Topic: New Korg MR-2000S

[Petrus]

Just trying to learn here...

What makes you prefer DSD to 24/96 PCM? The specks and editing ease would point to PCM.

[Ozpeter]

The point is, you archive in DSD and edit in PCM for distribution.  The DSD master is intended to be "futureproof".

[muj]

I do not get it, why are you guys so enthused about 1-bit DSD when good old 24/96 PMC gives better sound quality and is easy to edit? SACD is not about better resolution, it is about copy protection. Have you ever looked at DSD (SACD) frequency spactrum, there is nothing but antialiasing noise above 22 KH, 24/96 gives 144 dB dynamic range up to 45 KHz (if only mics and electronics could deliver and anybody hear it...).

pcm sounds more dry and the dsd has reaL VIBE

[boyacrobat]

i use dsd because my religion is dynamics.
dsd my ink for writing sound

g

[muj]

i use dsd because my religion is dynamics.
dsd my ink for writing sound

g

I'd like to learn more about that religion 

[datbrad]

Just trying to learn here...

What makes you prefer DSD to 24/96 PCM? The specks and editing ease would point to PCM.

My friends that use DSD tell me that what they like most about the Korg is the Audiogate software. Since DSD is basically the core 1 bit stream that is the starting point of all PCM systems, DSD is really "future proof" just like their marketing states.

You can take the DSD master file and convert it in Audiogate directly to any PCM word length and sampling frequency. For example, you could take the DSD and convert it to 24/96, or you can convert it to 16/44.1. The benefit here is that there is no conversion from 24 bit to 16 bit, and no resampling. It simply goes DSD>PCM direct, to the bit depth/sample rate of your choice.

The "future proof" capability refers to where PCM might go. Say we see a move from 24 bit to 32 bit PCM as a recording/delivery format years from now (it's already standard for editing in DAW). Korg could release an updated version of Audiogate software that will convert the DSD to that new PCM standard. This means DSD recordings made today could be converted to fully utilize the new standard far in the future.

[ghellquist]

The "future proof" capability refers to where PCM might go. Say we see a move from 24 bit to 32 bit PCM as a recording/delivery format years from now (it's already standard for editing in DAW). Korg could release an updated version of Audiogate software that will convert the DSD to that new PCM standard. This means DSD recordings made today could be converted to fully utilize the new standard far in the future.

Or Korg could go belly up leaving everyone without a version working with next version of windows.

Well, if you ask me, the future proof part is mostly BS. A recording saved as 44.1/24 will be playable by a lot of different programs into a long distant future.

Gunnar

[rastasean]

When I was learning about DSD, everyone compared DSD to RAW images from digital cameras.
HUGE uncompressed data is always better than compressed data to transfer it to other mediums. I like the Korg MR1 but I was not impressed with the battery life (I know there are battery packs for it) and quite frankly, I don't know why there's not that that takes SD or CF cards.

any other thoughts?

[datbrad]

The "future proof" capability refers to where PCM might go. Say we see a move from 24 bit to 32 bit PCM as a recording/delivery format years from now (it's already standard for editing in DAW). Korg could release an updated version of Audiogate software that will convert the DSD to that new PCM standard. This means DSD recordings made today could be converted to fully utilize the new standard far in the future.

Or Korg could go belly up leaving everyone without a version working with next version of windows.

Well, if you ask me, the future proof part is mostly BS. A recording saved as 44.1/24 will be playable by a lot of different programs into a long distant future.

Gunnar

Korg is fairly solidly entreched as a musical instrument maker, so I expect as long as Yamaha and Casio are able to sell gear, Korg will. I have not heard of any deep financial issues with them, at least. They are introducing new gear in a mature market with a global economy that is not exactly "strong" so they must being doing ok as a company.

Actually, I agree with you about PCM's longevity, especially with good old 16/44.1 and 16/48. There are 25 years worth of studio and live PCM masters made at 16/44.1, and over 15 years of SD digital video masters with 16/48 PCM audio. This makes me believe that 16 bit PCM will always be supported by playback mediums in my lifetime, regardless of their physical forms in the future.

[jerrythek]

It seems that some of you are missing the point of our future proof claim. It's not about the shelf life of an archived file or format. It's about capturing audio at a resolution that is so much higher than today's standards, or likely tomorrow's and so on, so you are working with an audio quality that can "spill down" into your future project formats.

If you only record and archive by today's project's standard (let's take your example of 44.1/24) then when you are given a chance to make a DVD audio version of your project your audio is only available at 44.1/24, so there's nothing to gain from the available 96 kHz/24-bit potential of the format.

the comparison to RAW photo images is a good one - maybe today you are only thinking about posting an image online, but I would never take the picture at 75 dpi...

:-)

Note: I'm not trying to promote flames about 44.1/24 bit sounding "bad" per se... So let's not digress.

But our position of "future proof" is to record beyond today's project delivery needs, so you can always go back to the source and produce higher quality versions when needed. Overshoot and be ready for higher standards in the future as they (hopefully) become the norm.

Clearer?

regards,

Jerry

Korg Guy

[moooose]

Imho the wording "future proof" is a catchy marketing thing, but the meaning of it is real and serious.
Recording in DSD is a kind of antidote to the phenomenon described as "garbage in, garbage out" (I'm talking about the process -  I don't think PCM is per se garbage). 

[guysonic]

When I was learning about DSD, everyone compared DSD to RAW images from digital cameras.
HUGE uncompressed data is always better than compressed data to transfer it to other mediums. I like the Korg MR1 but I was not impressed with the battery life (I know there are battery packs for it) and quite frankly, I don't know why there's not that that takes SD or CF cards.

any other thoughts?

I've also wondered why not DSD-to-flash memory.   

Only reasons I can think is maybe most flash is too slow having too complicated/time consuming transfer processes for the continuous raw data stream DSD recording modes?

Maybe this is why recording hard drives inside these decks have unusually high sensitivity to data-skip with slightest deck movement. 

Likely error correction/buffer memory cannot gracefully keep up the data rate demands of DSD.

Just my guess.

[macdaddy]

the links in the first few posts dont seem to work...

here is a link to the specs - it looks cool. i wonder how much it is..? google tells me it runs two large...

[digifish_music]

If you only record and archive by today's project's standard (let's take your example of 44.1/24) then when you are given a chance to make a DVD audio version of your project your audio is only available at 44.1/24, so there's nothing to gain from the available 96 kHz/24-bit potential of the format.

...well, that's because there *is* nothing to gain

Meyer, E. Brad; Moran, David R. Audibility of a CD-Standard A/DA/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Audio Playback JAES Volume 55 Issue 9 pp. 775-779; September 2007

Meyer & Moran compared High-Frequency content (HFC) recordings to the 16-bit/44.1-kHz CD standard in a series of double-blind tests. The tests were conducted for over a year using different systems and a variety of subjects (554 in total). The systems included professional monitors and one high-end system with electrostatic loudspeakers (capable of faithfully reproducing ultrasonic information). The subjects included professional recording engineers, students in a university recording program, and dedicated audiophiles. The test results show that the CD-quality A/D/A loop was not preferred at normal-to-loud listening levels, by any of the subjects, on any of the playback systems.

...and that was vs 16 bit, now @ 24 bit and I think you are future proofed.

digifish

[Petrus]

It seems that some of you are missing the point of our future proof claim. It's not about the shelf life of an archived file or format. It's about capturing audio at a resolution that is so much higher than today's standards, or likely tomorrow's and so on, so you are working with an audio quality that can "spill down" into your future project formats.
Korg Guy

I find this "DSD is much higher resolution & future proof" BS quite hilarious considering the fact thas DSD has no FR content above 22 kHz (96 kHz PMC has to 45 kHz) and this new Korg thingy has only 103 S/N ratio (many midrange 24/96 recorders reach almost 120 dB). So WHERE IS THE HIGH RESOLUTION??