in PCM.  But we all know how the dithering process is performed has a marked effect on the quality of the audio.

So when AG dithers from DSD > PCM, how does the quality of the audio change?  (Obviously there is a reduction in resolution)

For technical clarity, dithering is a reduction in the wordlength or actually adding noise.  Correct?

The issue for me is how the conversion is done.  On my computer, Wavelab UV22 HR dithering and downsampling works a whole lot faster than 2 or 3X real time, and the results are way better than with some of the nice freeware (CDwave, Audacity) that friends have used.  Does AudioGate have the best algorithms for this, or will I have to look for a DSD editing program?  Are there any good DSD editors costing under four figures?  I should pull a decent tape tomorrow night and maybe experiment with DSD > 24/96 > Redbook versus DSD > Redbook direct.

Does anyone have any idea if there is any reason to prefer DFF, WSD or DSF for DSD?  Is this just a matter of file headers, or is there a difference in audio?

Jeff

[newblue]

I think that the Audiogate is the only 'real' solution for us.  Sonoma, Paramix, Genex, Sonic Studio and Mykerinos support DSD but are way out of the price range.

However, I have never found out if you could transfer dsd files to the Tascam DVRA1000HD hard drive and then burn the DSF file to disc from the Tascam unit.  Still the DVRA1000HD is around $2000.