Topic: Tascam DV-RA1000 DVD Recorder Surprise

[macdaddy]

until the supply runs dry

but cant sacd discs be burned on dual layer dvds..?

so how long 'til a field recorder can record dsd - that would be the sh*t...

so it looks like we WILL be able to create our own sacds!!!

i am f*cking drooling over this - i LOVE the sound of my sacd player - it would be the ultimate to be able to record in the field in that quality!!!

wow.

+t for the new toy, matth.

[Tim]

this is potentially very cool, I'm just a little hesitant about all of this stuff

[newblue]

I second Tim's feeling on this one.  Albeit, DSD sounds incredible, so much of what we do is sharing and distribution of recorded live music.  With the limitations of this type of data duplication and playback, it would be like walking down a deadend road.  I would rather spend my money on a DSD receiver just for playback untill a more universal DSD format and duplication software/system is established.  If you have a receiver that does the DSD upsampling of our crappy PCM recordings, why have to buy a burner that creates discs that you can only use on that player?  The truly great thing would be what Macdaddy suggested (and Doug obviously did) to record DSD in the field, no upsampling just beautiful direct stream digital.

my $0.02

[wboswell]

Will Flac Frontend compress DSD information?

[Brian]

Will Flac Frontend compress DSD information?

i'd have to say no, as FLAC deals with PCM encoded data.  DSD is osmething different all together.  i could be wrong though.

however i think both SACD and DVD-A are dying formats in the professional world.  Blue Ray all the way i think.

[Jammin72]

Will Flac Frontend compress DSD information?

i'd have to say no, as FLAC deals with PCM encoded data.  DSD is osmething different all together.  i could be wrong though.

however i think both SACD and DVD-A are dying formats in the professional world.  Blue Ray all the way i think.

I'm still curious about this... is Blue Ray an actual encoding scheme?  I thought that it was a storage solution allowing them to put larger amounts of data on a single discs.  SACD is nothing more than DVD type media being produced with special water marking and highly protected mastering code.

Granted the larger capacity discs are on their way but how do you see this as the successor to the technology.

[Brian]

SACD is very much different from DVD.  DVD's use PCM.  SACD use DSD.

the reason lots of people think these are dying formats is because of the whole concept of a physical medium of a compact disc or DVD.  everybody's downloading music.  it's only a matter of time before everbody has a pocket music player and purchases/downloads albums online.  I think it's going to happen to sooner than later.

[BobW]

alright, having taken many systems and signals classes and a lot of digital signal processing, here is my guess as to why it will sound better:

when a PCM wave is recorded, the 24 bits (or 16) from the AD are stored somewhere.  as the recording progresses, each sample is recorded at a distinct time (k*f where k>=0 and f is the sampling rate).  This means that when it goes to play it back, there has to be some interperlation.  this means that it places the sample next to the previous sample and connects them with a line (or best guess curve using previous values).  then it goes to the next sample and repeats the process, forever guessing what is exactly between the sample.  i know most people think that when sampling at such a high rate it wouldn't make much difference, but it will.

now DSD uses a 1-bit-delta scheme.  this means that it doesn't interpolate, but just add or subtract one unit (guessing its somewhere in the range of a millionth of of Hz) from the previous value.  this means that it will always be smoother then PCM because it never "guesses".  this would also account for the reason it must sample so fast.  if the sound went from 0 dB to -20 dB, it needs to be able to complete that transition very fast.  if it lags (that is, doesn't get down to the desired value fast enough), the sound will suffer.

please correct me if i'm wrong, but i think this may help some people understand the difference between the two

I think that you would be saying that DSD is not clocked, but it is.
It does look at differences, not absolutes, but so does iDEN, which sound like ass even for voice.
[ EDIT on filterering senior moment...]

If it sounds good to you, all technology bets are off. 
Try to expain why the 300B 1940's vacuum tube amps sound so much better than alot of "advanced" technology.

[BobW]

I'm thinking of getting the Mini-MP to use in front when I'm not running a 3 mic mix.

You know apogee is having a nice sale, buy two mini-mp's and get the third free! who's in? 

Meet up at B&H on 34th Street ?
I'm totally game !     

[macdaddy]

m0k3-

if you really want to reap the benefits, you want to record in the field using dsd...

the transfer to dsd > sacd is lossless

my understanding is that once the music goes to the PCM realm, it has lost some information that dsd contains...

yes your 24/96 stuff will sound bitchin' when resampled to dsd, but it will not be as true as a straight dsd-recorded source...

i have read alot of what ludwig has gone trough when transferring the analog tapes to DSD. this is the reason that the glitches are left in, or simply finessed in the analog realm. all dsd does is a VERY (read "currently the finest") job of capturing ALL information it is presented with. taking that signal to pcm, and editing a glitch in the digital realm, would result in making the source now no different than a dvd-a, and sacd/dsd has more to offer than 24/96

long answer to your question, but i hope it makes sense - you could go 24/96 > dsd, but all you would be doing is adding dither(?)/resampling. if you want to be real hi-res, go dsd > sacd...

i am thinking i will likely stay with the modSBM-1 (16/48) for a while, and hold my breath for a compact dsd field solution to come along...

what, did you buy a sacd player..?

[drools]

I'm just getting my first taste of DSD in a sacd recording that I purchased last night.
If this Tas unit can do anything near that for me,..... I'm sold.
Now i just gotta fund this whole 24bit upgrade thing,......

So,....
Will a signal captured at 24/96, or other high-res sample rate, via a 722, for instance,... Will this be able to be used to make transfers straight to this DSD unit?
sorry if this is a retarded question, but I like the stand-alone realm much more than the computer dimension.

[/drool]

[Jammin72]

To really reap the benefits you'll want to be recording directly in DSD...  Once you run through the filters you've kind of defeated the purpose.   It does work well the other way around however.  DiscWelder Chrome has a .diff import utility to created DVD-Audio at 24/192 from the DSD master files.  It's the only way to offload it into a "Consumer" format unless you want to pay the $500 to a mastering house to have your initial SACD pressed for production.

But if you have one of the Tascam recorders then you can trade or playback anyone else's recordings on a similar machine.

Tascam's portable DSD recorder is "In the Oven"....

Can't wait to see what it's all about.

[macdaddy]

Jammin'72 wrote:
Tascam's portable DSD recorder is "In the Oven"....

Can't wait to see what it's all about.

you and me both!

[macdaddy]

To really reap the benefits you'll want to be recording directly in DSD... Once you run through the filters you've kind of defeated the purpose. It does work well the other way around however. DiscWelder Chrome has a .diff import utility to created DVD-Audio at 24/192 from the DSD master files. It's the only way to offload it into a "Consumer" format unless you want to pay the $500 to a mastering house to have your initial SACD pressed for production.

But if you have one of the Tascam recorders then you can trade or playback anyone else's recordings on a similar machine.

Tascam's portable DSD recorder is "In the Oven"....

Can't wait to see what it's all about.

Honestly confused,....
Was this directed at my comment, regarding running a v3 in front?

yes -it more eloquently and acurately states what i was trying to say in layman's terms to you in an above post the other day...

[macdaddy]

regardless,... for my uses, if it happens,... it'll still be getting rammed full of V3 (or mma6000) signal, as I don't have any other mic pre.

oh absolutely...

but if you are using the v3, then there are other machines you could be using to record the full output of the v3...

the tascam unit will still do the dsd upsampling of the full throttle v3 source for you...

but the point being made was that if you record natively to dsd - then you reap the full benefits of the format, rather than the /synthetic/ benefits (the same way that a source recorded @ 24/96 is more desireable than the 16/44.1 source, upsampled on playback to 24/96 via the DAC. still sounds sweet, but it isn't true 24/96 audio...

buy one, m0k3 - i would love to see it in the field (i have some time off - i'd be happy to help you run it). that acoustic stuff you record will sound fantastic. dont think we can wheel it into the bowl for the la phil, though

[Jammin72]

Honestly confused,....
Was this directed at my comment, regarding running a v3 in front?


in doing more reading,.... is this because the digi-signal from the V3 is pcm?
Would this unit be better driven via just an analog send, and let the onboard systems work?

It was really just directed at the idea of going from a 24/96 source to DSD however that would happen.  You can still run the V3... just run from the Analog outs into a recorder like the Tascam, you then have the digital outs to go to another type of recorder or a PC and you can get whatever bit rate you like.  It would actually be a nice comparison of sorts!

Let's hope the protable unit is supported by a good front end... my guess is you'll be wanting to run an external in front of it.